Monday, September 2, 2013

That's Funny, but isn't it Easier to Just Count Carbs?

Have you seen the trailer for That Sugar Film? It's funny and smart, and I'm glad the film is being made, but it talks up reducing or eliminating added sugars. If you're going to try this at home, how do you know how much added sugar a product contains--unless it doesn't contain any? For example, the almond butter I buy lists as ingredients dry roasted almonds, honey powder (sugar, honey), palm oil, sea salt. My 80% dark chocolate is made of organic chocolate liquor, organic raw cane sugar, organic cocoa butter, organic ground vanilla beans. They both list total carbohydrate and fiber content, but how in the world are you supposed to distinguish how many carbs came from the sugar and how many came from the other ingredients? Without knowing the amounts of all the ingredients, you can't.

By the way, at nine grams net carb per half a chocolate bar and five grams net carb per two tablespoons of almond butter, these products with sugar added come in at a fraction of the net carbohydrate load of one cup of oatmeal (28 grams), a food that the trailer touts. All those lovely complex carbohydrates in the oatmeal are broken down by your digestive system into sugar.

6 comments:

Galina L. said...

May be it is easier to count carbs, but blaming added sugar is more convenient for the genre of "investigative reporting" - more drama, suspense, easier to get 100% of audience to get totally outraged (almost as good as "food in the box").

Lori Miller said...

Yes, a villain is a useful literary device.

Indy Jill said...

I don't think the trailer shows the full story. I think Eddie posted another link to the story in an earlier post:

http://thelowcarbdiabetic.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/underbelly-star-damon-gameau-seeks.html

And the article:
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health-fitness/underbelly-star-damon-gameau-seeks-truth-behind-sugar/story-fneuzkvr-1226699963975

It's more about raising awareness about the hidden sugars in processed foods marketed as "healthy".

I happen to agree re. the carbs, but then I'm diabetic and read a lot on the subject - unfortunately most Australians don't and all our health bodies are pushing this stuff as if it's fine for people to eat. The inroads of the GI index here is probably a lot stronger too, because the HQ of it is Sydney University and Prof. Jenny Brand-Miller. You only have to use a glucometer to know how utterly useless GI is for diabetics, yet it's also still used to push carbs on diabetics.


Lori Miller said...

Thanks for the links. If it gets some people to avoid crap-in-a-box or sugar-in-a-can, many of them should see some improvements in their health. In my case, though, I started a LC diet because of GI problems, and the foods that gave me the most problems turned out to be wheat and fruit. I'd stopped drinking soda years before and wasn't eating a bunch of sugar.

Lowcarb team member said...

Yes, its always a good idea to avoid "crap-in-a-box or sugar-in-a-can,"

All the best Jan

Lori Miller said...

Especially if you replace it with meat-on-the-bone and greens-from-the-garden.