Candy for Breakfast?

Here's is an article by a man I respect greatly; Dr. Al Sears:

Which would you call more fattening - a chocolate and caramel Snickers bar or a bowl of whole-grain Grape-Nuts cereal? If you guessed the Snickers bar, you'd be wrong. They both have about the same number of calories but the glycemic index of the Snickers bar is 41, while Grape-Nuts is 75.

[Ed. Note: We've talked about the glycemic index before in ETR. To refresh your memory, it ranks foods that contain carbohydrates according to how much they raise blood sugar levels in the body.]

Does that really translate into being more fattening? I say it does. Here's why:

Their glycemic indices show that the Grape-Nuts produce nearly twice as much blood sugar as the Snickers bar. This, in turn, will trigger the production of more insulin. Higher insulin will signal your body to convert a higher percentage of calories consumed into stored body fat. Since the calories are the same, you will build more fat from the Grape-Nuts.

Did I slant the playing field and choose an unusually low-glycemic candy bar? Not really. In fact, if you add more fat or more chocolate, or substitute almonds or walnuts for the peanuts in the candy bar, its glycemic index gets even lower. Are Grape-Nuts unusually fattening for a cereal?
Actually, it's one of the less glycemic. Total, much touted as healthy, scores 76, Rice Chex scores 89, and corn flakes is a whopping 92.

So am I telling you to eat more candy bars? No. I'm saying that unless you are going to burn lots of calories soon after eating cereal, consider it to be an indulgence like candy. It is definitely not your staple breakfast for good health as so many have claimed.

Is there an easier way to get lean?

In the previous text you read how the glycemic index can surprise you. Some foods that are touted as "healthy" - like some cereals - can be worse for you than candy bars. That's because the glycemic index measures the blood sugar produced by different foods, and some cereals produce much more blood sugar than some candy bars.

Here's an even bigger surprise: Nearly everyone reporting on this important measurement has misinterpreted it, introduced bias, come to a wrong conclusion, and ignored the real lesson.

How can that happen? "Glycemic" means "sweet" - and the glycemic index can't seem to shake this association with sweetness. Yet real data show very little connection between the sweetness of a food and its glycemic index. Some of the sweetest foods have a very low glycemic index - cherries, for instance, measure 22. Potatoes and cornbread are not sweet but top the index at 100, because starchy foods release much more sugar into your blood.

So the glycemic index is not about sweetness but starchiness. Still, you can hardly read about the glycemic index without running up against the advice to "eat low-glycemic carbohydrates like whole grains." Even the USDA's new Food Pyramid makes this nonsensical recommendation. (Have you ever seen a non-starchy grain?)

So forget the misinterpretation and bad advice. If you choose naturally occurring foods, you can indulge your sweet tooth. The most reliable way to lose fat is to eat foods with a glycemic index below 40 until you achieve your desired leanness. To avoid the common bias, my Wellness Research Foundation and I developed our own glycemic index for our patients. You can get your free copy here.

[Ed. Note: Dr. Sears, a practicing physician and the author of The Doctor's Heart Cure, is a leading authority on longevity, physical fitness, and heart health.]