• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

July/August issue of "Balance" has outdone itself!!

hanadr

Expert
Messages
8,157
Dislikes
soaps on telly and people talking about the characters as if they were real.
I think they've out done themselves this time. I came home from a week's holiday to a pile of post including the current edition of Balance. the BDA magazine. On page 66 is an article "Always read the Label" about making healthy food choices. It refers to the way foods are labelled. I'm all for reading the labels, but this article isn't very helpful.
on Carbohydrates, it says" There are different types of carbohydrate, such as starch and sugars and this figure tells you the total amount of carbohydrate the product contains, not where it comes from".
I thought the figure is for AVAILABLE carbohydrate, excluding fibre, ( unless it's American!!") and what does it matter where it comes from?
OF which sugars:
This figure tells you how much of the carbohydrate is sugar, but doesn't tell you where the sugar comes from. It also doesn't tell you if the sugar is "Added".
There are many different types of suars, including those naturally occuring in fruit(fructose) and milk (lactose) as well as the sugar typically found in bowls(glucose). In terms of healthy eating,it is only the amount of added sugar that you need to consider.
Later in the section, they also say that ingredients with names ending in -ol are likely to be added sugar.
I was trained as a biologist and know that glucose is rarely found in bowls. and that -ols are alcohols. often polyols, used as non sugar sweeteners. Xylitol incidentally is VERY toxic to dogs, which makes me cautious of it.
Sorbitol is quite an effective laxative.
I have yet to learn that the origin of the sugar is more important in BG control that what kind of sugar it is. Glucose, whether from sports drinks or corn syrups, or cake icing or even bowls becomes BG almost instantaneously.
Most fruits store energy as fructose, but onions store sucrose.
This slackness in what should be an informative article, even if it's genuinely down to typos is unacceptable from a publication that is the organ of the BDA.
 
Funny you should mention this mag. hanadr,as when in my local library yesterday, they had a copy of this, which I looked at for a few minutes.I read a piece that suggested smoothies were a good healthy food for everyone, including diabetics. Am I wrong or are smoothies not full of liquid fructose, which does not do our BS levels much good?!! :roll:
 
Fructose is a pentose, or 5 carbon sugar,which is metabolised slightly differently from glucose. it doesn't put up BG as much or as fast as glucose or other 6 carbon hexoses. It used to be considered ok for diabetics to use fuctose, But I think informed opinion has revised this. Seems like BDA is behind the times again. anyway some fruits and veggies store sucrose( table sugar), which after all is where we get them from.I.e. sugar cane and sugar beet. Actually sucrose is a molecule made up of 2 smaller sugars; glucose(6 carbons) and fructose(5 carbons) so effectively sucrose is slightly LESS harmful than glucose, since half the resulting molecules are 5 carbon sugars and use the 5 carbon sugar pathway. The more up-to-date chemists on the forum will clear up anything I've left unclear.
 
I dont get a copy but I have emailed them to ask who is providing advice - they used to have a dietetic dept but am not sure that is the case now! No response yet.
 
Hi all
Can't say I'm surprised by this- Diabetes UK's recent billboard campaigns have been totally misleading to the lay-person. It's a shame that yet again they are doing us another dis-service by giving bad information.
I have e-mailed them over several different issues and never get a reply, so don't hold your breath.
There's enough misconceptions about diabetes to make our lifes difficult, all Diabetes UK do is add to it-bunch of amateurs as far as I'm concerned.
Also I used to be able to buy their "Balance" magazine at my local newsagent, but now u have to be a member to get it, shame, or after reading hanadr's post, maybe not. I'll make sure I wash out my bowls a bit more throoughly though!!
Jus
 
I wrote to Diabetes UK some time back. I was concerned that the opening page on their site had headline titles about the worst possible complications. I told them that a lot of people newly diagnosed probably trawl the net for informaton and if happened upon their site would need reassurance and good advice about dealing with diabetes, instead of shocking horror stories "IN THEIR FACE". I just suggested having the complications listed less obviously and a more welcoming greeting on their opening page. As we all know, when newly diagnosed you are in shock and just want help and positive advice.
A few weeks later I checked the site again and lo and behold it had a more welcoming opening page, with complications listed in a side panel.
Now, I can't know my suggestion instigated that but I'm a great believer in the power of letter-writing.
 
Those headlines were probably there to scare the living hell out of diabetics who didn't understand/care about their condition. They were also probably there to draw the attention of nonbetics to the fact that hey, this isn't just some little niggling concern where you can't eat a mars bar - it's serious frigging ****.
 
hanadr said:
I was trained as a biologist and know that glucose is rarely found in bowls. and that -ols are alcohols. often polyols, used as non sugar sweeteners.
Hello hanadr,

Even though polyols are called sugar alcohols, they are actually neither of these things.
Scientists call them sugar alcohols because part of their structure chemically resembles
sugar and part is similar to alcohols.

Regards,
timo.
 
Back
Top