A Question About Sugar
Options
Replies
-
BlueButterfly94 wrote: »If it's sugar from fruit, I'm not too bothered about it with my diet. But when it comes to cane sugar/etc... That's where I try to limit myself. Because that causes problems with my heart and makes me crave more unhealthy foods.
Sugar is sugar and our body does not differentiate between cane sugar or fruit sugar. In fact, many foods that say no added sugar are sweetened with fruit, so they really do have sugar.
What kind of "unhealthy" foods are you referring to?
Oooh oooh oooh....I'm so happy you asked! One of the reasons that sugar from whole fruit is less of a problem than HFCS or sucrose, is the natural serving size of fruit is smaller than the serving size given by many sugary foods. For example
1 apple (a higher-sugar fruit), 150 g 77 calories 10 grams sugar (about 5 from fructose, 3 from sucrose, and 2 from glucose, if you care), and 2 grams fiber, about a 1/2 gram protein, micros (i.e. 1% of daily need for iron, 8% of daily need for vitamin C, magnesium, calcium, potassium, B vitamins) antioxidant polyphenols, and lutein (which helps with vision)
1 can soda has 138 calories 33 grams sugar (generally HFCS), no fiber, no protein, and may contain caffeine which has its own issues for some people
So you see, having a glass of water with an apple instead of a soda would leave the dieter with less calories, and has fiber and protein which would help lower the glucose spike from the sugar, and delay digestion, so the dieter would be fuller longer (although adding protein, like a nut butter, to this snack would help with fullness for the dieter). When digestion is delayed, the calories are released with better timing with the needs of the body, so less is stored. Also the dieter would have the benefits of the non-caloric nutrition to the apple, such as protection from cancer, diabetes, stroke, vision problems, and having a healthy immune system, red blood cells, nervous system and vascular system.
The benefits of having less sugar in a serving, having the sugar processed more slowly, and having the sugar accompanied by healthy micronutrients are what makes an apple a better "healthier" snack than a can of pop, even though both get most of their calories from sugar.
Another difference between sucrose and HFCS and the fructose in fruit is that fructose is very sweet, and that sweetness discourages overeating. HFCS and sucrose, with their closer to 1-1 relationship of fructose and glucose, are less sweet, tantalizing the tastebuds without sastisfying them, and making overeating easier.
The evidence for the impact of sucrose/HFCS versus whole fruit and other "natural" sugars was found in a harvard study (among others) that found that sugar sweetened beverages were associated with weight gain, and foods high in "natural" sugars were not (dairy and fruit).
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/diet-lifestyle-weight-gain/
Fructose in particular is associated with the dreaded visceral fat, associated with coronary artery disease and type II diabetes. The can of soda has 3 times fructose/serving than the serving of fruit. The fruit also has nutrients that prevent diabetes and vascular disease.
If the goal is weight loss or maintenance, or better health and healthy body, foods that have "natural" sugars that intuitively come in smaller serving sizes (ie. 4.4 g sugar per 100 g raspberries) are "good" foods, and foods that have been packed (33+ g per serving) with less satisfying HFCS and sucrose are "bad".
If you just want to lose weight, and don't care about micronutrients, go ahead and eat whatever caused the obesity in the first place, just less of it. If interested in long term maintenance, look into a sustainable diet that includes healthy foods, like protein, dairy, and fruit/veggies, and relies less on processed foods with large amounts of sucrose/HFCS. Thank you so much for your question....I've been dying to say that since the last sugar thread got shut down by the moderators!
The bottom line is it doesn't matter what you eat and where your calories come from, the only requirement to lose weight is to eat less calories than you burn.
0 -
Awesome post Kyta. Makes total sense.0
-
BlueButterfly94 wrote: »If it's sugar from fruit, I'm not too bothered about it with my diet. But when it comes to cane sugar/etc... That's where I try to limit myself. Because that causes problems with my heart and makes me crave more unhealthy foods.
Sugar FROM fruit is a concern. Sugar IN fruit not as much.
Like sugar in Apple juice is a health concern whereas the sugar from eating an apple would not carry the same health concerns.
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »BlueButterfly94 wrote: »If it's sugar from fruit, I'm not too bothered about it with my diet. But when it comes to cane sugar/etc... That's where I try to limit myself. Because that causes problems with my heart and makes me crave more unhealthy foods.
Sugar FROM fruit is a concern. Sugar IN fruit not as much.
Like sugar in Apple juice is a health concern whereas the sugar from eating an apple would not carry the same health concerns.
because plain fruit juice minus the pulp/fibre is a glass of pretty much high calorie nothingness. Whereas the whole fruit has got the total, nothing extracted. I get what you mean..... I think lol
0 -
In short, no. Sugar will not affect weight loss as long as total calories are held in check. HOWEVER, no answer is totally that short. The downside of too much sugar (particularly processed sugar) is that you are taking in "empty calories"... That means that they are calories that you are taking in without a corresponding quality nutritional benefit. That means if your sugar intake is way too high, then you are either taking in too many calories to achieve the nutritional values your body needs to function properly or you will keep your calories in check but not get all the nutrients that you really need. Over time, this deficit of needed nutrients will lead to an increasing appetite as the body craves the missing nutrients. Personally, I don't worry too much about sugar intake but do try to achieve a balanced diet within the parameters of my caloric needs.
0 -
BlueButterfly94 wrote: »If it's sugar from fruit, I'm not too bothered about it with my diet. But when it comes to cane sugar/etc... That's where I try to limit myself. Because that causes problems with my heart and makes me crave more unhealthy foods.
Sugar is sugar and our body does not differentiate between cane sugar or fruit sugar. In fact, many foods that say no added sugar are sweetened with fruit, so they really do have sugar.
What kind of "unhealthy" foods are you referring to?
Oooh oooh oooh....I'm so happy you asked! One of the reasons that sugar from whole fruit is less of a problem than HFCS or sucrose, is the natural serving size of fruit is smaller than the serving size given by many sugary foods. For example
1 apple (a higher-sugar fruit), 150 g 77 calories 10 grams sugar (about 5 from fructose, 3 from sucrose, and 2 from glucose, if you care), and 2 grams fiber, about a 1/2 gram protein, micros (i.e. 1% of daily need for iron, 8% of daily need for vitamin C, magnesium, calcium, potassium, B vitamins) antioxidant polyphenols, and lutein (which helps with vision)
1 can soda has 138 calories 33 grams sugar (generally HFCS), no fiber, no protein, and may contain caffeine which has its own issues for some people
So you see, having a glass of water with an apple instead of a soda would leave the dieter with less calories, and has fiber and protein which would help lower the glucose spike from the sugar, and delay digestion, so the dieter would be fuller longer (although adding protein, like a nut butter, to this snack would help with fullness for the dieter). When digestion is delayed, the calories are released with better timing with the needs of the body, so less is stored. Also the dieter would have the benefits of the non-caloric nutrition to the apple, such as protection from cancer, diabetes, stroke, vision problems, and having a healthy immune system, red blood cells, nervous system and vascular system.
The benefits of having less sugar in a serving, having the sugar processed more slowly, and having the sugar accompanied by healthy micronutrients are what makes an apple a better "healthier" snack than a can of pop, even though both get most of their calories from sugar.
Another difference between sucrose and HFCS and the fructose in fruit is that fructose is very sweet, and that sweetness discourages overeating. HFCS and sucrose, with their closer to 1-1 relationship of fructose and glucose, are less sweet, tantalizing the tastebuds without sastisfying them, and making overeating easier.
The evidence for the impact of sucrose/HFCS versus whole fruit and other "natural" sugars was found in a harvard study (among others) that found that sugar sweetened beverages were associated with weight gain, and foods high in "natural" sugars were not (dairy and fruit).
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/diet-lifestyle-weight-gain/
Fructose in particular is associated with the dreaded visceral fat, associated with coronary artery disease and type II diabetes. The can of soda has 3 times fructose/serving than the serving of fruit. The fruit also has nutrients that prevent diabetes and vascular disease.
If the goal is weight loss or maintenance, or better health and healthy body, foods that have "natural" sugars that intuitively come in smaller serving sizes (ie. 4.4 g sugar per 100 g raspberries) are "good" foods, and foods that have been packed (33+ g per serving) with less satisfying HFCS and sucrose are "bad".
If you just want to lose weight, and don't care about micronutrients, go ahead and eat whatever caused the obesity in the first place, just less of it. If interested in long term maintenance, look into a sustainable diet that includes healthy foods, like protein, dairy, and fruit/veggies, and relies less on processed foods with large amounts of sucrose/HFCS. Thank you so much for your question....I've been dying to say that since the last sugar thread got shut down by the moderators!
Thank you for this!-1 -
Kyta, I think your posts are amazing.
