Have you always been slim ? asked Michel Montignac when I met him while I was a young American student in Paris. No, I answered. I was 14 pounds (6 kg) overweight when I arrived in France. What did you do to lose it ? he asked. Nothing. Ive been living with a local family for over a year and all Ive done is eat like the French! Twenty years later, after building a life and family with Michel, Im still living in France and still at my desired weight. And in all that time I have never deprived myself of any food, including wine and chocolate. Following traditional French eating habits has made it easy to maintain weight. At the time that I met Michel, France had the second lowest average body weight in the world. Obesity was rare about four times less than in the US. However, Michel foresaw the deterioration of the traditional French diet. In 1986 he wrote his first book Dine Out and Lose Weight to warn his compatriots about the adverse effects of fast foods and soft drinks. He explained the importance of maintaining French culinary traditions to avoid extra body weight and the resulting health problems, which were sharply on the rise in many Western countries. Having struggled with weight himself as a child, Michel had a long-standing interest in weight management. Inspired by research about the effects of certain foods on blood sugar levels in diabetics, he tested the findings on himself, even though he was not diabetic, and discovered an innovative way to achieve and maintain weight loss. Based on his success, he developed The Montignac Method not a diet, but a lifestyle that embraces sensible eating habits. Moreover, it is based on the fact that certain types of food convert to sugar in the bloodstream more rapidly than others. The Method promotes limiting such foods, rather than total calories, to preserve the bodys natural equilibrium. The way I look at food has changed drastically since my childhood in the American Midwest. I have learned much from Michel and The Montignac Method. My food habits are no longer haphazard: I eat three meals a day and dont snack in between. I have banned pre packaged meals and sandwiches from my diet. I have learned to read labels in the supermarket to avoid unhealthy additives like sugar, starch and preservatives. In short, I am much more concerned with the quality of food rather than quantity. I have done my best to educate my children about nutrition. And as a recent widow, I have come to fully appreciate the modern-day challenges faced by single, working parents who have very limited time in the kitchen but want to ensure their children have fresh, wholesome meals. Destiny has its strange twists and turns. The highly successful Montignac* Method was developed by a Frenchman, but is now in my hands an American living in France. And as a woman I know that the The Methods principles of nutrition can be adapted to all stage s of life (adolescence, pregnancy, and menopause) and are not just for the French as Michel originally intended, but are suited to all cultures and lifestyles. If you are already familiar with The Montignac Method, you will find everything Montignac right here on this Web site. If you are new to The Method, you are in for an enligh
The Montignac Method teaches us to adjust our eating habits to fit our goals: To lose weight; To prevent the risk of gaining weight; To prevent type II diabetes; To reduce risks of heart disease.
The best carbohydrates are those with the lowest glycemic indexes.
The quality of fat foods depends on the nature of their fatty acids, as follows: Polysaturated omega 3 acids (fish fat) as well as monosaturated fatty acids (olive oil) are the best choice. Saturated fatty acids (butter, fat meats) are to be avoided. Proteins should be chosen on the basis of their (vegetable or animal) origin, depending on how they complement each other and on if they make our bodies react by gaining weight (hyperinsulinism). For further information on intestinal-absorpptoin physiology
o o
Carbohydrate absorption
Carbs are digested thanks to the salivary and pancreatic alpha-amylase digestive enzymes. Sugar hydrolyzation transformation into absorbable glucose depends directly on a carbs Glycemic Index. Glycemic Indexes measure carbohydrates potential to raise blood sugar levels, that is, to generate glycemia. They also measu re the corresponding carbs hydrolyzing potential as well its chances of being transformed into absorbable glucose. In other words, Glycemic Indexes measure the portion of the carbohydrate transformed into glucose which will be absorbed and will thus pass into our bloodstream. If the GI for glucose is ranked at 100, what this means is that it will be totally (100%) absorbed in the small intestine. Comparatively, white bread has a 70 GI which means that 70% of its pure carb content (starch) will be hydrolyzed and pass the intestinal wall as glucose. Likewise, we can assume that for lentils, which have a 30 GI, only 30% of lentil starch will be absorbed as glucose. Thus, equal amounts of calories in different carbs will not necessarily pass the intestinal wall in the same proportion, the proportions that pass the intestinal wall as glucose might be half or twice as much, it depends on the carbs GI. This why we can say a carbs GI measures the bioavailability of its glucidic content. For further information on Glycemic Indexes This phenomenon is currently expressed by traditional nutritionists in terms of "calories."
100 95 70 30
As we can see, when we eat fries the number of calories available in our bodies after digestion will be three times higher than the number of calories available if we eat lentils, even if the proportion of pure carb is exactly the same. To word it from another angle, if we eat equal glucidic amounts of fries and lentils, we will be consuming three times less calories when we eat lentils. It is interesting to note that tests have shown that eating sugar at the end of a meal will have little, or practically no, i ncidence on the meals glycemic outcome. Considering the complexity of a meal, particularly the degree of fibers and proteins consumed, sugar (70 GI) absorption will be considerably reduced. Another thing is when we eat sugar on an empty stomach, like in soda pop or coke. In this case, the carb is almost totally absorbed by our intestine. This is an important point! It is one of the basic principles behind the Montignac Method. It helps us to understand how to eat the same amount of food and still lose weight simply by eating it differently. This point is important because it makes us aware of the fact that, contrary to what is preached by traditional diets, not all of the calories we eat are available in our organisms immediately after we consume them. A good number of nutritionists have begun using the Glycemic Index concept. However some have, unfortunately, still not understood that GIs just measure glycemia peaks. For them, the idea behind low GIs (as in lentils) is to avoid glycemia from rising by prolonging the time required to absorb glucose. This is their idea of slow absorption sugars, a totally mistaken notion as has been shown by researchers such as Professor G.Slama. For further information on the mistaken notion of slow/fast sugars As we have tried to explain by using Jenkins demonstration, GIs measure the glycemia triangle area which is provoked by eating glucidic foods (carbohydrates) and corresponds to the amount of glucose that crossed the intestinal wall. Naturally, the lower the GI, the smaller the amount of glucose freed when the carb is digested through the intestinal wall. To conclude we can say that a carbs GI (apart from glycemia) measure a carbs absorption rate, that is to say its bioavailab ility and, accordingly, increased blood sugar levels simply signal the proportion of the carb which has been absorbed after having been turned into glucose. Lipid (fats) absorption Lipids or fats are the traditional nutritionists boogey man . The repulsion they feel for fats is tied to the fact that fats are rich in calories: 9 Kcalories per gram. We will see that contrary to preconceived ideas, not all of the fats we eat are necessarily available for our bodies. Several factors modulate fatty acid absorption. The nature of fatty acids Saturated fats (butter, beef fat, lamb, pork, palm oil) as well as trans fats (hydrogenated margarine ) have a greater tendency to be stored than burned, that is to be used as an immediate source of energy. Monosaturated fatty acids (olive oil, duck and goose fat) will normally be used after being absorbed. More so considering that they contribute to lowering blood sugar levels which reduces insulin secretion and limits fat storage. Polysaturated fatty acids, and mainly omega 3 (fish fat, rapeseed oil, linum) are systematically used, (chiefly by increased thermogenesis) after having been absorbed (circulating fatty acids.) They furthermore stimulate lipolysis which contributes to eliminating stored fat and thus to losing weight.
As a result, the same amount of calories does not necessarily mean that the different fatty acids have similar metabolic effects. The effects can even be totally different. Lipid absorption is conditioned by position of fatty acids on the glycerol molecule: 95 to 98% of dietary fats ingested are consumed as triglycerides. Daily diets supply an average of 100 to 150g. Lipid absorption is conditioned by position of fatty acids on the glycerol molecule: 95 to 98% of dietary fats ingested are consumed as triglycerides. Daily diets supply an average of 100 to 150g.
It is important to keep in mind that triglycerides are made up of a glycerol molecule (sugar-alcohol) to which three fatty acids are fixed in positions 1, 2 et 3 (see diagram). A fatty acids degree of absorption depends on where it is situated on the glycerol molecule. Only those fatty acids placed in position P2 are well absorbed since the digestive enzymes which act on lipids (lipases) work better on some positions than others. All of the fatty acids ingested and counted as calories (in our plates) are not necessarily absorbed (and available by our organisms, contrary to what traditional nutritionists say). They might not be digested in the small intestine and might be partially or wholly eliminated by bowel movements. .
In butter, for example, 80% of fatty acids (saturated) are in P2 and so completely absorbable. This also applies to milk fats as well as all non-fermented milk products. In fermented cheese (and matured) fatty acids (even if saturated) are generally placed in P1 and P3 and therefore less absorbable. Additionally, in cheese which is rich en calcium, as is generally the case (notably gruyere cheese), a non-absorbable soapy substance (fatty acids +calcium) is formed and it is also eliminated with bowel movements. We can conclude that the degree of intestinal absorption of fatty acids in milk products is conditioned by their chemical environment (fermentation, calcium). This also conditions the energy which will actually be available for our bodies as well as potentia l cardiovascular risk factors. This physical-pathological mechanism is validated by epidemiological studies which show a correlation between the consumption of nonfermented milk products (milk, butter, cream) and rates of heart illnesses. Comparatively, studies show that countries with similar consumption levels of fermented milk products (cheeses) do not exhibit the same rates of cardiovascular risks. An interesting comparison between the Finnish and the Swiss shows that death rates due to heart failure in Switzerland are half of what they are in Finland for almost identical consumption rates per person. One of the main reasons is that the Swiss, as opposed to the Finnish people, essentially consume milk products in the form of fermented cheese. The comparison between Finland and France is even more edifying. Although the French eat twice as many food products as the Finns, coronary death rates are 2.5 lower in France than in Finland. Diverse factors explain this situation but one of the reasons is that the French basically eat fermented cheeses which are also matured. Cheese maturing expands fatty acids position in P1 and P3 to the loss of P2, thus their low absorption rate. Lipid absorption is conditioned by their fiber content as well Food fibers, basically those that are soluble, condition absorption of ingested fatty acids. This is why eating apples (pectin) and pulses can reduce cholesterol levels. It can also help to prevent weight gain by reducing the number of calories available with regards to the calories ingested. Protein absorption Protein absorption is also conditioned by diverse factors:
Their source Practically 100% of all animal proteins are absorbed by our intestine. They are thus available in our bodies. Vegetable proteins, apart from soy beans, have a lower degree of absorption: - 52% for lentils - 70% for chick peas - 36% for wheat Their composition Proteins are made up of several amino acids. The absence of one or another amino acid can become a restraining factor for adequate use of the others. We can count the calories we consume from a nutritional angle but what we have to consider is that even if they are absorbed, calories might not be operational or they might be available but to diverse degrees. Conclusion: Energetic nutrients once ingested are not, as many people believe, totally absorbed by our intestine. Their degree of absorption depends on the foods physical-chemical make up as well as on its dietary environment. These are important differences which should be kept in mind when attempting to lose weight and more so when trying to reduce cardiovascular risk factors.
Carbs are chosen on the basis of their Glycemic Indexes (GI). Eating low-GI foods helps us to lose weight more rapidly. Fat foods are chosen on the basis of their cardiovascular repercussions. Certain fats contribute to reducing factors tied to the risks of heart illnesses and help us to lose weight. Tests carried out with the Montignac Method prove that its results are noteworthy and long-lasting. Whats more, the Montignac Method helps people to reduce certain factors involved in cardiovascular illnesses. By addressing heart failure risks, which are a predominant problem in our modern societies, the Montignac Method is not simply a way to lose weight; it is a means to keeping healthy while enjoying good food. This is possible thanks to the fact that it is based on sientific principles and premises. The scientific findings on which the Montignac Method is based opens peoples eyes to the perverse foods that have insidiously penetrated contemporary eating habits and, by so doing, helps us all to become aware of our food rights. For further information on the Montignac Method For further information on the Scientific Principles of the Montignac Method
Scientific Principles
Basic principle behind the Montignac Method:
The functional cause for gaining weight is hyperinsulinisme /high blood sugar levels
Hyperinsulinism is the result of an excessive pancreatic secretion of the insulin hormone. Insulin is what lowers blood sugar levels during the course of the metabolic processes following digestion. When we eat carbohydrates / glucidic foods (bread, pte, potatoes, fruit, sugar) they are transformed into glucose. Glucose passes our intestinal wall and goes into our bloodstream. This provokes glycemia peaks; increases in blood sugar levels which on an empty stomach are approximately 1g par liter of blood. Glycemia triggers insulin secretion which is what sends excess glucose into our bloodstream so that it may be stored in our liver and muscular tissue. This reverses glycemia to its original levels. In an individual whose mechanism works in a normal fashion, insulin secretion is proportional to blood sugar levels. The insulin secreted by his body is thus that required to lower glycemia. In some people, however, insulin response is out of proportion with regards to glycemia. This excessive insulin secretion is what is known as hyperinsulinism. For the past 25 years, numerous scientific studies have shown that hyperinsulinismis always tied to excess weight and fortiori to obesity. Medical researcher B. Jeanrenaud has described this process quite well: "In all cases of obseity, regardless of species and mechanism, hyperinsulinism is always present, and this hyperinsulinism is directly proportional to Body Mass Index (BMI) which measures the degree of excess weight." He adds that, "In animals, excess weight can be provoked by injecting insulin. Excess weight is reversed when the treatment is stopped." Excess insulin results in weight gain and, conversely, reduced insulin results in weight loss.
Insulin resistance
A person who occasionally consumes one or more high-GI carbs will secrete the insulin required to lower blood sugar levels. However, when a person has the habit of consuming high-GI carbs, his body generates insulin resistance (also known as low insulin sensibility). Glucose, in effect, despite inusulin secretion, will tend to stay in this person's bloodstream. This condition is known as the insulin resistance syndrome and it is particularly marked in cases of Type II diabetes. What happens is that insulin receptors cease to function adequately and gluco--dependent cell tissues fail to recognize the presence of insulin. High sugar levels settle in as glucose builds up in our bloodstream instead of going into the cells. As a result of this inertia, our organism becomes impatient and orders our pancreas to secrete more insulin, that which only contributes to aggravating hyperinsulinism. This then becomes a vicious circle where hyperinsulinism ensues in insulinoresistance.
If the glycemia peak following a meal is way too high, the corresponding glucose will most probably exceed our bodys needs. The hyperinsulinism provoked by said hyperglycemia will, under the impulse of lipoprotein lipase, convert this residual glucose into fat which will be stored in fat cells. Hyperinsulinism is definitely the functional cause of weight gain! The right question to ask would be what would have become these fatty acids if they had not been stored through lipogenesis. The answer is simple, although surprising: if they had not been activated by lipoproteine lipase (because of insulin), these fatty acids wouls simply have been burned by our organism which, under these circumstances, tends to adjust metabolic performances in an adequate manner.
Slowly-digested sugars (slow sugars)/ Rapidlydigested sugars (fast sugars), a totally mistaken idea
For years carbohydrates have been classified in two categories:
Fast sugars or rapid-absorption carbohydrates Slow sugars or slow-absorption carbohydrates. This distinction was based on what was presumed to be the time taken for our bodies to assimilate these sugars. People believed that glucose, after the carbohydrate had been digested, was absorbed more or less rapidly depending on the complexity of the carbohydrate molecule. Numerous studies carried out during the past 20 years have shown that this classification is absolutely false. It has been proven that it takes our intestine the same lapse of time, approximately half an hour, to absorb glucose regardless of the complexity of its molecule. Fast sugars and slow sugars, a false distinction! As of the distinction between simple sugars and complex sugars, nutritionists were convinced that simple sugars (fruit, honey, powdered
sugar and sugar cubes ), made up of one or two molecules, were rapidly and easily digested. People were, in fact, convinced that, since they required little modification by our intestine, simple sugars were rapidly turned into glucose and quickly absorbed by our intestinal wall to be made available for our blood stream. They thus classified them as rapid-absorption carbohydrates or fast sugars. Comparatively, it was assumed that our digestive enzymes took much longer to transform complex sugars (cereals, pulses, tubers, roots) whose starch molecule is made up of hundreds of glucose molecules into individual glucose molecules. People thought that this took a long time and that the absorption of this glucose was a slow and gradual process. This is why complex sugars were called s low-absorption carbs or slow sugars. This classification was in fact elaborated on purely theoretical bases. Needless to say, it would have been an excellent idea to verify if in fact this theory coincided with what really happened when these nutrients entered our bodies. Decades after dietitians, the press and many others had been sustaining this theory any which way, researchers started wondering at the contradictions and decided to look into the facts. They questioned the assumption that complex sugars long starch chain took longer than simple sugars to be absorbed by our small intestine. In fact, gastric drainage speed, which in effect varied from one carb to another, was being confused with the time lapse required for glucose to show up in our blood stream.
Studies carried out by Wahlqvist show that the time lapses for glycemia peaks to appear are nearly the same for all carbs regardless of whether their molecules are simple or complex. Thus, as can be seen in the above curve, all carbs (regardless of the complexity of their molecules) eaten by themselves and on an empty stomach are absorbed in 25 to 30 minutes. This 5 minute difference is insignificant if we consider total digestion time which is approximately 3 hours. This is why it is important to realize that the time that elapses between the moment that we ingest a carb and the moment the glycemia peak appears (when the maximal glucose is absorbed) is exactly the same for all carbs whether they are simple or complex. This fact, which was discovered in the 1980s, has been the subject of numerous publications and articles. Just to quote some of those published in France, we could mention Doctors Jean-Pierre Ruasse, Dr. Nelly Danan and notably Professor Grard Slama. For the past 10 years, Professor Slama has struggled to share this finding with as many nutritionists and specialists as possible. Through his publications and conferences in nutrition conventions (Notably DIETECOM), he has called on nutritionists and other dietitians to stop using concepts which have no physiological foundation and only serve to confuse the issue. People, however, do not seem to be willing to listen. Nutritionists, the food industry and the Medias still keep on referring to the outdated idea of slow sugars and fast sugars. People in the sports field seem even more bent on continuing to apply this concept, acting blindly upon it. We cannot fail to see how this unscientific approach casts a shadow on the seriousness of the field of nutrition. Many of the people in the field are, in effect, unwilling to revise their approach and adapt to these findings, which they should already have been applying for quite a while now. This reluctance to accept scientific progress is what gives the public the impression that there is a great degree of improvisation in the matter of nutrition. In fact, the opposite is true, scientific knowledge is there for one and all, it is just a matter of putting to use. Conclusion : carbohydrate classification according to the notion of slow / fast sugars is totally misleading. Professor Slama has clearly proven that this distinction does not correspond to physiological reality. For the past 20 years, this notion has been overturned by the concept of Glycemic Indexes which, by measuring carbs potential to increase blood sugar levels, allow people to foresee the possible effects of carb consumption on their metabolism and avoid negative impacts and risks. Michel Montignac was the first nutritionist to apply the concept of Glycemic Indexes for people wanting to lose weight. He did so in the 1980s and it has been one of the basic principles behind the Montignac Method since then and it has widely proven its effectiveness. For further information on the Glycemic Index Concept
Diet 1 (AHA, unrestricted) Kcal Proteins Lipids Carbohydrates Weight Waist size 2798 15% 30% 55% +0.2% +0.3%
What we observe firstly is that the number of calories consumed in Diet 2 (Montignac) is 25% lower than in Diet 1 (AHA), even though, in both diets, participants could eat as much as they liked. This result is all the more surprising and significant, since reduced food intake with the Montignac diet occurred without any particular effort. Professional nutritionists know that such an important reduction in caloric intake is not normally possible except with the aid of diet pills. Most of these, incidentally, have been taken off the market because of their risky side effects. Moreover, the questionnaires filled in by the participants at the end of each trial period, showed clearly they had eaten their fill whilst following the Montignac diet.
Comparatively, the questionnaires completed at the end of Diet 3 (the restrictive version of the AHA diet) clearly indicated that the participants were consistently hungry on this diet.. Some found it so difficult to cope with restrictions on the amount of food they could eat that they even asked to drop out of the tests. This reaction is entirely in form with usual reactions of rejection to low-calorie diets.
Nutritional balance
It is interesting to observe how the nutritional balance of diets 2 and 3 differ from Diet 1. The table below will help us to see this more clearly.
Diet 1 (AHA, unrestricted) Kcal/day Proteins (Kcal) Lipids (Kcal) Carbohydrates (Kcal) Fibre 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00
If we refer to our control diet (Diet 1), we can see that the Montignac Method leads to a spontaneous reduction of 49% with respect to carbohydrate intake and 20% with respect to lipid intake, while protein intake increases by 55%. According to Prof. Dumesnil, this is a potentially interesting dietary adjustment, particularly as the reductions are made at the expense of bad lipids and bad carbohydrates. Moreover, it has never been shown that this sort of increase in protein intake can have any adverse effects.
Graph 1 shows peak blood glucose levels (glycemic peaks) generated by each of the three daily meals. At breakfast time, the three diets induce a pronounced increase in blood sugar levels, though after lunch and dinner blood sugar levels are much lower for those following the Montignac Method. The higher glycemic peak in the morning, even with the Montignac Method, is explained by the fact that breakfast is predominantly a carbohydrate meal. As a result, the glycemic level is higher than with the other two meals. Graph 2 clearly shows that insulin levels generated by the Montignac Method (even after breakfast) are always significantly lower than in the other two diets. Furthermore, at the end of the day, the insulin level is similar to what it was during the Montignac diet. This point is particularly important, as it shows that the metabolic potential of foods matters more than their energy content. This is one of the fundamental principles underlying thee Montignac Method. The results of this study clearly demonstrate that the Glycemic Index is a valid concept for substantially reducing glucose and insulin levels in the blood while, at the same time, helping to ensure an acceptable level of satiety. In this way, it is possible to reduce or prevent hyperinsulinism, which is a risk factor in diabetes, obesity and certain cardiovascular illnesses. The lipid profile Of all the results observed during the course of this study, those obtained in relation to cardiovascular risk factors are certainly the most spectacular. The following tables summarize the effect of the three diets on lipid profile: DIET 1 : The unrestricted American Heart Association diet.
Before Triglycerides Total cholesterol LDL-cholesterol HDL-cholesterol Total cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio 1.77 4.96 3.22 0.92 5.42
A 10% reduction in HDL-cholesterol (good cholesterol) levels A 9% reduction in the ratio of total cholesterol/HDL-cholesterol A 28% increase in triglycerides. All the above changes are negative and are, in fact, the reverse of the intended result. We can therefore only conclude that this diet aggravates cardiovascular risk factors. At the same time, we should not forget that this diet is paradoxically, the one that is recommended by the most influential American authorities in matters relating to the prevention of cardiovascular disease. It is also the same diet that is prescribed most frequently to patients having a cardiac illness or showing signs of hypercholesterolemia. DIET 2 : The Montignac Method
Before Triglycerides Total cholesterol LDL-cholesterol HDL-cholesterol Total cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio 2.00 5.25 3.41 0.93 5.71
Before Triglycerides Total cholesterol LDL-cholesterol HDL-cholesterol Total cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio 1.76 5.01 3.24 0.96 5.26
Other measurements
Insulin Insulin levels on an empty stomach and at the time of an induced hyperglycemia, was measured at the end of each dietary period. A very significant reduction in these parameters was noted at the end of the Montignac diet, whereas there was no noticeable effect with the other two diets. According to Prof. Dumesnil, these results indicate a reduction in hyperinsulinism and in insulin resistance after following the Montignac diet. This evidence is are all the more astonishing as it was observed after only six days. It therefore helps to corroborate the view, according to which insulin resistance (which lies at the heart of diabetes type II) undoubtedly has a nutritional origin. The size of LDL molecules In fact this parameter is already considered a fully-fledged, cardiovascular risk factor. Small size is seen as aggravating the risk factor and vice-versa. After following the Montignac diet, it was noticed that the size of dense LDL molecules, had increased significantly, whereas no change was noted when following the other two diets.
According to Dumesnil, such a rapid, positive change had never been recorded before just by altering our diet. In this context, it should be remembered that J.P. Despres (who participated in this study) described a particularly lethal metabolic triad that multiplies the risk of a coronary accident by a factor of 20. It is particularly frequent in the case of men suffering with abdominal obesity and it is associated with:
hyperinsulinism an increase in apolipoprotein B (which transport LDL-cholesterol) an increase in the level of small, dense molecules of LDL-cholesterol. Unfortunately, this lipid profile is fairly frequent. However, according to Prof. Dumesnil, the Montignac Method is particularly promising in these cases, all the more so as this type of patient often responds less well to dietary treatment and traditional medication.
