Too much natural sugar?
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think it doesn't make a lot of sense if someone is on restricted calories, and I've yet to hear a reason why anyone should worry about keeping fruit and veggies low--usually (and consistent with US dietary advice) people should increase their consumption of those.
US dietary advice is aimed at a population with a median consumption pattern where fruit is eaten once a day and vegetables 1.6 times on average. These aren't levels that would challenge even MFP's old sugar goal. So people bumping into the limit are well up the % consumption scale.
Right, but when they give advice for total fruit they recommend that people eating an average of 1-2 a day increase. There's no claim that eating more than 2 a day is bad, quite the opposite.
What do you mean by "quite the opposite"? Is there evidence that eating more than 1-2 servings of fruit per day is more beneficial than eating 1-2?0 -
"lemurcat12 wrote: »Or does it mean that 15% of ALL sugars (which is not supported by any actual nutrition or health reasons I've ever seen--if you have one other than just being kind of anti carb, let me know) can be unreasonably low for someone on low/very reduced calories and isn't the best way to monitor if your diet is overall nutritious and balanced.
Perhaps 15% just reflects average consumption -- " current average intakes, which are estimated to be 15.8 percent of total energy intake (calories) in the U.S. and 10-13% of energy intake in Canada " according to Health Canada - who were toying with a 100 gram per day total sugars daily intake (20% of 2000) http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/consult/2014-core-nutrients-principaux-nutriments/document-consultation-eng.php#a72
Europe's EFSA said "Although there is some evidence that high intakes (>20 E%) of sugars may increase serum triglyceride (TG) and cholesterol concentrations, and that >20 to 25 E% might adversely affect glucose and insulin response, the available data are not sufficient to set an upper limit for (added) sugar intake." and then went on to support a 90 gram / 2000 cal (18%E) limit "Thus the Panel considers that the proposed labelling reference intake of 90 g for (total) sugars is compatible with a recommended upper limit of intake of added sugars of 10 E% for
individuals in the general population as proposed by some authorities." which again uses typical non-added sugar consumption of 45g in its thinking.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think it doesn't make a lot of sense if someone is on restricted calories, and I've yet to hear a reason why anyone should worry about keeping fruit and veggies low--usually (and consistent with US dietary advice) people should increase their consumption of those.
US dietary advice is aimed at a population with a median consumption pattern where fruit is eaten once a day and vegetables 1.6 times on average. These aren't levels that would challenge even MFP's old sugar goal. So people bumping into the limit are well up the % consumption scale.
Right, but when they give advice for total fruit they recommend that people eating an average of 1-2 a day increase. There's no claim that eating more than 2 a day is bad, quite the opposite.
What do you mean by "quite the opposite"? Is there evidence that eating more than 1-2 servings of fruit per day is more beneficial than eating 1-2?
I just mean that US Dietary Guidelines recommend eating more fruit and point out that various healthy diet patterns (such as Mediterranean and DASH) tend to average more like 2.5 servings of fruit. So the idea that someone eating 1-2 servings is at the edge or should worry about eating more seems foolish and unsupported by any legitimate nutrition science.
I don't personally think there's any need to eat more than 1-2 servings of fruit, but I also see no reason to say one shouldn't eat more. Instead, fruit is generally healthy. Of course one shouldn't eat it at the expense of veggies, but I see absolutely no one suggesting that.0 -
"Thus the Panel considers that the proposed labelling reference intake of 90 g for (total) sugars is compatible with a recommended upper limit of intake of added sugars of 10 E% for
individuals in the general population as proposed by some authorities." which again uses typical non-added sugar consumption of 45g in its thinking.
So quite different than 45 grams as a limit for ALL sugars.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »"Thus the Panel considers that the proposed labelling reference intake of 90 g for (total) sugars is compatible with a recommended upper limit of intake of added sugars of 10 E% for
individuals in the general population as proposed by some authorities." which again uses typical non-added sugar consumption of 45g in its thinking.
So quite different than 45 grams as a limit for ALL sugars.
not incompatible as the above is at 2000 calories so the RDI is on a full calorie intake, 45g falls out of applying 15% to a restricted 1200. The Panel was not considering a recommendation for a calorie restricted diet.
90 grams total sugars at 2000 calories was apparently derived from 45 grams of sugar inherent in typical full calorie diet plus 10% of 2000 = 50g of added sugar. Canada was heading for 100 g/day total sugars on a similar basis.
I haven't seen a recommendation for sugar intake on a restricted calorie diet. If I were to apply the above logic 10% of 1200 = 30 grams of added sugar plus 60% of 45g of intrinsic sugars = 27g making 57g total. This is a similar thing to what MFP did in arriving at 45 grams - added sugars plus USDA typical meal sugar content.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »"Thus the Panel considers that the proposed labelling reference intake of 90 g for (total) sugars is compatible with a recommended upper limit of intake of added sugars of 10 E% for
individuals in the general population as proposed by some authorities." which again uses typical non-added sugar consumption of 45g in its thinking.
So quite different than 45 grams as a limit for ALL sugars.
not incompatible as the above is at 2000 calories so the RDI is on a full calorie intake, 45g falls out of applying 15% to a restricted 1200. The Panel was not considering a recommendation for a calorie restricted diet.
90 grams total sugars at 2000 calories was apparently derived from 45 grams of sugar inherent in typical full calorie diet plus 10% of 2000 = 50g of added sugar. Canada was heading for 100 g/day total sugars on a similar basis.
I haven't seen a recommendation for sugar intake on a restricted calorie diet. If I were to apply the above logic 10% of 1200 = 30 grams of added sugar plus 60% of 45g of intrinsic sugars = 27g making 57g total. This is a similar thing to what MFP did in arriving at 45 grams - added sugars plus USDA typical meal sugar content.
But none of this supports the claim that ALL sugars should be limited to 15%, that there is any health reason to do so, or that eating more sugars from fruits and veggies and dairy would be bad for your health. The effect of claiming that is pretty perverse, as it encourages people to forego those foods in favor of others (like meat, high fat foods, starches) that the nutrition guidelines generally consider no better or, often, a less desirable choice for most.
I mean, I get that low carb doctrine is that fat is always better than carbs, but that's NOT normal nutrition advice, and although I take the warnings about saturated fat with a serious grain of salt (there are reasons those correlations may not be reflective of actual causation), I think it's funny that people who are so excited to accept the very same correlations (Nurses Study et al.) re sugar and processed carbs ignore them when it comes to fat.
Anyway, back to your cited recommendations, what I see them saying is that to formulate a recommendation for ALL sugar they figure out what they think the average person (eating a diet that generally gets fewer fruits, veggies, and low/no fat dairy than is generally recommended) eats in non added sugar (45 grams) when eating a non lowered calorie diet and then adds the 10% of calories for added sugar upper limit.
Clearly, then, they aren't saying there is some reason that someone who happens to eat more than the average or expected in non-added sugar should reduce it--which is what has been argued on this thread by those saying OP needs to worry about her fruit and veggie consumption. They are dealing with the fact that it's often hard to easily separate out added and non added sugar (although IMO that's not really true--you just have to apply common sense and not mere numbers).
Also, of course, it seems likely and probably good that someone reducing calories will reduce other foods before fruits and veggies and might even increase fruits and veggies (which is specifically what OP said she was taught to do). My own experience was that I focused on getting more protein and I tended to sub veggies and sometimes fruits for starches--so rather than decreasing non-added sugar when reducing calories from 2200 or so to 1250, I probably increased them, making the percentage of total calories not a great measure for that, IMO, for those on a calorie deficit. Beyond that, again, there's nothing in this that supports the idea that it was bad for my (or anyone else's health) to do that and we'd have been better off substituting butter for fruit or the like. (I am not pro low fat, but I easily get plenty of fat without trying to sub it for fruit.)0 -
fruit is obviously the debil and likely the root cause of the obesity epidemic...I thought everyone knew this.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
PeterJones123 wrote: »beemerphile1 wrote: »Ignore it. If you are getting your sugars from fruits and vegetable, you are eating far healthier than the average person.
I agree. And if you're eating the full fruit, the fiber neutralizes the bad effects of the sugar anyway.
lol wut??????
so if I have met my fiber for the day and eat added sugar does it work that way too? or does evils added sugar trump fiber???
Complete faulty logic and utter non-sense.
please feel free to clarify...0 -
This content has been removed.
-
..0
-
PeterJones123 wrote: »PeterJones123 wrote: »beemerphile1 wrote: »Ignore it. If you are getting your sugars from fruits and vegetable, you are eating far healthier than the average person.
I agree. And if you're eating the full fruit, the fiber neutralizes the bad effects of the sugar anyway.
lol wut??????
so if I have met my fiber for the day and eat added sugar does it work that way too? or does evils added sugar trump fiber???
Complete faulty logic and utter non-sense.
please feel free to clarify...
no one said anything about added sugar you just threw that in there. not sure if you're intentionally being off topic or hijacking.
the topic is about sugar, so not sure how commenting about sugar is off topic.
and the comment about fiber canceling out the bad affects of sugar was the ridiculous one. So I guess the poster was saying fruit sugar is bad, is that your argument?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »But none of this supports the claim that ALL sugars should be limited to 15%, that there is any health reason to do so, or that eating more sugars from fruits and veggies and dairy would be bad for your health.
Well the EU and Australia did exactly that, set a limit for *total* sugars. I tried to find the materials for you but didn't get to the root of the decision making process, the EFSA discussion I quoted earlier -Europe's EFSA said "Although there is some evidence that high intakes (>20 E%) of sugars may increase serum triglyceride (TG) and cholesterol concentrations, and that >20 to 25 E% might adversely affect glucose and insulin response, the available data are not sufficient to set an upper limit for (added) sugar intake."
is along your lines of thought but was I think from 2010, we're waiting for the UK's SACN to come out with its final recommendation but they were going down the "free sugars" route.
I'll try harder to weed out the origins.
I'm aware that the US has no specified limit on total sugars. MFP has a considered target with their logic explained.
Personally I don't see why sugar in fruit should get a free pass unless my liver can tell the difference (triglycerides) nor have I seen any substantive science to justify treating sugars separarely to carbohydrate in general. I'm not in favour of distorting this to favour a food group for other reasons, those should be standalone.0 -
I'm one of those people on 1200 calories (five feet tall, and circling V E R Y slowly around my 110 goal weight). I have a banana or orange almost every morning, and indulge in a Weight Watchers ice cream or a Yoplait fruit yogurt almost every night. Yes, it is extremely easy to go over the sugar allowance, but I'm careful, and it isn't by much, so I don't really worry because my sugars are coming "with benefits". Oh, and summer is well on its way, with cherries and water melon, and wonderful ripe, messy peaches; and I will not deprive myself (within reason...) of my favorite summer treats of my favorite season.0
-
PeterJones123 wrote: »PeterJones123 wrote: »beemerphile1 wrote: »Ignore it. If you are getting your sugars from fruits and vegetable, you are eating far healthier than the average person.
I agree. And if you're eating the full fruit, the fiber neutralizes the bad effects of the sugar anyway.
lol wut??????
so if I have met my fiber for the day and eat added sugar does it work that way too? or does evils added sugar trump fiber???
Complete faulty logic and utter non-sense.
please feel free to clarify...
no one said anything about added sugar you just threw that in there. not sure if you're intentionally being off topic or hijacking.
fiberz cancels out teh sugarz right? I feel you0 -
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
PeterJones123 wrote: »PeterJones123 wrote: »PeterJones123 wrote: »beemerphile1 wrote: »Ignore it. If you are getting your sugars from fruits and vegetable, you are eating far healthier than the average person.
I agree. And if you're eating the full fruit, the fiber neutralizes the bad effects of the sugar anyway.
lol wut??????
so if I have met my fiber for the day and eat added sugar does it work that way too? or does evils added sugar trump fiber???
Complete faulty logic and utter non-sense.
please feel free to clarify...
no one said anything about added sugar you just threw that in there. not sure if you're intentionally being off topic or hijacking.
fiberz cancels out teh sugarz right? I feel you
You guys are a smart crowd, I guess fiber in fruit has no effect on sugar...
what effect of fiber on sugar are you talking about
and what are the "bad" effects of sugar
please enlighten us mere neanderthals0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »But none of this supports the claim that ALL sugars should be limited to 15%, that there is any health reason to do so, or that eating more sugars from fruits and veggies and dairy would be bad for your health.
Well the EU and Australia did exactly that, set a limit for *total* sugars. I tried to find the materials for you but didn't get to the root of the decision making process, the EFSA discussion I quoted earlier -Europe's EFSA said "Although there is some evidence that high intakes (>20 E%) of sugars may increase serum triglyceride (TG) and cholesterol concentrations, and that >20 to 25 E% might adversely affect glucose and insulin response, the available data are not sufficient to set an upper limit for (added) sugar intake."
is along your lines of thought but was I think from 2010, we're waiting for the UK's SACN to come out with its final recommendation but they were going down the "free sugars" route.
I'll try harder to weed out the origins.
I'm aware that the US has no specified limit on total sugars. MFP has a considered target with their logic explained.
Personally I don't see why sugar in fruit should get a free pass unless my liver can tell the difference (triglycerides) nor have I seen any substantive science to justify treating sugars separarely to carbohydrate in general. I'm not in favour of distorting this to favour a food group for other reasons, those should be standalone.
Because the problems the WHO (for one example) has pointed out with excessive free sugar doesn't indicate any harm from intrinsic sugar within calories. I've yet to see one reputable study or expert who says otherwise. (I don't consider Lustig reputable on this issue, and in any case his view is easily outweighed by the balance of nutrition scientists who I am familiar with.)0 -
Ignore the sugar. Log everything.
Problem solved.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Because the problems the WHO (for one example) has pointed out with excessive free sugar doesn't indicate any harm from intrinsic sugar within calories. I've yet to see one reputable study or expert who says otherwise.
The WHO contracted one particular group to do its work so the outcome was somewhat predictable. I have yet to see a solid analysis that differentiates the effect of carbohydrates, total sugar and added sugar.
Most nutritional advice, and perhaps science too, is tainted with vested interests from Dairy and Fruit promotional interests (at worst) or at best spends its time contradicting itself in order to avoid undesirable outcomes. For example you can't say the sugars in skimmed milk (effectively a soft drink) are bad as this may reduce calcium intake etc. You can't measure added sugars and if the raw data is low frequency food diaries etc then all of the science is built on shaky foundations.
http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g4490 "There was a threshold around five servings of fruit and vegetables a day, after which the risk of all cause mortality did not reduce further."
Diabetes relative risk from fruit intake :- http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/11/e005497.full
and leafy green veg :-
http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5001 found increased diabetes risk associated with increased consumption of cantaloupe or fruit juice as picked up in the press at the time http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/29/whole-fruit-juice-diabetes-risk
None of these risk factors are massively different from 1.0 (for example they aren't 3) so the case for or against anything isn't especially strong.0 -
Michael190lbs wrote: »If you're doing Slimming World, I hope you're counting the calories from all of your "free" foods where they tell you it's unnecessary to weigh, measure, or count:Slimming World provides detailed lists of foods that can be eaten in unlimited quantities. Fresh fruit and most veg are classified as Superfree Foods because they are so low in calories. Free Foods include lean meat, chicken, fish, potatoes, rice, pasta, grains, pulses, starchy veg, eggs, fat-free dairy products, Quorn and tofu.
how would rice and pasta be free? One two ounce serving of linguine is 200 calories, that does not sound free to me...
Because its a stupid fad!!
Lol, what's a "stupid fad"? I would never ever count bread, rice, pasta, etc. as "free". I've done Weight Watchers and the only thing free there are some vegetables and fruits. Personally I would always always weight/measure any pasta or rice, and would definitely count calories for bread.
0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Ignore the sugar. Log everything.
Problem solved.
Now now....get outta here with your KISS logic. 0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »My suggestion would be to switch out sugar for fiber on you diary.
This. I've never tracked sugar. I do track fiber intake though.0 -
beemerphile1 wrote: »Ignore it. If you are getting your sugars from fruits and vegetable, you are eating far healthier than the average person.
This
And as long as you are eating a deficit you should still lose weight
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Because the problems the WHO (for one example) has pointed out with excessive free sugar doesn't indicate any harm from intrinsic sugar within calories. I've yet to see one reputable study or expert who says otherwise.
The WHO contracted one particular group to do its work so the outcome was somewhat predictable. I have yet to see a solid analysis that differentiates the effect of carbohydrates, total sugar and added sugar.
I'm not saying there is. But the WHO's point is that added sugar tends to be in low nutrition/high calorie items (although I'd add that a good percentage of the calories are typically from fat, not just sugar/carbs). So keeping the percentage of added sugar down is not really because of some alleged toxic effect of sugar in higher amounts, but as a good proxy for encouraging a more balanced/nutritious, lower calorie diet. In essence the argument is that adding lots of soda and sweets to a society's diet tends to result in more obesity than basing the diet on, say, rice or pasta or other high carb staples.
IMO, there's a lot more to the difference than merely the addition of sugar--the diet differences are reflective of different sorts of society and the availability of food overall--but the fact remains that the WHO's reasoning does not suggest a basis for limiting sugar from fruit, veggies, and dairy to some low amount that happens to correspond with the current average consumption of such. Unlike increasing added sugar, increasing fruits and veggies usually has a positive effect on overall diet and overall calories (assuming one is concerned with maintaining or losing weight).
Also, again, I'm not saying eating more than the recommended 5 or whatever is necessary for the nutrients. The point is saying eating more is harmful or people should worry about whether they are eating too many fruits and veggies (other than noting the calories, particularly in fruit) is not likely to be helpful and probably discourages healthy actions. Also, it doesn't address whether in an individual situation eating more might help someone be satisfied on a lower calorie diet, which is the specific situation people with a 45 gram limit at MFP face.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 420 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions