« Prevention is better than cure | Main | Mind over matter »

Comments

surthe fojuv dvzunb cihq rypk zmktvqd pozb

This kind of promotion does not help-

In 2006-7, there has been a push in promoting the "Low GI Index Diet". I have serious doubts about the concept of "low GI", in particular with regards to non starch and non glucose foods. With the GI researchers incorrectly estimating both galactose and fructose as low GI foods, we in Australia have the promotion of "junk food" as "low GI"

As a result of some testing carried out by the Sydney University Group, the following products have been endorsed as "low GI"-

https://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=105576&catId=100289&tid=100008&p=1&title=Foods+that+make+kids+fatter+faster

Milo Cereal
Nutella

Both of these products are virtually junk food, loaded with sugar. ALL sugars are very energy intensive. How then can a diet which actively promotes use of sugar be healthy ?

Please note-

Glycemic Index only applies to high starch foods such as rice, breads,
pasta etc. Even with high starch foods, the GI of the cooked food is
very dependent on time and method of cooking. Starch is not easily
broken down in cooking and it is very easy to undercook food and yet
have a quite palatable dish. Rice is a good example of this. Oriental
rice varieties need a fairly long cooking time, the resultant cooked
rice is soggy and clumps together. This may be quite unattractive to
Western palates. You will find most Western recipes end up with
undercooked rice containing a considerable amount of indigestible
resistant starch. In their GI tests, the researchers tend to
underestimate the amount of indigestible starches and as a consequent get a very
variable low GI value. This may be seen in their published GI Tables.

With foods containing high amounts of fructose and galactose,
incorrect low GI values are given in the Tables. The galactose and
fructose have to be converted to glucose by the liver before it can
enter the bloodstream. In the liver, these sugars are mainly converted to
fatty acids, NOT glucose- not something a person who is dieting or has
diabetes 2 wants. This is illustrated by the considerable concern shown
in USA about using High Fructose Corn Syrup, HFCS, as a healthy
sweetener.

Also, with galactose, this is NOT a low GI food. It is rapidly
digested at a similar rate to glucose such that there is no more left in the small
intestine. NO slow release, consequently must be high GI. Fructose is
slowly digested, so can have low GI.


It is little use promoting a weight loss diet if it contains a very
large number of foods containing unhealthy amounts of ANY sugar. Just
because the food has an apparent "low GI" is not good enough.

American Diabetic Association does not endorse the use of GI, their
scientists having similar reservations about GI as I have. The
Australian Group takes the opposite view, mainly resulting from the slick
advertising by the Sydney University GI group.

Ernie Lee, BSc Chemistry

James

How about something like a tax credit for those who choose to walk to work instead of drive the car? Yes it would be hard to implement, but think of the environmental and physical benefits.

If we can't reduce our reliance on the car and increase the amount of daily exercise we all take I think things are not going to look great in about 10-15 years time.

The comments to this entry are closed.