Conclusion
This study confirms the suspicion that official nutritional advice built on theoretical models, is not based on facts and much less on results.. In certain cases, as we have seen, these results even run counter to what is intended. This study shows moreover, that the Montignac Method with its stress on the metabolic potential of food (and particularly the Glycemic Index of carbohydrates), makes it possible to effect positive changes on various metabolic parameters within a very brief period of time (6 days). These positive changes include:
spontaneous caloric reduction while eating ones fill reduction of girth and weight reduction of glycemia and insulin during the course of the day reduction of insulin levels while fasting and during an induced hyperglycaemia reduction in total cholesterol level improvement in the ratio of total cholesterol over HDL-cholesterol spectacular reduction of 35% in the level of triglycerides increase in the size of dense LDL-cholesterol molecules. And in consequence: a reduction in hyperinsulinism and in insulin resistance. This is why Prof. Dumesnil sustains that the Montignac Method allows us to lose weight effectively, without feeling hungry all the time (this is what makes it possible for a person to stay slim, to enjoy its long-lasting results), but moreover gives us a powerful means to prevent and even reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes type II. Naturally, even if the results of this study are promising, as a sound researcher, Prof. Dumesnil has decided to undertake a new study to verify the long term validity of his findings. In one of his presentations, he concluded with these words: In this context, we must also recall the results of Prof. W alter Willett at Harvard University. Through his large-scale epidemiological studies (the Nurses Health Study, of 75,000 nurses over a period of 10 years, and the Health Professionals Study, involving more than 43,000 men), he has been able to demonstrate clearly that there is a direct relationship between the glycemic content of food and the risk of coronary disease and incidence of diabetes type II. The results of this first study are therefore an important epidemiological confirmation of the premises underlying the Glycemic Index and the usefulness of GIs in promoting healthy eating habits. These studies are also indirect evidence that in all probability, insulin resistance and diabetes type II have a nutritional cause. The next stage is therefore to see how the concept of Glycemic Indexes can now be used on a long-term therapeutic basis. (*)" Effect of a low-glycemic index low fat high protein diet on the atherogenic metabolic risk profile of abdominally obese men", Jean G. Dumesnil, British Journal of Nutrition (2001), 86, 557-568 . Nov. 2001
daily recommended energy intake. In spite of a 6% reduction in calorie intake, the average weight of the people surveyed had increased by 30% during the period studied. Another study, the ASPCC (3), carried out on a representative sample of French people and published in 1997, proves that peop les calorie intake is actually fairly low. The study shows that people consume fewer calories than the daily nutritional amounts recommended by nutritionists. Professor Creff had already reported similar findings when he published statistics on the medical check-ups of obese people in the hospital where he worked, the Hospital Saint-Michel in Paris. He had in fact observed that over 50% of the people who are obese eat very little. Several studies carried out on children (4 and 5 years old) reached the same conclusion: weight gain does not depend on caloric intake. This is particularly noticeable among the Russians where 56% of the women over 30 are obese and they do not consume more than 1500 calories a day for a daily workload which normally demands enormous energy expenditure. Statistics highlight the prevalence of obesity among farmers, artisans and factory workers. This is particularly surprising considering that these professions demand more physical effort than others. How can we still believe official nutritional recommendations which tell us that one of the mayor causes of obesity is the lack of physical exercise?
Prof. W.Willett, one of the most eminent epidemiologists in the US, has been one of the few people to have had the courage to denounce the immense damage caused by low-cal recommendations. (8) In his opinion, these recommendations made by nutritionists are not even worth the paper theyre written on. He stated that These recommendations have even contributed to spreading obesity.
Scientific references:
(1) Adrian F. Heini Divergent trends in obesity and fat intake patterns : The American Paradox. The American Journal of Med icine 1997. (2) Hercberg S. & coll. Result of a list of a pilot study of the SUVIMAX project. Rev. Epidemiol. Sant Publique 1995 ; 43 : 139-146 (3) Rigaud D., Giachetti I., Deheeger M., Borys JM., Volatier J.L., Lemoine A., Cassuto D.A., (1997) Enqute Franaise de co nsommation alimentaire I. Energie et macronutriments. (ASPCC) Cahiers Nutrition & Dittique, 32, 379-389 (4) Bellisle F. Obesity and food intake in children : evidence for a role of metabolic and /or behavorial daily rythms Appetite 1988, 11, 111-118 (5) Rolland-Cachera MF., Bellisle F. No correlation between adiposity and food intake : why are working class children fatter ? Am.J.Clin.Nutr., 1986, 44, 779-787 Rolland-Cachera MF., Deheeger M. Adiposity and food intake in young children : the environmental challenge to individual susceptibility Br.Med.J. 1988, 296, 1037-1038 (6) Brownell KD. The effects of repeated cycles of weight loss and regain in rats Phy.Behaviour 1986, 38, 459 -464
(7) Louis-Sylvestre L. poids accordon : de plus en plus difficile perdre Le Gnraliste, 1989 ; 1087 ; 18-20 (8) Science & Avenir (fvrier 1999) (9) Bellisle F, Rolland-Cachera MF, Deheeger M et Guilloud-Bataille M. Obesity and food intake in children : evidence for a role a metabolic and/or behavorial daily rhythms (Appetite, 1988, 11 : 111-118) (10) Armstrong S, Shahbaz C and Singer G. Inclusion of meal-reversal in a behavior modification program for obesity (Appetite, 1981, 2 : 1 5). (11) Halberg F. Protection by timing treatment according to bodily rhythms. An analogy to protection by scrubbing before surgery. (Chronobiologia, suppl. 1, 23-68, 1974).
Michel Montignac
Michel Montignac, like his father, suffered from excess weight during his youth. After studying Political Science and specializing in the Social Sciences, he went on to become an international executive for the pharmaceutical industry. At the end of the 1970s he decided to start researching in the field of nutrition with the aim of overcoming his own weight problems. On the basis of the scientific documents available to him because of his work, Michel Montignac designed the principles of an original method for losing weight and became the first person to have had the idea of using the Glycemic Index Concept(practically unknown at the time) to lose weight. He first tested the innovative nutritional principles on himself and rid himself of over 30 pounds in less than three months. This is how he proved that it is possible to lose weight without depriving ourselves of calories, simply by making the right choices. In 1986 he wrote his first book: Dine Out and Lose Weight. This book is basically geared at businessmen who, like himself at the time, have a professional obligation to eat out frequently. Published on his own account, the book rapidly became a bestseller in France, where 550 000 copies were sold. This astonishing success encouraged Montignac to put together a specialized scientific team and delve deeper into his scientific inquiries. At the end of 1987, he published his famous book Eat Yourself Slim and Stay Slim! a laymans version of the Montignac Method. This book is such a great success that it is sold in many countries and has broken sales records in its field with over 16 million copies sold by the end of 2004. Michel Montignac, who was soon recognized as an eminent researcher in the field of nutrition, decided to dedicate himself completely to his scientific endeavors and to publishing his findings. In 2010, Michel Montignac died of prostrate cancer at the age of 65. He is survived by his wife, Suzy; their children Joseph and Peter; and by three children from his first mariage, Charles, Emeric and Sybille. The world has lost a visionary, but the Montignac Method lives on. His spirit will forever be part of the company he founded, Nutrimont, which intends to build on his inspirational Method to continue helping people maintain weight loss for a lifetime. For further information on Michel Montignacs books For further information on the Montignac Method
Egypt
There are numerous figurative and written sources on Ancient Egypt which acquaint us with its agricultural and eating habits. These sources testify that, throughout all of its history, Egyptians disposed of a wide variety of food choices. Egyptian agriculture was complemented by livestock breeding. Of all of the animals man chose to breed, the pig was probably the most common food favorite. Cows and sheep were also an essential part of Egyptians diet. The Egyptians, however, had a marked preference for poultry (geese, ducks, quail, pigeons, pelicans) They planted and harvested large amounts of cereals in the fertile Nile basin and also produced vegetables (onions, leeks, lettuces, garlic) and pulses (chick-peas, lentils) Considering the diversity of these resources, we could say that Egyptians diet was varied and well -balanced. The problem however was that supplies were not at all regular and depended on the Niles variations.
Furthermore, as in the following civilizations, eating habits varied from one region of Egypt to another but, above all, from one social class to another. The rich and privileged, like in the Middle Ages and Modern Times, enjoyed a much more abundant and rich diet. The poorer sectors of society had to do with cereals, vegetables and pulses. From what we know today on the basis of highly developed modern research methods, the Egyptians apparently were not always as healthy as one would imagine, at least not those who only had access to a diet solely based on cereal (carbohydrates). Many of the papyrus and mommies analyzed give proof to the fact that life expectancy was well under 30 years of age, that the Egypt ians teeth were often decayed and that they suffered from arthrosclerosis, heart disease and even obesity. A special hall in the Cairo Museum gives evidence to this fact. This exhibit is dedicated to a series of obese statues which testify to Egyptians c orpulence, at least in the case of certain ethnic groups. This contrasts with the impression given by most hieroglyphs.
Greece
In the Greek world, cereals supplied 80% of peoples nutritional fuel. This food preference, more than a geographic and econo mic choice, was the result of policies ensuing from a particular ideology. The Greeks were convinced that they were a civilized people. Contrary to barbarians, who limited themselves to picking wild fruit and vegetables, hunting and living off of what nature offered them freely, the Greeks had the feeling that by farming they determined their own eating habits and thus improved the human condition. For the Greeks, meat was contemptible since it did not involve an active effort. The only thing man had to do to eat meat was to set the animals out to pasture on lands which he did not toil. Hunting was considered a servile activity, a sign of poverty and the result of a precarious situation and, as such, undignified for a civilized man. It was the lot of populations who had no other choice; it was a marginal activity which went against the principles of the world of the Cit, the pillar of the Hellenic World. Certain types of food wheat bread, wine, olive oil and, to a certain degree, cheese were the mark of civilized mans status. Noble food was that which was not naturally available but required, in one way or another, some type of man-made process. Mans claim to civilization was the domestication and transformation of nature by processing what he ate. Nevertheless, whatever the philosophers of the time might have thought, daily reality in Ancient Greece did not exactly fit their ideals. The ideal dietary model of the times did not contemplate the diverse vegetable soups and stone ground cereal pottage or dried vegetables which were common peoples daily bread. This is not to say that, for the population at large (excepting carnivorous soldiers in the Hellenic tradition who drew their Herculean strength from animal meat), meat was still a luxury and practically taboo since it was reserved for sacrificial rituals. Lambs were mainly bred for their wool and milk from which cheese was made. Bovines were scarce and only used as pack animals and to be milked. Fish (and even shellfish) was, on the other hand, widely consumed even if it was not the product of human processing. The fact that fishing was a sophisticated act and not precisely an easy chore might have served to justify the fact that it was not classified as unfit for civilized men. Fish, however, might also have escaped the restrictive nutritional ideology of the times out of pragmatism. Not only was fish abundant, it was also a traditional Mediterranean dish. Thus, although generalizations are always hard to put into perspective, one could say that the Greeks did not consume enormous amounts of proteins. To the point that one could even speculate that this deprivation among a large part of the population might have been at the root of several health problems. This might explain why it was precisely Greece that gave birth to modern medicine under the guidance of Hippocrates.
Rome
In Rome, meat played a much more significant role. The Romans are the recipients of an Italic tradition of pork breeding which they inherited from the Etruscans. Even if meat does not play a central role in their eating habits, meat is what supplies most of the animal protein that they consume. Nevertheless, the Romans food symbol is, like that of the Greeks, bread (wheat), particularly for the Roman soldier. The emb lematic foodstuff for the Soldier of the Legion is in effect wheat bread which he accompanied with olives, onions, figs and oil. Bread for the Roman Soldier was important to the point that protested when he was served meat. This vegetarian diet, which is nonetheless fortifying, is what made these men heavyset and stout; and this is not a legend. It is to be noted that Roman soldiers were expected to respond, endure and resist. Their strength (inertia) is due to their ability to stay still and withstand under enemy attack. When the Roman army needed mobile, alert and fast combatants, it sought them out among its barbarian allies. Joining the Roman Legion was an honor for roman peasants. It implied social freedom and allowed them to become a full-pledged citizen. Wheat bread, a noble food, is the only food up to the standards of this prestigious status. The fact is that the Roman of the people ate very small amounts of wheat. Apart for pork, poultry and cheese, and occasionally fish, his diet was basically made up of vegetables (mainly diverse stone ground cereals.) Wheat farming is a sign of a certain economic status, the privilege of the upper classes. However, wheat is not solely for the privileged sectors of society, it is also the food which helps the authorities to tie the people over when famine strikes. Paradoxically, even though this is food for the rich, wheat is distributed to the poor during periods of scarcity. As a conclusion, one could say that the Romans eating habits were a bit more balanced than the Greeks due to the diets higher protein content. Only the soldiers had a truly deprived diet. It might not be so farfetched to wonder (even if historians and analysts have not braved this correlation) if the Roman soldiers deficient diet might have had somet hing to do with the fall of the Roman Empire.
The Romans, when colonizing the Mediterranean and European regions which were inhabited by people which they considered barbarians, systematically passed on their ideology and customs to the peoples conquered. They probably met the most resistance when attempting to impose their foods and eating habits. The Roman and Mediterranean civilizations were totally opposed in this sense. On the one hand, there was the meat, milk and butter civilization and on the other, we can observe a bread, wine and oil civilization. The agricultural and the city myth fiercely confronted the forest and village myth. The antagonism between these opposing eating habits reached a peak towards the 4th and 5th century when the balance of power turned to the benefit of the barbarians. Whatever, even after the fall of the Roman Empire, the Roman model left its mark on the peoples of its former colonies. The main vector for this integration was no other than Christianity, the true inheritor of the Roman world and its traditions whose alimentary symbols were familiar: bread, wine and oil. As soon as the Churches and monasteries were built, clergymen turned to plant wheat fields and vineyards in the surrounding areas. Rather than talking of the conversion of the barbarians to Roman ideology, it would be more suitable to speak of a symbiosis of two cultures. Integration of Roman ideology did not really threaten barbarian traditions; one could say it even strengthened them. Hunting, pasture animal breeding, river and lake fishing, picking fruit and vegetables were elevated to the rank of noble activities on equal footing with agriculture and cultivating grapes for wine. Forestry was common and a noteworthy social practice. While vineyards were measured in wine barrels, crops in bushels of wheat, and fields in hay stacks, forests were, comparatively, measured by the number of pigs (whose ancestor is the wild boar), an exchange unit dear to the Celtic Civilization and still in vogue in the Germanic world. The agro-sylvo-pastoral system supplied these populations with a very wide variety of foods. Animal protein was particularly important (meat, poultry, fish, eggs, milk products.) Secondary cereals (barley, einkorn, millet, sorghum , rye) which were much more common than wheat were often accompanied by pulses (beans, string beans, peas and chick-peas). Vegetable gardens were tax exempt and supplied an important ingredient for preparing the soups commonly used to cook the meat. The fact that animal and vegetable resources were complementary ingredients, assured the European peoples of the High Middle Ages a balanced diet. Numerous studies on the human remains which have been discovered from this period indicate that people were apparently quite healthy. Their physiological development and growth indexes appear normal. Their bones seem in good shape and there seems to be very few deformities. Their teeth are basically healthy and not worn down. When they are worn down or rotten, its a sign that their diet is basically made up of stone ground cereals. Everything indicates that, as opposed to the succeeding centuries, the High Middle Ages was not plagued with illnesses from deprivation nor malnutrition. This diversified alimentary production model of the times operated under stable demographic conditions, that which contributed to keeping periods of food shortages from reaching catastrophic proportions. Although not a time of plenty, the High Middle Ages was not as sordid and obscure as some would have us believe. As concerns the food available, both at a qualitative and quantitative level this period was basically satisfying, anyway more so than those that followed.
Modern Times
This period is marked by several events which continue to further modifying these populations eati ng habits.
Firstly, the urban phenomenon which continues to promote market economies. Cities draw more and more people. But what is more significant are the rates of population growth which, in view of insufficient scientific progress to increase production levels, bring about dramatic structural changes in food production and supplies. Europe has approximately 90 million inhabitants by the 14th century. It grows at a 10% rate and by the 17th century it has 125 million inhabitants. During the 17th century there is a population leap and by 1750, there are approximately 150 million Europeans and almost 200 million at the beginning of the 18th century. This unprecedented population growth is at the heart of a renewed practice of deforestation. As in the past, the lands devoted to cultivating cereals were expanded to the loss of the amount of land vowed to cattle farming, hunting and crop picking. As a result of increased farming activities, grains became the central ingredient in peoples diet and this reduced the variety of the foods and the amount of proteins consumed. People began to eat less and less meat, particularly in the cities where, as we noted above, meat eating had managed to survive during the preceding period. In Naples, for example, during the 16th century approximately 30,000 bovines were sacrificed per year for a population of 200 000 people. Two centuries later, only 20,000 were killed for a population of 400,000 inhabitants. In Berlin, in the 19th century the ratio of meat consumed per inhabitant was twelve times lower than in the 14th century. In the Languedoc, at the end of the 16th century, most women only bred one pig per year, at the beginning of the century they bred three pigs. These reductions in the amount of food people consumed naturally varied from country to country and from one region to another. Reduced animal protein intake, nonetheless, left its mark and repercussions on peoples health. Numerous statistics point to the fact that this even affected peoples size. Throughout the 18th century, the soldiers enlisted by the Hapsburgs as well as Swedish recruits, seem to have been on the average shorter. In England, and particularly in London, towards the 18th century, teenagers were apparently shorter than their ancestors. Germans, at the beginning of the 19th century, seem to have lost some inches in comparison to the average size of the 14th and 15th century German generations.Furthermore, the more dependant people became on cereals, the more peoples health and mortal ity rates suffered as a result of the cereal crises due to bad harvests. Several authors quote examples of the prosperous Beaucerons who, in times of severe cereal crises, sought refuge with the poor of Sologne whose more archaic, and thus more varied, food production allowed them to resist these crises. Likewise, mountain people escaped shortages insofar as their varied diets always combined agricultural, livestock, hunting and fishing products. This is why mountaineers, who ate a wide variety of foods, were bigger and stronger than most. The fact that they were healthier explains why they were much more active and enterprising than the rest. Another factor at the root of the degradation of peasants diets was the transformation of the rural landholding system whe reby farmlands gradually passed to the hands of the rich (gentry and bourgeoisie) In Ile-de-France during the mid 16th century, only one third of the land still belonged to the peasantry. A century later, there were even less small landowners. In Bourgogne, in certain villages, small landowners had practically disappeared after the Thirty-Year War. Peasants whose lands were particularly fertile and close to the cities were the first to be dispossessed. The servility imposed on the peasantry together with the hardship of their work, noticeably aggravated their living conditions; even if this allowed for the surplus production which was sold and exported to the more economically advanced countries. One of the main concerns of the times, at least in France, was maintaining constant food supplies. Although, traditionally, municipal authorities were in charge of keeping up food supplies, the central government constantly feared the risk of popular rioting should there be bread shortages. This is why the King decided to stock grains to cover periods of shortage. This regulatory policy, however, was often seen as an attempt at monopolizing wheat for speculative purposes, to raise prices. At the end of the 18th century, as the situation started to become more and more critical, public officials became increasingly aware of the bread issue (the problem of depending on wheat as the sole crop) and they sought the means of diversifying food crops. Parmentier suggested growing potatoes but, since Europeans had viewed potatoes as pig feed ever since this plant was first brought to Europe in the 16th century, his proposal was not well received. It was not until the 19th century that potatoes were fully integrated into peoples eating habits. Other means of diversifying food supplies are even less successful. In Italy and the South-West of France, corn cakes were used as substitutes for barley and millet flat cakes and pottages. The problem with corn cakes was that they did not supply Vitamin PP and communities whose diets were based on corn were prone to suffer pellagra epidemics. A good number of foods were also brought from the New World (tomatoes, Mexican beans, turkey) however, considering the lengt h of time it took for these foods to be adopted into peoples eating habits and agricultural practices, it is impossible to say that they drastically changed Europes nutritional landscape. Apart from potatoes, which in countries such as Ireland became the basis of Irish peoples diet (incurring the same risks as with wheat in case of shortages), there are two other phenomena which deserve special attention due to their significant future impact on contemporary health issues. There is first and foremost the introduction of sugar into the general populations eating habits. Su gar was not something new but, while it was still produced from sugar cane, it remained an expensive and thus marginal ingredient. The French, at the beginning of the 19th century, consumed approximately 1.6 pounds of sugar per person. Thanks to the development of the process of extracting sugar from beets in 1812, sugar prices began to fall and sugar gradually became a popular food item (16 lbs a year per person in 1880, 34 lbs in 1900, 60 lbs in 1930 and 80 lbs in 1960). Even so, the French still consumed less sugar than the rest of the Western World. The second phenomenon is the invention of the cylinder mill in 1870 which makes white flour available to one and all at reasonable prices. Since the time of the Egyptians, man has not ceased to seek the means to refine (sift) wheat varieties in order to produce white flour. At the time, wheat was coarsely sifted, the milling was simply passed through a strainer. This basically served to remove part of the bran which covered the wheat grains. Our ancestors whole bread was then no other than what is known today as hovis brown bread, in other words, semi-whole grain bread. This sifting operation was long and costly, (done manually) making this bread a luxury available only to the privileged few who could afford it.
The invention of the cylinder mill at the end of the 19th century and its widespread use at the beginning of the 20th century radically changed the nature of flour. Its nutritional content was dramatically reduced to the point of becoming nothing more than starch. Precious proteins, fibers, essential fatty acids and other vitamin Bs were almost totally eliminated in the process. The fact that flour suddenly began to be disregarded at a nutritional level, did not really constitute a mayor health problem for the richer sectors since they could compensate with an otherwise varied and balanced diet. For the underprivileged classes, however, for whom flour remained the basis of their diet, eating flour which had suddenly been deprived of all nutritional value could only tend to aggravate a diet which was already sorely lacking and unbalanced. Apart from lacking nutritional values, sugar and white flour like potatoes have the sad privilege of the negative effects they produce on our bodies (hyperglycemia, high blood sugar) which, as we know, are the highest risk factors of obesity, diabetes and heart disease.
* Foodstuffs metabolic potential is its qualitative value at a nutritional level. Traditional dietetic was content to speak of, for example, fats or carbohydrates in general. Nowadays, we know that we have to distinguish between the different foods in each of the categories. Some fats have the potential to generate heart problems (they can, for example, raise cholesterol levels) while other fats are potentially positive. This is the case of olive oil which reduces cardiovascular risk factors. Likewise, we now have to distinguish carbs by their Glycemic Indexes (GIs.) Foodstuffs with high GIs (sugar, potatoes, refined flour) are potentially negative since they can cause us to gain weight or to suffer form diabetes.
(1) Food: A Culinary History, Jean-Louis Flandrin & Massimo Montanari [Columbia University Press:New York] 1999 / Histoire de l'alimentation, Editions Fayard, 1996. Top of page
These past 10 000 years (a short time span when compared to the whole of human history, but long when seen from the perspective of one mans lifetime) have undoubtedly allowed the human metabolism to gradually adapt to the corresponding dietary changes and to generate the specialized system of enzymes required to assimilate new foods. However, it would be unwarranted to consider these changes in mans alimentary landscape as the emergence of a radically diff erent style of nutrition. These changes are basically a process of evolution from primitive lifestyles, more than a true mutation. This means that all of these new foodstuffs were perfectly compatible with prehistoric mans metabolism. This was above all t rue in the case of the new carbohydrates (cereals, pulses, dry beans, vegetables) whose GIs were particularly low and which, like roots and berries for primitive men, were rich in fiber. For 18 centuries from the beginning of the Christian era to times of the French Revolution apart from a few exotic plants imported from the New W orld and tasted by a very small number of people, no new foodstuffs came to revolutionize Europeans eating habits. Even if we consider the distinctions from one social class to another, the nutritional quality of the food eaten in Europe did not really vary for millions of years. True, the rich, who were a minority, did eat large amounts of meat products and, after millions of years of eating mainly proteins and lipids, the metabolic genetic legacy bequeathed to them by their primitive ancestors had prepar ed them for this unbalanced diet.
Why then are poor people nowadays fatter than the rich?
Why is it that in the industrialized countries (and this is particularly true in the US), the poorer the person is the fatter he tends to be? This is paradoxical and even more so if we consider the fact that, in most countries, poor people are called upon to do those jobs which demand greater physical effort and that, despite this, they do not tend to be thin. The answer is simple. Poor people nowadays tend to be heavier than people who are well-off simply because they eat differently. Obviously, since they lack the means, they cannot eat greater quantities of food than the rich. The difference lies not in the amount of food they consume but in the nutritional quality of what they eat. Poor people tend to eat a lot of carbs, particularly those which are cheaper: white bread, potatoes, rice, sugar These carbs, as we know, are those that tend to provoke higher blood sugar levels and generate the highest risks of hyperinsulinism. To top this off, the saturated fats or "trans" fats that they normally eat (the cheapest in the market) are also those which are more easily stored by our bodies as fatty tissue.
The poorer the person is in the US the more he tends to eat out at any fast food (because it is cheap) and the more he drinks Coca-Cola or an equivalent sugary drink. This is how people become obese through hyperinsulinism. Comparatively, people who are better off economically tend to eat less fast foods and to shop in luxury food stores, namely, organic or health stores. Those people who have a better education and are more informed adopt the more healthy eating habits of French traditional cuisine, of the Japanese and, above all, Mediterranean cooking. As a result, these people stay slim or, at the least, do not gain excess weight. Accordingly, the better off a person is in the US, the less that person incurs the risk of gaining excess weight and, fortiori, of becoming obese!
outcome remained fairly low (approximately 50). The corresponding insulinic response (even if higher than what it had been before adding potatoes) was still low enough so as to not provoke hyperinsulinism. Sugar The first thing housewives do when there is a major national or international crisis (the long French transport strike, the Gulf War) which might threaten regular food supplies is to go food shopping for the basics just in case. Generally, the first thing they buy is white sugar (saccharide) and this is definitely a wrong choice on two counts. Firstly, because sugar is not food in itself since it does not supply our bodies with anything whatsoever, apart from empty calories as admitted and denounced by nutritionists. Secondly, since sugar does not serve any particular purpose, humans have neither need nor reason to eat sugar. Whats more, the less sugar we eat, the better off we are. Sugar is so useless that humanity did without it for 99.9% of the millions of years of its existence. Honey, as mentioned previously, was a luxury reserved for the rich and privileged. Even if Alexander the Great came upon the sugar cane in 325 B.C., sugar was practically unknown in the Western world up until the 16th century. It was occasionally, if exceptionally, eaten as a delicacy at a time when it was rare and expensive. In fact, sugar was basically sold by Apothecaries (former pharmacists). The discovery of the New World brought sugar closer to Europe, namely in the Antillean Islands. At the time, refining and shipping costs were still high enough to make sugar a luxury product reserved for people who were well off. On the eve of the French Revolution, in 1780, sugar consumption was less than 2 lbs per inhabitant. In 1812, the discovery that sugar could be extracted from beets, gradually made sugar cheaper and available to one and all. In France, consumption rates since the beginning of the 19th century are as follows: 1800 = less that 2 lbs a year per inhabitant (approx. 1.2 lbs) 1880 = 16 lbs a year per person 1900 = 34 lbs a year per person 1930 = 60 lbs a year per person 1965 = 80 lbs a year per person 1990 = 70 lbs a year per person 2004 = 78 lbs a year per person It is alarming to observe that, even in countries like France where the average consumption is lower than in other Western countries (GB: 98 lbs, Germany : 104 lbs, US: 112 lbs) (*), people eat over 50 times more sugar than at the beginning of the 19th century (100 times more in the US.) The problem is that sugar has a high (70) Glycemic Index* and it can cause hyperglycemia and an excessive stimulation of the pancreas insulinic processes.
A Time Bomb
It is necessary for us to become aware of the fact that at the beginning of the 19th century man first massively introduced (after seven million of years on Earth) new foods which are affecting his metabolism in perverse manners. So as to better understand the problem, lets suppose that suddenly in January 1820 a representative sample group of Western people of the times are given sugar, potatoes and white flour in the same proportions as we carelessly consume them nowadays (50 to 100 times more sugar, for example) or in the same forms as they are consumed today (in products with a high potential to raise blood sugar levels such as ultra refined flours, French fries...), there would surely be an hecatomb (at a pathological level) by December 31 of the same year and it would be extremely conspicuous since the cause of the effect would be there for all to see. Undoubtedly, Health Officials of the time would most probably have taken the necessary measures to ban the production, sale and consumption of these highly harmful products. However, since these perverse products have only gradually (and progressively depending on the different social classes) become part of our diet, their metabolic repercussions have only been detected years later. How could we have known a century later in 1930, when obesity was just becoming a health concern in the US, that this was the result of a very gradual and imperceptible process which had begun in homeopathic doses at the beginning of the previous century? If Mauriacs Thrse Desqueyroux had given her husband a large glass of cyanide when she decided to get rid of him, he would have died instantly. The poison hypothesis would have been proven almost at once and the assassin unmasked. However, the lady poisoned her husband with very small doses of cyanide over a long period of time; just enough to make him persistently sick with an illness whose symptoms were totally unfamiliar to the doctors of the times. It was the perfect crime since the cause/effect was never established. The scenario here is basically the same. At a different scale but the process is similar to what has led to the obesity pandemic. What is even more astonishing is that, precisely at a time when we have identified the symptoms of an unknown evil (obesity), the food factors at the root of high blood sugar are paradoxically being further developed and reinforced.
For over 7 million years, the pancreas of primitive man, prehistoric man, the man of the Middle Ages, the Renaissance Man, and the man of the Industrial Revolution worked at a slow pace. Their pancreas had no need to learn to produce enormous amounts of insulin because there was no such thing as food with a high potential to produce hypoglycemia. The human pancreas is in fact the outcome of what it actually needs in order to work together with the record of how it has worked for millions of years and this is what constitutes our metabolic legacy. Just like it is impossible to stay awake for three days in a row because our organism cannot stand it, it is impossible to over stimulate our pancreas insulinic function without harming our bodies. Excessive weight gaining is thus a symptom of a metabolic abnormality produced by a way of eating which unsuitable, and to which the organism has not yet adapted at a genetic level. We can now see how the impact of the slow and insidious changes in the foodstuffs and eating habits in the Western world since the beginning of the 19th century (and more so during the past 50 years) is at the root of the endemic obesity which afflicts our times. However, what is more troubling and can blur our comprehension is that not all human populations react similarly to perverse modern eating habits. This is what we would like to help elucidate through the Metabolic Atavism Theory. (*) In Europe, common sugar (white) is saccharide extracted from beets and sugar cane. Saccharide is a disaccharide with a molecule which is 60% glucose (IG=100) and 40% fructose (IG=20). This is why it has a Glycemic Index of 70. In the US, most of the sugar consumed and above all the sugar used by the food industry is made from corn. This sugar is also a disaccharide but its molecule is basically made up of glucose (high fructose corn). Its Glycemic Index is around 90. Thus, Americans not only consume more sugar than the rest of the world, but the sugar they consume happens to have a GI which is 30% higher than that of European sugar.
while for these illnesses to develop simply because Europeans, due to the similarities between European and US eating habits, have progressively (for the past 2 centuries) prepared their organisms for a certain metabolic deviation. Asian people, comparatively, are not quite as prepared as Europeans for the pancreatic stimulation provoked by US foods. Traditional Chinese, Japanese, Indian and Eskimo eating styles contrast noticeably with US eating habits which have a much higher potential to raise blood sugar levels. The difference here is not one of degrees but in the nature of the food itself. When these peoples arrive in the US and are faced with US foods, their metabolism might react (much like our little Chinese girl in Quebec) by rejecting the unfamiliar foods or it might, as unfortunately often occurs, go berserk after a while of eating foods for which its organism is not prepared. Once we are aware of this, we can understand a certain number of things like for example why affect African-Americans suffer three times more obesity and diabetes problems than whites in the US. If we look at films like Gone with the Wind we will notice that by the time of the Civil War, just one or two generations after being brought to America, Scarlet OHaras slaves were already portrayed as being overweight. Similarly, the great majority of people in the US who are extremely overweight (400 pounds, 600 pounds or more) are on the whole individuals with non-European ethnic roots: Amerindians, Eskimos, Haitians whose metabolisms have been forced to assimilate in a very short time what normally takes an organism hundreds of years to learn and which, as a result, have literally imploded. When the Conquerors reached the New World the alcohol they brought wreaked havoc on the Indian populations. While a European could drink a whole bottle of Vodka and still function, an Indian with just one glass of vodka could easily fall into an ethylic comma. An average Russian nowadays, for example, can drink a liter of Vodka and still manage to think and do what he has to do. Common sense would probably explain this by saying that Russians are used to drinking, well this is also happens to be the scientific explanation for the diverging reactions. If American Indians not only got drunk but were often quite sick after drinking small doses of alcohol, it was most probably because they were not used to drinking but mainly because their metabolism was not equipped with the specialized system of enzymes required to decompose alcohol. As a result, alcohol was pure poison for their organism. Russians, for example, have a millennium-long tradition of high alcohol consumption and have thus developed the corresponding metabolic responses in the form of enzymes which can decompose quantities of alcohol way above the doses tolerated by the average European, who also has a 6 to 8000 year-old alcohol tradition (alcoholic metabolic atavism). We might wonder at the fact that European women cannot tolerate as much alcohol as European men (twice as much as women). The scientific explanation behind this is that they are not equipped with the same amount of enzymes; in their case they have 50% less alcohol-degrading enzymes than European men. This difference is also explained by the fact that women have not been drinking alcohol as long as men have. In Antique Civilizations, notably during Roman times, women were not allowed to drink alcohol. In more recent history, women only began drinking during the Versailles era in the 17th century and they basically only drank champagne. Modern-day womens enzymatic deficit is thus the result of the female metabolic atavism which is itself the outcome of the way women have consumed alcohol throughout history. If Indians and Aboriginals cannot drink even a small glass of alcohol without the risk of getting very drunk, this is, like we said, because this foodstuff is incompatible with their metabolism. If this is so, why should he have to put up with a hyperglycemic diet when his metabolism, that of his ancestors, has never had to respond to (learnt to cope with) these extreme demands? We should not be surprised when he develops severe pathologies as a result. Public Health Officials in industrial societies, as well a nutritionists, would do well to try to put the available information to better use instead of faithfully waiting for the pharmaceutical industry to develop a miraculous pill. Why are we looking for answers in the wrong places when we basically have all of the information we need to point people in the right direction? In 1962, researcher J.V. Neel, developed and interesting theory on the thrifty genotype. According to this theory, primitive man, considering the numerous shortages endured by his ancestors, should necessarily have become genetically prepared for when food was abundant. Neel holds that the thrifty genotype was what allowed the people who developed it to build fats rapidly when they had the chance to eat and to withstand times of famine. Todays primitive communities could well be the descendants of those survivors. They would be naturally equipped with the famous thrifty genotype which had saved their ancestors lives, and which condemned them to illness and death now when they ate normally. In order to prove this theory, in 1971 a study was carried out in Tribal Communities in the US. The number of calories in a traditional Indian diet was compared to the amount of calories in the average Americans diet. The idea, acco rding to official scientific hypotheses, was to prove that the thrifty genotype only functioned when passing from a poor diet (low in calories) to a high calorie diet. To their surprise, they found that both diets contained more or less the same amount of calories. In the mid 1980s, a team of agricultural technicians made up of young Pima Indians from Arizona heard about Glycemic Indexes. They found out that several interesting experiments had been carried out in Australia which, as reported in a scientific journal, had reversed diabetes and obesity among Aboriginals by lowering the glycemic incidence of their meals thanks to a return to their low-GI traditional diet. They soon understood that the difference between modern American food and their traditional foods was basically a matter of nutritional value. In particular, the amount of soluble fibers contained in desert plants (like ancestral corn) which served to store water after the short rainy seasons or even morning dew. These fibers are precisely what make for low Glycemic Indexes in certain foods. Aboriginals rapidly grasped the close tie that exist between spectacular increases in obesity and diabetes (50 to 80% of them suffered these ailments) since they had abandoned their traditional diets for pale faces dietary habits rich in sugars and refined cereals with high GIs and almost totally lacking in fibers. Average American dietary habits were sure to throw the Indians insulin secretion mecha nism totally off course particularly since it had never had any demands made on it by secular Aboriginal eating habits with a low glycemic potential. In 1991, a first test was successfully carried out at the Phoenix Indian Hospital with 22 healthy Indian volunteers who followed two diets in a row, both with the same amount of calories. First the Pimas dietary habits of the 1870s and secondly, the Circle K (this is the name of Arizonas most popular food store) diet: low on fibers, rich in refined flours and lots of sugar and saturated fats. The resu lt was edifying. Doctor Swinburn, who directed this study, was able to show that American food with its high potential for raising blood sugar levels was, in view of the Pimas metabolic atavism, the determining factor behind obesity and diabetes in their tribe and that by going back to their traditional dietary habits (amounting to the same calories) the Pimas could reverse these two pathologies.
Certain specialists might not want to bother with what we have to say. They might think that it has all been known before. The question is, if this is so, why is it that experts have not shared this knowledge so that people can act on it. Years back when people finally became aware of the fact that smoking was a health hazard for both smokers and non-smokers and that it caused cancer, Health Authorities developed information and education campaigns and today there are less and less cigarette smokers. Twenty-five years ago, when people in the States realized that the US population had reached a suicidal rate of heart illnesses, Health Authorities took the bull by the horns and promoted prevention ads. Regardless of the fact that these ads could have been much more informative, the positive results show that when people are given the basic knowledge, they act accordingly. Even if there is still a long way to go to before people act in knowledge, the first steps have already been taken. As concerns obesity and diabetes two of Americas ills of the times there are still no coherent and effective public campaign proposals and this is only logical if we consider the fact that Americans have not yet identified that the determining factor behind these ailments is a dietary model with a high potential to provoke hyperglycemia. When we see the pressure which can be exerted by the agro-food industry on the highly-respectable FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and how, in 1986, the FDA forgot that sugar was harmful, we can assume that the US will still have to wait quite a while for the direly needed prevention campaigns in this field. The time when Americans, and the rest of the world with them, will be publicly informed on the health risks of eating at Mac Donalds (or similar fast food places) and drinking Coke are apparently still but the dream of knowledgeable nutritionists and health experts. The real problem nowadays regarding what we eat and which concerns us all is globalization. We need to be prepared so that we might cope. On the eve of the French Revolution, and several centuries later, eating habits in Europe were the result of the coming together of different cultures. Europeans had diversified their diets without losing the nutritional quality of their dietary mode and European eating habits were still not of the type to provoke glycemia. Unfortunately, this does not hold true nowadays. At a nutritional level, globalization has brought with it eating habits and foods with a high potential to raise blood sugar levels and the repercussions are becoming more and more obvious worldwide. The WHO (World Health Organization) speaks of an international epidemic, and rightly so, since this health hazard (junk food) is affecting the world at large. The only way to avoid the ensuing illnesses is by reverting this tendency through knowledge and prevention, beginning with ourselves, our children and the people around us. We must start to adjust our eating habits to the admirable mechanism which has been bequeathed to us by our ancestors: our metabolic atavism.
In addition, one should know that aging may be also responsible for acid folic exhaustion which may explain a slowdown of the brain functioning. We can find folic acid in many foods but in variable quantities. The food which conceals the highest quantity of folic acid is Foie Gras. Its content is 15 times higher than meat, fish, dry legumes and whole wheat bread.
The Beneficial Effects Of Dark Chocolate On Your Heart And On Weight Loss
By Michel Montignac The KUNA are a native tribe of Indians who live in the San Blas Archipelago off Panama's north shore. Researchers had long been intrigued by the extremely low rate of cardiovascular disease among the Kuna people. In 1997, an epidemiological study (1) put forth the hypothesis that the extremely low cardiovascular death rate observed among the Kuna Indians was linked to the large amount of cocoa they consumed. A recent scientific study (2) has confirmed this correlation and presented the underlying scientific explanation. A team of Italian scientists tested 15 healthy adults over a two-week period to compare the metabolic effects of consuming a daily 100g of polyphenols-rich dark chocolate with those resulting from consuming white chocolate which lacks polyphenols. The results were particularly enlightening insofar as they showed that only dark chocolate prevents arteriosclerosis, lowers high-blood pressure and above all reduces resistance to insulin. Increased responsiveness to insulin is, as we well know, one of the factors which contribute to losing weight. Cocoa-rich dark chocolate with its very low Glycemic Index is thus once more proven to be a truly healthy part of any diet.
(1) Hollenberg NK. Hypertension in the Kuna of Panama Hypertension 1997, 29:171-6 (2) Grassi D. Short-term administration of dark chocolate is followed by significant increase in insulin sensitivity and a decrease in blood pressure in healthy persons Am. J. Nat. 2005, 81:611-4
Those who oppose this view point out that humans only started drinking animal milk 8 000 years ago and that, paradoxically, our bone structure seems to be in worse shape than that of our Palaeolithic ancestors. In 2002, the World Health Organization (WHO) even pointed to the fact that the countries which consumed the most milk (principally Finland) held the world record for femur bone fractures. These countries also have to cope with infant diabetes epidemics (Type 1). We can also see, comparatively, that Asian countries (Japan, China) which historically had never drank milk have begun to present the same pathologies since they started adopting Western eating habits. What is even more serious is the fact that in recent years hundreds of studies have shown the ties between consuming milk products and male prostrate cancer and female genital cancer. A wide-scope Swedish epidemiological study published in 2004 (1) involving 60 000 cases has further confirmed these findings. Another study explains why milk products can cause cancer. Since industrial milk cows are bred to calve every year, they produce milk with levels of estrogen which are critical enough to put women at high risk of breast, ovary and uterus cancer. It is also important to note, as I have taken care to highlight in all my publications, that milk and un-drained fresh milk products are fattening. Several studies have in fact shown that, despite their low Glycemic Indexes, milk products trigger high insulin responses. A complementary study published in 2004 (3) confirms that milk and milk products affect insulin levels. It further shows that milk serum is in fact the true cause of this effect; a hypothesis which I had formulated some years ago and which has now received scientific validation. (1) Larson S. Milk and lactose intakes and ovarian cancer risk in the Swedish Mammography Cohort American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, November 2004; 80:1353-57. (2) Ganmaa D. The possible role of female sex hormones in milk from pregnant cows in the develo pment of breast, ovarian and corpus uteri cancers Medical Hypotheses, August 2005, 65(6):1028-37; Elsevier. (3) Nilsson M. Glycemia and insulinemia in healthy subjects after lactose-equivalent meals of milk and other food proteins: the role of plasma amino acids and incretins American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, November 2004 ; 80:1246-53
They reduce the amount of energy we burn up; They increase fat tissue by stimulating insulin secretion; They increase our appetite; They make us thirsty that which might make us seek to quench out thirst with sugary drinks; They increase water retention ; They alter our taste buds and might thus make us to want to eat more. Some medications can even bring about a combination of several of these weight-gaining mechanisms. Hormone treatments (estrogen-progestin therapy) Increase our appetite and cause water retention. In high doses, estrogens and progesterone can, by way of higher blood sugar levels, even induce increases in body-fat mass. Corticoids (cortisone) Increase our appetite and induce overly high levels of insulin in our blood (hyperinsulinism) which cause our bodies to store fat. The probability of gaining weight is even greater in the case of long-term treatments. Migraine pills Cause weight gain in 70% of the patients who take them. Cancer treatments Some chemotherapy or hormone therapy protocols used to treat breast cancer are the reason why most of these patients gain weight. High-blood pressure (hypertension), namely beta blockers Are generally prescribed to prevent heart failure, reduce high blood pressure and tackle migraine headaches. They can cause weight gain since they lower food thermogenesis (burning of fat) by inhibiting sympathetic tonus. In some cases, they also increase water retention. Antibiotics Are widely used in industrial livestock breeding to fatten cattle; they increase livestock weight gain by 10%. They have exactly the same effect on the human body and become an even greater weight risk factor when taken for extended periods. Psychotropics Used to treat nervous disorders, these drugs act on that area of our brain (the hypothalamus) which controls our appetite and regulates body weight. Likewise, some anti-depressants, neuroleptics, tranquilizers and tricyclic antidepressants, also increase our appetite, lead to snaking and furthermore stimulate insulin secretion. Lithium, which is used to treat behavior disorders such as maniac psychotic depression, interferes with normal thyroid functions thus making us gain weight. Antidiabetes medications Sulfa hypoglycemic medications almost systematically cause weight gain (approximately 10 pounds during the first 3 to 12 months). This weight gain chiefly affects body-fat mass and is basically due to the insulin-secretion stimulation effect and, collaterally, to excessive water retention. Conclusion: It is, to say the least, paradoxical that those medications prescribed for the treatment of certain pathologies such as hypertension and diabetes should, by causing weight gain, end up aggravating the risk factors already developed by this diseases. This is precisely why doctors should take this weight-gaining factor into account when prescribing medication for these illnesses. It is important to note that not all medications which fall into the same therapeutic category necessarily have the same side effects.
Quinoa
By Michel Montignac Totally unknown in the West up until the 1990s, quinoa is now to be found in all organic and natural food stores. It is an essential ingredient of the Montignac Method thanks to its extremely low Glycemic Index. Quinoa is inaccurately classified as a cereal. Even if at a nutritional level it resembles cereals, quinoa has the advantage that it does not contain gluten. Quinoa in fact belongs to the leafy vegetable family (like spinach) and both its grains and leaves are edible.
This plant comes to us from South America. History tells that it was the Incas staple diet. They called it The Mother Grain. It was traditionally cultivated through terrace farming in the Andean region in Bolivia, Peru and Colombia. Currently, other Latin American countries also cultivate quinoa. At a dietary level, quinoa is exceptionally nutritious:
100 g of raw quinoa supplies : Proteins Lipids Carbohydrates Fibers Minerals and humidity 15 g 6g 69 g 6g 4g Calcium Iron Potassium Phosphorus Zinc Magnesium Thiamine Riboflavin 60 mg 9 mg 740 mg 410 mg 3.3 mg 210 mg 0.2 mg 0.4 mg
There is only one variety of quinoa which can possibly be eaten as is in grain form or which can be ground into flour. Quinoa can be served to accompany a meat or fish dish. It can serve as a substitute for rice in meals when following the protein-lipid diet in phase I. It is a particularly good choice as an entre either on its own or in taboul substituting for semolina. I can also be served in a tossed or mixed salad. It is always advisable to rinse the quinoa prior to cooking so as to eliminate possible residues of saponin, a natural insecticide which coats the grain protecting it from preying birds and insects. Cook the quinoa in two 2 cups of water per cup of quinoa for approximately 10 minutes. Quinoa can also be browned in a spoonful of olive oil for 4 to 5 minutes before boiling. Exclusive food stores sell ready-made quinoa dishes, quinoa flakes and quinoa flour foodstuff such as pasta as well as quinoa sprouts. Quinoa has existed for centuries (5000 B.C.) Considering its exceptional nutritious value, as well as its beneficially low Glycemic Index, it can well be considered one of the foods of the future.
High fiber content in All Bran does not slow down glucose passage, contrary to what nutritionists sustain. The lapse of time required for glucose to pass into our bloodstream is the same for high and low IG carbohydrates. Comparatively, Corn Flakes increase blood sugar levels twice as much as All Bran. This study also shows that, after the corresponding insulinic responses, the glycemia curve in each case goes back to its initial stage after 180 minutes. The food industry (with the complicity of certain nutritionists) pretends that a low-IG cereal diffuses glucose slowly and gradually, in approximately 4 hours. This is an outright lie which plays on peoples good faith and robs them of their right to knowledgeably choose what they eat.
(*) "Different glycemic indexs of breakfast cereals are not due to glucose entry into blood but to glucose removal by tissue" Schenk S. Am. J Clin Nutr. 2003; 78: 742-8
(*) " Breastfeeding and obesity : cross sectional study " Von Kries R. British Medical Journal, 1999; 319.
Childhood predictors of adult obesity: systematic review Parsons T.J. Ints.J.Obes.Relat.Metab.disord., 1999, 23 (suppl.8) Epidemic of obesity in UK children Reilly J.J. Lancet, 1999,354. Breastfeeding may help prevent childhood overweight Dietz W.H. Jama, 2001, 285. Breastfeeding and lowering the risk of childhood obesity Armstrong J. Lancet,2002,359.
Success stories
Rodica (Canada) - 6 kg in a month Hi, my name is Rodica Grecu, I came in Canada from an EST Europe country, after coming I gained 40 kg in 8 years !! I was trying everything, I could afforded to buy pills, shakes, but never, I could not believe that without starvation I can lose weights. Two months ago I had 108 KG !!! I was feeling like half dead person, I could not worked like before, I was getting high blood sugar, high blood pressure everythinghigh cholesterol.. I lost 6 Kg in a month !! , what do I want to say, thank you for your hard work, you are a real dietician, and a REAL DOCTOR, who care for people !! Good luck and God bless you forever, you made me alive again.
F. Lafond - 86 kg
F. Lafond lost 86 kg Je soussign, F. Lafond, certifie avoir maigri de 86 kilos grce la mthode Montignac entre septembre 2002 et aot 2004 et m'tre maintenu ce poids depuis. Pralablement,outre mon obsit (160 Kg), je souffrais de diabte, de cholestrol et d'hypertension pour lesquelles les mdecins m'avaient prescrit des mdicaments appropris. Ces pathologies ayant disparu avec le suivi de la mthode Montignac et la perte de poids, j'ai pu cesser depuis la prise de ces mdicaments. Mon tmoignage ainsi que les photos (avant et aprs) sont la preuve des rsultats exceptionnels obtenus en suivant les principes de la mthode Montignac.
Ramona - 80 kg
Ramona (Germany) - 80 kg in 18 months Hello, i am sory but my english is not very good. Also, I lost 80 kg weigtht in 18 month with MontignacIve you are interested, I would say you something about my opinion. I feel very very good with my new bodywight. With best regards
Irna - 44 kg
Irina (Ukraine) lost 44 kg Text translated from Russian to English
Good evening! I apologize for what I write in Russian. I live in Ukraine, Feodosiya. I want to express my deep gratitude for your method of losing weight. This diet helps me to lose weight twice. The first time I I read your book "especially for women" in 1999. I recovered after the birth of my daughter in 1997- weighed 115kg, for an height of 158 cm. After reading your method I lost 50 kg in 16 months. The second time I weighted 137kg after the birth of two more children. In September 2008 keeping your method, to date, I have has lost 44kg, my weight is 93kg. Thank you very much!
A. Chirila - 38 kg
A. (Romania) lost 38 kg Hello, Following our correspondence I shall try to tell you my story. I hope it will be useful for somebody. I decided to change my lifestyle on 8th January 2007, when I was reading about Montignac method on a romanian site www.idieta.ro . I was diagnosticated with hipothiroidism. I have started with 113 kilos. My evolution was something like this: 19.01- 107 kg ; 01.02- 103 kg; 01.03 - 98 kg.; 02.04 -94 kg.; 01.05-91 kg; 01.06.-86 kg; 01.07-82 kg.; 01.08- 77kg; 17.08-75 kg. Since that time , my weight changed (+ or - ) with 1 kg. On 18.08.I have started the second phase, being very careful of my weight. Before I started to keep the diet, I had bought the book and I had read it for 3 times to be sure I understand everything. I respected everything was written there very carefully and I had not any deviation. The Montignac' s recipes , the site www.Montignac.com and the site www.idieta.ro -phorum helped me very much. I used to have glucidic breakfasts - sometimes 2 lipidic breakfasts/ week- and 2-3 glucidic dinners in a week. I have given up coffee, although I had drunk 4-8 cups of coffee in a day before. For 3 weeks I have given up smoking, too. I have never practished any sport in this time.Recently, I have seen my doctor and he said I am very healthy.And, because he is a little fat and he admired my evolution, I have made him a present: M. Montignac' book. I gifted my fat friends the book, too. And I send some in Canada, to my friends. If you want to know something about me... My name is Anca Chirila.I live in Galati, Romania. I am 42 years old. I am an engineer and I work as a sales manager. I am 1.72 m. tall. And I look as a normal woman now ( if you need photos before and after send me a mail). I am very proud of this weight lost and I thank you very much again. Yours sincerely, A. Chirila
Luiza - 37 kg
Luiza (Romania) - 37 kg in 5 months Hello to all of you looking for results.After reading M. Montignac book I was looking as well on this page and I saw Ramona from Germany and other romanians and I started the diet (I dont think its a diet but a way of life) thinking to my self that if they could I can too and my promise to me was that when I would be slim and healthy as well I would be on the same page with the winners on Montignac website. Here I am now I am a winner also.I started in may with 107 kg at 1.78 and I was obese,now after six months I weight 70 kg,I am normoponderal,I wear fancy,nice clothes ,I walk proud of my sefl on the street ,but I have 3 more kg to loose and I will in the next month because that was my goal 67 kg and I want to respect that and I want it all because I can have it all.I am proud not only with my results but with my family and friends too. Thank you Michel Montignac for all the books you had written and thank you for giving me back my body and my dignity.To all of you trying to decide what to do to loose weight I say to not think about very much and start by reading Montignac books.I tried it all and I got an ulcer and a big hole in my budget.With Montignac diet I got healthier and I can make economy because you only adjust his knowledges in your every day life and my ulcer is gone. Good luck to everybody ! Luiza (Romania)
Nardello - 30 kg
March 2012 - Nardello (Belgium) - 30 kg in 4 months Bonjour Madame, Monsieur, Je m'apelle NARDELLO VINCENZO, en dcembre 2005 je pesais 88 kg, et avait 66gamma gt, et j'ai acheter votre livre aprs l'avoir lu et suivi vos recettes, j'ai perdu 30 kg en 4 mois et mes gamma gt sont a 15, maintenant je me sens mieux dans ma peaux,je respire mieux je n'ai plus d'asthme leger, j'ai aussi moins mal au dos (lumbagho chronique). Mon diabte type 2 est stabilis et que je fais moins de crise d'hypoglicmie et en plus je fais 30 minutes de vlo d'appartement tout les jours depuis 2008. et je stabilise en suivant votre mthode. MERCI A VOUS.
Marina - 23 kg
Marina (Germany) - May 2012 Height: 174 cm Starting weight: 96 kg Actual Weight: 73 kg My brother had lost very successful with the Montignac Method and sports. In about 10 Months he lost 83 kilos. He brought me to the idea. I am paraplegic and bound to the wheelchair. I need to watch my body line very much - gain fast, through lack of exercise. I succeeded to lower my German size 44 to size 38/40, actually it shall be more. Marina
Valentin - 23 kg
Valentin (Canada) - 23 kg in 4 months Hi Michel, My story starts in 2006, with my weight at my highest of 93 kg (205 lbs). Wed just had emigrated from Romania to Canada and I was starting to gain weight by every month (by the way, your article Metabolic Atavism Theory was quite good and interestin g!). I was 35 years old with a height of 1,78 m and I just wanted to do something about my ever-growing weight. I didnt follow any diet before and I was careless about what, when and how I ate and drink. A friend of mine recommended Michel Montignac, saying that its good but though and I dont know if you can follow it too much time. I am following it 6 days and 1 day I ignore it. I was curios and I went to the website. Ive printed everything off and started to read. And then I applied everything in my day-to-day life. In addition to my new diet Ive incorporated more exercise too, with 2-3 times a week going to the gym at the beginning and after my second son was born (couple of months later) only once a week. Now I now that if you want to lose weight only through the caloric theory its insane and has a rate of failure of 95% (only 1 lbs of fat = 3000 calories!). Watching you diet is much more important and effective at weight loss then exercising. I ate only foods from Low and Medium GI food table. Only a couple of times I remember trespassing to High GI. Ive stopped eating sugar and salt in all their forms that you can find them in foods. Ive stopped eating high processed foods. Ive been reading all the labels from the food I was buying since them and I dont intend to change this habit ever. Ive stopped drinking beer from every other day to once a week lets say at most and switched to red wine. More vegetables an d fruit were incorporated in my new lifestyle. Ive switched the accent from a lot of meat with some side dish to a main course of vegetables and some meat on the side (if any at all). More fish, poultry and meat organs were included in my meals and less beef and almost none pork. Ive relearned to chew more the food, knowing now the importance of the mastication. I am now a slow-eater to the, sometimes, despair of my wife! I dont think and I dont care of calories, knowing now that the theory has flaws and Michel explained it very well on the we bsite. I think now in terms of natural, less processed possible, organic, high fiber, no-salt-sugar, high water content of my food. I indulge only in dark chocolate with >70% cocoa. And this is what MM has been trying to tell us for years now, this is the essence of his method, if you are asking me. Ive s tudied after this Food Combining and applied the essence of it to MM method. I went even further and studied physiology and nutrition, and the relationship between diet, nutrition and health, buying and reading many books and articles connected to this field. And the results were spectacular. Ive lost 23 kg (50 lbs) in 3-4 months. I feel and look great now at 70 kg. All my health challenges cleared up in months. I was suffering with stomachaches, bloating, flatulence, constipation and the whole array of digestive problems that comes along with an unhealthy diet and lifestyle. I didnt even have a cold in these past two years. I am a health -conscious person now, eating healthy and keeping active as much as I can. I am like in MM method Phase 2 for the rest of my life. I want to add at the end here that I am not perfect and didnt become a health freak as many tend to become. I will have some foods with which I am not used to and harsh drinks in some social events, because there are times when you cant just avoi d it and there are no choices in sight. But those are the exceptions and not the norm, and as long as you keep them this way, good health will result and will be preserved. (and a normal waistline!). Now I know that losing weight shouldnt be a goal in its elf, and that only a healthy lifestyle can get you to a slim body and in a good state of health. And that we have health in direct proportion with the degree of commitment toward a healthy diet and lifestyle. And it all started with Michel Montignac. Thank you for this from the bottom of my heart. Valentin Cremanaru
Visnja - 21 kg
Visnja (Russia) - 21 kg in 5 months Hi Michel, my english is not so great so I hope you all will understand me.! My story starts 31.january this year, with my weight at my highest of 90 kg. I am 26 years old with a height of 1,65 m and I just wanted to do something about my ever-growing weight, becouse my wedding it's coming so soon, and I wont to look the best ofcours. Before 5 years I also have too much kg, 83 but I lose some, and I get to 65, but not on montignac method, but...in 2 years I have all back, and much more.
Than I heard about your diet and I want to try it! Now, 5 month later I lose 21 kg,now I have 69 kg., and I feel great in my body, and what's inportant in this 5 month I was not hungry even for a one day! My goal is again to have 65 or less if it's possible, but I have all the hope in the world with your method!!! With best regards Visnja!!!
Norbert - 20 kg
Norbert (Germany) - 20 kg Text translated from German to English
Hello, I want to tell you the story about my weight reduction success. In 1999 I weighed 93 kilos with a height of 1.72 meters. I always practiced sports and fitness. Nevertheless I gained weight maybe age-related. I tried Low Fat and Low Carb Diets but without any real success. In 2002 I bought the Montignac Bible. What I liked the best at once was, that the calorie theory is wrong. This statement was to be the crucial factor. I have baked my own whole meal bread (whole kernel grinded) and paid strongly attention to the GI. At the beginning I lost slowly, because I am a very good eater. My wife lost faster than me. Because I cooked myself (after MM), week after week the pounds tumbled off. I have lost 20 kilos in that time. Today I weigh 75 kilo, and I am holding stable since 10 years. My wife weighs 62 kg by a height of 1.62 m with the same success. I am 69 years old today and my wife is 59 years. With best regards Norbert Landgraf
Sophie - 20 kg
February 2012 - Sophie (Canada) - 20 kg Text translated from Fench to English Hello, I am 45 years old. I measure 5'6 "(1.69 m). Approaching the menopause, I thought it would be difficult to lose weight after. I was scared when I saw I was nearing 200 lbs (90kg)! Following Canada's Food Guide did not help me lose weight. I was always hungry and I felt weak - even sleepy. I was out of breath climbing the stairs of the house. I could not walk down the street without having to slow the pace to catch my breath. I felt so big and was ashamed of my appearance. I ate a lot to try to give me energy, but the opposite was happening to me. I was sweating at the slightest effort - so no question of exercise! So I decided to change my diet by following the Montignac Method. In the first week, I felt less bloated. I was not out of breath climbing the stairs! I was able to start taking more rapid steps. Within months I lost 45 lbs (20kg). I went from 190 lbs to 145 lbs (86kg to 66kg). I allowed myself a few discrepancies during the holidays and for my birthday, and I was surprised to have still lost a pound! I still have at least 20 lbs to lose (9kg). I went from obesity to overweight, and now I'm feeling healthy in my weight. Now I can tie my boots without losing my breath! It feels good!! I am proud of the work I did, and I am very grateful for the advice of the Montignac Method. I forgot to mention that I have not changed the portions of my meals, but only their contents. My relatives were amazed to see me eat as much and still lose weight! So I could lose weight without starving! Sophie (Canada) Please do not hesitate to send us your story using the link: temoignage@montignac.com
Eric - 20 kg
Eric (France) lost 20 kg
En 2003, je pesais 98 kilos pour 1.76 m. Je devais me prparer pour entrer l'cole officiers et il fallait absolument que je perde du poids pour suivre le rythme des preuves physiques. Grce Montignac, et un exercice physique rgulier, je suis parvenu revenir 78 kilos, poids que je faisait 25 ans (j'en avais 37). Par la suite, repris par le rythme de la vie professionnelle, et la nourriture du mess officiers, j'ai repris mon poids, soit 98 kilos. En fvrier 2007, j'ai dcid de reprendre de bons principes alimentaires et de me replonger dans la lecture de la mthode et toutes les infos annexes. En partant en vacances dbut aot j'avais atteint le poids de 86 kilos. En rentrant de Provence (rgion idale pour suivre les principes de la mthode) je ne pesais plus que 83 kilos (malgr l'obligation de grer deux ou trois excs au restaurant, ce sont les vacances quand mme). Aujourd'hui 41 ans, je suis en pleine forme, je continue perdre du poids. Mais ce qui enthousiasme le plus, c'est la vitalit que je retrouve, le plaisir de manger sans culpabilit. J'ajoute que le fait de limiter les apports en aliments fort indice glycmique a eu pour effet de faire disparatre mes cphales, rgulires le lendemain d'un bon repas. Depuis peu j'ai repris l'entranement en salle de sport et je suis surpris de la rapidit avec laquelle ma masse musculaire se restructure, preuve s'il en est qu'il ne s'agit pas uniquement d'amaigrissement mais d'assainissement de l'alimentation. Il est dommage que la rencontre avec Montignac ne se fait que dans le cas d'une volont de perdre du poids. Les personnes qui ne sont pas encore proccupes par leur poids, passent ct d'une alimentation riche en qualit et en saveurs. A la maison, tout le monde en profite, mme si j'tais le seul avoir des soucis de surcharge pondrale. Ma femme, malgr trois enfants est tonne d'avoir retrouver une taille de gupe, et 40 ans elle porte de nouveau une taille 36. Je ne vous parlerai pas du galbe de ses jambes ou de la sportivit de sa silhouette. Seul regret, les produits ncessaires l'laboration d'une alimentation saine sont souvent trs chers (parce que souvent de premire qualit et non additionns de substances masquant la pitre qualit nutritive). Cela devrait tre rembours par la scu ! A quand des cours de dittique Montignac dans les coles (pour nos ados). Cela les aiderait se sentir bien dans leur corps et donc bien dans la tte (mens sane in corpore sano). Merci vous de ne pas avoir tenu vos principes pour vous-mme et de les avoir diffuss largement. Eric V.A.
Rodica - 6 kg in a month
Hi, my name is Rodica Grecu, I came in Canada from an EST Europe country, after coming I gained 40 kg in 8 years !! I was trying everything, I could afforded to buy pills, shakes, but never, I could not believe that without starvation I can lose weights. Two months ago I had 108 KG !!! I was feeling like half dead person, I could not worked like before, I was getting high blood sugar, high blood pressure everythinghigh cholesterol.. I lost 6 Kg in a month !! , what do I want to say, thank you for your hard work, you are a real dietician, and a REAL DOCTOR, who care for people !! Good luck and God bless you forever, you made me alive again.
N'hsitez pas nous envoyer vos tmoignages cette adresse email directement: temoignage@montignac.com
Cathy - 6 kg
February 2012 - Cathy (France) - 6 kg in 3 months Hello, Ive known the Montignac Method for 17 years. I put in practice after the birth of my daughter. I had gained only 13 kg (28 lbs) during this pregnancy but I still wanted to lose the 2 to 3 remaining kilos (5 to 6 pounds). In two months it was all good! I measure 1.74 m (5' 7") for 60 kg - 132 lbs (59 kg - 130 lbs in summer) and have been for years. Recently, at age 46 I gained 6 kg - 13 lbs (65 kg 143 lbs on the scale). I felt very uncomfortable and bloated. So I naturally resumed Montignac. I bought the book to refresh my memory. I lost my 6 kg 13 lbs in 3 months, calmly while eating the same amount as usual (I love eating). Since then, I continue the method while allowing myself a few discrepancies, especially in the winter. This method is so simple that you wonder why everyone does not apply it spontaneously! Cathy.
Daniel - 5 kg
Daniel (France) 5 kg in 15 days Cher Monsieur Montignac, Je vous considre comme le Messie de la dittique moderne, parce que vous avez dcouvert une mthode simple et logique qui repose sur une ralit scientifique. Son efficacit est indiscutable, j'ai dj perdu 5 kgs en 15 jours; soyez remerci du fond du coeur parce que vous avez apport la lumire dans un domaine ou l'obscurantisme fait les choux gras des charlatans sans scrupules que vous avez dmasqus. Certes, vous n'tes pas mdecin, mais Louis Pasteur ne l'tait pas non plus et pourtant c'tait un grand savant, et comme lui vous tes mes yeux un bienfaiteur de l'humanit. Votre mthode devrait tre enseigne dans les coles et mme rembourse par la scurit sociale.
Rgine - 4 kg
March 2012 - Rgine (France) - 4 kg J'ai 63 ans et je fais du montignac depuis 28 ans et aujourd'hui je ne peux plus me passer de cette mthode. J'ai perdu un kilo par an ( j'avais 4 kilos en trop). En fait j'tais devenue trs maigre et pour pallier cela j'ai continue la mthode mais en faisant des repas plus importants en protine. (midi et soir). Et j'ai stabilis mon poids ce que je voulais et je ne bouge plus. C'est une mthode qui vous maintient en forme et trs dynamique. Et de plus on peut manger de bonnes choses. Je signale que je ne suis jamais malade mme pas un nez qui coule. Je mesure 1m65 et pse 42 kilos. ( je signale que je prens 16 heures mes 3 carrs de chocolat noir). Merci montignac, je me sens bien. Rgine
Nathalie - 4 kg
Nathalie B. J'ai commenc la mthode depuis 2.5 semaines et dj 4 kg de perdus ! pour moi, cela relve du rve que je croyais inaccessible. je me suis toujours battue contre mes kg en trop et depuis 1.5 an environ j'avais repris le programme qu'un nutritionniste m'avais prescrit il y a une dizaine d'anne et j'ai perdu 17 kg. Seulement, depuis nol dernier j'avais repris 4 kg en sachant qu'il me restait encore 8 kg perdre pour atteindre mon objectif de 60 kg pour 1.62 m - 38 ans. Depuis 6 mois malgr la reprise du vlo d'appartement quotidiennement (effort suprme pour moi) et ce programme de nutritionniste, je ne perdais plus rien ! Rsultat : profonde dception et caractre amer.... Mais, voil que depuis 18 jours environ, j'ai perdu 4 kg ! le REVE ! et tout cela sans aucune difficult (je vous le jure !). Rien de plus encourageant que de voir le poids qui s'affiche sur la balance, diminuer trs rgulirement ! Aprs tous ces longs mois de privation et de dception, je revis nouveau. Je suis pleine d'espoir et commence mme envisager ma silhouette en maillot de bain... Nathalie B.
Glycemic Indexes
The Glycemic Index concept
Glycemic Index is an innovative criterion for classifying carbohydrates. It allows us to identify this food category so that we can choose our food wisely with the aim of preventing weight gain and losing weight. For further information on the Glycemic Index concept
Search for food and products GIs* *Enhance your search results: use the singular separate words to increase the number of results, type few words or letters ("bea" will give results such as "black beans", "garbanzo beans", "mung beans", etc.)
What is glycemia?
Glycemia refers to blood sugar levels, namely, the amount of sugar (glucose) in ones blood. In the case of a person fasting, for example, blood sugar levels are approximately 1 g of glucose per liter of blood. Digestion transforms carbohydrates into glucose and by so doing raises blood sugar levels. Blood sugar levels are critical to losing or gaining weight. Once weve digested our food, the blood sugar that is produced makes our bodies secrete insulin. Insulin is a hormone which, depending on the amount secreted, might or might not cause us to gain weight.
In order to design the GI scale, Jenkins arbitrarily assigned a value of 100 to glucose (much like we arbitrarily opted for the 0 centigrade measurement). The 100 figure also corresponds to when our bodies totally (100%) assimilate the sugar consumed.
The index value of a pure carbohydrate is estimated by using standard portions and measuring them as follows: the area of the triangle of the carb being tested is divided by the area of the glucose triangle and the result is then multiplied by the 100 value.
Area of the triangle of the tested carb Area of the glucose triangle
x 100
Glycemic Indexes measure how a carb affects our blood sugar levels, namely, its potential for releasing a certain amount of sugar into our blood after each meal. We could say that GIs actually measure a carbs biodisposition or intestinal absorption rate. For further information on intestinal absorption physiology If a carbs sugar level index is high (as in the case of potatoes), the corresponding carbs absorption rate will provoke hig h blood sugar levels. Comparatively, carbs with low Glycemic Indexes (for example lentils) are digested at rates that generate low, or practically meaningless, glycemic response. For example, when measured by the 100 glucose value standard, the GI for fries is 95 whereas green lentils have a 25 GI. Nonetheless, it is important to note that carbohydrates GIs are not fixed. They can vary depending on a number of factors. A cereals GI, for instance, depends on the variety of cereal consumed and on its botanic origin. For fruit, GIs vary depending on how ripe the fruit is, on how it was processed, on its degree of hydration, and so on. For further information on the factors which modify Glycemic Indexes
The first type refers to traditionalists who refuse to evolve with recent scientific findings. Traditionalists either ignore or refuse to accept GIs and their significance. They continue to ignorantly speak of carbohydrates in terms of fast and slow sugars. There are many of these out there, particularly dietitians who work with sportsmen or, even worse, those who write press articles on the subject. These traditionalists contribute by means of their ignorance to perpetuating a misguided notion regarding the essentials of nutrition. The second type refers to people who, either out of their incomprehension or sheer ignorance, can be considered hypocrites, They have admitted the more avant-garde classification of carbs by Glycemic Indexes but have not wholly grasped the GI concept and continue to confusedly speak of GIs together with the outdated fast and slow sugar classification. For them, the GI notion is only relevant in measuring a carbs absorption speed. From this perspective, the full carb content of food would always be transformed into sugar (glucose). In this respect, the food with a low Glycemic Index would take longer to absorb and that, while the ensuing glycemia is lower, it would then tend to last longer. Seen from this angle, the sole purpose of Glycemic Indexes would be to measure the time span of glucose intestinal absorption processes. This approach is totally mistaken since it goes against the facts of how our bodies really work. In effect, the opposite is true. All of the tests carried out on GIs, particularly those done by Jenkins, prove that what low GIs indicate is that less quantities of glucose have been absorbed as opposed to the time span for the absorption of equal quantities of glucose. This misguided notion regarding GIs is, unfortunately, widespread among a scientific community that awkwardly preaches it any which way. In his book Brain Dieting ( La dittique du cerveau ), published by Odile Jacob in April 2003, Professor Jean-Marie Bourre, member of the French Medical Academy, states clearly that GIs measure the speed at which sugar is absorbed. This happens to be a totally false assumption. In conclusion, we can only regret medical professionals failure to take into account Glycemic Indexes and their usefulness in regulating insulin secretion, a crucial element to gaining weight and diabetes. Further information on the Glycemic Indexes Table
GI LOW
Foie gras*** Alcohol Fish (salmon, tunafish, etc.)*** Cheese (mozzarella, cottage, cheddar, etc.)** Meats (beef, pork, poultry, veal, lamb, etc.)*** Wine (red, white) champagne*** GI 0 GI 0 GI 0 GI 0 GI 0 GI 0
Ham, cold cuts, sausages*** Sea food*** (oysters, shrimps, mussels, etc.) Mayonnaise (home-made: egg, oil, mustard) Goose fat, margarine, vegetable fat*** Eggs*** Coffee, tea*** Poultry*** (chicken, turkey, etc.) Beef*** (steak, etc.) Cream***/** Soy sauce (unsweetened) Oil*** Crustaceans
GI 0 GI 0 GI 0 GI 0 GI 0 GI 0 GI 0 GI 0 GI 0 GI 0 GI 0 GI 5 GI 5 GI 5 GI 5 GI 10 GI 10 GI 10 GI 10 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15
Herbs and Spices (parsley, basil, oregano, cinnamon, vanilla, etc.) Vinegar Vinaigre, balsamique Avocado Spaghetti, Low GI Montignac Pasta, Low GI Montignac (spaghetti) Tagliatelle, Low GI Montignac Spinach beet, perpetual spinach Lupin Bran (oat, wheat...) Agave (syrup) Asparagus Cucumber Broccoli Olives Almonds Onions Mushroom, fungus Soya Tofu, soybean curd Hazelnuts, filberts, Barcelona nuts Ginger Radish Brussels sprouts
Chicory, endive Cashew nut, acajou Pesto Pine nut Rhubarb Fennel Celery Chili pepper Pistachio, green almond Sweet peppers (red, green), paprika Sauerkraut, sourcrout Shallot Black currant Pickle Carob powder Spinach Courgettes, zucchini Leeks Walnuts Salad, lettuce Cabbage Peanuts Sorrel, spinach dock Seeds (sprouted) Physalis, golden gooseberry, Cape gooseberry, Chinese lantern, husk tomato Cereal shoots (soy or mung bean sprouts, etc.) Cauliflower Tempeh Beans, Italian flat beans, runner Zuckererbsenschote Wheat germ Ratatouille Lemon juice (unsweetened) Cocoa powder (no sugar added) Eggplant, aubergine Soy yogurt (unflavored) GI 20 GI 20 GI 20 GI 20 GI 20
GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15 GI 15
Bamboo shoot Carrots (raw) Chocolate, plain (>85% of cocoa) Heart of palm, cabbage palm Artichoke Acerola, West Indian cherry Soy "cream" Tamari sauce (unsweetened) Fructose (Montignac) Lemon Jam, Montignac sugarless Amande, farine de Noisette, farine de Chocolate (more than 70% of cocoa content) Peanut paste/puree (unsweetened) Raspberry (fresh fruit) Almond paste/puree (whole, unsweetened) Hummus, homus, humus Blackberry, mulberry Hazelnut paste/puree (whole, unsweetened) Lentils (green) Blueberry, whortleberry, bilberry Gooseberry Strawberries (fresh fruit) Seeds (squash/marrow) Cherries Redcurrant Soy flour Mung beans, moong dal Beans, flageolet, fayot beans Barley, hulled Split peas Baies de Goji Pczak Tangerines, madarines, satsuma Tomatoes
GI 20 GI 20 GI 20 GI 20 GI 20 GI 20 GI 20 GI 20 GI 20 GI 20 GI 20 GI 20 GI 20 GI 25 GI 25 GI 25 GI 25 GI 25 GI 25 GI 25 GI 25 GI 25 GI 25 GI 25 GI 25 GI 25 GI 25 GI 25 GI 25 GI 25 GI 25 GI 25 GI 25 GI 25 GI 30 GI 30
Chick peas, garbanzo beans Garlic Apricots (fresh fruit) Marmalade (no sugar added) Beans, string green beans Soya milk Lentils (brown) Beet (raw) Passion fruit, maracuja, granadilla Almond milk Quark, curd cheese** Powdered/fresh milk** Chinese noodles/vermicelli (made from soy or mung beans) Milk** (skimmed or unskimmed) Turnip (raw) Grapefruit, pummelo, shaddock (fresh fruit) Lentils (yellow) Scorzoneras Pears (fresh fruit) Oat milk (uncooked) Pumpernickel, Montignac Bread (Montignac integral bread) Bread, Essene/ezekiel bread (sprouted cereals bread) Pomegranate (fresh fruit) Beans (white, haricot beans, cannellini beans, faziola beans) Amaranth, seeds Yoghurt, yogurt** Tomatoes (dried) Plums, prunes (fresh fruit) Quinoa, cooked al dente Tomato juice Apple sauce/puree (unsweetened) Apples, dried Yeast Oranges (fresh fruit) White almond paste/puree (unsweetened) GI 32
GI 30 GI 30 GI 30 GI 30 GI 30 GI 30 GI 30 GI 30 GI 30 GI 30 GI 30 GI 30 GI 30 GI 30 GI 30 GI 30 GI 30 GI 30 GI 30 GI 30
GI 34 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35
Mustard, Dijon type Black beans Apple (fresh fruit) Kidney/pinto beans Adzuki/azuki bean Chinese noodles/vermicelli (hard wheat), noodles Sunflower seeds Bire, levure de Figs, Indian/barbary fig (fresh fruit) Wasa fiber (24%) Soy yogurt (fruit flavored) Tomato sauce (natural, no sugar added) Falafel (chick peas) Ice cream (with real fructose) Wild rice Nectarines (fresh fruit) Linum, sesame (seeds) Chick pea flour Custard apple, cherimoya, sherbet fruit, soursop, guanabana Cassoulet (meat and beans French dish) Cranberry bean, borlotti bean, Roman bean Chick peas, garbanzo beans (tin/can) Peaches (fresh fruit) Celeriac, knob celery, turnip rooted celery (raw) Quince (fresh fruit) Green peas (fresh) Apricots (dried) Schokoladenriegel (ohne Zucker, Montignac) Indian corn Peas (green, fresh) Coconut Coco, farine de
GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35 GI 35
* These foodstuffs, even though they have high GIs, their pure sugar content (pure glucid) is quite low (approximately 5%.) Consuming these foods should not significantly affect blood sugar levels.
** There is practically no difference in the GIs of whole-milk products and non-fat milk products. It is important to keep in mind that milk products, even if their GI is low, have a high insulinic index. *** These foods do not contain carbohydrates and therefore have a GI of O.
GI MEDIUM
Farro Quince (preserve/jelly, without sugar) Pepino dulce, melon pear Carrot juice (unsweetened) Lactose Fig (dried) Tahin Beans, fava, broad beans, horse beans (raw) Plums/prunes (dried) Oats Coconut milk Cider (Brut) Pasta, Integral wheat pasta, al dente Kamut, Egyptian wheat Kidney/pinto beans (tin/can) Bread, 100% integral flour with pure leaven Bread, matzo bread (integral flour) Sorbet (unsweetened) Buckwheat, kasha, saracen (integral; flour or bread) Shortbread, spritz biscuit (integral flour, no sugar added) Peanut butter (no sugar added) Chicore, boisson Oat flakes (uncooked) Falafel (fava beans) Spaghetti, Al dente spaghetti (5 min cooking) Quinoa flour Buckwheat pancakes Buckwheat pasta Spaghetti, whole wheat, cooked al dente Bl, type Ebly Farro flour (integral) Bl, pilpil de GI 45 GI 45 GI 45 GI 40 GI 40 GI 40 GI 40 GI 40 GI 40 GI 40 GI 40 GI 40 GI 40 GI 40 GI 40 GI 40 GI 40 GI 40 GI 40 GI 40 GI 40 GI 40 GI 40 GI 40 GI 40 GI 40 GI 40 GI 40 GI 40 GI 40 GI 40 GI 40
Pasta, Capellini Grapefruit juice (unsweetened) Orange juice (fresh squeezed and unsweetened) Banane plantain, crue Plantain/cooking banana/platano (raw) Bananas (unripe) Couscous (whole), whole semolina Tomato sauce (with sugar) Grapes, green and red (fresh fruit) Pineapple (fresh fruit) Kamut bread Kamut flour (integral) Bread, toasted integral bread Green peas (tin/can) Rye (integral; flour, bread) Bulgur wheat (whole, cooked) Cranberry* Cereals, whole (no sugar added) Spelt, integral Pain, peautre intgral Jam (no sugar added, sweetened with grape juice) Muesli Montignac Pumpernickel bread (standard) Rice, brown basmati Bl, farine intgrale Banana (verde) Pineapple juice (unsweetened) Rice, basmati Mango (fresh fruit) Surimi Jerusalem artichoke Apple juice (unsweetened) Muesli (no sweet) Persimmon, kaki-persimmon Kiwifruit, monkey peach* Sweet potatoes
GI 45 GI 45 GI 45 GI 45 GI 45 GI 45 GI 45 GI 45 GI 45 GI 45 GI 45 GI 45 GI 45 GI 45 GI 45 GI 45 GI 45 GI 45 GI 45 GI 45 GI 45 GI 45 GI 45 GI 45 GI 45 GI 45 GI 50 GI 50 GI 50 GI 50 GI 50 GI 50 GI 50 GI 50 GI 50 GI 50
All Bran Wasa light rye Cereal bar, energetic (no sugar added) Litchi (fresh fruit) Rice, brown, unpolished Pasta, whole wheat pasta Bread with quinoa (approximately 65% of quinoa) Carrots (cooked)* Chayote, chocho, pear squash, christophine Cranberry juice (unsweetened)* Biscuit (whole flour, no sugar added) Couscous/smoule, complte Macaronis (durum wheat)
GI 50 GI 50 GI 50 GI 50 GI 50 GI 50 GI 50 GI 50 GI 50 GI 50 GI 50 GI 50 GI 50
* These foodstuffs, even though they have high GIs, their pure sugar content (pure glucid) is quite low (approximately 5%.) Consuming these foods should not significantly affect blood sugar levels. ** There is practically no difference in the GIs of whole-milk products and non-fat milk products. It is important to keep in mind that milk products, even if their GI is low, have a high insulinic index. *** These foods do not contain carbohydrates and therefore have a GI of O.
GI HIGH
Mustard (sugar added)GI 55 NutellaGI 55 Peaches (tin/can, with syrup)GI 55 Mango juice (unsweetened) Bulgur wheat (cooked) Grape juice (unsweetened) Ketchup Japanese plum, loquat Butter cookies, shortbread, spritz biscuit (flour, butter, sugar) Riz, rouge Sushi Tagliatelle (well cooked) Chicore, sirop de Manioc, mandioca, yucca, Cassava (bitter) Manioc, mandioca, yucca, cassava (sweet) Spaghetti (well cooked) Pears, canned GI 55 GI 55 GI 55 GI 55 GI 55 GI 55 GI 55 GI 55 GI 55 GI 55 GI 55 GI 55 GI 55 GI 55
Papaya (fresh fruit)* Pizza Bananas (ripe) Milk loaf Oatmeal, porridge Ravioli (hard wheat) Hard/durum wheat semolina Rice, long-grain Melons (cantaloupe, honeydew, etc.)* Ice cream (plain, with sugar added) Ovomaltine Chestnut Lasagna (hard wheat) Chocolate, powdered (with sugar) Riz, de Camargue Honey Barley, pearl Apricots ( tin/can with syrup) Bl, farine complte Rice, flavored rice (jasmine...) Mayonnaise (industrial, sweetened) Fruit cocktail, canned in sugar syrup Marmalade (with sugar) Potato, unpeeled boiled/steamed Bread, whole-grain Tamarind, Indian date (sweet) Hovis, brown bread (with leaven) Corn, sweet corn Beet, beetroot (cooked)* Raisins (red and golden) Quince (preserve/jelly, with sugar) Panapen, breadfruit, breadnut Sorbet (with sugar added) Maple syrup Pineapple (tin/can Yam, tropical yam GI 60 GI 60 GI 60 GI 60 GI 60 GI 60 GI 60 GI 60 GI 60 GI 60 GI 60 GI 60 GI 60 GI 60 GI 60 GI 60 GI 60 GI 60 GI 60 GI 60 GI 60
GI 55
GI 65 GI 65 GI 65 GI 65 GI 65 GI 65 GI 65 GI 65 GI 65 GI 65 GI 65 GI 65 GI 65 GI 65
Rye bread (30% of rye) Couscous, semolina Muesli (with sugar or honey added...) Pain au chocolat Chinese noodles/vermicelli (rice) Canne sucre sche, jus de Chestnut flour Mars, Sneakers, Nuts, etc. Spelt Jam (with sugar added) Fava bean, broad bean, horse bean (cooked) Pomme de terre, cuite dans sa peau (eau/vapeur) Bl, farine semi complte Ptes, de riz intgral farina di castagne Succo di canna da zucchero Corn, on or off the cob Sugar, white sugar (sucrose) Flour, corn Risotto Rice, standard Tacos Chocolate bar (with sugar added) Gnocchi Noodles (tender wheat) Molasses Cereals, refined (with sugar added) Mush Rusk Bagels Biscuit Sugar, whole brown Special K Plantain/cooking banana/platano (cooked) Baguette white bread Rice bread GI 70 GI 70 GI 70 GI 70 GI 70 GI 70 GI 70 GI 70 GI 70 GI 70 GI 70 GI 70 GI 70 GI 70 GI 70 GI 70 GI 70 GI 70 GI 70
GI 65 GI 65 GI 65 GI 65 GI 65 GI 65 GI 65 GI 65 GI 65 GI 65 GI 65 GI 65 GI 65 GI 65 GI 65 GI 65 GI 65
Brioche Potatoes, pealed boiled Potato chips, crisps Millet, sorghum Cola drinks, soft drinks, sodas Cabbage turnip, rutabaga, Swede turnip Amaranth, puffed Ravioli (soft wheat) Croissant Polenta, cornmeal Matzo bread (white flour) Dates, dried Rutabaga Watermelon* Squash/marrow (various)* Lasagna (soft wheat) Rice milk (with sugar) Doughnuts Waffle (with sugar) Pumpkin, gourd* Riz, farine de (complte) Sport drinks Potatoes, mashed potatoes Crackers made from white flour Rice, puffed Hamburger buns Pop corn (without sugar) Maizena (corn starch) Wheat flour, white Bread, white sandwich Rice, instant/parboiled rice Rice cake/pudding Rice milk Turnip (cooked)* Celeriac, knob celery, turnip rooted celery (cooked)* Tapioca GI 75 GI 75 GI 75 GI 75 GI 75 GI 75 GI 75 GI 75 GI 75 GI 80 GI 80
GI 70 GI 70 GI 70 GI 70 GI 70 GI 70 GI 70 GI 70 GI 70 GI 70 GI 70 GI 70 GI 70
GI 85 GI 85 GI 85 GI 85 GI 85 GI 85 GI 85 GI 85 GI 85 GI 85 GI 85 GI 85
Parsnip* Corn flakes Arrow-root Bread, gluten-free white Potato flour Rice, sticky Potatoes, baked with skin Rice flour Potato flour (starch) Potatoes, oven cooked Potatoes, fried, scalloped Maltodextrin Corn Starch Modified starch Glucose (dextrose) Glucose syrup Wheat syrup, rice syrup Riz, sirop de Beer* Corn syrup GI 95 GI 95 GI 95 GI 95 GI 95 GI 95 GI 100 GI 100 GI 100 GI 100 GI 100 GI 110 GI 115 GI 90 GI 90 GI 90 GI 90
GI 85 GI 85 GI 85
* These foodstuffs, even though they have high GIs, their pure sugar content (pure glucid) is quite low (approximately 5%.) Consuming these foods should not significantly affect blood sugar levels. ** There is practically no difference in the GIs of whole-milk products and non-fat milk products. It is important to keep in mind that milk products, even if their GI is low, have a high insulinic index. *** These foods do not contain carbohydrates and therefore have a GI of O.
We must be careful not be confused by the some authors erroneous use of GIs.
GIs are generally classified into three categories: High, intermediate and low Most authors assume that: - GIs below 55 are low; - GIs ranging from 55 to 69 are intermediate; - GIs above 70 are high. The fact is that this ranking does not fit physiological reality. It is simply politically correct insofar as it has been a rbitrarily construed to satisfy the food industry by not classifying most of its foods in the high GI range. It has also been designed with the aim of not rocking the boat for traditional nutritionists whose dietary recommendations (potatoes, cereals) would have suddenly fallen under the ranking of (chancy) high GI foods had GI ranges been objectively determined. This is why we should be careful and not blindly accept GI tables found in some books and websites since they are often built upon mistaken criterion. Lack of scientific knowledge on what makes GIs leads these authors to simply copy what has been said elsewhere, without any consideration to whether the information was inspired by financial goals rather than scientific findings. The classification which truly responds to digestive physiology is as follows:
Low GIs are below or equal to 35 Intermediate GIs range between 35 and 50 High GIs are above 50 We can also define this classification by saying that: Low GIs are below 50, keeping in mind that very low is below 35; High GIs are those above 50 We must pay attention to contradictory information to be found in certain tables! When Glycemic Indexes were discovered, two methods were proposed to estimate GI value tables. Certain researchers have designed GI tables by assigning the 100 value to white bread while most assigned the 100 reference value to glucose. The former are necessarily mistaken since the reference for their estimates is a variable value, breads GI can vary depending on where the wheat came from, the flour milling and the fermentation and cooking process. Glucose, comparatively, is the best reference since it systematically provokes the same physiological reaction which corresponds to a 100% intestinal absorption. Unfortunately, these GI tables which contain values estimated through diverging modes are all confusedly available on paper but even more so on the Web and there is basically no way of knowing where their information came from. Whats even worse is that we often find tables where values from different sources are all mixed up. In these cases, the resulting tables are even more contradictory. We recommend that users check that the information they use is scientifically referenced and not from a mixture of unknown sources. Below we propose a GI table. Although thorough, it does not pretend to be completely exhaustive and the definite GI table. It has been established on the basis of diverging values obtained through numerous scientific studies from which the corresponding averages have been estimated. Michel Montignacs readers might be surprised to find that certain values differ from those found in certain books. They might be surprised that unsweetened whole-wheat cereals, for example, have a 45 GI while, in some books they are still ranked at 40 GI. The reason for this is simply that for a long time we did not have the studies we have now. Research done has made it possible to assign new and more precise GI values and averages. Thus, certain foods might now appear with lower or higher GIs. We are continuously updating the values indicated in accordance with the complementary information as it becomes available. This updated information is also to be found in the more recent editions of Michel Montignac books. Back to the Glycemic Indexes table
The different amylose families Cereals Tender wheat Coarse wheat Rice Corn Oats Barley Rye Tubers Potatoes Sweet Potato Cassava Tropical yam -US/ yam -UK Taro Malanga, Tania Pulses String beans Peas Chick peas Lentils Beans Fruit Bananas Mangoes Apples
Sorghum Millet
In order for all of these starches to be absorbed and enter our bloodstream, they have to be broken down into glucose (the smallest of the sugar molecules of which starches are composed). This decomposing process is the work of our digestive enzymes (more precisely, of alpha-amylases). Digestion of starch normally begins in the mouth where an enzyme, salivary amylase, is secreted, catalyzing the break up of the starch by hydrolysis. After a quick passage through our stomachs, additional breakdown of starch occurs in the small intestine with amylase secreted from the pancreas. Glycemia indicates glucose absorption rates, namely, the digestibility of certain starches. For further information on intestinal absorption physiology The Glycemic Index scale measures starch digestibility through comparison. Observation shows that, for similar portions of carbohydrates from one foodstuff to another, the postprandial Glycemic response can vary immensely since there are fractions of starches which cannot be digested and this is what determines their absorption rate. Several factors can cause these variations and the purpose of GIs is precisely to classify starches according to this variation in their digestibility. Glycemic Indexes. For further information on the concept of the Glycemic Indexes
Starch structure
Starch granules are made up of two types of molecular components: amylose and amylopectin. These can be associated to lipids, proteins, fibers and micronutrients (vitamins, salts, minerals ) The amount of amylose in proportion to amylopectin is what basically determines the physical-chemical nature of amylase foods and their nutritional impact on the human organism. The proportion of amylose / amylopectin can vary from one botanic family to the other as well as from one variety to the other within the same family of plants. Cereal starches normally contain 15 to 28% amylose. Certain varieties of corn contain less than 1% (waxy corn whose extract is used by the food industry as thickener.) Other varieties, on the other hand, contain from 55 to 80% but they are not commonly grown since the higher the amylose, the lower their productivity. Tuber starches (still called flour starches), as in the case of potatoes, have a much lower amylose content ( from 17% to 22%). Starch in pulses (lentils, chick peas, shellouts) contain much more amylose (from 33 to 66%)
An amylose foods Glycemic Index is determined by several parameters:: How much amylose there is in proportion to amylopectin Extreme boiling temperatures modify starch structure. When an aqueous suspension of starch is heated, water is absorbed, and the starch granules swell and a fraction of the amylopectin becomes part of the substance. When the heating process is prolonged, a fraction of amylose also becomes component of the substance. This process conditions the substances degree of viscosity and it is commonly called gelatinization because the solution formed has a gelatinous, highly viscous consistency. The degree of gelatinization is proportional to the amount of amylose; the less amylose there is, the greater the degree of gelatinization and vice-versa. There is evidence to the fact that the greater the degree of gelatinization suffered by starches (as a result of low amylose levels), the greater the chances of it being hydrolyzed by alpha-amylase (starch digestive enzymes), the greater its propensity to become glucose and, naturally, the greater its tendency to raise blood sugar levels. In other words, starches with lower amylose content will have higher Glycemic Indexes. Inversely, starches with a higher amylose content will be less susceptible to gelatinization, that is, to breaking down into glucose, that which makes for low Glycemic Indexes. This is why potatoes, which have an extremely low amylose level, have a high Glycemic Index while lentils, which are high in amylose, have a very low GI. Corn is also an illustrative example of this phenomenon. Waxy corn, which is almost totally lacking in amylose, is a favorite of the food industry precisely because its starch is particularly viscous. It is commonly used as a thickening agent for fruit jellies and as texturizing agent for canned or frozen foods. It is labeled as cornstarch and its Glycemic Index is one of the highest (near the 100 value). Cornstarch is thus one of the ingredients whi ch cause industrial food preparations to evoke high blood sugar responses. This does not have to be the rule and an experiment carried out in Australia proves that the food industry can also promote healthy foods and eating habits. An Australian industrial bread maker decided to use a special variety of corn which is high in amylose (>80) with the aim of lowering his breads Glycemic Index. This bread has apparently sold quite well and children, who do not generally like whole -wheat bread, seem to particularly like this bread which is the equivalent of the bread popularly sold in supermarkets.
How the food is technically and thermally processed Hydration and heat raise foods Glycemic Indexes. Carrots, for example, have a 20 GI when raw. The moment they are boiled, their GI rises to 50 as a result of the gelatinization of it starch content. Certain industrial processes take gelatinization to the extreme. This is true for mashed potatoes and cornflakes as well as for binding agents such as modified starches and dextrinized starches. These processes noticeably increase foodstuffs Glycemic Indexes (85 for cornflakes, 95 for mashed potatoes, 100 for modified starches.) Likewise, exploding corn grains to make pop-corn or rice grains to make puffed rice increases the original foods GY by 15 to 20%.
While this applies to spaghetti and certain tagliatelles which are pastified (extruded under great pressure), it does not hold for raviolis nor lasagna and not even for fresh pasta which are hand cut and thus have a much higherGlycemic Index even if they are also made from durum wheat flour. As we can see, we can use the same flour and end up producing foods with quite different Glycemic Indexes, at times they can be twice as high: raviolis 70, spaghettis 40. Cooking at home also affects our foods Glycemic Indexes. Cooking al dente (5 to 6 minutes), for example, allows us to keep spaghettis GIs as low as possible while prolonged cooking (from 15 to 20 minutes) will raise GIs since it accelerates starch gelatinization.
How retrogradation inverses gelatinization Starch, after being gelatinized when getting cold is subjected to further modifications. With coolness gelatinized starch gradually begins to reorganize its amylose and amylopectin macro-molecules. This is what is known as retrogradation, a return (which can be more or less significant) to its former molecular structure. Retrogradation becomes more intense as time passes and temperatures go down. Preserving amylase foods for long periods at low temperatures (41 Fahrenheit) stimulates retrogradation. Something similar occurs with food drying processes. Dry bread, for example, loses its humidity and stimulates starch retrogradation, as in the case of toasted bread. Although retrogradation does not wholly reverse food gelatinization, it does contribute to lowe ring foodstuffsGlycemic Indexes. Spaghetti (even white refined), for example, will have a 35 Glycemic Index if cooked al dente and eaten cold (in salads). As we can see, the same bread (made from the same flour) can have a different GI depending on how it is prepared: freshly baked and still oven hot, dried or toasted. Fresh bread when frozen and thawed out at room temperature will also have a much lower GI. It is also interesting to note that cold green lentils (more so if they were stored in the fridge for at least 24 hours) have a much lower GI than when they are just cooked (form 10 to 15). The higher the amylose content in a starch, the greater the effectiveness of the retrogradation process. Nonetheless, there is evidence to the fact that adding lipids to starches which have been gelatinized tends to slow down retrogradation. It is handy to know that retrograded starches lose some of their gelatinization potential. Approximately a 10% portion of the retrograded starch becomes thermo-resistant, which indicates that reheating carbs after cold storage contributes to lowering their GI. Lastly, it is important to point out that starches (in their raw and natural form) are not only contained in raw foods. Raw starches can also be found after cooking when water contents are not sufficient to produce gelatinization. A case in point is bread crust and shortbread, the granular structure of the starch in these foods persists after cooking and this makes their Glycemic Index lower that that of those starches which have been gelatinized as, for example, in the case of the soft interior of bread. This is why slow vapor or steam cooking, which does not hydrate food as much as immersion cooking, provokes less gelatinization.
How protein and fiber content reduce GIs The natural protein content of certain carbohydrates might be the reason why their starches are not hydrolyzed (digested) as much as others and why they have lower Glycemic Indexes. This is what happens with cereals. This phenomenon is particularly noticeable with pasta. Their gluten content slows down digestive amylases secretion and, consequently, limits glucose absorption. This is why coarse wheat (richer in gluten) had a lower GI than the tender wheat which is used to make bread. Generally speaking, modern wheat (which yields more per plant) has two to three times less gluten than traditional wheat. Modern cereals tend to significantly raise blood sugar levels not only because they contain less gluten to begin with but also because the refining processes to which they are subjected contribute to further reducing their gluten content. The fiber contained in starches can also serve to block the amylase action contributing to reducing glucose absorption. Basically, the fibers that directly or indirectly contribute to reducing intestinal glucose absorption and thus to lowering the corresponding starches Glycemic Indexes are soluble fibers (generally contained in pulses and oats). For further information on intestinal absorption physiology
How GIs depend on how ripe the fruit is Starchy fruits may increase their Glycemic Index depending on how ripe the fruit is. Bananas are particular susceptible to this phenomenon , more so than apples. Green bananas have low GIs (approximately 40) but when they are ripe they will have a much higher GI (approx 65) since as bananas ripen, their starches are transformed and become less resistant. Cooking green bananas produces basically the same effect as the ripening process. In order to propose as much useful information as possible, I wish to point out that preserving certain foods, particularly potatoes, increases their GIs as a result of the transformation undergone by their starches. Consequently, potatoes which have been stored for months have higher GIs than freshly-harvested potatoes.
How particle size affects hydrolyzation and GIs When starchy food are ground, their particles become much finer and, as this makes their hydrolyzation easier, and so raises their Glycemic Index. This is what happens to cereals when they are ground into flour. Rice flour, accordingly, has a higher GI than rice itself. Formerly, when wheat was ground by hand with a flystone it was reduced into large particles. Even when sifted, the resulting flour remained coarse. What at the time was called white bread had a 60 to 65 GI, which was fairly reasonable. The modern equivalent of this bread is the famous Poilne bread. Poilne bread is even more attractive if we consider the fact that it is made with natural sourdough yeast, that which contributes to further reducing its GI.
In olden times, the bread of the people, was made out of coarse flour which retained the wheat grains, thus the name integral bread. Since the particles were coarse, it was rich in fibers and proteins and was made with natural yeast to boot, its Glycemic Index was even lower, from 35 to 45).
Nutrients Proteins Lipids Carbohydrates Fibers Water Particle size Glycemic Index
The invention of the cylinder mill in 1870, generalized white flour production, first in the West and later, throughout the world. This technical process, then considered a sign of progress, turned out to be a step in the wrong direction as far as peoples health was con cerned. Later, thanks to increasingly sophisticated mills, flour became more and more refined. At a nutritional level this implied that they lost fibers, proteins and micronutrients (vitamins, minerals, essential fatty acids..) and were broken down into increasingly smaller particles. All of these transformations have contributed to raising the Glycemic Index of those foods made from these hyper-refined flours.
