Beides ist langfristig gesehen eine Katastrophe, weil: nicht lebenslang ohne Kasteiung durchzuhalten.
...wie ich bereits sagte, hat eine Bodybuilding-Diät nicht den Anspruch ein multifaktorielles Adipositasproblem zu lösen.
Oder glaubst Du ernsthaft, dass sich z.B. bambam bei seiner Diätgestaltung Gedanken darüber macht, ob seine LowFat-Diät massenkompatibel ist?
Bodybuilder und Ottonormalverbraucher leben diesbezüglich in zwei verschiedenen Welten. Für den adipösen Ottonormalverbraucher ist bereits eine sportliche Lebensführung und Kalorienrestriktion eine mehr oder minder große Selbstkasteiung.
Und obwohl eine BB-Diät ebenfalls nicht den Anspruch hat, einen Gesundheitspreis gewinnen zu wollen, möchte ich dennoch noch einmal auf LOGI eingehen.
Unbestreitbar ist, dass es unzählige seriöse wissenschaftliche Arbeiten gibt, die es nahe legen aus Gesundheitsgründen die glykämische Last der Diät zu verringern (dies gilt natürlich in verstärktem Maße für Übergewichtige). Vgl.: Jenkins et al. : Glycemic index: overview of implications in health and disease (Am J Clin Nutr 2002;76(suppl):266S-73S.)Um zu dieser Einsicht zu kommen, muss man also nicht zum Worm-Fan mutieren. LOGI ist keine Worm-Erfindung- auch das weißt Du sehr gut. LOGI greift darüber hinaus nicht nur die Erkenntnisse zum glycemic load und glycemic index auf, sondern zielt auch auf gesunde Fette, reichlich Protein sowie reichlich stärkearmes Gemüse und Obst ab.
Dass Übergewicht grundsätzlich aus einem Überangebot an Kalorien - letztendlich egal welcher Art resultiert - ist dabei vollkommen fraglos. Ebenso klar ist, dass Übergewicht der primäre Risikofaktor für ernährungsbedingte Krankheiten ist.Und dennoch greift jede Diskussion, die an diesem Punkt verharrt und bei der Kalorienfrage stehen bleibt zu kurz!
Um auf den Punkt zu kommen:

Aus den Harvard Health Publications:
Researchers at Harvard, including Harvard Women`s Health Watch advisory board member JoAnn E. Manson, M.D., have closely examined the relationships among carbohydrates and heart disease and diabetes in women. The Nurses` Health Study, for example, found that women with the highest dietary GL have double the risk for heart disease when compared to those with the lowest GL.
Brand-Miller, Nutr Rev. 2003:
Observational studies suggest that diets with a high glycemic load (GI x carbohydrate content) are independently associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Postprandial hyperglycemia plays a direct pathogenic role in the disease process. Lower glucose and insulin levels are associated with improved risk profile, including high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, glycosylated proteins, oxidative status, hemostatic variables, and endothelial function. Limited evidence suggests that a low-GI diet may also protect against obesity, colon cancer, and breast cancer.
Westmann/Volek im Cleveland Clinical Journal of Medicine:
The most dramatic and consistent lipid response to a very-low-carbohydrate diet is a moderate to large decrease in fasting triglyceride levels and postprandial triglyceride responses to a fat-rich meal, both independent risk factors for cardiovascular disease. (...)
Atherogenic lipoprotein phenotype.
An impaired ability to clear circulating triglyceride-rich lipoproteins during the postprandial period is the driving force underlying the lipid abnormalities of the atherogenic lipoprotein phenotype: increased hepatic production of verylow-density lipoprotein (VLDL), reduced HDL, and a predominance of small LDL particles.
Approximately 25% of adult men have this constellation of lipid abnormalities, which confers increased risk of cardiovascular disease upon otherwise-healthy people.