SSLRunner you said "The bottom line is it doesn't matter what you eat and where your calories come from, the only requirement to lose weight is to eat less calories than you burn."
To me the bottom line is that it does matter. What you eat matters.0 -
http://superhumanradio.com/the-role-of-dietary-sugars-and-de-novo-lipogenesis-in-non-alcoholic-fatty-liver-disease.html
Hint: Still comes down to calorie intake.
"Lustig must be blushing by now.
Yah, probably. But we aren’t done yet. What about all the talk of this de novo lipogenesis? This is the term used for the process whereby fatty acids are created from non-lipid precursors such as fructose, glucose, or amino acids. Using isotopic glucose or fructose, which lets us “follow” it through the body and see where it ends up, it was demonstrated that consuming 0.75g/kg bodyweight of fructose or glucose didn’t live up to Lustig’s expectations. Specifically, only 0.05% and 0.15% of fructose were converted to fatty acids and glycerol, respectively, while values after glucose consumption were close to 0%. These results have been confirmed by a systemic review of isotopic tracer studies that concluded the immediate metabolic fate of ingested fructose was not into triglycerides (<1%), but towards oxidation (45%) and conversion to glucose (41%)."0 -
When people say it doesn't matter, it's generally understood after our macro and micronutrients are met we can eat what we want.......people keep saying it but for some reason you have it in your head that it means to eat refined sugar and junk food all day, nobody has ever said that, but maybe you like to take the opportunity to point out the obvious over and over and over and over because somehow it makes you feel better. The possibility is that you really don't understand the gist of the conversations here, or trolling.Kyta, I think your posts are amazing.
SSLRunner you said "The bottom line is it doesn't matter what you eat and where your calories come from, the only requirement to lose weight is to eat less calories than you burn."
To me the bottom line is that it does matter. What you eat matters.
-4 -
Oooh oooh oooh....I'm so happy you asked! One of the reasons that sugar from whole fruit is less of a problem than HFCS or sucrose, is the natural serving size of fruit is smaller than the serving size given by many sugary foods. For example
1 apple (a higher-sugar fruit), 150 g 77 calories 10 grams sugar (about 5 from fructose, 3 from sucrose, and 2 from glucose, if you care), and 2 grams fiber, about a 1/2 gram protein, micros (i.e. 1% of daily need for iron, 8% of daily need for vitamin C, magnesium, calcium, potassium, B vitamins) antioxidant polyphenols, and lutein (which helps with vision)
1 can soda has 138 calories 33 grams sugar (generally HFCS), no fiber, no protein, and may contain caffeine which has its own issues for some people
So you see, having a glass of water with an apple instead of a soda would leave the dieter with less calories, and has fiber and protein which would help lower the glucose spike from the sugar, and delay digestion, so the dieter would be fuller longer (although adding protein, like a nut butter, to this snack would help with fullness for the dieter). When digestion is delayed, the calories are released with better timing with the needs of the body, so less is stored. Also the dieter would have the benefits of the non-caloric nutrition to the apple, such as protection from cancer, diabetes, stroke, vision problems, and having a healthy immune system, red blood cells, nervous system and vascular system.
The benefits of having less sugar in a serving, having the sugar processed more slowly, and having the sugar accompanied by healthy micronutrients are what makes an apple a better "healthier" snack than a can of pop, even though both get most of their calories from sugar.
Another difference between sucrose and HFCS and the fructose in fruit is that fructose is very sweet, and that sweetness discourages overeating. HFCS and sucrose, with their closer to 1-1 relationship of fructose and glucose, are less sweet, tantalizing the tastebuds without sastisfying them, and making overeating easier.
The evidence for the impact of sucrose/HFCS versus whole fruit and other "natural" sugars was found in a harvard study (among others) that found that sugar sweetened beverages were associated with weight gain, and foods high in "natural" sugars were not (dairy and fruit).
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/diet-lifestyle-weight-gain/
Fructose in particular is associated with the dreaded visceral fat, associated with coronary artery disease and type II diabetes. The can of soda has 3 times fructose/serving than the serving of fruit. The fruit also has nutrients that prevent diabetes and vascular disease.
If the goal is weight loss or maintenance, or better health and healthy body, foods that have "natural" sugars that intuitively come in smaller serving sizes (ie. 4.4 g sugar per 100 g raspberries) are "good" foods, and foods that have been packed (33+ g per serving) with less satisfying HFCS and sucrose are "bad".
If you just want to lose weight, and don't care about micronutrients, go ahead and eat whatever caused the obesity in the first place, just less of it. If interested in long term maintenance, look into a sustainable diet that includes healthy foods, like protein, dairy, and fruit/veggies, and relies less on processed foods with large amounts of sucrose/HFCS. Thank you so much for your question....I've been dying to say that since the last sugar thread got shut down by the moderators!
No one on this board will disagree with you that an apple is more nutrient dense than a soda. What the majority of MFP will promote is finding a balanced diet, of which, you would be getting 80% to 90% of your diet from fruits, veggies, lean meats, fish, legumes... pretty much any nutrient dense item. Where these conversations always fail, is the examples are extreme and do not follow in the context of one person's diets. Lets take your example, you only compare two foods in isolation. But what happens when I have a soda with a big plate of veggies. I am then drinking something with HFCS and eating foods high in vitamins, minerals and fiber.
Regarding your Harvard study, it's an article about making smaller changes in your diet to help maintain your weight. Essentially, it suggest reducing the intake of high calorie, nutrient void foods with nutrient dense, lower calorie foods.... kind of a no brainer. This is what MFP will teach you as well. We know it's a lot easier to maintain your weight if you are eating lower calorie foods that keep you full for long.
HFCS & fructose are not associated with diseases... obesity is. Below is a article from the NIH.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20471804
"The progressive replacement of sucrose by HFCS is however unlikely to be directly involved in the epidemy of metabolic disease, because HFCS appears to have basically the same metabolic effects as sucrose. Consumption of sweetened beverages is however clearly associated with excess calorie intake, and an increased risk of diabetes and cardiovascular diseases through an increase in body weight. This has led to the recommendation to limit the daily intake of sugar calories."
Below is also a good article on sugar. And links to many other studies if you are interested.
http://www.fitnessbaddies.com/your-problem-with-sugar-is-the-problem-with-sugar/
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »BlueButterfly94 wrote: »If it's sugar from fruit, I'm not too bothered about it with my diet. But when it comes to cane sugar/etc... That's where I try to limit myself. Because that causes problems with my heart and makes me crave more unhealthy foods.
Sugar FROM fruit is a concern. Sugar IN fruit not as much.
Like sugar in Apple juice is a health concern whereas the sugar from eating an apple would not carry the same health concerns.
If you are going to make such a bold claim, you probably should provide science to back it.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »BlueButterfly94 wrote: »If it's sugar from fruit, I'm not too bothered about it with my diet. But when it comes to cane sugar/etc... That's where I try to limit myself. Because that causes problems with my heart and makes me crave more unhealthy foods.
Sugar FROM fruit is a concern. Sugar IN fruit not as much.
Like sugar in Apple juice is a health concern whereas the sugar from eating an apple would not carry the same health concerns.
bahahahahahaha are you freaking serious?????????????-6 -
herrspoons wrote: »Excess anything is stored as fat eventually.GaleHawkins wrote: »BlueButterfly94 wrote: »If it's sugar from fruit, I'm not too bothered about it with my diet. But when it comes to cane sugar/etc... That's where I try to limit myself. Because that causes problems with my heart and makes me crave more unhealthy foods.
Sugar FROM fruit is a concern. Sugar IN fruit not as much.
Like sugar in Apple juice is a health concern whereas the sugar from eating an apple would not carry the same health concerns.
If you are going to make such a bold claim, you probably should provide science to back it.
Like that's going to happen.
well it is a new year….-3 -
christinev297 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »BlueButterfly94 wrote: »If it's sugar from fruit, I'm not too bothered about it with my diet. But when it comes to cane sugar/etc... That's where I try to limit myself. Because that causes problems with my heart and makes me crave more unhealthy foods.
Sugar FROM fruit is a concern. Sugar IN fruit not as much.
Like sugar in Apple juice is a health concern whereas the sugar from eating an apple would not carry the same health concerns.
because plain fruit juice minus the pulp/fibre is a glass of pretty much high calorie nothingness. Whereas the whole fruit has got the total, nothing extracted. I get what you mean..... I think lol
Once again, if you get 100 calories from apple juice or 100 calories from an apple, for weight loss IT DOES NOT MATTER. For how quickly your body processes the fructose, yes, it does matter.
