Learn Hardcore Spanish (Latin America): Para el postre preparamos una ensalada de fruta con durazno, pera y uva sin azúcar añadida. - For dessert we prepare a fruit salad with peach, pear, and grape with no sugar added.

para el postre → for dessert (as the thing we will eat in the dessert course)
por el postre → would sound like “because of the dessert” or “on behalf of the dessert” – wrong idea here.
de postre → very common too: De postre preparamos… = As dessert we prepared… or For dessert, we prepared…
Here de postre works more like an adverbial expression (“as dessert”), usually placed at the beginning: De postre comimos helado.

So para el postre focuses on the purpose of the salad in the meal, while de postre labels that part of the meal (“as dessert”). Both are natural; por el postre is not.

What tense is preparamos, and how would I say “we prepared” vs. “we prepare / are preparing”?

In preparamos, the form is the same for:

present indicative (we prepare / we are preparing)
(Nosotros) preparamos una ensalada de fruta. – We prepare / we are preparing a fruit salad.
preterite (simple past: we prepared)
Ayer preparamos una ensalada de fruta. – Yesterday we prepared a fruit salad.

For -ar verbs, nosotros present and preterite are identical in form, so only context tells you if it’s present or past.

Other useful forms:

we are going to prepare → vamos a preparar
Para el postre vamos a preparar una ensalada de fruta.
we were preparing / used to prepare → preparábamos (imperfect)
Siempre preparábamos una ensalada de fruta. – We used to always prepare a fruit salad.

Why is there no nosotros in the sentence?

In Spanish, subject pronouns (yo, tú, él, nosotros, etc.) are usually dropped because the verb ending already shows who the subject is.

Preparamos can only be nosotros / nosotras (we), so the pronoun is not needed.
You add nosotros only for emphasis or contrast:
- Nosotros preparamos una ensalada… (and not someone else)
- Nosotros preparamos el postre y ellos preparan la cena.

So the shorter preparamos is the normal, neutral option.

Why do we use una before ensalada de fruta?

Una is the indefinite article (a / an). Here you are talking about one instance of a salad, not salads in general:

Preparamos una ensalada de fruta. – We prepared a fruit salad (one dish).
Saying just Preparamos ensalada de fruta is possible, but it sounds more like:
- A recipe step: “we prepare fruit salad”, or
- A general statement: “We make fruit salad (as a rule / at our restaurant).”

In everyday conversation about a specific meal, native speakers normally include una here.

What’s the difference between ensalada de fruta and ensalada de frutas?

Both are used for “fruit salad,” and in many contexts they are interchangeable.

Subtle points:

ensalada de frutas (plural) is extremely common in Latin America; it suggests a salad made of different kinds of fruits.
ensalada de fruta (singular) can:
- Still mean a multi-fruit salad in practice, or
- In some contexts sound a bit more like “fruit-type salad” (emphasizing fruit as the ingredient in general).

In real-life speech and menus, you will see both. If you have to pick one “safe” version for Latin America, ensalada de frutas is probably the most widely recognized.

Why are durazno, pera y uva singular and without articles? Does it mean only one peach, one pear, and one grape?

In ingredient lists, Spanish often uses singular without articles to mean “this ingredient in general,” not literally one piece:

con durazno, pera y uva ≈ with peach, pear, and grape (as ingredients)
→ understood as pieces of peaches, pears, and grapes.

You could also say:

con duraznos, peras y uvas (all plural) – emphasizes multiple pieces a bit more explicitly, but the meaning in a recipe/description is essentially the same.
Adding articles (con el durazno, la pera y la uva) would sound odd here, as if referring to specific, already-known fruits.

So singular, no article is a normal, “recipe-style” way of listing ingredients.

Is durazno the only word for “peach” in Spanish?

No. The two main words are:

durazno – common in much of Latin America (e.g., Argentina, Chile, Mexico, etc.).
melocotón – standard in Spain and also understood in many other countries.

Both mean “peach.” If you’re focusing on Latin American Spanish, durazno is a good default, but you will definitely run into melocotón in media, recipes, and products from Spain.

Could I say ensalada de frutas con duraznos, peras y uvas instead? Does it change the meaning?

Yes, that’s perfectly correct:

ensalada de frutas con duraznos, peras y uvas

Differences:

de frutas vs de fruta: as mentioned, both can mean “fruit salad.” de frutas is slightly more explicit about multiple types of fruit.
duraznos, peras y uvas (plural) vs durazno, pera y uva (singular): plural highlights multiple pieces/units. But in the context of a salad, everyone assumes there are many pieces either way.

So your version is natural Latin American Spanish and fully acceptable.

Why do we use con before the list of fruits? Could we just use y?

Con means with and introduces added ingredients or components:

una ensalada de fruta con durazno, pera y uva
= a fruit salad with peach, pear, and grape.

If you said:

una ensalada de fruta, durazno, pera y uva (just commas and y)
it sounds like you are listing four separate things, not describing the ingredients of the salad.

You could also build it as:

una ensalada de durazno, pera y uva – a salad of peach, pear, and grape
(here de directly links the salad to those fruits).

But with your original structure (ensalada de fruta as the basic dish), con is the natural choice.

Why is it sin azúcar and not sin la azúcar or sin azúcares?

Azúcar here is a mass noun (like “water,” “salt,” “sugar” in English):

sin azúcar = without (any) sugar → the normal expression.
sin la azúcar would sound wrong in this context. The definite article (la / el) would suggest some specific, known sugar.
sin azúcares (plural) is used mostly in technical / nutritional language:
- sin azúcares añadidos – “no added sugars” (all kinds of sugars).

For everyday speech about food or drinks, sin azúcar is the standard way to say “without sugar.”

Why is añadida feminine, and why does it come after azúcar?

Añadida is the past participle of añadir used as an adjective: “added.”

Position
In Spanish, adjectives usually go after the noun:
- azúcar añadida – added sugar
  So sin azúcar añadida is the expected order.
Gender (feminine)
Azúcar is a special noun: it can be treated as masculine or feminine in modern usage (it’s “ambiguous in gender”).
- You will see el azúcar blanco (masc.) and also mucha azúcar (fem. agreement in the modifier).
- In azúcar añadida, many speakers treat it as feminine, so añadida (fem.) is very natural.
- You may also see azúcar añadido (masc.) in some contexts; both exist.

For a learner, it’s enough to remember sin azúcar añadida is a very common, natural set phrase.

Is sin azúcar añadida a fixed phrase? Are there other common ways to say “no added sugar”?

Sin azúcar añadida is a very common phrase, especially in marketing and packaging, and it’s easily understood as “with no added sugar.”

Other frequent variants:

sin azúcar agregada – same idea (“agregada” = added).
sin azúcares añadidos – more technical / label-style: “no added sugars.”
sin azúcar – just “without sugar.” In many everyday contexts, this is enough.

All of these are natural; sin azúcar añadida and sin azúcares añadidos are the ones you’ll most often see on products.