Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Nanny State now targeting breakfast cereals

«134

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    It’s hardly news that breakfast cereals are fairly shîte nutritionally.

    I mean, I’m not dead set against them or anything. If you eat well otherwise and they’re what you like to eat for breakfast, go for it. I don’t think they’ll do much damage to anyone who eats fairly well generally and does a bit of exercise. But they’re not great nutritionally really.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    It’s hardly news that breakfast cereals are fairly shîte nutritionally.

    I mean, I’m not dead set against them or anything. If you eat well otherwise and they’re what you like to eat for breakfast, go for it. I don’t think they’ll do much damage to anyone who eats fairly well generally and does a bit of exercise. But they’re not great nutritionally really.

    Username checks out ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    DS86DS wrote: »
    Our betters are at it again, looking out for us unwise sugar guzzling mass of the great unwashed who can never seem to get with the healthy eating program. Cigarette style labels and images coming to a box of Sugar Putfs near you.


    https://www.bakeryandsnacks.com/Article/2019/01/28/Experts-call-for-health-warnings-on-breakfast-cereals-to-tackle-world-s-obesity-pandemic

    Would consign the report itself to the bin. The last Lancet EAT 'Report' was found to have been funded by 'vested interests' and big money in the form of extremist animal right, anti meat and root vegetable brigade

    Funny the issue of (fast) junk food directly implicated with obesity isn't highlighted for some reason. Strange that....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,531 ✭✭✭Car99


    I n fairness breakfast cereal in general are fairly **** except porridge


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,222 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    Car99 wrote: »
    I n fairness breakfast cereal in general are fairly **** except porridge

    I don't think Weetabix is the worst either!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 98 ✭✭Tiguan Joe


    Car99 wrote: »
    I n fairness breakfast cereal in general are fairly **** except porridge
    Or Shredded wheat


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,580 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Lots of 'breakfast cereals' have a lot added that isn't cereal - some are 25% sugar.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 81 ✭✭PingTing comes for Fire


    What about the girl who drowned in the muesli
    She was pulled down by a current


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,643 ✭✭✭worded


    Alpen

    Nom nom nom


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    Car99 wrote: »
    I n fairness breakfast cereal in general are fairly **** except porridge



    Non- diabetic woman wore a continuous blood glucose monitor for a few days :






    Enter: OATMEAL.
    Another interesting finding was my oatmeal test. Now, for the duration of the experiment, I ate my normal breakfast, which is typically some variation of 2 eggs cooked in butter or lard, vegetables (usually rotating between kale, broccoli, mushrooms, onions, etc.), and possibly some breakfast meat, like sausage or bacon. Alongside this, I have black tea (unsweetened) with heavy cream. [Read: I eat a low carb, high fat, moderate protein breakfast.]

    This style of breakfast was a dream for my blood sugar, essentially flatlining it in the 80s or 90s. It’s also excellent for my energy levels, satiety, and productivity (low carb + real food + mindful eating for the win!). I can easily go for 3-5 hours without getting hungry (depends on the day and how active I am), which is nothing short of a miracle for someone who used to be a huge snacker.

    There’s a reason I tend to return to a variation of this day after day. Even when I added a small slice of sourdough one morning and ½ cup of leftover roasted potatoes another morning, my blood sugar didn’t exceed 100 (the magic of not eating “naked carbs”).

    I started to wonder if I was just super insulin sensitive in the morning or maybe had more wiggle room for carbs.

    So, the final day of my CGM sensor, I decided to eat a breakfast similar to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ sample meal plan in their pregnancy guidelines. Their meal plan is oatmeal, skim milk, and strawberries. In other words, all carbs.

    (For those of you familiar with my book, Real Food for Pregnancy, this is the same meal plan that I use to make a comparison on the nutrient-density and macronutrient ratio compared to my real food meal plan. This excerpt of the book is included in the free chapter download; see the bottom of this post or this page to get it.)

