Sugar
 

When we eat chocolate bars we eat a product which has sugar added.

When we eat fruit we consume sugar which is naturally occurring.

Is there any difference between the two when is comes to thinking about the sugar content that is in the food we eat?

I ask because I try to watch my sugar intake so that I try not to too often exceed the recommended daily intake of sugar of 90g.

Re: Sugar
 

This is informative

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325550

Re: Sugar
 

Most added sugars are sucrose which the liver can cope with. Fruit sugar is fructose, which the liver has a lot of problems with. A fruit smoothie or fruit jioce is far more of a problem than an actual piece of fruit. Fatty liver disease is becoming more common in non-alcoholics for this very reason.

Re: Sugar
 

All Simple Carbohydrates are basically sugar. Everything the body uses for energy is turned into Glycogen.

---------- Post added at 17:41 ---------- Previous post was at 17:40 ----------

Sucrose is just Glucose and Fructose mixed

Re: Sugar
 

I suppose, just in the same way water is a mix of hydrogen and oxygen.

Re: Sugar
 

Hmmm not quite that simple

C6H12O6 +C6H12O6 = C12H22O11 see who fructose and glucose have the same molecular composition? (you lose some H2O as condensation) jfi I did not know this I looked it up

If you break down everything you get a mixture of elements

Re: Sugar
 

Info ;

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition...ucose-fructose

Re: Sugar
 

Very interesting. That places Sucrose at the bottom of the pile.

---------- Post added at 20:56 ---------- Previous post was at 20:49 ----------

Now this is my opinion and it is dated from when I did my diplomas in nutrition, anatomy and physiology and it does match Pauls link. Glucose whether as is or broken down from Sucrose causes the spike in blood sugar. This spike gives the consumer a rush. This rush soon wanes and the consumer wants another (very much the same as a cocaine user). This consumption of Glucose based sugar products in food imo has done a lot of damage and partly to blame for the obesity crises. So many processed foods have sugar in and often Sucrose based which gives the consumer the hit.

So in short if you only add a bit of Sugar to your tea and only eat a modest amount of fruit and eat a healthy diet low in processed food imo Fructose is better

Re: Sugar
 

I just pointed out it wasn't a mixture as you implied. A mixture is made from different substances that are not chemically joined. However, sucrose is a disaccharide ie a molecule made up of two monosaccharides a fructose molecule and a glucose molecule but they are chemically bonded in to a third molecule. So as you can see not technically a mixture. I'll sort of give you the it breaks down to a mixture of elements. Someone with more knowledge than me my well explain it better, but I'm just scraping the darkest corners of my memory having grown up with a father who was a FRSC and sort of expected all his children to do chemistry to A level and I was always more interested in inorganic chemistry.

Re: Sugar
 

I was just posting it as simple as possible for everyone when I said mixture. Plus I am not a Chemist or have any knowledge on Chemistry but I stand by my points on sugar

Re: Sugar
 

I've always wondered about the "fake sugars" that exist in all these zero % sugar products such as yoghurts, drinks, etc.


Are they actually good for you? Sucralose, acesulfame, aspartame, etc...


I'd rather eat a "full fat and sugar" product and just eat in moderation.


It's like the diet butters out there. Some are full of random ingredients!

Re: Sugar
 

My Biochemistry is very old. This could be out of date now.

D-Glucose (chiral has a L and D form) is the most abundant organic molecule in the biosphere.
It is broken down in a process called glycolysis (sweet splitting).
D Glucose -> Glucose 6 Phosphate (G6P) -> Fructose 6 Phosphate (F6P)-> Fructose 1,6 Diphosphate


And then down a further chain of reactions to the TCA and then on further. The net goal is production of molecules like ATP which is a energy source for cells.


Sucrose (what we call sugar) is glucose attached to fructose. We would break that down to glucose and fructose. In the cell F6P and G6P can be interconverted or joined to get Sucrose P and then Sucrose.


Fructose can be metabolised in the liver to Fructose 1 Phosphate (F1P) but we don't have the ability to change that to F6P. We can get fructose intolerance in some cases. One of the products we can break F1P to is glycerol which can make fat.

Re: Sugar
 

My late mum was a diabetic, she was told to avoid all sugar-free food as it could be bad for her.

Re: Sugar
 

I dont think sugar free as such is bad for everyone, but its a common myth that diabetics should avoid suger - doing that would be bad for you. Diabetics need to control their sugar, not avoid it.

Re: Sugar
 

I actually did try to do this and found that a lack of sugar could be as much of a problem as too much sugar. Therefore, I now calculate how much sugar I put into my body, both from sweets/chocolate etc and from fruit, and I was wondering if I was calculating this correctly, hence me starting the conversation.

---------- Post added at 14:30 ---------- Previous post was at 14:28 ----------

To clarify, my enquire re fruit is actual pieces of fruit and not fruit products such as fruit juice.

Re: Sugar
 

From what I can gather when it comes to adding up the amount of sugar you consume - the recommended amount per day is 90 grams - it makes no difference as to whether it is naturally occurring sugar from fruit and added sugar in things like chocolate bars and cake.

Re: Sugar
 

I think the real issue is eating sugar to excess, leading to obesity.

Re: Sugar
 

and diabetes.

Re: Sugar
 

Thats a bit of a myth.

Eating tons of sugar may eventually cause you to be overweight, and that can contribute to Type 2, but eating loads of sugar wont directly give you diabetes.

Re: Sugar
 

The real issue is people not being active enough, not sugar. Several cars in even small houses and front gardens being paved over for more parking is a clue.

We've become lazy and just sat in front of screens of one sort or another all day (and yes I know I'm in front of one now, but after a lovely 10 mile walk in the spring sunshine..)

Re: Sugar
 

I agree

Re: Sugar
 

All carbs (sugars, anything containing flour, beans and pulses) are broken down into simple sugars like glucose. Any excess is turned into fat by the body as stored energy.

Re: Sugar
 

Glycogen is our stored energy source. Then we get fat laid down.

Re: Sugar
 

It is a case of moderation.

Re: Sugar
 

Fake sugar is far worse that real sugar, some has links to cancer.

Stuff like Sorbitol, and others ending in "OL" can have a laxative effects on some.

Re: Sugar
 

And there’s the clue to achieving weight loss. A low carbohydrate diet is better for you than low calorie and you scarcely know you are on a diet if you follow it. I could never follow a low calorie diet - that just drains your energy and makes you feel very hungry.

A low carb diet is easy to follow and works like a dream. That’s the only diet I would recommend.

And to get back to sugar - it’s the added sugar you need to avoid. Naturally occurring sugar in food should not be a problem.

The reason you have to be careful about ‘no sugar’ food is because of what the manufacturers put in as a substitute. Better to avoid processed foods altogether if you can.

Re: Sugar
 

and that gets back to my original question about the difference between naturally occurring sugar in fruit and added sugar in things like chocolate.

---------- Post added at 15:28 ---------- Previous post was at 15:27 ----------

agreed, and trying to keep to the recommended daily intake of 2,000 calories and 90 grams of sugar.

Re: Sugar
 

I think the RDA refers to added sugar. It would be too difficult for consumers, who these targets are aimed at, to judge it otherwise.