Carbohydrate / of which sugars

[mum2westiesGill]

Which one should Type 1 look at on packets?

Which one should Type 2 on tablets look at?

 

[PattiEvans]

Hi

Both T1 and T2 should look at "Total carbohydrate" - ignore "of which sugars" which is pretty meaningless. Hope this helps.

 

[Northerner]

Hi

Both T1 and T2 should look at "Total carbohydrate" - ignore "of which sugars" which is pretty meaningless. Hope this helps.

I think you need to know both, as if the carb content is mostly sugar, it's likely that it will give a spike - not foolproof of course, but an extra bit of info. 🙂

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

I've absolutely raged against 'of which sugars' for months now.

It began when I was comparing sugary breakfast cereals against 'healthier ones' on glycemicindex.com

For example Frosties (or Crunchy Nut) have a slightly lower GI than regular Cornflakes. Because the sugar only has a medium GI, while the corn is high GI. Thus adding sugar causes a net REDUCTION to the speed of absorption.

I'm not sure what it does to the carbs/100g though. The comparison only works if eating the same count of carbs.

Neither are good choices for us BG-wise, of course. But it just goes to show that just because something tastes or seems sweeter doesn't mean it will get to your bloodstream faster.

 

[PattiEvans]

Northie

Both T1 and T2 should look at "Total carbohydrate" - ignore "of which sugars" which is pretty meaningless.

That was the information the carb counting dietitian told me when I went along for one-to-one carb counting education.

I think you need to know both, as if the carb content is mostly sugar, it's likely that it will give a spike - not foolproof of course, but an extra bit of info.

You also have for example a pack of ready made mashed potato, the "of which sugars" is likely to be very low, but the mashed potato will hit you faster than the equivalent amount of sugar spoon for spoon, which is why I suggested ignoring it and using the carbohydrate value only as a rule of thumb. I agree that if it was perhaps a sweet then the "of which sugars" would be high but the carb count would reflect that.

 

[PattiEvans]

PS you've also got the GI issues of course.

 

[Robster65]

I'd always thought of it the same as Alan, but can see that it's slightly less straightforward.

Good points.🙂

Rob

 

[DeusXM]

I've absolutely raged against 'of which sugars' for months now.

My personal bugbear is with the traffic light system on fruits. They're always 'red' for sugar and then have some apologetic note saying "although this product is high in sugar, all of these sugars are naturally occurring in the fruit". That's like putting a note on bacon saying all the fat naturally occurs in the pig.

 

[Vicsetter]

If you are lucky it also tells you how much carb is fibre which doesn't count as digestible fibre (for example Flax seeds have 1.9g fibre for every 2g carb so very good for you, and your garden birds).
Quite a lot of non-sugar 'sweeteners' list as high carbohydrate but you can't digest them. (Saccharin is 89g per 100, Splenda packets are nearly 90g per 100, dextrose is 100g per 100)
There are some that think you should count a percentage of polyol (maltitol, sorbitol, mannitol, xylitol, erythritol, lactitol) towards the carb count, but you will be lucky to know how much is in the product (you will have to try and judge from the ingredients list not the nutitional info. Whether these have any effect on you, you will have to judge for yourself.

This is an interesting page on the types of food: http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/nutrition/a/fibercounts.htm
And you can follow it to : http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/whattoeat/a/carbcountques.htm
which explains carbs in food.
I think the traffic light system needs an additional light which displays the amount of net carbs per 100g, would save us aged diabetics having to do the calculations. It would be nice if they had to display net carbs as well.

As for Fructose, it's an interesting one. It's certainly better to have your fructose naturally occurring as fructose in drinks, jams, jellies etc are: highly refined, purified sugar created in a lab from corn and other syrups. It's a bit more like saying that all the water in your bacon is naturally occurring in the pig (rather than injected to add weight).

 

[Nicky1970]

dextrose is 100g per 100

Dextrose is just another name for glucose!

 

[Vicsetter]

Dextrose is just another name for glucose!

At least someone is awake!

 

[Dory]

ready made mashed potato, the "of which sugars" is likely to be very low, but the mashed potato will hit you faster than the equivalent amount of sugar spoon for spoon,

Patti are you sure about that? pure sugar (as in a spoonful of the stuff) is guaranteed to hit you quicker than a mix of powders, E numbers, flavourings, oh and the tiny sprinkling of dehydrated potato flakes 😉

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

Patti are you sure about that? pure sugar (as in a spoonful of the stuff) is guaranteed to hit you quicker than a mix of powders, E numbers, flavourings, oh and the tiny sprinkling of dehydrated potato flakes 😉

I'm not sure that's right Dory, though it's what I believed for years. The sweet flavour of sugar vs potato does not necessarily indicate absorption. The starches in potato are particularly easy to break down, while sugar is a mix of 50% fructose and 50% glucose.

The University of Sydney lists the GI of 50g in carbs of instant mash as between 69 and 97 (glucose is 100). By contrast sucrose (table sugar) is only around 60.

A bit counter intuitive and crazy, but sugar isn't as fast into the bloodstream as our mums always told us it was!

 

[Nicky1970]

pure sugar (as in a spoonful of the stuff) is guaranteed to hit you quicker than a mix of powders, E numbers, flavourings, oh and the tiny sprinkling of dehydrated potato flakes

Somewhere in the deep recesses of my mind are memories of school biology classes where we used to spit in test tubes containing starch and iodine and watch to see if solution changed colour from blue black (starch is present) to brown yellow (normal colour of iodine), i.e. starch had been broken down into glucose due to action of the presence of amylase in saliva.

Therefore some of the starch in bread, pasta, potatoes etc. has already been converted to glucose before it even hits the bloodsteam.

 

[Dory]

Yes Nicky - I remember that test too - in fact we actually practised it by chewing pieces of bread in our biology classes.

the problem is the time and energy needed to chew the bread/mash and break the starch down is outweighed by the time and energy needed to get sugar (glucose) into the body.....

 

[Nicky1970]

My teachers were vastly more uncouth than yours!

 

[Dory]

teachers? possibly.

students however.... heh heh heh 😉

 

[Vicsetter]

100g of potato doesn't contain 100g of glucose though. A portion of mash is supposed to be about 27gram carb or about 7 teaspoons of white sugar or 9 teaspoons of brown sugar or 2 slices of white bread.

As for GI: Potato 56-111 - most averages usually given in high 80's
Potato, instant - 74-97, average 80, white bread averages 73.

Funnily enough I had mashed potato tonight (actually creamed potato as I put a bucket of butter into it), twice cooked pork stuffed with black pudding, red cabbage and mushroom and 5-spice gravy , no problems.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

100g of potato doesn't contain 100g of glucose though. A portion of mash is supposed to be about 27gram carb or about 7 teaspoons of white sugar or 9 teaspoons of brown sugar or 2 slices of white bread.

As for GI: Potato 56-111 - most averages usually given in high 80's
Potato, instant - 74-97, average 80, white bread averages 73.

Funnily enough I had mashed potato tonight (actually creamed potato as I put a bucket of butter into it), twice cooked pork stuffed with black pudding, red cabbage and mushroom and 5-spice gravy , no problems.

Exactly! Which is why Glycemic Load is an important marker. It still frustrates me though that things I was told for years were 'slow release' are just as fast, if not faster absorbed than teaspoons of sugar. I accept that context/mixtures of foods hugely impact absorption speed (and GI is a pretty dodgy indicator anyway) but 'of which sugars' is pretty much of no value as far as I can see.

 

[Northerner]

Exactly! Which is why Glycemic Load is an important marker. It still frustrates me though that things I was told for years were 'slow release' are just as fast, if not faster absorbed than teaspoons of sugar. I accept that context/mixtures of foods hugely impact absorption speed (and GI is a pretty dodgy indicator anyway) but 'of which sugars' is pretty much of no value as far as I can see.

It's why it's good to know GL as well as GI 🙂