    I don’t have skim milk in the house (and I never will), but I do have whole, grass-fed milk for my son. I also didn’t have strawberries, but I have raspberries, which are nutritionally similar. So I whipped up measured portions of rolled oats (1/2 cup dry, which is 1 cup cooked) prepared with water, a little milk poured on afterwards (I’m really not a fan of straight up milk, so I only used a few Tbsp), ½ cup raspberries, and because it was in-edibly plain, I added 1 measured teaspoon of honey (not heaping). Total carb count was 45g.

    All things considered, this was NOT a large bowl of oatmeal and it was essentially NOT sweet, despite adding a little honey. (I say this to point out that the average person adds A LOT of extra sweeteners to their oatmeal, either with sugar/honey or dried fruit. My version would be unpalatable to many people.)

    At first, I thought my blood sugar was doing ok after the oatmeal, but I then watched with horror on my Freestyle Libre as the readings climbed. When you scan the sensor, the Freestyle Libre reader shows an arrow next to the numerical reading with an up, down, level, or slightly up/down error, indicating your real time blood sugar trends. This was the ONLY time during the entire 10 days that I saw the straight up arrow, indicating my blood sugar was rising FAST.

    My blood sugar went from 74 to a peak of 178 in an hour. By two hours, I was down to the 120s and by three hours, finally back down to 100.

    This perfectly illustrates why I preach “no naked carbs” (meaning carbs eaten without a source of fat or protein). The spike from oatmeal was 40 points higher than my Thanksgiving dinner, which included stuffing, sweet potatoes, cranberry sauce, pumpkin pie (in other words, the same or more carbohydrates than this unsatisfying, bland oatmeal breakfast). I’d wager that I didn’t spike as high from Thanksgiving because there was sufficient fat, protein, and fiber in the meal to slow digestion and absorption of the carbohydrates.

    This image shows 4 days of blood sugar data.



    8eu75CP.jpg.


    Continuous glucose monitor experiment in a non diabetic - oatmeal spike
    3 days of happy blood sugar readings on my moderately low carb diet.

    Day 4: OATMEAL for breakfast.

    It was really interesting to watch it pan out in real time on my CGM. I had always assumed that I wouldn’t be hungry until my blood sugar was back down to normal or in the hypoglycemic range, but this experiment showed me that the hunger trigger (for me, anyways) is in response to the impending crash.

    I actually didn’t end up hypoglycemic in response to this meal, but I literally had to eat something with substance (fat/protein) around the two hour mark (~ 2 oz of leftover grass-fed beef burger patty) to avoid going hangry. That probably stopped me from going into reactive hypoglycemia.

    After this oatmeal experiment, I started wondering if my glycemic response to oatmeal was exaggerated or unusual. It’s surprisingly hard to find data on blood sugar responses in non-diabetics, especially when trying to examine the “peak” blood sugar response.

    As you can recall, as long as blood sugar is back down to 140 mg/dl by two hours after eating, then you’re supposedly “in the clear” by conventional guidelines for diabetes/prediabetes. If a study has people measure their blood sugar only at 2 hours, you’re likely to miss the peak glycemic response in many people. Moreover, different people peak at different times, so without a million finger pricks or CGM, the results aren’t going to be very meaningful.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,291 ✭✭✭lbc2019


    worded wrote: »
    Alpen

    Nom nom nom

    Full of Sugar tho


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    The bizarre thing though was in the 1970s nearly everyone added sugar to the breakfast cereal, their tea, ate sweets and biscuits made with real sugar and were generally skinnier than people today!

    :confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 391 ✭✭Flyingsnowball


    A man should have dinner to heat up from last night ready each morning for his breakfast. Potatoes veg and meat. If he does this three times a day he will be strong enough to drag bricks around scaffolding and nippy enough to tackle a few flights of stairs.

    A woman should do it two and a half times a day for the same results.

    Everything else is bro science. See you all at the next personal record.

    Yours sincerely, flying snowball.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,439 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    gozunda wrote:
    The bizarre thing though was in the 1970s nearly everyone added sugar to the breakfast cereal, their tea, ate sweets and biscuits made with real sugar and were generally skinnier than people today!


