Who'd have thought that rice cakes could be fattening?

May 25, 2006 1:52 AM

Rice cakes are one of the most fattening foods known to man, while ice cream is one of the least fattening.Though this appears illogical, it makes perfect Anthropological sense. Education is the key to controlling body fat. If we know which foods store in the fat cells and which ones do not, we can make educated food choices.

The glycemic index (GI) is a ranking of carbohydrates on a scale from 0 to 100 according to the extent to which they raise blood sugar levels after eating. Foods with a high GI are those which are rapidly digested and absorbed and result in marked fluctuations in blood sugar levels. Low-GI foods, by virtue of their slow digestion and absorption, produce gradual rises in blood sugar and insulin levels, and have proven benefits for health. There has been an explosion of books and diet plans based on the glycemic index, But while many popular diet books make it sound as if the glycemic index is an accepted theory, in truth, there are very real problems with this system. Some dieticians believe that a Satiety Index may be a better approach to reducing caloric intake whilst minimising cravings.
posted by talitha_kumi (59 comments total)

The glycemic index has been mentioned before on MeFi in connection with the impact of food choices on mental health, but I couldn't find an in-depth exploration of the topic.
posted by talitha_kumi at 1:53 AM on May 25, 2006

Well, none of this matters if you just count calories.
posted by delmoi at 1:59 AM on May 25, 2006

It does matter if you want to feel well on a smaller number of calories.
posted by overanxious ducksqueezer at 2:01 AM on May 25, 2006

One of the reason traditional diets based on simply cutting calories don't work, is because you feel hungry and lightheaded and basically like crap. It's not just a matter of eating less food, it's a matter of eating better food. When you don't feel like crap, it's a lot easier to not reach for the cookies.
posted by talitha_kumi at 2:04 AM on May 25, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

Glycemic index is quite useful for the purpose it was devised - advising people with diabetes what foods will make their blood sugar difficult to control. It was never meant as an index of which foods cause healthy persons to gain weight.
posted by ikkyu2 at 2:08 AM on May 25, 2006

One of the reason traditional diets based on simply cutting calories don't work, is because you feel hungry and lightheaded and basically like crap.

Lightheaded? Being hungry has never made me feel anything other then 'hungry'.
posted by delmoi at 2:12 AM on May 25, 2006

I find it a helpful guide within the context of a high-fiber, low-fat vegetarian diet, which also happens to be how Dr. Andrew Weil presents it in his cookbooks, but it probably wouldn't get you very far without an understanding of basic nutrition and healthy eating. It's not so much about losing weight as about being healthy and feeling well. I'm gonna feel wayyy better a few hours after a little peanut butter on (whole grain) toast, then I would if it had been jam on toast. I almost put myself to sleep there, sorry.
posted by overanxious ducksqueezer at 2:22 AM on May 25, 2006

Dr. Weil actually has lots of recipes for lean meats, didn't mean to imply that his cookbooks are vegetarian, just that I am.
posted by overanxious ducksqueezer at 2:24 AM on May 25, 2006

Pretty much any method you can come up with will work... for a while. Counting calories or measuring GI is such a drag. If you're up for that, may as well try this first. You'll be fat again in a few months either way so why not?
posted by missbossy at 2:33 AM on May 25, 2006

A little regular exercise -- just going for a walk instead of sitting in front of the TV for an hour every other day -- wouldn't hurt either.
posted by pax digita at 2:45 AM on May 25, 2006

It's all about the calories, but watching the glycemic index of the foods helps control appetite and thus helps you control calories. To a certain extent low glycemic index diets seem to work because foods with lower carbs and more fiber (beans and vegetables) are substituted for the simple carbohydrates. These foods fill you up with less calories, the satiety index at work. Nevertheless, adding a big sugary dessert on top of the same meal seems to tend to bring on a feeling of hunger earlier, despite the extra calories consumed. It seems odd, but my experience tells me it is true; YMMV. For anyone trying to control their caloric intake and who struggles with feeling hungry I suggest you give a low glycemic index diet a try. By that I do not mean getting anal about counting calories or glycemic load, merely avoid the simple carbs and see if it helps control your appetite, and no, ice cream is not OK.
posted by caddis at 5:05 AM on May 25, 2006

I find that I have more energy, especially for exercise, when I eat mostly low GI foods, reserving high GI foods for just before or after exercise.

Delmoi, you are an exceptional individual, either because your blood sugars are not easily perturbed, or because you aren't paying attention to your body. I'm not sure which.
posted by BrotherCaine at 5:06 AM on May 25, 2006

interesting post, thanks
posted by matteo at 5:08 AM on May 25, 2006

I just eat fewer calories than I expend, but not a whole lot fewer. I find that eating sensibly and not trying to lose weight fast -- and not being afraid of hunger, and not dithering over the possibility of feeling lightheaded -- works just fine (and I'm a competitive athlete).

Fasting for a colonoscopy last year made me realize that going hungry isn't as big of a deal as I thought it was. It was that gruesome glop they make you drink that made me feel horrible.
posted by Peach at 6:09 AM on May 25, 2006

I use the 3-day diet. Originally got it from an NHS nurse in the UK. Surprisingly, my partner and I have been very successful with it. The link is to an American version (just the first link I could find).

I don't ascribe to the hokey claims that the combination of foods has special effects. I just think it is a sensible diet, and it retrained our eating habits. With the 3-day plan, one can have something extra on the other 4 days of the week without feeling too guilty. The scale provides motivation to keep this part under control. Usually we lost 1 kilo per week on this plan. (and I'm not totally strict. I allow some butter, and sugar in my coffee, and still loose weight).

I'm not surprised about the rice cakes, and I shouldn't be surprised about ice cream (but I am anyway). The 3-day plan has icecream every night. Years ago I lost weight, and icecream was part of that, too. Icecream satisfies and sooths the stomach.

I learned decades ago that eating protein was the key to not getting hungry.
posted by Goofyy at 6:46 AM on May 25, 2006

I think the secret is in finding healthy foods that you like, and eating as much of them as you like.

For example, I really like salads. You can eat as much salad as you want, as long as you use a dressing that is low in saturated fat.

Fresh fruit is also one of those foods that you can eat as much as you like of. The trick for me was finding fruits that I like (empire apples and forelle pears are da bomb!)

Other foods such as lean meats, fish, and even pasta are good in moderation.

On top of that, excercise, excercise, excercise. Ever been to NYC? Notice how there's less fat people there then in Missouri? It's because people walk everywhere. We're not talking about heavy lifting or mountain climbing or anything. Just walking. You'd be surprised what 1hr of walking a day will do for your body.
posted by Afroblanco at 7:18 AM on May 25, 2006

Simple guide to staying in shape.

- Eat when you're hungry
- Don't eat when you are not hungry
- Learn to recognise the difference

Also do some light exercise regularly (or regular exercise lightly if you prefer)
posted by TwoWordReview at 7:22 AM on May 25, 2006

Afroblanco>I live in Missouri. We are drowning in fat people. (I used to be one.)

Seriously. In my city people pile into the Yukon to drive a block to Braum's.
posted by sourwookie at 7:30 AM on May 25, 2006

At least they're carpooling.
posted by sonofsamiam at 7:31 AM on May 25, 2006

Afroblanco: 'salad' is not a food. It is a dish. If you're eating lots of lettuce, you should reconsider how healthy that is. The only thing of value in lettuce is fiber. Unfortuatly, there are other things that aren't good.
posted by Goofyy at 7:32 AM on May 25, 2006

My wife and I both dropped weight by increasing exercise and changing our diet. (Just "going on" a diet doesn't work - they aren't supposed to be a temporary thing, they're supposed to be a permanent thing! When you go off, you get fat again.)

The biggest changes we made were dropping as much fat as we could from our food, and if necessary replacing it with good fats. We use olive oil in place of pretty much any fat you can think, and started getting more nuts (raw, of course - raw cashews are so much better than the roasted salted ones, they have this amazingly delicate sweet flavor).

Aside from cold cuts for lunch, we don't buy a lot of meat - we aren't vegeterians, but have found some meatless products that we really like (Quorn is awesome if you can find it). When we do buy meat, it's usually chicken or turkey. Red meat is not off the menu, but on the rare occasions we do get it, we're picking up the lowest-fat stuff we can find.

