Jump to content

Sugar content in food labels...


Externet

Recommended Posts

Hi all.  -Please move if there is a proper nutrition/food section-

Is the sugar content in food labels a constituent or an added ingredient ?

Random example : ----> https://www.motts.com/products/100-juice/motts-100-original-apple-juice

If it is 100%  juice from crushed apples,  and is showing 28 grams of sugar per serving, it is not added sugar as in a soda, but natural sugars in the fruit, figures obtained from chemical analysis.  Right ?

Now;  which is the type of sugar promoting obesity ?  Sucrose, dextrose, glucose, fructose, galactose...  And which one does not promote obesity ?   Do recommendations of eating a number of fruit servings daily (contain sugars) go somewhat against obesity prevention ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The content is supposed to reflect the totals, which includes added carbohyrdrates. What is connected to obesity is less the type of sugar, but the amount. There is none that, if consumed at a given amount does not promote obesity. Eating fruit only helps in controlling weight is you consume it instead of higher content food.

Physiologically, sugars can be interconverted and are metabolized along similar or identical pathways. While there are some differences in effective utilization, the overall (energy) consumption plays a much larger role than the individual type of metabolizable sugar (among the ones you listed).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The content is supposed to reflect the totals, which includes added carbohyrdrates. What is connected to obesity is less the type of sugar, but the amount. There is none that, if consumed at a given amount does not promote obesity. Eating fruit only helps in controlling weight is you consume it instead of higher content food.

Physiologically, sugars can be interconverted and are metabolized along similar or identical pathways. While there are some differences in effective utilization, the overall (energy) consumption plays a much larger role than the individual type of metabolizable sugar (among the ones you listed).

I've read (on the internet) fructose, which includes sucrose,  is associated with visceral fat, which is not particularly good to have.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I've read (on the internet) fructose, which includes sucrose,  is associated with visceral fat, which is not particularly good to have.

That has been around for some time. There are two different lines of evidence. One are population studies (which are difficult to control) and the other animal studies. The latter has contradicting results but some evidence indicate that the animals just consume more of fructose, if not carefully controlled. If controlled, the differences become minor in some studies. In others the differential effect of fructose could be replicated, however only when supplemented at very high levels. How that translates to human diets is unclear.

Bottom line, however, is that high consumption of sugar of any sort is an unhealthy. While there may be some that are more unhealthy, the additional effects only appear to kick in when you are already in unhealthy levels. There may be more nuance to that, especially for human physiology, but as a whole I do not think it is terribly helpful to think in term of good or bad sugars, for example.

Edited by CharonY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.