So what's with this Sugar then ? Revised FAQ Jan 2014
Options
yarwell
Posts: 10,477 Member
Firstly, if you don't want to track sugar daily you can turn it off in the settings of your food diary at http://www.myfitnesspal.com/account/diary_settings (top left)
Secondly, if you want to use a higher target than MFP's standard you can change that in Custom Goals at http://www.myfitnesspal.com/account/change_goals_custom (lower left)
1. What is MFP's sugar target ?
The value is now set at 15% of your daily calories, up from the 2013 value of 8%. So if your calorie goal is 2000 cals the sugar part is 300 cals or 75 grams per day. See http://myfitnesspal.desk.com/customer/portal/articles/1375583-a-message-about-myfitnesspal-s-updated-nutrition-goals
2. Where does the target come from ?
It was revised following the recommendations to increase fruit and vegetable intake in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010, and using an average of the sugar found of sample menus provided by the USDA. Previously it was based on "added sugars" rather than all of the sugars in the diet and many found the level too restrictive.
The American Heart Association suggest limits on added sugar "For most American women, no more than 100 calories per day, or about 6 teaspoons of sugar. For men, it’s 150 calories per day, or about 9 teaspoons." That's 25 or 38 grams per day respectively of added sugars based on "no more than half your discretionary calories". http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011.full.pdf
The World Health Organisation sets a guideline for added sugars to be less than 10% of energy intake. http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/81/8/en/Steyn0803.pdf
The EU have discussed a limit of 90g (18% of energy on a 2000 cal diet) for total sugars and observed that 45g is a typical adult intake of intrinsic or naturally occurring sugars from fruit, veg and dairy. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1008.pdf
Australia has a Dietary Recommended Intake value for total sugars of 90g per day, as has the EU (for a 2000 calorie diet - so 18% of energy). Annex 13 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011
3. What are "added sugars" ?
This depends on your regulatory authorities. In the UK "added sugars is defined as any mono- or
disaccharide or any other food used for its sweetening properties. This would include, but is not exclusively limited to: sucrose, fructose, glucose, glucose syrups, fructose-glucose syrups, corn syrups, invert sugar, honey, maple syrup, malt extract, dextrose, fruit juices, deionised fruit juices, lactose, maltose, high maltose syrups, Agave syrup, dextrin and maltodextrin. The sugars contained in dried fruit are assumed to be intrinsic and are not included as added sugars. The sugars in milk powder are not included as added sugars, in line with COMA dietary guidelines which deemed sugars in milk as a special case and did not set guidelines to limit their intake."
Others are similar, the target being sugars deliberately added to a food product rather than those which happen to occur naturally in the other ingredients of the product. These regulatory definitions are often a political compromise between science, health and food industry interests - the exclusion for sugar in milk for example is probably a result of pressure from the dairy industry and may have little scientific credibility.
4. Which sugars are natural ?
All of them. Sucrose is found in sugar cane and sugar beet as well as in many fruits - half the sugars in orange are sucrose. Glucose is common in fruit but is less sweet than fructose. Fructose is mainly found in honey and fruit and has the highest sweetness intensity of the sugars. Lactose is a sugar and the main carbohydrate in milk products. High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is perhaps the most manipulated sugar product in common use - starch from corn is broken down to glucose and 42-55% of that are then "isomerized" by enzymes or similar processes into fructose molecules to create a liquid syrup with the sweetening characteristics of sucrose but at lower cost.
5. How do natural and added sugars differ chemically ?
They don't. The sucrose molecule is the same wherever you find it. It can be split into a glucose and a fructose molecule under acid conditions or by an enzyme. The resulting fructose and glucose molecules are the same as the native fructose and glucose molecules from fruit. Molecular diagrams at https://cdavies.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/glucose-fructose-sucrose.jpg
Note that fruit juice is a natural sugar but becomes an "added sugar" if used to sweeten a food product.
6. Are natural sugars processed differently in the body ?
No. A glucose molecule or a fructose molecule looks the same to your liver, muscles etc wherever it came from. Fructose molecules follow a different pathway via the liver in contrast to other sugars or carbohydrates, some scientists believe this makes fructose potentially problematic and a "cause" of obesity, diabetes, etc. Robert Lustig, John Yudkins, David Gilespie and others have written books with emotive titles about the "dangers" of sugar or fructose.
In eating a whole fruit the fiber content and dilute nature of the sugars reduces the rate and amount we consume. The same cannot be said of fruit juice (fibre removed) which can contain 50% more sugars than regular cola drinks. Fruit has some vitamins and minerals and is generally perceived as "healthy", especially by its marketers, but ultimately the sugar in a fruit is the same stuff as the sugar in sugar cane and looks identical inside your organs.
7. What should I do ?
This is a matter of personal choice. The approach of 90g total sugars per 2000 calories (18% of energy) seems to be accepted in a number of countries, with MFP's minimum 1200 calorie setting this would be 54g of sugars. At this level the fructose intake will be below the level that some regard as potentially problematic. MFP's new approach will give you 45 grams at 1200 calories.
If your consumption of fruit (or any food) takes you above this level then you may wish to research further the types of sugar you are eating and the potential health implications. You may choose to set a higher level, or simply to ignore it and just track total carbohydrates which include all sugars.
If you read or follow Robert Lustig, John Yudkins or David Gilespie and buy into their arguments then you may want to stick with the MFP value or set a different one based on what you have learned.
Secondly, if you want to use a higher target than MFP's standard you can change that in Custom Goals at http://www.myfitnesspal.com/account/change_goals_custom (lower left)
1. What is MFP's sugar target ?
The value is now set at 15% of your daily calories, up from the 2013 value of 8%. So if your calorie goal is 2000 cals the sugar part is 300 cals or 75 grams per day. See http://myfitnesspal.desk.com/customer/portal/articles/1375583-a-message-about-myfitnesspal-s-updated-nutrition-goals
2. Where does the target come from ?
It was revised following the recommendations to increase fruit and vegetable intake in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010, and using an average of the sugar found of sample menus provided by the USDA. Previously it was based on "added sugars" rather than all of the sugars in the diet and many found the level too restrictive.
The American Heart Association suggest limits on added sugar "For most American women, no more than 100 calories per day, or about 6 teaspoons of sugar. For men, it’s 150 calories per day, or about 9 teaspoons." That's 25 or 38 grams per day respectively of added sugars based on "no more than half your discretionary calories". http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011.full.pdf
The World Health Organisation sets a guideline for added sugars to be less than 10% of energy intake. http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/81/8/en/Steyn0803.pdf
The EU have discussed a limit of 90g (18% of energy on a 2000 cal diet) for total sugars and observed that 45g is a typical adult intake of intrinsic or naturally occurring sugars from fruit, veg and dairy. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1008.pdf
Australia has a Dietary Recommended Intake value for total sugars of 90g per day, as has the EU (for a 2000 calorie diet - so 18% of energy). Annex 13 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011
3. What are "added sugars" ?
This depends on your regulatory authorities. In the UK "added sugars is defined as any mono- or
disaccharide or any other food used for its sweetening properties. This would include, but is not exclusively limited to: sucrose, fructose, glucose, glucose syrups, fructose-glucose syrups, corn syrups, invert sugar, honey, maple syrup, malt extract, dextrose, fruit juices, deionised fruit juices, lactose, maltose, high maltose syrups, Agave syrup, dextrin and maltodextrin. The sugars contained in dried fruit are assumed to be intrinsic and are not included as added sugars. The sugars in milk powder are not included as added sugars, in line with COMA dietary guidelines which deemed sugars in milk as a special case and did not set guidelines to limit their intake."
Others are similar, the target being sugars deliberately added to a food product rather than those which happen to occur naturally in the other ingredients of the product. These regulatory definitions are often a political compromise between science, health and food industry interests - the exclusion for sugar in milk for example is probably a result of pressure from the dairy industry and may have little scientific credibility.
4. Which sugars are natural ?
All of them. Sucrose is found in sugar cane and sugar beet as well as in many fruits - half the sugars in orange are sucrose. Glucose is common in fruit but is less sweet than fructose. Fructose is mainly found in honey and fruit and has the highest sweetness intensity of the sugars. Lactose is a sugar and the main carbohydrate in milk products. High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is perhaps the most manipulated sugar product in common use - starch from corn is broken down to glucose and 42-55% of that are then "isomerized" by enzymes or similar processes into fructose molecules to create a liquid syrup with the sweetening characteristics of sucrose but at lower cost.
5. How do natural and added sugars differ chemically ?
They don't. The sucrose molecule is the same wherever you find it. It can be split into a glucose and a fructose molecule under acid conditions or by an enzyme. The resulting fructose and glucose molecules are the same as the native fructose and glucose molecules from fruit. Molecular diagrams at https://cdavies.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/glucose-fructose-sucrose.jpg
Note that fruit juice is a natural sugar but becomes an "added sugar" if used to sweeten a food product.
