45g of sugar too high?
Replies
-
WOW! No wonder many of us are over weight, that's the amount in a can soda1
-
That would make your other macros hard to balance if you were plotting that many calories of just sugar.I'm with @blankiefinder . Get rid of the sugar tracking, and track fiber instead. Tracking fiber is much more useful and informative. There's sound science behind the recommendation of 25-30g fiber minimum daily, both in short- and long-term benefits @ninerbuff pointed out, rightly so, that worrying about macronutrient goals / micronutrient goals is also far more important.
I got annoyed by the "you ate too much sugar" warnings from my bananas and apples so I put a ridiculously high target in manually (like, 200g). This has been wonderful for Christmas
0 -
bsbprincess wrote: »Thanks so much, all!! I don't have any health issues, but my Grandpa had diabetes so it's in the back of my mind for if I don't get my butt in gear soon (I'm 29 now). I think that's a good point, unless I pack in fruit all day, I can't imagine getting an unhealthy amount if I eat natural things such as that.
Dietary sugar intake is not a significant risk factor for diabetes. The big risk factors:
1. Body fat
2. Fat distributed mainly on the abdomen (beer gut) as opposed to other areas like hips and thighs
3. Sedentary lifestyle0 -
LeWahnderful wrote: »WOW! No wonder many of us are over weight, that's the amount in a can soda
Doesn't have anything to do with being overweight if you aren't over calories. It's about nutrition and not going over calories accidently for those not tracking. You don't gain weight at a deficit just because you have a can of soda. (However, I personally would not waste calories on a can of soda, but I suppose if you really enjoy it you might find it worth it.)0 -
bsbprincess wrote: »I was setting up my diary and goals, and noticed that even though my calorie intake goal is only 1200 daily, my sugar allowance is 45g. Isn't that high? I did some googling and found numerous sites that said your daily allowance should be 20g for women, based on a 2000 cal diet.
Thanks all!!
The prevailing attitude of many on here to sugar intake is
How apropos
Too bad the reasons given by both the WHO and NHS for the sugar restriction is calories and tooth decay (which can be dealt with by reasonably oral hygiene).
Also, if we are going to pay attention to the added sugar recommendations (which I also do), maybe it would be good to pay attention to other things, like the recs re vegetable consumption and sat fat limits?0 -
@RuNaRoUnDaFiEld I'm not planning sugar, period. I leave everything else in place and throw in an absurdly high number for sugar (under nutrition details) so that MFP doesn't scream at me when I log my food. I honestly don't care what my sugar consumption is. It isn't important.
My macro balance remains at 50/30/20. I don't actually care much about that, either, it was the MFP default and it turns out that I wind up around there just eating what I want to eat.
The only stats I really care about are (1) total calories (2) exercise time (3) fiber (4) salt.0 -
bsbprincess wrote: »I was setting up my diary and goals, and noticed that even though my calorie intake goal is only 1200 daily, my sugar allowance is 45g. Isn't that high? I did some googling and found numerous sites that said your daily allowance should be 20g for women, based on a 2000 cal diet.
Thanks all!!
You're comparing apples and oranges, no pun intended. MFP's goal is for total sugars from all sources and is 15% of calories, the other numbers you quote are for added sugar.
The prevailing attitude of many on here to sugar intake is
yarwell.....if this pic is you....I now understand how you lost 40 pounds of fat.
0 -
MFP's sugar recommendation does not differentiate between added and natural sugars, which is why people will go over with just a few pieces of fruit. The 20g recommendations are for added sugars, so in order to make sure to stay within that, you would have to check labels against your MFP numbers.
If you don't have a medical reason to track sugar, I wouldn't worry about that number. Many people don't even track sugar, they swap it out for fiber instead.
This.
I took sugar off of my track list and replaced it with something else.0 -
Sorry, people are basically over weight because they over consume ALL calories and not just sugar calories.LeWahnderful wrote: »WOW! No wonder many of us are over weight, that's the amount in a can soda
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
bsbprincess wrote: »I was setting up my diary and goals, and noticed that even though my calorie intake goal is only 1200 daily, my sugar allowance is 45g. Isn't that high? I did some googling and found numerous sites that said your daily allowance should be 20g for women, based on a 2000 cal diet.
Thanks all!!
You're comparing apples and oranges, no pun intended. MFP's goal is for total sugars from all sources and is 15% of calories, the other numbers you quote are for added sugar.
The prevailing attitude of many on here to sugar intake is
Given the image comes from the metaphor about ostriches, which itself is completely false to begin with, I feel like there's a sugar knowledge inception in this comment.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »bsbprincess wrote: »I was setting up my diary and goals, and noticed that even though my calorie intake goal is only 1200 daily, my sugar allowance is 45g. Isn't that high? I did some googling and found numerous sites that said your daily allowance should be 20g for women, based on a 2000 cal diet.
Thanks all!!
The prevailing attitude of many on here to sugar intake is
How apropos
Too bad the reasons given by both the WHO and NHS for the sugar restriction is calories and tooth decay (which can be dealt with by reasonably oral hygiene).
Also, if we are going to pay attention to the added sugar recommendations (which I also do), maybe it would be good to pay attention to other things, like the recs re vegetable consumption and sat fat limits?
Are you looking at a different WHO page than I am?
WHO calls on countries to reduce sugars intake among adults and children
...“We have solid evidence that keeping intake of free sugars to less than 10% of total energy intake reduces the risk of overweight, obesity and tooth decay,” says Dr Francesco Branca, Director of WHO’s Department of Nutrition for Health and Development. “Making policy changes to support this will be key if countries are to live up to their commitments to reduce the burden of noncommunicable diseases.”
The WHO guideline does not refer to the sugars in fresh fruits and vegetables, and sugars naturally present in milk, because there is no reported evidence of adverse effects of consuming these sugars.
...The recommendations are based on analysis of the latest scientific evidence. This evidence shows, first, that adults who consume less sugars have lower body weight and, second, that increasing the amount of sugars in the diet is associated with a weight increase. In addition, research shows that children with the highest intakes of sugar-sweetened drinks are more likely to be overweight or obese than children with a low intake of sugar-sweetened drinks.
The recommendation is further supported by evidence showing higher rates of dental caries (commonly referred to as tooth decay) when the intake of free sugars is above 10% of total energy intake compared with an intake of free sugars below 10% of total energy intake.
Read more: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/1 -
Great info @kshama2001 Thanks for sharing.1
-
The UK's Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) has halved the previous recommendation of added sugars to 5% from 10%:
Sugar reduction: the evidence for action
...Executive summary
We are eating too much sugar and it is bad for our health. Consuming too many foods
and drinks high in sugar can lead to weight gain and related health problems, as well as
tooth decay. Almost 25% of adults, 10% of 4 to 5 year olds and 19% of 10 to 11 year
olds in England are obese, with significant numbers also being overweight. Treating
obesity and its consequences alone currently costs the NHS £5.1bn every year.
Sugar intakes of all population groups are above the recommendations, contributing
between 12 to 15% of energy. Consumption of sugar and sugar sweetened drinks is
particularly high in school age children. It also tends to be highest among the most
disadvantaged who also experience a higher prevalence of tooth decay and obesity and
its health consequences.
Over the last 30 to 40 years there have been profound changes in our relationship with
food – how we shop and where we eat as well as the foods available and how they are
produced. Food is now more readily available, more heavily marketed, promoted and
advertised and, in real terms, is much cheaper than ever before. All of these nudge us
towards over consumption. The changes have crept up on us and while none of this is
anyone’s fault, it is time to do something about it.
The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) has concluded that the
recommended average population maximum intake of sugar should be halved: it should
not exceed 5% of total dietary energy. SACN also recommended that consumption of
sugar sweetened drinks should be minimised by both adults and children. By meeting
these recommendations within 10 years we would not only improve an individual’s
quality of life but could save the NHS, based on a conservative assessment, around
£500m every year.
SACN’s recommendations have already been accepted by government. They are now
being integrated into official UK advice on the best dietary approach for health and key
nutrition policy instruments, such as the eatwell plate and advice on institutional
catering.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/470179/Sugar_reduction_The_evidence_for_action.pdf
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »bsbprincess wrote: »I was setting up my diary and goals, and noticed that even though my calorie intake goal is only 1200 daily, my sugar allowance is 45g. Isn't that high? I did some googling and found numerous sites that said your daily allowance should be 20g for women, based on a 2000 cal diet.
Thanks all!!
The prevailing attitude of many on here to sugar intake is
How apropos
Too bad the reasons given by both the WHO and NHS for the sugar restriction is calories and tooth decay (which can be dealt with by reasonably oral hygiene).
Also, if we are going to pay attention to the added sugar recommendations (which I also do), maybe it would be good to pay attention to other things, like the recs re vegetable consumption and sat fat limits?
Yup, I started bumping up vegetables a few months ago and reducing saturated fat last month.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bsbprincess wrote: »I was setting up my diary and goals, and noticed that even though my calorie intake goal is only 1200 daily, my sugar allowance is 45g. Isn't that high? I did some googling and found numerous sites that said your daily allowance should be 20g for women, based on a 2000 cal diet.
Thanks all!!
The prevailing attitude of many on here to sugar intake is
How apropos
Too bad the reasons given by both the WHO and NHS for the sugar restriction is calories and tooth decay (which can be dealt with by reasonably oral hygiene).
Also, if we are going to pay attention to the added sugar recommendations (which I also do), maybe it would be good to pay attention to other things, like the recs re vegetable consumption and sat fat limits?
Are you looking at a different WHO page than I am?
WHO calls on countries to reduce sugars intake among adults and children
...“We have solid evidence that keeping intake of free sugars to less than 10% of total energy intake reduces the risk of overweight, obesity and tooth decay,” says Dr Francesco Branca, Director of WHO’s Department of Nutrition for Health and Development. “Making policy changes to support this will be key if countries are to live up to their commitments to reduce the burden of noncommunicable diseases.”
No, this is consistent with what I said. The reasons given for the restriction is calories and tooth decay. (I personally go with the 5% for added sugars for the most part.)The WHO guideline does not refer to the sugars in fresh fruits and vegetables, and sugars naturally present in milk, because there is no reported evidence of adverse effects of consuming these sugars.
Yes, this is also what I have been saying. When I said the recommendations for vegetable consumption I meant the 5-8 servings per day, not limiting them. I'm arguing against those saying people should worry about fruit and veg. Maybe you should target the low carb evangelists and not me, since it seems we agree vs. those who say fruit and veg are scary....The recommendations are based on analysis of the latest scientific evidence. This evidence shows, first, that adults who consume less sugars have lower body weight and, second, that increasing the amount of sugars in the diet is associated with a weight increase. In addition, research shows that children with the highest intakes of sugar-sweetened drinks are more likely to be overweight or obese than children with a low intake of sugar-sweetened drinks.
NOT sugar from fruit, veg, and dairy. I'm happy to agree that children's consumption of sugar sweetened drinks should be limited, but then I've never said anything to the contrary (and always said that I dislike drinking calories).The recommendation is further supported by evidence showing higher rates of dental caries (commonly referred to as tooth decay) when the intake of free sugars is above 10% of total energy intake compared with an intake of free sugars below 10% of total energy intake.
I always think this is silly, since just use decent dental hygiene.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Great info @kshama2001 Thanks for sharing.
Um, it's what everyone has been saying.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Great info @kshama2001 Thanks for sharing.
Um, it's what everyone has been saying.
Well it's obviously coming across differently to me than you... I happen to agree with the head in the sand analogy. Not knocking anyone, I used to think like that too.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Great info @kshama2001 Thanks for sharing.
Um, it's what everyone has been saying.
Well it's obviously coming across differently to me than you... I happen to agree with the head in the sand analogy. Not knocking anyone, I used to think like that too.
Oh, what posts show a head in the sand, pray tell?
Argh, I just had an issue with my computer where it deleted a whole long post.
Highlights:
Christine, you've been in hundreds of threads where people recommended eating a nutritious and balanced diet with appropriate calories, adequate protein and healthy fats and veg, and of course fiber, and only then including some added sugar. If that's so, IME, one either is an outlier or one is around what the WHO recommends, without the stupid fear of fruit and veg which some irresponsibly encourage. There's NO credible evidence that sugar in general (vs. the calories or including lots of low nutrient/high cal foods, which is what the WHO warns against) is an issue, specifically this idea that if one goes over 45 g when eating at 1200 calories (which is easy to do from whole foods alone, especially if one eats a lot of veg, the recommended amount of fruit, and some sweet potatoes/beets/plantains or dairy) is something to worry about. If the concern is keeping low nutrient sources of sugar to a moderate amount, the MFP limit isn't helpful, being knowledgeable about sources is. Similarly, understanding nutrition and not buying into dumb stuff about carbs=bad, fat=good or other black/white or simplistic stuff also is a more intelligent approach.
Again, knowing your history here I know you've been in many, many threads in which these points have been made, so I'm wondering if you are lying about that or being willfully obtuse. I'd love an answer as I'm honestly confused. I myself have made these same points in numerous threads in which you have been participating, including quoting basically the same WHO points that ksharma did. This idea that we are hiding from it could not be more ridiculous or offensive.0 -
There was a graphic earlier in this thread with a dude with his head in the sand. I think that pic is to what Christine is referring in her post.0
-
There was a graphic earlier in this thread with a dude with his head in the sand. I think that pic is to what Christine is referring in her post.
I'm not sure if @lemurcat12 meant that she literally didn't see the pic, or that she didn't see people sticking their heads in the sand about excessive sugar in this thread.
edited to add, I assume the latter.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 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
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions