# Sugar guidelines question.



## Snowdog63 (May 10, 2016)

I was just looking at the DUK web-site & found this:


*How much sugar is ok?*
The maximum targets per day are:

no more than 30g/seven cubes for adults and children from 11
and:

*Different types of sugar*
The type of sugar we should all be on the look out for is known as free sugar.

It's unclear to me whether the 30g target refers only to the free sugars or to the sugars contained in the carbs & fruit too.


----------



## Snowdog63 (May 10, 2016)

This is the location on the quote, by the way:

https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-t...=cereal+bars&utm_campaign=Enjoy+Food+May+2016


----------



## Robin (May 10, 2016)

It's not very clearly written, is it! It must mean 30g of free sugars per day, otherwise it's implying a daily target of 30g carbohydrate which is ultra low carbing by anybody's reckoning!
( As an aside, it bears out what I've always thought, that eating most muesli bars is as bad as having a bar of confectionary.)


----------



## Snowdog63 (May 10, 2016)

That's what I was hoping, with regard to the sugars.

I used to love those "natural" bars. Natural?? Ha!!


----------



## DeusXM (May 10, 2016)

Oh dear lord...



> As the sugar content is from the fruit itself, it doesn’t count as a ‘free sugar’, so you can enjoy the sweetness without worrying about the consequences.



"It's alright everyone, each as much fruit as you like because the sugar is magical!"


----------



## Snowdog63 (May 10, 2016)

It's crazy, isn't it? Really unclear.


----------



## Stitch147 (May 10, 2016)

DeusXM said:


> Oh dear lord...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's alright everyone, each as much fruit as you like because the sugar is magical!"



Right, im off to buy a bunch of grapes!!!


----------



## khskel (May 10, 2016)

????????? Right off for a banana smoothie


----------



## Copepod (May 10, 2016)

Sugar content may be identical between eg grapes and sweets, but grapes do include some vitamins, minerals and fibre. Other fruits eg apples are lower sugar, but higher fibre, plus vitamins and minerals. 
So don't avoid fruit completely, although vegetables often contain as much vitamin and mineral content, more fibre and lower sugar.


----------



## Northerner (May 11, 2016)

"The 13.3g of sugar in this particular bar consist of naturally-occurring sugars, which come directly from fruit. This is not the type of sugar we need to cut down on." Sigh! 

I have pointed out our thoughts to Diabetes UK


----------



## Bloden (May 11, 2016)

Snowdog63 said:


> It's crazy, isn't it? Really unclear.



My brain hurts reading it! 
I carb count all the fruit I eat (it's amazing how many friends don't believe me when I tell them that fruit is full of carb and I therefore have to cover it with insulin - some of them even try to argue me down).


----------



## Stitch147 (May 11, 2016)

Bloden said:


> My brain hurts reading it!
> I carb count all the fruit I eat (it's amazing how many friends don't believe me when I tell them that fruit is full of carb and I therefore have to cover it with insulin - some of them even try to argue me down).



Its the same where I work. If I fancy a snack I'm careful with what I choose, but people just say eat some fruit then offer me pineapple, grapes and melon and seem shocked when I refuse it!!! I limit myself to 2 portions of fruit a day now. Usually an apple and something else.


----------



## DeusXM (May 11, 2016)

> So don't avoid fruit completely



I don't think anyone's saying that, and no-one is disputing that a handful of grapes, in spite of the sugar content, is entirely as 'bad' for you as a glass of Coke...just that ALL sugars need to be accounted for, whether they are 'free' or not.

I note that D-UK has been VERY clever with their terminology. By differentiating between 'free' and 'unfree' sugar, they've avoided the common criticisms usually made when people use the term 'natural', by creating the idea that sugar is fine as long as it's attached to a vitamin source rather than added. Amazingly, they have actually differentiated between a portion of fruit and smoothies, which I agree makes technical sense but ultimately, whether you stick a banana in a blender or just straight in your gob, it's still the same quantity of sugar going in, just that the smoothie sugar will get in slightly quicker.

Someone really needs to tell D-UK that your body unfortunately doesn't take into account the terminology anyone might use to describe stuff and just sees 'sugar' as 'sugar'. It doesn't matter how many vitamins are in an orange, it won't offset the damage done by an uncontrolled glucose rise.


----------



## Robin (May 11, 2016)

DeusXM said:


> I don't think anyone's saying that, and no-one is disputing that a handful of grapes, in spite of the sugar content, is entirely as 'bad' for you as a glass of Coke...just that ALL sugars need to be accounted for, whether they are 'free' or not.
> 
> I note that D-UK has been VERY clever with their terminology. By differentiating between 'free' and 'unfree' sugar, they've avoided the common criticisms usually made when people use the term 'natural', by creating the idea that sugar is fine as long as it's attached to a vitamin source rather than added. Amazingly, they have actually differentiated between a portion of fruit and smoothies, which I agree makes technical sense but ultimately, whether you stick a banana in a blender or just straight in your gob, it's still the same quantity of sugar going in, just that the smoothie sugar will get in slightly quicker.
> 
> Someone really needs to tell D-UK that your body unfortunately doesn't take into account the terminology anyone might use to describe stuff and just sees 'sugar' as 'sugar'. It doesn't matter how many vitamins are in an orange, it won't offset the damage done by an uncontrolled glucose rise.


It's not Diabetes UK that has invented this terminology, it was used in Public Health England guidelines.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...9/Sugar_reduction_The_evidence_for_action.pdf
The definition of sugar as meaning Free sugars is laid out here.


----------



## Snowdog63 (May 11, 2016)

I think the long-awaited wider awareness of the dangers of sugar (& hopefully a resulting move away from "fat" obsessed foods to "sugar" obsessed ones - because let's be honest, companies are only capable of turning these things into a way of making money) has to be seen as a positive move. If a reduction in (or lack of) "free sugar" in bought foods were to become the norm, this would be beneficial to society as a whole.

It's unfortunate that the D-UK web site seems to mix up its advice for "everyone" with its advice for diabetics. Dammit, it's OUR website, isn't it??


----------



## Annette (May 11, 2016)

Umm, I'm confused by that document. Exactly how do 'sugars...naturally present in fruit juices...' differ from 'sugars naturally present in intact fruit...' other than their delivery?


----------



## Snowdog63 (May 11, 2016)

I don't think they do. It's a badly written item.


----------



## Northerner (May 11, 2016)

I think this is the whole problem with the sugar debate, they are confusing things by assigning different attributes to sugar depending on its origin - it's all sugar, and simply needs to be kept in moderation in a healthy diet


----------



## Robin (May 11, 2016)

I remember a few articles when the PHE document came out. I think the thinking behind lumping fruit juice in the 'bad' category and fruit in the 'good' was that people can easily neck back a pint of orange juice not realising how many squashed oranges they're drinking, whereas you only tend to eat one whole orange, and you get the benefit of the fibre in it. It ignored things like pineapple and grapes that it's easy to eat like sweets. It's always a problem when something is oversimplified, a lot of the logic goes out of the window.


----------



## DeusXM (May 11, 2016)

> It's not Diabetes UK that has invented this terminology, it was used in Public Health England guidelines.










Can you imagine the furore there'd be if we described 'added fat' as 'free', with the implication that the thick chunk of fat on a sirloin doesn't count as fat?


----------



## Val999 (May 11, 2016)

My nurse has told me to avoid fruit juice completely due to the amount of fruit it takes to make one normal glass and the resulting amount of sugar. I used to have a glass of grapefruit juice every morning but have now swapped it for tomato juice which is a lot less sugar content.


----------



## deleted profile 999 (May 12, 2016)

Annette Anderson said:


> Umm, I'm confused by that document. Exactly how do 'sugars...naturally present in fruit juices...' differ from 'sugars naturally present in intact fruit...' other than their delivery?



There's no difference in the sugars (the molecules are the same), however, in the raw fruit, the sugars are mostly locked up within cell membrane's which take the body time to process, slowing the intake of the sugars, you also get the added benefit of fibre etc.

Also bear in mind, that it takes more fruit (depending on type), to produce a glass of juice, than you would normally consume as whole raw fruit in one sitting.  For instance, it would take 3-4 apples to make 250 mls of juice.  So a glass of juice would give you the equivalent sugar that 3-4 apples would give you, and it's getting into your system a lot quicker, consumption and digestion wise (I could drink a glass of juice in 10 secs, whereas 4 apples would take me realistically over 1/2 and hour to eat).


----------



## bilbie (May 12, 2016)

Northerner said:


> "The 13.3g of sugar in this particular bar consist of naturally-occurring sugars, which come directly from fruit. This is not the type of sugar we need to cut down on." Sigh!
> 
> I have pointed out our thoughts to Diabetes UK


It is going to take time for the 60's thinking to be brought into the 21st century. T2's can get the vitamins, minerals and fibre from other sources, besides fruit.

Fructose has to be metabolised the same way as alcohol, Most is converted to fats, a lot of T2 have non alcoholic fatty liver. High range ALT liver blood tests
it also increases insulin resistance






You could also point to studies how diabetics convert glucose to fructose at 10 times the normal rate. This is done through the polyol pathway.
start 15 minutes into the video for fructose


----------



## Copepod (May 13, 2016)

Portion size for fruit juice is supposed to be 150ml, but it is very easy to drink more. Very few glasses / tumblers hold only 150ml, so it's easy to fill fuller. Even small bottles of juice sold alongside soft drinks for sandwich meal deals are 300 or 330ml, which is double the recommended portion or just over.


----------



## Snowdog63 (May 13, 2016)

bilbie said:


> start 15 minutes into the video for fructose



Am I being thick? What video?


----------



## bilbie (May 13, 2016)

Snowdog63 said:


> Am I being thick? What video?


I can see it embeded, see if this is better
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KybOPCB2Qd4

basically it is saying the worse thing you can give a T2 is fructose/fruit sugars, because we already convert too much glucose to fructose. The only way to get rid of it is to convert it to fat. because most T2 are insulin resistant with excess insulin and insulin is a fat storing hormone. it can get deposited and not used as fuel


----------



## Snowdog63 (May 13, 2016)

Thanks! 

Oddly, I can see it quite clearly now where before there was just a white space! Must be a network problem here at work.


----------



## bilbie (May 13, 2016)

Snowdog63 said:


> Thanks!
> 
> Oddly, I can see it quite clearly now where before there was just a white space! Must be a network problem here at work.


This other video, also at 15 minutes into the video, goes into greater detail, this guy goes through blood tests and explains bloods.
A/Prof Ken Sikaris - 'Cholesterol vs Fat vs Glucose*'*
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRUWTWsIAXI


----------



## Snowdog63 (May 13, 2016)

All good stuff! Thanks!


----------