Paradoxically, a low-fat/high-carbohydrate diet exacerbates atherogenic dyslipidemia if the patient does not lose a significant amount of weight or increase his or her level of physical activity. However, a very-lowcarbohydrate diet improves all aspects of atherogenic dyslipidemia, decreasing fasting and postprandial triglyceride levels, increasing HDL, increasing LDL size, and decreasing insulin, independent of weight loss .
It should be clear then that GI does not accurately predict the IS
...natürlich nicht. Der GI ist kein Insulinindex. Dennoch schreibt Jenkins:
In general, the insulin responses, when measured, related well to glycemic responses.
Im Prinzip ist es super, wenn man ein besseres Instrument als den GI findet. Wobei sich GI und GL bisher als recht sicheres und praktikables Instrument erwiesen haben und der IS gegenüber dem GI auch inhärente Nachteile hat (wenngleich auch GI und GL unbestreitbar einige Schwächen haben).
Foster-Powell et al. (Am J Clin Nutr 2002.):
Despite controversial beginnings, the GI is now widely recognized as a reliable, physiologically based classification of foods according to their postprandial glycemic effect.
Vgl. auch Willett et al.
SI - super Instrument. Dazu muss man sagen, dass der GI sicher kein exaktes Instrument zur Bestimmung des Sättigungswertes ist (das ist auch nicht der Sinn und Zweck des GI) und dennoch korreliert auch der GI in vielen Fällen mit der Tagesenergieaufnahme.

Warren et al. (Pediatrics Vol. 112 No. 5 November 2003):
Currently, there is much interest in the potential of low glycemic index (GI) foods in the management of obesity. It has been hypothesized that low-GI foods may benefit weight regulation in 2 ways: by promoting satiety and promoting fat oxidation at the expense of carbohydrate oxidation. Although no long-term clinical trials have examined the effects of dietary GI on body weight regulation, single-day studies have shown lower satiety, increased hunger, or higher voluntary food intake after consumption of high-GI compared with low-GI meals. Two medium-term studies of 5 and 12 weeks also showed improved weight or fat loss on low-GI diets. A pioneering study by Ludwig et al showed that obese children who were given high-, medium-, or low-GI breakfasts and lunches of equal-energy content had a voluntary food intake for the rest of the day that was 53% higher after the high-GI breakfast. (...)
The results of the current study are particularly important as the effects of one meal on another, with normal inter-meal intervals, are rarely observed in the study of human appetite. This study supports the growing body of evidence that low-GI diets may have a role in weight control and obesity management in young children.
Pawlak et al. (Obes Rev. 2002 Nov;3(4):235-43) :
Short-term feeding studies have generally found an inverse association between GI and satiety. Medium-term clinical trials have found less weight loss on high GI or high glycaemic load diets compared to low GI or low glycaemic load diets. Epidemiological analyses link GI to multiple cardiovascular disease risk factors and to the development of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. Physiologically orientated studies in humans and animal models provide support for a role of GI in disease prevention and treatment.
Vgl. auch Brand-Miller et al. Glycemic index and obesity (Am J Clin Nutr 2002;76(suppl):281-5S.)

THE HYPOTHETICAL BIOCHEMICAL SCENARIO

The following scenario for high-GI compared with low-GI diets in weight regulation is hypothesized on the basis of factual
but incomplete evidence from studies in animals and humans.
Consumption of a high-carbohydrate, high-GI diet results in recurrent postprandial hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia that
is accentuated in sedentary persons who are overweight, insulinresistant, or both. As a consequence, carbohydrate oxidation is higher and fat oxidation lower throughout the postprandial period, whether the person is at rest or exercising. The expression of enzymes involved in lipid synthesis, such as ACC mRNA, is up-regulated, whereas the expression of those involved in lipid oxidation, such as CPT1 mRNA, are down-regulated. Glycogen stores in liver and muscle are maintained at higher concentrations with high-GI diets, but glycogen use and gluconeogenesis may also be higher. Counterregulatory hormonal responses (eg, of cortisol and noradrenaline) are also higher because of the hyperglycemic-hypoglycemic rebound after consumption. This stimulates gluconeogenesis from gluconeogenic amino acids as well as meal initiation in free-feeding individuals. The 0-6-h period following consumption of a high-GI diet is therefore characterized by a greater dependence on carbohydrate and protein as sources of fuel and less dependence on fat. Because carbohydrate and protein stores are limited, their higher rate of usage may stimulate appetite and encourage overconsumption. If energy intake and energy expenditure are matched over the long term, then body weight remains stable. However, even the small energy imbalances that are characteristic of modern lifestyles are more likely to promote gradual expansion of the fat stores (possibly
at the expense of lean tissue) when the diet is based on high-GI foods.
Mal davon abgesehen: Auch wenn man den SI zum Richtwert erhebt, ist die Selbstkasteiung für einen Couchpotato mit Colaglas in der einen und Chipstüte in der anderen Hand nicht geringer als bei LOGI, wobei die Orientierung an einer LOGI-Pyramide wahrscheinlich deutlich unkomplizierter und praktikabler ist. Und auch für den SI gilt: Im Hinblick auf den Gesundheitswert der Ernährung hat er gegenüber dem GL einen Nachteil, da er z.B. den Einfluss auf den Blutzuckerspiegel unberücksichtigt lässt. Genau genommen kann keines dieser Instrumente das andere ersetzen. Folglich müsste eine optimale Diät alle Faktoren berücksichtigen.
Übrigens: Bei Ketodiäten ist dieser ganze Quatsch sowieso weitgehend ohne Interesse - Blutzucker sinkt, Insulin sinkt (und zwar unabhängig von den Kalorien) und Hungergefühl/Appetit wird unterdrückt (durch verschiedene Mechanismen z.B. Ketose -> Vgl. Volek). Ketodiäten sind daher auch so schön unkompliziert - sie berücksichtigen eigentlich GL, IS und SI gleichermaßen mehr oder weniger unbewusst. Davon abgesehen möchte ich noch einmal betonen, dass die Diskussion um Sättigungswerte für eine BB-Diät absolut zweitrangig ist. Hier handelt es sich bestenfalls um einen angenehmen Nebeneffekt. Wobei ich Ketodiäten - wie Du weißt - im Hinblick auf den Gesundheitswert nicht als das Non plus ultra erachte (allerdings aus anderen Gründen als jene, die immer wieder gebetsmühlenartig unterstellt werden). Da scheint mir der LOGI-Ansatz oder auch der Paleodiät-Ansatz sinnvoller zu sein.

Zum Letzteren Cordain et al. (Am J Clin Nutr 2000):
Both anthropologists and nutritionists have long had an interest in the nutritional patterns of the earth`s less-Westernized peoples and have recognized that the diets of modern-day hunter-gatherers may represent a reference standard for modern human nutrition and a model for defense against certain "diseases of civilization". (...)
The diets of historically studied hunter-gatherer populations provide important information regarding the limits and boundaries of the diets to which humans are genetically adapted. Our data clearly indicate that there was no single diet that represented all hunter-gatherer societies. However, there were dietary trends that transcend geographic and ecologic boundaries and represent nearly all the world`s hunter-gatherers. These nutritional trends, when analyzed under the scrutiny of modern nutritional theory, may have important implications for the mediation of nutritionally related, chronic diseases of Westernized societies. (...)
Our macronutrient projections for worldwide hunter-gatherer diets indicate that these diets would be extremely high in protein (19-35% of energy) and low in carbohydrate (22-40% of energy) by normal Western standards, whereas the fat intake would be comparable or higher (28-58% of energy) than values currently consumed in modern, industrialized societies. (...)
Whenever and wherever it was ecologically possible, huntergatherers would have consumed high amounts (45-65% of total
energy) of animal food. Most (73%) hunter-gatherer societies worldwide derived > 50% of their subsistence from
animal foods (...)
