Sugar content in food labels...

[Externet]

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 ?

 

 

[CharonY]

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).

[StringJunky]

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 October 11, 2018 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

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 October 11, 2018 by CharonY

[Danijel Gorupec]

Liked the last Charon's post.

Can the same be said for starch too? Is starch included or not included into sugars on those food labels (I guess it is counted separately as "carbohydrates" - if so, why the difference - doesn't it end up the same once consumed)?