14 ms·

Ah, yes, replace 'sweets' with 'fruits' which are about 50-75% sugar by non-water mass. Eg strawberries - 100 g is 7.7g of carbohydrates (4.9g sugar), 0.7g pr

by tofof 5y ago

Ah, yes, replace 'sweets' with 'fruits' which are about 50-75% sugar by non-water mass. Eg strawberries - 100 g is 7.7g of carbohydrates (4.9g sugar), 0.7g protein, 0.3g fat. 56% sugar. Or oranges - 165 g without membrane or peel is 20.7g carbs (14g sugar), 1.5g protein, 0.2g fat. 63% sugar. As opposed to, say, a snickers bar. 9.1g carbohydrates (7.6g sugar), 1.1g protein, 3.6g fat. 55% sugar. Or a kitkat. 27.1g carbs (20.4g sugar), 2.7g protein, 10.4g fat. 50% sugar. Granted, the fruits have way way more water content so by mass are substantially lower fractions of sugar. It can be (but is not necessarily) more satisifying to eat the increased mass and volume of fruit, or to eat the same total mass/volume but ingest substantially fewer calories (about tenfold, by mass). But really this advice is just 'swap sweets for smaller quantities of sweets'. https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/2064/2 https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices... https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/1968/2 https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices... https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sweets/5461/2 https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sweets/5461/2 https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sweets/5418/2 https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sweets/5418/2

jlos 5y ago
It's not just the sugar, it's the sugar in combination with other ingredients. Even the example you gave the fat is 10x as high and obviously has no fibre. The nutrient density of fruits is magnitudes higher than sweets. And water mass matters as it contributes to satiety vs grams of food consumed.
- tofof 5y ago
  OP didn't say anything about reducing fat intake. Aspartame is a sugar substitute, OP talked about switching from sweetened beverage to unsweetened beverage neither of which has any fat. OP also said "your teeth will thank you" which again is an association between sugar and tooth decay, of which fat plays no part. Fat is a nonsequitur here; the linked article is about a sugar substitute. The nutrient density of desserts is magnitudes higher. Carbohydrates, protein, and fat are the primary nutrients. You must mean micronutrients, i.e. individual amino acids, vitamins, and minerals. Of these, the snickers bar does quite well with amino acids thanks to the peanuts, but yes, a serving of strawberries will give you vitamin c which the snickers won't. However, that single vitamin is the only real difference in micronutrient quality! The fruit and candy are both negligible 2-10% amounts for the remainder. They're also very similar on mineral content, with the candy providing 8-10% dv on 5 minerals, while the fruit provides 7% and 29% of two minerals, the rest negligible in both, averaging 5.6% dv for the fruit or 7.6% dv for the candy across the ten minerals. I already addressed water mass and caloric density, but for completeness I will say again that you're getting these very comparable amounts of micronutrients for a tenfold caloric difference.
  - BobbyJo 5y ago
    Notice how the parent didn't say to wean yourself off 'sugar', but sweets. It he had said sugar, most of the advice about fruits would be contradictory. 'Sweets' generally refers to processed junk food, generally high in sugar and fat. I think following up the conversation by saying fruits are better than sweets because they have water, fiber, and micronutrients, and none of the bad fats most sweets have, is perfectly reasonable.
- agumonkey 5y ago
  I believe in that theory too, non processed foods have a lot of stuff beside sugar, fibers will change your gut processing and the metabolic impact can be different. Also you rarely binge on strawberries, you get sick way faster than on kitkats.
vladvasiliu 5y ago
I think the issue isn't just the pure carb content. 100g of strawberries is a lot of strawberries. 100 g of Snickers bars is... two bars. I can easily eat two and then crave another one right away. After 100 g of strawberries, I'm pretty much done for a while. Same with say, apples. I think one thing that is usually overlooked in these discussions is the "feeling" part of it, for lack of a better term. Some things make you want to keep on eating, while others are satiating. Of course, if you're able to only eat one Snickers bar a day while the cupboard is full of them, then that's great! I know I can't, so I avoid them altogether. Carb content (calories, actually) isn't important per se, what matters is the total consumed quantity, and usually calorie-dense foods have a tendency to incite overconsumption.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dls2016 5y ago
  > make you want to keep on eating Junk food recipes are a/b tested and statistically evaluated just like in ad tech.
  - vladvasiliu 5y ago
    I remember an ad I once saw on TV about some snack, and the tagline was something like "you can't eat only one". I can't remember the product, though... One example I have in mind about products being made like this is Nestlé's Extreme ice cream cones. They're fairly sugary throughout, but right at the end there's a small "chocolate bomb", super sweet, that just gives you that "I have to have another one" craving.
    - dls2016 5y ago
      Yeah this is what a lot of “food science” is these days.
      - eurasiantiger 5y ago
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
Everyone says this but it misses the point. Fruit in it's natural state is a complete package of nutrients, fiber, and unrefined sugar. It has less of an impact on blood sugar than processed food with the same amount of sugar.
- symlinkk 5y ago
  Why? Why is “processed” automatically bad?
  - dls2016 5y ago
    It’s not automatic, but the processing is guided by whatever processing scales (both in manufacturing and delivery of the “food”) and has been honed by a/b testing and statistically evaluated to be addictive. Maintaining the complex structure of the unprocessed ingredients isn’t even on the radar.
  - thatguy0900 5y ago
    Fiber slows down the absorption, so there's less spike in blood sugars as when eating candy which is all easy to digest refined sugar.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - naasking 5y ago
    Processing is by definition used to extra more of something (usually calories) than would otherwise be present. It doesn't have to be bad, but it's definitely something that doesn't occur naturally and so we may not be well adapted to it. Thus, the chance of it being "worse", health-wise, than the natural thing is higher.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Processing almost invariably means taking out and throwing away the fiber. But the fiber plays an absolutely vital role. Leaving the fiber in is so anomalous they have to note it in big print on the label, e.g. "whole grain". There are very serious reasons to treat the fiber as deeply precious, and removing it as deeply harmful.
scythe 5y ago
Fruits contain dietary fiber and potassium. Both are nutrients Americans tend to consume not quite enough of [1,2]. Both help to mitigate the physiologic disorders (hypertension [3], diabetes [4]) associated with sugar consumption [5]. In addition, fruit contains vitamin C, which reduces uric acid [6]; the detrimental effect of fructose on hypertension is thought to be mediated by uric acid [5]. Consumption of fruits, even moderate amounts of juices, is associated with reduced risk of CVD [7]. 1: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212267212001311 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221226721... 2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6181280/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6181280/ 3: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11906-011-0197-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11906-011-0197-8 4: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200005113421903 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200005113421903 5: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/86/4/899/4649308?login=true https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/86/4/899/4649308?login... 6: https://www.jrheum.org/content/35/9/1853.short https://www.jrheum.org/content/35/9/1853.short 7: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition/article/pure-fruit-juice-and-fruit-consumption-and-the-risk-of-cardiovascular-diseases-the-epicnl-study/BC762A823262D074D07CD369CBB9005C https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-n...
