Is Glycemic Index important for healthy people or is it mainly of concern to people with diabetes?
The NHS suggests the latter, but it doesn't seem to have a very strong position - unlike the article, which seems very sure that high GI is bad for you.
However, using the glycaemic index to decide whether foods or combinations of foods are healthy can be misleading.
Glycemic index is a somewhat deceptive measurement. A snickers bar has a lower glycemic index than a slice of whole wheat bread[0][1]. That doesn't make it better for you.
What glycemic index is actually showing you is the ratio of fat to carbs. And carbs are not inherently unhealthy. As a distance runner, I consume a lot more carbs than the average person, and I'm in the best shape of my life.
I think it's only really relevant if you have diabetes or other disorders that affect blood glucose (e.g. reactive hypoglycemia), as long as people know that in general sugars (and potatoes!) will cause spikes in blood sugar, and so should be consumed in moderation.
Although, even if you do have diabetes or the like, IMO just using the number of grams of carbohydrate and sugar in something is usually enough information, as you know that, in general, carbohydrates will cause your blood sugar to rise, and sugars will cause it to rise rapidly.
I have reactive hypoglycemia, and knowing the GI of a few foods is useful, only because you wouldn't think they were that bad (potatoes!) - but after learning it, just the macros are enough make a decision.
The NHS suggests the latter, but it doesn't seem to have a very strong position - unlike the article, which seems very sure that high GI is bad for you.
However, using the glycaemic index to decide whether foods or combinations of foods are healthy can be misleading.
https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/food-and-diet/wha...