Carbohydrates of which sugars

Sandtree

sevenhills said:

General_Grant said:

Tinkberbell said:

I know we're told to view carbohydrates on nutrition labels as a whole but I've always been curious to the "of which sugars" underneath it. Can someone explain?
Example: - A cereal box per 100g has:
Carbohydrates - 42.5g
of which sugars - 10.5g
Does the mean there's 10.5g of sugar in the cereal?

It means that in each 100g of that cereal there are 10.5g of sugarS and 32g of other carbohydrates.

But that is only the sugar within the carbs, not the added sugar content. Something like Crunchy Nut cornflakes has 12% added sugar but has 35% of sugars within the carbs.

Not a good breakfast food for borderline diabetics, or anyone really.

Yes it includes the added sugar... they cannot test the product and then add a load of other things and not update the ratings.

And its not sugars "within the carbs", sugars are carbs and carbs are sugars... we just tend to talk of simple sugars/carbs as "sugar" and of complex sugars/carbs as "carbohydrates" 

sevenhills

Sandtree said:

Yes it includes the added sugar... they cannot test the product and then add a load of other things and not update the ratings.
And its not sugars "within the carbs", sugars are carbs and carbs are sugars... we just tend to talk of simple sugars/carbs as "sugar" and of complex sugars/carbs as "carbohydrates" 

I did perhaps word that wrong. I am looking at an ingredients list now, it states the added sugar as 62g per 100g and the "of which sugars" as 59g per 100g

Spoonie_Turtle

sevenhills said:

Sandtree said:

Yes it includes the added sugar... they cannot test the product and then add a load of other things and not update the ratings.
And its not sugars "within the carbs", sugars are carbs and carbs are sugars... we just tend to talk of simple sugars/carbs as "sugar" and of complex sugars/carbs as "carbohydrates" 

I did perhaps word that wrong. I am looking at an ingredients list now, it states the added sugar as 62g per 100g and the "of which sugars" as 59g per 100g

That makes no sense.  You can't have 62g of added sugar of which only 59g is sugar.  Either it's sugar or it's not, added or intrinsic makes no difference to the actual nutritional content.

All sugars are carbohydrates, not all carbohydrates are sugars but they break down into them.  More complex carbohydrates take longer to break down than simpler carbohydrates, which is the reasoning behind GI (glycaemic index) values.

sevenhills

Spoonie_Turtle said:

That makes no sense.  You can't have 62g of added sugar of which only 59g is sugar.  Either it's sugar or it's not, added or intrinsic makes no difference to the actual nutritional content.
All sugars are carbohydrates, not all carbohydrates are sugars but they break down into them.  More complex carbohydrates take longer to break down than simpler carbohydrates, which is the reasoning behind GI (glycaemic index) values.

They often don't make sense. The second biggest ingredient is sugar, yet it states 62g of sugar per 100g. It must be including the sugar content within the fruit. But wouldn't that be fructose or something?

Prepared with 67g of fruit per 100g, so that leaves 33g for other ingredients. But they may boil the jam to the water evapourates.

You get the same type of issue with tomato sauce, prepared with 137g of tomatoes per 100g, Heinz I believe.

Spoonie_Turtle

sevenhills said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

That makes no sense.  You can't have 62g of added sugar of which only 59g is sugar.  Either it's sugar or it's not, added or intrinsic makes no difference to the actual nutritional content.
All sugars are carbohydrates, not all carbohydrates are sugars but they break down into them.  More complex carbohydrates take longer to break down than simpler carbohydrates, which is the reasoning behind GI (glycaemic index) values.

They often don't make sense. The second biggest ingredient is sugar, yet it states 62g of sugar per 100g. It must be including the sugar content within the fruit. But wouldn't that be fructose or something?

Prepared with 67g of fruit per 100g, so that leaves 33g for other ingredients. But they may boil the jam to the water evapourates.

You get the same type of issue with tomato sauce, prepared with 137g of tomatoes per 100g, Heinz I believe.

Yes.  It's all sugar.  I have a cereal with ~3g sugar per 100g, no sugar in the ingredients - it's from the fruit.  Pure fruit juice  with just one ingredient is very high in sugar, that obviously came from the fruit.

The ingredients are listed according to the amounts used in the recipe, but nutrition information is about the end result because that's what you put in your mouth and what goes into your body.

Stratus

Useful short video explainer here.

Sandtree

sevenhills said:
You get the same type of issue with tomato sauce, prepared with 137g of tomatoes per 100g, Heinz I believe.

Tomato is typically over 90% water... its therefore not hard to drive off some of the water and thus get 137g of tomato into a much lighter form.

Still all pale into insignificance when you compare to the "sugar free" tic tacs in the USA that are over 95% sugar. However the US food agency allows anything under 0.5g of sugar for a suggested serving to be labeled sugar free. The company therefore declares a suggested serving is a single tic tac which is under 0.5g and therefore can be labeled as sugar free.

Murphybear

brook2jack2 said:

coffeehound said:

It's the jams that I find most misleading:  'low sugar' jams seem to have fructose syrup, corn syrup and the like instead.  Are they really any better?

No , anything ending in ose eg fructose, maltose, glucose is still basically sugar as is corn syrup. Honey, agave syrup, etc are no healthier than normal refined sugar. 

brook2jack2 said:

coffeehound said:

It's the jams that I find most misleading:  'low sugar' jams seem to have fructose syrup, corn syrup and the like instead.  Are they really any better?

No , anything ending in ose eg fructose, maltose, glucose is still basically sugar as is corn syrup. Honey, agave syrup, etc are no healthier than normal refined sugar. 

brook2jack2 said:

coffeehound said:

It's the jams that I find most misleading:  'low sugar' jams seem to have fructose syrup, corn syrup and the like instead.  Are they really any better?

No , anything ending in ose eg fructose, maltose, glucose is still basically sugar as is corn syrup. Honey, agave syrup, etc are no healthier than normal refined sugar. 

I try not to eat much jam.  I like St Dalfour which is technically a fruit spread rather than a jam.  It has fruit juice rather than sugar or any “ose” but as I’m sure many of you are aware a lot of fruit juice isn’t really a lot healthier.  I like St Dalfour because it tastes more of fruit than a lot of others I have tasted.  

brook2jack2

Of 100g of St Dalfour strawberry jam 47g is sugar ie almost 50% . It does not matter where the sugar comes from , be it fruit or cane or beet or corn, the body uses it exactly the same way . There is no "healthy" sugar, moderation is the key. 

The sugar content in most fruits has risen considerably over the years to suit the modern sweet tooth. Any processing eg juicing, pulping,cooking liberates this sugar which is no healthier than sugar from any other source. 

MrsStepford

Tinkberbell said:

I know we're told to view carbohydrates on nutrition labels as a whole but I've always been curious to the "of which sugars" underneath it. Can someone explain?
Example: - A cereal box per 100g has:
Carbohydrates - 42.5g
of which sugars - 10.5g
Does the mean there's 10.5g of sugar in the cereal?

Yes that does indicate how much sugar there is in the product. However ALL  carbohydrates are processed by the body into glucose (sugar). Some low carb gurus talk about net carbs and the carb figure in UK is net carbs after fibre is deducted. In  USA total carbohydrate is listed on labels and you have to deduct the fibre yourself. 

If you deduct fibre from carbs in UK you are underestimating. 

More low carb leaders are moving towards just using total carbs, as some of the fibre is digested. Daily carb allowance seems to be a lot lower now, especially for keto.