(Natural?) Sugar in fruit vs other sugar?

[WhiteVandal]

So I've been reading that the natural sugar in fruit is fine, but other sugar is bad. ...What's the difference? I'm trying to figure out where the line is drawn. Unsweeted Frozen Strawberries at the local grocery have 11g of sugar. Where from, though? Are the ingredient lists including natural sugars? How can you measure that? And also, if so, how do you tell the difference?

Organic Agave Syrup contains, like, 16g of sugar. But if the only ingredient is Agave Nectar, where is that sugar coming from?

This all has me wondering about how successful I'm being at cutting sugar from my diet. I read that bananas have high sugar for a fruit. But...if that's true, it's the good kind of sugar, right? As in natural sugar, which doesn't count? Or does it?

Little help? : )

[Pat G]

SOmeone somewhere has numbers. Maybe Aj_Rock.... or Waldo.

But basically, fruit sugar would mostly consist of fructose, then there's the sucrose that is added to everything else.

i don't think there is an unscientific way of splitting it up to know how much of each is in a food source, if you want to measure your intake levels.

In terms of cutting it from your diet, as long as that number of grams of sugar intake goes down in your food chart, you're going well.

[Xena47]

The fruit in sugar doesn't absorb as quickly as table sugar because of the fiber in it, and it at least brings some vitamins along for the ride. It's a matter of context too...you could eat two tablespoons of sugar or an apple and get roughly the same number of calories but the apple brings all kinds of fiber and vitamins and minerals along for the ride...it nourishes you while the sugar only supplies a little energy and or weight gain if you store it.

Table sugar is cane juice that has been dehydrated and refined. Honey is essentially flower sugar dehydrated by bees. Maple syrup is tree sugar, etc. Most sweeteners are basically just concentrations of sugar from various sources. They are easily absorbed. Use them sparingly if you want to limit sugar, cause that's what they are. Yes, even the famous agave nectar, coconut sugar, and palm candy.

If you're buying the frozen strawberries, get the whole, unsliced ones that brag about having no added sugar on the label. Sliced ones are almost always sugared down. If the label says they're unsweetened and you're seeing sugar listed among the nutrients (as opposed to the ingredients) that's just natural fructose in the strawberries themselves. I wouldn't worry about it unless you have medical reasons for tracking cutting sugar. If so, do your homework and handle it however the situation seems to warrant. If you're doing this voluntarily though, why not start with just dropping the ADDED sugar first and study the situation further. Baby steps are easier than giant ones and still count as progress.

And yes, there ARE people who just opt out of fruit and add a few more veggies to their plate. I would take my time and review my options carefully first...it's kind of a big step.

One other thing, don't let the hype about the evils of high fructose corn syrup cause you to lump fruit in the same category--there are serious differences between an apple or banana and some garbage food filled with processed corn syrup.

Relax, keep looking till you're comfortable with your decision, and make it an informed one. Best wishes.

[Howlin' Moose]

I think you're creating too much of a (false) distinction between sugar from fruit and vegetables and sugar from processed foods. 'Natural sugar' doesn't mean 'good sugar.' You'd probably be better off trying to slash your fruit consumption as much as you can stand. Sucks, but that's all I can really offer since I don't know more about your situation.

Also, I don't know if you're big on using agave, but if you are, that should probably be the first thing you ditch.

EDIT: Ha, my post kinda goes against the advice posted above. From a whole foods perspective, you'd be better off eating some berries rather than a Twinkie because of the fiber and nutrient variables, but I still maintain that sugar is sugar is sugar. Maybe I'm in the wrong, but that's my limited viewpoint for ya.

SECOND EDIT: I was thinking a bit more about this, and maybe I was a bit brusque in my initial response. Sorry if I was. If you're trying to lose weight, you might want to look into moderating your fruit consumption. If you've already gotten rid of most processed stuff, then that's the most important thing and you can get by with a slightly higher fruit intake. I wish I could give a more definitive answer but, like I mentioned in the above paragraphs, I don't know too much about your current situation, diet, and what you're trying to do, so this is the best blanket statement I can give.