    There's probably far more sugar, and other unhealthy ingredients in our foods now though, and we're probably eating far more food overall, due to the larger availability of foods. Are people working longer hours, and spending more of their time doing work related activities than previous generations?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    There's probably far more sugar, and other unhealthy ingredients in our foods now though, and we're probably eating far more food overall, due to the larger availability of foods. Are people working longer hours, and spending more of their time doing work related activities than previous generations?

    sugar is not unhealthy in the right balance. It has been demonised :eek:

    Not inherently unhealthy. Long live sugar!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    gozunda wrote: »
    The bizarre thing though was in the 1970s nearly everyone added sugar to the breakfast cereal, their tea, ate sweets and biscuits made with real sugar and were generally skinnier than people today!

    :confused:

    Some of us still do and are still skinny ;) Long live SUGAR!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,658 ✭✭✭✭OldMrBrennan83


    Car99 wrote: »
    I n fairness breakfast cereal in general are fairly **** except porridge

    This has to be true because porridge is the only one that tastes like shíte.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,934 ✭✭✭Renegade Mechanic


    gozunda wrote: »
    The bizarre thing though was in the 1970s nearly everyone added sugar to the breakfast cereal, their tea, ate sweets and biscuits made with real sugar and were generally skinnier than people today!

    :confused:

    Processed sugar. Fructose corn syrup. Glucose. All much more common in foods than they were.
    That and we were eating less. A few bikkies with the tea meant three or four back then. Now we cram a tube of Marylands down our gullets for "the good feels".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,934 ✭✭✭Renegade Mechanic


    This has to be true because porridge is the only one that tastes like shíte.

    Salt, my god man. Nobody puts salt in their porridge any more! That and some linseed..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,658 ✭✭✭✭OldMrBrennan83


    Salt, my god man. Nobody puts salt in their porridge any more! That and some linseed..

    Half a bottle of maple syrup :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,439 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Graces7 wrote:
    sugar is not unhealthy in the right balance. It has been demonised


    Unfortunately I'd imagine there's been incredible amounts of lobbying by the food industry to make sure we continue to consume more and more sugar, and potentially other unhealthy ingredients.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,934 ✭✭✭Renegade Mechanic


    Half a bottle of maple syrup :pac:


    Yeah if you want to become OldMrBitchtits :D


  • Site Banned Posts: 725 ✭✭✭Balanadan


    The health nazis want to take away everything that brings enjoyment. They've succeeded in trashing soft drinks apart from a few like Coca Cola and Club which have stood strong, most soft drinks are now polluted with artificial sweeteners rather than sugar. Next up, breakfast cereals. They're punishing people who eat healthily but enjoy an occasional treat.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,537 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    Graces7 wrote: »
    sugar is not unhealthy in the right balance. It has been demonised :eek:

    Not inherently unhealthy. Long live sugar!

    Yeah but there's too much sugar in absolutely everything. Any food could be improved by putting far less sugar in it, savoury ftw.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,439 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Balanadan wrote:
    The health nazis want to take away everything that brings enjoyment. They've succeeded in trashing soft drinks apart from a few like Coca Cola and Club which have stood strong, most soft drinks are now polluted with artificial sweeteners rather than sugar. Next up, breakfast cereals. They're punishing people who eat healthily but enjoy an occasional treat.


    Government bad, 'free' market good!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    There's probably far more sugar, and other unhealthy ingredients in our foods now though, and we're probably eating far more food overall, due to the larger availability of foods. Are people working longer hours, and spending more of their time doing work related activities than previous generations?

    The main difference is that 'sugar' has largely been replaced by a huge variety of artifical sugars such as glucise-fructose and sweeteners. The I don't believe people are eating more either. When I looked at the food eaten by my parents generation it amazes me tbh. However I do agree people now do not engage in as much physical labour as a rule as previous.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,439 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    gozunda wrote:
    The main difference is that 'sugar' has largely been replaced by a huge variety of artifical sugars such as glucise-fructose and chemicsl sweeteners. The I don't believe people are eating more either. When I looked at the food eaten by my parents generation it amazes me tbh. However I do agree people now do not engage in as much physical labour as a rule as previous.


    My suspicious are, we re eating far more now than ever before, our economic systems are designed as such, I.e. continual increasing consumption is good!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,751 ✭✭✭mirrorwall14


    Portion size is ludicrous on cereal. We ran an experiment with the first years last year asking them to eyeball the portion size on the pack. Not a single student poured the recommended amount into the bowl. Museli in particular was usually 3+ times the recommended amount. Rice crispies a bit lower at around twice the recommended amount. They could not believe how little the recommended bowl size is


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 476 ✭✭selwyn froggitt


    I just eat the carton,more flavour and zero sugar


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 498 ✭✭Muckka


    Every time I hear of Brexit I think of breakfast cereal bar... don't know why..


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,661 ✭✭✭fxotoole


    Every time I see people throwing around phrases like “nanny state” in the context of Ireland, I have a good chuckle.

    Try living in the UK or USA for a few years and you’ll know all about nanny states.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,556 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    There's probably far more sugar, and other unhealthy ingredients in our foods now though, and we're probably eating far more food overall, due to the larger availability of foods. Are people working longer hours, and spending more of their time doing work related activities than previous generations?
    Portions are the issue, imo, not any one food or food group. Focusing on single food groups such as carbs, or specific types of carbs like sugar and bread are just ignoring the underlying issue.

    Plates and bowls have got bigger, portion expectations have got bigger, but everyone (including people wanting to sell their latest fad diet based on limited research) want a quick and easy fix.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Time for the "nanny state" to target everybody who robs that term from the British tabloids in the 1980s and applies it to Ireland.

    There's a reason rightwing Tory rags owned by ultrarich, tax-dodging oligarchs love to push the concept of a "nanny state" that "interferes" in their riding us all senseless. Jesus.

    I look forward to the day when the marginal rate of tax paid by these oligarchs is the 50%-60% it is for heaps of us in the "squeezed middle". Long past time that the state - which supplies the educated workforce, roads, utility infrastructure and everything else for their businesses to thrive - interfered with that.


    And, yes, when even All Bran has c. 25% sugar, you know breakfast cereals with the exception of porridge are really bad for you.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    ......

    And, yes, when even All Bran has c. 25% sugar, you know breakfast cereals with the exception of porridge are really bad for you.

    Porridge is worse for you


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,556 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    And, yes, when even All Bran has c. 25% sugar, you know breakfast cereals with the exception of porridge are really bad for you.
    Breakfast cereal isn't really bad for you on it's own, whether you include porridge or not. No one element makes a diet/ what you eat bad - it's the overall not individual items.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,291 ✭✭✭lbc2019


    Yes boo nanny state- lets be influenced by billionaires instead!

    Zero Fcuks they give!

    We consume far too much sugar and processed sugar. Our portion sizes are way out of control. We complain about obsiety in children them complain when the government try to address it!

    Cereals have become a joke. They need to be reined in.


  • Site Banned Posts: 725 ✭✭✭Balanadan


    gctest50 wrote: »
    Porridge is worse for you

    What's wrong with porridge?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    Unfortunately I'd imagine there's been incredible amounts of lobbying by the food industry to make sure we continue to consume more and more sugar, and potentially other unhealthy ingredients.

    Unhealthy as in? The articifial sweeteners are the worst


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,291 ✭✭✭lbc2019


    Macy0161 wrote: »
    Breakfast cereal isn't really bad for you on it's own, whether you include porridge or not. No one element makes a diet/ what you eat bad - it's the overall not individual items.

