The Glucose Debate: A Closer Look at Channel 4’s “Eat Smart – Secrets of the Glucose Goddess”

 

... especially when it matters!

Jessie Inchauspé, known as the Glucose Goddess, has taken her social-media-friendly science mainstream with a Channel 4 series. While making nutrition accessible is a commendable goal, oversimplifying complex concepts often sacrifices accuracy.

But how much of this is real science, and how much is just a rebrand of common sense?

I’ll do my best to break down some of the more relevant bits.

What’s Right About Food Order?

Food order strategies, like starting meals with fibre or protein, have shown benefits in managing blood sugar levels. But how relevant are they for the general population?

Studies show that doing things like eating fibre or protein before carbs has some scientific backing. (e.g., Shukla et al., Food Order Has a Significant Impact on Postprandial Glucose and Insulin Levels. Diabetes Care)

It can help with things like:

• Reduce blood sugar spikes.
• Lower post-meal insulin levels.
• Potentially help with satiety and long-term blood sugar control.

For those managing metabolic disorders such as Type 2 Diabetes, this can be a useful tool. Indeed, this (and other studies) used test subjects with this condition.

The research (and their findings) are NOTHING new.

Is food order important for everyone else?

No.

For the average person, focusing on the following tends to yield more significant benefits:

• Whole foods and balanced meals.
• Regular movement (of any kind).
• Consistent, sustainable habits over quick fixes.

Glucose Monitors

The Glucose Goddess often uses continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) to show blood sugar spikes, implying they’re harmful for everyone. However, here’s the reality:

For healthy individuals, blood sugar spikes are normal and harmless. Your body has insulin for a reason and manages these fluctuations with impressive precision. Suggesting otherwise risks unnecessary fear around normal food responses and creates a demand for CGMs where none exists.

That said, CGMs do have utility in specific populations. For example, research suggests they can be beneficial for athletes looking to optimize performance. A study in the Journal of Sports Sciences (McMahon et al., 2022) indicates that CGMs may help endurance athletes fine-tune carbohydrate timing and fuel utilisation during training and events.

This distinction is critical: while CGMs may offer actionable insights for athletes or those with specific metabolic disorders like Type 2 Diabetes, for the average healthy individual, they’re little more than an expensive gadget likely to create unnecessary anxiety.

If glucose monitors are discussed, context is key. Misusing them to amplify fear-based messaging around food choices not only lacks scientific grounding but also detracts from meaningful, evidence-based strategies for improving health.

Over-Simplified Solutions

Let’s examine one suggested on the first episode: squat while reaching for that cookie in the cupboard, which seems more like a gimmick than a meaningful solution.

Let’s contextualise this: Physical activity has long been known to improve glucose regulation. Dressing it up as a “hack” isn’t adding value, it’s marketing.

Preying on the Vulnerable

The show features individuals with severe metabolic challenges or highly unbalanced diets, framing their stories in ways that sometimes feel more exploitative than supportive. Instead of offering these individuals compassionate guidance, it glossed over their struggles and ignored the emotional impact of making major dietary changes.

When dietary advice is presented without empathy, it can unintentionally amplify feelings of guilt, shame, and inadequacy, especially for those already struggling with their relationship with food (the poor chap with Type 2 Diabetes for example).

Demonising specific foods, like chocolate, doesn’t solve the problem; it makes it worse. Food isn’t the enemy. Overcoming dietary challenges means working with people to understand their unique barriers and without blame.

Let’s address real-world barriers to healthier eating:

• Affordability: Fresh, high-quality ingredients can be out of reach for many.
• Food availability: Not everyone has access to diverse, nutrient-dense foods.
• Cooking skills: Some lack the confidence or knowledge to prepare balanced meals.
• Family dynamics: Is there support for change at home, or resistance?
• Time: For busy individuals, fitting in meal prep can feel impossible.

Rather than addressing these real-world challenges, the show relies on oversimplified “hacks” that may alienate its audience further. True professionals understand that sustainable change requires meeting people where they are and offering realistic, compassionate solutions.

The Danger of Fear-Based Messaging

Fear-based nutrition advice often primes individuals to fear entire food groups or ingredients, potentially leading to orthorexia, an unhealthy obsession with "clean eating."

Research highlights this risk. A study published in Eating and Weight Disorders (Cena et al., 2019) discusses how media-driven dietary fears and pseudoscience contribute to orthorexia symptoms, particularly among vulnerable individuals exposed to restrictive food ideologies. Using glucose spikes as a bogeyman could inadvertently shift focus from balanced eating to unnecessary restriction.

For example, suggesting that normal blood sugar fluctuations are harmful may cause some people to fear consuming nutrient-dense foods like fruit or dairy, despite their overall benefits. This misplaced fear is not just scientifically unfounded but may increase stress around eating. Ironically, this has the potential to worsen metabolic health over time.

Instead of using fear, the focus should be on creating sustainable, evidence-based habits that celebrate diversity in food choices and promote a positive relationship with eating.

Scientific Missteps and Missed Context

One of the show’s biggest failings was its inability to provide proper scientific context around key concepts like glucose spikes, insulin responses, and gastric emptying: important topics for understanding metabolic health and weight loss. By oversimplifying or outright neglecting these areas, the programme missed an opportunity to educate its audience in a meaningful way.

For example, a viewer asked a seemingly straightforward question: “Is full-fat or low-fat dairy better?”

The response offered by the host was not just misleading—it was fundamentally incorrect. The claim went something like this:

“If you remove all the fat, then you have a higher sugar (lactose) content, and that's going to cause your blood sugar to spike.”

No, it doesn’t: Lactose levels are a fixed component of dairy products and do not increase when fat is removed. In fact, removing fat often results in a slight reduction in calorie content without affecting the carbohydrate composition of the product.

Of course, it’s important not to overlook the positive benefits full fat dairy has on the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins: A, D, E, and K, but that’s another story for another time.

Errors like this illustrate the risks of presenting oversimplified advice as authoritative, especially when it misrepresents fundamental nutritional science. While engaging TV and social media content thrives on soundbites, viewers deserve better than misinformation masquerading as expertise.

Why the Hype Works, and How to Stay Grounded

The Glucose Goddess taps into our love for quick, definitive answers. Nutrition is rarely black-and-white, and for most people, it’s not about “hacking” your body but learning to listen to and work with it. If you’re healthy, trust that your body knows how to manage blood sugar naturally. If you have specific health concerns, personalised advice is far more effective than following generic social media trends.

My Takeaway

This programme could have been an excellent opportunity to discuss healthy eating and lifestyle changes in a nuanced, evidence-based way. Instead, it sensationalises glucose and potentially demonises foods, risking harm to vulnerable individuals.

Where this could have been better:

1. Contextualise the science, not just the “what” but the “why.”
2. Address the psychological impact of dietary changes.
3. Recognise the barriers to healthy eating and offer realistic solutions.

Channel 4, you missed the mark on this one.