We switched to a soy-based "peanut" butter, mostly because we liked the texture and flavor much better than the natural peanut butters. We dropped as many processed carbs as we could - whole wheat pasta and breads, sugar-free foods if possible (thank goodness for Splenda - we can still make cookies, banana bread, etc. but no sugars added!) and of course stopped drinking pop (even diet pop) several years ago. All we buy now is natural fruit juices or sugar-free flavored water.

We've found that our grocery bill has increased - but would you rather pay more for your food now, or more for your health later? We're both in much better shape than we have ever been. It's worth it.

The only bad thing about this is that we both noticed when we go to visit my wife's parents, we don't handle it very well - they're in love with their deep fryer, and of course fried stuff tastes good but man - we just can't handle the grease any more, because we don't eat it. Makes us feel queasy.
posted by caution live frogs at 7:41 AM on May 25, 2006

Goofyy: I agree. Salad using baby spinach instead of lettuce is so much better - iceberg lettuce is basically like eating raw cellulose. It has no flavor, so aside from the crunch what's the point?
posted by caution live frogs at 7:43 AM on May 25, 2006

Goofyy - I think you have a very narrow definition of 'salad.' My salads include cucumbers and broccoli. Also, I don't use iceberg lettuce, which tastes like crap and has no nutritional value. Instead, I use a mix of greens that are heavy on baby spinach and romaine, both of which have tons of vitamins.

Besides, what's wrong with fiber?

and sourwookie - I spent 12 years of my life in MO and I now live in NYC. I shed about 15 lbs shortly after moving here. I speak from experience.
posted by Afroblanco at 7:44 AM on May 25, 2006

- Eat when you're hungry
- Don't eat when you are not hungry
- Learn to recognise the difference

Doesn't work.

Sit by a bucket of fried chicken, follow that advice, and you'll inflate to the size of a half a house.

Sit by a bucket of lettuce, follow that advice, and you'll shrink till you look like you've been assembled from matchsticks.

It's all about eating the right food. You just need a balanced diet with enough bulk to keep you full.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 8:18 AM on May 25, 2006

Wasn't there a more recent theory that pointed to specific problems with high fructose corn syrup sweeteners? Something about not leading to satiation as others sugars do. I wonder how that fits in here, but eating the same concentrated form of energy we feed to livestock seems to have the same results.
posted by Brian B. at 8:20 AM on May 25, 2006

Funny how at first the GI site looked legit but then you read this: "...Food cravings and overeating are a result of anthropology and not lack of will power....". Uh, anthropology? You mean like Louis Leakey?

Then you click on the press releases link and you find out the one newsworthy story is: "... The Glycemic Research Institute in Washington, D.C. announced today that they have selected Merrick Pet Food as the Best Pet Food of the Year for 2006." Let me guess, they selected it, based on......anthropology!

Not tin-foil hatty but there's tin-foil flecks.
posted by storybored at 8:21 AM on May 25, 2006

Doesn't work.

Sit by a bucket of fried chicken...

Sit by a bucket of lettuce...

Dude, move away from the buckets. Case closed. Talk about a false dichotomy.
posted by GuyZero at 8:23 AM on May 25, 2006

[your favorite weight loss plan sucks]

does that cover everyone? Man, I love these weight loss threads and their inevitable plunge into "just count calories and exercise, dumbass." Seems like we could just skip straight to that.

But thanks anyway, talitha, those were some interesting links.
posted by emjaybee at 8:38 AM on May 25, 2006

Crazy as it sounds, the Shangri-La thing seems to be working amazingly well so far. Your hunger simply disappears. Worth checking out.
posted by muckster at 8:44 AM on May 25, 2006

I have THE solution , and it's a mix of the abovesaid solutions !
posted by elpapacito at 9:00 AM on May 25, 2006

"just count calories", .....
Oh my god your a genius! Seriously, the US population is getting seriously overweight, especially the kids. We could use more research, and real insight, it helps.
posted by uni verse at 9:26 AM on May 25, 2006

Rice cakes are one of the most fattening foods known to man, while ice cream is one of the least fattening.

