Counting Added Sugar

alannanielsen
alannanielsen Posts: 3 Member
edited November 13 in Food and Nutrition
I WISH THIS APP DIFERENTIATED BETWEEN ADDED SUGAR AND NATURAL SUGAR! I'm trying to count my carbs and sugars daily and I look at my sugar counts that are higher then I want them to be but a lot of the sugars are natural from fruits and such which are "okay sugars". So does anyone subtract their natural sugar count from their total daily sugars? Or do you up the daily intake of suggested surfaces (26g) to include natural sugars.
«134

Replies

  • Cbestinme
    Cbestinme Posts: 397 Member
    Interesting question. I am watching my sugar intake by looking at the total grams per day. I hadn't thought how to differentiate between added and natural. It's possible I don't have too much added sugar in what I eat so I hadn't really thought about this. When you decide what to do, or what works for you, share your update, thanks :)
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    If most of my sugar comes from natural sources such as fruit, veggies, dairy, then i don't stress over it.
    Just looking at your diary and sugar column will tell you where the majority of your sugar is coming from. Is it coming from the aforementioned foods or are you getting more from candy bars/processed foods??

    No, i dont add/subtract anything. Sugar is sugar, I just try to get mine mainly from whole food sources.
  • Cbestinme
    Cbestinme Posts: 397 Member
    Christine_72 wrote: »
    If most of my sugar comes from natural sources such as fruit, veggies, dairy, then i don't stress over it.
    Just looking at your diary and sugar column will tell you where the majority of your sugar is coming from. Is it coming from the aforementioned foods or are you getting more from candy bars/processed foods??

    No, i dont add/subtract anything. Sugar is sugar, I just try to get mine mainly from whole food sources.

    great points thanks for sharing!
  • ChaleGirl
    ChaleGirl Posts: 270 Member
    I don't worry about natural sugar at all. Fruits and veg are sooooo good for you. I have however cut out refined sugar and I'm staying away from food with sugar added as an ingredient.
  • crackpotbaby
    crackpotbaby Posts: 1,297 Member
    I just don't eat anything processed.
    Easy, no added sugars.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    alannanielsen wrote: »
    I WISH THIS APP DIFERENTIATED BETWEEN ADDED SUGAR AND NATURAL SUGAR!

    It can't, as that's not on food labels yet (in the US anyway). I expect it will in the future.
    I'm trying to count my carbs and sugars daily and I look at my sugar counts that are higher then I want them to be but a lot of the sugars are natural from fruits and such which are "okay sugars". So does anyone subtract their natural sugar count from their total daily sugars? Or do you up the daily intake of suggested surfaces (26g) to include natural sugars.

    I don't count sugar specifically, but I at first (and occasionally when I'm logging) look over my sugars to see how much added sugar I'm getting. Since I don't eat much packaged stuff it's pretty obvious -- sugars from whole foods, not added. Sugar from ice cream, added.

    I don't know where you got 26 g -- the lowest sugar goal you should get is 45 g, as MFP's goal is 15% of total calories. But I would say rather than count sugar the following strikes me as a better way to make sure you have a healthy balanced diet:

    (1) Enough protein?
    (2) Lots of vegetables?
    (3) Getting in healthy sources of fat?
    (4) Hitting the fiber goal?
    (5) Maybe glance through the day and make sure you aren't getting lots of sugar from unexpected sources or eating lots of low nutrient foods -- but if you've done 1-4 that's very unlikely.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    I can't wrap my mind around why so many people want to watch sugar to the gram. Those who watch carbs have the carbs number to look at and don't really need to track sugar per se. Even health organizations that advise limiting added sugar use added sugar as proxy for added low nutrition calories for people who do not track calories. For those who track calories, it's enough to know the calorie number and look how many calories out of the day low nutrient items take up. Those who watch sugar for the purpose of not being triggered to eat more would usually do best keeping track of their trigger foods instead of precise grams of added sugar, which can easily via food diary. Even diabetics don't really need to look at exact grams of sugar, but at carbs as a whole. Even for those who have one of these rare congenital diseases where they can't break down certain sugars, particular types of sugars need to be watched, without a distinction between natural and added.

    Personally, I would turn off sugar tracking all together, but if you still want to do it, you may need to do it manually. The way the database is set up and foods are currently labeled, it's hard to distinguish between natural and added sugars in certain foods.

    Sugar tracking was one of the very first things I changed. It wasn't useful to me at all.
  • trigden1991
    trigden1991 Posts: 4,658 Member
    Why? It really doesn't matter (unless you are diabetic).
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    kommodevaran wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    I can't wrap my mind around why so many people want to watch sugar to the gram. Those who watch carbs have the carbs number to look at and don't really need to track sugar per se. Even health organizations that advise limiting added sugar use added sugar as proxy for added low nutrition calories for people who do not track calories. For those who track calories, it's enough to know the calorie number and look how many calories out of the day low nutrient items take up. Those who watch sugar for the purpose of not being triggered to eat more would usually do best keeping track of their trigger foods instead of precise grams of added sugar, which can easily via food diary. Even diabetics don't really need to look at exact grams of sugar, but at carbs as a whole. Even for those who have one of these rare congenital diseases where they can't break down certain sugars, particular types of sugars need to be watched, without a distinction between natural and added.

    Personally, I would turn off sugar tracking all together, but if you still want to do it, you may need to do it manually. The way the database is set up and foods are currently labeled, it's hard to distinguish between natural and added sugars in certain foods.
    After reading a lot (in here as well as other sources) and digging deep, I can finally wrap my mind around all that food anxiety. It's the proxies that health organizations use, and the media, diet industry, food industry and blogosphere adding insult to injury.

    Mmm, I'd give them more of a break. The anxiety seems to be coming from people, not from the health organizations. I've read a whole lot of the nutrition advice and health organization stuff, because of interest, not anxiety, and because gathering information is how I tend to respond to a problem, and this is what I took away:

    Eat a good diet with lots of whole food plants (particularly vegetables). Maybe think about half the plate should be vegetables.

    Avoid EXCESSIVE calories, sat fat, sodium, sugar -- and the easiest way to do that is by cooking from scratch and not adding excess amounts, but if you prefer not to cook watch those things as lots of production have lots added (not all, however)

    Get a decent amount of protein (what this means differs somewhat depending on the source you choose and what your goals are).

    Eat foods that have more fiber/are less processed when possible, or for at least half of your intake.

    As for the reason for watching sugar -- main reason is that foods with lots of added sugar are high in calories (often from other ingredients like fat too) and low in nutrients. Thus, they should be considered extras or calories on top of the more important/nutrient dense stuff, and not a huge part of your diet. Good estimate for the average person (obviously depending on what your diet consists of anyway) is about 5-10% of overall calories or maybe not more than 20% (and ideally 10%) on things that are extras -- high cal, not contributing lots of nutrients. But it's not a specific number that matters but how it fits into the overall diet and getting in otherwise a healthy, balanced diet. Mostly this is common sense and what you probably could have told me at age 6.

    To get out of it that hitting (or staying under) a very specific number of sugar grams, let alone that something like fruit is to be worried about (unless you are overweight and just trying to find some way to cut calories) is no only wrong, but IMO doesn't result from a fair reading of the sources. And I don't find that people who know the most are the ones who fall into this.

    It is like, to me, claiming that people ate lots of Snackwells and waffles with fake syrup and thought they were being healthy. They didn't -- they knew this had NOTHING to do with the advice on good nutrition, which never said eat lots of refined carbs, white flour, sugar, and almost no vegetables, which is what they proceeded to do (and to claim people were really worried about fat in an era in which they increased consumption of fast food also makes no sense). People who don't want to do what they know they should do sometimes use "oh, why should I believe it, everything constantly changes, it's too complicated, probably tomorrow spinach and broccoli will cause cancer) as a way to deflect, sure, but it's really not that complicated and stuff like MyPlate (which is supposed to be how Americans learn about the dietary guidelines/nutrition) don't really present it as such either.
    Instead of explaining that calories is what regulates body weight, they tell us to avoid sugar.

    The reasons for the sugar requirements are usually explained. I would agree that there seems to be an idea that watching calories is too hard, so focusing on food choice (cut down on soda and sweets, basically, as well as on refined carbs and foods high in added sodium and sat fat (red meat and things with added sat fat is usually the take away here)) is given instead. I suspect the view that people won't actually watch calories in the majority of cases is right -- sad, and I'd be happy to be wrong -- but I don't think the advice is that tough to follow. If the average American cut down on sweets, packaged stuff with lots of sodium, and fast food, they'd be cutting calories. If they also added more vegetables, switched to less refined carbs/grains in at least some cases, and ate leaner sources of protein, they'd end up cutting calories and having a healthier diet.

    Is this the answer for everyone? No, nothing is. Do I personally resonate more with something like Michael Pollan's approach (not that different in practice, IMO) -- sure, but then I love to cook and am of a cultural class that seems especially invested in the "natural=better" thing and foodie-ism, even though I mock it in myself. Is everyone going to find that appealing? No -- so giving the basic information and letting them decide what to do with it seems to me all we can expect. Blaming the gov't for people eating badly is something that makes no sense to me.
  • janicelo1971
    janicelo1971 Posts: 823 Member
    cut out all foods with refined sugars! just eat natural...bamm! done!
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,454 Member
    edited December 2016
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    I can't wrap my mind around why so many people want to watch sugar to the gram. Those who watch carbs have the carbs number to look at and don't really need to track sugar per se. Even health organizations that advise limiting added sugar use added sugar as proxy for added low nutrition calories for people who do not track calories. For those who track calories, it's enough to know the calorie number and look how many calories out of the day low nutrient items take up. Those who watch sugar for the purpose of not being triggered to eat more would usually do best keeping track of their trigger foods instead of precise grams of added sugar, which can easily via food diary. Even diabetics don't really need to look at exact grams of sugar, but at carbs as a whole. Even for those who have one of these rare congenital diseases where they can't break down certain sugars, particular types of sugars need to be watched, without a distinction between natural and added.

    Personally, I would turn off sugar tracking all together, but if you still want to do it, you may need to do it manually. The way the database is set up and foods are currently labeled, it's hard to distinguish between natural and added sugars in certain foods.

    Sugar tracking was one of the very first things I changed. It wasn't useful to me at all.

    This ^^ and sugar is tracked by default on the Printable Version of the Food Diary, so all I have to do is toggle back and forth if I want to see it. Taking the Sugar column off my regular food page allowed me to choose other nutrients. If you play around with it, you can track up to 13 different nutrients. The ones on the printable version are all by default, not user editable; but the columns other than Calories on the regular page are changeable. I chose nutrients that are not tracked already on the printable version by default.

  • janicelo1971
    janicelo1971 Posts: 823 Member
    I agree and have done the same thing for the last 5-7 years...works great:)
    ChaleGirl wrote: »
    I don't worry about natural sugar at all. Fruits and veg are sooooo good for you. I have however cut out refined sugar and I'm staying away from food with sugar added as an ingredient.

  • kommodevaran
    kommodevaran Posts: 17,890 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    kommodevaran wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    I can't wrap my mind around why so many people want to watch sugar to the gram. Those who watch carbs have the carbs number to look at and don't really need to track sugar per se. Even health organizations that advise limiting added sugar use added sugar as proxy for added low nutrition calories for people who do not track calories. For those who track calories, it's enough to know the calorie number and look how many calories out of the day low nutrient items take up. Those who watch sugar for the purpose of not being triggered to eat more would usually do best keeping track of their trigger foods instead of precise grams of added sugar, which can easily via food diary. Even diabetics don't really need to look at exact grams of sugar, but at carbs as a whole. Even for those who have one of these rare congenital diseases where they can't break down certain sugars, particular types of sugars need to be watched, without a distinction between natural and added.

    Personally, I would turn off sugar tracking all together, but if you still want to do it, you may need to do it manually. The way the database is set up and foods are currently labeled, it's hard to distinguish between natural and added sugars in certain foods.
    After reading a lot (in here as well as other sources) and digging deep, I can finally wrap my mind around all that food anxiety. It's the proxies that health organizations use, and the media, diet industry, food industry and blogosphere adding insult to injury.

    Mmm, I'd give them more of a break. The anxiety seems to be coming from people, not from the health organizations. I've read a whole lot of the nutrition advice and health organization stuff, because of interest, not anxiety, and because gathering information is how I tend to respond to a problem, and this is what I took away:

    Eat a good diet with lots of whole food plants (particularly vegetables). Maybe think about half the plate should be vegetables.

    Avoid EXCESSIVE calories, sat fat, sodium, sugar -- and the easiest way to do that is by cooking from scratch and not adding excess amounts, but if you prefer not to cook watch those things as lots of production have lots added (not all, however)

    Get a decent amount of protein (what this means differs somewhat depending on the source you choose and what your goals are).

    Eat foods that have more fiber/are less processed when possible, or for at least half of your intake.

    As for the reason for watching sugar -- main reason is that foods with lots of added sugar are high in calories (often from other ingredients like fat too) and low in nutrients. Thus, they should be considered extras or calories on top of the more important/nutrient dense stuff, and not a huge part of your diet. Good estimate for the average person (obviously depending on what your diet consists of anyway) is about 5-10% of overall calories or maybe not more than 20% (and ideally 10%) on things that are extras -- high cal, not contributing lots of nutrients. But it's not a specific number that matters but how it fits into the overall diet and getting in otherwise a healthy, balanced diet. Mostly this is common sense and what you probably could have told me at age 6.

    To get out of it that hitting (or staying under) a very specific number of sugar grams, let alone that something like fruit is to be worried about (unless you are overweight and just trying to find some way to cut calories) is no only wrong, but IMO doesn't result from a fair reading of the sources. And I don't find that people who know the most are the ones who fall into this.

    It is like, to me, claiming that people ate lots of Snackwells and waffles with fake syrup and thought they were being healthy. They didn't -- they knew this had NOTHING to do with the advice on good nutrition, which never said eat lots of refined carbs, white flour, sugar, and almost no vegetables, which is what they proceeded to do (and to claim people were really worried about fat in an era in which they increased consumption of fast food also makes no sense). People who don't want to do what they know they should do sometimes use "oh, why should I believe it, everything constantly changes, it's too complicated, probably tomorrow spinach and broccoli will cause cancer) as a way to deflect, sure, but it's really not that complicated and stuff like MyPlate (which is supposed to be how Americans learn about the dietary guidelines/nutrition) don't really present it as such either.
    Instead of explaining that calories is what regulates body weight, they tell us to avoid sugar.

    The reasons for the sugar requirements are usually explained. I would agree that there seems to be an idea that watching calories is too hard, so focusing on food choice (cut down on soda and sweets, basically, as well as on refined carbs and foods high in added sodium and sat fat (red meat and things with added sat fat is usually the take away here)) is given instead. I suspect the view that people won't actually watch calories in the majority of cases is right -- sad, and I'd be happy to be wrong -- but I don't think the advice is that tough to follow. If the average American cut down on sweets, packaged stuff with lots of sodium, and fast food, they'd be cutting calories. If they also added more vegetables, switched to less refined carbs/grains in at least some cases, and ate leaner sources of protein, they'd end up cutting calories and having a healthier diet.

    Is this the answer for everyone? No, nothing is. Do I personally resonate more with something like Michael Pollan's approach (not that different in practice, IMO) -- sure, but then I love to cook and am of a cultural class that seems especially invested in the "natural=better" thing and foodie-ism, even though I mock it in myself. Is everyone going to find that appealing? No -- so giving the basic information and letting them decide what to do with it seems to me all we can expect. Blaming the gov't for people eating badly is something that makes no sense to me.
    Hi there :) I was thinking about you as one of my mentors - you were the one who taught me about the reasoning for the (added) sugar recommendations a year or so ago. I grew up with those recommendations, I knew them by heart, and I consider myself literate and fairly intelligent, but I didn't get the why until you explained it to me. I actually believed that, somehow, mystificially, sugar became something else than natural sugar, in an "artificiality" process. I also believed saturated fat would magically clog up my veins, that sugar would give me diabetes, and that salt, and eggs, and white flour, and red meat should be avoided as much as possible. We can't avoid all that and still have a good diet. I think the government(s) are doing a bad job. In my opinion, people are regarded too stupid to understand concepts like calories and balanced intake, and not caring about their (our) own health, so they (we) need dumbed down advice and to be scared into action. The problem with that, is that it leads to learned helplessness and apathy, and when health has suffered enough, we don't automatically turn around to seek out better strategies and more in-depth knowledge. We may stumble upon it, but it's not something that just happens.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    lizery wrote: »
    I just don't eat anything processed.
    Easy, no added sugars.

    Again, this seems unnecessary, and frankly, impossible, since most commercially available food is processed in some way.
  • janicelo1971
    janicelo1971 Posts: 823 Member
    depends on your ability of self control or lack thereof in my case! I enjoy a lot of snacks, but don't need added sugar in my foods to have it more addictive. There are plenty of natural sugars out there. Do what works for you. we all have different bodies that digest food and we know what works for us to maintain(or gain or lose) and what doesn't. some folks are binge eaters or have a history of that and some have addictive foods(i.e...added sugar's or carbs)..some don't. I tend to find it simplier to just not eat added sugar. has been a way of life for years and nothing i have ever missed. However if you can eat it and control how much and not have an issue, then more power to you. Many of us on this site got here for being overweight, and or unable to control our intake at times. But, again, I support whatever one wants to do to make it work for them. I wish i was as strong as you are WInoGelato!
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    janicelo1971 wrote: »
    cut out all foods with refined sugars! just eat natural...bamm! done!

    That sounds unnecessarily restrictive....
  • crzycatlady1
    crzycatlady1 Posts: 1,930 Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Sugar is sugar. It does the same thing to the body no matter where it comes from.

    I think a helpful approach might also be to keep an eye on fibre. If your fibre is high, then that probably means you are eating less added sugars to hit your carb macro.

    Reading labels and going for sugar free products will help keep your sugars down.

    I'm dabbling with tracking on MFP again and the first thing I did was change the sugar column to fiber :)
  • janicelo1971
    janicelo1971 Posts: 823 Member
    what is your purpose of debating this? it is proven sugar is added to many foods to make it MORE addictive! IE...one's you mentioned, ketchup and salad dressing(some of them)heck, even some cooking spices, fast food items.....yes, i prefer to get the ones that have "no added sugar"...not sure why your such a negative nelly? Usually people don't struggle with their weight for 30 plus years, find a sight like this, and then just say, sure i can control my eating in moderation. people have to make what changes "THEY" feel are right for their body. Also it is quite easy to limit processed foods as ather poser on this tread mentioned. some folks grow their foods or dont need processed or fast foods on a regular basis. Again, i never said that was negative, i was just offering my opinion and what has worked for me....I never suggested or mentioned you doing anything differently. but i see you are not one that will accept that and just want to argue or debate your point. I think we all have different views and should atleast try to respect others. Have a blessed Holiday :)

    WinoGelato wrote: »
    janicelo1971 wrote: »
    depends on your ability of self control or lack thereof in my case! I enjoy a lot of snacks, but don't need added sugar in my foods to have it more addictive. There are plenty of natural sugars out there. Do what works for you. we all have different bodies that digest food and we know what works for us to maintain(or gain or lose) and what doesn't. some folks are binge eaters or have a history of that and some have addictive foods(i.e...added sugar's or carbs)..some don't. I tend to find it simplier to just not eat added sugar. has been a way of life for years and nothing i have ever missed. However if you can eat it and control how much and not have an issue, then more power to you. Many of us on this site got here for being overweight, and or unable to control our intake at times. But, again, I support whatever one wants to do to make it work for them. I wish i was as strong as you are WInoGelato!
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    janicelo1971 wrote: »
    cut out all foods with refined sugars! just eat natural...bamm! done!

    That sounds unnecessarily restrictive....

    Your body doesn't differentiate between added sugars and natural sugars, nor are sugars and carbs "addictive".

    If a person struggles to moderate their intake of foods with added sugars (assuming you mean sweets and not things like ketchup or salad dressing) then it may be good to monitor or cut back/cut out for a period of time. For many people, cutting out certain foods altogether is far too restrictive of an approach and that can lead to binging or giving up on their efforts. Learning that these foods can be consumed as part of an overall balanced diet is very empowering for many people and moderation is something that does take practice, but many people who have struggled with control in the past have been very successful with this approach. Doesn't sound like it's something you're interested in, and that's fine too.
  • janicelo1971
    janicelo1971 Posts: 823 Member
    That is my goal! very inspiring!
    lizery wrote: »
    I just don't eat anything processed.
    Easy, no added sugars.

This discussion has been closed.

Categories