Say What?: Sweet (In)justice

Although Top Chef is one of my favorite competition-based reality shows, the two previous seasons have led to blog postings in which I express my frustration at the contestants' and producers' misunderstanding of basic nutrition concepts.

This current season is no exception.

This week's "quickfire challenge" -- a 45 minute challenge that grants the winning contestant immunity at the episode's elimination ceremony -- consisted of making a sugar-free dessert.

Before introducing the challenge, host Padma Lakshmi showed the contestants a cart loaded with the various sugars found in the Top Chef pantry -- white, raw, confectioners', brown, etc. -- which she wheeled out of the kitchen once the challenge began.

"This will be interesting to watch!" I thought.

Well, the first red flag went up when the concept of sugar-free desserts was referenced in the context of producing healthy, low-calorie options.

Really? Because, often times, sugar-free varieties of cakes and pies use higher quantities of fat -- mainly saturated -- to make up for lost texture and taste.

Consequently, it is not at all odd to find that a slice of sugar-free cake has just as many calories -- if not more! -- as the traditional version.

Although "sugar-free" can sometimes be healthier and lower-calorie (i.e.: quick-cooking plain oatmeal is a healthier, lower-calorie alternative to pre-sweetened varieties,) you should never automatically make that connection in your head.

Then, once the challenge was underway, I saw contestants using honey and agave. Oy.

Apparently in Top Chef land, the word "sugar" is taken very literally -- it only refers to a granulated sweetener that comes in large bags.

Honey and agave are forms of sugar.

Yes, it usually takes less agave to match the same level of sweetness of a certain amount of sugar, but a dessert made with agave or honey is NOT sugar-free!

One contestant even used a chocolate coin in her dish. I immediately thought she would be disqualified, since any chocolate product contains sugar. Alas, the judging panel didn't seem to have a problem with that.

Top Chef execs: how about consulting with a Registered Dietitian when creating rules for nutrition-related challenges?

Sneak Peek

The folks at Smart Balance sent me samples of their new shelf-stable peanut butter product due on supermarket shelves this April.

The selling points are:

* The inclusion of flax oil, bringing the ALA Omega-3 fatty acid total of a single two-tablespoon serving to 1,000 milligrams (63% of the Daily Value)

* The absence of partially hydrogenated oils (hence no trans fats)

* The use of agave nectar as a sweetener, rather than table sugar (sucrose)

Mind you, the first two selling points can already be found in the company's Omega Peanut Butter (pictured at left).

Both the smooth and crunchy varieties of this new variety passed my taste test (as well as that of fellow tasters I asked to sample the product), but let's talk nutrition.

Although the inclusion of agave nectar is touted as a healthier choice since its sweeter-than- sugar status means you need to use less of it to sweeten, it isn't a big enough difference in this case.

Smart Balance is being truthful when they advertise this peanut butter as containing "33% less sugar than leading brands," but you are talking about 2 grams per serving as opposed to 3 grams per serving (which translates to just four fewer calories.)

What absolutely confuses me, though, is the fact that the company's Omega Peanut Butter -- already in stores -- only contains one gram of sugar (in the form of molasses) per serving.

They could technically advertise this product as having "100% more sugar" than the one they have already launched!

I am also disappointed by the use of the term "naturally sweetened" in the packaging.

Remember, there is no concrete legal definition of the term "natural" for food advertising.

It is a word that means absolutely nothing; it is simply used to conjure up ideas of healthy, "back to basics" eating.

After all, poisonous mushrooms are natural, but that doesn't mean they are good for us.

I don't think this is "unhealthy" peanut butter by any means, but its sole unique selling point -- the use of agave nectar -- just isn't that big of a deal.

You Ask, I Answer: Agave Nectar/Syrup

One of my friends swears by agave nectar.

She says it’s the best sweetener to use because it doesn’t spike your blood sugar and isn’t refined.

What do you think?

-- Leah Strentle
Palo Alto, CA

A few years ago, agave nectar became a trendy health food, mainly for the reasons you cite.

Vegans have long known about it, as it is a plant-based sweetener used in place of honey or white sugar (which is usually filtered with charcoal made from animal bones).

It is indeed diabetic friendly since it does not spike blood glucose levels as much as pure sucrose (table sugar).

Keep in mind, though, that if managing blood glucose levels is a concern, you can also think about pairing "high glycemic" foods with lower ones.

For instance, drizzling some olive oil over a potato (a food with a high glycemic index) and eating it alongside a grilled chicken breast (a food with a low glycemic index) will not spike your blood sugar as much as if you were eating the potato completely by itself.

At the end of the day, agave nectar is a sweetener.

Remember, all sweeteners have 4 calories per gram. So, dowsing your pancakes in 4 tablespoons of agave syrup (or any non-diet sweetener, for that matter) will add 192 calories to your meal.

Agave nectar's advantage, though, is that since it is sweeter than table sugar, you need less agave than you would sugar to achieve the same level of sweetness.

When baking, I find that when a recipe calls for a certain amount of table sugar, I can instead use half that amount of agave nectar without sacrificing taste (resulting in a finished product with several hundred fewer calories.)

It is also worth pointing out that the reason why agave nectar ranks so low on the glycemic index is because it is mainly composed of fructose.

Earlier this summer, researchers at the University of California at Davis compared the effects of drinking fructose-based versus sucrose-based beverages over a 10 week period on overweight adults.

The results? Those drinking fructose-based beverages had higher triglyceriude and LDL ("bad") cholesterol levels than those drinking beverages with a higher percentage of sucrose.

I am not “knocking” agave nectar (again, I use it often when baking) but rather evening out the sweetener playing field.

At the end of the day, keep this in mind: humans have been eating white table sugar for thousands of years. We know very well what sugar does to the body, since we’ve had the chance to study it for so long.

Sugar in and of itself is not the devil. After all, it has been around for much longer than skyrocketing obesity rates, so rationalizing a strict avoidance of it as a "health issue" seems extreme to me.

The problem is that people are eating too much of it!

My thoughts? If you like the taste of sugar and have it in small amounts (no more than 30 or so grams a day), keep enjoying it.

Similarly, if agave is your sweetener of choice, go ahead and enjoy it -- but always be mindful of how much you use.

It should not get the label of a "health food" simply because it is less refined than table sugar.