Anthropologic and medical studies of hunter-gatherer societies indicate that these people were relatively free of many of the chronic degenerative diseases and disease symptoms that plague modern societies and that this freedom from disease was attributable in part to their diet. Therefore, macronutrient characteristics of hunter-gatherer diets may provide insight into potentially therapeutic dietary recommendations for contemporary populations.

Zum Schluss Willett et al. (Am J Clin Nutr 2002;76(suppl):274S-80S.):
In large prospective epidemiologic studies, both the glycemic index and the glycemic load (...)of the overall diet have been associated with a greater risk of type 2 diabetes in both men and women. (...)
Because diabetes is fundamentally a condition of disordered glucose metabolism, it is reasonable to ask whether the type of dietary carbohydrate can influence the risk and course of this disease. In popular literature, sucrose has been portrayed as a particularly dangerous component of the diet despite clear metabolic evidence that many forms of starch have similar effects on blood glucose and insulin concentrations. In response, some professional organizations have taken the position that the form of carbohydrate has little clinical relevance (1). However, many metabolic studies now have shown that food sources of carbohydrate vary greatly in their rate of absorption and effects on blood glucose and insulin concentrations. One way of quantifying this variation in response to dietary carbohydrate is the glycemic index, pioneered by Jenkins et al (2). (...)
The concept of the glycemic index can also be applied to whole meals or overall diet. For example, in a crossover study of 6 healthy adults, Jenkins et al (3) found that a low-glycemicindex diet containing mainly intact whole grains significantly reduced C-peptide concentrations (a 32% reduction) compared with a high-glycemic-index diet containing primarily refined grain products. Because the amount of carbohydrate in a food or overall diet can vary, we have also introduced the concept of glycemic load, which is the amount of carbohydrate multiplied by its glycemic index. Whether the glycemic index or load of foods or the overall diet has relevance to human health has been a topic of contention, partly because of the lack of long-term studies. Only recently have data become available from large, longterm epidemiologic studies relating dietary glycemic index or glycemic load to risk of type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, and obesity. (...)
Over a period of years, hyperglycemia leads to loss of pancreatic beta-cell function that can result in glucose intolerance and ultimately an irreversible state of diabetes. The mechanism for this phenomenon is not entirely clear, and it has not been fully resolved whether this loss of pancreatic function results primarily from excessive secretion of insulin (ie, beta-cell exhaustion) or toxicity to beta-cells because of hyperglycemia. Nevertheless, either mechanism would predict that a diet that produces higher blood glucose concentrations and greater demand for insulin would increase the risk of type 2 diabetes. (...)
The individual response to a given carbohydrate load is influenced by the degree of underlying insulin resistance, which is, in turn, determined primarily by degree of adiposity, physical activity, genetics, and other aspects of diet. (...)
Available evidence also suggests that a high intake of highglycemic-index carbohydrates can increase insulin resistance, at least in the short term. (...)
In the early 1980s, 3 studies from Reaven et al showed that when individual carbohydrate foods are consumed as part of a mixed meal, differences in glycemic responses between foods no longer exist. These authors postulated that such findings are due to the effects of fat and protein on glycemic responses (22). These studies led a National Institutes of Health consensus conference on diet and exercise in type 2 diabetes to reject the use of the glycemic index (23). Since then,
numerous studies aimed at addressing these issues have been conducted, and abundant data now support the importance of the glycemic index in the context of mixed meals. In particular, studies have shown that although fat and protein affect the absolute glycemic response, they do not affect the relative differences between carbohydrate-containing foods (24, 28, 29).
Studies using standardized methods have indicated that the correlation between the glycemic index of mixed meals and the average glycemic index values of individual component foods ranges from 0.84 to 0.99 (24, 26, 27). Thus, although other aspects of diet may add to variation in glucose and insulin responses, the effect of these other sources of variation does not appear to seriously affect the validity of calculated glycemic index values for mixed meals under realistic conditions.
(...)
Because the glucose and insulin responses depend on both the quantity and quality of the carbohydrate, we have used the dietary glycemic load, ie, the amount of carbohydrate multiplied by its glycemic index, to represent both of these dimensions of carbohydrate intake.(...)
Because the physiologic relevance of the glycemic index has been questioned (4, 7), we recently conducted a study in which we used fasting plasma triacylglycerol as a marker of adverse metabolic response (6). In many metabolic and long-term studies, high carbohydrate intake has been shown to increase fasting triacylglycerol concentrations and reduce HDL-cholesterol concentrations (31), but fasting triacylglycerol is most sensitive to these dietary changes. We therefore examined the cross-sectional relations between fasting triacylglycerol concentrations and total carbohydrate intake, total dietary glycemic index, and glycemic load in a group of postmenopausal women, controlling for total energy intake, body mass index, and several other determinants of triacylglycerol concentrations.
Each of these variables was significantly associated with fasting triacylglycerol, but the association was strongest with glycemic load, which includes the contributions of both total carbohydrate intake and glycemic index and their interaction with each other. Triacylglycerol concentrations were nearly two-fold higher among women in the highest glycemic load quintile than among those in the lowest quintile. (...)
To evaluate the hypothesis that high dietary glycemic load would increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, we used data from our large prospective studies of women (Nurses´ Health Study) and men (Health Professional’s Follow-up Study) (30, 33).
(...)
After adjustment for age, body mass index, alcohol intake, physical activity, and cereal fiber intake, women in the highest quintile of glycemic load had a 40% greater risk of diabetes than did women in the lowest quintile (...)
We saw similar relation among the 42 759 men participating in the Health Professional`s Follow-up Study who were initially free of diabetes (33). For those in the extreme categories of glycemic load and cereal fiber intake, the relative risk was 2.17.
More recently, we updated the follow-up of the Nurses` Health Study from 1980 through 1986, which included 3300 incident cases of type 2 diabetes and used 5 assessments of diet. This confirmed the association with glycemic load reported earlier, which was statistically highly robust (P < 0.001). (...)
To further understand the types of diets associated with risk of type 2 diabetes, we also examined specific foods contributing appreciably to carbohydrate intake. The patterns were similar in these 3 independent datasets, with potatoes, white bread, and soda beverages being associated with increased risk and cold breakfast cereal being associated with reduced risk. (...)
In summary, both metabolic and epidemiologic evidence suggests that replacing high-glycemic-index forms of carbohydrate with low-glycemic-index carbohydrates will reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes. Among patients with diabetes, the weight of evidence suggests that replacing high-glycemic-index with lowglycemic-index forms of carbohydrate will improve glycemic control and reduce hypoglycemic episodes among those treated with insulin. These dietary changes can be accomplished by replacing products made with white flour and potatoes with whole-grain, minimally refined cereal products. Because this low-risk dietary pattern has also been associated with reduced incidence of coronary heart disease and a lower occurrence of diverticular disease (53) and constipation (54), this is an appropriate component of recommendations for an overall healthy diet.
...vielleicht auch nicht ganz uninteressant:
Jenkins:
NEWER ASPECTS OF GLYCEMIC INDEX RESEARCH

There is considerable interest in the relations between insulin resistance, the generation of reactive oxygen species, tissue damage, and the liberation of proinflammatory cytokines and acute phase proteins, the latter appearing to be powerful markers of chronic diseases, notably CHD (78). The dietary glycemic index may play a role in this sequence of events.
Studies have shown that the postprandial rise in glucose is consistent with depression of serum antioxidants, including lycopene and vitamin E (79, 80). Presumably, the higher the glycemia, the greater the postprandial depression of serum antioxidants (80). Finally, supplementing subjects` diets with the antioxidant vitamin E has been shown to improve glycemic control (81). Studies such as these suggest a possible beneficial role for lowglycemic-index diets by reducing oxidative damage.