We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Is all sugars the same?
raven56706
Posts: 918 Member
when i eat fruit there are sugars in it. But should it be seen in the same light as sugar in a protein bar or etc?
0
Replies
-
-
Unless you have a health issue, sugar is not the issue, the overall food is (assuming you care about nutrition -- for weight loss calories are what matter and sugar grams do not beyond how hard it is to meet a calorie goal).
That said, fruit has fiber and micronutrients along with the sugar (which isn't bad -- it provides energy).
Sugar in a cookie tends to come with lots of fat and calories (from flour and butter as well as the sugar) and not much fiber (unless they are oatmeal, maybe) or micronutrients. So you would want to limit cookies more than fruit, although if you like cookies I'd keep them in your diet in moderation.
A protein bar has some positives that might make you want to eat it, like, well, protein and in some cases fiber. And if it's an energy bar the sugar is part of that.
The point is that I'd look at the food as a whole and how it fits in your overall diet and not focus on just sugar (unless you have a health issue where you were told to do so, of course).0 -
All sugars are not the same, that's why they have different names. Also, when consumed there can be varying reactions in your body on depending on the type of sugar and what else you eat with it.
I'm not really sure what you are asking when you compare sugar in fruit to sugar in a protein bar. There are differences, but probably not enough to worry about.0 -
raven56706 wrote: »when i eat fruit there are sugars in it. But should it be seen in the same light as sugar in a protein bar or etc?
According to the American Heart Association, added sugars (as opposed to naturally occurring sugars) should indeed be seen in a different light:
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/Sugar-101_UCM_306024_Article.jsp
...There are two types of sugars in American diets: naturally occurring sugars and added sugars.- Naturally occurring sugars are found naturally in foods such as fruit (fructose) and milk (lactose).
- Added sugars include any sugars or caloric sweeteners that are added to foods or beverages during processing or preparation (such as putting sugar in your coffee or adding sugar to your cereal). Added sugars (or added sweeteners) can include natural sugars such as white sugar, brown sugar and honey as well as other caloric sweeteners that are chemically manufactured (such as high fructose corn syrup).
...Need to reduce added sugars
Although sugars are not harmful to the body, our bodies don’t need sugars to function properly. Added sugars contribute additional calories and zero nutrients to food. Over the past 30 years, Americans have steadily consumed more and more added sugars in their diets, which has contributed to the obesity epidemic. Reducing the amount of added sugars we eat cuts calories and can help you improve your heart health and control your weight.
The American Heart Association recommends limiting the amount of added sugars you consume to no more than half of your daily discretionary calorie allowance. For most American women, this is no more than 100 calories per day and no more than 150 calories per day for men (or about 6 teaspoons per day for women and 9 teaspoons per day for men).0 -
No, different sugars are, obviously, different. I don't know what you mean by how you should look at them. Do you mean you're trying to keep your added sugars down?0
-
Sugars are really a term for what we call "sweet", and can come in various forms. Naturally sweet fruits may contain a combination of these substances.
For instance, fructose is commonly found in fruit (glucose, too). It's also found in High Fructose Corn Syrup which freaks some people out, and also in honey (which usually doesn't freak people out).
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gv5GFAoCgXvWUbr5LqjN0qKtfmAgkLJ7gJ9L4ySPce4/edit#gid=0
The WHO is targetting added sugars, which may be contributing to tooth cavities and over-consuming calories.0 -
To elaborate on what I said upthread, the reason fruit is generally different from a cookie is NOT because of some meaningful difference between the sucrose (made up of a combination of glucose and fructose) in the cookie and the combination of fructose, glucose, and sucrose in the fruit. It's because in addition to the sugar the cookie has lots of other calories from flour and fat (butter or the like), not much fiber, and not many micronutrients. This doesn't make the cookie bad, but it makes it a calorie dense food that should be consumed in moderation, and not at the expense of more nutrient dense foods you may need (including a source of protein). The fruit may well have the same amount of sugar as a cookie, but it doesn't really have any other sources of calories, does have fiber, and typically has some helpful micronutrients.
So there's no meaningful difference between the sugars, but definition differences in the nutritional profiles of foods containing sugar.
As for the protein bar, you'd have to look at how it fits into your diet and what it contributes. Some people might find a protein bar a better snack than a fruit because they find protein is filling for them. Others will prefer the fruit. Some will eat both at different times.0 -
I'm not sure it's true that there are no differences in the sugar combination in fruit and table sugar. As far as weight loss goes it wouldn't matter, both are 4 calories per gram. But it does seem to matter in terms of affect on blood glucose. Many diabetics can eat sugary fruits without a spike, but have trouble with table sugar, even when fiber is similar.0
-
Most things with table sugar have other ingredients, though -- like baked goods. Lots of diabetics say they react to starch or specifically refined grains/flour more than sugar itself.
But different diabetics seem to react to different things (I've mentioned that a friend of mine does worse with high carb/sugar PLUS sat fat), and I specifically exempted people with health issues in my initial post.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Most things with table sugar have other ingredients, though -- like baked goods. Lots of diabetics say they react to starch or specifically refined grains/flour more than sugar itself.
But different diabetics seem to react to different things (I've mentioned that a friend of mine does worse with high carb/sugar PLUS sat fat), and I specifically exempted people with health issues in my initial post.
Even non-diabetics can react differently. And it doesn't seem to be related to flour. Something about fruit sugar is different. I mean, obviously they are different, but it could be something other than the sugar that causes the difference. Kind of like fish oil from fish vs. from pills. The research doesn't match up when the oil is removed and consumed.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Most things with table sugar have other ingredients, though -- like baked goods. Lots of diabetics say they react to starch or specifically refined grains/flour more than sugar itself.
But different diabetics seem to react to different things (I've mentioned that a friend of mine does worse with high carb/sugar PLUS sat fat), and I specifically exempted people with health issues in my initial post.
Even non-diabetics can react differently. And it doesn't seem to be related to flour. Something about fruit sugar is different. I mean, obviously they are different, but it could be something other than the sugar that causes the difference. Kind of like fish oil from fish vs. from pills. The research doesn't match up when the oil is removed and consumed.
I'm referring to diabetics here who have said they react much more to, say, bread or pasta than sugary things.
I AM curious about the idea that people react differently even if you control for fiber -- for example, maybe something like my favorite example of an apple sauce made with just apples vs. a rhubarb sauce with a bit of sugar to equal the amount from the apples alone. I don't think most WOULD react differently (I don't), but I'm open to the evidence indicating that I'm wrong.
Re: fish oil vs. pills, I think part of that can be that there are good things in many foods we perceive as healthy beyond the specific compounds or vitamins that we have identified. That's Marion Nestle's (among others') argument against cutting out foods like whole grains that are commonly associated with diets that have positive health results or just focusing on the specific nutrients that we know of, and also for getting a varied diet.
It also seems consistent to me with Pollan's argument against focusing on nutrients vs. food in the "eat food, not too much, mostly plants" essay.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Most things with table sugar have other ingredients, though -- like baked goods. Lots of diabetics say they react to starch or specifically refined grains/flour more than sugar itself.
that's likely due to sucrose being 50% fructose on digestion and hence it has a muted blood sugar glucose response compared to the same amount of starch or glucose.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I'm not sure it's true that there are no differences in the sugar combination in fruit and table sugar.
Fruit has a range of compositions with sucrose, glucose and fructose in varying proportions. It probably depends on how ripe too.
0 -
raven56706 wrote: »when i eat fruit there are sugars in it. But should it be seen in the same light as sugar in a protein bar or etc?
Do you mean as to weight loss?
Sugar is sugar no matter what source it comes from and does not matter as to weight loss. In other words, 50 calories of apple is the same as 50 calories of protein bar. The apple is different nutritionally than the protein bar, but eating either/or/both will not hinder weight loss unless you go over your calorie goals.
0 -
The following is from http://authoritynutrition.com/6-reasons-why-a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie/
"The two main simple sugars in the diet are glucose and fructose.
These two seem almost identical. They have the same chemical formula and weigh the exact same.
But to your body, the two are completely different (2).
Glucose can be metabolized by all of the body’s tissues, but fructose can only be metabolized by the liver in any significant amount (3).
Here are a few examples of why glucose calories are NOT the same as fructose calories:
Ghrelin is the “hunger hormone.” It goes up when we’re hungry and down after we’ve eaten. One study shows that fructose leads to higher ghrelin levels (more hunger) than glucose (4).
Fructose does not stimulate the satiety centers in the brain in the same way as glucose, leading to reduced satiety (5).
A high consumption of fructose can cause insulin resistance, abdominal fat gain, increased triglycerides, blood sugar and small, dense LDL compared to the exact same number of calories from glucose (6).
Same number of calories, vastly different effects on hunger, hormones and metabolic health. Because a calorie is not a calorie.
Keep in mind that this applies to fructose from added sugars only, not the fructose from fruit. Fruits also have fiber, water and significant chewing resistance, which mitigate the negative effects of the fructose.
Bottom Line: Even though fructose and glucose have the same chemical formula, fructose has much more negative effects on hormones, appetite and metabolic health."0 -
The difference in sugars is out there
I use sugar as high octane fuel for workouts
It is great for that purpose
I am a low carb dieter. But.....
When I plan a bike ride in excess of 25 miles, I take some electrolyte sugar packs with some other amino acids added... But still lots of sugar or honey.
Two 100 calorie packs will carry my thru 40 miles or so, and I burn it all up on the spot.
So I'm still in a glycogen depleted low carb diet state
As posted earlier, see food as fuel for your daily activity, how it fits in the big picture for your fitness goals
I slammed a Sugared up latte and Starbucks bacon Gouda sandwich one time when I thought I was gonna fall out half way thru a 66 mile trip.
It is just fuel.
Table sugar? I don't buy it. It is my last choice fuel source. No added good stuff like a GU pack
0 -
No, sugars are different in the way they are digested by the body and if the protein bar contains refined sugar, for your reference:
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/body-process-fruit-sugars-same-way-refined-sugar-8174.html0 -
Do you understand that the link you cited says it's the presence of things like fiber that are different? Which is what was said above.0
-
AlexisUPenn wrote: »The following is from http://authoritynutrition.com/6-reasons-why-a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie/
Authority Nutrition is one of the least reputable sites."The two main simple sugars in the diet are glucose and fructose.
Yes, these two make up sucrose. They, plus sucrose, are also the sugars in fruit, in varying proportions.But to your body, the two are completely different (2).
Glucose can be metabolized by all of the body’s tissues, but fructose can only be metabolized by the liver in any significant amount (3).
Again, both are in both table sugar and fruit.One study shows that fructose leads to higher ghrelin levels (more hunger) than glucose (4).
Fructose does not stimulate the satiety centers in the brain in the same way as glucose, leading to reduced satiety (5).
In that fructose is the main sugar in fruit, you are apparently arguing that fruit is worse for you than other sugars. Weird.Keep in mind that this applies to fructose from added sugars only, not the fructose from fruit. Fruits also have fiber, water and significant chewing resistance, which mitigate the negative effects of the fructose.
Oh, so the sugar IS the same, but other aspects of the FOODS (not the sugars) are different.
Like we said above.Bottom Line: Even though fructose and glucose have the same chemical formula, fructose has much more negative effects on hormones, appetite and metabolic health."
Even from fruit? Ugh.0 -
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »AlexisUPenn wrote: »The following is from http://authoritynutrition.com/6-reasons-why-a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie/
Authority Nutrition is one of the least reputable sites."The two main simple sugars in the diet are glucose and fructose.
Yes, these two make up sucrose. They, plus sucrose, are also the sugars in fruit, in varying proportions.But to your body, the two are completely different (2).
Glucose can be metabolized by all of the body’s tissues, but fructose can only be metabolized by the liver in any significant amount (3).
Again, both are in both table sugar and fruit.One study shows that fructose leads to higher ghrelin levels (more hunger) than glucose (4).
Fructose does not stimulate the satiety centers in the brain in the same way as glucose, leading to reduced satiety (5).
In that fructose is the main sugar in fruit, you are apparently arguing that fruit is worse for you than other sugars. Weird.Keep in mind that this applies to fructose from added sugars only, not the fructose from fruit. Fruits also have fiber, water and significant chewing resistance, which mitigate the negative effects of the fructose.
Oh, so the sugar IS the same, but other aspects of the FOODS (not the sugars) are different.
Like we said above.Bottom Line: Even though fructose and glucose have the same chemical formula, fructose has much more negative effects on hormones, appetite and metabolic health."
Even from fruit? Ugh.
I know right? Kilometers of a highway are different than kilometers of a hiking path because one goes by faster when you're going in your car and uses less fuel. Because a kilometer isn't a kilometer.0 -
There is a difference between fructose naturally occurring vs manmade HFCS
http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/895.full0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »AlexisUPenn wrote: »The following is from http://authoritynutrition.com/6-reasons-why-a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie/
Authority Nutrition is one of the least reputable sites."The two main simple sugars in the diet are glucose and fructose.
Yes, these two make up sucrose. They, plus sucrose, are also the sugars in fruit, in varying proportions.But to your body, the two are completely different (2).
Glucose can be metabolized by all of the body’s tissues, but fructose can only be metabolized by the liver in any significant amount (3).
Again, both are in both table sugar and fruit.One study shows that fructose leads to higher ghrelin levels (more hunger) than glucose (4).
Fructose does not stimulate the satiety centers in the brain in the same way as glucose, leading to reduced satiety (5).
In that fructose is the main sugar in fruit, you are apparently arguing that fruit is worse for you than other sugars. Weird.Keep in mind that this applies to fructose from added sugars only, not the fructose from fruit. Fruits also have fiber, water and significant chewing resistance, which mitigate the negative effects of the fructose.
Oh, so the sugar IS the same, but other aspects of the FOODS (not the sugars) are different.
Like we said above.Bottom Line: Even though fructose and glucose have the same chemical formula, fructose has much more negative effects on hormones, appetite and metabolic health."
Even from fruit? Ugh.
You obviously haven't had a course in research. I would argue that it is a reputable source given the authors credentials as well as their sources come from peer reviewed journals including randomized controlled studies; what we know to be evidence based. They aren't saying fructose from naturally occurring foods are "bad" for you. They are recognizing there is a difference in how fructose and glucose are metabolized. As stated in the link in the prior.
0 -
AlexisUPenn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »AlexisUPenn wrote: »The following is from http://authoritynutrition.com/6-reasons-why-a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie/
Authority Nutrition is one of the least reputable sites."The two main simple sugars in the diet are glucose and fructose.
Yes, these two make up sucrose. They, plus sucrose, are also the sugars in fruit, in varying proportions.But to your body, the two are completely different (2).
Glucose can be metabolized by all of the body’s tissues, but fructose can only be metabolized by the liver in any significant amount (3).
Again, both are in both table sugar and fruit.One study shows that fructose leads to higher ghrelin levels (more hunger) than glucose (4).
Fructose does not stimulate the satiety centers in the brain in the same way as glucose, leading to reduced satiety (5).
In that fructose is the main sugar in fruit, you are apparently arguing that fruit is worse for you than other sugars. Weird.Keep in mind that this applies to fructose from added sugars only, not the fructose from fruit. Fruits also have fiber, water and significant chewing resistance, which mitigate the negative effects of the fructose.
Oh, so the sugar IS the same, but other aspects of the FOODS (not the sugars) are different.
Like we said above.Bottom Line: Even though fructose and glucose have the same chemical formula, fructose has much more negative effects on hormones, appetite and metabolic health."
Even from fruit? Ugh.
You obviously haven't had a course in research. I would argue that it is a reputable source given the authors credentials as well as their sources come from peer reviewed journals including randomized controlled studies; what we know to be evidence based. They aren't saying fructose from naturally occurring foods are "bad" for you. They are recognizing there is a difference in how fructose and glucose are metabolized. As stated in the link in the prior.
I'm sorry but anyone saying "A calorie is not a calorie" can go throw whatever their credentials were into the trashbin that is a trashbin.0 -
I particularly like this article.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
It talks about everything that can impact CICO for you depending on your food choices, from not being able to absorb all the calories, to TEF and so on.
Yet it still concludes "a calorie is a calorie". Because regardless how "efficiently" one food gets metabolized compared to another all energy always needs to be accounted for, thanks to conservation of energy. So for some foods you take more energy to metabolize them, and for some you poop out some of the energy again, but it's still the same.
If you were to argue that that makes the calories somehow different, I could counter that if a food makes me vomit out my dinner that that food had negative calories.0 -
AlexisUPenn wrote: »There is a difference between fructose naturally occurring vs manmade HFCS
http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/895.full
No one has been talking about HFCS, so point? (Although as David Katz has pointed out, it's also basically just sugar: 55% fructose vs. 50% in table sugar, and NOT the source of pure fructose that fruit is.)0 -
Eh, not worth the trouble.0
-
kshama2001 wrote: »raven56706 wrote: »when i eat fruit there are sugars in it. But should it be seen in the same light as sugar in a protein bar or etc?
According to the American Heart Association, added sugars (as opposed to naturally occurring sugars) should indeed be seen in a different light:
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/Sugar-101_UCM_306024_Article.jsp
...There are two types of sugars in American diets: naturally occurring sugars and added sugars.- Naturally occurring sugars are found naturally in foods such as fruit (fructose) and milk (lactose).
- Added sugars include any sugars or caloric sweeteners that are added to foods or beverages during processing or preparation (such as putting sugar in your coffee or adding sugar to your cereal). Added sugars (or added sweeteners) can include natural sugars such as white sugar, brown sugar and honey as well as other caloric sweeteners that are chemically manufactured (such as high fructose corn syrup).
...Need to reduce added sugars
Although sugars are not harmful to the body, our bodies don’t need sugars to function properly. Added sugars contribute additional calories and zero nutrients to food. Over the past 30 years, Americans have steadily consumed more and more added sugars in their diets, which has contributed to the obesity epidemic. Reducing the amount of added sugars we eat cuts calories and can help you improve your heart health and control your weight.
The American Heart Association recommends limiting the amount of added sugars you consume to no more than half of your daily discretionary calorie allowance. For most American women, this is no more than 100 calories per day and no more than 150 calories per day for men (or about 6 teaspoons per day for women and 9 teaspoons per day for men).
sorry the sugar in OP fruit = the sugar in his protein bar.
sugar = sugar
0 -
AlexisUPenn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »AlexisUPenn wrote: »The following is from http://authoritynutrition.com/6-reasons-why-a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie/
Authority Nutrition is one of the least reputable sites."The two main simple sugars in the diet are glucose and fructose.
Yes, these two make up sucrose. They, plus sucrose, are also the sugars in fruit, in varying proportions.But to your body, the two are completely different (2).
Glucose can be metabolized by all of the body’s tissues, but fructose can only be metabolized by the liver in any significant amount (3).
Again, both are in both table sugar and fruit.One study shows that fructose leads to higher ghrelin levels (more hunger) than glucose (4).
Fructose does not stimulate the satiety centers in the brain in the same way as glucose, leading to reduced satiety (5).
In that fructose is the main sugar in fruit, you are apparently arguing that fruit is worse for you than other sugars. Weird.Keep in mind that this applies to fructose from added sugars only, not the fructose from fruit. Fruits also have fiber, water and significant chewing resistance, which mitigate the negative effects of the fructose.
Oh, so the sugar IS the same, but other aspects of the FOODS (not the sugars) are different.
Like we said above.Bottom Line: Even though fructose and glucose have the same chemical formula, fructose has much more negative effects on hormones, appetite and metabolic health."
Even from fruit? Ugh.
You obviously haven't had a course in research. I would argue that it is a reputable source given the authors credentials as well as their sources come from peer reviewed journals including randomized controlled studies; what we know to be evidence based. They aren't saying fructose from naturally occurring foods are "bad" for you. They are recognizing there is a difference in how fructose and glucose are metabolized. As stated in the link in the prior.
you obviously don't understand that sugar = sugar…
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »AlexisUPenn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »AlexisUPenn wrote: »The following is from http://authoritynutrition.com/6-reasons-why-a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie/
Authority Nutrition is one of the least reputable sites."The two main simple sugars in the diet are glucose and fructose.
Yes, these two make up sucrose. They, plus sucrose, are also the sugars in fruit, in varying proportions.But to your body, the two are completely different (2).
Glucose can be metabolized by all of the body’s tissues, but fructose can only be metabolized by the liver in any significant amount (3).
Again, both are in both table sugar and fruit.One study shows that fructose leads to higher ghrelin levels (more hunger) than glucose (4).
Fructose does not stimulate the satiety centers in the brain in the same way as glucose, leading to reduced satiety (5).
In that fructose is the main sugar in fruit, you are apparently arguing that fruit is worse for you than other sugars. Weird.Keep in mind that this applies to fructose from added sugars only, not the fructose from fruit. Fruits also have fiber, water and significant chewing resistance, which mitigate the negative effects of the fructose.
Oh, so the sugar IS the same, but other aspects of the FOODS (not the sugars) are different.
Like we said above.Bottom Line: Even though fructose and glucose have the same chemical formula, fructose has much more negative effects on hormones, appetite and metabolic health."
Even from fruit? Ugh.
You obviously haven't had a course in research. I would argue that it is a reputable source given the authors credentials as well as their sources come from peer reviewed journals including randomized controlled studies; what we know to be evidence based. They aren't saying fructose from naturally occurring foods are "bad" for you. They are recognizing there is a difference in how fructose and glucose are metabolized. As stated in the link in the prior.
I'm sorry but anyone saying "A calorie is not a calorie" can go throw whatever their credentials were into the trashbin that is a trashbin.
Food has many attributes
Seeing a calorie as a stand alone entity in the way your body interacts with food is incomplete.
So in the big picture, a calorie is not just a calorie any more than a relevant description of your car would be just the color.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions