All of the info about why added sugar is unhealthy compared to fruits seems to be that the sugar in fruit comes with fibre and nutrients that offset the negative health impacts of sugar to a degree by delaying its absorption and preventing a blood sugar spike.
However, by this reasoning alone, wouldn't it be possible to infer that if added sugar was paired with the same amount of fibre and nutrients, its effects could be mitigated in the same way as they are in fruit?
Well I haven't found any evidence either supporting or negating this idea or anyone even talking about that question specifically aside from a few other people asking the same thing, and random people replying without citing any evidence. For example someone suggested that indeed taking this approach may work a little bit, but it still won't be as healthy as eating fruit due to the "fibre-infused food matrix" of fruit or that sugar that is found naturally in fruits is "complexed" with fiber that slows down the absorption more, whereas the added sugar is more freely available to absorb quickly because it's separate from the fibre even if eaten together with it (though the separate fibre will still do some of the same job but not as well)?
"It can slow the absorption of sugar slightly but won't make a huge difference. Sugar from wholefruit and veg will always be processed differently due to the food matrix the sugars contained in that must be vroken down resulting in a slow and gradual release, when u eat added sugar but just have some fiber all that sugar is still there readily available to absorb. Overall it would be better to just stick to fruit and eat mixed macro meals with healthy unsaturated fats and proteins"
Well if possible I would like to see some scientific evidence/studies talking specifically about the difference on the body between consuming whole fruits containing their natural sugar and fibre + nutrients, compared to consuming added sugar along with foods containing fibre and nutrients in equivalent amounts (such as bircher muesli with added palm sugar, or another example if necessary for the sake of equalizing the fibre+nutrients content), and ideally health outcome data showing there is actually a difference between these...
And just more information in general about the idea of naturally occurring sugar and fibre contained together in a single food matrix being different/more healthy than added sugar taken together with separate fibre foods.
Thanks
That's not an opinion. An opinion is "I don't like hamburgers."
Types of sugars are facts.
https://www.webmd.com/diet/what-to-know-about-different-types-names-sugar
There's a lot of types of sugars and it's worth it to know the difference. Table sugar is not the same as an orange, which isn't the same as a sugary drink. They are all different types of sugars that hit the gut in different ways and require different processes to digest.
So when you said sucrose you really meant various sugars. Because sucrose is a molecule and all the same, and what it comes with is what makes the difference, as per OP's question.
It was an opinion until you linked evidence
"The sky is red." isn't an opinion, its a wrong fact.
One is much easier to prove or commonly know than the other
Without evidence it's nothing more than a baseless speculation. Looks red to me and my buddies, got proofs pour contraire? No? Then it's as red as any other colour. This is how misinformation spreads. You either think critically or you don't.
Maybe the better word here instead of opinion is "hypothesis". "The sky is red" is a hypothesis. It's worth nothing until you prove it disprove it but it is a basis for reasoning.
Fair
Now that's an answer, thank you.
Scientific evidence does defend it as a fact. But your first message was far from providing the evidence that OP was asking for.