Where does this factoid come from? I googled "glycemic index" and found a page from the Canadian Diabetes Association. It says ice cream is high glycemic index, as you'd expect.
posted by russilwvong at 9:45 AM on May 25, 2006

Icecream satisfies and sooths the stomach.

I think you will find that that's not the case for most people.
posted by birdie birdington at 9:54 AM on May 25, 2006

Heres how it works: Consume more calories than you burn off with excercise and you will get fat. There's various tweaks to that, but at the end of the day you can't overcome the second law of thermodynamics.
posted by Artw at 10:01 AM on May 25, 2006

Simple guide to staying in shape.

- Eat when you're hungry
- Don't eat when you are not hungry
- Learn to recognise the difference


A lot of over-weightedness is caused by people eating proactively rather than reactively and in sufficient quantity to avoid ever feeling actual, real, physical hunger pangs.
posted by scheptech at 10:06 AM on May 25, 2006

Crazy as it sounds, the Shangri-La thing seems to be working amazingly well so far. Your hunger simply disappears. Worth checking out.

I have to second this recommendation. I've been trying it for two weeks now and, unlike most diets, I don't feel deprived. The name's a bit misleading though. It's not so much a diet as a way of reducing your appetite. I've always had trouble with other diets, low-carb, glycemic-based, atkins, etc. because I actually -like- carbs. I can still eat carbs with Shangri-La, but ever since I've started the diet I feel like eating less of them. I feel full much faster and the urge to snack has vanished. It's really quite remarkable. The other plus is that it's very easy to follow.
posted by longdaysjourney at 10:14 AM on May 25, 2006

A lot of over-weightedness is caused by people eating proactively rather than reactively and in sufficient quantity to avoid ever feeling actual, real, physical hunger pangs.

While I do not speak for anyone else but myself, I know in my case that this is exactly why I got fat. For lunch, I would (for example) order a BigMac, fries and a cheeseburger on the side. Now, the fries and especially the cheeseburger were completely unnecessary, but I would get them anyway because I wanted to feel "full." Same thing at dinner - God forbid I would feel the slightest pang of hunger before going to bed.

But a couple of years ago, when I changed jobs and realized I was going to be spending a lot more time sitting on my ass than before, I decided to cut out most of the fast food for lunch and smallify my dinner portions (along with dropping most of the snacking), and it had an immediate effect on my weight. I've dropped about 35 lb. so far without really trying. No "diet," no huge increase in exercise (although I do quite a bit of walking and biking). So it can be done.
posted by deadcowdan at 10:49 AM on May 25, 2006

Glycemic Index has also been a topic on AskMe, of course.

Most interesting, to me at least:

March 16, 2006 - Mysterious hunger bouts

Also,

May 7, 2006 - PregnancyFilter: Carb loading prior to Glucose Tolerance Test?
February 6, 2005 - My husband was just diagnosed with diabetes
July 8, 2004 - DebunkFilter: Dreamfields Pasta
January 7, 2005 - Can you eat too many carrots?June 3, 2004 - Fresh juice overload?

Of course GI gets mentioned in lots of DietFilter (as in weight loss diet, rather than health diet), these are only a few, hopefully the ones with the most GI discussion.

December 28, 2003 - AtkinsFilter! Okay, not really.
January 15, 2004 - A co-worker claims to have lost 4.5 pounds in the last six days on the South Beach Diet

posted by Chuckles at 11:53 AM on May 25, 2006

Doesn't work.

Sit by a bucket of fried chicken, follow that advice, and you'll inflate to the size of a half a house.

Sit by a bucket of lettuce, follow that advice, and you'll shrink till you look like you've been assembled from matchsticks.

It's all about eating the right food. You just need a balanced diet with enough bulk to keep you full.

I should probably add

- Learn to tell what you are hungry for.

Your body is an incredibly sensitive instrument and we get cravings for a reason. If I'm deficient in a certain vitamin, I will probably get a craving for a food which in the past has provided this vitamin. Eating balanced meals when you are hungry (and only eating enough to make you full - even if you are stuck with the bucket of chicken you don't have to eat the whole bucket) of course does go a long way! Man cannot live on fried chicken alone and our bodies have ways of letting us know this!
posted by TwoWordReview at 11:56 AM on May 25, 2006

Jesus, I’ve got to lay off the carrots.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:57 PM on May 25, 2006

Here is another reference for carrots (search for "599carrot" on the page). Cooking method makes a tremendous difference for all foods, but ignoring the raw carrot number, there is still a lot of inconsistency..

From the post text: The glycemic index (GI) is a ranking of carbohydrates on a scale from 0 to 100 according to the extent to which they raise blood sugar levels after eating.

Lots of foods have GIs above 100: tofu dessert at 115.
posted by Chuckles at 3:42 PM on May 25, 2006

caution live frogs - What's your beef with peanuts (vs. soybeans) and unless you're replacing the white flour in cookies with something else, your're still getting a lot of empty carbs, the only real difference being a bit of extra protein. Take a look at the boxes of standard vs. 1/3 sugar kiddie cereals--the reduced-sugar ones don't give any real improvement in nutrition.
posted by NortonDC at 3:44 PM on May 25, 2006

Sorry, search for "599", which is the row for carrots..
posted by Chuckles at 3:46 PM on May 25, 2006

That's why I say you shouldn't obsessively count glycemic load. The glycemic index measurements are just not that accurate. They feed the food to people and then measure their blood sugar response. There are too many unaccounted variables in such a process to get precise data, and the foods are going to vary as well. High, medium and low would be better indicators.
posted by caddis at 3:56 PM on May 25, 2006

The glycemic index been very, very good to me:


posted by Doohickie at 7:24 PM on May 25, 2006

January 15, 2004 - A co-worker claims to have lost 4.5 pounds in the last six days on the South Beach Diet


If you click on the link, it goes to ask So, is this possible? I think he is just losing water. But maybe I'm wrong--do these low-carb diets really, truly work?

I lost 15 lb. in two weeks, and well over 60 lb. in 6 months. I think they really, truly work.


posted by Doohickie at 7:29 PM on May 25, 2006

Carrots bad? I weep!

Doohickie: Yowsa! Lookin' way better. Congratulations!
posted by five fresh fish at 8:14 PM on May 25, 2006

Hotcha!
posted by overanxious ducksqueezer at 9:06 PM on May 25, 2006

Interesting links, good discussion - successful first post, talitha_kumi! Keep on keeping on.
posted by madamjujujive at 4:34 AM on May 26, 2006

NortonDC: No specific beef wth peanuts, just that we wanted to go with natural nut butter and most of the peanut ones were either weird consistency (my wife can't stand all that oil on top - icky looking) or just din't taste right. The soynut butter we have been buying is comparable or better than the natural peanut butter in terms of fat content, sodium, calories, etc. but has a much better consistency and we really like the flavor.

As for the nutritional value of cookies, we don't expect much. We just like that we can still have some "junk food" without making it be complete junk. Dropping the sugar helps. Dropping HFCS from as much as possible helps. I mean, pancakes - sure, not much in there to be good for you, unless you go for a buckwheat pancake - but you add syrup on top of that and what are you eating - corn syrup with a tiny bit of maple flavor. It's crap. I have a gallon of homemade maple syrup, it's runny, sure, but I'll take lower, natural sugar over high fructose corn syrup crap any day. I know it's still sugar, sure, but I exercise so that I can have pancakes once a month or so and not feel guilty about it. Same goes for cookies or banana breads. What we did is what many people can do - not give up our favorite foods, but be more conscious about what you are putting into your body, and cut back on the things that you know for sure aren't good for you if you can't bring yourself to eliminate them completely.

We keep trying to get her parents to do the same, as both are seriously overweight and we know her dad at least has amazingly high cholesterol and has suffered at least one minor heart attack. Her mom won't go to the doctor (believe me, we've tried to get her to change - no reasoning with her! Always gives us some idiot reason about her needing to take care of other people so won't take care of herself!) but we know she eats the same foods and probably has the same problems. Anything we can do that makes it simple seems to trickle down to them. Light salt, Splenda, etc. - her dad actively resists change, but he doesn't know what's in the salt shaker and can't understand why his wife suddenly allows him to sprinkle sugar over his bowl of fruit again.
posted by caution live frogs at 6:44 AM on May 26, 2006

If your maple syrup is runny, you bought crappy syrup. Boil it for a few hours and put it back in the bottle once it's thick enough for your liking. Plus it has a lot of good stuff: "significant amounts of potassium (35 mg/tbsp), calcium (21 mg/tbsp), small amounts of iron and phosphorus, and trace amounts of B-vitamins."

If you don't want to eat pancakes, eat it on oatmeal or something. But there ain't nothing wrong with maple syrup.
posted by GuyZero at 8:25 AM on May 26, 2006

Imagine three people standing side-by-side. One of them is slim. The other is overweight. And the third is obese. Two out of three Americans are fat-asses.

This is fairly shocking, because in many other first-world countries the population is not nearly so overweight. Norway, f'rinstance, seems to be inhabited almost exclusively by buff people. One might expect one out of ten people to be hefty... not two out of three!

Anyway, it then occured to me that America is a fast food nation. Home of McDonalds and TV dinners. A cornucopia of junk foods.

And while most of this thread is about off-the-shelf foods, I gotta wonder: how high-GI is McDonalds, Pizza Hut, Quiznos, and so on?

Maybe the biggest cause of obesity in the USA isn't so much the presence of crap foods on grocery shelves, but crap foods in dining out? (There must be a lot of dining out in the USA, because it's choc-a-bloc packed with fast food joints.)

otoh it could well be junk grocery items. I really have no idea what sort of junk is on the shelves, 'cause I simply don't buy it.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:32 AM on May 26, 2006

Maybe the biggest cause of obesity in the USA isn't so much the presence of crap foods on grocery shelves, but crap foods in dining out? (There must be a lot of dining out in the USA, because it's choc-a-bloc packed with fast food joints.)

It's cars. We just don't move enough.
posted by longdaysjourney at 9:56 AM on May 26, 2006

Perhaps the original cause of preventable obesity is the rational anxiety of going bankrupt in a land of plenty. This would present the organism with a threat that would induce it engorge itself for insurance.
posted by Brian B. at 6:08 PM on May 26, 2006

Riddle me this: since Oct/Novish I have been a complete glutton for dried fruit, having purchased about a thousand bucks worth of organic dried fruits and nuts (and have consumed most of it, ack!). Plus my carrot addiction has reared its head again. And we're heading into fresh fruit season, during which I'll pig out on nectarines, plums, cherries, blueberries, and so on.

These things (maybe not the nuts) are all high-GI (aren't they?) yet I didn't put on any weight. What's up with that?
posted by five fresh fish at 7:03 PM on May 26, 2006

2000+ calorie fast food — 1400 for the burger, then add in almost a thousand for the soft drink and fries. Sheezus fucking fuck, how can society condone this sort of gluttonous idiocy?

Anyone who eats that sort of shit and dies from their lifestyle deserves it.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:16 PM on May 26, 2006

GuyZero - Buy syrup? My dad made it. Who buys syrup when you can get a gallon for free? Ingredients: Maple sap, boiled for several days in a big-ass pan over a wood fire.

The thickness is all a matter of sugar content, and how long you boil it. You can only go for so long before the sugar grains up. The thickness thing - those used to the corn syrup-based Mrs. Butterworths or whatnot will definitely be surprised at the relative thinness of real, actual maple syrup. It should not be thick and gooey; it just doesn't get to that consistency unless you add something. Some years it is more watery than others, but it is always much less thick than the store-bought artificial crap.
posted by caution live frogs at 7:09 AM on May 30, 2006

woah, I defer to you on syrupy matters then.

I do realize that corn syrup is much thicker than maple syrup, I just meant that if can be thin if you buy stuff that hasn't been boiled long enough. But obviously you know your syrup.
posted by GuyZero at 11:29 AM on May 30, 2006

Refrigerate your maple syrup and it becomes considerably more syrupy. The downside is that it chills your hot waffles.

I buy "Canada A" maple syrup for all of ten bucks a litre. It's not smokin' great syrup, but at least it isn't crappy artificial syrup. Once a year I get a bottle of high-quality syrup and delight in its buttery smoothness and rich taste.

Syrup is one odd-looking word.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:49 AM on May 31, 2006