The field of nutrition is awash with charts, tables, diagrams, models, acronyms, and abbreviations; more than the average person can memorize. As such, one often comes across someone who has simply burnt out trying to keep track of how much to eat, when to eat it, how to find the calories from fat, the RDI, the DV, and so on. There is an overkill of useful information within the nutrition field, and it can ironically provoke one to grow weary and exhausted, tune out, and go grab a fast food burger.

Yet every once in a while, a concept within the nutrition field emerges that truly demands attention. Over a decade ago, the USDA’s "Food Pyramid" was one such concept because it helped eaters discover how many gaps existed in their typical daily diet. Now, as the Food Pyramid begins to take a new shape, and as the nutrition field works to establishes itself as the most important branch of health care in the 21st century, an invention called the Glycemic Index is taking center stage.

The Glycemic Index (GI) is not new; it has been around for more than 2 decades. Yet until recently, its exposure beyond the world of diabetes has been limited [i].

The Glycemic Index indicates how "high" or "low" blood sugar levels change in response to carbohydrate intake. A "high" Glycemic Index indicates carbohydrates with a swift breakdown, whereas a "low" Glycemic Index indicates carbohydrates with slow, gradual breakdown. Both terms are of equal importance to diabetics, because there are times with high Glycemic Index foods are required, and times where low Glycemic Index foods are required.

Indeed, the Glycemic Index itself is not new, but its application far beyond the borders of a diabetic dialogue is notable; especially for dieters.

People striving to lose weight often face a nemesis much tougher than establishing an exercise regimen or introducing healthier foods into their diet. The problem is one of energy. Many dieters are surprised ? and disturbed ? to learn that their diet program is causing them to lose more than inches and pounds: they are losing energy.

This is often expressed as a complaint, as in "I’m feeling weak", or even "I can’t stay awake". Many dieters and those advising them have erroneously chalked this up to a matter of attitude, or will power, or some non-biological cause.

The plain truth is that many dieters have been oblivious to the Glycemic Index, and hence, to the fact that many of the diet foods they have eaten ? or are eating right now ? score very high Glycemic Index levels. As such, these foods are providing a quick boost to blood sugar levels, and then setting up the dieter for the inevitable fall. This is because high GI foods typically increase blood sugar values, which in turn trigger the hormone insulin to clear sugar from the blood. Since blood sugar (a.k.a. glucose) largely dictates the body’s energy levels, it stands to reason that this process manifests as an initial boost in energy, and then as a depletion of energy. This rise and fall of blood sugar ? and energy ? is often described by dieters using a "roller-coaster" analogy: one minute they feel confident and strong, and the next, they are about to pass out and require some kind of stimulant in order to make it through the day.

Regrettably for many dieters, that stimulant is usually more high Glycemic Index foods, such as sugary snacks or soft drinks. It is easy to see how this experience can lead an individual to stop dieting. After all, before the diet, the individual was merely gaining weight. On the diet, the individual is gaining weight and is exhausted for most of the day. It is better to quit the diet.

The above scenario only takes place, however, when a dieter unwittingly eats high Glycemic Index foods. Research has shown that low Glycemic Index foods, which raise blood sugar levels much more gradually than high Glycemic Index foods, are very helpful for dieters [ii]. This is because a dieter will experience less of a "roller-coaster" ride while on the diet, and furthermore, will be less inclined to snack because energy in the form of blood glucose is being released slowly and gradually. Low Glycemic Index foods are much more efficient sources of energy than high Glycemic Index foods, because the body needs less insulin to convert food into energy [iii].

Despite the growing awareness that low Glycemic Index foods are beneficial, the world of diet foods has not kept pace. This is because many manufacturers are searching frantically to find low Glycemic Index carbohydrates sources for their products, and overlooking a basic, simple fact: the lowest possibly Glycemic Index is no carbohydrates at all.

These zero-carbohydrate/zero sugar nutritional supplements ? which are quite rare in the market ? do not deliver any sugar to the bloodstream. As a result, dieters do not have to worry about riding the "roller coaster" of energy spikes and pitfalls.

Yet there is an even greater benefit for dieters who choose a ‘zero sugar’ nutritional supplement. If that low Glycemic Index nutritional supplement is rich in complete protein, then it will act as a sort of antidote to high GI foods by helping to combat their adverse consequences.

For example, a dieter who eats a high Glycemic Index candy car can mitigate the roller-coaster spike in blood sugar levels by eating a nutritional supplement that has very low Glycemic Index and has a rich source of complete protein. This is because the protein in the nutritional supplement mixes with the high Glycemic Index of the candy bar, and effectively lowers the overall Glycemic Index. This is welcome news to dieters who would otherwise be seeing those extra carbohydrates transformed by insulin into triglycerides, and stored in adipose tissue; also known as body fat.

Currently, only a handful of nutritional supplements are designed to offer zero carbohydrates and thus score as low as possible on the Glycemic Index. And of these zero-carbohydrate products, even fewer offer a rich source of complete protein that effectively helps counter the blood sugar spike impact of high Glycemic Index foods.

It is inspiring to note that Glycemic Index is getting some well-deserved attention from outside the diabetic community, where it has helped millions of people eat wisely. Now, dieters and obese people can enjoy the wisdom that this index promotes.

ABOUT PROTICA

Founded in 2001, Protica, Inc. is a nutritional research firm with offices in Lafayette Hill and Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. Protica manufactures capsulized foods, including Profect, a compact, hypoallergenic, ready-to-drink protein beverage containing zero carbohydrates and zero fat. Information on Protica is available at http://www.protica.com

You can also learn about Profect at http://www.profect.com

REFERENCES

[i] Source: "The G.I. Diet: A Food Drill". CBS News. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/04/earlyshow/living/main604138.shtml

[ii] Source: "The Glycemic Index". The Healthy Weight Forum. http://www.healthyweightforum.org/eng/articles/glycemic-index/

[iii] Source "Glycemic Index". WebMD. http://my.webmd.com/hw/health_guide_atoz/uq2846.asp

Copyright 2004 – Protica Research – http://www.protica.com

In order to eat fewer calories than you need, you have to determine how many calories you actually need. Adults can calculate their approximate energy needs using the following formula:

A. Body weight multiplied by 12 (for men) or 11 (for women) e.g., 150 lbs. x 12 = 1800

B. Activity One third body weight multiplied by the number of hours you don’t sleep, typically 16 hours 150 lbs. x 1/3 = 50 x 16 = 800

C. Required Calories A + B 1800 + 800 = 2600

Thus, we determine that a 150-pound man requires approximately 2600 calories per day. The “Basal Metabolic Rate” is the number of calories a man of that weight would burn just to keep the heart beating, the lungs pumping, etc. You would just burn your basal metabolic rate worth of calories if you slept all day. Thus the “Activity” calculation is approximately the amount of calories a person would expend by spending his or her whole day sitting around. If you are engaging in activities other than sitting all day, you can increase your activity hours by the number of hours you are actually active.

Adult females can calculate their approximate energy needs using the same formula, except that the “Basal Metabolic Rate” is determined by multiplying body weight times 11 instead of 12. Children and teenagers require more calories by body weight, but the amount varies by age and by individual child. It is best to consult a physician before altering a child’s diet, however activity and exercise increases won’t hurt the average youth of today.

Beverley Brooke, Editor of Health & Finesse – Free health, diet and fitness articles and weekly newsletters

The ingredients list found on the back or side panel of every commercially available food product – with few exceptions – serves as the consumer’s best starting point for understanding the real contents of each product. It discloses the ingredients that make up the product, sorted in order from most abundant to least abundant. What it does not show is the actual quantity of each ingredient. As such, more people than ever before are reading the Nutrition Facts panel on product labels to truly understand what is in their food[i].

However, where one problem has been solved, another has emerged. While it is beneficial for people to know that their food contains a specific amount of nutrients and/or vitamins, there are variations within those elements that are not captured by a typical food label. This is illustrated clearly when examining protein.

Many consumers are well aware of the importance of protein in daily diet. Protein constitutes the very building blocks that sustain life, from digestion through to muscle maintenance[ii]. However, eating the Recommended Daily Intake (RDI) of 50 grams of protein may not be as healthy as it should be, due to the differences in protein sources and protein qualities.

The variation of protein used in products is almost as wide as the variation of products themselves. Manufacturers may use whey, soy, caseinate and other protein types to fortify their products with protein. And within each of these protein types are further refinements called ‘protein grades’ such as whey concentrate, whey isolate, whey hydrolysate, and so on. Though the specific type and grade of protein used in a product is not captured on the Nutrition Facts or Supplement Facts panel of a product, it is an important distinction.

The type and grade of protein determines how well the body will digest and assimilate it. Certain proteins such as whey isolate are readily digested after physical activities. Other proteins such as caseinates are ideal for sustained energy and anti-catabolism, and therefore best taken when there will be a long lapse before the next meal (catabolism is the state in which the body breaks down muscle tissue for energy).

One special grade of proteins – hydrolyzed proteins – is used in a very small percentage of products because of its high cost to manufacture. It is most often found in infant formula because it is very gentle on the stomach; it is easy to digest and assimilate. Hydrolyzed proteins are derived from complete proteins oftentimes through an enzymatic process of breaking down the protein into smaller constituents called peptides. The process divides the long protein molecules into shorter molecules called peptides. Generally, the smaller the peptide (measured in Daltons), the easier the protein is to digest and absorb.

Hydrolyzed proteins also owe their popularity to the fact that, as compared to standard proteins, they are less susceptible to denaturing (a process by which the proteins are broken into structures that the body cannot easily digest).

Since hydrolyzed protein is an excellent, natural formula of protein, it stands to reason that consumers would continually look for products using it. However, this is where the challenge occurs. The Nutrition Facts panel on product labels does not reveal the grade or even the type of protein used. To find this information, the consumer needs to turn back to the ingredient list. The FDA requires all food products to disclose the source of all proteins (eg. whey, soy, egg), but not the grade (eg. concentrate, isolate, hydrolysate).

Since all proteins are not the same, manufacturers employ various methods for incorporating them into products. Proteins such as caseinate and soy are alkaline-based and can only be used with ‘milky’ flavors such as chocolate and vanilla. Another drawback to casienates and soy is their high viscosity (thickness). This limits the amount of caseinate or soy that can be used in a beverage. Whey is an acid-based protein and is less viscous. Whey can be used with fruity flavors because of its compatibility with acidulants such as citric acid and malic acid. A challenge with all of these proteins is their heat instability ? when they are heated, the proteins denature (break apart). Denatured proteins are difficult to digest and difficult to metabolize. Most proteins on the market fall into this category.

However, an innovative hydrolyzed protein blend called Actinase