FACTS: Good & Bad Sugars & Carbohydrates

mikeyrp
mikeyrp Posts: 1,616 Member
edited December 20 in Food and Nutrition
I read in another post someone arguing that all sugars are the same chemically, and that therefore there is no such thing as good and bad sugar. I was pretty sure this was wrong so I did a bit of research.

Firstly - these are the different sugar types defined (Wikipedia):

Monosaccharides
Glucose, fructose and galactose are all simple sugars, monosaccharides, with the general formula C6H12O6. They have five hydroxyl groups (−OH) and a carbonyl group (C=O) and are cyclic when dissolved in water. They each exist as several isomers with dextro- and laevo-rotatory forms which cause polarized light to diverge to the right or the left.

Glucose, dextrose or grape sugar occurs naturally in fruits and plant juices and is the primary product of photosynthesis. Most ingested carbohydrates are converted into glucose during digestion and it is the form of sugar that is transported round the bodies of animals in the bloodstream. It can be manufactured from starch by the addition of enzymes or in the presence of acids. Glucose syrup is a liquid form of glucose that is widely used in the manufacture of foodstuffs. It can be manufactured from starch by enzymatic hydrolysis.

Fructose or fruit sugar occurs naturally in fruits, some root vegetables, cane sugar and honey and is the sweetest of the sugars. It is one of the components of sucrose or table sugar. It is used as a high fructose syrup which is manufactured from hydrolized corn starch which has been processed to yield corn syrup, with enzymes then added to convert part of the glucose into fructose.

Galactose does not generally occur in the free state but is a constituent with glucose of the disaccharide lactose or milk sugar. It is less sweet than glucose. It is a component of the antigens found on the surface of red blood cells that determine blood groups.

Disaccharides
Sucrose, maltose and lactose are all compound sugars, disaccharides, with the general formula C12H22O11. They are formed by the combination of two monosaccharide molecules with the exclusion of a molecule of water.

Sucrose is found in the stems of sugar cane and roots of sugar beet. It also occurs naturally alongside fructose and glucose in other plants, particularly fruits and some roots such as carrots. The different proportions of sugars found in these foods determines the range of sweetness experienced when eating them.[31] A molecule of sucrose is formed by the combination of a molecule of glucose with a molecule of fructose. After being eaten, sucrose is split into its constituent parts during digestion by a number of enzymes known as sucrases.

Maltose is formed during the germination of certain grains, most notably barley, where it is the source of the malt used in the manufacture of beer. A molecule of maltose is formed by the combination of two molecules of glucose. It is less sweet than glucose, fructose or sucrose.[31] It is formed in the body during the digestion of starch by the enzyme amylase and is itself broken down during digestion by the enzyme maltase.

Lactose is the naturally occurring sugar found in milk. A molecule of lactose is formed by the combination of a molecule of galactose with a molecule of glucose. It is broken down when consumed into its constituent parts by the enzyme lactase during digestion. Children have this enzyme but some adults no longer form it and they are unable to digest lactose.


Now the interesting bit:

All sugars are carbohydrates. Complex carbohydrates are considered "good" because of the longer series of sugars that make them up and take the body more time to break down. They generally have a lower glycemic load, which means that you will get lower amounts of sugars released at a more consistent rate — instead of peaks and valleys —to keep you going throughout the day.

Picking complex carbohydrates over simple carbohydrates is a matter of making some simple substitutions when it comes to your meals. "Have brown rice instead of white rice, have whole-wheat pasta instead of plain white pasta," says Meyerowitz.

To know if a packaged food is made of simple or complex carbohydrates, look at the label. "Read the box so you know what exactly you're getting. If the first ingredient is whole-wheat flour or whole-oat flower, it's likely going to be a complex carbohydrate,” says Meyerowitz. "And if there's fiber there, it's probably more complex in nature."


The glycemic index of a food basically tells you how quickly and how high your blood sugar will rise after eating the carbohydrate contained in that food, as compared to eating pure sugar. Lower glycemic index foods are healthier for your body, and you will tend to feel full longer after eating them. Most, but not all, complex carbs fall into the low glycemic index category.

It is easy to find lists of food classified by their glycemic index. You can see the difference between the glycemic index of some simple and complex carbohydrates in these examples:

White rice, 64
Brown rice, 55
White spaghetti, 44
Whole wheat spaghetti, 37
Corn flakes, 81
100 percent bran (whole grain) cereal, 38

To take this approach one step farther, you want to look at the glycemic load of a food. The glycemic load takes into account not only its glycemic index, but also the amount of carbohydrate in the food. A food can contain carbs that have a high glycemic index, but if there is only a tiny amount of that carb in the food, it won’t really have much of an impact. An example of a food with a high glycemic index but a low glycemic load is watermelon, which of course tastes sweet, but is mostly water.

for more details on gylcemic load, read here: http://www.everydayhealth.com/diet-nutrition/101/nutrition-basics/the-glycemic-load.aspx



Nowhere I looked stated that the type of sugar itself was good or bad for you: its all about how easy it is for your body to get at it, which is (I would hypothesise) why refined sugar is worse for you: its already been processed!


I am fully prepared to be corrected on any of the above: I hope you find this as useful as I did.

Replies

  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    you may have seen me say that the molecules are the same, and by this I meant that the sucrose in a packet on your table is the same as the sucrose in an orange - it's sucrose, the fructose in HFCS is the same as fructose in a fruit etc. I didn't mean there's a single type of molecule called "sugar".

    Sure, in the orange it comes with glucose and fructose which are as you correctly say monosaccharides - I think they're isomers but I may be wrong (the same molecular formula in a different shape).

    Fruit has wonderful PR but there's a load of BS around. Coca cola has the same sugar content as unsweetened orange juice, for example. Grape and peach juice has more sugar than Coca cola.

    When it comes to the "processing" of sugar, hot water is used to leach it out of the sugar cane or beet, lime is added to precipitate impurities and then it's crystallised followed by separation and washing with water in a centrifuge (like a spin drier). So it's about as "processed" as your washing. None of that changes the sucrose molecule, or makes it easier to digest.

    It is actually very hard to differentiate sugars by origin, requiring isotope analysis or detection of marker compounds other than the sugar which indicate where it came from.

    All sugars are carbohydrates, whether any sugar or carb is good or bad is the stuff of religion and mythology. You should compare the GI of white sugar (a simple carbohydrate) with that of white bread (a complex one) for example.
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    My understanding of the whole "sugar is sugar" argument was that it was propaganda put forth by the makers of high-fructose corn syrup but it is my understanding that fructose is metabolized differently than glucose, one of the differences being that fructose doesn't trigger the feeling full response.
  • mikeyrp
    mikeyrp Posts: 1,616 Member
    Capture.JPG

    Just interesting to know...
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    My understanding of the whole "sugar is sugar" argument was that it was propaganda put forth by the makers of high-fructose corn syrup but it is my understanding that fructose is metabolized differently than glucose, one of the differences being that fructose doesn't trigger the feeling full response.

    HFCS is fructose plus glucose as separate molecules in solution, sucrose is a single molecule made of a glucsose and a fructose molecule (minus a water).

    When you eat sucrose the acid environment in your stomach hydrolyses it to glucose and fructose anyway, so the effect of HFCS and sucrose on the body is pretty similar - both are about 50% fructose which is handled only by the liver.
  • mikeyrp
    mikeyrp Posts: 1,616 Member
    So, really 'Good and Bad Carbohydrates' are about the quantity and accessibility of sugars (i.e the glycemic-load) - so that makes sense: Its fair to say that fruit salad has a better glycemic-load than, say, a chocolate biscuit, even if they have the same calorific and sugar content.
  • VMarkV
    VMarkV Posts: 522 Member
    You simply can't say a carbohydrate is "good" just because it is complex. Gastric emptying rate is what ultimately determines how fast a carbohydrate is converted into blood glucose.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Its fair to say that fruit salad has a better glycemic-load than, say, a chocolate biscuit, even if they have the same calorific and sugar content.
    That might be fair, not sure. Glycemic load of things with fructose in is depressed because glycemic is glucose only.

    1 ounce of chocolate chip cookie - 21g carbs, 127 calories, 1g fiber http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/baked-products/4934/2
    Estimated glycemic load 13

    Fruit salad - 1 cup - 19g carbs, 74 calories, Estimated glycemic load 3
    http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/1897/2

    the flour in the cookie is probably a big factor.
  • Newfiedan
    Newfiedan Posts: 1,517 Member
    Just remember that the term good or bad sugars would depend on the targeted nutrition needed. If you are eating post heavy weight workout you want to refill the depleted glycogen stores so simple sugars post resistance training is a good thing. The exception being high fructose corn syrup for that one. Runners whom run long distances such as those in marathons etc also can benefit from the use of simple carbs post run for the same reason. Otherwise complex carbs would be the better choice. The only 2 times I would recommend otherwise is post resistance training or post hiit or post long run. So in those cases it is not a "bad" sugar per say.
  • Sidesteal
    Sidesteal Posts: 5,510 Member
    Can you establish why you believe lower GI foods to be surperior?

    Also, glycemic load is only relevant when that food is eaten alone (when I say relevant, I mean accurate... I still think it's almost useless). Once you start mixing food items, the glycemic effect changes.

    Overall, GI is largely irrelevant IMO.
  • huck23
    huck23 Posts: 116 Member
    bump
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,261 Member
    And around and around we go.
  • mikeyrp
    mikeyrp Posts: 1,616 Member
    As I understand it, GI = speed with which energy is released, the assumption being that you do not want spikes in your intake as this messes with your insulin levels. It also reduces the frequency with which people eat because they don't get that sudden drop in energy which tells them to go eat something: energy levels are plateaued.

    It makes complete sense to me that sports activity needs a completely different approach to general eating: As a long distance runner I would try to carb load on complex carbohydrates but would need something with a faster release during exercise. This is only required when doing runs which take longer than 1hr as the body will store roughly this amount of available energy anyway - replenishing it too soon makes no sense as your body has nowhere to put the additional carbs except to convert it into fat cells. When running, you are taking on energy as you use it - normally about 80 calories (one gel) every 20-30 minutes: Effectively you are controlling the release speed through frequency of each intake so there really isn't much point in having something slow release. Post work out you need may something pretty fast acting as well to assist recovery- but these don't tend to be too calorific - say an additional 200 calories in something like a clif bar. If you still have energy reserves you don't need a fast acting replacement.

    Anything under 1 hr of running really doesn't require anything special diet wise except making sure you are sufficiently hydrated. I know people who take a gel before a short race (5-10k) but that's normally because (like me) they hate running on a full stomach so tend not to take on sufficient slow burn carbs before the race. Personally I tend to eat a cliff bar 2 hrs ahead of start which seems like a reasonable compromise.

    I suspect weight lifting is different again - I understand the most important thing here is protein intake but its not my field of expertise.


    So, are we saying:
    - no good/bad sugars: Sugar is Sugar even if it does come in different types.
    - Carbs are are friends but for 'normal' levels of activity complex, slow burning carbs are better.
    - Sports activity may well benefit from simple, fast burning carbs but you need to use them correctly to get any benefit.


    *Edited because slow burning cars suggests I am condoning vehicular arson
  • VMarkV
    VMarkV Posts: 522 Member
    So, are we saying:
    - no good/bad sugars: Sugar is Sugar even if it does come in different types.
    - Carbs are are friends but for 'normal' levels of activity complex, slow burning cars are better.
    - Sports activity may well benefit from simple, fast burning carbs but you need to use them correctly to get any benefit.

    Seriously, it doesn't matter...if your body has glycogen.
  • mikeyrp
    mikeyrp Posts: 1,616 Member
    Seriously, it doesn't matter...if your body has glycogen.

    Can you be more specific on that?
  • Newfiedan
    Newfiedan Posts: 1,517 Member
    If you are restricting carbs/cals pre workout then come workout time you will have depleted the stores unless you have overfilled on the previous day's feeding. The goal is to have a stable blood sugar pre training so that come post training when glut 4 receptors are at the surface of the muscle you flood the body with simple carbs which the muscles can soak up readily. The key is balance though to much and it can go to fat stores but for the carbs to get stored in the form of fat it has to compete with the muscles for the same glucose. I train fasted to elicit a larger central nervous system response and to get a kick out of the sympathetic nervous system response. It allows me to concentrate better on my form and get the nutrition to go where I want, it is about as close to calorie partitioning as you are going to get. No its not perfect but it does a pretty darn good job. Triggering insulin release post workout also helps grow the muscles as insulin is highly anabolic. Using those hormones to your advantage can produce better results from resistance training. There are many schools out there for muscle building but thus far from personal experimentation this has worked best for me to avoid fat gain while eating above my caloric needs. Just remember that using this method is not an excuse to pig out on simple carbs.
  • marsellient
    marsellient Posts: 591 Member
    Never mind:)
  • Mompanda4
    Mompanda4 Posts: 869 Member
    Bump
This discussion has been closed.