Seems like you're aware of the relationship between gluclose and fiber, since you built up to glycemic index as your final question, but for those that don't know:
Fiber content in foods affect how the human body absorbs glucose. High-sugar fruits generally have decent quantities of fiber which mitigates the rate at which ingested glucose enters the bloodstream. At least this is my understanding of it from my nutritional scientist, sister, but I'm no medical professional. For more details, fiber:
"Attracts water and forms a viscous gel during digestion, slowing the emptying of the stomach and intestinal transit, shielding carbohydrates from enzymes, and delaying absorption of glucose,[62] which lowers variance in blood sugar levels"
Added sugar = sugar which is added to a product, and shows up on the ingredient list.
The only fruits you would worry about is fruit juice, because good luck eating 10-12 apples in one session, but you can drink 10-12 apples worth of juice without any problems.
I have had this discussion so many times. I am pretty sure he means "refined" fructose. I.e. fructose that is removed from it's natural state and put into concentrated form. This is basically crystaline sugar and high fructose corn syrup.
Fructose that appears naturally is not bad for you. The reason is that naturally appearing fructose usually appears with fiber, and it is usually locked in plant cells. The body is perfectly capable of processing this type of sugar. There was a Japanese study where they had people eating large quantities of apples, and their blood tests did not show any of the negative effects associated with large intakes of sugar.
The only naturally occurring sugar one should be weary of is honey.
Also carbohydrates are not sugar by default. Sugar is a type of carbohydrate, but there are other types that are not sugar and should not be confused with it. There are also other sugars (other than fructose) that are perfectly fine. Glucose for example, is not bad for you in any form.
There has been a lot of confusing science done by assuming that all carbohydrates are the same. And while they do have similar molecular structures the way they are processed by the body is very different so they should not be mixed up.
I recommend you take a couple of university courses in biochemistry and energy metabolism and then reread what you just wrote. It's full of inaccuracies that you probably notice right away after you've learned the basics.
I've only learned what I know on the topic from readings here and there, as well as a bit of research when I'm particularly motivated. I personally didn't notice an overwhelming amount of incorrect information in his post, so I'd like to take the opportunity to ask you to expand on this comment.
I don't think anybody is going to take some university courses in order to find the factual inaccuracies in a comment they wrote, so to be more helpful in dispelling these inaccuracies, could you possibly list a few of them and some relevant terms/concepts that could act as stepping stones to finding the correct information?
I am genuinely curious on the topic, but don't always know where to start and what data is bought and paid for by biased parties. I have been curious since first asked strong proponents of "natural" foods to explain to me why fruit full of sugar was supposedly better for you than anything else full of the same amount of sugar and received answers that were quite unsatisfactory.
I think it has more to do with the fact that it is just sugar by itself. From what I've read, it seems that the context of the sugar is what makes it "good" or "bad", and that's because the effects are measured by how the food affects your blood sugar after eating it. This is tracked in the metric known as the glycemic index of the food. In fruits it is with fiber and plant material that results in your body taking longer to process the sugars and doesn't give a spike in blood sugar like eating the same amount of refined sugar would. Honey is just lacking the context that most natural sugars is and is thus more similar to refined sugar.
I suspect, based on the lines previous to that one, that the statement is related to the fact that honey is basically a high-sugar syrup. About 80% sugar, 17% water, and 3% "other". For comparison, simple syrup is 50% sugar and maple syrup is 60% sugar.
Sucrose (table sugar) breaks down into fructose and glucose (as does corn syrup). On the other hand starch breaks down, after a couple of steps, into just glucose. Glucose is your basic fuel that is used by the muscles, etc, directly. Fructose has to be metabolized by the liver first, with some bad side effects if you have too much. The study that the (currently) top post links to is specifically about "fructose restriction". So we're not talking about carbohydrates in general.
Bananas and apples do have fructose, but it's not "added" sugar. However, if you take apple juice (or as I see on labels a lot, pear juice) and use it as an ingredient, that would be added sugar.
A lot of breads in North America have a lot of added sugars. You have to actually go out of your way to find breads that aren't sweetened significantly.
> A lot of breads in North America have a lot of added sugars.
The sugar feeds the yeast to make the bread rise. No sugar == solid lump of rock-hard bread-rock.
Sugar is one of the key ingredients in Western-style fluffy loaves, particularly wholegrain flours which need an accelerated fermentation process so that they rise before being 'set' by cooking. Which is nicely ironic since we've been conditioned that wholegrain is the healthy choice!
Sugar also helps to prevent staling, which is critical in home-baked breads which barely last 12 hours even with that assistance.
I'm not saying we should have NO sugar in our bread. But it's to the point where if you google "Why is American bread so sweet?" you'll find countless examples of Europeans comparing American bread to cake.
This is well beyond the scope of "feeding the yeast".
The amount is tiny though. I make my own bread, and you can use just half a teaspoon in a loaf, it's just to get the yeast going, and they probably metabolise most of it. I've also experimented with using part milk so they use the lactose instead, and this also gives a nice consistency to the bread (still working on further improving this though!)
This is incorrect. It's perfectly possible to make light fluffy bread without adding sugar. Sugar might be added to accelerate the process for economic reasons, but that's something else.
ADDED sugar. As in "let's dump a bunch of refined white sugar or high fructose corn syrup in this dough to make it sell better to our sugar-addicted customers."
When I lived in the UK, I started making my own bread (I'm from Germany, we have a bit of a reputation for our bread). I have a rye sourdough from which I bake a rye and wheat mixed loaf. It's quite heavy -- slightly over 1kg for a large loaf tin (IKEA DRÖMMAR, to be precise) -- but stores well and I really enjoy the taste. The sourdough is my fridge pet (so to say), but since it lives in the fridge, it needs to be fed only once every two to three weeks, or whenever you bake it. I've had it for 1½ years now.
American bread and European breads (including British) are a bit different -- Americans like a sweeter loaf. A traditional American sandwich bread often has milk and/or sugar. The milk increases sweetness.
I didn't do it because of sugars, but I'm glad that none are added -- after a couple of months or so, I had enough of supermarket bread ;) There are easier ways to make your own bread though, soda bread is particularly quick and easy (although you'd typically use a bit of sugar for the yeast). It's literally 1h (ok, maybe 1h10m) from stepping into the kitchen to taking the loaf out of the oven.
People used to ask me this all the time too; for me it was anything that was sweet to the taste, and hadn't come like that way naturally. Bananas were ok, food that had been sweetened using bananas (like a smoothie) were not ok.
What about carbohydrates, which have "added sugar" (because they ARE sugar by default?)
What about high-sugar fruits like bananas, citrus, and red apples, which often have as much sugar as processed snacks?
Or do you mean that you eat low glycemic index foods?