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
As someone who was very into Keto dieting for a while I have some experience with this research - however I am just a nerd who likes details and not a professional dietician or nutritionist so this is only using internet articles available via Google for my statements.
Sucrose is the freely available white sugar that is called "sugar" for cooking/baking. It is 99% carbohydrate energy and has been cleaned through processing to remove all but the sucrose. It has no added benefits other than being freely available energy.
Fructose is a sugar formed naturally in fruits. Fructose is unprocessed sugar (not Raw but completely untouched and still requiring extraction from the fruit flesh. Raw is just a marketing term for cheap processed sugar). Since it is only available by eating fruit, there is the associated idea that it must be better. It isn't as bad as sugar but it isn't healthy.
Sucrose is made of fructose and glucose, so the argument that it is easier to break down fructose might be made. Fructose can only be broken down in the liver while sucrose is absorbed by the liver, gallbladder, spleen, and intestines. Given this narrow window of fructose availability, it is likely healthier than sugar because of the short exposure time to fructose.
So to answer your question, sucrose infused with fiber and nutrients is not the same as fructose available from plants. Separating the components is more intensive for fruit and fructose than trying to separate the easily mixed sugar and additives.