Naturally occurring sugars

carolineloves
carolineloves Posts: 27 Member
edited August 2015 in Food and Nutrition
Before I started using MFP again, I was logging my diet on my own. I wouldn't include naturally occurring sugars in my diary (my goal was set at 30 g), but on MFP it's automatically logged (I increased my goal to 60 g to take into consideration). I've thought about just creating a new food without adding the NOS, but don't know if it's appropriate.

Suggestions? Advice?

Replies

  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Do you have a medical reason to be concerned with tracking this?
  • carolineloves
    carolineloves Posts: 27 Member
    No medical reason. I'm choosing to be aware of what I eat, and that includes my added/refined sugar intake.
  • starfish235
    starfish235 Posts: 129 Member
    Sugar of all kinds promotes cancer and bacteria. All so it makes you cholesterol numbers bad.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    edited August 2015
    Except for whole foods, how would you know how much was naturally occurring and how much was added? After doing some reading on the subject I worry more about fiber than sugar, added or naturally occurring. I don't see how whether the sugar is naturally occurring or added really makes much difference other than what comes with the sugar, such as fiber in fruit.

    Take maple syrup or honey for example. These are naturally occurring sugars, but they are still just sugar and not a lot different than table sugar. To me, it's the whole food rather than one nutrient that matters. I look mostly at fiber to sugar ratio.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    edited August 2015
    This content has been removed.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    starfish235 wrote: »
    Sugar of all kinds promotes cancer and bacteria. All so it makes you cholesterol numbers bad.

    Where did you come up with this?
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    starfish235 wrote: »
    Sugar of all kinds promotes cancer and bacteria. All so it makes you cholesterol numbers bad.

    Um, no. And even if it were true, all bacteria is not bad.
  • Shan_Lindsay
    Shan_Lindsay Posts: 60 Member
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    starfish235 wrote: »
    Sugar of all kinds promotes cancer and bacteria. All so it makes you cholesterol numbers bad.

    Where did you come up with this?

    lol this exactly.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Another morning of fear mongering based upon a lack of facts on MFP. Sadly it's typical.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    I responded in the other thread, but will here too:

    I'd save them just for your personal use and not make them public, as the database is confused enough. It's also going to be harder than you might think depending on what it is. For example, any flavored yogurt is a combination of lactose and added sugar. (I don't eat many such products myself, but that's why I generally can tell easily if my sugar is added -- like most of the sugar in ice cream -- or not (as in the dairy, fruit, and vegetables I eat).)

    I really think just understanding what you eat and what's in it and maybe looking at where your sugar came from that day is sufficient and probably more educational than focusing on a specific number, but if counting the grams works for you good luck with it!
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    Except for whole foods, how would you know how much was naturally occurring and how much was added? After doing some reading on the subject I worry more about fiber than sugar, added or naturally occurring. I don't see how whether the sugar is naturally occurring or added really makes much difference other than what comes with the sugar, such as fiber in fruit.

    Take maple syrup or honey for example. These are naturally occurring sugars, but they are still just sugar and not a lot different than table sugar. To me, it's the whole food rather than one nutrient that matters. I look mostly at fiber to sugar ratio.

    To the OP, I also agree with this. In fact, the WHO divides between intrinsic and free sugars and includes juice and honey (naturally-occurring sugars) in the limited "free sugar" category. That is because the WHO has concluded that the reason to monitor free sugar is because it so often comes from high calorie (often the calories are from fat, though), low nutrient foods. Added sugar in a high nutrient food (like say a bit with oatmeal and berries or a bit in a rhubarb sauce) would not be inherently bad vs. naturally-occurring sugars.

    This is again why I think being aware of your diet overall is more important than counting sugar grams. (I also am watching fiber currently although I do switch to sugar on occasion more to see the source of the sugar than the total number, as I routinely get well more than 30 from fruit, vegetables, and dairy -- and I don't eat eat a whole lot of fruit, you can get more from veg than you might think if you eat a lot of them.)
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    starfish235 wrote: »
    Sugar of all kinds promotes cancer and bacteria. All so it makes you cholesterol numbers bad.

    Yep, carrots are basically evil.

    Wonder how come my cholesterol numbers have always been good?
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    starfish235 wrote: »
    Sugar of all kinds promotes cancer and bacteria. All so it makes you cholesterol numbers bad.
    Ummmm, no. Sugars have very simple chemistry and are pretty easy for the body (and bacteria) to break down for energy. We're looking at free radicals for potential causes for mutations and cancers these days and frankly, sugar is too simple to be considered a culprit.

    I do agree that bacteria enjoy a good dose of sugar as we do. Luckily there's just as many good bacteria that consume sugar as bad bacteria. Consider yogurts, for instance.

    Cholesterol and sugar consumption are not directly related. Look at cortisol.
  • carolineloves
    carolineloves Posts: 27 Member
    I guess I should clarify. I'm not just focusing on my sugar intake; I look at my diet as a whole. I'm not the type of person to eat whatever I want as long as I stay within my calorie limit. I follow my set macros very carefully, but along with that I track my sodium (HBP runs in my family), cholesterol, sugar, and fiber.

    Personally, I would like to limit my intake of added/refined sugars as a step towards better, cleaner eating. My reasons for doing so aren't groundless.

    Thanks for all your help!
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    starfish235 wrote: »
    Sugar of all kinds promotes cancer and bacteria. All so it makes you cholesterol numbers bad.