These sugar threads always end up the same way. People confuse calorie deficit and weight loss with nutrition and metabolism processes. They are not the same and have to be looked at as separate entities. CICO is the only thing that works to determine how much to eat to reach your goal (lose, gain, maintain). Looking at the nutrition profile of your food is how you determine what to eat and is very individualized based on preferences, your metabolism, medical issues if there are any, etc.
0 -
Kyta, I think your posts are amazing.
SSLRunner you said "The bottom line is it doesn't matter what you eat and where your calories come from, the only requirement to lose weight is to eat less calories than you burn."
To me the bottom line is that it does matter. What you eat matters.
You are missing the point.
I said it does not matter what you eat in order to lose weight. The only requirement to lose weight is to eat less calories than you burn. Where those calories come from is irrelevant as far as weight loss goes (bold used for emphasis only).
Of course what you eat matters as far as nutrition, satiety, and energy balance. How much you eat is the key to weight issues.
By the way, I used to be one of those people who thought sugar was evil and gave up all refined sugar for a several years. Wouldn't touch the stuff. My weight was up and down. These last few years, I've allowed everything I like in moderation and have not binged.0 -
SLLRunner, thank you for clarifying what you meant. I based my reply on what you said.
I am glad to hear that you believe that what you eat matters as far as nutrition, satiety and energy balance. I agree that how much you eat is the key to weight loss however I feel it is not the key to weight issues, they are often more complex. (bold used for emphasis only. )
I still believe sugar is a little devil but am pleased to hear that you have found the solution for yourself and that your binging days are behind you.Once again, if you get 100 calories from apple juice or 100 calories from an apple, for weight loss IT DOES NOT MATTER. For how quickly your body processes the fructose, yes, it does matter.
These sugar threads always end up the same way. People confuse calorie deficit and weight loss with nutrition and metabolism processes. They are not the same and have to be looked at as separate entities. CICO is the only thing that works to determine how much to eat to reach your goal (lose, gain, maintain). Looking at the nutrition profile of your food is how you determine what to eat and is very individualized based on preferences, your metabolism, medical issues if there are any, etc.
Great post Earnabby, and sums it up for me.neanderthin wrote: »When people say it doesn't matter, it's generally understood after our macro and micronutrients are met we can eat what we want.......people keep saying it but for some reason you have it in your head that it means to eat refined sugar and junk food all day, nobody has ever said that, but maybe you like to take the opportunity to point out the obvious over and over and over and over because somehow it makes you feel better. The possibility is that you really don't understand the gist of the conversations here, or trolling.
Neanderthin, I didn't flag you but was pleased to see someone did.
As you can see from the above, SSLRunner was perfectly capable of clarifying what she meant without your rude and unwarranted reply.
And yes, I will say over and over again "what you eat matters, nutrition matters" but hey we are on a diet and fitness site, of course it will be repeated by me and a lot of other posters. To suggest I don't understand the "gist of the conversations here or that I am trolling" is downright offensive.-5 -
SLLRunner, thank you for clarifying what you meant. I based my reply on what you said.
I am glad to hear that you believe that what you eat matters as far as nutrition, satiety and energy balance. I agree that how much you eat is the key to weight loss however I feel it is not the key to weight issues, they are often more complex. (bold used for emphasis only. )
I still believe sugar is a little devil but am pleased to hear that you have found the solution for yourself and that your binging days are behind you.
Weight issues still come down to behavior and that is a matter of personal responsibility, not some outside force that controls you. I do know how it feels to compulsively shove food in your mouth and feel out of control, but you still can, at any point, stop yourself. You're still making a choice to keep shoveling food in even if you feel as if you can't stop.
I too, once believed that sugar was evil, and completely eliminated it from my diet for several years. (I posted this story in another thread, those who read it, please forgive me for repeating it here). During that time, I realized something. When I was growing up, sugary foods weren't really a big part of my diet. I was a fat kid, but I overate. We only had sweets after Sunday dinners and on holidays. I had gotten to the point where I was eating something sweet after every meal. That wasn't sugar's fault, that was MY fault. It was a behavior problem. I had convinced myself and conditioned myself to believe that treats were something that followed every meal.
I still have to watch because sugar can trigger migraines for me, but I can have sugar on occasions like birthdays and holidays in the moderate, small portions of my childhood because I've remembered what a healthy relationship with it is supposed to be like. I broke the conditioning I created to have that sweet taste end every meal by accepting my own responsibility in the process and moving forward from it.
I have control, sugar doesn't and never did.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions