4 ms·
Part of me thinks it surprising that nutrition is still based on things like total sugar content. It's pretty obvious that the mechanism of delivery must be qui
by VBprogrammer 7y ago
Part of me thinks it surprising that nutrition is still based on things like total sugar content. It's pretty obvious that the mechanism of delivery must be quite important. This is even the case in simple science experiments, consider for example the fact that flour can be explosive under certain conditions.
I seems obvious that eating an apple vs eating a mars bar is quite different, though the total sugar is more or less the same.
- PeterStuer 7y agoAn apple has around 9,3g of sugar, a mars bar around 30g. I wouldn't call that 'more or less the same'
- VBprogrammer 7y agoA quick google gave me 19g and 20g respectively. I'm not particularly attached to those figures. I don't think it actually makes much difference to my general point. The sugars in an apple must be tougher for your body to extract than those in a mars bar.
- jfengel 7y agoThe USDA[1] gives 23g sugar for a large apple. And 34 grams of total carbohydrates minus 5g fiber yields 29g net carbs, which are nutritionally not all that different from sugar. So they're not identical, but I'd say that "more or less the same" is sufficiently accurate. (The apple, however, does have fiber and some other vitamins and minerals, so it's definitely a better choice. It's just best not to devote too much of your diet to it.) [1] https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/1809/2 https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices...
- PeterStuer 7y agoThe link you provide gives 13g of sugar per serving (125g). A typical apple weighs between 70g and 100g. A regular Marsbar is 51g, of which 60% is sugar. I'm really sorry, but I can not accept a 300% difference as 'more or less the same'.
- skohan 7y agoOk, but would you agree that if you eat an equivalent quantity of sugar in the form of apples or mars bars, the health effects will be more or less the same?
- PeterStuer 7y agoNot an expert. I do notice that the glycemic load per g of marsbars is 6x higher than that of apples, so I would be extremely surprised if it is 'the same'.
- skohan 7y agoSo I will risk verging into the pedantic here, but the point I was trying to make is to argue against the parent comment in this thread, which argues that the sugar in an apple is somehow different than the sugar in a mars bar. I think we sometimes place too much importance on the origin of things, and convince ourselves that "apple sugar" is more healthy than "candy sugar". The thing which makes an apple more healthy is that the sugar is suspended in a lot more fiber, so it takes longer to reach your blood stream. The sugar itself is more or less the same as far as your metabolism is concerned. If you refined the sugar out of apples and put it in a mars bar in a green wrapper which said it was made from "all natural ingredients", it would not be healthier than any other mars bar.
- 11235813213455 7y agosay 3 apples if you prefer. The important there is how they differ, by the nutrients (other than sugar), and the fiber that acts like a sponge to release them slowly
- rowanG077 7y agoI haven't seen any proof that this is the case. Can you link me some papers?
- VBprogrammer 7y agoI'm sure it must have been studied but I was more postulating than asserting that is is true.
- skohan 7y agoThe apple might seem a lot healthier, but once it gets into your blood stream sugar is sugar (ok that happens a little bit slower with fruit because it's high in fiber). In fact, modern fruit is so sweet it's been deemed unsafe for zoo animals: https://qz.com/1408469/humans-have-bred-fruits-to-be-so-high-in-sugar-a-zoo-had-to-stop-feeding-them-to-some-animals/ https://qz.com/1408469/humans-have-bred-fruits-to-be-so-high...