sugar

GettingFitSlim
GettingFitSlim Posts: 42 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
past few days ive been under my calories but over on my sugar. is that a really bad thing??

Replies

  • pcpop7
    pcpop7 Posts: 161 Member
    I tend to ignore sugar goal as I tend to have a good few pieces of fruit. I'd rather have the fruit than meet that arbitrary goal.
  • HealthierRayne
    HealthierRayne Posts: 268 Member
    MFP adds both added sugar and natural (fruit) sugars together - the tendency for most people is to choose to monitor something else unless they need to keep an eye specifically on sugar intake (ie diabetic)
    If your sugar is over because of natural sugars but you are still within your calorie goal then you are in good shape :smile:
    Personally I find fiber more important a goal so I changed sugar to fiber :smile:
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    GettingFitSlim wrote: »
    past few days ive been under my calories but over on my sugar. is that a really bad thing??

    could be, closed diary so we don't know. If the sugary things are displacing healthy things it might be a problem esp if not eating enough in total.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    If you're healthy (aka not diabetic or pre diabetic) and already restricting calories, there's no need to track sugar.
    I track fiber instead.
  • fr33sia12
    fr33sia12 Posts: 1,258 Member
    The thing about sugar that confuses me is everyone advises don't bother tracking it unless you have a "condition" but how many people actually know if they have a conditon unless they go to the drs and are tested. For example I haven't had a blood test in 2 yrs so for all I know I could be pre diabetic/diabetic and am blindly carrying on not tracking sugar, then go to drs, you're diabetic. Isn't it better to keep a track on sugar too like we do other macros and help prevent diseases rather than wait till we get them, then do something about it.
    I still track sugar as I know all sugars have the same effects on our bodies, no matter what the source. It's just healthier to eat natural sugars.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    I'm not a fan of the head in the sand approach either, though carbohydrates are as likely to be responsible for a drift to diabetes as sugar itself.
  • fr33sia12
    fr33sia12 Posts: 1,258 Member
    yarwell wrote: »
    I'm not a fan of the head in the sand approach either, though carbohydrates are as likely to be responsible for a drift to diabetes as sugar itself.

    I track cabs too as they both come together.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    helenrosec0 wrote: »
    The thing about sugar that confuses me is everyone advises don't bother tracking it unless you have a "condition" but how many people actually know if they have a conditon unless they go to the drs and are tested. For example I haven't had a blood test in 2 yrs so for all I know I could be pre diabetic/diabetic and am blindly carrying on not tracking sugar, then go to drs, you're diabetic. Isn't it better to keep a track on sugar too like we do other macros and help prevent diseases rather than wait till we get them, then do something about it.
    I still track sugar as I know all sugars have the same effects on our bodies, no matter what the source. It's just healthier to eat natural sugars.

    Big reason it's pointless for many (if not most) to track is that sugar is just a sub-set of carbs.
    Natural sugars means what precisely? By the time you have digested and broken down your food intake into its component parts sugar is sugar is sugar.
    Diet as a whole is important not some arbitrary distinction between types of sugar.

Categories