Be careful when scientists are going to deal with food, for at best they just talk rubbish. At worst they develop rubbish that they want us to eat. There should be food and science, but there simply shouldn’t be food science. Real food doesn’t need science. But scientists have now found out that we all digest our food differently, which could influence dietary advice. It’s always interesting when doctors and scientists find out that we are all different.
“The glycaemic index is used by doctors and nutritionists to develop healthy diets” I won’t say that the GI is completely useless, but if you see how foods are categorised in this index you will see immediately the insanity of applying this blindly to food in general. According to the GI a sugar loaded, highly processed chocolate bar is healthier than a potato. Would anyone really believe this? The GI index might have some use for some diabetics, but that’s about it. It has nothing to do with a healthy diet.
“If my and your response to the same food are opposite then by definition a similar diet cannot be effective for both of us” How long did you study to develop this kind of logic? It’s amazing how scientists can present the most obvious things like they have done a world changing discovery. “The team found that an individual’s gut bacteria was a key factor influencing whether a food delivers a long, slow rise in blood sugar, or a short, sharp spike.” Considering we are talking about gut bacteria it would be most interesting to find out why some people have such a bad microbiome that no food is digested properly. If you get a sharp spike in blood sugar from a natural food, then there’s something wrong with your tiny friends. It has little to do with the food itself.
“We would expect that in average people, their blood sugar would spike more on ice-cream than rice,” I don’t know if I would expect that. It depends on how the rice is eaten. But I suppose dr. Elinav is talking about white rice. And if that’s eaten without a lot of fat then it will not be very different from ice cream. But in this study they obviously fed pre-diabetic people ice-cream. What about teaching people never to eat junk food again? I admit that wouldn’t make for good research, but it would be a lot more effective than figuring out the effects of ice-cream.
“close to 70 per cent of the study population did not even spike on ice-cream.” That’s because ice-cream usually also contains quite a bit of fat, which gives it a pretty low score on the GI index. Which shows immediately what the value of that index is. It has little to do with gut bacteria.
“they found the algorithm accurately predicted what each individual’s blood glucose response would be to each meal.” And what exactly is the use of this information? So far this study sounds like it’s meant to develop an individualised junk food diet for every diabetic.
“director of the Sydney University Glycemic Index Research Service,” The what????? The GI has its own research service? I think that deserves an award for the best attempt to create useless research jobs. As I mentioned several times, the GI has very limited value and that’s not a secret. Dieticians might still think it’s a good tool, but people who use their common sense can see that it has very little value.
“pointed out that the study only followed individuals for one week.” So basically he is saying that this study is meaningless. Probably “more research needs to be done”. That’s usually the phrase that follows scientific studies. It was not so hard to see that this study was meaningless. As I said at the beginning of this article: when scientists get involved in food the best thing you can do is run away. This study proves again that that’s indeed the best thing to do. Run away from ice-cream and white rice, straight to the greengrocer and butcher.