jonhohle 5y ago
Fruit also contains fiber, which most sweets do not.
slumdev 5y ago
No matter what they say, nobody likes fruit enough to get fat off of it. Can't say that about candy bars.
- nobodyandproud 5y ago
  Seasonal strawberries and peaches I can eat all day. They taste better than any candy bar I’ve ever had, and come without the guilt.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Ah, yes, replace 'sweets' with 'fruits' which are about 50-75% sugar by non-water mass. What constitutes the rest of the non-water mass matters quite a bit (especially if l, as much of it is with many whole fruits, it is fiber, which is demonstrated to mitigate Type 2 diabetes risk and severity.) Sugar + fiber is much less bad for you than sugar alone.
xsmasher 5y ago
Your numbers for the Snickers bar seem too small - a 44g candy bar has 11g fat, 20g sugar. If you meant some smaller bar, then you are comparing a very small candy bar against 100g or 165g or fruit; not very fair.
- mbbutler 5y ago
  They are using numbers for a fucking fun size snickers, ie the tiny ones people give out at Halloween that are a single bite.
IAmGraydon 5y ago
Gotta love the internet, where you can find people trying to convince themselves that a candy bar is healthier to eat than fruit by posting the nutritional contents of a Snickers bite sized mini. The confirmation bias is strong with this one.
- sjs7s 5y ago
  I can't even tell if the comments here are serious or trolling any more. Fruits contain micronutrients in addition to the regular nutrients they have. There's no comparison that just about any fruit would be a healthier choice than a candy bar. I thought it would also go without saying that it is essential to have a diverse diet because a person needs a lot of different nutrients, not just one.
- echelon 5y ago
  The comment was arguing that fruits are also bad since they have a very high sugar content. It was in no way stating that candy is good. Many diets forbid fruits on account of the simple carbs.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
jader201 5y ago
Hasn’t it been proven many times that fruits are healthy, period? Let alone comparing fruits to processed/refined sugars? I never understand these claims of fruits being unhealthy — or an unhealthy substitute for processed/refined sugars — yet there are many sources stating that fruits are fine/healthy [1]. There’s more to the story than just comparing the amount of “sugar” from nutritional facts between fruits and candy. Yes, juices aren’t great. But be clear that whole fruits and fruit juices are vastly different, and shouldn’t be thought of as equally unhealthy. [1] https://www.cancercenter.com/community/blog/2016/08/natural-vs-refined-sugars-what-is-the-difference https://www.cancercenter.com/community/blog/2016/08/natural-...
- vnjfvfg 5y ago
  >Hasn’t it been proven many times that fruits are healthy, period? Fruits are healthy in the same sense that dihydrogen monoxide is. Infinitesimal amounts have no health consequence, moderate amounts are healthy, amounts that exclude other foods will cause nutritional deficiencies, and excessive enough amounts will result in suffocation.
  - dukeyukey 5y ago
    Sure, but if you eat a kilo of apples a day you'll get sick of apples and eat a light lunch worth of calories. Eat a kilo of chocolate and you're eating double your daily calories. Nobody got obese because of their 10kg-a-day apple habit.
burnished 5y ago
I think you've sort of lost something in your study of macros there. As an anecdote, I can eat and enjoy an orange, or a banana but typically no more. I can absolutely crush a package of oreos though. I've got a rule about junk food, that the total size of a container needs to be an appropriate single serving.. because no matter how big it is, one package has consistently been 'one serving'. I won't speculate because I don't know why, but I've consistently noticed that fruit, while appealing and satisfying, are more difficult to unthinkingly binge than processed sweets. Basically, I think you're losing something when you compare the macros of a pear to a snickers bar.
- satellite2 5y ago
  Except cherry, cherry is definitely bingeable. But other than that it's a very good analysis. Is it because fruit sugar is fructose and not saccharose?
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Most fruits approximate 50% fructose and 50% glucose, like sucrose or "high-fructose corn syrup". Pears and, particularly, mangos have a much larger fraction of fructose. The important difference is that they all (except grapes!) have enough fiber to modulate absorption. Juice, any juice, is as bad as candy. Amount matters. Rate matters. Regular corn syrup and corn sugar are just glucose, so relatively harmless. You can't find corn sugar at a supermarket, but can online: "Homebrew" sells it for $2/lb, nominally for home beer brewers to boost carbonation, but it is good for anywhere you would use cane sugar. (Sometimes a pinch of the latter may still be needed, e.g. in hot cocoa.)
deeviant 5y ago
Fruits have fiber which moderate the glucose release, so they are generally a healthy alternative to sugar. A simple sugar content comparison does not tell the full story. Fruit juices or any sort of fruit product where the fiber is removed, however, is just as bad as sugar.
sasaf5 5y ago
First, the snark in the first sentence is unnecessary to try to make your point. Second, the presence of fibers is the differentiator here, meaning that the same amount of sugar in fruits will bring a lot more satiety.
mmmrtl 5y ago
Motivated reasoning, much? You're comparing a 15 g "fun size" snickers or a 42 g kit kat to 100 and 165 g of fruit. And non-water mass is a strange calculation to make - we don't live in a freeze-dried society. Snickers and kit do have higher fat percentages than fruit, what's your point? Wean off sweets with less sweet things, which do have other nutritionally redemptive qualities.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
ericwooley 5y ago
It's not just about sugar though. Salt can make you hungry, and more likely to eat more than you should. According to Google, Snickers has 189 mg of salt per 100 grams. Strawberries have 0. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/04/25/salty-diets-make-you-hungry-not-thirsty-scientists-find/100857610/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/04/25/sa... Anecdotally, I have noticed I can basically eat an entire large pizza and still want more. Once we switched to making our own pizza from dough at trader Joe's, I'm stuffed after about 2 slices. I think the difference is that we don't add a ton of salt and cheese like a pizza place does.

by tofof 5y ago

jlos 5y ago

It's not just the sugar, it's the sugar in combination with other ingredients. Even the example you gave the fat is 10x as high and obviously has no fibre. The nutrient density of fruits is magnitudes higher than sweets. And water mass matters as it contributes to satiety vs grams of food consumed.

tofof 5y ago
OP didn't say anything about reducing fat intake. Aspartame is a sugar substitute, OP talked about switching from sweetened beverage to unsweetened beverage neither of which has any fat. OP also said "your teeth will thank you" which again is an association between sugar and tooth decay, of which fat plays no part. Fat is a nonsequitur here; the linked article is about a sugar substitute. The nutrient density of desserts is magnitudes higher. Carbohydrates, protein, and fat are the primary nutrients. You must mean micronutrients, i.e. individual amino acids, vitamins, and minerals. Of these, the snickers bar does quite well with amino acids thanks to the peanuts, but yes, a serving of strawberries will give you vitamin c which the snickers won't. However, that single vitamin is the only real difference in micronutrient quality! The fruit and candy are both negligible 2-10% amounts for the remainder. They're also very similar on mineral content, with the candy providing 8-10% dv on 5 minerals, while the fruit provides 7% and 29% of two minerals, the rest negligible in both, averaging 5.6% dv for the fruit or 7.6% dv for the candy across the ten minerals. I already addressed water mass and caloric density, but for completeness I will say again that you're getting these very comparable amounts of micronutrients for a tenfold caloric difference.
- BobbyJo 5y ago
  Notice how the parent didn't say to wean yourself off 'sugar', but sweets. It he had said sugar, most of the advice about fruits would be contradictory. 'Sweets' generally refers to processed junk food, generally high in sugar and fat. I think following up the conversation by saying fruits are better than sweets because they have water, fiber, and micronutrients, and none of the bad fats most sweets have, is perfectly reasonable.
agumonkey 5y ago
I believe in that theory too, non processed foods have a lot of stuff beside sugar, fibers will change your gut processing and the metabolic impact can be different. Also you rarely binge on strawberries, you get sick way faster than on kitkats.

vladvasiliu 5y ago

I think the issue isn't just the pure carb content. 100g of strawberries is a lot of strawberries. 100 g of Snickers bars is... two bars. I can easily eat two and then crave another one right away. After 100 g of strawberries, I'm pretty much done for a while. Same with say, apples. I think one thing that is usually overlooked in these discussions is the "feeling" part of it, for lack of a better term. Some things make you want to keep on eating, while others are satiating. Of course, if you're able to only eat one Snickers bar a day while the cupboard is full of them, then that's great! I know I can't, so I avoid them altogether. Carb content (calories, actually) isn't important per se, what matters is the total consumed quantity, and usually calorie-dense foods have a tendency to incite overconsumption.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dls2016 5y ago
> make you want to keep on eating Junk food recipes are a/b tested and statistically evaluated just like in ad tech.
- vladvasiliu 5y ago
  I remember an ad I once saw on TV about some snack, and the tagline was something like "you can't eat only one". I can't remember the product, though... One example I have in mind about products being made like this is Nestlé's Extreme ice cream cones. They're fairly sugary throughout, but right at the end there's a small "chocolate bomb", super sweet, that just gives you that "I have to have another one" craving.
  - dls2016 5y ago
    Yeah this is what a lot of “food science” is these days.
    - eurasiantiger 5y ago

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

Everyone says this but it misses the point. Fruit in it's natural state is a complete package of nutrients, fiber, and unrefined sugar. It has less of an impact on blood sugar than processed food with the same amount of sugar.

symlinkk 5y ago
Why? Why is “processed” automatically bad?
- dls2016 5y ago
  It’s not automatic, but the processing is guided by whatever processing scales (both in manufacturing and delivery of the “food”) and has been honed by a/b testing and statistically evaluated to be addictive. Maintaining the complex structure of the unprocessed ingredients isn’t even on the radar.
- thatguy0900 5y ago
  Fiber slows down the absorption, so there's less spike in blood sugars as when eating candy which is all easy to digest refined sugar.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- naasking 5y ago
  Processing is by definition used to extra more of something (usually calories) than would otherwise be present. It doesn't have to be bad, but it's definitely something that doesn't occur naturally and so we may not be well adapted to it. Thus, the chance of it being "worse", health-wise, than the natural thing is higher.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Processing almost invariably means taking out and throwing away the fiber. But the fiber plays an absolutely vital role. Leaving the fiber in is so anomalous they have to note it in big print on the label, e.g. "whole grain". There are very serious reasons to treat the fiber as deeply precious, and removing it as deeply harmful.

scythe 5y ago

Fruits contain dietary fiber and potassium. Both are nutrients Americans tend to consume not quite enough of [1,2]. Both help to mitigate the physiologic disorders (hypertension [3], diabetes [4]) associated with sugar consumption [5]. In addition, fruit contains vitamin C, which reduces uric acid [6]; the detrimental effect of fructose on hypertension is thought to be mediated by uric acid [5]. Consumption of fruits, even moderate amounts of juices, is associated with reduced risk of CVD [7]. 1: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212267212001311 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221226721... 2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6181280/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6181280/ 3: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11906-011-0197-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11906-011-0197-8 4: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200005113421903 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200005113421903 5: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/86/4/899/4649308?login=true https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/86/4/899/4649308?login... 6: https://www.jrheum.org/content/35/9/1853.short https://www.jrheum.org/content/35/9/1853.short 7: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition/article/pure-fruit-juice-and-fruit-consumption-and-the-risk-of-cardiovascular-diseases-the-epicnl-study/BC762A823262D074D07CD369CBB9005C https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-n...

jonhohle 5y ago

Fruit also contains fiber, which most sweets do not.

slumdev 5y ago

No matter what they say, nobody likes fruit enough to get fat off of it. Can't say that about candy bars.

nobodyandproud 5y ago
Seasonal strawberries and peaches I can eat all day. They taste better than any candy bar I’ve ever had, and come without the guilt.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Ah, yes, replace 'sweets' with 'fruits' which are about 50-75% sugar by non-water mass. What constitutes the rest of the non-water mass matters quite a bit (especially if l, as much of it is with many whole fruits, it is fiber, which is demonstrated to mitigate Type 2 diabetes risk and severity.) Sugar + fiber is much less bad for you than sugar alone.

xsmasher 5y ago

Your numbers for the Snickers bar seem too small - a 44g candy bar has 11g fat, 20g sugar. If you meant some smaller bar, then you are comparing a very small candy bar against 100g or 165g or fruit; not very fair.

mbbutler 5y ago
They are using numbers for a fucking fun size snickers, ie the tiny ones people give out at Halloween that are a single bite.

IAmGraydon 5y ago

Gotta love the internet, where you can find people trying to convince themselves that a candy bar is healthier to eat than fruit by posting the nutritional contents of a Snickers bite sized mini. The confirmation bias is strong with this one.

sjs7s 5y ago
I can't even tell if the comments here are serious or trolling any more. Fruits contain micronutrients in addition to the regular nutrients they have. There's no comparison that just about any fruit would be a healthier choice than a candy bar. I thought it would also go without saying that it is essential to have a diverse diet because a person needs a lot of different nutrients, not just one.
echelon 5y ago
The comment was arguing that fruits are also bad since they have a very high sugar content. It was in no way stating that candy is good. Many diets forbid fruits on account of the simple carbs.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

jader201 5y ago

Hasn’t it been proven many times that fruits are healthy, period? Let alone comparing fruits to processed/refined sugars? I never understand these claims of fruits being unhealthy — or an unhealthy substitute for processed/refined sugars — yet there are many sources stating that fruits are fine/healthy [1]. There’s more to the story than just comparing the amount of “sugar” from nutritional facts between fruits and candy. Yes, juices aren’t great. But be clear that whole fruits and fruit juices are vastly different, and shouldn’t be thought of as equally unhealthy. [1] https://www.cancercenter.com/community/blog/2016/08/natural-vs-refined-sugars-what-is-the-difference https://www.cancercenter.com/community/blog/2016/08/natural-...

vnjfvfg 5y ago
>Hasn’t it been proven many times that fruits are healthy, period? Fruits are healthy in the same sense that dihydrogen monoxide is. Infinitesimal amounts have no health consequence, moderate amounts are healthy, amounts that exclude other foods will cause nutritional deficiencies, and excessive enough amounts will result in suffocation.
- dukeyukey 5y ago
  Sure, but if you eat a kilo of apples a day you'll get sick of apples and eat a light lunch worth of calories. Eat a kilo of chocolate and you're eating double your daily calories. Nobody got obese because of their 10kg-a-day apple habit.

burnished 5y ago

I think you've sort of lost something in your study of macros there. As an anecdote, I can eat and enjoy an orange, or a banana but typically no more. I can absolutely crush a package of oreos though. I've got a rule about junk food, that the total size of a container needs to be an appropriate single serving.. because no matter how big it is, one package has consistently been 'one serving'. I won't speculate because I don't know why, but I've consistently noticed that fruit, while appealing and satisfying, are more difficult to unthinkingly binge than processed sweets. Basically, I think you're losing something when you compare the macros of a pear to a snickers bar.

satellite2 5y ago
Except cherry, cherry is definitely bingeable. But other than that it's a very good analysis. Is it because fruit sugar is fructose and not saccharose?
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Most fruits approximate 50% fructose and 50% glucose, like sucrose or "high-fructose corn syrup". Pears and, particularly, mangos have a much larger fraction of fructose. The important difference is that they all (except grapes!) have enough fiber to modulate absorption. Juice, any juice, is as bad as candy. Amount matters. Rate matters. Regular corn syrup and corn sugar are just glucose, so relatively harmless. You can't find corn sugar at a supermarket, but can online: "Homebrew" sells it for $2/lb, nominally for home beer brewers to boost carbonation, but it is good for anywhere you would use cane sugar. (Sometimes a pinch of the latter may still be needed, e.g. in hot cocoa.)

deeviant 5y ago

Fruits have fiber which moderate the glucose release, so they are generally a healthy alternative to sugar. A simple sugar content comparison does not tell the full story. Fruit juices or any sort of fruit product where the fiber is removed, however, is just as bad as sugar.

sasaf5 5y ago

First, the snark in the first sentence is unnecessary to try to make your point. Second, the presence of fibers is the differentiator here, meaning that the same amount of sugar in fruits will bring a lot more satiety.

mmmrtl 5y ago

Motivated reasoning, much? You're comparing a 15 g "fun size" snickers or a 42 g kit kat to 100 and 165 g of fruit. And non-water mass is a strange calculation to make - we don't live in a freeze-dried society. Snickers and kit do have higher fat percentages than fruit, what's your point? Wean off sweets with less sweet things, which do have other nutritionally redemptive qualities.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

ericwooley 5y ago

It's not just about sugar though. Salt can make you hungry, and more likely to eat more than you should. According to Google, Snickers has 189 mg of salt per 100 grams. Strawberries have 0. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/04/25/salty-diets-make-you-hungry-not-thirsty-scientists-find/100857610/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/04/25/sa... Anecdotally, I have noticed I can basically eat an entire large pizza and still want more. Once we switched to making our own pizza from dough at trader Joe's, I'm stuffed after about 2 slices. I think the difference is that we don't add a ton of salt and cheese like a pizza place does.