GIGL appears legitimate, with a few gaps. The AppsHunter Legitimacy Score for GIGL is 73 out of 100 points across 7 verification signals from App Store and developer data.

GIGL User Reviews

Name: GIGL
Rating: 2.375 (8 reviews)

GIGL

Phosphorous Labs Pty Ltd

📚 Education

🔍 Reference

Is GIGL Safe?

Not enough ratings yet to assess GIGL.

Is GIGL Legit?

GIGL appears legitimate, with a few gaps. AppsHunter Legitimacy Score for GIGL is 73/100.

Based on 73 of 100 points across 7 verification signals from App Store and developer data.

Top reviews

Most Recent Highest Rated Lowest Rated

If you need info on the foods this lists, then you aren’t interested in your health.

2,000 entries total they say. But I was only able to find 37 “raw” foods. Those were all fruits. Mostly this lists processed foods. For example, one of the items that came up when I searched for “raw” was cupcakes. There’s nothing raw or whole food about cup cakes. The idea behind this app is excellent. But it’s like whoever developed the database has heard the terms glycemic impact and glycemic load but doesn’t really understand what’s useful. Most people who need this information are not shopping in the center of the supermarket. They aren’t pickup up boxed cake mixes or Mac and Cheese. This seems like a good app for teenagers who are sitting around at a slumber party trying to look up all the junk food they are eating. Here’s the thing. This app could have a global reach. But processed foods in the US are different from those in India. And those are different from the ones in China. Or Africa. But what is the same everywhere are the raw ingredients that go into our food. Wheat flour is basically the same globally. Same for lentils. Same for black beans, rice, fruit, meat. But folks in China don’t need to know about a brand of bread in the US. I’m more than a little be judgy when I say that if you are looking for glycemic impact or glycemic load info on prepared foods, then you’ve already lost the battle and should just make sure your insurance premiums are paid up. Because you can’t be healthy and eat the processed stuff. And by extension, this app can’t really help you get healthy.

robertallenpayne

3 years ago

Easy & accurate

Nice links to web sites for further education I really like that there are packaged and convenience foods included! Very easy to use.

Pbuss

6 years ago

Could not find any foods only products

I really need an app that allows me to find the GI and GL for a variety of foods. All I could find here is processed, packaged foods, and most of those I don’t even know if they’re sold in the U.S. For example, typed in peanut butter. This app only showed a bunch of products that apparently contain peanut butter. Useless to me. Searched for cucumbers, bell peppers found no information at all. Had to delete app.

horrible useless app

6 years ago

Foods not listed

I cannot find many vegetables that I searched. Example: cucumber & bell peppers. And when I tried to compare types of food (gala vs red delicious), I could not find them. The idea is great and what I need, however, execution was poor.

Kell BH

7 years ago

It just works

I don’t get what the complaints about. Does exactly what is says and even works without internet so I can look things up at Woolies. The developer says it’s fixed up to always agree with Sydney Uni and it does exactly that now.

Narindalochana

7 years ago

This app gives wrong info

This app is awful. The glycemic load is wrong on just about every food. If GL is GI x carb grams in listed serving size divided by 100. It is severely overestimating GL. For example, special k is GI of 61 x
21 grams carb in a 30 gram or 1 ounce portion = 1281 divided by 100 = 12.8 GL. NOT the 42.7 listed!! Am I missing something? The app comes with no alternative explanation. If you click on the more info link on the bottom of the page it takes you to Glycemicindex.com where the info is correct.

Sugarbobi

7 years ago

Response from developer

Hi SugarBobi, Sorry about the confusion—this has been corrected in the latest version rolled out a few weeks ago. I've appended an explanation of why I did things the way I did to the end of this message in case your interested, but irrespective of that, it's now been fixed such that it'll always agree with Sydney University's reported data. ... I was showing you the glycemic load adjusted for serving size, not per serving, because that's what I was interested in for my own use case. I did this because companies can 'cheat' the Sydney Uni system by advertising a small serving size that results in a low GL, and others get penalised for advertising a large serving size even though they have a low GI. For example, with Sydney Uni's method, a 1g cube of glucose has a GL of one, whereas with ours it has a GL of 100. Adjusting for serving size was pretty confusing for folks who (completely understandably) expected the GL to be what everyone else says it is, and in retrospect it was wrong to use the phrase GL to mean something it's not. I've reverted it to Sydney Uni's method in the latest update. Apologies for the confusion

GL given does not agree with University of Sydney which is its source.

GIGL says the GL of “Lean Cuisine Steam Sun-dried Tomato” is 5.8. If I tap "More information” the University of Sydney says it’s 21.

GIGL says the GL of "Potatoes boiled” is 9.8; the University of Sydney says it’s 15.

The GL given by this app cannot be relied upon.

Maldemer