Conclusion
Carbohydrates nutritional characteristics deserve special attention. As noted, there are many different starches depending o n a number of factors and, the more knowledgeable we are, the better we fare. Starches differ due to their original molecular structure (amylose vs. amylopectin) and also because of the nature of the additional nutrients they contain (proteins, fibers.) Starches physical-chemical properties evolve when they come in contact with water, undergo temperature variations and as time passes. Hydrothermal, industrial or culinary processing transforms our food and changes its properties and digestibility. These process affect intestinal absorption rates and, as a result, our bodies corresponding glycemic and insulinic responses. A foodstuffs Glycemic Index is then the result of several parameters which we must keep in mind when choosing what we eat. By disregarding these scientific notions, discovered during the past 20 years, traditional diets have allowed the food industry to develop suspect botanic varieties as well as industrial processing cooking and conservation technologies, which contribute to indirectly hiking postprandial glycemia to alarming levels for consumers of modern foods. Nowadays we know that these perverse metabolic effects have resulted in increased rates of hyperinsulinism which is at the root of obesity, diabetes and many cardiovascular illnesses which are prevalent in our societies. We can now see the ignorance behind current official nutritional recommendations which carelessly advise people to consume a daily amount of 50 to 55% carbohydrates in their meals without distinguishing one carb form another. What is even worse is that, when they do make the distinction, they consistently refer to fast and slow absorbed sugars, a totally mistaken classification. For further information on the erroneous slow and fast sugars concept As deplored by Professor Walter WILLET from the Harvard Medical School, these recommendations are never complemented with the explanations required by people to choose carbs wisely depending on how they are processed and to adopt the best treatment (cooking, conservation..) in view of the desired Glycemic Indexes. At the most, these official recommendations advise people to prefer complex carbs, a meaningless notion in view of current nutritional knowledge. Researchers, F. Bornet and Professor G. Slama, clearly state that complex carbs are not interchangeable , contrary to a longstanding belief, and we have to be aware of the fact that certain starches or amylase foods, although complex, evoke even higher blood sugar responses than simple sugars, as in the case of French fries (GI 95) which raises blood sugar levels even more than sugar (IG 70) does. Michel Montignac the first nutritionist in the world to have proposed the Glycemic Index concept for people wanting to lose weight has clearly shown for the past 15 years through his publications, how the deviation of modern eating habits has led to an unparalleled predominance of obesity worldwide. By going from diets with low potential to raise blood sugar (made up mainly carbs with low Glycemic Indexes) like our ancestors, to diets with a high potential to raise blood sugar levels (mainly composed of carbs with high GIs) a growing percentage of people have developed metabolic pathologies, particularly hyperinsulinism which is the reason behind excess weight and diabetes. For further information on Michel Montignac, the GI pioneer
At the beginning of the 1980s, while he was at the R&D (Research and Development) Center of the company he worked for in the USA, he undertook research on existing scientific publications on nutrition and diabetes. He took a particular interest in the studies published in 1976, 1977 and 1981 by P.A. Crapo, a Stanford University diabetes expert. Crapos studies show that (an innovative finding at the time), contrary to widespread belief of the times, carbohydrates were not interchangeable. That is to say that, carbs with equal amounts of pure sugar content did not necessarily have the same impact on blood sugar levels (glycemia) after meals; that their effect could differ, and differ greatly regardless of whether they were complex or simple glucids. Crapo thus suggests that a diet based exclusively on carbs with a low potential to increase blood sugar levels could serve as therapy for controlling diabetic glycemia. Michel Montignac, who did not suffer from diabetes but was simply overweight, decided to try this diet after having observed that 85% of the people who had diabetes were also obese. After having lost over 30 pounds in three months without depriving himself of calories, he opted for continuing his research along this line. He then discovered that a Canadian researcher, David Jenkins, had together with Cra pos research, endeavored to design a hierarchical model which established the glycemic potential of carbohydrates with reference to a standard value. The reference chosen was glucose to which he arbitrarily assigned a value of 100. Each carb was thus assigned a corresponding Glycemic Index. As of 1986, Michel Montignac was already proposing in his books and publications a weight-losing method which used Glycemic Indexes to guide the choice of carbs for people wanting to lose weight and stay slim. Considering the lack of knowledge at the time, Montignac restrained from filling his books with scientific and technical data which might confuse the issue and limited himself to classifying carbs into "bad glucids, as those which should be avoided and good carbs, as those which should be preferred by people wishing to lose weight. Montignac suffered violent attacks from official nutritionists who sustained that his method was "Manichean and out of focus". In view of the fact that nutritionists intentionally misinterpreted his layman classification of "bad and good carbohydrates", in 1991 Michel Montignac decided to go into the scientific details and principles of his method in all of his books and publications. Michel Montignac was a pioneer in the use of Glycemic Indexes to lose weight. His use of this concept is detailed inThe Glycemic Index Concept. For further information on the Glycemic Index concept
Cereals
Whole grain cereals with a low GI Each grain of cereal is a powerhouse of energy, vitamins, minerals, micro-nutrients and fiber. Their high concentration of carbohydrates is an important leveler of blood sugar, which is why they are meticulously selected in the Montignac Method. Sugar Free Montignac Mueslis All cereals in the Montignac mueslis are crushed not puffed to keep the GI down. The dried fruits (apples, figs and hazelnut) and oilseeds (flax, and marrow seeds) maintain a low GI muesli while providing a nutritional product. The various fibers included in the Montignac Muesli significantly balance the intestinal functions. A GI below 50 makes it the ideal muesli for a carbohydrate breakfast in Phase I. Quinoa Totally unknown in the West up until the 1990s, quinoa is now to be found in all organic and natural food stores. It is an essential ingredient of the Montignac Method thanks to its extremely low Glycemic Index. Quinoa is inaccurately classified as a cereal and at a nutritional level it resembles cereals. Quinoa in fact belongs to the leafy vegetable family (like spinach) and both its grains and leaves are edible. Quinoa has the advantage that it does not contain gluten.
Whole Grain Cereals in the Montignac Food-Line Organic Rolled Oats Flakes Sugar Free Muesli Whole Wheat Couscous Quinoa Organic Brown Basmati Rice Wild Rice
Chocolate
Montignac Chocolate Made by a French cacaofvier, one of the few processors of cocoa beans in the world. From the plantations of cacoa plant and the processing of the raw material to its final result, chocolate is a great adventure where all the expertise and knowledge of the chocolatier are esssential. The quality of the chocolate on the market differs greatly. It depends not only on the origin of the raw materials, but also on the recipe, the processing. Serious controls and an obligation of quality are also important criteria for explaining the differences in quality, taste and price. Montignac chocolate is guaranteed pure cocoa butter with no added flavors and no soy lecithin.
Our chocolates have a high cocoa content - and a very Low GI Dark chocolate 85% cacoa solids Dark chocolate 99% cacoa solids Dark chocolate with orange peel 72% cacoa solids Organic dark chocolate dessert 70% cacao solids
Fructose
Montignac Fructose Montignac fructose (GI = 20) - obtained from sugar beets- is a natural alternative to sucrose, sometimes called saccharose or table sugar (GI = 70). Not to be confused with the word "fructose" - commonly used in North America - to designate a derivative of corn starch, also known as HFCS (high fructose corn syrup), which has a glycemic index of 90 -100. In Europe the word "fructose" means a simple sugar found naturally in honey, fruits and some vegetables. Montignac fructose can be used to sweeten coffee/tea, desserts and yogurts. Daily fructose intake should not exceed 30g.
They are delicious: they taste as good as pasta made from hard wheat. They are very rich in fiber, 15g for 100g, which is twice or even three times that of traditional pasta. Fiber is essential to assure satiety and a good intestinal comfort. They are heavily enriched with prebiotic soluble fiber (inulin and oligo-fructose stem from chicory roots) which helps reduce cholesterol level, develops the intestinal bifidus bacteria, aids the absorption of minerals (calcium, magnesium) and reduces the blood sugar level. Since inulin does not raise glycemia, the Montignac spaghettis are perfectly adapted for diabetics to control their glycemia. Their GI of only 10* is a real asset for all who decide to lose weight for good. Unlike other pasta, the Montignac spaghettis with its very low GI content, can be eaten in Phase I with fats such as olive oil or Parmesan cheese. The very low GI Montignac spaghetti can be purchased from our online Montignac Shop. www.montignac-shop.com
Fruit Spreads
Montignac Fruit Spreads with a low GI Fruit spreads or delicacies, from 100% fruit, sweetened only with apple juice concentrate. Apple juice is less commonly used than grape juice concentrate, yet has a lower glycemic index! By using apple juice, the taste and aroma of the fruits are preserved and guarantee you a gourmet product. Ideal for spreading on Montignac bread, to accompany your yogurt, cottage cheese, or enjoy it on its own!
Morello Cherry Strawberry Blueberry 4 Red Fruits Fig Black Currant Cherry Plum
* calculation made by and approved and independent laboratory Video: To the heart of Montignac bread Find out more about the authentic Montignac Integral bread
Search
keyw ords
Q1
Protein, carbohydrates, lipids (fat) are for me barbarian words. I have difficulty to classify all foods within these categories. Is there an easy way to do it?
Answer
Carbohydrates are foods which are transformed (after digestion) into glucose. The GI (glycemic index) measure the capacity of the carbohydrates to increase the glycemia (glucose released in the blood). This is why only carbohydrates can be given a GI. In this category are classified the starch and sugars: flours (bread) grains, cereals, potatoes, rice, fruits, green vegetables, sugar, and dry legumes (lentils, peas, soy, chick peas). - The proteins: they are the essential building blocks of human body, but they also have various functions. They for instance contribute to the sensation of satiety. Proteins are found in all meat (poultry, beef, mutton, pork) fish as well a s eggs and cheese. - The lipids: they are the fatty acids which can be found in animal products (butter, cream...) but also in many vegetables (oil). However, carbohydrates, proteins and fat can be found together in most food, for instance in milk there are fats as well as carbohydrates (lactose) and protein. Most cereals are alike, but we consider they are carbohydrates because starch is the main portion of it.
Q2
How can we distinguish between recommended fats and fats which are not advisable?
Answer
Fats are metabolized differently depending on the nature of their fatty acids. - Saturated fats (meat, butter, milk products) can be stored easily since they do not suffer any metabolic changes. - Monounsaturated fats (olive oil, goose fat, avocado) have the advantage that they reduce glycemia and are not easily stored by our bodies since they first have to be transformed. - Polyunsaturated fats (fish Omega 3) are not likely to get stored. Whats more, the energy needed to metabolize unsaturated fats is greater than the calories they contain.
Q3
I need to lose weight and am not sure which diet to choose. I recently read in a magazine that the Montignac diet is but a modified Atkins. Could you please tell me more?
Answer
For decades the only diets that existed were low-calorie diets. People were convinced that the only way to lose weight was to eat less and, above all, to avoid fats which are rich in calories. Dr. Atkins, who became known in the 1970s, was the first person to recognize the role played by carbohydrates in gaining weigh. The Atkins diet, however, involves a drastic reduction of all carbs while allowing proteins and fat foods ad libitum. Considering that it makes no recommendations regarding the right choices, this represents a potential danger for those at risk of heart disease. The Montignac Method is neither a variant nor a modified version of the Atkins diet since it does not exclude any food category. As opposed to the Atkins diet, the Montignac Method even recommends carbs and proposes Glycemic Indexes (GI) so that we can choose wisely, namely low GIs. As concerns fats, the Montignac Method recommends those that reduce the risks of heart-disease. Accordingly, we have to conclude that low-calorie diets and the Atkins diet go to extremes and are thus unbalanced; while one rules out fats, the other excludes carbohydrates. What the Montignac Method proposes, more than an ordinary diet, is a balanced way of eating to lose weight and to keep fit and slim.
Q4
In magazine articles, dietitians and nutritionists always give the impression that the Montignac diet is dissociated and food combining. After having read Michel Montignacs book and having followed this diet with excellent results, I realize that what they say is tot ally misguided. I was just wondering why.
Answer
The Montignac Methods immediate success (at the beginning of the 1980s) took skeptic nutritionists by surprise and made them fear for their own standing. Montignac not only insisted on the futility and risks of low calorie diets, his excellent results proved that he was right. In self-defense, they sought to caricaturize this innovative diet. They stigmatized it as dissociated and unscientific. By so doing, they attempted to disqualify it in order to avoid a true debate on the scientific logic behind the Montignac Method and its quantification through Glycemic Indexes. The GI concept challenged what up to then had been the universally-held truths on which these nutritionists based their dieting recommendations. The Montignac Method showed that traditional diets were not only obsolete but ineffective and a potential health risk. The best way to define the Montignac Method is as a free and balanced way of eating by knowledgeably choosing food which con tributes to reducing insulin, the weight gaining hormone. Carbs are chosen for their low GIs, lipids depending on their acid fats, and proteins because of their origin. The scientific basis for Montignacs recommendations leaves no room for these supposed pseudo dissociations.
Q5
Ive read several articles published in womens magazines by a nutritionist at the Bichat Hospital in Paris, Dr. Jacques FRICKER, He says that the Montignac Method is effective but that it is dangerous because it reduces muscular mass and increases risks of heart failure because it is too rich in fats. This really surprises me since my husband followed your diet and he is still perfectly healthy and it has even reduced his cholesterol. Id like to know the reason behind Dr. Frickers negative view of the Montignac Metho d.
Answer
Dr. Fricker made himself known at the beginning of 1980s at the head of Montignacs detractors. He contributed largely to car icaturing the Montignac Method as fat-intensive dissociated diet . His disobliging commentaries seem to disregard scientific findings and to arise from a desire to halt progress. Mr. Fricker cannot ignore the fact that the well-known and proven principle that dieting, any diet, necessarily reduces cholesterol. If this is so, there is no reason why the Montignac Method, which Dr. Fricker admits works to lose weight, would be the exception. Whats more, two principles which apply when following the Montignac Method automatically reduce heart disease ris ks, as shown by numerous scientific studies. The first principle is to eat carbs with low Glycemic Indexes and the second, is to eliminate saturated and trans fats and substitute them with monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids. Most of Michel Montignacs books a re prefaced by eminent cardiologists who bear witness to the beneficial effects of this method on the lipidic profiles of their patients. An extensive Canadian study under the direction of Professor Dumesnil (Cardiologist) published in 2001 in the British Journal of Nutrition even showed the immense beneficial effects of the Montignac Method in reducing risks of heart failure. Furthermore, all the surveys and studies carried out (particularly Pr. Dumesnils study) have shown that by following the Montignac Method a person consumes approximately 30% proteins. This is twice as much as the amount of proteins proposed by official dietary recommendations. Dr. Fricker, despite his contradictions, can hardly ignore the fact that under such conditions the chances of reduced muscular mass are almost non-existent. Slander, slander! Something can always be found to slander! said Beaumarchais.
Q6
Does that mean that we have to follow the method for the rest of our life in order to keep the weight loss?
Answer
Its important to keep the basic eating habits (and principles) of the method. Because if you come back to your former eating habits, eating mainly high GI food and the wrong fat, you will obviously reactive the metabolic process leading to fat storage. However, by following the phase 2, applying the principles of the AGI (Average Glycemic Index of the meal), you are entitle to manage discrepancies.
Q7
A friend recommended the Montignac Method to me. I have no idea what book to buy to learn about the method. What book do you recommend?
Answer
If you are a woman under 45, in good health and not excessively overweight, we would recommend you read the book Eat Yourself Slim published in 2010 by Alpen (ISBN 978-2-35934-038-9) If you are pre or post menopause, and take medicine for other pathologies, you will find the most suitable recommendation in the latest edition of The French GI diet for women (ISBN 978-2359340679) published in 2010 by Alpen. You should make sure that you get the latest editions since the older versions are still around in some bookstores and the Montignac Method has considerably progressed in the past few years.
Q8
I followed the Montignac Method ten years ago and it gave me good results. Over the years, Ive stopped applying its basic pr inciples and have gained weight again. The book I have is not on the website and I would like to take up the method once again. Is it really necessary for me to buy the latest edition?
Answer
The books reflect the state of the art at the time they were written. The books listed on the website are the latest editions (former editions are not mentioned.) A great number of scientific studies have been published since the first editions of Michel Montignacs books first came out. M. Montignac has also carried out significant research and experiments with his scientific team. He has thus, naturally, systematically updated his books in keeping with the most recent findings. Phase II, the stabilization phase, for example, has changed from when it first started. Today, it is even more effective and easier to follow than it was then. The Montignac Method has considerably evolved since his books were published for the first time. We advise you to read the latest US and UK books: Eat yourself slim (ISBN 978-2-35934-038-9) published in 2010 by Alpen and The French GI diet for women (ISBN 978-2359340679) published in 2010 by Alpen which include a wholly updated version of Phase II and as they are the revised updated editions.
Q9
All my life Ive tried one diet after another looking for results. Three years ago, a friend of mine lost a lot of weight with the Montignac Method and she advised me to read your book Eat Yourself Slim and Stay Slim! (ISBN 2 -91273-700-1) This was when my husband and I decided to follow the recommendations for phase I. By the end of the third week, my husband had already lost 12 pounds whereas I had only lost 2 lbs. Id like to know why. Both my husband and I are 50 years old but, while he is in excellent health, I am under treatment for thyroids problems. Does the Montignac Method work better for men than it does for women?
Answer
The Montignac Method does not work better for men than for women. Proof of this is the fact that it helped your female friend to lose weight. The results might not be identical and, in some cases, it might take a bit longer for certain women to achieve the results desired. Three factors might slow down the weight losing process where women are concerned. This might be your case. 1. Having previously followed consecutive reduced-calorie diets. You have formerly subjected your body to several restrictive diets. Your body keeps a record of this frustrating experience and it is not surprising, at least at the beginning, if it reacts negatively when you change your eating habits. You will probably have to give your body time to recover and adopt new reference points. A doctor from Rouen told us he had prescribed the Montignac Method to one of his patients who had successfully followed one low-calorie diet after another for 25 years. She followed the Montignac Method for 5 months without losing a single kilo. She was naturally disappointed that it had worked for several of her friends but not for her. She continued on the Montignac Method because it had rid her of her chronic migraine. Suddenly during the sixth month she lost over 8 pounds and over the next three months she lost 16 more. In 9 months she lost over 24 pounds even if it took her 5 months to lose her first pound. In conclusion, it took her body 5 months to find a new balance and begin to trust her choices. 2. Hormonal disorders are another factor which might increase womens resistance, notably during menopause. These hormonal disorders increase our energy and we use up less energy. 3. When our bodies basic energy consumption slows down is the third factor. This can also occur when we take ce rtain medicines. (See Montignacs book The French GI diet for women (ISBN 978-2359340679). In short, even if women, more often than men, are faced with factors which slow down the process of losing weight, the Montignac Method, which basically addresses body functions that cause us to gain weight (through high blood glucose levels), is no less effective for women than it is for men. Its just a m atter of the time required to achieve our goals.
Q10
Ive read Michel Montignacs books and dont quite understand how to make the connection between the different foods. He spea ks of different types of meals but I would like to know which of these foods we can in fact fit into our diet.
Answer
The Montignac Method is based on the fundamental principle of consuming low Glycemic Index carbohydrates and, more particularly, very low GIs carbs which trigger low blood sugar and insulin responses. The beneficial effect is preventing weight gain and insulin reactions. The basic rules for applying the Montignac Method are as follows: -In Phase I, there are two types of meals: Balanced protein-lipid meals: containing protein, fat (meat, eggs, cheese, oil) and carbs. In this case, the carbs should have a 35 GI or lower. Protein-glucidic meals: if the carbs have a GI ranging from 35 and 50, you should not accompany them with fats except boiled or poached fish. Any milk product which you might eventually eat with these meals should also be fat-free. -In Phase II, balanced meals (proteins, lipids, carbs) can contain any carb with a 50 GI or less. You can find an up-to-date GI chart on the Montignac website. This chart is regularly updated on the basis of the most recent findings. Applying these principles by themselves will not guarantee the desired results. You need to understand the philosophy behind the method and follow it accordingly.
Q11
Im not sure I understood the principles behind phase I. Could you please tell me more?
Answer
The most convenient way of losing weight is to reduce insulin secretion to the max in order to block lipogenesis (the process by which our bodies store fat) and to activate lipolysis (the process by which stored fat is liberated and burned.) There are two examples of this: - We can eat a lipid-protein meal (also called lipidic meal), meaning to combine proteins and fats (meats, eggs, cheese). In this case, we should solely consume carbs with a 35 GI or lower. - Another possibility is to eat carb-pretein (also called glucidic/carbohydrate meal) meals which are essentially composed of carbs with a 35 to 50 GI. In this case, the only fats allowed are Omega 3 fats (raw, poached or stewed fish) and more reduced portions of monounsaturated fats (a trickle of olive oil on pasta al dente, for example.) In either case, in Phase I, we should only eat carbs with GIs under 50.
Q12
How long do we have to stay in phase 1? I could move to phase 2, but Im hesitating as I feel so well in phase 1.
Answer
Should you have less than 10 pounds to lose it is recommended to stay in phase 1 at least three months, even if you have rapidly lost what you expected, because it is important to give your metabolic system enough time to restore its functioning. Beyond 10 pounds , its advisable to stay in phase 1 another month after the weight lost is over. But phase 1 is perfectly balanced. This is why you may stay there if you feel like it.
Q13
How to manage a discrepancy?
Answer
A discrepancy is a deviation from the diet rules, for instance, eating a high GI during a protein-fat meal. To manage a discrepancy is to find the way to neutralize its metabolic effects. Two rules must be followed: - The compensation: in order to neutralize the hyperglycemia induced by the consumption of a high GI, one has to eat a low GI carb. - The anticipation: to be efficient in terms of neutralization, the low GI food
must be eaten before the discrepancy high GI. Example: If you decide to eat French fries, you will have beforehand to eat raw vegetables. The objective is to reach a resulting glycemia of the meal of 50 or below.
Q14
How long do we have to wait after a carbohydrate meal before eating fatty food during phase 1?
Answer
At least two hours.
Q15
I have been following the Montignac Method for over a year. I am three-weeks pregnant and would like to know if I can keep on applying Montignacs eating principles during my pregnancy. What about when breast feeding?
Answer
The Montignac Method is wholly compatible with pregnancy and breast feeding. We advise you to read The French GI diet for women published by Alpen (ISBN 978-2359340679). This book, published in 2010 deals with pregnant women too. Pregnancy contributes to slowing down weight loss due to changes in hormonal levels. If you follow the Montignac Method while pregnant or breast feeding, you will certainly recover your figure (except if you have developed a resistance to losing weight.) You can then keep your weight steady by following Phase II.
Q16
I lost 16 pounds two weeks ago with the Montignac Method and am now successfully following Phase II. However, I am now pregnant. Is the Montignac Method compatible with pregnancy? Where can I find the necessary information?
Answer
The Montignac Method is totally suitable for pregnant women. It can even be recommended to control weight during pregnancy and avoid risks of hyperinsulinism (high blood sugar levels) in the unborn infant. For further information on this subject, see Michel Montignac : The French GI diet for women (ISBN 978-2359340679) published in 2010 by Alpen.
Q17
I have a 10-year old daughter who is really overweight. Is there any reason why she should not follow the Montignac Method?
Answer
The Montignac Method is not really a diet in the strict sense of the word since it does not limit the amount of food we eat. Its a perfectly balanced way of eating which consists of choosing our food knowledgeably. The idea is to select from each of the different categories the food whose effects on our bodies will allow us to reduce, and in principle, prevent fat from getting stored. It is not a matter of eating less but of eating better. Obesity, in children and adults, is the result of high blood glucose levels (hyperinsulinism). The best way to lose weight is to eat with the aim of reducing this hyperinsulinism. This precisely is what the Montignac Method offers: the guidelines to achieve this aim. With the added advantage that we can eat freely and without depriving our bodies of the nutrients it needs. Montignac proposes a diet rich in micronutrients which is why it is perfectly suitable for children as well. Nonetheless, a childs eating habits have to be ch anged carefully and with precaution so the child does not feel marginalized and to avoid potential blocks. This is why we recommend our book The French GI diet for women (ISBN 978-2359340679) published in 2010 by Alpen.
Q18
How much should we eat? I think I once read a passage in one of Montignacs books where it said that all you had to do was eat until you felt full. The question is if a person can really eat as much as he/she wants and still lose weight.
Answer
The Montignac Method does not focus on amounts or portions since experience shows that if we choose wisely, low-GI carbs, the proteins needed, will rapidly make us feel full enough. At the onset, however, it is best to stick to reasonable portions like those served in France, which are half or one third the size of servings in restaurants in the States.
Q19
What about quantities of meat, fish, pasta, dry legumes/pulses that are authorized to eat? Same question for breakfast, how much oats and how many slices of integral bread may we eat?
Answer
In the Montignac Method its not necessary to eat less, but this doesnt mean that we may eat far more. Its just advisable to eat no rmally. A normal serving of meat or fish is around 150/200g depending if we are young (below 30) or older especially above 50. 160g of (dry) spaghettis are widely enough for a normal pasta dish. Regarding breakfast: - 3 slices of integral bread (150g), - 1 bowl of oats (4 table spoons)
Q20
How can I calculate a Glycemic Index myself?
Answer
Each carb has a precise GI which is the result of an estimate based on tests carried out on the food in its raw state. It is almost impossible for laymen to make these estimates on their own. The only solution is to refer to the GI chart. These explanations regarding the way to estimate Glycemic Indexes are available on our site (http://www.under-pressure.ch/client_montignac/en/the-glycemic-index-concept/.)
Q21
I dont understand why the GI chart does not include all foods (like for example meat) and why others have a 0 GI (like olive oil.)
Answer
GIs measure the increases in glycemia (blood sugar levels) after eating food containing sugar or starch, in other words, carbs. This is why only those foods which fall into the glucidic category have Glycemic Indexes. Red meat, poultry, cold cuts and oils, which are not carbs have a 0 GI.
Q22
I dont understand how to calculate the resulting glycemia of a meal.
Answer
It consists in calculating the weighted average of the glycemic index of all carbohydrates included in the meal providing the quantity of starch/sugar is the same, otherwise you must make a rule of 3. Sugar whose GI is 70 is in fact the resulting glycemia of 60% of glucose (GI=100) and 40% fructose (GI=20). But remember that if you want to lower the resulting glycemia, the food with the lowest glycemic index must be eaten before the food with the highest GI.
Q23
What is the glycemic load?
Answer
The glycemic load (GL) is a complementary notion which allows us to choose our foods wisely. It is estimated by multiplying the foodstuffs pure glucidic content (100 g) by its Glycemic Index and dividing the result by 100.
GLYCEMIC INDEX 85 25 20
In the above example, the glycemic load balances the carrots GI and can be eaten in Phase I while fructose, which has a high GI, can only be consumed in very small quantities. Soon we will post a page on our website explaining why this is so. Nonetheless, this notion is a bit complex and not really necessary for following the method.
Q24
Why does it take longer to lose weight the second time we decide to follow the Montignac diet?
Answer
If you lose weight after following Phase 1 and instead of switching to Phase 2, you go back to your former wrong eating habits, your body will keep it in its memory. Consequently once you decide to go on the Montignac diet for another time after putting on weight one again, the body will show its frustration by developing a kind of resistance to weight loss. Most of the time, it mainly slows down the weight loss process.
Q25
After reading The French Diet, I decided to follow the Montignac Method. The problem is that I have been eating in between meals for years since I get the impression that Im hungry. What do you advise me to do?
Answer
If you follow our recommendations, you will probably not feel hungry in between meals. In principle, you can eat more than three meals a day as long as you dont eat more than what you would have eaten in the course of those three meals. If you get hungry during the day, you can eat an apple and 20 raw, unshelled and unsalted almonds, hazel-nuts or walnuts. Almonds contain low GI carbs as well as proteins. They make excellent snacks. If the craving is great, you can even accompany this snack with 1 or 2 squares of chocolate that contains 70% of cocoa.
Q26
When I eat fruits and vegetables my stomach is ok. However when I eat integral bread or crackers with a high content of fibers, I feel bloated and may suffer from flatulence.
Answer
If you have switched to the Method recently it may indicate that your body which is very sensitive it is not yet used to your new eating habit. Therefore you should manage to introduce the high fiber products more slowly, little by little. But you may also make some mistakes in the implementation of the Method. If its the case, go back to the details of the books , but we recommend also that you read the answers related to the appropriate questions.
Q27
How can one follow the Montignac Method which recommends eating fiber food (dry legumes, integral bread, fruits, vegetables) when one has an irritable colon?
Answer
At the begging its necessary to introduce the fiber very little by little. What must be avoided are the dairy products, the saturated fat, the fried food and the whole cereals. Start with very small quantity of fiber food and increase very slowly the portions during weeks and even months up to a normal serving. The mistake that make usually the colopath patient is to stay away completely from all fibers which contribute to amplify the disease. Out of the crisis, its necessary to reintroduce the fibers i n proceeding very slowly starting with leeks, green beans, broccoli and fruit. Later on if the intestine stands it, we can introduce very small portion of whole cereals and at the end dry legumes. In order to calm the pain or get rid of the gas its advisable to take capsules of charcoal and clay.
Q28
I am a Type 2 diabetic. Can I follow the Montignac Method? Are there any special recommendations?
Answer
The study done by Laval University Professor Dumesnil on the Montignac Method (published in November 2001 in the British Journal of Nutrition) shows that this method has been clinically proven to reduce risks associated with cardiovascular disease: - Lower cholesterol levels, - Reduced triglycerides by 35% within six days. - Reduced glycemia and insulin levels within 24 hours, that which contributes to preventing or reducing the risk of diabetes. However, even Type II diabetics exhibit some differences. The onset of Diabetes II is tied to insulin resistance, that which results in hyperinsulinism (excessive insulin secretion.) Notwithstanding genetic predisposition, diabetes is the result of bad eating habits: too many carbs with high GIs plus saturated and trans fatty acids. Experience shows that, when detected at an early stage, it is possible to reverse the disorder to some extent. All we have to do is take up good eating habits such as not eating saturated fats and carbs with high GIs. Instead, we opt for low-GI carbs, monounsaturated fats (olive oil) and polyunsaturated animal fat (Omega 3). Thus, by lowering blood sugar levels, we can also reduce our resistance to insulin and, even if we do not cure our diabetes, we can at least keep it from getting worse. When the diabetes is at an advanced stage requiring external insulin, it might not be possible to reverse it by just following a special diet. The Montignac Method has proven to be particularly effective in reducing insulin resistance and lowering blood sugar levels. We advise you to read the latest US and UK books: Eat yourself slim (ISBN 978-2-35934-038-9, published in 2010 by Alpen) or The French GI diet for women (ISBN 978-2359340679, released in 2010 by Alpen). Careful reading of this book should help you in your search but will not, however, fill in for the need for specialized medical advice.
Q29
I have been applying the Montignac Methods principles for the past week and I cant seem to shake off the impression of having high blood sugar levels (which I have suffered for years) an hour or two after breakfast and lunch. What would you advise me to do?
Answer
The Montignac Method operates on the basic principle that eating low and very low GI carbs, which trigger weak glycemia and insulin responses, is the best way to keep from gaining weight and preventing Reactive Hypoglycemia. If youre always tired and suffe ring hypoglycemia, you have probably become overly-dependant on sugar. Your body probably needs time to disintoxicate itself and recover a normal balance. The only way to achieve this is by persevering in order to force your body to produce its own sugar since you have accustomed it to receiving the sugar it needs when it needs it. Nonetheless, the lack of results might be a sign that there are other causes behind your high blood sugar levels. It might be a good idea to consult a physician.
Q30
The weight I have to lose is not enormous (10 or 12 lbs). I do, however, have cholesterol problems and high triglyceride levels. If I lose weight with this diet, what will happen with my cholesterol and triglycerides?
Answer
Numerous studies have shown a close correlation between, on the one hand, LDL-cholesterol ("bad" cholesterol) and high triglyceride levels and, on the other hand, a diet heavy in high-GI carbs (potatoes, refined flour and sugars) By adopting the Montignac Methods recommendations, namely to opt for low-GI carbs, you should easily be able to rid yourself of over 10 to 12 pounds. Your insulin and glycemic levels will noticeably improve. Furthermore, Professor Dumesnils study on the Montignac Method has shown that this method decreased triglyceride levels by 35% in just six days. If this is not your case, you should consult your doctor.
Q31
I suffer from hypothyroidism which is a weight gain factor. I have just started to follow the Montignac Method. Is there something special I should do given my disease?
Answer
We recommend that you apply thoroughly the phase 1. Try in particular not to eat any carbohydrate whose glycemic index is over 35. Once the weight loss has really started even if it takes some time, you may come back to the two basic types of meal and eat foods whose glycemic index is between 35 and 50 during carbohydrate meals. However, you will get better results if you stay away from gluten cereals (wheat, rye, oat) replace them by Saracen/buckwhea t and quinoa. Rice is very acceptable (Basmati especially) because it behaves as if its glycemic index were lower (insulin response is reduced.) Another important recommendation: reduce you consumption of dairy products (milk, yogurts) replace them by Soya products. If you eat cheese, youd better choose sheeps milk cheese such as Manchego (Spanish cheese).
Q32
I was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian disease which triggers hyperinsulinism and insulin resistance. Might the Montignac Method help?
Answer
The polycystic ovarian disease as you say triggers an excessive insulin secretion which leads to wait gain. The target by following the Montignac Method is precisely to suppress the excess of insulin induced by the wrong carbohydrates. The Montignac Method can obviously help you to prevent from putting on weight because of your health problem but it may also help you losing some weight even if it will take longer.
Q33
In addition to the Montignac Method (12kg lost within 2 months). I have decided to start again practicing sport. As this is energy requesting what do you recommend in particular?
Answer
The Montignac food recommendation for somebody who practices sport must be adjusted although the basic principles remain the same (high glycemic index carbs are forbidden.) In order to have a balanced food category intake one must bring during the day in terms of energy intake: 40% carbohydrates, 30% proteins and 30 % fat (good fats). Before, during and after the sport activity, depending on its intensity, you are advised to eat dry fruits such as figs, apricots, prunes as well as almonds and chocolate sweetened with fructose. During meals, you must eat low glycemic index carbohydrates such as spaghettis quinoa (even rice) and dry legumes/pulses such as lentils beans and peas (chickpeas.)
Q34
Is it possible to switch overnight from a low calorie diet to the Montignac without any risk to put on weight? Are there special adjustments to implement?
Answer
One can switch from a low calorie diet to the Montignac Method but this must be done very progressively. 1/ Suppress all high glycemic index food (such as potatoes) and replace it by very low glycemic index carbohydrates. 2/ Reintroduce low fat proteins (such as chicken breast, steam cooked fish) by increasing the quantities. 3/ Reintroduce little by little good fat such as olive oil and fish fat. In other words, one must carefully apply thoroughly the phase 1 starting from small quantities and increasing the servings progressively up to normal. This transition may take two to three months, the time the body needs to rebuild its metabolism.
Q35
I have been following Phase I of the Montignac Method for the past 4 months. I lost around 8 kilos during the first three months but, for the past three weeks, my weight has not changed. I still need to lose from 4 to 5 kilos. Why did I stop losing weight?
Answer
It is normal for your body to want to take time out after having rapidly lost the first kilos. The answer is to persevere and you will soon start losing weight again, even if those last kilos take a bit longer to lose. Other recommendations: - Limit intake of fresh milk products (milk, yoghurt and Quark or curd cheese,) - Eat light dinners, basically fruit, and try to eat, what you would normally have eaten for dinner, at breakfast and lunchtime. This means that your breakfast can include what you would have had for dinner the evening before. Its not a matter of eating less but of eating the most when you body needs greater energy.
Q36
I started following the Method about three weeks ago. The first week, I lost a kilo but, in the past two weeks I have not lost any more weight and I have been following Phase I to the letter. Why is this?
Answer
There might be several reasons for this resistance to losing weight: - Age, possibly accompanied by a hormonal disorder (hypogonadism). As we age, we burn less energy when we rest, which means a lowering of resting metabolic rate RMR. - Medical treatments might also reduce the amount of energy we burn or stimulate insulin secretion (learn more...) - Pathological problems which might interfere such as
Hypothyroidism, hormonal disorders, excess stress. - Prior restrictive hypocaloric diets followed on a regular basis delay the changes required to reach the metabolic balance needed in order to lose weight. - Eating large amounts of fresh milk products. A maximum of 2 yoghurts a day is the recommended amount. Etc. It would be advisable to have a full medical check up to know. The Montignac Method has had excellent results with 85% of the people who have followed it. Some people (often women) have developed a particular resistance and their cases are special. Experience shows, however, that in most cases the best way to overcome this resistance to losing weight is by simply persevering long enough (possibly several months) for our bodies to rediscover the balance needed to be able to lose weight. There are also other reasons for this resistance: - A need to understand the Montignac Method better in order for it to be effective. - If your body tells you your weight is fine, it is almost impossible to lose weight! Thus, one, or several of these causes combined, can be at the root of failure or mediocre results.
Q37
I started the method 2 months ago. Although my weigh has remained at the same level, my body is completely unbloated. I lost 2 sizes and I feel far better than before. Is it possible to get slimmer without losing weight?
Answer
Yes! In following the Montignac Method you have lost fat which weigh a little and takes a lot of room and this fat has been replaced by muscles which are heavier and take less room.
Q38
I had few pounds to loose (3 kg) which I have lost within one month in phase 1. Is there a risk to lose more than I need if I continue applying the basic principles of the method?
Answer
Contrary to low calorie diets, the Montignac Method is perfectly balanced and doesnt bring any lack of nutriment (vitamins, minerals). On top of that there is no quantity limitation. Its not possible to lose more weight than the body needs to.
Q39
I started following the method 2 weeks ago. I lost 4 pounds the first week and only one the following one. It may happen that one day I get 200 grams and the following day I have lost 300 grams. Is this normal?
Answer
Yes its normal, especially for a woman, to lose and regain weight over night. This is mainly linked to a water retention pro blem. This is why its not advisable to weigh one self every day. Once a week in the morning after a fasting nigh t is enough.
Q40
Why is it recommended that we do not eat large amounts of fresh milk products even if they have low GIs (30/35)?
Answer
The GI for most carbs basically reflects its impact on our blood sugar levels. Accordingly, low GI carbs will trigger low insulin responses. Most foodstuffs have an insulinic index (II) proportional to their GI. There is, however, an exception: fresh milk products (yoghurt and Quark or curd cheese) which have a low GI but a high II. These should be eaten in small portions since, even if they have low GIs, they contain whey which triggers critical insulin responses. The ideal then is not to eat more than the equivalent of 2 yoghurts a day. The best thing is to eat cheese without whey, cheese which has been cured (hard cheese). Low-fat milk products, on the other hand, should be eaten with meals which are basically carbohydrates (including breakfast.) Whole-milk foods and cured cheese should be eaten with protein-lipid diets.
Q41
How can we know if a dairy product contains lactoserum (whey)? What are the yoghourts and cheeses that we must select?
Answer
The dairy products that contain whey are those made from the whole milk: - the milk itself (plain, fat free and lactose free,) - the yoghourt, - the fresh cheese (beaten and/or homogenized.) In other words cheeses that have not been completely drained. Some cheeses are sold within a draining filter; therefore they must be poured off regularly in order to get rid of the liquid part (whey.) All dry cheeses have by definition been cleared of the whey. This is the case of gruyere, camembert as well as Holland cheeses.
Q41
How can we know if a dairy product contains lactoserum (whey)? What are the yoghourts and cheeses that we must select?
Answer
The dairy products that contain whey are those made from the whole milk: - the milk itself (plain, fat free and lactose free,) - the yoghourt, - the fresh cheese (beaten and/or homogenized.) In other words cheeses that have not been completely drained. Some cheeses are sold within a draining filter; therefore they must be poured off regularly in order to get rid of the liquid part (whey.) All dry cheeses have by definition been cleared of the whey. This is the case of gruyere, camembert as well as Holland cheeses.
Q43
Do we get enough calcium from the other food if we eat very little dairy product and cheese especially for women over 50 (risk of osteoporosis)?
Answer
There is calcium in almost all the food we eat and especially in the water we drink. The strong recommendation we are always given to eat plenty of dairy products in order to meet our needs in calcium has no real scientific foundation. Its mainly a marketing arg ument invented 50 years ago by the milk lobby and which has been navely broadcasted by the medical community. Epidemiological studies that we can now refer to are very clear: Osteoporosis almost doesnt exist in the population who traditionally eat neither dairy products nor cheese. This was the case for Japan. Conversely in countries such as Finland, where people are the heaviest consumers of milk and dairy products in the world they also are the champions of the osteoporosis and diabetes of type 1. In the Montignac Method we advise to stay away from milk and dairy product because the whey fraction of them (lactoserum) is insulinotropic. One yogurt a day is widely enough to bring the intestinal ferment we need. However hard cheeses are ok since they dont have whey anymore.
Q44
What about yoghourt? Do we have to stay away from them (because of them whey content) and replace them by Soya yoghourts with the risk of eating GMO?
Answer
One normal yoghourt a day is enough to enjoy the beneficial effect of the lactic ferments that are good for our guts. Soya yoghourts have the same ferments. Normally, only Soya used to feed animals may come from GMO origin not the Soya used for humans.
Q45
What are the cheeses you recommend? Can they be eaten without distinction in all type of meal?
Answer
During phase 1, hard cheese (or old cheese) can be eaten in a protein fat meal where the carbohydrates have a GI below 35. This is valid for all kind of hard or soft cheese which means cheese that are drained from the lactoserum (whey) left.
Q46
Since alcohol has a 0 GI, can I drink it at any time?
Answer
Alcoholic beverages contain very little carbohydrate. The alcohol is used directly by our bodies as fuel and burned as a first choice. This means that, when we drink a lot with our meals, our bodies tend to burn first and foremost the alcohol we imbibe and not the energy supplied by the fat and carbohydrate food we eat. As a result, our bodies might end up storing these foods instead of burning them. Whisky, gin, rum, vodka and other strong alcoholic beverages are not recommended since they are fattening. It would be much better to drink one or two glasses of red wine, but at the end of the meal.
Q47
I love drinking wine with my meals. How much red wine can I drink? What about beer?
Answer
Wine (white and red) and champagne are not carbs and do not have Glycemic Indexes. In general, alcoholic beverages contain little carbohydrate. Nonetheless, when consumed in excess, wine (like all alcoholic drinks) causes hypoglycemia and with it the craving to snack. Whats more, we recommend not drinking more than one glass of wine per day in Phase I so as not to r un the risk of not losing weight. During Phase II, you can drink two glasses of champagne or wine (preferably red) at the end of your meal. The same goes for beer and cider.
Q48
Is it possible while following the Montignac Method to continue a homeopathic treatment whereas the pills are made with sugar?
Answer
Yes, because the quantity of sugar it represents is insignificant. At least not enough to jeopardize the effect of the Montignac food habits.
Q49
I am surprised that nuts have such a low GI. How should we eat them?
Answer
Peanuts, almonds, hazel-nuts and pecans are carbs with very low GIs (15) and, as such, can be eaten during Phase 1. Nonetheless, they are also rich in fat and we should therefore try to avoid eating them in big quantities with glucidic meals.
Q50
Why do you advise to eat dry fruits (almonds, nuts, peanuts) not salted?
Answer
Because the salt favors water retention and increases the intestinal absorption of the glucose that may contribute to weight gain.
Q51
Can I eat dried fruit during Phases I and II? When is the best time?
Answer
Only figs, apricots and prunes have low GIs. Dates and raisins are, on the other hand, to be avoided. Dried fruit can be eaten for breakfast with cereal or at the end of a meal. Dried fruit is particularly recommended before, during, and after muscular efforts and sports. Eaten with almonds it can serve as the equivalent of a small and highly energetic meal, with a very low Glycemic Index to boot.
Q52
A friend of mine, who also follows the Montignac Method, has advised me not to eat fruit desserts with my meals. I have not really followed his advice and have not seen that it makes any real difference as concerns the results of the Montignac Method. Is it true that I should watch out for fruit desserts with my meals?
Answer
Certain people tend to feel bloated when they eat fresh fruit at the end of a meal. It might be better for them to eat their fruit 15 minutes before breakfast, or in between meals. Cooked fruit which is not likely to ferment can, on the other hand, be eaten at the end of a meal. This is true for red fruit and other berries (strawberries, blueberries, raspberries) which do not run the risk of fermenting because of their low sugar content. People that do not have this problem can eat fruit with GIs that fit in with the Montignac Method at any time.
Q53
Why is spaghetti allowed which is not the case of other pasta? And why do we have to cook them al dente? During a trip to USA I realized that pasta was not automatically made there from durum wheat. Does that make any difference?
Answer
- As far as pasta is concerned, only pastified pasta is eligible which are the case only of spaghetti and some tagliatelle. P astification is a mechanical process in which pasta dough is fed through small holes at a very high pressure. This gives the pasta a protective film which limits the amount of starch gelatinization that can take place during the cooking process. - Now, the pasta must be cooked al dente, since overcooking pasta makes its starch more digestible which increases its GI value. It is true that in many Anglo Saxon countries including in Germany and/or Scandinavian countries, pasta may be made from regular flours. You better stay away of these pasta whose GI is higher and be careful to choose only pasta made from durum wheat as they all are in Italy and France.
Q54
I am an impassioned eater of peanut butter as well as nut and almond butter. Am I authorized to continue using it as a spreading on my integral bread at breakfast?
Answer
In phase 1 its better to avoid eating peanut butter even if it is sugar free because its too heavy in fat although its good fat (polyunsat urated.) However there will be no problem in phase 2 but be sure that the product doesnt contain, sugar, corn syrup, dextrose and modified starches.
Q55
How does drinking coffee affect weight loss? What type of coffee should I drink (decaffeinated, espresso, weak, with cream)?
Answer
Caffeine slightly stimulates insulin secretion. Brewed coffee filtered or watered-down espressocontains twice to three times as much caffeine as a regular espresso. It is thus better to drink decaffeinated coffee. Accordingly, in order to increase the odds of losing weight in Phase I, caffeine consumption should be reduced to a minimum or completely discarded. Even so, a cup of pure Arabica coffee once in a while is acceptable since its caffeine content is comparatively low. Experience shows that in Phase II it is no longer necessary to forgo coffee. If you prefer your coffee with milk, we recommend that you use low-fat milk. Cream and whole milk (liquid or powder) are not recommended but they can eventually be consumed but definitely not after a glucidic meal in Phase I. Sugar is, obviously, totally out of the question. It would be a good idea to get used to drinking coffee and other liquids without adding sugar or other sweeteners.
Q56
Why is it that dark chocolate is okay while milk and white chocolate are not recommended? Generally speaking, all diets rule out any type of chocolate.
Answer
The good side of chocolate is its cocoa content. White and milk chocolate have very little cocoa or none at all. Both, on the other hand, contain large amounts of sugar. Dark chocolate that contains up to 70% cocoa has a very low Glycemic Index (25). It can thus be consumed in both phases I and II. Two or three squares can be eaten after each meal. We can even prepare a chocolate dessert and eat it with a few almonds or hazel-nuts. Cacao contains a good number of soluble fibers. This is what contributes to reducing the Glycemic Index of chocolate with 70% cacao content and to neutralizing the sugar it contains. Quality European dark chocolate (as compared to the chocolate made by the Anglo-Saxon industries) is quite simple: cocoa butter, cocoa paste, sugar, vanilla and an emulsifying agent. Producing chocolate without additives demands quality ingredients and requires a high degree of know-how. Industrial chocolate substitutes quality ingredients with vegetable fats and oils (such as karite/shea butter, nuts or palm oi l) because they are cheaper and increase the end products resistance to heat. The ingredients undoubtedly make the difference between chocolates that contain over 70% cocoa and products whose cocoa content is for all purposes symbolic. Learn more...
Q57
Can we eat chocolate every day?
Answer
Yes you can eat chocolate every day providing it has at least a 70% cocoa content. But dont eat more than 30 to 40 grams (1/ 3 of a 100g tablet.) The best way to eat chocolate is at the end of a meal.
Q58
What is exactly the nature of the cocoa butter which is the fatty part of the dark chocolate?
Answer
The cocoa butter is composed of: - 60% saturated fatty acids (34% of stearic acid and 28% of palmitic acid) - 3% of polyunsaturated fatty acids (mainly linoleic acid) - 35% of monounsaturated fatty acids This content of 60% of saturated fatty acids could be worrying. However keys have showed that during the digestion, the stearic acid (34%) is transformed into oleic acid (monounsaturated.) Finally what appears in the blood is the following: - 28% of saturated fatty acids - 3% of polyunsaturated - 69% of monounsaturated Therefore, with 72% of good fat the chocolate remains a food that prevents from cardiovascular diseases.
Q59
I recently read an on-line article (on a US website) regarding fructose. I am worried since it said that this product is as harmful as sugar and I have been following the Montignac Method for the past 4 years and have become accustomed to systematically substituting white sugar with fructose (when necessary.)
Answer
There is some confusion regarding the use of the term fructose. In Europe, fructose is derived from sugar beets or sugar cane and it has in fact a 20 Glycemic Index. In North America, fructose is a totally different thing. It is in effect derived from cornstarch that is, chemically speaking, isoglucose which has a 90-100 GI. Seventy-five percent of the sugar consumed in the States is this pseudo fructose which produces a good number of negative effects on peoples health. Some articles (ge nerally not scientific) do not distinguish between the different sugars and the comments which they reproduce in a mixed-up manner are not always referring to the same thing. In any case, daily fructose intake should not exceed 30g. Whats more, we should avoid the habit of sweetening our food just because its with a low GI sugar.
Q60
Is salt fattening?
Answer
Salt is theoretically neutral in the increase process of the fat storage but as it may be responsible for water retention it might be at stake in the total weight gain. However one must know that sodium (one of the main molecules of salt) is part of the absorption process of the glucose. Therefore, we may consider that an excess of salt consumption may contribute to favor the intestinal glucose absorption and indirectly stimulate the weight gain process. Inversely, by reducing our consumption of salt we may slow down the glucose absorption and consequently reduce the weight gain process.
Q61
What about tea?
Answer
There are two main types of tea: Black tea (such as Earl Grey) which is fermented during the drying process and the Green tea which is not fermented composed with the first top leaves of the tea plant. There are other varieties such as the red teas coming from different origins whic h undergo the fermentation process. You may also find the white tea which isnt fermented but whose leaves are harvested with the bud of the plant. The green tea is the healthiest one since it contains a high proportion of polyphenols (antioxidants) th at may activate the weight loss process, prevent from cardiovascular diseases and prevents from the aging process.
Q62
Are soy and almond milk compatible with Phase I? I ask this since these drinks are generally sweetened.
Answer
Soya and almond milk do generally contain sugar and often even Maltodextrine. They, usually, however, only contain very limited amounts of these sweeteners, which means that the sugar content is largely neutralized by the large amounts of proteins contained in these milks. The GI for these milks is at around 30.
Q63
How should I eat oak flakes? What about other cereals that come in flakes, such as einkorn and barley or even rice and corn?
Answer
First of all, we have to distinguish between oak, einkorn and barley flakes, which a re in effect the grains grounded from these cereals, and what the Anglo-Saxons call flakes as in the case of corn-flakes or rice krispies, which are in fact grains which have been popped or cooked. These type of cereals (oak, einkorn and barley) should be eaten raw, uncooked. They can also be mixed with, for example, cold or warm milk (soy and almond milk are the most indicated.) In this state, their Glycemic Indexes stay well below 50 which is ideal for glucidic meals. Comparatively, grains which are cooked or popped have Glycemic Indexes which are way above the recommend levels. This is true of all industrial cereal such as those made by Kelloggs or Nestl. Likewise, cooking oak, einkorn and barley (as for making porri dge) raises their GI to around 60 or even higher, and is therefore not recommended.
Q64
I adore Asian cooking. What Asian dishes can I eat and still stick to the diet?
Answer
Japanese cuisine is a good choice. Sushi are a good choice, even if they have a 55 GI, they contain raw fish (Omega 3 and often seaweed). They should be eaten within the framework of a balanced Japanese-style diet: with seaweed in order to lower the meals Glycemic load, which rice tends to increase. If you do not plan to accompany this meal with seaweed, better try eating sashimi. Soy sauce is acceptable but you should pay attention to the brand name. Products sold in supermarkets generally contain modified starches and other sugars. Chinese cooking is not compatible with the Montignac Method since it is generally excessively high in saturated fats (hard to digest fried foods) a well as sugar.
Q65
Can I eat as many sweetened products as I want since they have no sugar added (as indicated on the labels)? Im referring par ticularly to soda drinks and cola.
Answer
Sweetened products are normally to be avoided. Theoretically we can eat sweeteners. Studies, however, have shown that Aspartame (a chemical sweetener) tends to trigger abnormal hikes in blood sugar levels in the following meal. Another objection to synthesized sweeteners is that they artificially stimulate the craving for sugar and sweet foods. The best thing is to avoid them insofar as possible. On the other hand, if you wish to know about the side effects (such as decalcification) of cola drinks, we suggest you read our December Newsletter: cola drinks increase the risk of fractures. Sweeteners: aspartame, saccharine, acesulfame K, cyclamate, sucralose (splenda), stevia, rice syrup, polyols (maltitol, mannitol, sorbitol, xylitol...)
Q66
Can I substitute cow milk for soy and almond milk?
Answer
Soya and almond milk fit in quite well with the Montignac Method in both Phases I and II and they go well with glucidic and lipidic meals and make good in-between- meal drinks. Since soy milk might not appeal to everyones taste, a lot of brands add corn/wheat syrup and sugar. The same occurs with almond milk, which often contains sugar and Maltodextrin. Nonetheless, they still have very low Glycemic Indexes (30.)
Q67
Is the added sugar (or glucose) that is founded in many processed good susceptible to jeopardize the weight loss process?
Answer
If the proportions remain very small (from 1 to 3%) it can be considered as negligible providing the consumption of this type of food remains exceptional.
Q68
Why should I distinguish between stone ground whole grain bread and whole bread? Where I live, none of the bakeries make stone ground bread so, could I possibly use multi-grain bread instead?
Answer
Whole-grain flour (or integral) is whole because it contains all of the grain. It is generally stone-ground, unsifted and coarse, thus preserving the grains micronutrients. Bakers (with a few rare exceptions) cannot propose these products since the mills that supply them dont carry them. They basically only sell whole flour which has a GI comparable to that of white flour. Whole bread is made with industrial flours which are a bit less processed than white flour. More often than not, it is white flour with a bit of bran. Whole breads (in different places and under different names) are made with flour which is as refined as wheat flour. Adding 4 or 5 cereals will not make much of a difference unless they are in their natural state (not refined), that which is rarely the case. The only shops where you will find real stone-ground whole bread or flour are organic food stores. Choose natural leavened whole bread since natural yeast helps to lower GIs.
Q69
What can we use as a substitute of which flour to thicken a sauce or gravy?
Answer
The best product is Agar-agar which is a soluble fiber.
Q70
Im a vegetarian and have been following the Montignac Method for 2 weeks. I am not quite su re how to manage protein consumption so as to avoid possible deficiencies.
Answer
Insofar as you are a vegetarian and not a vegetalian, the Montignac Method is quite suitable for you, we suggest you substitute the recommended meat and cold cuts with eggs, cheese and fish. The problem with vegetalism is that it causes severe protein deficiencies since vegetable proteins are scarce (apart from soy) and we do not assimilate them as well. This is why vegetarians should eat at least one egg a
day (hard-boiled, for example) as well as high-protein cheese (parmesan and gruyere.) To achieve the results proposed by the Montignac Method, you have to eat in a balanced manner: 30 % proteins, 30 % fats (mono and polyunsaturated) and 40 % carbohydrates. If your meals include carbohydrates, you have two choices: Carbs with a 35 GI or lower (lentils, kidney beans, chickpeas ) should be served with lipids (olive oil) or protein-lipid foods (eggs, cheese); Carbs with a 35 GI or higher (semolina, rice), should not be eat en with fat foods (apart from fish fat) but you can, on the other hand, serve them with non-fat protein (egg whites, 0 fat cheese/yoghurt.)
Q71
I need to lose approximately 25 pounds but I am vegetarian (I eat eggs, cheese and a bit of fish). I would like to know how to apply the Montignac Method.
Answer
Considering that you are solely vegetarian and not vegetalian, the Montignac Method would recommend replacing the meat and cold cuts proposed in its menus by eggs, milk products and soy products. We would advise you to read The French GI diet (ISBN 978-2-35934-0402) published in 2010 by Alpen.
Q72
I have quite a lot of cellulite and my husband has a fatty stomach. How could we lose it?
Answer
The Montignac Method helps to prevent from the cellulite on women and from fatty stomach on men. It may even help in reducing them. However, if the cellulite is deeply set up which is linked to hormonal disturbance, cream may help superficially but the best solution may be the surgery.
Q73
Why dont you provide us with an insulinic index chart (II) for all the foods concerned?
Answer
This information is not really necessary and it could lead to confusion. For most carbohydrates, there is proportionality between the GI and II. In other words if the GI of a product is low or high the II will be low or high. There are only few exceptions: - Dairy products (milk, yogurts, cottage cheese) Although they have a low GI (given the lactose), the insulin response is high because of the lactoserum (whey) (see answer n31) - Basmati rice: although its GI is average (50), the insulin response is much lower. Then we may consider that this rice behaves as if the GI was close to 35 providing its not over cooked.
Q74
Why is the GI not mentioned on the labels of the Montignac products?
Answer
Unfortunately the French regulation doesnt allow it (in France what is not authorized is by principle forbidden), whereas it is possible in other countries (Australia-UK).
Q75
What do you think about microwave cooking?
Answer
Official scientists say that aside from the risk of an unlikely electromagnetic wave leakage if the device is old and in a bad shape, there is no danger at all for health to cook with a micro wave. However this statement which has always been developed by the electrical goods industry lobby is very contested by other health specialists. Because for them, the microwaves initiate a deep change as far as the vital structure of the food is concerned. Nutrients would be denatured in the way that their genuine molecular organization would be totally perturbed. For instance the good fat would turn automatically under the trans form which is malefic. The proteins would also be denatured in a way that they would not be able anymore to behave normally in the metabolic process. In 1991, Professor Blanc from the Institute of Technology of Lausanne University in Switzerland showed with an experiment on gunny pigs that their blood formula had wrongly changed after being fed exclusively with food cooked in the microwave (increase of free radicals opening the door to risks of cancer, decrease of hemoglobin, decrease of good cholesterol.)
Q76
Does smoking impact the efficiency of the Montignac Method?
Answer
Smoking increases the energy expenditure because the body spends energy in order to get rid of the nicotine which is a real poison. In addition, the nicotine slows down the insulin response. This explain why, when we stop smoking there is always a risk of putting on weight. And as the Montignac Method precisely works on the reduction of the insulin secretion, its the best way to overcome the fear that all smokers are facing when they decide to stop smoking.
Q77
I usually do sport early in the morning. Should I take my breakfast before or after sport?
Answer
The specialists have nuanced opinion on this question. As far as we are concerned we think that it is better to eat breakfast after doing sport because as there is no more glycogen after the night. The body will be forced to use the fat reserve as fuel which enlarges the weight loss.
Q78
Your method is full of common sense and brings many positive side effects in terms of health. However being skinny my goal is rather to put on weight. What do you recommend to get results in this way?
Answer
The only way to put on weight when one feels too slim is to break the normal and regular cycle of food intake. For instance one can completely skip an important meal and eat more at the following one or even fast during one day and eat a lot afterwards. This is the only way to force the body to make reserves. This is the reason why monks in the past were always fat . Its because they alternated fasting days with eating days that their bodies being scared of missing food managed to make reserves.
Q79
What is Quark?
Answer
Quark is a type of cheese (something like French fromage blanc ) which seems to be quite common in Anglo-Saxon countries, sometimes under different names (such as curd cheese). Visit this page for further information on different types of cheese:http://www.foodsubs.com/Chefresh.html.
Q80
What do we have to think about the practicing of the Ramadan which constists in fasting completely during the day and eating ad libitum only during the night ?
Answer
Ramadan is highly respectable since it is a religious instruction. However, we must admit that it is not really beneficial in terms of metabolism. Statistics are showing that for sensitive people, the Ramadan is prone to generate weight gain and further weight loss resistance. Because frustration from starving during long hours leads to a change in the energetic yield. Eating after fasting triggers weight gain because of the rebound effect which is amplified by the fact that the energy expenditure (metabolic rate) is in addition reduced. The best way to limit the damage during these nights meals is to apply the following rules: Eat only very low carbohydrates Reduce fat consumption Eat enough protein: white egg, breast chicken or turkey, fish Eat very slowly in reduced quantity
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday Breakfast
Thursday
Friday
1 lemon juice
1 lemon juice
Fruit puree - no 5-6 prunes sugar Montignac Montignac integral integral bread bread Montignac jam Montignac Soya yoghurt jam Green tea, Green tea, herbal tea, herbal tea, chicory, soya milk chicory, soya milk
1 lemon juice 1 lemon juice Pineapple Montignac oat flakes Orange juice
1 lemon juice 1/2 grapefruit Fat free cottage cheese Montignac jam 10 almonds Green tea, herbal tea, chicory, soya milk
Almond milk Montignac muesli Fat free Soya milk yoghurt Fat free Green tea, yoghurt herbal tea, chicory, soya milk Green tea, herbal tea, chicory, soya milk
Lunch Avocado with vinaigrette Chicken breast and tarragon in a bag Cooked Eggplant caviar Artichoke with tomato with vinaigrette vinaigrette Trout cooked in Coley filet + parsley + a foil parcel coriander in a Oven roasted foil parcel tomatoes with herbes de Montignac Dandelion salad with vinaigrette Juniper sauerkraut (home made or organic) Cooked Salad made of red cabbage and walnut Sea bass with fennel Montignac
carrots Pineapple
Provence Grapefruit
Mixed salad with cabbage, walnuts, chicken breast, eggs, olive & walnut oil, cider & balsamic vinegar 1 slice of Montignac integral bread Fresh or dried figs
Chilled soup Sliced Carrots and of asparagus black raddish celeriac with light and avocado + salt Montignac Indian tuna vinaigrette green lentils Whole with clove and wheat bay leaf Montignac Mashed basmati rice courgettes Pineapple Cooked prunes Montignac very low GI (10) spaghetti Montignac tomato sauce + mushrooms Sugarless apple puree
Saturday Breakfast 1 lemon juice Fruit puree without sugar Montignac integral bread Montignac sugar free jam Fat free yoghurt Green tea, herbal tea, chicory, soya milk Lunch Beetroot salad Chicken livers with parsley and Sherry vinegar Stuffed leeks Pineapple Diner Dandelion soup Whole wheat Montignac basmati rice with
Sunday 1 lemon juice Tomatoes Smoked salmon / onions Cottage cheese Almonds 30 g Green tea, herbal tea, chicory, soya milk
Asparagus Turkey scallops Tossed courgettes with parsley and garlic Strawberries with orange and mint
Detox Menus
7 days menu
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday Breakfast
Thursday
Friday
1 lemon juice 1 lemon juice Pineapple Montignac oat flakes Almond milk Orange juice
Montignac Montignac integral bread integral bread Montignac jam Green tea, herbal tea, chicory, soya milk Montignac jam Soya yoghurt
Fat free Green tea, herbal yoghurt tea, chicory, soya Green tea, herbal tea, milk chicory, soya milk
Montignac Fat free cottage muesli Soya milk cheese Fat free yoghurt Green tea, herbal tea, chicory, soya milk Montignac jam 10 almonds Green tea, herbal tea, chicory, soya milk
Lunch Avocado with vinaigrette Chicken breast and tarragon in a bag Cooked carrots Pineapple Eggplant caviar with tomato vinaigrette Dandelion Salad made salad with of red vinaigrette cabbage and walnut Trout cooked in Coley filet + Juniper parsley + sauerkraut Sea bass a foil parcel coriander in a (home made with fennel Oven roasted foil parcel or organic) Montignac tomatoes with herbes de Montignac Cooked lentils quinoa cooked ham Provence Apple la Grapefruit Papaya puree provenale Orange Artichoke with vinaigrette
salad Diner Cabbage soup Low GI Montignac tagliatelles with pistou Mango Mixed salad with cabbage, walnuts, chicken breast, eggs, olive & walnut oil, cider & balsamic vinegar Chilled soup Sliced of asparagus black and avocado raddish + Montignac salt Carrots and celeriac with light vinaigrette Montignac very low GI (10) spaghetti Montignac tomato sauce + mushrooms Sugarless apple puree
green lentils Indian tuna with clove and Whole bay leaf wheat 1 slice of Mashed Montignac Montignac integral courgettes basmati rice bread Cooked Pineapple Fresh or dried prunes figs
Saturday Breakfast 1 lemon juice Fruit puree without sugar Montignac integral bread Montignac sugar free jam Fat free yoghurt Green tea, herbal tea, chicory, soya milk Lunch Beetroot salad Chicken livers with parsley and Sherry vinegar Stuffed leeks Pineapple Diner Dandelion soup Whole wheat Montignac basmati rice with mushrooms and tomatoes
Sunday 1 lemon juice Tomatoes Smoked salmon / onions Cottage cheese Almonds 30 g Green tea, herbal tea, chicory, soya milk
Asparagus Turkey scallops Tossed courgettes with parsley and garlic Strawberries with orange and mint
Ingredients 4 medium size tomatoes 12 slices toasted integral bread Sea salt, fresh pepper 4 purple artichokes 1 red sweet pepper 1 green sweet pepper 1/2 cauliflower cut in florets 1 bunch of radish Firm button mushrooms 4 sticks of celery 1 cucumber 2 bulbs fennel cut in 4 8 spring onions Anchoade : 12 anchovy fillets desalted 2 cloves of garlic 5 cl wine vinegar 2 dl olive oil
Wash and cut all the vegetables into sticks. Put them harmoniously in a basket. Making of the anchoade In a mortar, crush the anchovys fillets and the garlic (remove the germ from the garlic before) unt il obtaining a puree texture. Add the vinegar and the olive oil. Season with fresh pepper. Toast the integral bread slices. Serve the anchoade with the basket of vegetables. The anchoiade can be spread directly onto the bread or be used as dip with the vegetables. Put on the table the sea salt and fresh pepper. Suggestion : Using fresh vegetables will guarantee the success of this recipe. Serve 4 Preparation time: 30 minutes
Quinoa tabbouleh
This tabbouleh can be served immediately or chilled after having covered the top of the salad bowl with plastic wrap.
Serves 4 Preparation time : 20 minutes Standing time : 25 minutes Cooking time : 4 minutes Ingredients 100 g quinoa 3 bunches Italian parsley 1 bunch fresh mint 4 vine tomatoes 3 spring onions with their green stem Juice of 3 limes 4 soup spoons olive oil Salt and pepper Place the quinoa in a fine strainer. Rinse it under plenty of water. Add two times its volume of water in a pan. Add salt. Bring to a boil. Cook covered for 3 minutes. Remove from the flame and let it 10 minutes to absorb the water. Drain in a strainer. Wash the parsley and the mint. Shred, dry and chop them very finely. Drop the tomatoes into boiling water and cook for 40 seconds then rinse under cold water. Remove their skin. Cut into quarters and deseed. Chop the pulp with a knife. Chop the onions and their stalks very finely. Pour the lime juice into a salad bowl. Dissolve a little salt in it. Whisk with the olive oil. Add the well-drained quinoa and mix. Let sit for 15 minutes. Add the parsley, mint, tomatoes, onions, season with pepper and mix.
You can find this recipe in The French GI diet (Alpen Editions)
Fish Soup
Serves 6 Preparation time: 45 minutes Cooking time: 40 minutes Ingredients 1,5 kg fresh rock fish (gutted and cut into parts): Scorpio fish, weaver, whiting, gurnard, conger eel 1 litre (4 cups) dry white wine 3 onions, finely sliced 1 leek cut lengthways into quarters 100 g (3.5 oz) celery sticks cut lengthways into strips 100 g (3.5 oz) turnip cut into small wedges 100 g (3.5 oz) fennel bulb, cut into 6-8 wedges 300 g (10 oz) tomatoes skinned 2 young bay leaves shredded finely Leaves from 1 sprig of thyme, chopped 1 dl (1/2 cup) extra virgin olive oil 2 tablespoons tomato concentrate 6 cloves of garlic, sliced thinly 1 dose of saffron Salt, pepper, coarse salt and ground pepper Heat the olive oil in a pan, add the onions, and cook on a low heat until softened. Add the celery, turnip, fennel and leek . Cook over low heat until vegetables are softened. Add the well drained fish cut into pieces and cook over low heat for a few minutes again. Add the peeled tomatoes, the tomato concentrate, the crushed garlic, the saffron and the bay leaves and thyme. Season with coarse salt and ground pepper.
Moisten with the dry white wine and 2 litres (8 cups) of water. Bring rapidly to the boil and leave to simmer for 30 to 40 minutes. Remove the big fish bones. Put the soup through a vegetable mill, then in a mixer to get a creamy puree. Bring back to the boil and season again if necessary. Serve the soup with rouille and grated cheese. Preparation of the rouille: add, according to taste, tomato concentrate and harissa to any regular mayonnaise.
*Those who prefer a ready- made soup can order our Montignac Fish Soup via ouronline Shop. This exceptional soup is made by traditional methods on Yeu Island, a small French island located 17 km away from the Atlantic coast of Vende (France). This soup is only made of fish, vegetal ingredients and spices.
Cut the eggplants in their length, about 1cm wide. Smear them with olive oil on both sides and slightly salt them. Sprinkle a bit of pepper. Spread the eggplants slices in a broiler pan and cook it a pre-heated oven (180 C/th. 5) for 30 minutes. After cooking, put the eggplants slices on absorbent paper towels to remove excess fat. Place the red peppers to grill in the oven. Then, open them and remove the skins. Cut them into strips, as wide as possible. Place the olives in a mixer until you get a puree. Cut the feta cheese into 0,5 cm wide slices. To make the terrine: place successively in a terrine pan: one layer of eggplant, 1 layer of feta cheese, 1 layer of crushed olives, 1 layer of red pepper, and so on ending with a layer of eggplant. Put the terrine in the refrigerator for at least 8 hours with a weight on top to maintain a constant pressure. Before serving, make a sauce with the chopped parsley, the light cream, the mustard, the salt and pepper. Coat the bottom of the plate with the sauce. Place 2 slices on each plate and garnish with a bit of parsley.
Ingredients 4 X 150 g ray wings (skate) from the fresh fish counter 3 dl low fat single cream A small handful parsley leaves (about 80 g), chopped 500 g courgettes, cubed 1 shallot, finely chopped 1 garlic clove finely chopped 2 tablespoons extra virgin olive oil Salt and pepper
Wash and dice zucchini. Cook in a skillet with olive oil, shallot, garlic and chopped parsley 15 g. Mix the cream and remaining chopped parsley, salt and pepper. Reduce to 1/3 sauce over low heat. In a skillet, cook the ray wings in olive oil for 5-7 minutes per side. For the preparation of the plates: spread the sauce over the plates; add the ray wings and zucchini. The easiest way to eat ray wings is to scrape the ribbed flesh away from the cartilage with a fork! (see photo of recipe slide 5)
Ingredients 2 T-bone steaks (250 g) 2 to 3 shallots 1 dl white wine 1 bunch tarragon 6 egg yolks
Peel the shallots and chop them into thin slices. Chop the tarragon. In a pan, mix the chopped shallots and tarragon with white wine. Cook it until wine is totally evaporated. Remove from heat. Add 2 soupspoons of water and the egg yolks and whisk the mixture energetically. Put the mixture back under a low heat and whisk again until you get a smooth mousse. Keep under a low heat with a double boiler. Season the T-bone steaks with salt and pepper. Cook them on the grill for 5 to 6 on each side. Serve the rib steaks with the lukewarm tarragon sabayon.
Preheat the oven to 200 C (400 F, gas mark 5). Peel, core and quarter the apples. In the pan, cook gently the apples with a little of olive oil for 10 minutes and stir continuously. Sprinkle with of the fructose and allow to caramelise a little. Oil a cake mould. Arrange the apple quarters on the bottom of the mould. Break the eggs into a bowl. Add the yolk and the fructose. Beat together. Add the almonds powder. Pour the mixture onto the apples. Put in the oven and cook for 12 to 15 minutes. Remove from the oven and allow to cool 20 minutes. Turn over the mould on a big plate and leave the mould on the top for at least 30 minutes. Turn out from the mould just before serving.
You can find this recipe in Montignac diet cookbook (Alpen Editions)
Lemon mousse
Serves 4 Preparation : 20 minutes Cooking time : 20 minutes Refrigeration : 5 to 6 hours Ingredients 3 lemons 5 egg yolks + 1 whole egg 20 cl (7fl oz) full milk 20 cl (7fl oz) whipping cream 150 g (5oz) fructose 3 leaves of gelatine (or equivalent of agar-agar)
Grate the lemon zest. Beat the eggs with the fructose, juice of 3 lemons and the zest. Heat the milk and allow to cool for a few minutes. Gently pour the milk on the egg and lemon mixture, beating vigorously with a whisk. Return to a very low heat (preferably a bain-marie) and allow the mixture to thicken while stirring constantly with the whisk. Allow to cool for 10 minutes. Soak the leaves of gelatine in cold water for a few minutes. Squeeze dry and add to the mixture, stirring in well with the whisk. Allow to cool for 30 minutes. Whip the cream and fold into the mixture. Pour into ramekins. Cover with plastic film and refrigerate for 5 to 6 hours before serving.
Pear in wine
Serves 4 Preparation time: 20 minutes Cooking time: 20 minutes Ingredients 4 to 6 pears according to size 1 bottle of red wine with a high tannin content, like Corbires or Bordeaux 3 tablespoons fructose (Montignac) Cinnamon, nutmeg Pepper, pimento (sweet paprika)
Put the wine and pears in a large saucepan. Bring to boil the wine and pears and cook for 10 minutes with the lid covering about two-thirds of the pan, to ensure the wine does not boil over. Remove from the heat and turn the pears. Add 2 or 3 pinches of cinnamon, sweet paprika, grated nutmeg and freshly ground pepper and fructose. Return to the heat as before and cook for another 10 minutes. Check the pears are properly cooked with the sharp point of a knife, and reserve on a separate dish. Reduce the wine syrup in the casserole, stirring constantly to avoid it sticking on the bottom of the pan. The syrup is ready when it is very thick. Cut and arrange the pears in bowls or plate and coat with the syrup.
Warnings regard we glycemic index (GI) , book "The glycemic index key concept in Montignac diet" For those that have not bought the book by Michel Montignac "glycemic index diet Montignac key concept" appears on 30.07.2009 WARNING glycemic indicesThe worst is that we often find (in books and on the internet) compilations of tables with different sources and which give some wrong values. 's why you should not trust any table above which give! table glycemic index that we propose in This book is not exhaustive and, in any case, it is not definitive. He was determined based on different values in the various studies conducted, after which an average. Those who read books on the Montignac method will be intrigued, perhaps as some values in this paper are different from what they found. For example, could I wonder that no sugar grains have now glycemic index 45, but most books listed as having 40 . explanation is simple: for a long time, we had a very few studies on which to rely. All that was published later helped to establish a new average. This is true for many foods whose IG may in fact be higher or lower. Our intention is to update the values in the table every new edition of the book, as we will provide further information.
load glycemic load is calculated by multiplying the GI of a food to content carbohydrates (contents in grams per serving) and dividing the result by
EXAMPLE For carrots : (85 x 5) / 100 = 4.25 glycemic load for fructose (20 x 100) / 100 = 20 glycemic load
Glycemic load is thus important because, despite the low index, certain carbohydrates - ie. fructose - may cause higher blood sugar levels than those with a high GI like boiled carrots - which, although high indices, exercise little influence on blood sugar. Parameter which we have to consider here is, in fact, pure carbohydrate content. For this reason, some experts believed that the new concept of glycemic load had to unseat the glycemic index, because it was more accurate. Or, even if we consider it an interesting concept technically, in our opinion it represents two major drawbacks: importance is limited in that, apart from a few niche products, such as those presented in the previous examples, glycemic load not raise additional interest in choosing diets. Complicated! Already GI concept is difficult to understand for many people. It seems unnecessary, therefore, further complicated the situation with a complementary concept, in practice, does not bring much more. 's why, from my point of view, thanks to add me among IG few exceptions that we can summarized in the following manner: some carbohydrates with high GI can still be consumed as such have a low GI because they have a very low content of pure carbohydrates. In this situation falls boiled carrots, melons and watermelons red. Some carbohydrates with very little IG should be eaten in small quantities. It is almost exclusively for fructose given that it contains 100% pure carbohydrates. 's why, in the Montignac diet, recommended not to consume more than 30 grams of fructose per dayI thought he was very interesting this chapter "Warnings glycemic-index" as it had enough discussion on this topic. Sorry my photos came out a little dark but increasing image reads well. below I will play, however, from page 84 (first photo in post # 2) something that has to do with some discussions arose some time ago"Glycemic index table that we propose in this book is not exhaustive and, in any case, is not definitive. He was determined based on different values in the various studies conducted, after which an average. those who read books on the Montignac method will be intrigued, perhaps as in this papersome values are different from what they found. For example, could I wonder that no sugar grains have now glycemic index 45, but in most books listed as having 40. explanation is simple: for a long time, we had a very few studies on which to rely. still being published later helped to establish a new average. This is true for many foods whose IG may in fact be higher or lower. Our intention is to update the values in the table in each new edition of the book, as we have more information available. "I do not think my opinion matters but I recommend people who have not kept (still) 3 months monti no exceptions and have many pounds of 'lost' to disregard these exceptions but keep line diet. With pleasure Pyt. Knowing that there is only one chapter "Factors that alter glycemic index" which is worth reading (I'll take pictures too) which is mostly translated Doina blog. Otherwise, repeat the diet principles.
Caesar salad
Serves 4 Preparation time: 30 minutes Cooking time: 10 minutes
Ingredients 1 head romaine lettuce 4 to 5 garlic cloves thinly sliced 10 anchovy filets thinly cut 3 egg yolks Juice of lemon 2 tablespoonful Balsamic vinegar 2 teaspoons ground mustard 4 tablespoonful extra virgin olive oil 4 slices bacon 150 g grated Parmesan Salt, freshly ground pepper 1 teaspoon Tamari sauce
Clean the lettuce thoroughly. Tear the leaves into pieces of around 4 cm. Keep in a cool place at least 1 hour before serving.
In a bowl, combine the garlic, the anchovys filets, the yolks, the lemon juice, the vinegar, the Tamari sauce and the mustard. Mix all the ingredients until the mixture is smooth. Add, little by little, the olive oil to the mixture. Whisk until thoroughly blended. The sauce should be very creamy. Season with salt and pepper and keep refrigerated for 2 to 3 hours. Fry the bacon on a medium heat in a non-stick frying pan until the bacon turns crispy. Put the bacon aside until it has cooled down, then put it in a mixer to smash it to bits. To assemble, place the torn lettuce leaves in a large bowl. Pour the dressing over the top and toss lightly. Add the grated cheese, bacon, and freshly ground pepper, toss. Serve immediately !
Tip: If you wish to add croutons to the recipe and stay in Phase I, you can make them with the Authentic Montignac Integral Bread (GI 34).
tening discovery! Either way, it is my sincere hope that this site provides clear, useful and objective information for anyone wishing to maintain healthy weight and eating habits for a lifetime. Suzy CEO Nutrimont SA Geneviere-Montignac