    I'm gonna getcha....

    graphics-apples-744809.gif
  • mantium999
    mantium999 Posts: 1,490 Member
    starfish235 wrote: »
    Sugar of all kinds promotes cancer and bacteria. All so it makes you cholesterol numbers bad.

    Hehehe. Thanks for the laugh.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited August 2015
    carolineloves wrote: »
    Personally, I would like to limit my intake of added/refined sugars as a step towards better, cleaner eating. My reasons for doing so aren't groundless.

    In that you seem to have misunderstood, I don't think saying "the number isn't so important, but understanding your diet and where your sugar is coming from is" is saying that one should not limit added sugars (although if you think honey or juice are totally different or that the context for added sugar doesn't matter I'd again refer you to the WHO). Nor is it saying that one shouldn't be concerned with nutrition (although I think the term "clean eating" is ridiculous). I would argue instead that understanding your diet rather than focusing on added vs. not or mere numbers is related to being able to create a more nutritionally solid diet overall. It's about understanding the foods you are eating and what they contribute, being choosy.
  • Azexas
    Azexas Posts: 4,334 Member
    starfish235 wrote: »
    Sugar of all kinds promotes cancer and bacteria. All so it makes you cholesterol numbers bad.

    umm_no_sherlock.gif


  • Azexas
    Azexas Posts: 4,334 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    carolineloves wrote: »
    Personally, I would like to limit my intake of added/refined sugars as a step towards better, cleaner eating. My reasons for doing so aren't groundless.

    In that you seem to have misunderstood, I don't think saying "the number isn't so important, but understanding your diet and where your sugar is coming from is" is saying that one should not limit added sugars (although if you think honey or juice are totally different or that the context for added sugar doesn't matter I'd again refer you to the WHO). Nor is it saying that one shouldn't be concerned with nutrition (although I think the term "clean eating" is ridiculous). I would argue instead that understanding your diet rather than focusing on added vs. not or mere numbers is related to being able to create a more nutritionally solid diet overall. It's about understanding the foods you are eating and what they contribute, being choosy.

    +1
  • sadiebrawl
    sadiebrawl Posts: 863 Member
    (not allowed to comment on sugar posts anymore, just stating I'm here to learn and that the cancer comment also made me chuckle.)
  • carolineloves
    carolineloves Posts: 27 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    carolineloves wrote: »
    Personally, I would like to limit my intake of added/refined sugars as a step towards better, cleaner eating. My reasons for doing so aren't groundless.

    In that you seem to have misunderstood, I don't think saying "the number isn't so important, but understanding your diet and where your sugar is coming from is" is saying that one should not limit added sugars (although if you think honey or juice are totally different or that the context for added sugar doesn't matter I'd again refer you to the WHO). Nor is it saying that one shouldn't be concerned with nutrition (although I think the term "clean eating" is ridiculous). I would argue instead that understanding your diet rather than focusing on added vs. not or mere numbers is related to being able to create a more nutritionally solid diet overall. It's about understanding the foods you are eating and what they contribute, being choosy.

    I hear you. And I agree, it's important to be nutritionally aware of the food you eat. For me, in addition to understanding nutrition, I like tracking numbers. I like being able to see math involved. Everyone has their own way of gauging their health and nutrition, and this happens to be mine.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    carolineloves wrote: »
    Before I started using MFP again, I was logging my diet on my own. I wouldn't include naturally occurring sugars in my diary (my goal was set at 30 g), but on MFP it's automatically logged (I increased my goal to 60 g to take into consideration). I've thought about just creating a new food without adding the NOS, but don't know if it's appropriate.

    Suggestions? Advice?

    I just drastically reduced baked goods and don't need to fuss with sugar. I don't go over unless I do eat baked goods in addition to fruits and such with naturally occurring sugars.

  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    carolineloves wrote: »
    I guess I should clarify. I'm not just focusing on my sugar intake; I look at my diet as a whole. I'm not the type of person to eat whatever I want as long as I stay within my calorie limit. I follow my set macros very carefully, but along with that I track my sodium (HBP runs in my family), cholesterol, sugar, and fiber.

    Personally, I would like to limit my intake of added/refined sugars as a step towards better, cleaner eating. My reasons for doing so aren't groundless.

    Thanks for all your help!

    Nothing wrong with that if that is your preference. Personally, I would not further muddy the database with entries that list only natural sugar in the sugar column, but I suppose it's no different than those that create entries with net carbs in the carbs column. ::grumble::
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    carolineloves wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    carolineloves wrote: »
    Personally, I would like to limit my intake of added/refined sugars as a step towards better, cleaner eating. My reasons for doing so aren't groundless.

    In that you seem to have misunderstood, I don't think saying "the number isn't so important, but understanding your diet and where your sugar is coming from is" is saying that one should not limit added sugars (although if you think honey or juice are totally different or that the context for added sugar doesn't matter I'd again refer you to the WHO). Nor is it saying that one shouldn't be concerned with nutrition (although I think the term "clean eating" is ridiculous). I would argue instead that understanding your diet rather than focusing on added vs. not or mere numbers is related to being able to create a more nutritionally solid diet overall. It's about understanding the foods you are eating and what they contribute, being choosy.

    I hear you. And I agree, it's important to be nutritionally aware of the food you eat. For me, in addition to understanding nutrition, I like tracking numbers. I like being able to see math involved. Everyone has their own way of gauging their health and nutrition, and this happens to be mine.

    Sure -- I like tracking numbers too, although not that one. I just wanted to make sure that you weren't misunderstanding what was being said.

Categories