Is there any difference in glycemic index between chicken breasts and other parts of the chicken?
Is there any difference in glycemic index between chicken breasts and other parts of the chicken?
Colton Parker
Sebastian Murphy
ha! boobs
Tyler Kelly
Is this a new meme I didn't know about?
John Taylor
there goes this nofap streak...
sigh
John Jenkins
just by opening google and clicking the first link
> theoretical, not fully examined topic
> protein vs fat = protein has 3x the effect on glycemic index as fat; i.e. 3x the glycemic response
> ability to extrapolate this onto entire meals questionable, further research needed.
Zachary Brown
that hair says she is at least 25% nog. which side of her family do you think has the coal burner?
Sebastian Sullivan
GI is calculated by glucose blood sugar spikes over time.
Chicken has very little glucose.
It has an extremely low GI.
Measuring the differences in blood sugar over time between 2 cuts of meat is basically impossible, because the body isn't some fixed limit that shows bits and bobs like a technical readout. Loads of things cause sugar spikes, even thinking about getting a needle for testing your blood sugar can cause your blood sugar levels to rise.
The differences are completely negligible. GI is a very limited way of determining nutritional value. It doesn't account for protein or fat content. Don't ever use it unless you are comparing slices of bread. (eg. Rice has a higher GI than ice cream) it's shit
Jaxson Martin
smithsonianmag.com
it's all right bubba, it's all right...
Angel Hernandez
.. I mean yeah you're right. But what people seem to discount is that we -- as humans -- have the ability to extrapolate previously attained information on similar scenarios to hypothesize what will happen. Usually, with relative accuracy.
Which is the point of e.g. calorie counting, tracking glycemic index, etc.
We know that the difference in cuts between chicken pieces is mainly going to be fat %.
We know that fat suppresses glycemic index; i.e. lowers it.
Ergo, if the peice of meat has increased fat it will have lower effect on glycemic index.
Is it useful information? Not really, fuck it.
But I hate this culture we have now of "ww-well we can't accurately predict it to the decimal .. so lets not even bother, it's not even WORTH considering". Fuck off, yes it is.
Also your whole thing about
> Even THINKING about getting needles causes your BGL to rise!
As if implying its some sort of magical phenomenon, obviously its going to be related to cortisol liberating glycogen from the liver due to the stress response associated with "getting a needle".
Dylan Watson
Dude there's like no carbs in meat, the GI doesn't really apply
Robert Howard
You seem interested in human biology, but don't have a good grasp of what it actually means when you google it. Once you start a science major I think you'll realise your entire paragraph was drivel.
GI is almost useless for everything except as a reference for carbohydrate content and breakdown time of the carbs.
Science doesn't say
>it's not exact so we don't use it
Science says: we can count calories and the respiratory quotient it takes for these macromolecules to be broken down, and we can calculate your metabolic rate very precisely, we don't need a stupid fucking reference point that is vague and doesn't have any meaning
Andrew Wilson
Likewise, so was yours as it essentially amounted to: it's not useful.
Which is exactly what in my own post.
You essentially just parroted me but in a more long-winded way.
You either didn't understand what I was saying, or you're intentionally misunderstanding me to be contrarian.
Eitherway, meh.
Wyatt Torres
Are those all natural breasts or implants?
Aiden Martin
But beef's GI is twice bigger than chicken's
Kayden Morris
>more long-winded way
Nigga I've been concise as shit, and haven't repeated a single thing you've been trying to say. You don't know what the fuck you've been talking about.
You type like a high-school student. Spurting verbal diarrhoea doesn't equate to intelligence. Circular, descriptive language like yours demonstrates a complete lack of argument. You're either a dense, underage little cunt who thinks he's clever, or you're some waste of space liberal arts faggot who thinks he knows human biology from google-fu.
>Either way, meh
Yeah, meh because you know you're over your head and can't talk your way out of it like you can in English essays and regular Veeky Forums arguments.
You're talking about factoring fat content into GI
Fat is not measurable by GI.
You're trying to measure gas with a fucking set of scales. It doesn't work using the wrong measurements and methods to try and come up with results.
GI is not useful. Measuring different cuts of meat with it is not useful. It's basically impossible, and nobody will ever devote more resources into trying to do it, because it's an exercise in futility. It doesn't make sense to do it if there are more efficient and accurate measurement systems in place.
Michael Hill
plus shes a girl
girls do so much shit to their hair its a wonder it doesn't fall out. a little frizz aint so bad
Luis Ramirez
> You're talking about factoring fat content into GI
> Fat is not measurable by GI.
Yes, it is.
It's 2016 .. we have google .. stop running your mouth and just type it into google.
Stop trying to assert your academic CV like anybody gives a shit. Wanna upload each other's CV and compare? I only have 2 degrees though, so go easy on me.
Ironically, while trying to suggest yourself as an "intellectual juggernaut" you've failed to generate any actual logic in your post -- let alone the fact you don't understand that fats & proteins effect glycemic index. With your entire post relying on this appeal to authority .. what authority .. that you're an undergrad bio major I guess? An undergrad bio major that doesn't realise fat and protein also affect glycemic index. Agonizing.
Here's my logic going back to my first post:
1. Cuts of chicken meat are going to vary in regards to fat %.
2. Fat content effects glycemic index; the effect is that it lowers G.I.
3. Therefore, different cuts of chicken (e.g. thigh vs. breast) will generate different G.I. reponses.
Everything else you're using as a strawman has nothing to do with my post, and is purely a concotion of your own.
i.e. the application of G.I measurements.
Prove any part of that wrong, or fuck off.
Pretty simple, yeah?
Cheers.
Kevin Allen
want to argue about semantics while jerking each other off under the table? i heard of this great new place called 'read it' i think
i mean since you're so into googling i'm sure you can find it
Josiah Parker
>2 degrees
>typing the way you do
Fucking lol. You can't fool anyone, you're clearly underage and haven't stepped foot in a uni.
Fats have a different effect on metabolism to what you think. They are broken into Acetyl-coA and slotted into the citric acid cycle directly. Glucose is a different molecule. It gets broken down into pyruvate and then Acetyl-coA. The change that fats make on metabolism are not *measurable* by testing for glucose. It's a different thing to test for entirely.
Fat is not measurable by GI.
Stop trying to wheedle your way out of this with straw-man arguments, ad-hominem and talking about irony.
I've never even mentioned my degree, or my status. I've merely undermined your knowledge and made accurate assumptions based on your responses.
Blood glucose levels are not GI.
GI is a number used to determine the breakdown and time it takes for insulin to store glucose in the blood.
There isn't even scientific consensus that low GI carb rich foods are healthier. It's a useless measurement for anything apart from carb content of extremely carb rich foods.
Mason Long
> Fat is not measurable by GI.
You keep saying this, but:
ajcn.nutrition.org
jn.nutrition.org
care.diabetesjournals.org
It obviously does effect G.I, it's not even debatable.
To re-focus you and end this discussion:
Prove any part of that wrong, or fuck off.
Pretty simple, yeah?
You failed to do that in your response, instead electing to go onto tangents, so I'll give you one more response to try again otherwise just not engaging any further.
Thanks.
Brody Reed
T b h if ur not intentionally bein a troll ur definetly the more retarded. ur not addressing his point at all, ur not even arguing about the same thing at this stage. also if u don't realise fat effects absorption -> different glycemic index then u needa refund ur course credits bro
Levi Adams
You still don't get that blood glucose =/= GI, those articles didn't even talk about using GI in the context of proteins and fats. They talk about the glycemic response, not the glycemic index.
Change in blood sugar over time = glycemic response
Change in blood sugar over time *on a scale of pure sugar to something less sugary* = GI.
It's not useful as a measurement of effect of fats or proteins.
This entire argument has been pointless, and I've wasted too much time explaining this to a person who thinks it's a good idea to try and measure the change of glucose in the blood in different fucking cuts of chicken, and put it on an incorrect scale used to compared carbohydrate responses.
Nathaniel Murphy
I only came into this thread because i though OP's pic was a qt mixed race girl
Matthew Bailey
who is that cum bucket?
Brody Hernandez
Who is this mattress actress?
This semen demon?
This enchantress of the cock-tease?
Joshua Walker
...
Charles Hughes
fpbp
Charles Brooks
Upload thay degree and put it up, because with what you've written up so far I'm really interested to know what academic background results in this kind of drivel
Dominic Reyes
Who is this testicle tickler ?
This shlong stroker ?
This meat massager ?
This wang wanker ?
This junk juggler ?
>see what I did there ?