Skip to main content

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.

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.
Unknown 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.
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.

Popular posts from this blog

An Objective Book about Other Childhood Vaccines

Today's decision by the CDC to add COVID shots to the schedule of childhood vaccines has some people concerned about the rest of the vaccines on the schedule. Contrary to fact-checker claims, adding COVID shots to the schedule means children will be required in about a dozen states to get a COVID shot to attend public school. Indiana isn't one of them--our childhood vaccination law doesn't mention the CDC and such a requirement could run afoul of our ban on COVID vaccine passports. But even freewheeling Indiana has some vaccine requirements and this kerfuffle has people wondering how safe those vaccines are.  There's a book called Vaccines: Truth, Lies and Controversy  by Peter C. Gotzsche, DrMedSci and co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration, about the safety and efficacy of all those vaccines, including COVID and others. Cochrane was founded to "to organise medical research findings to facilitate evidence-based choices about health interventions involving healt

Diabetes Down, COVID Curiosities, New Glasses after Accident

Diabetes Down Despite Dietitians' Directions Last Sunday when I wrote about the grifters over at EatThis.com, which calls itself "Eat This, Not That," I was worked up enough to tweet to their medical expert board members if they stood by the site's article flogging sugary drinks and fast food for St. Patrick's Day. The site has over 1,300 articles, mostly puff pieces, on McDonald's and a news feed full of "the most important breaking news" on Doritos, burger joints and Chips Ahoy! I asked a dietitian who responded to me what exactly the "not that" part was in "Eat This, Not That." Important news about what you should eat! I was worked up until I remembered the saying, "You can't cheat an honest man." Meaning that this con, like a lot of others, requires some dishonesty on the part of the mark. Every Joe Six-Pack knows that cookies, chips and coffee-flavored milkshakes from Starbucks aren't health food. It takes s

Blog Lineup Change

Bye-bye, Fathead. I've enjoyed the blog, but can't endorse the high-fat, high-carb Perfect Health Diet that somehow makes so much sense to some otherwise bright people. An astrophysicist makes some rookie mistakes on a LC diet, misdiagnoses them, makes up "glucose deficiency," and creates a diet that's been shown in intervention studies to increase small LDL, which can lead to heart disease. A computer programmer believes in the diet and doesn't seem eager to refute it because, perhaps, scientists are freakin' liars and while he's good at spotting logical inconsistencies, lacks some intermediate knowledge of human biology. To Tom's credit, he says it's not the right diet for everyone, but given the truckload of food that has to be prepared and eaten, impracticality of following it while traveling (or even not traveling), and unsuitability for FODMAPs sufferers, diabetics and anyone prone to heart disease (i.e., much of the population), I'm

Battered Cod and my Eclipse Pictures of my Colander

If you miss battered cod on a low-carb, grain-free diet, here's a recipe that'll satisfy your craving. It's based on a Dr. Davis recipe. Battered cod and cole slaw Ingredients 1 pound cod fillets 2 eggs 2 tablespoons butter, melted 1/2 cup ground golden flaxseeds 1/2 cup grated cheddar cheese 1/2 teaspoon onion powder 1/2 teaspoon salt 1/4 teaspoon ground black pepper 1 teaspoon garlic powder Instructions Preheat the oven to 375°F. Line a rimmed baking sheet with parchment paper. Slice the cod into 1-1/2 to 2 inch pieces. In a small bowl, whisk the eggs and butter. Beat continuously--don't let the butter cook the eggs. In a shallow bowl, combine the flaxseeds, cheese, onion powder, garlic powder, salt, and pepper. Coat each piece of cod in the egg mixture and then roll in the in the flaxseed mixture. Place on the baking pan. Bake for 20 minutes, turning once. Eclipse Crescent Shadows Today was the total solar eclipse, and my house was in the "path of totality."

What the Top Nutrition Site Recommends

Happy St. Patrick's Day! For me, it's the day to plant snow peas, but for the site Eat This, Not That, it's the day to recommend Irish food . If you're thinking that the " world's #1 nutrition website and one of the top five food outlets in the U.S. " whose "brand [is] comprised of an award-winning team of journalists and board-certified experts, doctors, nutritionists, chefs, personal trainers, and dietitians" might recommend healthy Irish food like corned beef and cabbage or Irish stew and suggest going easy on the Guinness, guess again.  Their #1 St. Patrick's Day deal is a sugary drink from Starbucks topped with whipped cream and caramel. The rest of their 26 suggestions are just as bad: more liquid sugar, fast food sandwiches, doughnuts, cheesecake, and even cocktails. Yes, cocktails. How does a nutrition site recommend something without nutrients? This isn't a one-off article written for a holiday. I was originally looking for their