assistance
assistance

Sugar is not just sugar: a brief guide to sugars and carbohydrates

We often hear phrases like “the sugar in pasta,” “brown sugar is healthier,” or “if it says no added sugars, then it doesn’t contain sugar.” These are common expressions, yet they group together very different concepts under the same word. As a result, people rely on instinct rather than information, even though a few clear definitions would be enough to understand what we’re really talking about.
When we say “sugars” and when we say “carbohydrates,” we are not using synonyms. And when we say “sugar,” we are often oversimplifying—there are different types of sugars, each with distinct properties, and above all, there is one decisive factor that changes everything: the context in which we consume them.

Carbohydrates, sugars, fiber. Let’s bring some clarity to the terms

Carbohydrates are a broad family of molecules found in many different foods. Within this family are sugars, starch, and fiber. Sugars, therefore, are a subset of carbohydrates—not the other way around. It’s a simple but fundamental distinction: all sugars are carbohydrates, but not all carbohydrates are sugars.
To understand why this difference matters, just think about starch. Chemically, it can be described as a long chain made up of many glucose units linked together. The base is the same, but the outcome is different: starch does not behave like free glucose. This is why bread, pasta, and rice are carbohydrates, but they are not “sugars” in the same way that glucose or sucrose are.
When people talk about sugars, attention often focuses on the name of the molecule, as if that alone could define everything. In reality, the most important difference, in everyday life, is often the form in which sugar enters the body and the food matrix that accompanies it.
The same sugar can behave quite differently depending on whether it is part of a fiber-rich solid food or found in a drink. In whole fruit, for example, sugars are naturally present but coexist with fiber and structure: chewing, volume, and composition of the food help make sugar intake slower and, for many people, more filling. In juice, on the other hand, the matrix changes: the sugar is still there, but the consumption experience is different—faster and easier to concentrate in a short amount of time, especially because drinking is easier than eating.
This doesn’t mean that there are inherently “good” or “bad” foods. It means that it’s helpful to distinguish between intrinsic sugars—those naturally present within the structure of a whole food—and free sugars, which come in a more available form, as in beverages or when sugars are added during preparation. This distinction helps explain why two products that both contain “sugars” can feel very different in everyday use, even though, on paper, they belong to the same nutrient family.

Are there differences between sugars?

Yes, there are differences, but they need to be explained correctly. It’s not a matter of “natural sugars” versus “artificial sugars” when it comes to the classic molecules found in food, because many of them are chemically identical regardless of their source. Instead, the differences involve structure, taste, absorption, and metabolic pathways, and are once again influenced by the food context.
Glucose is often used as a reference point because it is directly involved in raising blood sugar levels. Fructose, which is naturally present in fruit and also in various sweetening ingredients, largely follows a different metabolic route, with the liver playing a key role. For this reason, it is sometimes perceived as “lighter” simply because it has a different glycemic impact, although it would be inaccurate to treat this distinction as a blanket claim of healthiness. Sucrose, or common table sugar, is a combination of glucose and fructose bound together; once digested, it splits into its two components. Lactose, the sugar found in milk and dairy products, is composed of glucose and galactose, and its digestion depends on the presence of the enzyme lactase, which is why some people tolerate it less well.

Labels and claims. No added sugars does not mean sugar-free

Let’s get to the most practical point, the one that often leads to misunderstandings and confusion. The claim “no added sugars” does not mean that a product contains no sugar. It simply means that no sugars have been added as sweetening ingredients during formulation. However, a product can still contain sugars that are naturally present in its raw ingredients and still carry that label.
This is why, if the goal is to understand how much sugar is actually present, the only reliable tool is the nutrition label—specifically the line under “carbohydrates” that reads “of which sugars.” Reading that line helps distinguish between the absence of added sugars and the presence of naturally occurring ones, and allows for meaningful comparisons between similar products, without relying solely on the highlighted claims on the front of the package.
Likewise, it’s important to remember that naturally sweet ingredients can significantly contribute to the total sugar content, even if they don’t qualify as “added sugar” in the conventional sense. For this reason, when it comes to sugar, no single word tells the whole story—what matters are the definitions, the ingredients, and the numbers declared on the label.

In small doses

beverage
food
cosmetics
pharmaceutical
chemical
pet world
regulations

Read more