Weetabix contains 4.4g sugars per 100g. So around 1g to 22.73g approximately, a fair bit less than 5% of its content, a tiny bit more than the sugars in wheat grain. So something like 1.5% is added, or 1.45g per 100g. Glycemic Index tends to be high in extruded breakfast cereals, most in fact, because of the process the starch and sugar count increases as dextrins are added to them.
Looking at the question of childhood obesity for my friends the GI info is in their briefing paper. It counts but in the child obesity field it is a minor matter that is allowed for but of no major concern, whereas the majority of other sugars are. Yes, Weetabix is high GI along with white rice, wheat flour and so on, but has a very much higher fibre content than most others which does reduce absorption somewhat. The comparative you use with sugar is precisely the faux figure the sugar industry uses and in fact sugar is 58 to 65, some studies measuring 68. Be careful though because glucose averages 100, goes a fair bit higher in some counts, but down to uppers 60s with about 20g of fibre per 100g of food intake. remember how often Lucozade and such pseudo-health drinks, powdered sugars and so on used to be pushed as the panacea for all ills. They are less popular now, but look at all the so-called energiser drinks and there it is still. Fibre free, pure glucose, but no warnings on the bottle. I remember when diabetics used to be recommended to have such drinks to 'help' the insulin. It is only a little over 20 years since my ex-wife was told to have a glass of Lucozade every evening by her endocrinologist.
As a non-scientist it is all a bit abstract for me, but I can do numbers very well and what it says to me is that both the sugar industry can manipulate info in one direction and anti-sugar/starch nutritionists in the opposite direction. The truth is so blurred by misinformation that it is nigh on impossible to find out real facts rather than subjective theory.
From what you have just said below about pool chemicals and alternative treatments merits a discussion on that very subject so pop over there and I will put some information together although I am busy work wise I will try and find time this evening.
Weetabix is mainly fibre. Fibre is an important part of diet. Grain naturally contains sugars, but that is not the same as added sugar. My argument has always been that it is an impertinence for manufactures to decide how much refined sugar I should have with my food. But I would not expect them to remove sugar that naturally exists in the raw product.
Yes Kate, that is why I ditched the packets and went web searching for more precise details on the breakfast products. It is actually quite frightening when you get the actual ones rather than the ones they show. As somebody said early in this thread, people used to pile sugar on them to make them sweet. Of course, but it gives a clue to the reality which is that being a sugar does not mean a sweet taste, so deception is very easy. So, not Weetabix specifically, but how many products do people seriously believe are good for them which they may be to a point but past that point have a detrimental effect? The one that made me laugh was Ryvita that dieters used to swear by and what is actually in them that is anything but good if too many are eaten every day and I have known people who 'snacked' through a packet a day!
Just thought I'd go back to Catherine's original post:
Weetabix GI = 74
Sugar GI = 58
You're better off eating a bowl of sugar than weetabix..........!
I know the fibre in weetabix will help lower the blood sugar effect and if you cover it in creamy milk, even better. We need to get better educated about the food we eat and then make our choices....
I have been a lifelong recreational swimmer, despite having an intolerance of pool treatment chemicals. We are soon to get a new pool, which I hope will have Ozone or UV treatment. For me, swimming is the perfect way of taking exercise - lying down in a state of weightlessness! Is there a swimming pool thread? I will look for it.
Veronique, I don't believe you can go far wrong with that but not eating certain things does make it that little bit easier.
Mike, yes swimming, I know about swimming pools and the technology to run them. I was thinking it's about time I posted on the swimming pool thread, can't have too many people hibernating until spring.
I'm sure your German Doctor is right. Though I suspect there is a tipping point, beyond which a simple lifestyle change becomes impossible. Also, I think eating less (in terms of calories, not necessarily volume) is the way to lose weight. Exercise has lots of health benefits, but you have to do an awful lot of work to burn relatively few calories.
But people prefer to believe in magic. They want a weight-loss pill. They believe it when they are told they can re-perfect their skin, nourish their hair, boost the bacteria in their intestines. Just keep telling them lies and get rich!
How about a v simple (possibly too simple) solution? Eat less & do more. A friend of mine who is a Dr in Germany says it is exactly what he tells his patients but they hate to hear it & prefer fad diets & miracle powders etc. He said 99% of the people who come to him for slimming 'treatment' got that way by eating just a bit too much & doing just a bit too little over a longish time. Then he let off some steam about people being self-deluding & believing any old rubbish as long as it costs them enough money.
This is a fascinating read, its a distilled version if a much weightier tome. Don't be put off by the title, it has some interesting stuff about the food industry and marketing ploys.
Why We Get Fat: and What To Do About It. by Gary Taubes
Nigella's excuse in court would be: 'Your honour, I was looking for the sugar, found some white powder so I sniffed it just to make sure it was... Honest, your honour!'
Mike, swimming, go for it. Enjoy. Can't swim, never been interested, water is for drinking and washing, but I am sure you can all have a great time.
John, your first paragraph says all that this thread has attempted to discuss I suspect.
Just to sum up bums, Nigella's hopper aside, one of our good old hunter gatherer pseudo jokes to get students a little more interested was to ask why one thing they have in common is big bottoms? It was guaranteed to fire up the students who would all begin to guess and eventually laughter would be louder than the lecturer could raise his or her voice as they made more ridiculous suggestions for want of a response. When it came to the real answer they all looked a bit sheepish but we had captured their attention and a bit of imagination. The answer is simple, like many mammals we need to carry a reserve of 'fat' for times of scarcity, hence the bums. Modern society has transferred that to above our hips instead of almost below, the difference is for the most part it has nothing to do with reserving it for times of scarcity... Perhaps Nigella is a nomadic hunter gatherer - she certainly seems to have got around a bit ;-)
I think our bodies work like any internal combustion engine. Too rich a mixture and the cylinders get clogged and the thing tends to stall. When I were a lad, we used to have manual chokes and the driver could control the mixture. Nowadays, everything is controlled by computers and cars run better and last longer. Before long, someone will invent an implantable computer to control our appetite. Did I hear someone say "That will never happen"?
On that point I think we all agree, The comment and counter comment from all quarters is causing the "confusion principle" which actually allows food companies and governments to control us by getting us to in fight or stick our heads down holes whilst they do what they want. Just look at voter apathy.
Zoe, I didn't disagree with Brian, I just said protein diet with negligible carbs and naff all simple sugars.
One of the biggest problems that no one has yet uncovered that I know and I wait and wait to hear is calories. We know these are thermal units and they work them out by setting fire to stuff but we digest in stomach acid not fire so until the medical world actually moves forward on that one I doubt we'll ever get anywhere near understanding exactly how our bodies really function.
So we are all in agreement, the white sugary stuff is very bad, mass produced food is bad and if you consume more than you use your body will change shape and you may end up with an arse the size of Nigela's but her choice of the wrong coke isn't how it got that big LoL