I truly hate it when people call things they dont clearly have knowledge about a pseudoscience.
Traditionaly ketchup contains lots of sugar.
Both are condiments so they are pretty similiar in use.
But amount you use either one is so small it does really matter which one you use.
Both are worth including if you’re calorie counting. (And don’t necessarily trust the per-serving size label, since if they set that low enough they can round down and claim a 100% fat cooking spray is 0 calories. We only used to be civilized.)
It is?
According to whom, again? Incan guarantee the ketchup I use isn’t “high in sugar”, whatever that means, and I’m not eating by the cup anyway.
What do you mean by “high”?
Again, more pseudoscience.
They’re 2 different things, with different purposes. This whole post is nonsense.
I truly hate it when people call things they dont clearly have knowledge about a pseudoscience. Traditionaly ketchup contains lots of sugar. Both are condiments so they are pretty similiar in use.
But amount you use either one is so small it does really matter which one you use.
When the USA was civilized we required every food sold to the public to list its nutritional information.
https://calories-info.com/mustard-vs-ketchup/
100g of ketchup or mustard both have about 100 calories, with ketchup getting more of those calories from carbohydrates and much less from fat.
Even if you make your own ketchup or buy a no-sugar added brand, it still has a fair amount of carbohydrates. And a substantial amount of salt.
https://tools.myfooddata.com/nutrition-facts/2594364/100g/1
Both are worth including if you’re calorie counting. (And don’t necessarily trust the per-serving size label, since if they set that low enough they can round down and claim a 100% fat cooking spray is 0 calories. We only used to be civilized.)