Natural sugars found in fruit
Replies
-
150poundsofme wrote: »I just went to a chiropractor's lecture and he said not to eat bananas, pineapple and grapes. Those are the 3 fruits I mainly eat. I believe he feels those fruits are too high in sugar.
I'm pretty sure the chiro doesn't have RD (Registered Dietitian) behind their last name. Therefore, he/she has no right to hold themselves out as an expert on nutrition advice.
This is the kind of *kitten* that gives chiros a bad name.4 -
On a side note I've never heard of synthetic sugar in fruits....................
Sugar is sugar. If you're supposed to limit it (say high blood sugar issues), then it doesn't matter if it's natural or not. If it's not a big deal, then you figure out how you can fit it into your daily calories.
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 -
Here's why I avoid processed sugars like the plague:
Orange:
White Table Sugar:
Corn syrup and brown sugar are only slightly above zero with trace levels of a handful of nutrients. Molasses, maple syrup, honey have relatively good levels of a few minerals.
Looks like a pretty compelling argument to me.
1 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »150poundsofme wrote: »I just went to a chiropractor's lecture and he said not to eat bananas, pineapple and grapes. Those are the 3 fruits I mainly eat. I believe he feels those fruits are too high in sugar.
hes an idiot. I eat those foods and have no issues at all
Took the words right out of my mouth (off my keyboard?).
Ignore your chiro's advice on nutrition.1 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »150poundsofme wrote: »I just went to a chiropractor's lecture and he said not to eat bananas, pineapple and grapes. Those are the 3 fruits I mainly eat. I believe he feels those fruits are too high in sugar.
hes an idiot. I eat those foods and have no issues at all
Took the words right out of my mouth (off my keyboard?).
Ignore your chiro's advice on nutrition.
lol0 -
When I first started losing, I found that I was going waaaaay over the MFP default sugar goal every single day, when the only added sugar I consumed was a bit of concentrated fruit juice in my daily 30-calorie single tablespoon of all-fruit spread (and it wasn't even the first/biggest ingredient in the fruit spread!). The rest of the sugar was from 2-3 servings of whole fruit, and from the sugars inherent in "no sugar added" dairy products.
Solution? Change my MFP diary settings to stop tracking sugar, and track fiber instead. End of problem.
I wouldn't recommend this to someone who's diabetic, pre-diabetic, insulin-resistant, etc. But absent such medical problems, it works pretty well. 1 -
Sugar isn't just sugar, it's all forms of carbs. Carb = sugar. So you might think you're not eating sugar, but if you're having a big bowl of pasta or a sandwich you're eating sugar. Same with the fruit. People do a lot better without sugar. Less hunger, less inflammation, less likely to develop diabetes, easier to control weight.
On fruit - it shouldn't be part of your every day diet. Fruit is nature's candy, and should be an occasional treat if you eat it at all.0 -
JohnnyPenso wrote: »Here's why I avoid processed sugars like the plague:
Orange:
White Table Sugar:
Corn syrup and brown sugar are only slightly above zero with trace levels of a handful of nutrients. Molasses, maple syrup, honey have relatively good levels of a few minerals.
Looks like a pretty compelling argument to me.
You're comparing a food to one of its ingredients. How does this prove anything?
Who eats straight spoonfuls of table sugar?
You're not even comparing apples and oranges.
Diet Coke has a better mineral profile than pure distilled water so I avoid added water like the plague.
See? It doesn't make sense!
Say you eat oatmeal with some added sugar. That meal isn't void of nutritional value like the stats you quoted above for straight sugar.
The sugar in the oatmeal and the sugar in the orange are the same.
It makes no sense to compare a complete food item with a single ingredient from another.5 -
EbonyDahlia wrote: »Sugar isn't just sugar, it's all forms of carbs. Carb = sugar. So you might think you're not eating sugar, but if you're having a big bowl of pasta or a sandwich you're eating sugar. Same with the fruit. People do a lot better without sugar. Less hunger, less inflammation, less likely to develop diabetes, easier to control weight.
On fruit - it shouldn't be part of your every day diet. Fruit is nature's candy, and should be an occasional treat if you eat it at all.
No, when mfp tracks sugar, it tracks sugar, not other carbs. Sugar is a carb, but not all carbs are sugar. They're related, and they all metabolise to glucose, but they're not the same thing. Heck, alcohol metabolises to glucose and I think we can all agree it's a different thing from sugar.1 -
EbonyDahlia wrote: »Sugar isn't just sugar, it's all forms of carbs. Carb = sugar. So you might think you're not eating sugar, but if you're having a big bowl of pasta or a sandwich you're eating sugar. Same with the fruit. People do a lot better without sugar. Less hunger, less inflammation, less likely to develop diabetes, easier to control weight.
On fruit - it shouldn't be part of your every day diet. Fruit is nature's candy, and should be an occasional treat if you eat it at all.
Actually this is incorrect.
The USDA recommends 1.5-2 cups of fruit a day for adults.
https://www.choosemyplate.gov/fruit3 -
The posts about avoiding fruit demonstrate why the obsessive focus on sugar alone is wrong. Of course sugar on its own has no nutrients, other than calories. That's so with the sugar in fruit (as opposed to the rest of the fruit) as well as the sugar people add to oats and rhubarb and so on. The bigger issue is that sugar in itself is not bad. Fruit would not be better if you could remove the sugar (although I get the idea that for some that would be so -- and that you sacrifice taste would be an added benefit, as more virtuous to eat for nutrients than based on enjoyment, under that mindset).
Overeating sugar, yeah, that's a problem. It's especially likely to be a problem if you happen to eat a lot of it in high cal/low nutrient foods like many do (since those foods -- which typically have lots of fat too -- are not that satiating and are hyperpalatable, so easy to overeat, and culturally are eaten for reasons other than hunger anyway). Part of our extremist culture seems to be that people turn dramatically from eating a low nutrient diet and lots of sugar with no limit (and usually not from fruit) to this idea that sugar=bad so no sugar=best, no matter what the source of the sugar.
Anyway, sugar itself is fine, if not excessive and within the context of a nutrient-dense diet. Sugar in vegetables, dairy, sweet potatoes, and, yeah, fruit, is all easy to fit in a healthful diet since by definition that sugar is consumed with other things we tend to want in our diets, like fiber or protein or various vitamins and minerals. For many those foods are filling too. Sugar in low nutrient/high cal sweets (or even high cal, moderate nutrient sweets) has to be moderated somewhat to fit in a healthy balanced diet, especially if you happen to be (not everyone is) someone inclined to overdo sugary things.
Anyway, point is that focus on "processed" sugar vs. not misses why sugar should be moderated nutritionally -- the better focus is on foods and their overall ingredients/make-up. It also suggests, incorrectly, that fruit would be even better if we could just remove the sugar, so probably gives rise to weird ideas like that getting vitamins from pills or supplements would be better than getting them from fruit, since sugar free!
As for the idea that carbs, all carbs, are sugar and therefore bad for you, that's false and apparently ignorant of the fact that many of the healthiest diets in the world are high carb, as with the blue zone diets and many other traditional diets.
1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Hi all
I’m very confused with the natural sugars found in fruit/veg. For years we’ve been led to believe that eating fruit is good for you and should be included in your daily diet. So far so good, yet as we know fruit contains natural sugar which really hits into your daily sugar limit. So the question is, do we reverse years of thinking that fruit is a good source of fibre etc and severely cut back in our daily allowance, or do we go with other thinking that purports natural sugars in fruit should not be taken into your daily calorie/sugar/nutrition analysis and that it's the dreaded added sugar/unrefined sugar that we really need to be concerned about? My thinking is that we need to be concerned about the fruit intake too.
Yesterday saw me in the ridiculous situation of wanting to include an apple in my daily diet to find it contained 28g of sugar (yes, a large apple!) and then had to automatically drop it from my intended meal. Likewise with bananas. I find I hardly eat those now too for the same reason so, on the one hand I’m being very good with my recording of fruit/food and losing weight but feel very concerned that I’m dropping my usual fruit intake which I thought was meant to be good for me and included in my daily allowance?
Any views would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
Lorraine
Option 3: we accept that there is nothing unhealthy about sugar ("refined" or not) for non-diabetics.
Thus, our wonderful, healthy fruits can have sugar and still be good for us. Also, we can have treats with added sugars and still maintain a healthy diet.
Overeating is the problem, not sugar.
This. I don't track sugar at all and just focus on my calorie intake.1 -
To Echo above, sugar is sugar is sugar, your body does not care what the source is. Having said that, as long as you're keeping your intake around or under 50g/day, where it comes from doesn't really matter. If you're over that, you're probably derailing your weight loss because you're eating too many calories.
Personally, I am one of those "sugar is the devil" people. This is because sugar, in all of its forms, including bread, wheat products, corn, and potatoes, makes me feel like absolute $h!t. When I cut it out of my diet, it was a whole new world. I don't eat Apples (or bananas, or mangoes) because the pop and crash I get afterward is no different than what I get from a small coke or a candy bar. However, if this doesn't happen to you, there's no reason to be that extreme.
If you're thinking about cutting sugar, start with the low hanging fruit (hah! puns) first. Obviously candy, cookies, cakes, etc should be the first to go. Then look for all the weird crappy places its hiding (look for sugar, cane sugar and HFCS, its all the same)- juice, pasta sauce, jelly, canned goods, pretty much anything processed. Most people can cut all of the unnecessary sugar in their lives out by doing that, then you may eat all the apples you desire!
You are feeling nothing more than placebo.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Fruit would not be better if you could remove the sugar (although I get the idea that for some that would be so -- and that you sacrifice taste would be an added benefit, as more virtuous to eat for nutrients than based on enjoyment, under that mindset).
Ah yes, the Calvinist diet. It's weird how widespread this is.2 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Fruit would not be better if you could remove the sugar (although I get the idea that for some that would be so -- and that you sacrifice taste would be an added benefit, as more virtuous to eat for nutrients than based on enjoyment, under that mindset).
Ah yes, the Calvinist diet. It's weird how widespread this is.
As someone with a Calvinist background, this made me laugh out loud
0 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Hi all
I’m very confused with the natural sugars found in fruit/veg. For years we’ve been led to believe that eating fruit is good for you and should be included in your daily diet. So far so good, yet as we know fruit contains natural sugar which really hits into your daily sugar limit. So the question is, do we reverse years of thinking that fruit is a good source of fibre etc and severely cut back in our daily allowance, or do we go with other thinking that purports natural sugars in fruit should not be taken into your daily calorie/sugar/nutrition analysis and that it's the dreaded added sugar/unrefined sugar that we really need to be concerned about? My thinking is that we need to be concerned about the fruit intake too.
Yesterday saw me in the ridiculous situation of wanting to include an apple in my daily diet to find it contained 28g of sugar (yes, a large apple!) and then had to automatically drop it from my intended meal. Likewise with bananas. I find I hardly eat those now too for the same reason so, on the one hand I’m being very good with my recording of fruit/food and losing weight but feel very concerned that I’m dropping my usual fruit intake which I thought was meant to be good for me and included in my daily allowance?
Any views would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
Lorraine
Option 3: we accept that there is nothing unhealthy about sugar ("refined" or not) for non-diabetics.
Thus, our wonderful, healthy fruits can have sugar and still be good for us. Also, we can have treats with added sugars and still maintain a healthy diet.
Overeating is the problem, not sugar.
This. I don't track sugar at all and just focus on my calorie intake.
I don't either and I am T2 diabetic. For those who do not use insulin, my doctor (a Certified Diabetic Educator) recommends tracking total carbs only. It is up to the individual how they choose to spend their daily carb allowance. I limit my fruit, eat a bunch of veggies, and fill in with grains, bread, or potatoes. I will have a sweet or add sugar to my tea if I have the carbs available.1 -
JohnnyPenso wrote: »Here's why I avoid processed sugars like the plague:
Orange:
White Table Sugar:
Corn syrup and brown sugar are only slightly above zero with trace levels of a handful of nutrients. Molasses, maple syrup, honey have relatively good levels of a few minerals.
Looks like a pretty compelling argument to me.
You avoid an ingredient because a complete food has more nutrients?
That's...6 -
Olive oil:
Bacon:
Obviously bacon is the healthier choice. And for half the calories too!8 -
stevencloser wrote: »Obviously bacon is the healthier choice. And for half the calories too!
No argument from me
3 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Fruit would not be better if you could remove the sugar (although I get the idea that for some that would be so -- and that you sacrifice taste would be an added benefit, as more virtuous to eat for nutrients than based on enjoyment, under that mindset).
Ah yes, the Calvinist diet. It's weird how widespread this is.
Precisely.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Olive oil:
Obviously bacon is the healthier choice. And for half the calories too!
Well, duh - it's bacon.
1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions