Natural vs refined carbs and sugar

nhainie

MFP groups both of natural and refined carbs together, same with sugar. Natural carbs and sugar are better for your body than refined. Is it okay to go over the carb and sugar limit if you know they are natural? Or is the limit that MFP set should not be broken either way?

seska422

Sugar is sugar. Items like fruit pair that sugar with other things, like fiber, but the sugar is still the same.

Marilyn0924

Unless you have a medical condition that requires you to restrict your sugar intake, I wouldn't worry about the total. I switched out the sugar tracking for fiber instead.

jjpptt2

MFP's numbers are from the context of weight loss. In that context, there is exactly zero difference between natural or refined or processed or whatever else - they are all calories.

If you want to look at things more in terms of general, overall health... then where you chose to draw the line in regards to natural vs refined is entirely up to you. Everyone approaches health slightly differently.

iWishMyNameWasRebel

Natural sugar usually comes with wonderful vitamins and fiber, whereas refined sugar usually does not. Both are sugar. As for the Myfitnesspal limits, do what you feel is best. Myfitnesspal just makes suggestions, and you can change what the limits are, depending on your own personal needs.

janejellyroll

Your body can't tell the difference between "natural" and unnatural carbohydrates or sugar. It's true that different *foods* have different micronutrients, but a carbohydrate is a carbohydrate and sugar is sugar.

concordancia

The only difference is that "natural" sugars and carbs in their original form (whole fruits, whole grains, whole veggies) are rather more likely to be accompanied by fiber. Fiber is indeed good for your body, but if you peel your apple, you have already removed much of that.

lemurcat12

Taking this out of order:

nhainie wrote: »

Or is the limit that MFP set should not be broken either way?

There's nothing magical about MFP's limit. It is one possibility, there are others. For carbs (of which sugar is a subset), I'd say it doesn't matter so long as you get enough protein and fat for your health and goals. Obviously it's also good to get most of those carbs from nutrient dense foods.

For sugar, MFP's 15% is just a broad and not really supported guideline, probably aimed at givin some balance and the idea of 10% added sugar (current limit in the US Dietary Guidelines for added sugar) plus some from fruit and veg. I ignore sugar, look at fiber and look at my overall diet (I don't think there's any particular reason to limit sugar if it's mostly from nutrient dense foods and you get enough other things, like a nice variety of vegetables (which have sugar), adequate protein, healthy fats, so on.

Natural carbs and sugar are better for your body than refined. Is it okay to go over the carb and sugar limit if you know they are natural?

I'm not sure what you mean by "natural carbs" -- less refined carbs? The carbs in, say, a french fry are from potatoes, just as the carbs in a roasted potato are. The fry has more calories, but that's the added oil.

If giving nutrition advice, I'd say you should mostly focus on nutrient dense carbs (I think potatoes are one) and get a variety -- I'd more say eat your veg and fruits, and also things like legumes, tubers, whole grains, nuts and seeds (more fat, but also carbs and protein), and (if you react well to it and like it) dairy for carbs, and if you want have some refined grains and sweets too, no harm.

Re "natural sugar," sugar is basically sugar (well, there are different sugars, but sucrose is a mix and the sugars in fruit are a similar mix). Yes, I'd say fruit and a cookie are not the same, but the difference isn't "sugar" (which has been unfairly demonized) but fat (in the cookie), fiber (perhaps, not always, more in the fruit), and micronutrients (usually more in the fruit). Plus, significantly, calories.

Mikkimeow

I am diabetic, and my doctor has told me that a sugar is a sugar, and I can enough in moderation. Unless you have a medical condition preventing you from eating a certain amount, there shouldn't be an issue with not tracking sugar intake. You can set your diary to calculate something else instead.

nhainie

Thank you everyone for your responses. I don’t have a medical condition. I’m new to MFP and the whole weight lost thing so I was looking around since I was told that refined carbs are “bad carbs” and so forth, so I got curious when I came across how MFP tracks sugar and carbs

lemurcat12

To elaborate on what I said above, based on that:

MFP's default macros -- carbs, fat, and protein -- is one idea of what a sensible balance should be, but not aimed at suggesting that going over in any of those would be bad. Many (not all) find a diet higher in protein and (to a lesser extent) fat is more satiating, although as many or more people find carbs satiating as fats, so some will approach the protein limit as a minimum and the carb limit as a maximum, and others will ignore them or change them to suit their own diet.

Personally I aim for a particular protein goal and don't worry about carbs vs. fat (just calories).

There is advice about limiting added sugar to less than 10% (or sometimes 5%) of total calories, which is more based on making sure most of your diet is nutrient dense and avoiding added calories (often a diet high in added sugar will also be high in calories, since sugar isn't super filling and often comes packaged with high cal fat). MFP cannot currently track added sugar, since labels generally don't show it (and even when they do in the US there are lots of entries that do not). I find eyeballing to see if you are mostly getting sugar from nutrient dense options an easier approach than trying to track added sugar.