Why "of which sugars"?

[zoombapup]

Had a thought reading labels on what to buy over xmas.

You know in the UK we have total carbohydrate and then "of which sugars" amounts?

Why do they bother breaking out the sugar amounts at all? Is there some dietary thing that allows carbs but not sugars specifically?

 

[Robin]

Had a thought reading labels on what to buy over xmas.

You know in the UK we have total carbohydrate and then "of which sugars" amounts?

Why do they bother breaking out the sugar amounts at all? Is there some dietary thing that allows carbs but not sugars specifically?

I think the official government advice which food manufacturers have to follow,(from Public Health England) is still the eatwell guide, which advocates plenty of carbs, but a limit on added sugar.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

I find it intensely irritating. Particularly in small packages where ‘of which sugars’ is stated on the front per portion, but because of a lack of space the total carbs are only listed per 100g (and often with no portion weight!)

 

[Ralph-YK]

I think sugar, being empty calories, is of particular importance for dieting. Unfortunately too many people go on just sugar content for diabetics.

 

[Pumper_Sue]

You know in the UK we have total carbohydrate and then "of which sugars" amounts?

The higher the amount which sugars equals how quickly your blood sugars spike after the food in question is eaten.

 

[ianf0ster]

The higher the amount which sugars equals how quickly your blood sugars spike after the food in question is eaten.

Not necessarily, there are foods which actually have a higher GI than table sugar (Sucrose) which has a GI of 75 some of the common ones are:

Parsnips 97
White Rice 89
Instant Oatmeal 83
Rice pasta 78
Puffed Rice 78
French Fries 76
Cereals 75
Doughnuts 75

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

Not necessarily, there are foods which actually have a higher GI than table sugar (Sucrose) which has a GI of 75

And worth remembering that GI is a peculiar and slightly artificial measure (50g in carbs of one item eaten in isolation) measured in a fairly small sample of 100 people. Recent research into the gut biome has shown that for many individuals expected (logical) absorption rates simply do not apply - even to the simplest of sugars.

So while GI can be helpful in some ways, there’s really nothing like ‘eating to your meter’ to see how individual foods, and combinations, work for you personally.

 

[grovesy]

I used GI with some success for around 10 years.

 

[zoombapup]

I was watching a video the other day that suggested Glycemic Load was the way to measure potential impacts. GL being a multiplication of GI * Net weight if I recall correctly. I guess the point being that high GI eaten in smaller portions are comparable to low GI eaten in greater portions, which I guess makes sense.

But as you've pointed out, the notion of GI is maybe a bit too straightforward (much like calories in, calories out). Testing does appear to be the best measurement. But then that means that everyone has to test everything, which can't be sustainable either.