Spotted this post over at the DCUK forum:
http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes-forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=44925#p406303
Graham
read more " GLYCEMIC INDEX GIVES GREEN LIGHT TO NEW SUGARY JUNK DRINKS"
by rory robertson » July 20th, 2013, 6:15 pm
Believe it or not, Mexicans now are fatter than Americans on average. No prizes for guessing why. I'll CC you on the answer to that one: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/17/opini ... co-obesity
Readers, I am an Australian promoting a ban on all sugary drinks in all schools across the world. That's all! Join the push to kill the global uptrends in obesity and type 2 diabetes, to give all kids a fairer start in life: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/Su ... ks-Ban.pdf
If you think that sugary drinks are a disaster for private and public health - as I do:http://care.diabetesjournals.org/conten ... 7.full.pdf - then a serious new problem appears to be low-fat and low-GI "breakfast drinks".
The engineering of new unhealthy sugary choices is occurring under our noses. For example, at least one well-known producer engineering sweet beverages for kids and adults adds “cane sugar”, “fructose”, “corn syrup”, “banana puree”, honey (more fructose) and/or “stevia extract” to its products, with up to five of those sweeteners sometimes in the one concoction (click onIngredients in)
http://www.sanitarium.com.au/products/b ... ive-banana
In 2012, Australia's only ever widely trusted nutritionist Dr Rosemary Stanton was surprised to learn in a public discussion that a particularly yummy drink for kids and adults contained added fructose and added corn syrup, on top of added cane sugar. Long a champion for Australian public health, Dr Stanton’s absolutely appropriate response was to rubbish the product:https://theconversation.com/whatrole-do ... -gain-7424
By contrast, some of Australia's other high-profile "Dietitians" – often wearing second hats as food-industry service providers - promote sugary “low fat” and “low GI” products as healthy options. One recently rated CoCo Pops in sugary drink form as “16 out of 20” in terms of “Nutrition”!Almost unbelievable! (Google it.)
As Sanitarium above demonstrates, the fundamental flaw of the Glycemic Index (GI) approach to nutrition is that it provides an implicit green light to add sugar when the need for improved public health requires added sugar be removed.
Now, according to the story told to us plebs, low=good GI readings are 55 and under, for broccoli as well as processed high-carb junkfoods. Another critical but apparently little-known fact is that adding super-low GI=19 fructose - the “sweet poison” half of added sugar - to any product mix is a recipe for a lower GI reading.
Yes, check out the yummy low-GI readings for sugary “Coca Cola” (53 in Australia), “Snickers” bar (41) and “Carrot” cake (36-39) inhttp://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch.php
The University of Sydney is charging food companies up to $6,000 a pop for stamping low-GI sugar and sugary processed-carb foods as Healthy: pp. 10-11 athttp://www.gisymbol.com.au/cmsAdmin/upl ... ochure.pdf ; and pp 4-5 at
http://www.foodhealthdialogue.gov.au/in ... vities.pdf (If the link fails, please google “PDF Reformulating Glycemic”.)
Notably, Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council went out of its way in February to dismiss the University of Sydney’s pro-sugar Glycemic/Glycaemic index approach to nutrition as unhelpful and unreliable:
The US review found strong and consistent evidence that glycaemic index and/or glycaemic load are not associated with body weight and that modifying either of these does not lead to greater weight loss or better weight management. [footnote 198] There is considerable variability in these indices, depending on inter-and intra-individual factors and the form of food (including the degree of processing, stage of ripeness, cooking and cooling times), which may limit practical application.[footnote 199] These factors were not included in the literature review to inform the revision of these Guidelines. (p. 20 of 2013 Australian Dietary Guidelines)
Readers, I am an Australian promoting a ban on all sugary drinks in all schools across the world. That's all! Join the push to kill the global uptrends in obesity and type 2 diabetes, to give all kids a fairer start in life: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/Su ... ks-Ban.pdf
If you think that sugary drinks are a disaster for private and public health - as I do:http://care.diabetesjournals.org/conten ... 7.full.pdf - then a serious new problem appears to be low-fat and low-GI "breakfast drinks".
The engineering of new unhealthy sugary choices is occurring under our noses. For example, at least one well-known producer engineering sweet beverages for kids and adults adds “cane sugar”, “fructose”, “corn syrup”, “banana puree”, honey (more fructose) and/or “stevia extract” to its products, with up to five of those sweeteners sometimes in the one concoction (click onIngredients in)
http://www.sanitarium.com.au/products/b ... ive-banana
In 2012, Australia's only ever widely trusted nutritionist Dr Rosemary Stanton was surprised to learn in a public discussion that a particularly yummy drink for kids and adults contained added fructose and added corn syrup, on top of added cane sugar. Long a champion for Australian public health, Dr Stanton’s absolutely appropriate response was to rubbish the product:https://theconversation.com/whatrole-do ... -gain-7424
By contrast, some of Australia's other high-profile "Dietitians" – often wearing second hats as food-industry service providers - promote sugary “low fat” and “low GI” products as healthy options. One recently rated CoCo Pops in sugary drink form as “16 out of 20” in terms of “Nutrition”!Almost unbelievable! (Google it.)
As Sanitarium above demonstrates, the fundamental flaw of the Glycemic Index (GI) approach to nutrition is that it provides an implicit green light to add sugar when the need for improved public health requires added sugar be removed.
Now, according to the story told to us plebs, low=good GI readings are 55 and under, for broccoli as well as processed high-carb junkfoods. Another critical but apparently little-known fact is that adding super-low GI=19 fructose - the “sweet poison” half of added sugar - to any product mix is a recipe for a lower GI reading.
Yes, check out the yummy low-GI readings for sugary “Coca Cola” (53 in Australia), “Snickers” bar (41) and “Carrot” cake (36-39) inhttp://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch.php
The University of Sydney is charging food companies up to $6,000 a pop for stamping low-GI sugar and sugary processed-carb foods as Healthy: pp. 10-11 athttp://www.gisymbol.com.au/cmsAdmin/upl ... ochure.pdf ; and pp 4-5 at
http://www.foodhealthdialogue.gov.au/in ... vities.pdf (If the link fails, please google “PDF Reformulating Glycemic”.)
Notably, Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council went out of its way in February to dismiss the University of Sydney’s pro-sugar Glycemic/Glycaemic index approach to nutrition as unhelpful and unreliable:
The US review found strong and consistent evidence that glycaemic index and/or glycaemic load are not associated with body weight and that modifying either of these does not lead to greater weight loss or better weight management. [footnote 198] There is considerable variability in these indices, depending on inter-and intra-individual factors and the form of food (including the degree of processing, stage of ripeness, cooking and cooling times), which may limit practical application.[footnote 199] These factors were not included in the literature review to inform the revision of these Guidelines. (p. 20 of 2013 Australian Dietary Guidelines)
http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes-forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=44925#p406303
Graham