[Corbab]

I'm not a nutritionist, but my understanding is that sugar is sugar. That is to say, x grams of sugar from a piece of fruit will trigger the same insulin reaction as x grams of table sugar. The only thing is, fruit has fiber and antioxidants, vitamins, etc that plain sugar does not. Still, if you're trying to lose weight, you want to minimize spikes in insulin, which means minimizing sugars, therefore fruit is out for the most part.

In short, it's a give and take; yes, bananas have sugars, no, they're not "good sugars," but there are other redeeming factors that may be more important to you than sugar content. As far as packaged fruit (like the strawberries): if they say anything other than "strawberries" in the ingredients, there's probably sugar. If it says anything about a sweetener, there are definitely non-natural sugars. Find something with as few ingredients possible and you'll be doing yourself the most good.

[leighanne1941]

I agree with the others that said sugar is sugar. I've been aiming to keep my daily intake to the 6-9 tsp (around 36 grams) recommended. It means I have about 2 servings of fruit per day and that's it when I factor in the small amounts in other foods.

[ZenGwen]

Yeah, I've cut down on fruit quite a bit for this reason. Although if you're making the switch from a particularly unhealthy diet, it's not the first thing I'd be worried about.

[Zorch]

I'm not a nutritionist, but my understanding is that sugar is sugar. That is to say, x grams of sugar from a piece of fruit will trigger the same insulin reaction as x grams of table sugar.

This is incorrect. Glucose and fructose are absorbed/metabolized differently - and when one refers to "blood sugar", this is generally a glucose number - insulin response is also more directly associated with glucose, which is absorbed into the bloodstream. Fructose goes straight to the liver where it is either converted to glycogen stores, or converted to fat(if liver glycogen is full).

Different foods have different ratios of Glucose to Fructose - table sugar is 50/50, HFCS is typically 45/55, Agave is even heavier on the fructose. Fruits vary a lot from fruit to fruit - there are some listings on the relative glucose/sucrose/fructose/sugar alcohol contents of various fruits out there, though you may have to google it to track it down. From recollection, berries(particularly strawberries, I think) tend to be relatively low in fructose - there are some other fruits such as Mangoes and Watermelon that have the majority of their sugars as fructose.

Edit: Found a link through google- scroll down to find a pretty comprehensive table on sugars in fruits. http://www.reducetriglycerides.com/reader_triglycerides_low_fructose_fruit.htm

[Corbab]

This is incorrect. Glucose and fructose are absorbed/metabolized differently - and when one refers to "blood sugar", this is generally a glucose number - insulin response is also more directly associated with glucose, which is absorbed into the bloodstream. Fructose goes straight to the liver where it is either converted to glycogen stores, or converted to fat(if liver glycogen is full).

Different foods have different ratios of Glucose to Fructose - table sugar is 50/50, HFCS is typically 45/55, Agave is even heavier on the fructose. Fruits vary a lot from fruit to fruit - there are some listings on the relative glucose/sucrose/fructose/sugar alcohol contents of various fruits out there, though you may have to google it to track it down. From recollection, berries(particularly strawberries, I think) tend to be relatively low in fructose - there are some other fruits such as Mangoes and Watermelon that have the majority of their sugars as fructose.

Edit: Found a link through google- scroll down to find a pretty comprehensive table on sugars in fruits. http://www.reducetriglycerides.com/reader_triglycerides_low_fructose_fruit.htm

I figure my science is wrong, all I was trying to say is that if you're trying to cut down on sugar intake, you should cut down on sugar intake. I'll keep my half-bio-chem to myself.

[aj_rock]

The biggest difference seen in sugar metabolization is in glycemic index. Lower GI = less effects on insulin and blood sugar. Using white bread as the standard at a rating of 100, apples sit around 52, grapes at 62 bananas around 76. Sucrose, usually seen in table sugar, is at 92. So it's still better for you than white bread

Mind you, even honey has a rating of 104, instant rice is insane at 128. Even so, a lot of the reasoning for reducing sugar deals with GI and the related glycemic load, which is just a measure of GI times how much of something you eat. So you can still get a huge GL by eating a crapload of apples. You get the same load eating a heck of a lot less instant rice though.

Anyway, GI and GL tables can be found all over the place, but if fat loss/controlling insulin is a goal, lowering your GL should be a goal, not lowering sugar intake in and of itself per say. You can artificially lower GL by consuming non-GL inducing foods with the foods that do. As an example, higher fat content in full milk makes it's GI lower than that of skim milk.

Pro tip: this is why, if you really wanna indulge your sweet tooth, you eat dessert right after your regular meal. A good dinner with veggies and chicken will reduce the GL of whatever sugary crap you consume immediately after. Not that I'm endorsing excess dessert consumption or anything

[WhiteVandal]

Xena: Thanks! That is pretty much exactly what I was looking for.

Thank you to everyone else, also!

I'm not trying to lose weight. I cut sugar to increase my energy and...well...stop being addicted to junk food. Right now I just want to improve my diet. Later I'll be looking to add strength and flexibility.

I thought it would be easy to cut sugar and grains completely. I did this, ignoring all the "baby steps" advice, even though I know it's generally true, as well as true for me, that trying to take too big a step leads to a stumble. Dumb move.

I've most definitely cut a huge amount of sugar out already, so I'm going to call that a battle won for the moment and stick to the way I'm eating now without nitpicking about exactly how much sugar I'm still consuming. I don't know enough about the foods I'm eating to tailor an exact diet, but broad swipes will work for now.

Thanks again!

[Philociraptor]

Pro tip: this is why, if you really wanna indulge your sweet tooth, you eat dessert right after your regular meal. A good dinner with veggies and chicken will reduce the GL of whatever sugary crap you consume immediately after. Not that I'm endorsing excess dessert consumption or anything

Are you sure? I believe the index is averaging but load is additive. Therefore when you add more food you increase the load, period. Things don't average out. Sugar is still sugar, your body will still treat it as such.

I'd be much more concerned with how the foods make you FEEL. For instance, cake and ice cream make me MISERABLE for days. So I don't eat those. Berries covered in a cocoa + coconut milk custard keeps me happy though.

[aj_rock]

Are you sure? I believe the index is averaging but load is additive. Therefore when you add more food you increase the load, period. Things don't average out. Sugar is still sugar, your body will still treat it as such.

I'd be much more concerned with how the foods make you FEEL. For instance, cake and ice cream make me MISERABLE for days. So I don't eat those. Berries covered in a cocoa + coconut milk custard keeps me happy though.

You caught me. I mixed GI and GL there; thanks for the catch! But eating your sweets right after a healthy meal does tend to not make you feel as crappy as if you just gorge on sugar on an empty stomach.

Related note to your food choices: berries & coconut milk are both lower GI foods; cocoa's neutral (I think); cake and ice cream, depending on what brands you get/ingredient ratios, can be around white bread, if not higher. So yeah, if your insulin sensitivity is off, absolutely the high GI junk will make you feel bad.

Making you miserable for days doesn't make sense though; the food has been cleared from your body, especially in the high GI case, within hours. Are you sure it's not just placebo effect? (like, OMG I can't believe I just ate that/that will set my progress back so much/I'm so weak etc etc.)

[Waldo]

Sugar is sugar to me. And all of the drawbacks of insulin spiking and load and whatnot are really referring to filling you up. If the #'s work then its fine. As long as I keep track of my calories, I don't have an issue with hunger (quite the opposite really). I don't try to limit my sugar intake at all (only the calorie intake, and getting sufficient protein). Just looking back through my logs, I tend to average 150-200g of sugar a day and I'm losing fat just fine.

With regard to GI/GL...it is far more relevant for diebetics. If you are not diabetic your body should regulate this system perfectly fine. I'm not even sure it relates all that well to how filling something is. Those numbers are rather meaningless in general since few things are used on their own, the whole conglomeration of a meal determines absorbtion rate and how filling something is.

[Corbab]

Are you sure? I believe the index is averaging but load is additive. Therefore when you add more food you increase the load, period. Things don't average out. Sugar is still sugar, your body will still treat it as such.

I'd be much more concerned with how the foods make you FEEL. For instance, cake and ice cream make me MISERABLE for days. So I don't eat those. Berries covered in a cocoa + coconut milk custard keeps me happy though.

I think that consuming fats and some other things reduces the insulin spike caused by sugars. It's not perfect, but if may help if you're planning an indulgence meal/day.

[aj_rock]

Sugar is sugar to me. And all of the drawbacks of insulin spiking and load and whatnot are really referring to filling you up. If the #'s work then its fine. As long as I keep track of my calories, I don't have an issue with hunger (quite the opposite really). I don't try to limit my sugar intake at all (only the calorie intake, and getting sufficient protein). Just looking back through my logs, I tend to average 150-200g of sugar a day and I'm losing fat just fine.

With regard to GI/GL...it is far more relevant for diebetics. If you are not diabetic your body should regulate this system perfectly fine. I'm not even sure it relates all that well to how filling something is. Those numbers are rather meaningless in general since few things are used on their own, the whole conglomeration of a meal determines absorbtion rate and how filling something is.

As someone with a diabetic father, uncles, grandfather, great-grandfather, I consider GI and GL highly relevant But pendantics aside, controlling sugar intake helps some people for sure. Relations between insulin sensitivity and BF% seem to have pretty strong correlations. Because overweight people tend to have chronically elevated insulin levels, they become insulin resistant, which is the first step down the garden path towards diabetes in the first place. The body also tends to release insulin in relation to GL, but not in direct proportion. Essentially, too much GL and your body will secrete TOO MUCH insulin, which then drives blood sugar down to low-normal levels, which then instigates a lethargic feeling and stimulates hunger again.

Non of which will directly prevent fat loss, but will wreck havoc upon you psychologically. If you have the mental fortitude to trudge past the insulin spikes and aren't afraid of insulin resistance, then by all means.

One last note: if you're already fairly lean, and want to lose a bit more fat, then controlling insulin levels becomes a lot more important, as the physiology behind moving that fat changes once you get your BF% low enough.

[Waldo]

As someone with a diabetic father, uncles, grandfather, great-grandfather, I consider GI and GL highly relevant But pendantics aside, controlling sugar intake helps some people for sure. Relations between insulin sensitivity and BF% seem to have pretty strong correlations. Because overweight people tend to have chronically elevated insulin levels, they become insulin resistant, which is the first step down the garden path towards diabetes in the first place. The body also tends to release insulin in relation to GL, but not in direct proportion. Essentially, too much GL and your body will secrete TOO MUCH insulin, which then drives blood sugar down to low-normal levels, which then instigates a lethargic feeling and stimulates hunger again.

Non of which will directly prevent fat loss, but will wreck havoc upon you psychologically. If you have the mental fortitude to trudge past the insulin spikes and aren't afraid of insulin resistance, then by all means.

One last note: if you're already fairly lean, and want to lose a bit more fat, then controlling insulin levels becomes a lot more important, as the physiology behind moving that fat changes once you get your BF% low enough.

Very true with insulin sensitivity, partial diabetes so to speak. I think when it comes down to diet, there is so much, such an absolute crush of info, control what you can and let things come out as they are. By choosing foods that keep me full throughout my calorie budget I am surely naturally controlling my GL. Spend long enough mindful of your eating, how full something makes you, how calorie expensive it is, and how much protein it has, and the GI/GL thing will take care of itself.

Though as you are in the early stages of improving a bad diet, GI/GL information would be useful I suppose.

I consider myself to have a strong natural affinity for numbers; I'm not sure I could track much more than calories and protein, at least with the tools I have. Adding GI/GL info would be a nice addition to MFP, but lacking something like that one would go mad trying to live a life calculating it for each meal I would think. Especailly if there was not an acute reason for doing so (as with a diebetic), only a general get less fat reason to do so.

[oystergirl]

I think Zorch has it right and fruit sugar and processed sugar are two different things that affect you in different ways. Straight glucose is like the heroin shot to the pancrease...it is gonna cause a number of different things to happen. First, endorphins in the brain create an increased demand for more cause glucose is the food the brain eats...ohhhh, a surge, yummy! feel good, get more! Second, it spikes insulin because the body knows excess free floating sugar is BAD for the body so lets get it into the cells as fast as we can! The surge cleans up the blood stream, whooops no sugar--CRASH-brain--i need MORE and you get cravings.

In small doses, fruit sugar in its whole form, in a fruit (and preferably a LOW GI fruit) is balanced with some protein and fiber. This slows the release of the sugar. Fructose is like the precursor of glycogen-it is a storage sugar that is burned for energy later--it is metabolized through the liver then sent either to the muscles, stored in the liver or CONVERTED INTO FAT if you have too much of it or you are not in a calorie deficit.

This is why a lot of people who juice or are fruititarians or high fruit vegan can actually gain weight instead of losing it. A lot of the paleo fathers, especially Kurt Harris (archevore) tell us that excess fructose is extremely bad for the body and to eat fruit in limited quantities. You can get most of the nutrients available in fruit in vegetables. I do not currently eat fruit,but when I do, it is apples, citrus and wild foraged berries. i love melon as well but I could eat a whole watermelon at a sitting, so I try and keep that to only a few times a year when it is fresh and in season.

Sugar is not sugar folks if you look at it on a metabolic level. Sugar calories true, but when did it all become about calories and not biochemical reactions?

[Zorch]

The biggest difference seen in sugar metabolization is in glycemic index. Lower GI = less effects on insulin and blood sugar. Using white bread as the standard at a rating of 100, apples sit around 52, grapes at 62 bananas around 76. Sucrose, usually seen in table sugar, is at 92. So it's still better for you than white bread

Mind you, even honey has a rating of 104, instant rice is insane at 128. Even so, a lot of the reasoning for reducing sugar deals with GI and the related glycemic load, which is just a measure of GI times how much of something you eat. So you can still get a huge GL by eating a crapload of apples. You get the same load eating a heck of a lot less instant rice though.

Anyway, GI and GL tables can be found all over the place, but if fat loss/controlling insulin is a goal, lowering your GL should be a goal, not lowering sugar intake in and of itself per say. You can artificially lower GL by consuming non-GL inducing foods with the foods that do. As an example, higher fat content in full milk makes it's GI lower than that of skim milk.

Huge caution here: GI is simply the product of how much glucose ends up in your blood, and how quickly it gets there -but there are more sugars out there than glucose. Consequentially things with a ton of fructose can technically have lower GI's than pure glucose or glucose-yielding starches, but they've still got a ton of sugar, and definitely aren't good for you. This is part of why table sugar has a lower GI than white bread.

Lower GI because Fiber/Protein slow digestion? Great. Lower GI because glucose was swapped for fructose? Not so great.

[WhiteVandal]

This is good stuff! Thank you, everyone.

[oystergirl]

Zorch, we are on the same page with this and this is why so many people get screwed cause they have no clue that fructose processes differently than glucose or sucrose...GI is the store only for insuline responsive sugars. So many folks, and I found it especially true in the raw vegan world believed that fruit was great for you so more and more and more. Even when I was a raw vegan I could feel the shakes I would get from too much fruit--it also disturbs the adrenals if you juice it and drink it too much.

Fruit, in moderation is fine if you are at a stable weight and want to eat it. Fruit is NOT a requirement for health at all and it's important for people to remember that, and certainly separate all they have read and heard from the facts. Fruit in season and infrequently is the way most humans ate it until transportation and importing changed the rules.

[MarcTheEngineer]

My understanding of "Fruit Sugar" vs. "Table Sugar" is basically defined in the following quote (from some guy who gave a lecture on how your liver processes fructose... the basic idea is that your liver treats fructose in a very similar way to how it treats alchohol, with similar consequences w.r.t. liver toxicity)

"When God made the poison, he packaged it with the antidote" - I.E. when you consume fruit, while it may contain fructose which can be harmful, it also contains fiber which seems to mitigate the harm from the fructose

[Denny]

I believe you're referring to this video right? I definitely recommend it.

[aj_rock]

My understanding of "Fruit Sugar" vs. "Table Sugar" is basically defined in the following quote (from some guy who gave a lecture on how your liver processes fructose... the basic idea is that your liver treats fructose in a very similar way to how it treats alchohol, with similar consequences w.r.t. liver toxicity)

"When God made the poison, he packaged it with the antidote" - I.E. when you consume fruit, while it may contain fructose which can be harmful, it also contains fiber which seems to mitigate the harm from the fructose

Woah. Regardless of other parameters, NOTHING is more toxic in terms of calorie intake than alcohol. Alcohol actually gets metabolized and expended preferentially because your body wants to be rid of it so badly.

Not that I have anything against alcohol. But fructose is definitely not 'toxic' for the liver.

[Denny]

While it may not be "toxic", fructose is still processed by the liver. (source: video above)