Carbohydrates / Sugars?

[mum2westiesGill]

What does 'carbohydrates (of which sugars)' mean on the back of most products packs?

Example:
carbohydrates - 51.6g
of which sugars: - 5.1g

carbohydrates - 5.0g
of which sugars: - 4.1g

My MIL is type 2 diabetic, she's on 1 x metformin per day taken at teatime & says she looks on packets of things for "of which sugars".

 

[Medusa]

before i carb counted i used to look for the "of which sugars" with the lowest amount being better....

 

[Northerner]

As sugar is a carbohydrate the first figure 'Carbohydrates' includes the sugar amount, but it is then listed separately so you can see how much of the total is pure sugar - the higher the value, the sweeter it is and higher GI.

 

[Mark T]

As sugar is a carbohydrate the first figure 'Carbohydrates' includes the sugar amount, but it is then listed separately so you can see how much of the total is pure sugar - the higher the value, the sweeter it is and higher GI.

I do wonder if that is correct though - the relationship between sugar and GI.

If I take Burgen Bread, which is acknowledged to be Low/Medium GI then per 100g it is 27.3g of Carb of which sugars 5.4g.

A loaf of white bread, assumed to be High GI, is per 100g 44.6g and of which sugars 3.5g

So that would make the white bread look better then burgen because it has less sugary carbs? OK, this isn't the full story because the higher levels of fat and protein in the burgen will slow it down.

As a comparison, Dairy Milk Chocolate buttons (they are for the little boy honest) are 56.8g of carbohydrate per 100g of which sugars 56.6g 😱 There is 30g of fat in there too,

 

[Northerner]

True, you do also have to take account of the remaining, non-sugar carb type, and refined white flour is much higher GI than the Burgen constituents 😱

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

'of which sugars' is a complete red herring IMO. It has little if anything to do with the likely absorption profile of a food. Sugar has been demonised as a Very Bad Thing, when in fact even pure granulated table sugar is only medium-ish GI. It took me a very long time to work out that sugar content was not the be-all and end-all.

It's not that high sugar content is a good thing of course... it's just that we need to be just as cautious with lots of other [allegedly] 'starchy' carbs as well. Wholemeal bread? Weetabix? Table sugar? The GI of each of them are pretty similar to be honest.

 

[novorapidboi26]

before i carb counted i used to look for the "of which sugars" with the lowest amount being better....

Before I counted carbs I didn't look at any labels.............

 

[caffeine_demon]

For me - white flour is FAR worse than sugar (he says after munching a viennese finger)

 

[heasandford]

'of which sugars' is a complete red herring IMO. It has little if anything to do with the likely absorption profile of a food. Sugar has been demonised as a Very Bad Thing, when in fact even pure granulated table sugar is only medium-ish GI. It took me a very long time to work out that sugar content was not the be-all and end-all.

It's not that high sugar content is a good thing of course... it's just that we need to be just as cautious with lots of other [allegedly] 'starchy' carbs as well. Wholemeal bread? Weetabix? Table sugar? The GI of each of them are pretty similar to be honest.

Couldn't agree more! And what's even more annoying is that the total carbohydrate content isn't on the front of many packs, you have to search the back. PLUS, recipes in some magazines only quote the sugar content per serving, not the total carbohydrate content. Makes me feel even more like a nerd for needing to know....

 

[Northerner]

I find it useful to know the proportion of sugar in the total carbs of things because often things you wouldn't think of as containing sugar are actually loaded with it.

Agree about it being very annoying that only the sugar content is shown on the front! I can usually read the front without my glasses, but not the usually tiny writing on the back! Worst of all are the sandwich/meals that have the nutritional info on the underside of the sealed lid!

 

[Medusa]

if a food has a high fat content it changes the gi of it for instance pizza is low gi so remember low gi does not mean it is good for you lol i look for low gi and low fat combined to be safe (we did gi last week on the course 🙂)

 

[Northerner]

if a food has a high fat content it changes the gi of it for instance pizza is low gi so remember low gi does not mean it is good for you lol i look for low gi and low fat combined to be safe (we did gi last week on the course 🙂)

I also look at the saturated fat content and don't buy if it's too high 🙂

 

[Medusa]

yep we were looking at that today.... and i was reassured to find that i AM buying the right veg oil lol

 

[heasandford]

I find it useful to know the proportion of sugar in the total carbs of things because often things you wouldn't think of as containing sugar are actually loaded with it.

Agree about it being very annoying that only the sugar content is shown on the front! I can usually read the front without my glasses, but not the usually tiny writing on the back! Worst of all are the sandwich/meals that have the nutritional info on the underside of the sealed lid!

That is against the law! You can report them to the Trading Standards, or write to the company telling them that you are going to do it. If a company chooses to give the information it must be visible and in the correct prescribed format. The traffic light stuff on the front of packs is not covered by the law and is additional information given out of the goodness of their hearts (or some other reason?)
I still think it is carbs that are the main issue, rather than sugar per se!