> Who actually adds a mind-boggling amount of sugar to their food when they cook from basic ingredients?

The sugar contents of some of the staples - bread, sauces, etc. - can be shockingly high. A tablespoon of ketchup has more sugar than a chocolate chip cookie.

Is someone who describes themselves as cooking from fresh ingredients likely dumping loads of ketchup into their food?

I suspect plenty of people who say they cook with "fresh ingredients" still use off-the-shelf bread, condiments, etc. They may pick organic, more "artisan" brands, but plenty will have surprising amounts of lurking sugar.

Ketchup isn't really any less fresh than the butter/oil.

Sure, but home cooked food is fairly likely to include a sauce (e.g. vegetables in a tomato sauce) and thus not require as many condiments.

> A tablespoon of ketchup has more sugar than a chocolate chip cookie.

Ketchup has about 1/3 the calories of a chocolate chip cookie. What does it matter that it has the same amount of sugar?

In addition, out of sauces ketchup is really the odd one out, most normal sauces and dressings are not supposed to contain sugar at all.

There is a big gap between ‘supposed to’ and the real world. Pick up any bottled dressing at a typical grocery store, and sugar or corn syrup will likely be a top ingredient. See the totally unnecessary addition to ranch dressing, for example:

http://www.kraftrecipes.com/products/kraft-16-fo-dressing-li...

Or even if you are making your own, a surprising number have sugar or honey as ingredients.

https://www.tasteofhome.com/recipes/italian-vinaigrette

Who decides what something is "supposed to" contain? Why is it relevant?

While we're on the subject of questionably-relevant comparisons, remember that bacon contains 500% more vitamin C, and 100% less sugar than Coca Cola.

And coke makes you fat and gives you diabetes while bacon doesn’t. So it is actually an interesting comparison. Well, the sugar part.

How is that reasonably relevant? I can cherry-pick nutritional information to make any absurd comparison I want.

Which is what comparing the sugar content of ketchup and a chocolate chip cookie is. There's less sugar in a cookie than Ketchup, but ~3 times more carbs.

I was agreeing with your point.

Who the hell fries hash browns in butter? It's liable to burn.

As to your second paragraph, well, here is my point illustrated. Added sugars are probably our biggest problem. Even when it comes to lipids, I don't think most people cooking at home are making Cheesecake Factory-style meals. But my understanding of the latest research is that trying to remove fats from your diet is no longer necessarily recommended.

You can make delicious hash browns with just potatoes, salt, and butter. Yes, you have to keep it from burning, but it's not that hard, you just use a lower temperature. The result is delicious and crisp.

It's not the only way (Honestly, I prefer duck/goose fat if I'm feeling fancy, beef if not), but it's a perfectly acceptable way of making crispy delicious hash browns.

Great! Now I have to try that this weekend :-(

Probably with cheese sauce for good measure...

> Hashbrowns. Mashed potatoes. Fried in butter or oil in the former, butter added to make them taste good for the latter.

I have never used a full stick of butter in the making of either of these. For hash I use as little as I need to lubricate the potatoes. For mashed I use about 1 tablespoon per 2.5 pounds of potatoes. Since I have never made 20 pounds at once, I have never used a full stick.