Sugars: do "natural" sugars count the same as processed?

OliveGirl128

PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »

Eire228 wrote: »

I often go over my sugar goal according to MFP. I ignore it when it's because of fruit. My personal opinion is that fruit is good for you, and those sugars shouldn't be worried about (unless you have another medical reason for it as someone else said).

But I do not see the fruit in sugar as the same as sugar in processed foods. Maybe it's the same in regards to the chemical makeup or whatnot, but sugar in fruit is naturally occurring. Added sugar in low fat salad dressing is not. I recently watched a documentary (I'm sorry that I can't remember the name at the moment!) that presented evidence that the US's obesity rates began to rise when we began to attack fat in foods. We went crazy making everything low or no fat, and to make up for the loss of flavor, food companies began to add sugar. According to this documentary, that is when the US got fat. Their argument was that sugar IS what makes people fat. But it's the added sugar in processed foods, not eating fruit in moderation.

The problem I find is that no matter what you read about sugar, fat, proper daily calorie intake, etc. etc., you can find someone else who thinks the exact opposite and can produce some sort of evidence to support what they say. I find it all rather exhausting!

Sugar doesn't make people fat. Excess calories do. If the lower-fat, higher-sugar salad dressing is lower in calories, then it can be helpful to the person trying to moderate caloric intake and help them to lose weight. If the lower fat dressing makes the salad less satisfying and leads the individual to compensate by eating more calories from other sources, it may not be as helpful. The bottom line: it's the calories.

So much this.

I follow the DASH protocol and actively seek out low fat. It definitely has not made me gain weight. I especially love my low fat, low calorie ranch dressing-perfect drizzled on the whole bell pepper I'm going to eat for a snack tonight, And it has a 'whopping' 25 calories/3g sugar per serving.

eta: just double checked at my salad dressing is actually completely fat free (Hidden Valley fat free ranch dressing).

eta #2: looks like the regular Hidden Valley ranch has .7g of sugar per serving but 145 calories. The minuscule amount of extra sugar is well worth the large calorie savings, especially since the fat free version fits in better with the plan I follow.

OliveGirl128

.

stevencloser

Eire228 wrote: »

I often go over my sugar goal according to MFP. I ignore it when it's because of fruit. My personal opinion is that fruit is good for you, and those sugars shouldn't be worried about (unless you have another medical reason for it as someone else said).

But I do not see the fruit in sugar as the same as sugar in processed foods. Maybe it's the same in regards to the chemical makeup or whatnot, but sugar in fruit is naturally occurring. Added sugar in low fat salad dressing is not. I recently watched a documentary (I'm sorry that I can't remember the name at the moment!) that presented evidence that the US's obesity rates began to rise when we began to attack fat in foods. We went crazy making everything low or no fat, and to make up for the loss of flavor, food companies began to add sugar. According to this documentary, that is when the US got fat. Their argument was that sugar IS what makes people fat. But it's the added sugar in processed foods, not eating fruit in moderation.

The problem I find is that no matter what you read about sugar, fat, proper daily calorie intake, etc. etc., you can find someone else who thinks the exact opposite and can produce some sort of evidence to support what they say. I find it all rather exhausting!

Added sugar comes from a vegetable it is naturally occuring in.