Comments on: SBS’s Food Investigators gives a big GI tick to sugar

By: Joal

Joal — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:20:48 +0000

Just keeping sugar intake to a moderate level is a perfectly reasonable approach - I’m not about to be a zealot about it. A teaspoon of honey in my cup of tea isn’t going to kill me.

By: John Mosig

John Mosig — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:59:51 +0000

As there’s no other John making a comment I presume you mean me when you say ‘it’s not about weight John’.. I can’t find a reference to weight in my comment; nor was one implied. I’m with you Michaelt. Diet is all about balance. And I’ve never seen such a mishmash of generalities, single ingredient nutrition and erroneous statements about nutrition in my life. If we fed our farm animals on the program’s recommendations they’d all be dead.

Like I said, I gave watching up when they wheeled out the milk cart and told us our bones would turn to chalk if we didn’t drink a bucket a day. And to mix a jar of honey with a jug of full cream as an alternative to counting sheep. I just hope the program isn’t indicative of what they’re passing of as nutritional science these days.

By: MichaelT

MichaelT — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:37:20 +0000

It’s not about weight, John. The idea is that high GI foods are more likely to provoke insulin resistance and hence Type 2 diabetes. Obviously the best strategy is to do away with any type of sugar as far as possible but some of us are not strong enough to achieve that!

By: Michael James

Michael James — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:09:09 +0000

John Mosig (5.13pm). I’m with you. I have never watched it after the very first episode.
I am a biochemist and found too many of the blithely and unsubstantiated claims to be meaningless. Obviously different sugars are processed by the body at different rates, hence the different GI index but as far as I could tell, that low-GI sugar is a joke. It might be a tad lower than usual sugar because it has slightly higher fructose or whatever, but it is outrageous to imagine substituting it instead of the pure sucrose variety is going to make any difference to an overweight person.
In a rare lapse for SBS this show seems to be superficial dross suitable for ACA or 60 minutes.

By: John Mosig

John Mosig — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 07:13:24 +0000

I stopped watching when they pushed the milk cart onto the show. This program is so blatantly slanted toward the food & beverage sector slanted it’s a wonder it hasn’t been pulled. Or better still, sued. I haven’t been watching. Have they recommend a safe level of smoking yet? After all, you’ve got nothing to lose but your smoker’s cough.

People with an understanding of basis nutrition and how it works would have picked up the absurdities imbedded in the items pretty quickly. The general public may not be so astute. I still watch SBS, but only for the nudity.

By: Joal

Joal — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 07:09:20 +0000

Also yes-I-know-tomatoes-are-a-fruit sheesh.

By: Joal

Joal — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 07:08:28 +0000

Hmph, this comes across as “Discrediting results that go against my vested interest in by pointing out the other guy’s vested interest” on first blush, but maybe that’s just me. I admit I didn’t watch the show (I wonder if it’s on the sbs website).

Also:

“she helpfully explains that 80% of that has already been added to your food by your friendly neighbourhood food and beverage conglomerate”

I’m just a bit confused by that… did they really say that? Or did they say that a lot of the sugar you eat is already in food before the evil congomerates even get to it? Like, you know, fruit, tomatoes, that sort of thing.

Maybe I need to shell out filthy lucre to get his book before I can presume to question.

By: MichaelT

MichaelT — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 06:23:04 +0000

I think you should have mentioned in there somewhere that it is a special type of low GI sugar they have endorsed, that has been treated so it takes longer to digest. If you are going to use sugar anyway, it would make sense to substitute low GI sugar for ordinary sugar, which is what the GIL people are recommending. This is different from saying that you ‘should’ eat a certain amount of sugar, which is insane, I agree.

By: Tom McLoughlin

Tom McLoughlin — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 05:23:03 +0000

I still think air pollution is an untested cause of obesity: The hypothesis - air pollution stesses the body, creating fatigue. Subject trends towards sugary foods to sustain energy levels. Feels less and less like spontaneous exercise.

If there is any merit in this theory it could relate to some 3 million people in the Sydney airshed, and say 2 million in Melbourne just for starters.

Which leads us back to bad transport policies in cities.

But no doubt all those Phds in advertising must increase the sales of sugar.

By: Niall Byrne

Niall Byrne — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 04:14:50 +0000

David Gillespie may have a point about SBS but his attack on the GI people is a bit over the top.

The AAP news report he references says,

“The world’s first “low GI” sugar is to be launched today , and a nutritionist says it is the healthier alternative to white sugar.

“We’re not trying to say eat more sugar,” said Professor Jennie Brand-Miller, from the University of Sydney. “But a replacement of sugar intake by this one would sound like a good idea.”

By: Roslyn Pike

Roslyn Pike — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 03:55:48 +0000

The program did, I thought, make the point that the level of natural sugar in fruit and fruit juice is higher than I would have expected, but that this natural form of sugar is good for humans as the body can break it down and use it but that sugar manufactured from sugar beat and sugar cane is not. But this message about the two different types of sugar; one good and one bad had been largely lost by the end of the program when ‘sugar’ was recommended. It just goes to show that SBS is not above the politics of food manufacture.