Sie sind auf Seite 1von 89


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 Concept Behind the Montignac Method

The Montignac Method is the fruit of years of research and testing. It is the synthesis of numerous scientific publications dating from the 1980s and the successful results of the tests carried out by Michel Montignac in junction with a varied group of medical doctors and researchers. From a scientific viewpoint, the method is unquestionable. Several papers have been published on the Montignac Method, as for example, Professor Jean Dumesnils paper published in November 2001 in the British Journal of Nutrition. For further information of the scientific premises of the Montignac Method It is not a diet The Montignac Method is not a diet in the traditional sense of the word. Dieting is limiting the amount of food consumed, something which can only be done on a short-term basis. The Montignac Method does not limit the amount of food we eat. It is a balanced way of eating by choosing knowledgeably from each food category: carbohydrates, fats, and proteins. We should choose our food because of its nutritional nature (physical-chemical characteristics) and its potential for keeping our bodies from gaining unnecessary weight, getting diabetes and suffering from the risk of heart failure Testing and scientific research has shown that, even in individuals already suffering these pathologies, these can be significantly reduced in most cases by following the Montignac Method.

It teaches us eating habits to meet our goals:

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 two main principles of the Montignac Method:

The first principle is to overcome conditioning arising from misguided messages which tell us that calories are what make us gain weight. This belief, despite its proven failure is unfortunately still widespread and preached by many dieticians. For further information on the failure of low-calorie diets The second principle is to eat food that is nutritious, that is to say, chosen by its nutritional value and metabolic potential.

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

How to apply the Montignac Method

The Montignac Method is divided into two phases. Phase I: the weight-losing phase. This phase varies depending on the amount of excess weight to be lost. Apart from choosing fat and protein wisely, this phase consists chiefly of eating the appropriate carbs, namely those with glycemic index ranked at 50 or lower. The goal is to eat meals that do not provoke hikes in blood sugar levels. Choosing our food wisely not only keeps our bodies from stocking fats (lipogenesis), it also activates processes which eliminate stored fats (lipolysis) by burning them as extra energy (thermogenesis). Phase II: stabilization and prevention phase. Carbohydrates should always be chosen by their glycemic indexes. In this phase, however, the scope to chose from is wider than in phase I. We can even enhance our ability to choose by applying a new concept, the glycemic outcome (synthesis between glycemic index and pure carbohydrate content) and the blood sugar levels which result from the meals. Under these conditons, we can eat whatever carbohydrate we want, even those with high glycemic indexes. The Montignac Method might not be the panacea to end all evils but it is currently considered the most promising option to conventional dieting (which has basically gotten us nowhere.) Its a scientific method built upon a compendium of studies carried out during the past 20 years. It is also based on results , as testified by the people who have tried it, including the doctors who prescribe it. Michel Montignac was the first (beginning in the 1990s) to propose the use of glycemic indexes to prevent and reduce obesity. Many other health experts soon followed. The Montignac Method is now part of an international school of thought validated by scientists worldwide. Among others, the prestigious Australian scientist, Professor J .Brand-Miller and the well-known American epidemiologist, Walter Willett. Thanks to its excellent results and favorable side effects -as shown by scientific studies- the Montignac Method has proven to be an innovative and extremely valuable contribution to solving weight-control problems.(See Professor Dumesnil's scientific paper)

Intestinal Absorption Physiology

The key to our metabolism !
Digestion is the set of metabolic mechanical and biochemical processes which transform nutrients into substances that can be assimilated by our bodies. Once chewed and swallowed, food reaches our stomachs where its nutrients undergo modifications which allow our bodies to further absorb them. From there, digestion continues in our small intestine where digestive enzymes turn glucids into glucose, lipids into fatty acids and monoglycerids, and proteins into amino acids. These nutrients are absorbed through the intestinal wall and passed on to the bloodstream. . Nonetheless, contrary to what is commonly believed, macro-nutrients absorption does not occur throughout the whole length (about 20 feet) of the small intestine. The fact is that 80% of the carbohydrates and lipids and 50% of the proteins consumed are absorbed in the first 28 inches of the small intestine. People believe that all of the carbs, lipids and proteins consumed are absorbed as soon as they are transformed. This is why most nutritionists and other dietitians give their patients the impression that all of the calories they consume are available as soon as they have been digested. This is far from true.

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."

"Calories" in our plates Glycemic for 100g of pure carb Index

Calories available as glucose in our organism after absorption

Glucose Syrup Fries White bread Lentils

400 Kcal 400 Kcal 400 Kcal 400 Kcal

100 95 70 30

400 Kcal 380 Kcal 280 Kcal 120 Kcal

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.

The Only Totally Balanced Diet

For years nutritionists sustained that in order to lose weight a person had to stop eating fat foods and should basically only eat carbohydrates. Well, they were wrong and hypocaloric (or low-fat) diets have been a total flop: obesity is 400% more prevalent now than it was in the 1960s. In the 1970s, the ATKINS diet created a new trend and dietitians went to the other extreme and started advising people to stop eating carbohydrates and start eating fats ad libitum. This is the "low carb" diet which is so popular in Anglo-Saxon countries. People who have followed this low-carb diet lose weight but not lastingly and the cost is enormous: increasing health problems, particularly as concerns cardiovascular risk factors. Comparatively, the Montignac Method is a perfectly balanced way of losing weight and staying slim while enjoying the wide variety of foods available. It is perfectly balanced because it does not demand that we stop eating carbohydrates and fats. Better yet, it recommends that we eat healthy portions of these foods. The Montignac Method teaches us how to choose our food wisely from these two categories on the basis of simple nutritional criterion:

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 energy factor is secondary

Contrary to widespread belief, the energy factor is secondary (which does not mean that it is to be disregarded) to weight gain. Epidemiological studies show that there is no correlation between calorie intake and obesity. There is even proof to the fact that the contrary is true in many cases. Since 1960, the daily average caloric intake in Western countries has decreased by approximately 35%.Notwithstanding, during the same period obesity has jumped by 400%. For further information on the lack of scientific conceptualization behind the calorie theory

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.

High-GI carbohydrates are at the root of hyperinsulinism

Contrary to long-standing beliefs, one carb is not the same as another; they are not not transposable since they a do not all provoke the same metabolic response. What is more, it has been shown that they are all absorbed within the same lapse of time by our intestines and that, as a result, classifying them as fast and slow sugars is absolutely absurd and misleading. For further information on the misleading notion of slow/fast sugars Since the beginning of the 1980s, proof has been given to the fact that the 980 carbohydrates which fall into the same category (two complex starches like for example lentil and potatoes) can contain the same amount of calories and yet provoke totally different blood sugar levels, possibly twice to three times as high from one to the other. In order to reflect how our bodies really respond to carbohydrates, carbs have been ranked on a scale according to their potential to raise blood sugar levels. Carbs with low GIs are those that provoke low blood sugar levels whereas carbs that provoke high sugar levels are ranked in the high GI category. For further information on Glycemic Indexes

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.

Hyperinsulinism is what makes us gain weight

As remarked by numerous authors, one of the essential properties of insulin is that it acts on fatty metabolism. This is known as lipogenesis. Storage of fatty acids in fat reserve Insuline, and a fortiori hyperinsulinism, stimulates enzyme activity, namely that of lipoprotein lipase. This enzymes function is to movilize circulating fatty acids (which correspond to fats eaten in the most recent meal) in order to stock them as triglycerides, thus increasing the volume of fat cells (adipocytes). Additionally, insulin will cause inhibition in another enzyme, triglyceride lipase,. This enzyme is responsible forlipolysis, namely, freeing stored fat reserves. (see below.) Storing glucose in fat reserves

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.

Weight-losing process (LIPOLYSIS)

As we can see, lipogenesis is the metabolic process which results in fat reserves, and so, in gaining weight. Lipolysis, is exactly the opposite: it is the metabolic process which results in freeing fats, and so, in losing weight. Our organism finds itself in a situation that forces it to seek fat in fat cells les cellules graisseuses (adypocites) to use as carburant, thus reducing their volume. In order for this to work, insulin has to be low. The mechanism is as follows: low levels of insulin activate the triglyceride-lipase enzyme, which is responsible for evicting fatty acids from adipose tissues (adypocites) by bringing them into our bloodstream so that they can be used as carburant. Our organism will then try to use them (burn them) by modifying its energetic performance, according to its needs. As a conclusion, we can say that insulin is what catalyzes weight gaining. Thus, in order to lose weight, we have to control insulin levels by trying to keep them as low as possible. To achieve this, we should try to keep after-meal (post-prandial) glycemia peaks at their lowest. The only solution will naturally be to eat only low, and preferably very low, GI carbs. Experience indicates that, by eating solely low (35 or lower) GI carbs, insulinic response stays low enough to allow our weight-losing enzyme triglyceride-lipase to work and to thus provoke a weight-losing process. The key factor to gaining weight is, as we have just seen, consuming high GI carbohydrates The lipogenesis phenomenon, described above, explains why and how. Likewise, understanding the lipolysis phenomenon makes us aware of the fact that if we want to lose weight, we have to eat low GI carbohydrates. We realize, however, that weight gain is not solely the result of storing the fats eaten in our meals. Insulin also affects surplus glucose resulting from excessive consumption of high GI carbohydrates. For many years, nutritionists believed that glucose could not be converted into fat. This is why they recommended diets rich in carbohydrates pretending that they did not make people gain weight. Professor Walter WILLETT denounced this fact when he said, by advising people to eliminate fats from their diets and recommending that they eat carbohydrates, nutritionists have contributed to spreading obesity. Uniformed or recalcitrant nutritionists failure to advise their patients on which carbs to eat left people suffering from obesity to their own devices and to their tendency to eat high-GI carbs. This made their bodies secrete more insulin and generate greater amounts of surplus glucose which their bodies did not need and which was eventually stored as fat. Scientific study on the Montignac Method

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

Principles of the Montignac Method Scientifically Validated

In November 2001, a prestigious scientific journal, the British Journal of Nutrition, published a Canadian study which bears out the scientific premises behind the Montignac Method. (1) The authors of this study are well known medical researchers at the University of Quebec. In 1996, the leading researcher, Professor Jean DUMESNIL, lost over 40 pounds thanks to the Montignac Method. Highly impressed by how this method had worked wonders for him, Dumesnil decided to probe more deeply into the principles underlying the Method. With his team and the collaboration of two eminent colleagues (the nutritionist Prof. Angelo Temblay and Prof. Jean-Pierre Dprs, a specialist in lipid disorders), Prof. Dumensil set up a trial study designed to compare the Montignac Method with diets generally recommended by officially authorized medical professionals. Twelve overweight volunteers with an average age of 47 and an average weight of 228.2 pounds (103.5 kg.) were recruited to take part in the study. Notwithstanding the fact that their Body Mass Index (BMI) was high at 33 kg/m, all of the volunteers were for all purposes in good health. This group was subjected to three different diets, each lasting 6 days, with intervening recovery periods of two weeks. For each of the 6-day periods, all meals were taken at Quebec Laval Hospital Research Center Hospital. Everything they ate was precisely programmed and calculated under strict medical supervision. Blood samples were taken at the onset and end of each of these experiments. During the last day, blood samples were taken every hour, in order to measure hourly variations in glucose, insulin and triglyceride levels during the course of a typical day. The three diets chosen for the experiment were: Diet 1 : This is the diet that is recommended by the American Heart Association (AHA). There are no limits on the amount of food that may be eaten, but lipid intake is low. Diet 2 : This diet corresponded to the Montignac Method, which stresses we should only eat carbohydrates with a low Glycemic Index. As corresponds to the methods application, there were no restrictions and parti cipants were able to eat ad libitum. Diet 3 : This diet was based on that recommended by the American Heart Association, except calorie intake was limited to the amount consumed spontaneously when the group was following Diet no.2, based on the Montignac Method. The AHA diet was chosen because, in North America, it is used as a reference for the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Its principal objective has never been to help people lose weight. It was conceived principally to improve the balance of fats in the body. This is why it contains no restrictions regarding the amount of food that may be eaten. All the same, it is built on the same recommendations made by official nutritionists, that we should eat very little fat and lots of carbohydrates without distinction. The initial assumption made by Dumesnil was that Diet 2 (the Montignac Method) would lead the participants to eat fewer calories than Diet 1 (AHA) despite the fact that in both cases they could eat ad libitum. When following the Montignac Method himself, he had noticed the satiogenic effect of the diet. In fact, he felt he ate quite enough. This satisfied feeling was proven to be true in other cases, as we shall see later. As regards Diet 3, insofar as intake was limited to a specific number of calories, we could say that it was a restrictive version of the AHA diet, corresponding pretty closely to weight-losing diets prescribed in hospitals and by most traditional nutritionists.

The nutritional results

For each of the trial periods, the the average number of calories consumed as well as the proportional distribution of each of the macronutrients was noted. Similarly, the variation in weight and waist measurement over the six-day period was compared. These are indicated in the following table:

Diet 1 (AHA, unrestricted) Kcal Proteins Lipids Carbohydrates Weight Waist size 2798 15% 30% 55% +0.2% +0.3%

Diet 2 (Montignac unrestricted) 2109 31% 32% 37% -2.4% -3.0%

Diet 3 (AHA, restricted) 2102 16% 30% 54% -1.7% -1.7%

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.

The weight-loss mechanism

The spontaneous reduction in caloric intake in Diet 2 (Montignac) is one of the reasons this dietary method is so successful. It is, in fact, very easy to follow, since it allows us to satisfy our urge to eat even when we eat less. There are two explanations for this apparent paradox. First of all, the amount of protein eaten spontaneously, is higher. Many studies have shown that proteins have a higher satiogenic effect than other foods. But above all, the carbohydrates eaten by those following the Montignac Method are chosen deliberately for their low glycemic index. Experience has shown that these carbohydrates are also quite effective in satisfying our urge to eat. What is more, by limiting our glycemic peaks, eating carbohydrates with a low glycemic index help us avoid reactive hypoglycaemia, which normally prolongs our feeling of hunger. In terms of weight loss and waist measurement, Diet 2 (Montignac) shows the best results. It is twice as effective as Diet 3, although the number of calories eaten is identical.

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

Diet 2 (Montignac unrestricted) 0.75 1.55 0.80 0.51 1.12

Diet 3 (AHA, restricted) 0.75 0.80 0.75 0.74 1,08

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.

Insulin and glucose levels

In this study, Dumesnil felt it was important to point out the effects of one of the fundamental elements of the Montignac Method, to control insulin and sugar levels in the blood. The graphs below show the hourly changes in glucose and insulin levels that were observed during the last day of each of the dietary periods.

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

After 6 days 2.27* 4.94 3.07 0.83* 5.98*

* Indicates a significant statistical change

The significant statistical changes are the following:

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

After 6 days 1.31* 5.04 3.52 0.92 5.53

* Indicates a very significant statistical change

Here we can see that the level of HDL-cholesterol is unchanged. However, overall, the level of cholesterol goes down slightly. The ratio of total cholesterol/HDL-cholesterol therefore improves. However, the most spectacular improvement relates to the level of triglycerides, which go down by 35%. The difference between level on the last day of Diet 1 and the last day of Diet 2, is an even more significant 70%. According to Prof. Dumesnil, there is no medication without side effects currently on the market that can bring about such a radical reduction in triglycerides is such short time (6 days). DIET 3: The American Heart Association diet, with caloric intake reduced to the level of Diet 2: that is, reduced by 25% with respect to Diet 1.

Before Triglycerides Total cholesterol LDL-cholesterol HDL-cholesterol Total cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio 1.76 5.01 3.24 0.96 5.26

After 6 days 1.63 5.05 3.38 0.91 5.65*

* Indicates a significant statistical change

The only significant change here is negative. There is, in fact, an increase in the Total cholesterol/HDL-cholesterol ratio, which runs counter to the effect desired and must therefore, be considered as harmful.

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.

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

The Failure of Low Calorie Diets

The American Paradox
A study (1) published in 1997 shows that, between 1980 and 1990, Americans were consuming 4% less calories and 11% less fats than previously. As concerns fat-free foods, in ten years their consumption rose from 19% to 76%. In spite of this, during the same period, obesity in the US increased by 31%. The authors of this study, bewildered by this contradiction, called their study the The American Paradox . This study simply confirmed the facts: contrary to what most nutritionists sustain, there is no correlation between obesity and calories.

Calories have nothing to do with gaining weight

In his comments on the SUVIMAX (2) study, French Professor Jacques Freg remarked that the information collected reveals that people do no actually consume large amounts of lipids (fats), contrary to what is commonly believed. This French survey, which involved over 14,000 persons who were followed over an 8-year period (from 1995 to 2003), revealed that men consumed an average of 2200 calories per day and women consumed 1600. Not only was this figure lower than expected, it was also below

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?

The energy factor does not determine weight gain

Globally, calorie consumption in Western countries is from 30 to 35% lower than 50 years ago. Paradoxically, obesity has risen by 400% during the same time lapse in these countries. In France, there are 4 times more obese people now than in the 1960s. Approximately, 20% of the people in India have become obese in the past 20 years even if they have for the most part remained vegetarian, have moderate calorie consumption and have not really changed their lifestyles and eating habits. Two questions come to mind: How can what we now know serve to improve peoples health through better eating habits? Me must f irst ask ourselves, however how dietitians can continue to ignore this evidence. Contrary to long-held beliefs, the energy factor (calories) is not a key cause of weight gain. Thus, the principle behind low-calorie diets is totally false. We must accept more advanced findings and work from there to reverse the harm done to our societies by misguided beliefs; but first we must look back on our mistakes.

Looking back on our failures

Low-calorie diets recommended by most nutritionists and dietitians are not only totally useless, they are also dangerous. Statistics, such as those put forth by Prof. Van Gaal, show that less than 5% of the cases succeed. This a ridiculous percentage and even more so, if we compare it to success figures of 15 to 25% for people who stop smoking and drinking, something which is known to be much harder to do.

Our bodies ajust to reduced calorie consumption

Low-calorie diets are useless since, as we reduce the amount of calories we consume, our bodies survival instinct automatically makes the best use possible of the energy we put at its disposal. Our bodies learn to optimize the amount of calories we feed them. This is why, when we go back to normal calorie consumption (something we necessarily have to do since we cannot under nourish our bodies forever) our bodies, which have learned to store fats, simply stock these extra calories turning them into extra weight. Chances are that once we have taught our body to make do with low-caloric levels, it will gain even more weight when we go back to a more regular intake. Prof. Brownell (6) has validated this phenomenon through tests carried out on animals alternating high-protein diets with low-calorie diets. The animals gained and lost weight but each time their diet changed, the results were even more marked than before. The results for first diet were rapid and considerable weight loss. However, with each new diet, it proved to be easier for the animals to gain weight (and to gain more weight than before) and harder to lose the new weight gained. This goes to show how our metabolism adjusts to reduced calorie consumption. Caloric deficits can, in effect, reduce the amount of energy we burn by up to 50%. The problem is that, when we return (even if only temporarily) to our normal caloric intake, our bodies do not adjust by storing less fats. They continue storing fats as in times of shortage, that which makes us gain even more weight than before. The accordion effect of continuous low-cal diets provokes increasing resistance to losing weight, as shown by numerous studies. (7). Additionally, low-cal diets are risky because they induce a deficiency in micronutrients (salts minerals, vitamins, oleo-elements, essential fatty acids) which are absolutely necessary for our bodies. Without them, our bodies become weak and suffer from chronic fatigue and our immunity system becomes more vulnerable to illness. Added to this is the fact that insufficient proteins tend to reduce our muscular mass, which is replaced by fat as we gain weight.

Nutritionists are unwilling to accept how misguided they have been

The low-cal principle has been the financial mainstay for numerous industries and people: the food industry, the pharmaceutical industry, public and private weight loss centers, health institutes and spas, thallasotherapy centers, nutritionists, dietitians, just to mention a fewNaturally, it is not easy to get the message across that what these industries and people are selling is not as miraculou s as they say and that, what is even worse, it is useless and even dangerous for peoples health. The issue, which is addressed at some medical conventions, is often carefully avoided by the press. Some well-know personalities have approached the subject directly or indirectly. Professor Arnaud Basdevant affirmed in a radio conference in 1990 that the best way to gain weight is to follow restrictive diets. In the 1993 Obesity Convention in Anvers, Professor Marian Affelbaum declared to her shocked colleagues: Yes, we have been collectively fooled. He assumed this fact to the point that he continued mentioning the issue when he retired.

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.

Counting calories is absurd

Counting calories, like most traditional dietary dogmas, is all theory and no facts. In effect it is a heads and tails approach, it is meaningless and totally ineffective. The following seven reasons should make this clear: - macro-nutrients: In order to count the number of calories contained in our food, we have to first determine macro-nutrient (carbs, fats and proteins) content. The problem with counting calories is that, the amount of factors that determine the macro nutrients contained in our foods make for wide variations in caloric content. Anne Nols Charts*, for example, gives sausage meat chair saucisse for a 100g of 14g g of proteins (14g x 4 Kcal = 56 Kcal ) and 38g of lipids (38 x 9 Kcal = 342 Kcal) for a total of 398 Kcal. Comparatively, the 10,000 delicatessens in France probably have 10,000 different ways of preparing sausage meat chair saucisse. This means that the caloric content can vary from 15 to 20% from one preparation to another. For certain products, such as mince pie/potted pork rillettes, the amount of calories can vary up to 40% from one preparation to another. The amount of calories contained in steak varies depending on the animals race/stock, what it has been fed on (natural or in dustrial feed), how it is bred (pasture or stable) and possible chemical treatments (antibiotics hormones). Its true caloric content can thus vary from 15 to 30% as compared to theoretical chart figures. As concerns fish, the amount of calories it contains depend on where it was caught (particularly if it industrially bred) as well as from one season to another. Additionally, the amount of calories contained in our food is also modified by the way we cook it, it is higher or lower depending on if it is deep fried, grilled or boiled. We can trhen conclude that the calories assigned are purely theoretical. They are therefore mistaken and, whats more, they differ from one chart/table to another. - Fibers : theoretical estimates never take into account the role played by fibers in the degree of absorption of the carbs and fats consumed. The fibers eaten with our meals can reduce the amount of calories absorbed. - Intestinal absorption : Pr. G. Slama has shown that starches are not interchangeable. . Starches as for example fries and lentils, might have the same fat content, thus the same amount of calories. This, notwithstanding, does not imply that these calories will be absorbed to the same degree. The same thing happens with lipid calories whose degree of intestinal wall absorption depends on where fatty acids are positioned on the glycerol molecule (triglycerides), as described by Pr. Serge Renaud in 1995. - Fatty acids: saturated fatty acids are harder to burn and have a greater tendency to get stored as fat than mono-unsaturated fatty acids. Comparatively, poly-unsaturated fatty acids (omga 3), which are found in fish, are never sotored. Better yet, they stimulate metabolic mechanisms which aid weigh loss by increasing thermalgenesis and stimulatng lipolysis. - Chronobiology : carb, fatty and protein absorption varies depending, not only on time at which we eat our meal, but also on the season (9, 10 et 11). This discovery has set the principles for a new science: chronobiology. - Breaking up meals: eating the same amount of food (in terms of calories) split up in three to six different meals provokes different energy consumption levels. The more we break up the calories we consume in different meals, the more calories we burn. - Chemical environment: theoretical estimates do not take into consideration the chemical environment of the food we eat as they enter our intestine, the order of entry nor the volume of their particles despite the fact that these factors condition food nutrients degree of absorption. For example, equal portions of sugar (saccharose) will have very little impact on blood sugar levels when eat after a meal whereas, when eaten before a meal, they tend to raise blood sugar levels. This list, which is not exhaustive, should suffice to appeal to our common sense and convince us of the need to stop the absurd tendency to count calories as a means to losing weight. If dietitians and nutritionists refuse to accept clear cut evidence to this effect, it is up to people to watch out for their own interests and health by being informed and informing others.

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

Articles Written by Michel Montignac

The History of Mans Eating Habits and Modern Nutritional Deviations
Mans eating habits have changed considerably throughout human history. However, contrary to what one may assume, the most significant changes have basically occurred in the course of the past two centuries, and more particularly since the mid 20th century. These changes have, on the whole, had a negative impact on human health. Full article The History of Mans Eating Habits Full article Modern Nutritional Deviations

Metabolic Atavism Theory

The human body (like that of other animal species) has developed a specialized system of enzymes which allows us to take full advantage of the food that nature has put at our disposal. Those eating habits not suited to what the human body was designed for are incompatible with our metabolism and represent a potential threat to human health. Full article Metabolic Atavism Theory Top of page

The History of Mans Eating Habits

By Michel Montignac Egypt | Greece | Rome | The High Middle Ages | The Low Middle Ages | Modern Times | Contemporary Period Historians are unanimous in stating that although man is omnivorous, he has been essentially carnivorous for millions of years. From the beginning and up to the Neolithic Period, approximately 10 000 years ago, man was a nomad who lived by hunting and picking wild fruit and vegetables and his diet was basically made up of game (protein and lipids) as well as wild berries and roots (carbohydrates with low Glycemic Indexes and high fiber content.) Most authors agree on the fact that our ancestors also ate, accessorily, vegetables (leafy vegetables, vegetable shoots) and undoubtedly, from time to time, wild cereal. These vegetables also fell i nto the category of carbs with very low Glycemic Indexes. The energy primitive man expended on a daily basis was enormous, not only because he had to contend with immense physical demands but also because his living conditions were extremely precarious, particularly due to the erratic weather conditions. One wonders how these high-level sportsmen were able, for millions of years, to satisfy such a large caloric demand with the limited carbohydrates at their disposal and, above all, without any of the slow sugars *, which are considered essential by modern nutritionists. During the Neolithic Age, as these men became more and more sedentary, mans eating habits suffered the first of the dramatic changes to come. Animal breeding allowed him to continue to have meat to eat (although not exactly the same kind of meat) while the development of agriculture let him plant his own food and produce cereals (wheat, rye, barley , later on pulses (lentils, peas) and lastly , vegetables and fruit. One would imagine that, by becoming sedentary, primitive man had started a process which would lead him on the path to improving his existence. Notwhithstanding, at a nutritional level, the contrary seems to have occurred. Compared to the hunter-food pickers of the Mesolithic Age, the farmer-cattleman had considerably reduced the variety of the food he ate. In fact, very few animals could be domesticated or bred and only certain vegetables could be grown. We could even say that the farmer-cattleman was forced to rationalize or, to put it in modern terms, to optimize his activities. This revolution in our ancestors lifestyle left its mark. Firstly, it affected human health. As a result of the tendency to grow one sole crop, peoples diets became deficient; that which shortened their life span. Furthermore, agriculture (even if on well-irrigated and fertile soils such as those in Egypt and Mesopotamia) is a much more physically demanding chore than hunting for food and game as in the Mesolithic Age and even the hunting of large animals of the High Paleolithic Age. Primitive man lived in harmony and in balance with nature. When his natural food moved from one place to another with the dif ferent species migratory movements or with the seasons, man migrated as well. Upon becoming sedentary, man imposed new limitations and restrictions on himself. By abandoning his terrestrial paradise in order to master his food sources, the farmer-cattleman was forced to face numerous new risks: capricious weather conditions, the limits set by having to choose less productive and more fragile varieties and species as well as soils which were often unsuitable to his needs. The Biblical history of 7 lean years clearly illustrates the uncertainty and capricious nature of this new lifestyle. Whats more, the emergence of agriculture and cattle breeding generated the need for these communities to develop birth and productivity policies (to put it in modern terms). Farmers, fearing that they would not have enough to eat, began to try to produce more than they actually needed and, to this end, began hiring extra hands. Without really being aware of what they had let themselves in for, the grower and his family set a vicious circle in motion. They unknowingly set the framework for uninterrupted population growth, that which aggravated the risks and repercussions of periods of food shortages. When harvests were poor the effects became even more catastrophic. Naturally, this article is not an attempt at retracing the detailed history of human eating habits from the times when man lived in caves. This would require more space than can be dedicated to this article and there are some excellent reference books on this subject. (1) Nonetheless, we cannot pretend to address the problem which concerns us (the preponderance of obesity in our times and civilization) without looking back on the preceding periods and landmarks of human eating habits. Regrettably, these considerations are way too often ignored by contemporary nutritionists. What I propose here is an analysis of the historical moments that conditioned the evolution of Western mans eating habits. I also wish to point to the landmarks which show us where man lost his way and ended up on a path to obesity, diabetes and heart illness. What is evident is that, from the Neolithic Age up to Antiquity, from one country to another and from one religion to another, mans choices of food and dietary models have varied enormously. Despite this large diversity we can, by means of an innovative angle, compare the different foods (and their nutritional value) by classifying them into food categories according to their metabolic potential*.

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.

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.

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 High Middle Ages

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.

The Low Middle Ages

As of the mid 10th century, the food production balance established during the High Middle Ages gradually began to lose its foothold. The agro-sylvo-pastoral system, which had functioned relatively well under stable demographic conditions, was no longer capable of satisfying community needs; even if it continued to operate in a number of regions, particularly in the mountains. As the number of people increased, it began to get harder and harder to satisfy their needs through this subsistence economy. Apart from an increase in the number of mouths to be fed, structural economic conditions had radically changed: commerce had brought about the emergence of a true market economy. Furthermore, landowners (keepers of political power) discovered that they could take even greater advantage of their lands by extending their crops to untilled pasture lands and intensifying peasants labor. Emphasis was then made on growing cereals. Partly because they were easy to preserve and stock but also because they could contribute to satisfying demands of new commercial circuits. Europes agrarian landscape is gradually transformed. Deforestation becomes a systematic way with the land and enormous forests begin to disappear. Cereals became peasants staple food and the basis of t heir diet. As limits were set on chasing and pasturing rights, meat soon disappeared from peasant dishes to become the privilege of the few, the upper classes. Even if, during the Bubonic plague of the mid 14th century, population growth is what allowed Europeans to survive and helped to bring meat back to the farms, gradually, distinctions between the food which is eaten by the rich and that available to the poorer classes become more and more marked. There are two social categories that continue to enjoy nutritional privileges: aristocrats, who are traditional meat eaters and city dwellers from all social classes. The authorities constant fear of rioting due to food shortages guarantee these city dwellers a wide vari ety of foods and meat is one of the central dishes. This contrast between an urban and a rural dietary model is particularly noticeable at the end of the Middle Ages throughout all of Europe. In Italy this distinction had already existed for several centuries and it became particularly widespread under Roman impulse. The urban model actually responds to a market economy while the rural model continues to be a subsistence economy. The factors which oppose these two models are both quantitative and qualitative. Urban dwellers white bread contrasts with peasants dark brea d much like fresh meat (particularly lamb) found in the cities contrasts with the salted pork (cold cuts) eaten in the countryside. Accordingly, this difference is also reflected in peoples health. Peasants were obviously at a double disadvantage in compar ison with city dwellers. They not only suffered from malnutrition because they lacked proteins, they also had to endure extremely hard working conditions.

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.

The Contemporary Period

Our times start at the beginning of the 19th century and are characterized by a certain number of mayor events, which to diverse degrees, have had a significant impact on the way our eating habits have evolved. The Industrial Revolution provoked a rural exodus and a marked urban expansion. It also signaled the triumph of market economy over subsistence economy as well as the phenomenal development of transportation and international trade. Food industrialization became a gigantic business. The production of traditional food-stuffs (flours, oils, jams, butter, cheese) that were formerly prepared manually are now the product of mass, and at times gigantic, industrial processes. The invention of conservation methods (appertisation (heat preservation), and later freezing) is, however, what allows man to condition a great number of fresh foods in the form of preserves and frozen foods. (fruit, vegetables, meat and fish) As customs and society evolve, women lose sight of their role as housewives, and female emancipation opens the way to the development of ready-made foods (frozen dinners, mass dishes) Expanding means of transportation and world trade make it possible for many more people to consume exotic products (oranges, grapefruit, bananas, peanuts, cacao, coffee, tea...) and eat fruit out of their ordinary seasons (strawberries for Christmas and apples and grapes in the spring..) The sign of the times, which has expanded even more rapidly during the past 50 years, is the globalization of a destructured way of eating as in the US model of which the fast food phenomenon is but one aspect. Luckily, some countries have preserved a certain attachment to their traditional eating habits. This is notably the case of the Latin countries whose traditional eating customs still resist and persist. One can even observe a certain cultural revival of Latin culinary and gastronomic traditions. Local resistances will probably not suffice to slow down the inescapable standardization (globalization) of dietary models like that of the US which has managed to penetrate all of the worlds cultures. We have seen that wherever these perverse eating habits beco me a common part of peoples lifestyle, as in the case of the country where they originated (the US), they provoke widespread obesity, di abetes and heart illnesses; three afflictions which encumber modern mans existence. This is why the World Health Organization (WHO) has been denouncing this situation since 1997, warning the world regarding what it considers a true pandemic.

* 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

Contemporary Nutritional Deviations

By Michel Montignac There are several lessons to be learnt from the evolution of mans eating habits throughout history. Firstly, man, even if he is omnivorous, for over 98% of his existence on Earth, (from3 to 7 million years) has essentially fed himself on a meat diet (proteins + lipids) complemented by very few glucidic foods, the few carbohydrates he ate had a low blood sugar potential, thus very low GIs. Ten millenniums ago, with the emergence of agriculture and variations in geological and climatic conditions, peoples eating habits gradually started to change. Later, as lifestyles began to change and under the influence of migratory movements and the first great Antique civilizations, mans eating styles changed even more. Many new foodstuffs became a part of his diet (cereals, leguminous plants, cheese, poultry, olive oil) and new processing te chnologies were invented (oven baked bread, fermentations, meat curing).

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 were the rich formerly fatter than the poor?

The rich (in all of the civilizations which preceded ours) could be said to have been usually fatter than the poor. For centuries there was a widespread belief that this was due to the fact that they ate more, even excessively (too much fat foods). This might have been true for some but certainly not for the great majority of the rich. Answering a question posed by a member of the Communist party, the rich businessman Marcel Dassault pointed this out in the 1960s when he stated: Being rich does not mean that one eats more than three meals a day . The question then is, why were a good number of the rich and privileged in past centuries overweight? - Simply because, unlike the primitive men with whom they shared the same alimentary balance, the portions of carbohydrates that they consumed were of a different nature. The bread they ate was refined since the flour was sifted. Added to this was the fact that they already consumed sugar, a very expensive and rare commodity. Honey, which was also fairly rare since it was not cultivated but naturally obtained, was also reserved to the rich. Rich people, and particularly the post-industrial bourgeoisie, who proudly paraded their stoutness, were not fat because of the amounts of food they ate but because of what they ate: the carbohydrate rations in their meals were of the type to provoke high blood sugar levels. Thus, those people in the upper class with a propensity to high blood sugar levels naturally gained more weight. This is why Louis the XVI, who was already chubby when he was a child, became an obese adult. Louis the XVI adored pastry. Comparatively, Napoleon I, who also adored sweets and cakes, had a resistant pancreas which allowed him to stay slim. Nonetheless, his consumption of sugary foods eventually changed his body and, by the time he was 40, Napoleon had become fairly plump. As concerns the rest, the common people, they basically lived on an ovo-lacto-vegetarian diet. The common man, instead of eating meat every day like the rich, got his proteins from leguminous plants (lentil, peas, beans) as well as eggs and, above all, chees e. The vegetables and cereals he ate thus constituted significant portions of carbs at each meal. Nonetheless, since these foodstuffs were not refined, their fiber content was high. Accordingly, the glycemic outcome of these meals was low since these foodstuffs had low, and even extremely low, GIs. This is why the common people were not habitually afflicted by chubbiness, much less by obesity. During the Middle Ages and even beyond the 18th century, Europe underwent a series of cultural mixtures, mainly due to invasions by other peoples. Even if there were noteworthy differences from one country to another and from one region to another, the basis of European alimentary style was basically the result of practices inherited from preceding civilizations only marginally complemented by botanic species brought from the New World. The upper classes (nobility, high clergy, bourgeoisie) had always had diets in which meat was the predominant ingredient (beef, pork, poultry, animals of prey as well as fish and cheese). The bread they consumed was made with sifted flours. The rest of the people, who lived in the rural areas, basically ate eggs, milk products and vegetables. Although some of the previous generations had suffered devastating wars, disastrous harvests, food shortages and even famine, these were the exceptions. Generally, people living in the countryside managed to have enough to eat. This is why the idea that people were thin because they did not have enough to eat is totally mistaken. It is also foolish to sustain that the rich were fatter because they ate too much. People were thin as a result of their eating habits; they basically lived on low blood sugar diets.

The third world countries also have their obese populations!

The above (historical) analysis of peoples weight and size in function of the social groups to which they belonged is also pertinent nowadays in the case of the countries of the South or, at least, in those regions where social structures are still archaic. In India, for example, this social model still applies in certain rural regions where the urbanization phenomenon has not yet become predominant. Like in Europe in the past, we can observe that the rich are much fatter than the common people, who are for the most part thin. One can also see that the difference lies, not in the amount of food consumed but in the type of food people eat. There again what is noticeable is that the calorie intake does not vary significantly from one group to another. Generally speaking, rich people in the countries of the South eat carbohydrates which tend to provoke higher blood sugar levels (white flours, sugar) while the common peoples diet is made up of carbs which have higher fiber content (pulses, various vegetables).

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!

Why do the rich in Japan become obese?

In Japan (where obesity is now wreaking havoc), the opposite of what happens in the US is true: the lower the person is in the social scale, the more focused he is on Japanese traditional nutritional values and culture. The ordinary Japanese citizen tends to respect his ancestors eating habits: large amounts of fish (raw), rice with medium GIs, algae and other vegetables which are rich in fiber. This eating style makes for meals with low blood sugar level potential and significant polyunsaturated (omega 3) fatty acids, which can even help to lose weight. Inversely, the higher the person is in the Japanese social hierarchy, the more open he is to foreign tastes and to the US as the reference model. For the rich Japanese, eating like their ancestors is considered dowdy. Eating Western food, and particularly US food, is considered a luxury which makes people chic. This is how, without really realizing it, the rich Japanese (and particularly their children) get fat by eating at Mac Donalds while rich Americans start to lose weight by going to the traditional Japanese restaurants which are those that serve sushis and sashimis. As we can see, the common (past and present) denominator for gaining weight and becoming obese, both in the rich countries and the less industrialized countries, is one and the same: an dietary model which tends to raise blood sugar levels as a result of excessive consumption of high GI carbs together with bad (saturated) fats. Similarly, the common denominator to keep from gaining weight, in any country and historical period, has always been an eating style with a low blood sugar potential where the carbs consumed are mostly low GI carbs. For millions of years throughout human history obesity seems to have been the exception, all of a sudden obesity is no longer the exception but rapidly becoming the rule. Why is this?

The insidious emergence of bad carbohydrates

To understand the present, we must turn to the past. We have identified the factor high GI carbs behind obesity, one of the worlds current health problems. We must now analyze where high GI carbs come from and how they happened to insidiously become part of all eating styles at a planetary level. The emergence of bad carbs can be traced to the beginning of the 18th century. Regrettably, two of these bad carbs were fathered by the French Revolution. Refined flours Man has always sifted flour. Formerly, this process was done manually with rustic strainers and, most of the time it was done to remove the bran from the wheat. However, considering the expense and the amount of flour which was lost in the process, sifted flour was a luxury product reserved to the privileged few and common people could not afford white bread. They had to settle for bread made from a coarse type of flour which was called black bread since it also contained a good amount of rye. Under the ideals of the French Revolution of abolishing the privileges of the rich, white bread became one of the symbolic banners of peoples vindications, even if they knew it was wishful thinking. The fact that there was a limited production of wheat and t hat sifting was an expensive time-consuming process made it practically impossible to satisfy the collective demand of white bread for the people. People, however, continued to defend this demand as a banner of equality in their struggle for social justice. Almost a century later, in 1870, the invention of the cylinder mill reduced flour refining costs making it possible for more and more people to have their white daily bread. This was then the breaking point when, unknowingly and very gradually, we began to dramatically alter the nature (in other words, the metabolic potential) of one of the basic elements of mans staple diet. This alteration slightly increased the glycemic outcome of our meals and resulted in an increased stimulation of the pancreass insulinic function. Potatoes It is surprising to discover that, despite widespread education, people are still often extremely prejudiced, misguided and ignorant regarding the food they eat on a daily basis. This is particularly true as concerns potatoes. Potatoes have become such a routine part of our meals that many people believe that this tuber came from Europe. Actually, potatoes showed up on our great-grandfathers plates towards the beginning of the 19th century after the French agronomist Parmentier proposed this tuber as a (temporary) substitute for wheat for the periods of famine which preceded the French Revolution. When first brought to Europe from Peru in the mid 16th century, potatoes were solely used as pig feed. So much so, that potatoes were called the pig tuber, people were suspicious of its effects and the Church even banned potato consumption. People were convinced that it transmitted the Bubonic pest. Potatoes would have been a more positive addition to human diet had we learnt to eat them raw. Humans, unfortunately, find it difficult to digest raw potatoes because, as opposed to pigs, man is not equipped with the enzymes needed to decompose and assimilate potatoes natural nutritional content. This is why man, in order to be able to digest potatoes, has to eat them cooked but, considering the fragile nature of potato starches, cooking tends to increase potatoes potential of producing hyperglycemia. However, throughout the 19th century and beginning of the 20th, potatoes were basically eaten in their jackets and cooked on ashes or boiled; that is, at relatively low temperatures. Nowadays we know that this is the only coking method which limits its GI (65). Fries, mashed or oven baked potatoes have even higher GIs (90 to 95). For over a century, potatoes were generally part of meals (particularly for the less well-off) and they were eaten along with other vegetables (cabbage, leek, spinach beet in France) or with leguminous plants (lentils in Spain) with a high fiber content. This way, the meals glycemic

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.

The Landing Trap

In effect, in June 1944 US forces landed in Normandy to free France from German occupation. Their bags were heavy with foodstuff produced and shipped months before. In order for this food to withstand times of war, it had to be preserved and special treatments were designed to fit the needs of the times. To conserve these foodstuffs, several processes were developed (industrial treatment, conditioning.) Flour had to be as refined as possible so that it would hold longer and potatoes were made into flakes, something which had never been done before. What we didnt know at the time was that all of these processes, which were developed for obvious practical reasons, had resulted in products with much higher Glycemic Indexes than the untreated food they came from. Much like the potato which Parmentier had proposed many years ago as a temporary substitute became a staple part of our meals, these new products, instead of being put away with the rest of the war articles, soon became part of our daily eating habits. They became the precursors of an endless generation of ultra refined and industrialized products which completely transformed our food panorama as of the second half of the 20th century. What people didnt (couldnt) know at the time was that these products, like their unfortunate predecessors, are the detonators of a true time b omb. Science has now shown us that, for the past two centuries, the human species has progressively and unknowingly adopted ways of preparing its foods which cause extremely negative effects on the human metabolism. These chemically-processed foods are not adapted to our human constitution. In other words, they go against our genetic legacy.

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.

The Metabolic Atavism Theory

By Michel Montignac In September 1997, at the Book Fair in Quebec, Canada I was sitting at my editors stand dedicating my books when a Canadian man came up to me to ask a question. He was holding the hand of an adorable six-year old girl, A beautiful tiny little doll with thick black hair that framed a sad angel face and charming almond eyes which showed her Asian roots. -Shes Chinese, her adopted father told me. Shes been with us for the past six months and we are concerned because she doesnt eat enough. She doesnt seem to like the food we serve her! - What kind of food do you give her? - Normal food, the same thing we eat! In fact, the only thing she wants to eat is rice! I suddenly remember something that happened to me when I was a child and I tell him: - Imagine that you bought exotic fish. The salesman would probably recommend that you keep the aquarium at, for example, 73.4 Fahrenheit and to feed the fish food suitable to their particular needs. He might warn you that if you decide to feed the same food you give your goldfish, your exotic fish will probably not survive. - I first want you to excuse me for the comparison and hope you are not offended but your little girls problem is of a similar nature. Basically, the only food suitable to a little Chinese girl is the food she has been brought up on, the food she was used to eating before you adopted her, that is, the food her parents fed her, what her ancestors and her people eat. For millenniums the Chinese people have preserved their traditional eating habits which are perfectly adapted to their climatic conditions, their natural resources, their culture, and their countrys traditions. In the course of time the human organism has learned to adjust to its own particular environment which is basically the same nowadays as it was in the past. The human body has developed a specialized system of enzymes which allows it to take full advantage of the food that nature has put at its disposal. Children inherit at birth the genetic legacy that equips them with the specific metabolic atavism suited to their peoples eating habits. Those types of foods and eating habits to which they are not accustomed are probably incompatible with their metabolic system and constitute a potential risk to their bodys balance and an eventual health hazard. During the past millenniums, under the influence of their specific environments, human communities have developed eating habits which differ from one region to another and, fortiori, from one continent to another. This applies to the Asian people, Africans, North American Indians, Australian Aboriginals as well as the Eskimos. All of these human groups, which can also be distinguished by their ethnic roots to better highlight their differences, lived for centuries (even millenniums) locked up in their own peculiar worlds and environments. Some retained fairly primary living conditions (Africa, America, Australia, Greenland) while others developed civilizations (Chinese, Pre-Columbian) which differed greatly from the civilizations developed during the same historical period in the Mediterranean Basin. All of them developed their own specific eating habits. Nonetheless, they all had one point in common, the foods they ate had a low potential for raising blood sugar levels. In other words, they were not of a sort to provoke glycemia (high blood sugar levels.) When a European moves to the US and adopts the local eating habits, which we now know have a negative impact on our metabolism, he also begins to run the risk of developing the metabolic pathologies , which afflict people in the US, namely, obesity, diabetes and heart illnesses. The fact is that the same causes will always have the same effect. Although the US diet has a higher potential for raising blood sugar, the difference between European and US eating habits is but a matter of degrees. This is why, in the Europeans case, it might take a

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.

The so called perfect figure of the models is catastrophe !

By Michel Montignac A study published recently in the scientific journal information et dittique shows that all models have a body mass index far lower than the minimum level. Given their size they fit in the very skinny category. The article says that what these girls are eating in terms of quantity is almost nothing. Their daily calorie intake range from 500 to 1700 Kcal which is far below their needs which are at least 2000 Kcal . In addition they constantly make big mistakes such as skipping meals or staying away completely from fat and even protein. Consequently they have a serious lack of vitamins and minerals especially calcium. 60% of them have no more periods which is usually what happens when young women are anorexic. Whats really worrying is that they are not aware at all of the risk they run for their health. The authors of this study insist in saying that these facts are very representative of what happens in this emblematic job. And it is sad and even revolting to see how by forcing the models to have the perfect figures the designers have created a skinny imagery that has become the example to follow by all the girls. This is why many of them are seriously suffering from anorexia and some may even die from it. This is what unfortunately happened recently to a Brazilian top model.

Foie Gras Is the Best Source of Vitamin B9

By Michel Montignac Folic acid (vitamin B9) is deeply involved in the metabolism of the proteins and genetic supports (DNA, RNA). It is also involved in the synthesis of the neurotransmitters which play a key role in the brain and nerves metabolism. A lack of folic acid may trigger anaemia, digestive and neurobiological disturbance. In addition it may increase the rate of homocysteine in the blood which is a cardio vascular risk factor. For a pregnant woman a lack of B9 may develop serious side effect (intra-uterine growth retardation, increase of the risk of prematurity) But according to epidemiological studies, 30 % of women who might be pregnant have a lack of B9.

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.

Cola Drinks Increase The Risk Of Fractures Among Teenagers

By Michel Montignac The June 2005 issue of the scientific journal Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine published an interesting, and alarming, study on the risks of decalcification run by teenagers who regularly consume cola drinks. The study involved 460 teenagers, mostly 15 year olds. Eighty percent of the teenagers drank soda pop regularly and two thirds of the soda they drank was cola. One out of every five of the teenagers studied had already suffered at least one fracture. The researchers highlight the fact that the risk of fracture is three times higher when the soda is made from cola, without there being any real distinction between sweetened cola drinks (classic) and non-sweetened (light). This, in their opinion, can be explained by a hypothesis put forth many years ago by their colleagues according to which the phosphoric acid in cola drinks is at the root of the problem. In effect, phosphoric acid not only alters our bodys natural process of calcification, something particularly critical when dealing with children, but it furthermore contributes to reducing bone mass density. The problem is that low bone mass increases the risk of fractures in teenagers. It is also important to know that it can also contribute to aggravating the effects of a possible future osteoporosis.

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

Serious Doubts Regarding Milk Products

By Michel Montignac For the past 10 years, scientists in the Western countries have raised the alarm regarding milk which they say is a product to be wary of, a dangerous product. Meanwhile, traditional nutritionists continue to endorse the product promoted by the powerful milk lobby. For those who still believe in its virtues, milk is absolutely necessary for a balanced diet. It is our main source of calcium allowing children to build sound bones and women to prevent osteoporosis.

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

Working Nights Is Fattening

By Michel Montignac In the West, approximately one out of every five employees works odd hours or night shifts. Studies have shown that, apart from generating attention or sleeping disorders, working at night can disrupt our metabolism in such a way as to cause weight gain. Even if some people have a hard time adapting, the fact is that when our circadian day/night rhythm changes, as a result for example of a transatlantic flight, we have to gradually adjust to this change since light is the stimulant which modulates the melatonin cycle, the true sleep hormone. We also have to think of changing our mealtimes accordingly. In the case of people who work night shifts, the influences they are subjected to are contradictory. The external stimulants, such as light or mealtimes, perceived by night workers biological clocks do not coincide with their sleeping/ waking cycles. The fact that, in order to share with their families and for social reasons, these people adopt day rhythms on their days off or holidays makes for temporary adjustments. The conflicting information thus received by their bodies alters their biological rhythm generating major and/or secondary hormonal and metabolic disorders which can result in significant chronobiological stress. Studies have shown that cortisol secretory rates are much lower when working nights, precisely the time when the physical and mental effort exerted by night workers requires higher quantities of this hormone. Inversely, during their sleep, night workers secreted excessive amounts of cortisol which resulted in sleeping disorders. The fact is that cortisol variations, as in the case of the growth hormone, are one of the factors that regulate the glucidic metabolism and insulin secretion. Tests carried out on night workers in Antarctica have shown that they have higher glycemia, insulin and postprandial lipidemia levels that which generates a resistance to insulin at normal mealtimes. Other studies had furthermore already observed higher triglyceride levels in these cases. Thus, night workers or people who work different shifts run a much higher risk of gaining excess weight. Three prospective studies (among others, two dealing with nurses) have estimated that night workers Body Mass Indexes (BMI) is much higher than that of peopl e who work during the day.

Green Tea Might Make us Thinner

By Michel Montignac A French-American study presented at the recent 18th International Congress of Nutrition held in Durban (South Africa) showed that the polyphenols contained in green tea have two functions: they improve sensitivity to insulin and reduce oxidative stress. These are precisely two of the mechanisms altered in the metabolic syndrome tied to obesity. For years, Englishmen, and Englishwomen in particular, have had noteworthy weight profiles. It thus seems only logical to deduce that Britons are much fatter now basically because they no longer drink tea.

Certain Medications Can Cause Weight Gain

By Michel Montignac There are certain prescription drugs that can cause us to gain weight or, in the best of cases, inhibit our bodys ability to lose weight. This is basically due to the fact that:

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.

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.

Glycemic Indexes Do Not Depend on Glucose Absorption Speed

By Michel Montignac Practically all of the definitions given by nutritionists (on the Web and elsewhere) for Glycemic Indexes are wrong. In effect, they pretend that the advantage of a low GI carbohydrate is that it is absorbed more slowly and that blood glycaemia (blood sugar levels) hikes which are lower take longer time. This is completely false! A well-known French food industry brand even goes to the point of sustaining that eating its breakfast crackers will supply energy (glucose) for several hours as it is diffused slowly. This is so absurd that it is amazing that they can get away with even saying it. For years, one of the most eminent diabetes experts in France, Professor Grard Slama, has spoken from the DIETECOM (the annual nutrition symposium) tribune to insistently remind dietary professionals that the distinction between fast sugars and slow sugars is not based on physiological fact. His struggle seems to be in vain since in France, like abroad, nutritionists and dietitians, continue to carelessly and abusively confuse "slow sugars" with low GI carbohydrates. This is probably the reason why there has been no echo to the important study published in the "The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition " which has also shown that SCIENTIFICALLY THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SLOW AND FAST SUGARS. Said study (*) compares two Kelloggs cereals: -High GI Corn Flakes, on the one hand and -Low GI All Bran (half the GI of Corn Flakes), on the other. This test shows that glucose enters the bloodstream (intestinal absorption) takes just as long for Corn Flakes as it does for All Bran, that is, about 30 minutes.

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

Hypothyroid, a Weight-Gaining Factor

By Michel Montignac Hypothyroid is the result of a thyroid hormone deficiency. It causes our global body functions to slow down. This pathology affects almost 10% of the people worldwide, particularly women aged from 30 to 60 years old, and it tends to increase with age. Menopause women seem particularly vulnerable to hypothyroid. Hypothyroid develops gradually and its symptoms are varied: physical and intellectual asthenia, apathy, drowsiness, excessive chilliness, paleness, low libido and others. However, the most common symptom is weight gain which results from reduced restful energy consumption (basal metabolism.) A simple biological exam, TSH dosage validated by a T4 dosage can diagnose this condition. Doctors prescribe a daily hormone substitute therapy based on levothyroxin; the treatment is for life. The person recovers hormone balance within a three-week to three-month period and the most of the symptoms disappear. Energy expenditure, however, will never reach former levels and this is what can cause the person to continue putting on weight several months, and even years, later. Weight gain can in some cases be a lifetime matter. Experience shows that applying the principles of the Montignac Method can contribute to significantly reducing excess weight and preventing renewed weight gain.

Maternal Breast Feeding Can Reduce the Risk of Childhood Obesity

By Michel Montignac Studies carried out during the past few years (*) have shown that maternal breast feeding is an important factor in reducing risks for children to develop obesity. According to the British Medical Journal, children who are breast fed from three to six months have 50% less risks of becoming obese. Children who are breast fed for at least a year (something which was still done 50 years ago) only run a 1% risk of becoming obese. The question is if this presentation of breast feeding as superior to the baby bottle is not just another hypocritical way to appease powerful industrial milk lobbies. The fact is that studies and comments on the subject all emphasize the advantages of breast feeding but they do so as if breast-milk substitutes were the norm. Why dont we have the courage to denounce this artificial substitute (even maternal substitutes) for what it is: a dangerous and risky habit which puts our childrens future in the balance? It has been widely proven that bottle feeding makes our childrens future heal th much more vulnerable to allergies, infections, and even to juvenile diabetes (type I). The fact that more and more studies show that children who are fed on industrial cow milk substitutes incur high risks of eventually becoming obese, should be warning enough to make us think about Darwins finding according to which animals do not naturally feed on milk other than that of their own species.

(*) " 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.

Success story:

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 . 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 and the site -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, 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:

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:

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.

Cordialement Daniel SFEZ

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

Glycemic Index table ranked by foods

Following you will find two types of classification for Glycemic Indexes; each one suits a particular need:
The first Table ranks carbohydrates in an order of highest to lowest values. This allows us at a glance to have an idea of the food fitting into each of the three levels: High GIs, Intermediate GIs and Low GIs. The second presentation is organized in alphabetical order. You just have to type the name of the food you are searching for and you will find the corresponding GI for each of its varieties and forms. We advise you to view the article on warnings regarding widespread misinterpretations of GIs. See Food and Products Table

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.)

Factors Which Modify Glycemic Indexes

Contrary to what many people believe, GIs for carbohydrates are not fixed values. They can vary depending on a number of factors. For cereal, for example, variation depends on the variety of cereal consumed and on its botanic origin. For fruit, GIs vary depending on where they come from, on the species variety, on form of thermal processing (heating, freezing), on hydration processes and the way they have been transformed (grounding, conversion into flour...) For further information on the factors which modify GIs

Michel Montignac : the Glycemic Index pioneer

Michel Montignac was the first nutritionist in the world to have proposed the GI concept for people wanting to lose weight. For further information on Michel Montignac, the Glycemic Index Pioneer

The Glycemic Index Concept

What are Glycemic Indexes (GI)?
Glycemic indexes measure carbs from the perspective of their pure sugar/starch content in order to determine how they affect glycemia (blood sugar levels) after meals.

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.

Measuring Glycemic indexes

For years people believed that equal portions of different carbohydrates generated the same blood sugar levels (glycemic responses). As of the mid 1970s, Crapo, a Californian researcher from Stanford University, discovered evidence to the fact that carbohydrates having the same pure sugar/starch content did not necessarily have the same impact on blood sugar levels. Crapo established that what has to be taken into consideration is a carbohydrates potential to raise blood sugar levels and how it rates in comparison to other carbs. Later, in 1981 and on the basis of the research carried out by Crapo since 1976, Jenkins, gave final shape to Glycemic Indexes (GI). Rather than focusing solely on how individual carbs increased blood sugar, Jenkins sought to improve the GI notion by using estimates on the hyperglycemia triangle area. This area is given by the full blood-sugar curve of each carb tested, eaten alone and on an empty stomach.

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

Why are Glycemic Indexes (GIs) important ?

As mentioned before, GIs correspond to a carbohydrates potential to raise blood sugar levels. In other words, they tell us t he degree to which certain carbs make our bodies secrete insulin. The more insulin our bodies secrete, the greater the chances of gaining weight.

Current nutritionists most serious misconception

Despite warnings by GI experts such as Professor Grard Slama, nutritionists continue to think of carbs in terms of their absorption speed. In fact, there a two types of nutritionists.

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

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.

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.

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.

Warnings on the Misinterpretation of the Glycemic Index Concept

Glycemic Indexes (GI) correspond to average values!
GIs are first and foremost an average of the individual glycemic responses of groups of people. GIs are also average values of the different foods belonging to the same category. The GI for cereals will be estimated differently, depending on (fiber, protein ) content which corresponds in its turn to th e specific variety of cereal. Value tables indicate average values and in some cases even variations for the same foodstuff. The GI for white flour, for example, is 69 (6) which means that the flours tested were maximum 75 and at the lowest at 65. GI estimates are thus necessarily approximate figures. This means that we should realize that it serves as an indication to guide our choices. GIs are indicative values and not necessarily exact values. This is why, to simply matters, the Montignac Method uses GI values which correspond to rounded-out averages.

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 Factors that Modify Glycemic Indexes

Most of the carbohydrates that we commonly consume are complex carbs essentially made up of starches belonging to the amylose category which is divided into four families:

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%)

Glycemic Index Variations

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%.

Pastification , on the other hand, reduces Glycemic Indexes

Comparatively, there is a natural technical process which tends to block starch hydration: Pastification of coarse wheat. Extruding wheat paste through a drain heats the food in such a way that it produces a protective coating which slows down starch gelatinization.

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

Whole-wheat flour / 100g 12 g 2.5 g 60 g 10 g 15.5 g Coarse 40

White flour (T55) /100g 8g 1g 74 g 3g 14 g Fine 70

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.

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

Michel Montignac: the GI pioneer

A personal quest Michel Montignac worked for the greater part of his life as an international executive for the pharmaceutical industry.

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

Eat yourself slim

For years, nutritionists have claimed that the only way to lose weight was to eat less, count calories, and cut out fat. Four decades later, one must admit that low lat diets are a total failure. While energy consumption has decreased, obesity has multiplied by 400%. Inspired by Atkins, opinion leaders declared carbohydrates the real evil. These leaders then switched from one extreme to another recommending low carb diets. However, aside from a temporary weight loss, people subsequently suffered from cardiovascular problems by eating too much fat. This is why the Montignac Method is the only perfectly balanced diet. It suggests the right carbs and the right fats: Carbohydrates are chosen according to their GI (glycemic index). The lower the GI the most significant the weight loss! Fats are chosen on the cardio criteria knowing that some fats lower risks and even help weight loss. The Montignac Method is a leading concept in the diet world. More than 20 million Montignac books have already been sold in 45 countries and have been translated into 25 languages.

The Montignac diet cook book

By stetting the foundations for a new philosophy of eating, Michel Montignac has been showing us for more than twenty years that how we select our food determines our state of health. Simply adjusting our eating habits can help us not only shed excess weight, but also prevent metabolic diseases, in particular diabetes and heart disease. The "Montignac recipes" in this book are mainly inspired from the Mediterranean way of eating, officially recognised as the best in the world. You will find in this book: 50 recipes of starters 50 recipes of fish 50 recipes of meats 50 recipes of desserts There recipes are fast, practical and simple. They use common, cheap ingredients and can be made by any beginner.

The French GI diet for women

Over 20 years ago, Michel Montignac was among the first nutritionists to introduce the glycemic index as a weight loss concept. The Montignac Method offers weight loss advice for every stage of a woman's life, including 100 exclusive, low-GI recipes to enjoy.

The French GI diet

Michel Montignac was the the first nutritionist in the world to introduct the glycemic index concept into the weight loss area. Since launching his first book in 1986, he remains one of the foremost experts in the glycemic index. Over the last years, his nutritional recommendations have not only been proven but they have also inspired many other diet best selling books. You will find in this book: 100 low carb unpublished recipes 8 week menu plan ( Phase I )

Glycemic Index Diet

By establishing the bases of a new dietary philosophy, Michel Montignac has proven for more than 20 years that our choice of foods is determining factor on our health. Simply adjusting our eating habits can help us not only shed excess weight, but also prevent metabolic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease. The Montignac method proves that the energy factor is not decisive in gaining weight and what is important in a food is more its quality than its quantity of calories. So, losing weight does not mean eating less but eating better, by choosing foods based on the metabolic effects they can produce. This means that by choosing "good" carbohydrates and "good" fats metabolism orients the meal's energy towards burning and not storage. This book is divided into two parts, the first explains what the glycemic index (GI) is and how its use is a decisive factor for permanent weight loss. The book then features tables of the glycemic indexes of foods.

Maigrir avec la mthode Montignac pour les nuls CA

Vous voulez en finir avec les rgimes restrictifs effet yo-yo , perdre du poids de manire efficace et durable, diminuer les risques cardio-vasculaires et prvenir l'apparition du diabte ? Bref, vous voulez maigrir tout en continuant bien manger ? Conue par Michel Montignac il y a vingt-cinq ans, la mthode Montignac n'a jamais t aussi actuelle et indispensable. Bien plus qu'un rgime, c'est un programme alimentaire parfaitement quilibr : il ne s'agit pas de manger moins, mais de manger mieux en faisant les bons choix.
Avec ce livre, la mthode Montignac est enfin la porte de tous ! Lindex glycmique, les grandes catgories alimentaires et le mtabolisme n'auront plus de secret pour vous. Que manger au petit djeuner, pendant un djeuner d'affaires, la caftria, au dner, pendant les repas festifs ? Quand peut-on passer de la phase I (phase d'amaigrissement) la phase II (phase de stabilisation)? Quel sport pratiquer en accompagnement de la mthode ? Avec ce livre, Michel et Sybille Montignac s'occupent personnellement de votre ligne ! Dcouvrez aussi plus de 40 recettes, 4 semaines de menus et la fameuse partie des Dix pour profiter des bienfaits de la mthode Montignac, sans oublier la table des index glycmiques des aliments les plus courants!

100 recettes et menus - CA

Vingt ans aprs le premier ouvrage de Michel Montignac, voici 100 nouvelles recettes illustres pour appliquer au quotidien une mthode qui a fait maigrir durablement plus de 25 millions de personnes. Avec des menus dtaills suivre sur 8 semaines. Des ides indites dentres, plats, desserts, sauces Toutes les recettes sont index glycmique bas et sadaptent aussi bien la phase I (perte de poids) qu la phase II (stabilisation). Une mthode de gastronomie nutritionnelle qui a fait ses preuves dans le monde entier.

La mthode Montignac illustre - CA

La mthode Montignac explique et illustre Cest une mthode originale, antithse des rgimes hypocaloriques. Elle est pionnire dans son domaine, la premire dsigner lhyperinsulinisme comme responsable de la prise de poids et la premire introduire la notion dindex glycmique dans lamaigrissement. Ses fondements ont t scientifiquement valids, elle a fait lobjet dune tude lUniversit Laval. Elle est efficace, elle permet une perte de poids rapide et durable sans restriction quantitative. Ses effets secondaires sont positifs, les risques cardiovasculaires et diabtiques diminuent, la qualit du sommeil et de la digestion samliorent. Michel Montignac vous propose une version actualise et illustre de sa mthode, encore plus facile suivre, avec des tableaux dindex glycmiques plus complets,explique et illustre avec des menus types et 50 recettes indites.

La mthode Montignac illustre pour les femmes - CA

Parce qu'une adolescente n'a pas les mmes besoins qu'une femme mnopause, Michel Montignac propose ici pour chaque grande tape de la vie d'une femme (adolescence, maternit, mnopause, troisime age) Des conseils nutritionnels adapts (besoins particuliers en vitamines, minraux...) Des menus types Des recettes index glycmiques bas Tout pour rester jeune, belle et en parfaite sant.

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

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

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.

Montignac low GI spaghetti

Montignac low GI spaghetti and tagliatelle Pasta, and especially spaghetti, is one of the most popular foods in the world. Considering that lower GI is better in terms of weight loss, Michel Montignac found a recipe to reduce the GI of this delicious dish. The result is exceptional! Spaghetti with a GI of only 10* is unique on the market since traditional pasta, and even whole wheat pasta, have a GI between 50 and 55. The advantages of Montignac spaghetti are:

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.

*Scientifically calculated by an independent and registered laboratory (Agro-Bio France)

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!

GI=20 Peach Abricot Bitter Orange Rhubarb Raspberry

Morello Cherry Strawberry Blueberry 4 Red Fruits Fig Black Currant Cherry Plum

The Saga of Integral bread

The Saga of Integral bread Integral bread is inextricably associated with the history of the Montignac method! In his very first book published in 1986, Michel Montignac was the first author to define the concept of integral flour and hence that of the bread made from this flour. Integral flour is therefore: "flour that has not undergone any screening or sifting, or any refining, and which thus retains the entirety of the cereals components" However, integral flour according to the principals of the Montignac method also implies a type of milling and particle size that gives it a glycaemic index which is the lowest possible there is. This is why other purposely finely-ground so-called integral flours currently available in health-food shops are not acceptable. Studies have shown that the finer the particle size of the flour, the higher the glycaemic index is. It may even be as high as that of white flour. Nonetheless, real integral flour complying with the above-mentioned criteria is not the only requirement for making real integral bread. It is indispensible that the bread be made with old-fashioned natural yeast and that the bread-making process be the very slowest possible (more than 6 hours). This is the only way to optimally further reduce the glycaemic index of the finished product. So, it goes without saying that given these conditions, not one of the falsely la belled integral breads sold in organic food shops nowadays is really in line with these essential required principles. The so-called integral breads are even less so, as they are made with flour that is partially sifted, i.e., the bran has been removed. And as for home-made bread made with these pseudo integral flours that are finely ground in the main, and with an excessive amount of yeast, (even more inbread machines), not only do they not comply with the Montignac method principles, but most of them also end up with an end glycaemic index very close to that of white bread. Twenty years of research This why for more than twenty years Michel Montignac had looked for talented professional people in milling and baking, who are capable of understanding and respecting his stringent specifications to make authentic integral flours and also real integral bread, using age-old baking methods and that complies 100% with the method regarding the glycaemic index: IG=34* The good news is that we have finally uncovered and brought together these different expert know-hows. We are therefore now able to provide all the followers of the Montignac method, as well as all lovers of high nutritional value authentic bread, with an exceptional and revolutionary product, the authenic Montignac integral bread The long-life version of the Montignac bread is available on

* calculation made by and approved and independent laboratory Video: To the heart of Montignac bread Find out more about the authentic Montignac Integral bread

Questions / answers about the montignac method

Look in Questions

keyw ords

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?

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.

How can we distinguish between recommended fats and fats which are not advisable?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Does that mean that we have to follow the method for the rest of our life in order to keep the weight loss?

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.

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?

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.


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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Im not sure I understood the principles behind phase I. Could you please tell me more?

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.

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.

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.

How to manage a discrepancy?

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.

How long do we have to wait after a carbohydrate meal before eating fatty food during phase 1?

At least two hours.

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?

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.

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?

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.

I have a 10-year old daughter who is really overweight. Is there any reason why she should not follow the Montignac Method?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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)

How can I calculate a Glycemic Index myself?

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 (

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.)

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.

I dont understand how to calculate the resulting glycemia of a meal.

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.

What is the glycemic load?

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.

FOODSTUFF Cooked carrots Green lentils Fructose




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.

Why does it take longer to lose weight the second time we decide to follow the Montignac diet?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

How can one follow the Montignac Method which recommends eating fiber food (dry legumes, integral bread, fruits, vegetables) when one has an irritable colon?

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.

I am a Type 2 diabetic. Can I follow the Montignac Method? Are there any special recommendations?

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.

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?


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.

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?

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.

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?

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).

I was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian disease which triggers hyperinsulinism and insulin resistance. Might the Montignac Method help?

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.

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?

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.)

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Why is it recommended that we do not eat large amounts of fresh milk products even if they have low GIs (30/35)?

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.

How can we know if a dairy product contains lactoserum (whey)? What are the yoghourts and cheeses that we must select?

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.

How can we know if a dairy product contains lactoserum (whey)? What are the yoghourts and cheeses that we must select?

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.

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)?

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.

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?

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.

What are the cheeses you recommend? Can they be eaten without distinction in all type of meal?

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.

Since alcohol has a 0 GI, can I drink it at any time?

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.

I love drinking wine with my meals. How much red wine can I drink? What about beer?

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.

Is it possible while following the Montignac Method to continue a homeopathic treatment whereas the pills are made with sugar?

Yes, because the quantity of sugar it represents is insignificant. At least not enough to jeopardize the effect of the Montignac food habits.

I am surprised that nuts have such a low GI. How should we eat them?

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.

Why do you advise to eat dry fruits (almonds, nuts, peanuts) not salted?

Because the salt favors water retention and increases the intestinal absorption of the glucose that may contribute to weight gain.

Can I eat dried fruit during Phases I and II? When is the best time?

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.

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?

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.

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?

- 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.

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?

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.

How does drinking coffee affect weight loss? What type of coffee should I drink (decaffeinated, espresso, weak, with cream)?

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.

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.

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...

Can we eat chocolate every day?

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.

What is exactly the nature of the cocoa butter which is the fatty part of the dark chocolate?

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.

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.)

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.

Is salt fattening?

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.

What about tea?

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.

Are soy and almond milk compatible with Phase I? I ask this since these drinks are generally sweetened.

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.

How should I eat oak flakes? What about other cereals that come in flakes, such as einkorn and barley or even rice and corn?

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.

I adore Asian cooking. What Asian dishes can I eat and still stick to the diet?

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.

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.

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...)

Can I substitute cow milk for soy and almond milk?

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.)

Is the added sugar (or glucose) that is founded in many processed good susceptible to jeopardize the weight loss process?

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.

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?

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.

What can we use as a substitute of which flour to thicken a sauce or gravy?

The best product is Agar-agar which is a soluble fiber.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

I have quite a lot of cellulite and my husband has a fatty stomach. How could we lose it?

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.

Why dont you provide us with an insulinic index chart (II) for all the foods concerned?

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.

Why is the GI not mentioned on the labels of the Montignac products?

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).

What do you think about microwave cooking?

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.)

Does smoking impact the efficiency of the Montignac Method?

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.

I usually do sport early in the morning. Should I take my breakfast before or after sport?

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.

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?

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.

What is Quark?


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:

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 ?

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

Recipes & Menus

Detox menu



Wednesday Breakfast



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

quinoa cooked ham la provenale Papaya Orange salad Diner

lentils Apple puree

Cabbage soup Low GI Montignac tagliatelles with pistou Mango

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

Fennel salad (dash of olive oil, salt)

Saturday mushrooms and tomatoes Sugarless prune puree

Sunday Oven baked coley Broccoli 1 fat free yoghurt

Detox Menus
7 days menu



Wednesday Breakfast



1 lemon juice 5-6 prunes

1 lemon juice Fruit puree - no sugar

1 lemon juice 1 lemon juice Pineapple Montignac oat flakes Almond milk Orange juice

1 lemon juice 1/2 grapefruit

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

Fennel salad (dash of olive oil, salt) Oven baked coley

Saturday Sugarless prune puree

Sunday Broccoli 1 fat free yoghurt

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

Anchoade dip for vegetables

Anchoade dip for vegetables

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.

Eggplant terrine with goat cheese and parsley sauce

Serve 6 Preparation time: 25 minutes Cooking time: 50 minutes Ingredients 2 big eggplants 3 red peppers 150 g pitted black olives 200 g feta cheese 4 tablespoons fresh chopped parsley 25 cl light cream 1 teaspoon strong mustard 1/2 cup olive oil Salt, pepper

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.

Mexican scrambled eggs

Serve 4 Preparation time: 30 minutes Cooking time: 15 minutes Ingredients 12 eggs 5 tomatoes 1 onion 1 red bell pepper 1 lettuce heart 100g pitted black olives 50 g grated cheese 1 table spoon sweet chili powder Olive oil Salt, pepper Preparation of Mexican sauce: Slice 3 tomatoes into little cubes. Thinly slice the onion. Put the tomatoes and the sliced onion into a bowl and add the chili powder. Mix well. Grill the bell pepper in the oven in order to get the skin off. Cut the bell pepper and the 2 remaining tomatoes in small cubes. Thinly slice the lettuce heart and the black olives. Break the eggs into a salad bowl. Season with salt and pepper. Whisk with a fork as if you were making an omelette. Add the sliced lettuce, black olives, tomatoes, pepper, grated cheese and Mexican sauce to the whisked eggs. Mix until well combined. Pour the beaten egg mixture into a skillet greased with olive oil. Stir constantly with a wooden spatula to make the scrambled texture. Remove from the burner before it is completely cooked and stir again.

Ray wings with parsley cream

Ray wings with parsley cream
Serves 4 Preparation time: 25 minutes Cooking time: 20 minutes

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)

Chicken supreme on a bed of spinach

Serve 4 Preparation time: 30 minutes Cooking time: 15 minutes Ingredients 4 chicken breasts 150 g 1,5 kg fresh spinach 1 dl de duck fat 2 lemons 2 garlic cloves 5 cl olive oil Salt, pepper Cut off the thick stems of the spinach and discard. Clean the spinach by filling up your sink with water and soaking the spinach to loosen any sand or dirt. Put the spinach in a salad spinner to remove any excess moisture. Season with salt and pepper both sides of the chicken breasts. In a frying pan, cook on high heat the breast with the duck fat until golden brown. Cover the breast with aluminium foil and cook on a low heat each side for 5 minutes. Heat the olive oil in a large skillet on medium high heat. Add the garlic and saute for about 1 minute, until the garlic is just beginning to brown. Add the spinach to the pan, packing it down a bit. Use spatulas to turnover the spinach and coat it with garlic. Cover and cook for an additional minute. After 2 minutes of covered cooking, the spinach should be completely wilted. Remove from heat. Drain spinach and remove excess moisture from the pan. Remove the fat out the frying pan with the chicken and squeeze the lemon juice in the pan. Garnish the centre of the plate with spinach, put the chicken breast around and sprinkle with cooking juice. Decorate with a few peeled lemon quarters.

Grilled T-bone steak with tarragon sabayon

Serve 4 Preparation time : 20 minutes Cooking time : 10 minutes

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.

Montignac Upside-Down Apple Tart

Serves 4 Preparation : 30 minutes Cooking time : 25 minutes Ingredients 3 eggs + 1 yolk egg 2 lb (1 kg) apples 5 oz (150 g) fructose 5 oz (150 g) almonds powder Olive oil

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)

Peel the pears and leave the stem.

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.

The concept of glycemic load

Glucose - that is, as we have seen, blood glucose levels-is the result of two factors: the glycemic index of foods eaten and the amount of sugar it contains pure water But if you eat 100 gr. boiled carrots with a high GI (85), glucose-induced will paradoxically reduced. This happens simply because carrots have a very low carbohydrate content (5%)Instead, if you eat a very low GI carbohydrate with like fructose (GI = 20), but a significant amount (eg. 100 gr) glucose will be, paradoxically, much higher, despite low GI. This is because pure carbohydrate content is high (100 g in 100) Researchers at Harvard University have translated this into the equation, creating a new concept glycemic 100.

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

* "Montignac" and "The Montignac method" are registered trademarks of Nutrimont SA