6. Are natural sugars processed differently in the body ?
No. A glucose molecule or a fructose molecule looks the same to your liver, muscles etc wherever it came from. Fructose molecules follow a different pathway via the liver in contrast to other sugars or carbohydrates, some scientists believe this makes fructose potentially problematic and a "cause" of obesity, diabetes, etc. Robert Lustig, John Yudkins, David Gilespie and others have written books with emotive titles about the "dangers" of sugar or fructose.
In eating a whole fruit the fiber content and dilute nature of the sugars reduces the rate and amount we consume. The same cannot be said of fruit juice (fibre removed) which can contain 50% more sugars than regular cola drinks. Fruit has some vitamins and minerals and is generally perceived as "healthy", especially by its marketers, but ultimately the sugar in a fruit is the same stuff as the sugar in sugar cane and looks identical inside your organs.
7. What should I do ?
This is a matter of personal choice. The approach of 90g total sugars per 2000 calories (18% of energy) seems to be accepted in a number of countries, with MFP's minimum 1200 calorie setting this would be 54g of sugars. At this level the fructose intake will be below the level that some regard as potentially problematic. MFP's new approach will give you 45 grams at 1200 calories.
If your consumption of fruit (or any food) takes you above this level then you may wish to research further the types of sugar you are eating and the potential health implications. You may choose to set a higher level, or simply to ignore it and just track total carbohydrates which include all sugars.
If you read or follow Robert Lustig, John Yudkins or David Gilespie and buy into their arguments then you may want to stick with the MFP value or set a different one based on what you have learned.
0
Replies
-
Tagging to read later.0
-
Bumping for girls I know "giving up sugar, but only refined sugar..."0
-
Bump0
-
Proposed revision to UK sugar intake guidelines from http://www.sacn.gov.uk/pdfs/sacn_press_release_carbohydrates_and_health.pdf
"10. On an individual level, SACN proposes that each individual adult should have an absolute
maximum free sugars intake of between 70g/day for men and 50g/day for women (this
includes free sugars already in food), so at most, no more than 10% of dietary energy should
come from sugars."
"Free sugars" includes fruit juice and honey, but not the sugars inherent within fruit / veg.0 -
Good information0
-
Thank you. This is helpful.0
-
1. What is MFP's sugar target ?
The value is now set at 15% of your daily calories, up from the 2013 value of 8%. So if your calorie goal is 2000 cals the sugar part is 300 cals or 75 grams per day. See http://myfitnesspal.desk.com/customer/portal/articles/1375583-a-message-about-myfitnesspal-s-updated-nutrition-goals
The lowest target anyone should get automatically is 15% of 1200 calories or 45 grams/day of sugars.0 -
bump0
-
what's the LD50 for sugar ? LOL.0
-
#6 seems to contradict itself.6. Are natural sugars processed differently in the body ?
No. A glucose molecule or a fructose molecule looks the same to your liver, muscles etc wherever it came from. Fructose molecules follow a different pathway via the liver in contrast to other sugars or carbohydrates, some scientists believe this makes fructose potentially problematic and a "cause" of obesity, diabetes, etc. Robert Lustig, John Yudkins, David Gilespie and others have written books with emotive titles about the "dangers" of sugar or fructose.
Let's start that fructose is a type of glucose, so the first sentence seems to suggest that they're different. Fructose is metabolized differently, as it says right there in bold (mine). So the "No" up there should be "Yes".
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/does-fructose-make-you-fatter/0 -
No. The differentiation is in where it comes from. The wording may not be ideal, the point is that "natural" sugars in say fruit are not treated differently to those from a truck. So fructose from an orange = fructose from a truck, metabolically.0
-
That's actually now a legal defense for just about anything in a criminal court.GuitarJerry wrote: »what's the LD50 for sugar ? LOL.
We don't have to worry about that because shakeology, juice fasts, and kale.
0 -
6. Are natural sugars processed differently in the body ?
No. A glucose molecule or a fructose molecule looks the same to your liver, muscles etc wherever it came from. Fructose molecules follow a different pathway via the liver in contrast to other sugars or carbohydrates, some scientists believe this makes fructose potentially problematic and a "cause" of obesity, diabetes, etc. Robert Lustig, John Yudkins, David Gilespie and others have written books with emotive titles about the "dangers" of sugar or fructose.
In eating a whole fruit the fiber content and dilute nature of the sugars reduces the rate and amount we consume. The same cannot be said of fruit juice (fibre removed) which can contain 50% more sugars than regular cola drinks. Fruit has some vitamins and minerals and is generally perceived as "healthy", especially by its marketers, but ultimately the sugar in a fruit is the same stuff as the sugar in sugar cane and looks identical inside your organs.
Good rundown. Thanks!
I've been reading about sugars a lot lately myself. I think I would add that it's the rate and amount of sugar absorbed into the bloodstream that marks the difference between how the sugar from whole fruit vs say added sugar in juice is processed by the body when you examine the question in terms of insulin production. High fiber fruits release glucose into the bloodstream at a slow sustainable rate.
Why worry about our blood glucose/insulin levels?
"When digested, the starches and sugars in carbohydrates are broken down into millions of glucose molecules which are released into the bloodstream. When blood glucose levels rise, your body releases a hormone called insulin, which allows glucose to enter cells where it can be used to provide fuel for our brains, muscles and other vital organs. Insulin also plays a key role in fat storage: when insulin levels rise, our cells are forced to burn glucose rather than fat."
Most of the carbohydrates we eat tend to be highly processed. They break – down quickly during digestion and cause blood glucose to rise fast and high for a short time. "It’s like a roller-coaster ride on your insides – you spike then crash."
Carbohydrates that are slowly digested and absorbed cause a much lower and slower rise in blood glucose and, therefore, insulin levels. This will help sustain energy levels longer, improving mental and physical performance.
Personally, I try to keep my added sugars per day around 30 grams. No, the MFP tracker doesn't break that out but it just takes a few seconds to do so myself. If I do have a sweet 'treat' (I love my dark chocolate), I try to have it with or shortly after a meal that contains high fiber to help slow the rise in blood glucose.
While I don't follow a GI diet per se, I find the physiological explanations very helpful in understanding how foods impact my body and overall health. Not the whole picture but one of the pieces to the puzzle.
http://www.gisymbol.com/about/frequently-asked-questions/0 -
High fiber fruits release glucose into the bloodstream at a slow sustainable rate.
If you are talking about glycemic index/load, the problem is that it assumes that the foods in question are eaten on their own, and that's rarely the case, at least depending on the food. Potatoes are ones that most people who swear by the glycemic index have issues with, but few people eat just potatoes. I generally eat them with some meat, a little olive oil, and vegetables. So that would make a huge difference in the effect on my blood sugar such that the GI of the potato alone seems irrelevant.
Also, the extent to which people perceive blood sugar spikes varies a lot, probably in large part related to whether they have preexisting insulin issues. It's often stated as if it were gospel that people get cravings or blood sugar crashes as a result of consuming some added sugar (even with other foods), and yet that is not the experience of everyone.
In any event, the difference you are talking about isn't between the sugars, but in the overall composition of the meal including the sugar (fruit on its own also has fiber, but so does "added sugar" when it's added to, say, rhubarb or steel cut oats, so it's not really a good basis to say that sugar in fruit is processed differently)."When digested, the starches and sugars in carbohydrates are broken down into millions of glucose molecules which are released into the bloodstream. When blood glucose levels rise, your body releases a hormone called insulin, which allows glucose to enter cells where it can be used to provide fuel for our brains, muscles and other vital organs. Insulin also plays a key role in fat storage: when insulin levels rise, our cells are forced to burn glucose rather than fat."
Do you think this means that we gain fat even when in a deficit or, in the opposite situation, that one can eat more than maintenance calories and not gain (or even lose fat), if one avoids sugar?Most of the carbohydrates we eat tend to be highly processed.
Speak for yourself. This is certainly not true for everyone.
0 -
Very informative and well laid out. Thank you!0
-
I've been reading about sugars a lot lately myself. I think I would add that it's the rate and amount of sugar absorbed into the bloodstream that marks the difference between how the sugar from whole fruit vs say added sugar in juice is processed by the body when you examine the question in terms of insulin production. High fiber fruits release glucose into the bloodstream at a slow sustainable rate.
When I looked into this I found science from the 70s and earlier showing it was not the case.
Apple juice, apples and apple puree all had fast initial rises in blood glucose. There were some differences of course, and juice had a faster rebound of blood sugar as it triggered more insulin, but those studies did not show whole fruits to be radically different from their juices, which isn't a great shock given the power of our teeth and digestive system.
0 -
Further data shows that the first hour's blood glucose is the same for oranges and OJ, but the higher insulin release in response to the OJ leads to lower blood glucose levels and probably higher hunger as a result : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6259919
0 -
Great info
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions