rory robertson
Active Member
- Messages
- 28
Hello again, readers. I have posted twice here recently, highlighting:
x the need for bans on all sugary drinks in all schools in all nations in all the world! http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/Su ... ks-Ban.pdf
x the emerging dangers for our kids' health from increasingly popular "low fat" and "low GI" sugary breakfast drinks.
In the past, my focus has been the spectacularly faulty but high-profile Australian Paradox paper that was an attempt in 2011 to (falsely) exonerate processed sugar as a menace to public health, a ham-fisted effort by two Australian scientists who are the world's foremost advocates of the Glycemic Index approach to nutrition: http://www.australianparadox.com
Some readers will be aware that I have argued near and far for the correction or retraction of that faulty self-published yet supposedly "peer reviewed" paper - claiming "an inverse relationship" between sugar consumption and obesity in Australia - because it has been used by global food and beverage companies to pretend that elevated modern rates of sugar consumption (sugar is 100% carbohydrate) have nothing to do with the global uptrends in obesity and type 2 diabetes, together the biggest public-health challenge of our times: http://www.smh.com.au/business/pesky-ec ... 22pru.html ; http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/r ... 1w3e5.html
That's the background. Now, here's the news: on Friday in Australia, five researchers in Western Australia released an about-to-be-published paper that further shreds the credibility of the faulty Australian Paradox "finding", and so the credibility of the University of Sydney in claiming that sugar is not a problem: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pd ... 13-668.pdf :thumbup:
After claiming for a year and a half that their spectacularly faulty paper is flawless, and they continue to make that false claim :thumbdown: , the whole thing is turning to custard for Australia's highest-profile low-GI advocates: Slides 9-24 at http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/22 ... afinal.pdf
Yes, the credibility of the University of Sydney's quality control in science and the credibility of its Glycemic Index enterprise both are in steep decline. Again, check out the yummy low-GI readings for sugary “Coca Cola” (53 in Australia), “Snickers” bar (41) and “Carrot” cake (36-39) in http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch.php :crazy:
x the need for bans on all sugary drinks in all schools in all nations in all the world! http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/Su ... ks-Ban.pdf
x the emerging dangers for our kids' health from increasingly popular "low fat" and "low GI" sugary breakfast drinks.
In the past, my focus has been the spectacularly faulty but high-profile Australian Paradox paper that was an attempt in 2011 to (falsely) exonerate processed sugar as a menace to public health, a ham-fisted effort by two Australian scientists who are the world's foremost advocates of the Glycemic Index approach to nutrition: http://www.australianparadox.com
Some readers will be aware that I have argued near and far for the correction or retraction of that faulty self-published yet supposedly "peer reviewed" paper - claiming "an inverse relationship" between sugar consumption and obesity in Australia - because it has been used by global food and beverage companies to pretend that elevated modern rates of sugar consumption (sugar is 100% carbohydrate) have nothing to do with the global uptrends in obesity and type 2 diabetes, together the biggest public-health challenge of our times: http://www.smh.com.au/business/pesky-ec ... 22pru.html ; http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/r ... 1w3e5.html
That's the background. Now, here's the news: on Friday in Australia, five researchers in Western Australia released an about-to-be-published paper that further shreds the credibility of the faulty Australian Paradox "finding", and so the credibility of the University of Sydney in claiming that sugar is not a problem: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pd ... 13-668.pdf :thumbup:
After claiming for a year and a half that their spectacularly faulty paper is flawless, and they continue to make that false claim :thumbdown: , the whole thing is turning to custard for Australia's highest-profile low-GI advocates: Slides 9-24 at http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/22 ... afinal.pdf
Yes, the credibility of the University of Sydney's quality control in science and the credibility of its Glycemic Index enterprise both are in steep decline. Again, check out the yummy low-GI readings for sugary “Coca Cola” (53 in Australia), “Snickers” bar (41) and “Carrot” cake (36-39) in http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch.php :crazy:
