For science- a question about sugar in the diet

Options
2»

Replies

  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,874 Member
    edited September 2016
    Options
    It's 15% of your total calories and includes both added and naturally occurring sugars...I have no idea where they come up with that though as to my knowledge there is no formal recommendation from any governing body as to total sugars...my guess is that it's just an arbitrary % based on the fact that sugar is indeed the devil...regardless of where it comes from.

    I don't log so I have no idea how much total sugar I'm eating...I don't really worry about it though as whatever I am getting is largely coming from whole food sources...I don't eat much in the way of added sugar...I also don't go crazy with fruit and other whole foods that contain a lot of sugar...so I suspect I'll live.
  • jennasbarton
    jennasbarton Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Well first off what are you calling a sugar? Are you talking just mono and disaccharides such as glucose or sucrose or are you also including all carbohydrates (which are basically various combinations of sugars).

    talking simple sugars, not carbs as a whole.
  • jennasbarton
    jennasbarton Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    auddii wrote: »
    jennasbarton wrote: »
    I didn't ask about distinguishing added sugars from natural sugars via MFP. I'm asking if anyone knows how the number is set for sugars and if anyone puts much effort into hitting this number and why? When I say where is this 45g coming from I meant how is the number established as a recommendation, not where in my food it is it coming from.

    I think you missed his point. The MFP goal is based off of added sugars. So your goal would be for 45g. I believe that it is based off the WHO's recommendations, but I can't remember exactly. But, if you eat an apple, it goes towards your goal.

    So, because the system is broken, many people recommend either not tracking sugars or keeping a separate log if they have some reason to specifically look at sugars.

    I removed it from my diary and track fiber instead, which I've found to be more useful.

    thanks, do you mind if I quote you on this? I have like, 200 readers lol so it's not going round the world!
  • jennasbarton
    jennasbarton Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    It's 15% of your total calories and includes both added and naturally occurring sugars...I have no idea where they come up with that though as to my knowledge there is no formal recommendation from any governing body as to total sugars...my guess is that it's just an arbitrary % based on the fact that sugar is indeed the devil...regardless of where it comes from.

    I don't log so I have no idea how much total sugar I'm eating...I don't really worry about it though as whatever I am getting is largely coming from whole food sources...I don't eat much in the way of added sugar...I also don't go crazy with fruit and other whole foods that contain a lot of sugar...so I suspect I'll live.

    thank you, this tends to be my approach! do you mind me quoting you on this in my blog?
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    edited September 2016
    Options
    "For science" - I'm curious why you are making a distinction between added sugar and total sugar?

    Personal experience when losing weight was I swapped out tracking sugar and swapped it for tracking fibre as I regarded it pointless for me to track both carbs and a sub-set of carbs. Even carbs I just regarded as relatively unimportant compared to hitting protein and far minimums.

    I find the reaction to the current NHS "sugar swaps" campaign quite interesting and diverse.
    The message to me seems clear that it's easy for (non-calorie counters) to overeat high calorie foods and swapping some items to a more wholesome alternative would be a good idea to reduce the calorie intake and increase quality of the diet. The statement that overeating leads to obesity leads to ill-health seems simple and uncontroversial.

    Yet I've spoken to many people who hear exactly the same message and interpret it as "Sugar is the Devil".
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    Options
    I believe the number comes from these recommendations, but it does not include intrinsic sugar:
    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/

    50 grams of added sugar is set as a cutoff point for a strong recommendation. I'm not sure about the post above, since 15% of the usually used 2000 calorie baseline would be 75 grams. I don't think there is a rule for total sugar in diet by any organization. All the recommendations I've seen were for added sugar, in hopes of reducing sugary foods that are either easily consumed in bulk (drink) or too high in fat and calories (candies and sweet goods).

    Personally, I don't even count sugar. If I did, I would be consuming 25 or more grams of sugar in tomatoes alone daily. My added sugar consumption goes in bouts. I go through phases of eating sweets every day and phases of not eating any at all for weeks or even months. No difference in my weight loss, general health and how I'm feeling in either case.
  • jennasbarton
    jennasbarton Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    sijomial wrote: »
    "For science" - I'm curious why you are making a distinction between added sugar and total sugar?".

    Hi,

    Well this in itself is the point I am trying to get to- is there any point in distinguishing between added sugars and natural ones? I would argue from my own experience that added sugar tends to be in products that are also high calorie or lower GI so cutting them out can help weight loss in those terms but I wonder if people do this more because, as you say, they perceive sugar to be the devil without really knowing what it does or why they are cutting it out.
  • zyxst
    zyxst Posts: 9,134 Member
    Options
    auddii wrote: »
    Radish0 wrote: »
    MyFitnessPal sets your maximum total sugar limit (which includes added and naturally occurring sugars in fruits, vegetables and dairy) at 15% of total calories, but you can also manually change your goal if you desire.

    http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/why-the-who-advises-you-to-reduce-sugar-consumption/

    So, when WHO is not in all caps, my mind apparently goes straight here:
    rs-230674-the-who.jpg

    My mind goes there even if the WHO is in all caps.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,392 MFP Moderator
    Options
    jennasbarton wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    "For science" - I'm curious why you are making a distinction between added sugar and total sugar?".

    Hi,

    Well this in itself is the point I am trying to get to- is there any point in distinguishing between added sugars and natural ones? I would argue from my own experience that added sugar tends to be in products that are also high calorie or lower GI so cutting them out can help weight loss in those terms but I wonder if people do this more because, as you say, they perceive sugar to be the devil without really knowing what it does or why they are cutting it out.

    Removed added sugars is one way of reducing calories, pending you don't replace it with other higher calorie foods. And to make a distinction, foods that tend to have a lot of added sugars, also tend to be high in fat and salt, which makes them hyperpalatable.


    Also, you should be careful with classifying stuff as simple or complex sugar since many fruits are simple and things like cake can be complex.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    As mentioned above, the MFP number is 15% of total calories. I suspect (but do not know) that the 15% is based on that number plus an estimate of intrinsic sugars that people are eating. If so, if could be right for people who don't eat many fruits and veg, but could be low also.

    As others have said, I keep an eye on my overall diet and am comfortable that my amounts of foods with added sugar are in check. I don't really care if on a high fruit day my total sugar is over. I haven't found any credible source for limiting total sugar if you are meeting other requirements, are within calories, and have a good diet overall.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    jennasbarton wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    "For science" - I'm curious why you are making a distinction between added sugar and total sugar?".

    Hi,

    Well this in itself is the point I am trying to get to- is there any point in distinguishing between added sugars and natural ones? I would argue from my own experience that added sugar tends to be in products that are also high calorie or lower GI so cutting them out can help weight loss in those terms but I wonder if people do this more because, as you say, they perceive sugar to be the devil without really knowing what it does or why they are cutting it out.

    For me - I don't distinguish between the sucrose in an apple or the sucrose in a bowl of granulated sugar, chemically the same. (Different foods with different attributes of course but the sucrose in them is the same.)
    I look at the entirety of my diet, but that's too complex message to get across in a sound bite.

    It's similar to road safety campaigns that say "speed kills". Nice simple message that people can understand but it doesn't actually stand up to scrutiny. Speed doesn't kill, it's the impact that kills.....
    But there is a benefit in people being more aware of their speed in built up areas so the simplistic and inaccurate message works despite the subject being far more complex than you can fit on a poster.
  • ahoy_m8
    ahoy_m8 Posts: 3,053 Member
    edited September 2016
    Options
    If you're looking for anecdotal input, I track several nutrients but do not track or care about sugar.

    There is a calorie maximum I try to stay under (on average), but otherwise I focus on nutrient minimums, not nutrient maximums. E.g. I try to get minimums of protein, fat & fiber. I like to exceed a 1:3 ratio of w-3:w-6 fats, but I don't worry if I miss that target a couple days.

    ETA: I'm basically saying the same as others. It's the whole picture that matters, not sugar individually. If I can hit my nutritional minimums while staying below my calorie maximum, added sugar foods cause me no harm. It's the nutrient minimum-calorie maximum that keeps everything in balance.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    This isn't really about science is it

    I think the interesting part of the no added sugar campaign is the whole lowest common denominator marketing that has been taken on board and twisted into "this is bad for you" in people's psyches and common perception

    What it really means...the whole campaign that is...is

    We need to get people to stop consuming so many calories.

    There are too many hyper-palatable, high calorie easily accessible, cheap foods in the market that are easy to overeat

    These foods are a combination of fats, carbs and have added sugar to appeal to palates and make people want more

    Let's tell people to reduce added sugar ..make it the fall guy...that way it's an easy sound bite and anyone following it is going to start to avoid the highly palatable, high calorie easy to get foods

    So people buy into the message "eliminate added sugar" without understanding the why

    And they go off on big long spiels about the evil of sugar ..talk about addiction..when they just really like to eat tasty food

    And they completely ignore the fact that the sugar in an apple or glass of milk is exactly the same chemically as added sugar
    But the extra nutrients and fibre and lower calorie make them far better choices

    People are happy to be sheep it seems. Critical thinking seems to have absconded.

    I'm another who ignores sugar, tracks fibre but has ended up eating close to the recommended amounts by default because I like a healthy rounded diet and watch my calories

Categories