Sugar content in chopped fruit to un-chopped fruit

  • Thread starter Thread starter happyhacker
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sugar
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the nutritional differences between dried organic whole apricots and chopped apricots, particularly the higher sugar content in the chopped variety. Participants question the company's explanation that the chopped version is denser, arguing that density is irrelevant since both products are measured in grams. They suggest that the difference in sugar content may stem from the size and ripeness of the apricots used for chopping, as smaller or blemished fruits might be sweeter or have been processed differently. Some speculate that chopping could alter the cellular structure, potentially converting starches to sugars due to active enzymes. The conversation also touches on the accuracy of nutritional analysis, the potential for added ingredients, and the impact of processing on fat content. Overall, there is skepticism about the provided nutritional data and curiosity about the factors influencing these discrepancies.
happyhacker
Messages
49
Reaction score
7
I was looking online for dried organic apricots. I noticed that the chopped version had higher stated sugar content of the carbohydrates (no added sugars). An enquiry to the companies contact informed me that the chopped per 100gm was denser than the un-chopped. This seems odd to me as the weight is the same. Are they correct?

Quote: Because dried fruits are concentrated (the water has been removed) they come in small, dense packages that are very high in sugar and calories. Due to the nature of the chopped product technically per 100g you are receiving a denser amount of product than per 100grams of whole product resulting in a differing nutritional breakdown. I'm sure you will agree that 100grams of whole Apricots is very different from 100grams of Chopped Apricots. Unquote.

Un-chopped: Total Fat(g) 0.5 of which saturates(g) <0.1, Protein(g) 3.1, Carbohydrates(g) 62.8 of which sugars(g) 30.0, Fibre(g) 8.9, Salt(g) <0.1
Chopped: Total Fat(g) 0.2 of which saturates(g) 0.0, Carbohydrates(g) 62.6 of which sugars(g) 53.4, Fibre(g) 7.3, Protein(g) 3.0, Salt(g) <0.1
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Per 100gWholeChopped
Total Fat (g)0.50.2
... of which saturates (g)< 0.10.0
Protein (g)3.13.0
Carbohydrates (g)62.862.6
... of which sugars (g)30.053.4
Fibre (g)8.97.3
Salt (g)< 0.1< 0.1

I reformatted the data to make it easier to compare.

I agree, the explanation they've given makes no sense. Density is irrelevant as everything is in grams and nothing is in litres. Also it's only only the sugar content that's vastly different; the other values are roughly similar.

I would guess the true reason is because the whole apricots are probably all of fairly uniform size, whereas the chopped apricots can come from apricots of all sizes -- probably the ones that are the wrong size to be used whole. It seems reasonable that different sizes might have some different content. Are smaller apricots sweeter?
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre and russ_watters
Maybe they are sugar coated?
 
happyhacker said:
Due to the nature of the chopped product technically per 100g you are receiving a denser amount of product than per 100grams of whole product resulting in a differing nutritional breakdown. I'm sure you will agree that 100grams of whole Apricots is very different from 100grams of Chopped Apricots.
:wideeyed:Ask that poster which is heavier: a pound of feathers or a pound of bricks?
 
DrGreg said:
I reformatted the data to make it easier to compare.
I note that the total carbohydrate is identical for the two samples. So some of the starch (polysaccharides) in the whole apricots appears as sugar (short-saccharides) in the chopped ones. How finely are they chopped :biggrin:?

:doh:
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes DaveC426913, BillTre and russ_watters
The only explanation I can think of is that when the fruits are chopped up, the cellular structure is destroyed which in some way leads to something like starch being converted into sugar. This might happen if there are enzymes that are still active in the dried fruit.

When baby zebrafish eat paramecia (or other tiny live foods) before their digesting systems have matured, enzymes in the paramecia they crunch up, digest the paramecia into smaller molecules for them.

Same might happen with the dried fruit, or it could be some kind of screw up.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and hutchphd
I wonder if it's simply a matter of digestive uptake.

You may not have as much nutrients actually taken in if the food doesn't get fully digested before it's passed. Which would happen with whole fruits more than chopped fruits.

I'm dubious about this since I don't think they consider this in the testing process - I think they simply burn the food to ash and measure the heat it provides - so it's total sugars, not net sugar uptake.
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre
DaveC426913 said:
I wonder if it's simply a matter of digestive uptake.
That would not be measured food content but an effect of digestive activity on the food.
Different and harder to measure.
 
  • Like
Likes DaveC426913
Could it just be that the chopped apricots had been ripened for longer than the whole ones?

According to Wikipedia, apricots are climacteric, and ripening converts starches to sugars.
 
  • Like
Likes Rive, russ_watters, hutchphd and 3 others
  • #10
DrGreg said:
Could it just be that the chopped apricots had been ripened for longer than the whole ones?
That's a great idea. They chop up the more blemished fruit for cosmetic reasons! By George I bet he's got it.
 
  • Like
Likes DrGreg and BillTre
  • #11
Anybody have any clue why the fat content is lower?
 
  • #12
Haborix said:
Anybody have any clue why the fat content is lower?
Fat molecules are very large. When food is chopped finely enough, the molecules are busted up and can't "fat" properly.

(:oldbiggrin:)
 
  • Haha
Likes BillTre and Haborix
  • #13
So what you're telling me is if I start pureeing all my meals I can't get fat?
 
  • #14
With regard to "density" perhaps they meant caloric density. If the chopped product is more dehydrated than the whole one then there would be more Calories per gram in the former.

But that doesn't explain the wonky numbers. Something is wrong with those values.

How about a link to the product?
 
  • #15
Haborix said:
Anybody have any clue why the fat content is lower?
Those numbers are starting to get down in the weeds. Where does the fat live in an apricot and therefore how is it distributed? How precise is the analysis? I can easily wave my hands there...but not for the sugar.
 
  • #16
hutchphd said:
Those numbers are starting to get down in the weeds. Where does the fat live in an apricot and therefore how is it distributed? How precise is the analysis? I can easily wave my hands there...but not for the sugar.
True. I tried to google some of the questions you posed but was just inundated with silly diet sites.
 
  • #17
Haborix said:
Anybody have any clue why the fat content is lower?
We would need to see the ingredients list. Are these 100% apricots or are small quantities of other ingredients added?
 
  • #18
DrGreg said:
We would need to see the ingredients list. Are these 100% apricots or are small quantities of other ingredients added?
Mostly nitrogen, a soupçon of oxygen, a pinch of CO2 and argon to-taste.
 
  • Like
Likes hutchphd
  • #19
Are both types pitted?
 
  • #20
From a quick internet search I see that the un-sulfured ones tend to have a lower percentage of sugar in their carbohydrate profile. Could this have something to do with it? These tend to be the organic ones so that might be a factor too.

Then you have these that somehow have no sugar at all.

BoB
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top