    Eating some breakfast cereals now - you might as well eat a bowl of sugar!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    Balanadan wrote: »
    What's wrong with porridge?

    maybe he means with cream and the dreaded sugar!?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,291 ✭✭✭lbc2019


    Graces7 wrote: »
    Unhealthy as in? The articifial sweeteners are the worst

    Sugar and processed sugar are worse for our diet.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,815 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    gozunda wrote: »
    The bizarre thing though was in the 1970s nearly everyone added sugar to the breakfast cereal, their tea, ate sweets and biscuits made with real sugar and were generally skinnier than people today!

    :confused:

    Bet they weren't sat on their arses for 8 hours a day.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    lbc2019 wrote: »
    Eating some breakfast cereals now - you might as well eat a bowl of sugar!

    eating frosted flakes from the packet..... yummy!


  • Site Banned Posts: 725 ✭✭✭Balanadan


    Graces7 wrote: »
    eating frosted flakes from the packet..... yummy!

    Sometimes I'd have a bowl of coco pops for dessert.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Humanity needs to drastically change everything about its food production model for the good the species and the planet. If we don't manage to cause ecological collapse, we will start seeing teenagers being admitted to hospital for obesity-related heart failure.

    If taking steps to make those changes is "nanny state", then so be it. People on their own will not make changes for the good of everyone. They have to be corralled into doing so.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    lbc2019 wrote: »
    Sugar and processed sugar are worse for our diet.
    nah!


    But each to his or her own. chemicals are nasty things. sugar is lovely.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    Balanadan wrote: »
    What's wrong with porridge?




    Non- diabetic woman wore a continuous blood glucose monitor for a few days :






    Enter: OATMEAL.
    Another interesting finding was my oatmeal test. Now, for the duration of the experiment, I ate my normal breakfast, which is typically some variation of 2 eggs cooked in butter or lard, vegetables (usually rotating between kale, broccoli, mushrooms, onions, etc.), and possibly some breakfast meat, like sausage or bacon. Alongside this, I have black tea (unsweetened) with heavy cream. [Read: I eat a low carb, high fat, moderate protein breakfast.]

    This style of breakfast was a dream for my blood sugar, essentially flatlining it in the 80s or 90s. It’s also excellent for my energy levels, satiety, and productivity (low carb + real food + mindful eating for the win!). I can easily go for 3-5 hours without getting hungry (depends on the day and how active I am), which is nothing short of a miracle for someone who used to be a huge snacker.

    There’s a reason I tend to return to a variation of this day after day. Even when I added a small slice of sourdough one morning and ½ cup of leftover roasted potatoes another morning, my blood sugar didn’t exceed 100 (the magic of not eating “naked carbs”).

    I started to wonder if I was just super insulin sensitive in the morning or maybe had more wiggle room for carbs.

    So, the final day of my CGM sensor, I decided to eat a breakfast similar to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ sample meal plan in their pregnancy guidelines. Their meal plan is oatmeal, skim milk, and strawberries. In other words, all carbs.

    (For those of you familiar with my book, Real Food for Pregnancy, this is the same meal plan that I use to make a comparison on the nutrient-density and macronutrient ratio compared to my real food meal plan. This excerpt of the book is included in the free chapter download; see the bottom of this post or this page to get it.)

    I don’t have skim milk in the house (and I never will), but I do have whole, grass-fed milk for my son. I also didn’t have strawberries, but I have raspberries, which are nutritionally similar. So I whipped up measured portions of rolled oats (1/2 cup dry, which is 1 cup cooked) prepared with water, a little milk poured on afterwards (I’m really not a fan of straight up milk, so I only used a few Tbsp), ½ cup raspberries, and because it was in-edibly plain, I added 1 measured teaspoon of honey (not heaping). Total carb count was 45g.

    All things considered, this was NOT a large bowl of oatmeal and it was essentially NOT sweet, despite adding a little honey. (I say this to point out that the average person adds A LOT of extra sweeteners to their oatmeal, either with sugar/honey or dried fruit. My version would be unpalatable to many people.)

    At first, I thought my blood sugar was doing ok after the oatmeal, but I then watched with horror on my Freestyle Libre as the readings climbed. When you scan the sensor, the Freestyle Libre reader shows an arrow next to the numerical reading with an up, down, level, or slightly up/down error, indicating your real time blood sugar trends. This was the ONLY time during the entire 10 days that I saw the straight up arrow, indicating my blood sugar was rising FAST.

    My blood sugar went from 74 to a peak of 178 in an hour. By two hours, I was down to the 120s and by three hours, finally back down to 100.

    This perfectly illustrates why I preach “no naked carbs” (meaning carbs eaten without a source of fat or protein). The spike from oatmeal was 40 points higher than my Thanksgiving dinner, which included stuffing, sweet potatoes, cranberry sauce, pumpkin pie (in other words, the same or more carbohydrates than this unsatisfying, bland oatmeal breakfast). I’d wager that I didn’t spike as high from Thanksgiving because there was sufficient fat, protein, and fiber in the meal to slow digestion and absorption of the carbohydrates.

    This image shows 4 days of blood sugar data.



    8eu75CP.jpg.


    Continuous glucose monitor experiment in a non diabetic - oatmeal spike
    3 days of happy blood sugar readings on my moderately low carb diet.

    Day 4: OATMEAL for breakfast.

    It was really interesting to watch it pan out in real time on my CGM. I had always assumed that I wouldn’t be hungry until my blood sugar was back down to normal or in the hypoglycemic range, but this experiment showed me that the hunger trigger (for me, anyways) is in response to the impending crash.

    I actually didn’t end up hypoglycemic in response to this meal, but I literally had to eat something with substance (fat/protein) around the two hour mark (~ 2 oz of leftover grass-fed beef burger patty) to avoid going hangry. That probably stopped me from going into reactive hypoglycemia.

    After this oatmeal experiment, I started wondering if my glycemic response to oatmeal was exaggerated or unusual. It’s surprisingly hard to find data on blood sugar responses in non-diabetics, especially when trying to examine the “peak” blood sugar response.

    As you can recall, as long as blood sugar is back down to 140 mg/dl by two hours after eating, then you’re supposedly “in the clear” by conventional guidelines for diabetes/prediabetes. If a study has people measure their blood sugar only at 2 hours, you’re likely to miss the peak glycemic response in many people. Moreover, different people peak at different times, so without a million finger pricks or CGM, the results aren’t going to be very meaningful.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,370 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Time for the "nanny state" to target everybody who robs that term from the British tabloids in the 1980s and applies it to Ireland.

    There's a reason rightwing Tory rags owned by ultrarich, tax-dodging oligarchs love to push the concept of a "nanny state" that "interferes" in their riding us all senseless. Jesus.

    I look forward to the day when the marginal rate of tax paid by these oligarchs is the 50%-60% it is for heaps of us in the "squeezed middle". Long past time that the state - which supplies the educated workforce, roads, utility infrastructure and everything else for their businesses to thrive - interfered with that.


    And, yes, when even All Bran has c. 25% sugar, you know breakfast cereals with the exception of porridge are really bad for you.


    Seems like you have a bowl of vitriol every morning?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    seamus wrote: »
    Humanity needs to drastically change everything about its food production model for the good the species and the planet.

    If taking steps to make those changes is "nanny state", then so be it. People on their own will not make changes for the good of everyone. They have to be corralled into doing so.

    Maybe depends on what your diet is like? I eat very little processed food which is maybe where dangers lie. grow what food I can. never takeaways etc.

    nearing 80 so a different view maybe?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,556 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    lbc2019 wrote: »
    Eating some breakfast cereals now - you might as well eat a bowl of sugar!
    Not really. Cornflakes and Rice Crispies, for example, 3% (half a teaspoon per 30g) sugar. People put way more sugar (in the form of honey/ maple syrup or just sugar) on a bowl of porridge.

    Nothing proven with artificial sweetners either. Food and diet has to be the worst thing for psuedo and unproven science taken as fact (as quoted above), with some people almost religious in their beliefs despite what science has, and hasn't, proven.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement