What is the healthiest sugar? (Part 1)

Sugar Cubes

I’ve been asked this question half a dozen times in recent weeks, so I think it’s time we had a little talk.

There’s plenty of confusion, hype, and crazy anecdotes surrounding sugar these days. Heck, it seems the type of sugar you eat even reflects on the kind of person you are (or perhaps just the type of persona you want to project).

It’s downright trendy to shun high fructose corn syrup (yup, I’m one of those “elitists,” but not for the typical reasons).  Then there’s agave (lauded by hippies and yuppies alike), honey (unless you’re a vegan), brown rice syrup (for those outdoorsy energy-bar types)…  well, the list goes on and on.

Before we talk about the various sugar options, a little background is in order. (Forgive the science stuff, but it’s kind of important.)

A Sugar Primer

There are six key types of dietary sugar molecules. Three are single sugars, called monosaccharides.

Glucose is the most common. It exists on its own, but is also the main building block of other sugars. It’s also the sugar that your body wants to use for energy (it’s often referred to as “blood sugar” or dextrose).

Fructose is the sugar most commonly in — you guessed it — fruit. Important to note, though, is that a piece of fruit contains both fructose and glucose, to varying degrees depending on the type of fruit.

The third relevant monosaccharide is galactose, which is found pretty much only in milk.

Which brings us to the disaccharides. They’re made from chemically-bonded pairs of the single sugars (remember how the prefix “di-” means two?).

Joining a glucose and a fructose will get you a molecule of sucrose. White table sugar, for one example, is pure sucrose — which means that table sugar is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. (Also of note: The lay-term “sugar,” such as when you see it in an ingredient list, usually means “sucrose.”)

Matching up two glucose molecules results in maltose. Finally, lactose, the sugar found in milk, is made of glucose paired with galactose. (Galactose is found almost exclusively in nature bonded with glucose to make lactose, not on its own. In other words, you won’t find jars of galactose on the grocery store shelf.)

So what happens when you eat these sugars?

When you eat monosaccharides (glucose, fructose), your body can absorb them right into the bloodstream. Cells can use glucose directly (remember, it’s your body’s preferred energy source). Fructose will need to be broken down first by your liver, turning it into glucose.

If it’s a disaccharide (sucrose, maltose, lactose), you have to digest it before your body can do anything with it. Enzymes make quick work of splitting them into their monosaccharide components, and then the body handles it as if you ate the single sugar directly.

In other words, once you eat any of these sugars, the body breaks them down into glucose fairly rapidly.

The Traditional Answer

So what do we do with that above information?  Is one sugar truly better (or worse) than the other?

The nutritionist’s (and corn refiner’s association) typical answer is that “sugar is sugar.” Since it’s all converted into glucose anyway, they say it doesn’t really matter. That it’s splitting hairs to try to differentiate.

They’ll tell you (and I’ll agree) that what matters far more than the type of sugar is simply reducing your overall sugar consumption.

(Factoid: Americans are now consuming 22 teaspoons of sugar a day, when general recommendations are to consume no more than six to nine, depending on your caloric intake.)

Emerging Evidence…

Having said that, the type of sugar might matter, too. The problem is, we don’t really know yet. But there have been some recent studies that indicate fructose could be worse for us than glucose.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t immediately mention Robert H. Lustig, MD’s 2009 lecture (“Sugar: The Bitter Truth“), in which he makes a compelling case that sugar — and in particular fructose — is killing us. (Want a counter-argument to Lustig’s lecture?  Here you go.)

This interesting Time Magazine article (also from 2009) highlights a small study which concluded “consuming too much fructose can actually put you at greater risk of developing heart disease and diabetes than ingesting similar amounts of glucose.” (Here’s another good summary of the same study.)

Last Fall, another study reported that cancer cells like to feast on fructose, but not glucose. Note, that’s in a lab, not in a human body.

In March, a small study of nine humans showed that glucose increased activity in some specific areas of the brain, while fructose decreased it.

And finally, just a few weeks ago Gary Taubes summed it all up in his cover story for the New York Times Magazine, entitled simply and provocatively, “Is Sugar Toxic?” Starting his article from Lustig’s lecture, Taubes explains how he has become convinced that sugar could be wreaking havoc with our health, and has changed his diet accordingly. (It’s a long read, but very well worth it.).

So, umm, what to do?

So now what? Do we stick with the classic answer is that “sugar is sugar,” and swear off the stuff entirely?  That certainly won’t hurt us physically, but we’ve got to be realistic.

Of course, the most-likely-to-withstand-the-test-of-time suggestion is to get your sweet fix from whole foods (peaches! apples! grapes!), instead of refined, added sugars.  But if you insist on using some kind of sweetener, from the evidence I’ve seen so far it sure seems like glucose could be a better choice than fructose.

Turns out, though, that’s not so easy or simple.

In part two, I look at some of the most common sweeteners and give you a quick run down on each of them.

Photo by Uwe Hermann.

A photo of Andrew Wilder leaning into the frame and smiling, hovering over mixing bowls in the kitchen.

Welcome to Eating Rules!

Hi! My name is Andrew Wilder, and I think healthy eating doesn’t have to suck. With just three simple eating rules, we'll kickstart your journey into the delicious and vibrant world of unprocessed food.

You May Also Like:

Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 7, 2012 11:32 am

I found your “Healthiest Surgars” article on a Google search, and must say you’re words are unusually clear, complete, simple, and to-the-point. Few have mastered the art of communication so well.

July 10, 2012 11:55 am

Hello: what is the best sugar to use if making granola – i already have nuts and raisins in the cereal – but I still need to add a little bit of sugar to make it more digestable for my kids. Choice is apple juice or maple syrup or honey of sugar? What do you think? Thanks for your help x

January 26, 2012 12:49 pm

This may sound like a stupid question, and maybe i completely misunderstood.. I am brand new to the idea of whole foods and the such… but if fruit is full of fructose would that mean it is unhealthy to eat fruit?

Reply to  Andrew
November 11, 2012 12:29 pm

I must admit there are some things I still don’t get. If it’s good to eat fruits because of the fiber that slows down the absorption, and other nutrients that those contain, that would mean that adding sugar in granola for eg would have the same effect, as granola has fibers, vit and minerals from those seeds and raisins and everything right? so wouldn’t it be the same as adding honey to granola? or for eg if i make a cake, and i use whole grain flours and nuts or fruits that have fibers, does it matter than if i use sugar or maple or honey or whatever sweetener? What do you think about this?

PS:I know that honey and maple have some vit and minerals that sugar doesn’t, but let’s suppose you get those from fruits and nuts so the questions are just related to sugar.

thank you

May 23, 2011 11:12 am

Terrrific post! A few years ago I went on a quest to eliminate HFCS from my family’s diet. We have made big improvements in that regard but still consume sugary things. This really clearly lays it all out. Thanks and I’m going to share with my readers too!

May 11, 2011 8:37 am

Thanks for a GREAT summary Andrew. I didn’t get a chance to really chat with you at camp blogaway unfortunately, so we’ll just have to go again! I read the Is Sugar Toxic article when it recently came out and my head was spinning after that. I can’t wait to read all these other studies you’ve linked to. It’s an area of health/nutrition that I’m very interested in now esp. with feeding my kids, who love sugar. because i do! We’re one of the few countries that breakfast on sweet items. Japanese: miso soup. Koreans: fish amongst other things. Indians: chappattis and tea, or upma/dosa/etc.. (lentil/rice based dishes). I am just slowly trying to decrease the number of times we eat sweet. Great post. Thanks!

May 7, 2011 9:58 pm

Andrew, first of all – LOVED meeting you at Campblogaway and you are fun, funny and fab. Second – really enjoyed the post, and I think you did a great job of making the whole science part, um…digestible. I tried to not be so pun-driven, but it fit, it just fit. One of my friends is a nutritionist for a family in India (with some money, obviously) and works with the sugar issue all the time. India’s diabetic rate is growing faster than any other country it seems, as they embrace America’s low fat (but added sugar) trendy diets. Anyway, LOVED your post and can’t wait for Part 2!

May 7, 2011 9:26 pm

I’ve always had a huge problem with sugar (I love it and it makes me anxious :-/), so I’m loving this article. Looking forward to Part II!

May 5, 2011 10:39 pm

Thank you thank you thank for this post, and I look forward to the other part(s)!

May 5, 2011 6:34 pm

ps Hope you will address booze AKA sugar…

May 5, 2011 6:01 pm

You are so my new best friend. Incredibly well-written post with such detail. I’m stoked to reread after salmon is finished grilling for our supper…