Is Concord grape juice fattening?

star_gazer

However, before we go scootling down to the supermarket for a dose of this latest superfood, we might do well to consider purple grape juice’s prime constituent – sugar. Like all fruit juices, purple grape juice is rammed full of the stuff. One prominent brand contains 40 g of sugar per 240 ml serving. That works out at 16.66 g of sugar per 100 mls of drink. Coca-cola, on the other hand, contains 35 g of sugar per 330 mls. Which works out at 10.6 g of sugar per 100 mls. What this means is that purple grape juice contains more than 50 per cent MORE sugar than Coca Cola. Could it be that this glut of sugar might offset some of the healthy properties ascribed to the polyphenols in purple grape juice? That’s a rhetorical question, obviously. The sugar in fruit juices such as purple grape juice comes, essentially, in the forms of glucose and fructose. As I have written before on this site and elsewhere, while fructose is often seen as a ‘healthy’ form of sugar, the evidence suggests that it is anything but. http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2007/03/19/is-purple-grape-juice-really-the-answer-to-all-our-ills/ Oct 10 09, 10:56 AM

Zbeckabee

One should remain mindful that nothing is fattening when consumed in proper quantities...and let's not forget exercise. Grapes and grape juice are loaded with powerful antioxidants and are heart healthy. One just needs to watch the labels. You can purchase low/no sugar concord grape juice or one can even make their own, in the interest of sugar control. http://www.gardengrapevine.com/GrapeJuice.html Oct 10 09, 11:23 AM

queproblema

Anything with calories in it is "fattening." Unsweetened grape juice is almost 1/5 sugar. One 10-oz. glass uses up one tenth of your daily calorie allowance if you don't want to gain weight. (This depends on your body build and metabolism and your physical activity, of course.) http://www.welchs.com/products/juices-and-drinks/100-percent-grape-juice/100-percent-organic-grape-juice/nutrition http://www.gramstoounces.org/ "Anything with calories in it." Calories, of course, aren't substances, but measures of energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_energy Oct 10 09, 12:25 PM

Zbeckabee

Or maybe we could say that anything with calories in it has the "POTENTIAL" to be "fattening." A food, on its own, does not fatten and is not fattening -- until consumed in excess. Oct 10 09, 2:09 PM

queproblema

Yes, indeed, hence the quotation marks. Calories could also be called "sustaining." It's the definition of "excess" that can be so troubling. Friends of ours are into calorie restriction. They look terrible, but claim to feel great. http://nymag.com/news/features/23169/ Oct 10 09, 4:10 PM