Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

custom calorie set point, refined vs natural sugar

laurenq1991laurenq1991 Posts: 17Member Member Posts: 17Member Member
Hello, I have two suggestions for MFP:

*A custom calorie set point. The "maintenance" calories MFP has listed for me are around 1800/day. However, I know from previous dieting that my "maintenance" calories are really about 2000-2100/day. I would like to be able to set this to the accurate value.

*Being able to list refined vs. natural sugar. Many food labels have started listing "added sugar" and health experts recommend limiting to no more than 25g of added sugar per day, so this would be useful to track. The naturally occurring sugar in fruit is not metabolized the same as the sugar in a candy bar. And the naturally occurring sugar in dairy products is completely different.

Thank you.
edited December 5

Replies

  • ktekcktekc Posts: 763Member Member Posts: 763Member Member
    i know the second one will probably be a thing once its actually required on labels. they keep pushing the date back when it has to be done by.
  • nutmegoreonutmegoreo Posts: 13,174Member Member Posts: 13,174Member Member
    Hello, I have two suggestions for MFP:

    *A custom calorie set point. The "maintenance" calories MFP has listed for me are around 1800/day. However, I know from previous dieting that my "maintenance" calories are really about 2000-2100/day. I would like to be able to set this to the accurate value.

    *Being able to list refined vs. natural sugar. Many food labels have started listing "added sugar" and health experts recommend limiting to no more than 25g of added sugar per day, so this would be useful to track. The naturally occurring sugar in fruit is not metabolized the same as the sugar in a candy bar. And the naturally occurring sugar in dairy products is completely different.

    Thank you.

    1) You can set your calorie goal to whatever you choose.

    2) Until it shows up on labels, it can't really be implemented in the system. The database is largely user entered, and users can only enter the data they have.
  • seska422seska422 Posts: 3,067Member, Premium Member Posts: 3,067Member, Premium Member
    ktekc wrote: »
    i know the second one will probably be a thing once its actually required on labels. they keep pushing the date back when it has to be done by.
    It's not going to happen at all in the US.

    The label will show added sugars, which isn't the same distinction as refined vs. natural.

    In addition, how something is packaged makes a difference so the category will be inconsistent for tracking. If a manufacturer's recipe for an item includes honey, the Nutrition Facts will list that honey as a portion of any added sugars. If it's a bottle of honey (or a box of white sugar for that matter), it won't show as added sugar in the Nutrition Facts because the contents are entirely sugar.
    edited December 5
  • laurenq1991laurenq1991 Posts: 17Member Member Posts: 17Member Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    1) You can set your calorie goal to whatever you choose.

    I am aware. However, the system will act as if my calorie set point is 1800/day and say "if you ate this much, you will weigh X in five weeks," giving an inaccurate value.
  • RAinWARAinWA Posts: 1,303Member Member Posts: 1,303Member Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    1) You can set your calorie goal to whatever you choose.

    I am aware. However, the system will act as if my calorie set point is 1800/day and say "if you ate this much, you will weigh X in five weeks," giving an inaccurate value.

    So don't hit that button? It doesn't actually do anything except give you the little message and post to your newsfeed that you completed your diary. I never found it to be accurate any way since not every day is the same.
  • cwolfman13cwolfman13 Posts: 34,919Member Member Posts: 34,919Member Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    1) You can set your calorie goal to whatever you choose.

    I am aware. However, the system will act as if my calorie set point is 1800/day and say "if you ate this much, you will weigh X in five weeks," giving an inaccurate value.

    It's a silly little message that doesn't give an accurate value anyway.

    In regards to the added sugar, not many products have implemented this yet...that will have to happen first and then the database will need to be populated with the new product labels by users...could be awhile. Also, while I do believe people should watch their sugar intake, sugar is sugar...your body doesn't know the difference between sugar that is in a piece of fruit or sugar that has been added to a product.
  • cmriversidecmriverside Posts: 26,241Member Member Posts: 26,241Member Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    1) You can set your calorie goal to whatever you choose.

    I am aware. However, the system will act as if my calorie set point is 1800/day and say "if you ate this much, you will weigh X in five weeks," giving an inaccurate value.

    It's a silly little message that doesn't give an accurate value anyway.

    In regards to the added sugar, not many products have implemented this yet...that will have to happen first and then the database will need to be populated with the new product labels by users...could be awhile. Also, while I do believe people should watch their sugar intake, sugar is sugar...your body doesn't know the difference between sugar that is in a piece of fruit or sugar that has been added to a product.

    Yeah, the sugar is processed like sugar. Doesn't matter if it's Snickers or pineapple juice.

    The database will never be fixed to show this because there are 14 years of user-entered foods already in there. Virtually millions of entries. I just don't even track sugar, it's tracked by default on the Printable page so I can briefly look at it if I want to, but it isn't something I worry about whether it's from milk or corn - or cookies. Tracking Carbs takes care of all of that anyway.
  • nutmegoreonutmegoreo Posts: 13,174Member Member Posts: 13,174Member Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    1) You can set your calorie goal to whatever you choose.

    I am aware. However, the system will act as if my calorie set point is 1800/day and say "if you ate this much, you will weigh X in five weeks," giving an inaccurate value.

    But that number is inaccurate for most people anyway. Aren't your real life numbers more important? (they should be, because those are the numbers that are accurate for you)
  • heybalesheybales Posts: 16,144Member Member Posts: 16,144Member Member
    "If every day was like today, you'd .... "

    That is one huge impossible "If" when you take into account the activity side of things - even if you ate the exact same meals on some days, your level of activity will never be the same.

    Factor in for women the changing metabolism through the month - forget about that being anything more than entertainment. Boring entertainment.

    I've also seen some of the articles about how manufacturers are already getting around the rules regarding added sugar so it doesn't appear bad at all - like getting the added sugar from a concentrate of fruit juices which is part of the product already - not added.

    It'll end up being a non-useful stat - same as the 20% leniency on macro and calorie values stated on the label.
    "0 calories!" - when you can clearly see on the label couple grams of carbs per serving.
  • kimny72kimny72 Posts: 9,569Member Member Posts: 9,569Member Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    Also, while I do believe people should watch their sugar intake, sugar is sugar...your body doesn't know the difference between sugar that is in a piece of fruit or sugar that has been added to a product.

    So you think an apple and an equivalent calorie amount of Coca-Cola are equally bad for your health? The fiber does make a difference in how the sugar is processed by the body and especially its effect on the liver.

    But it's not the sugar that's different, which is what he's saying. If I've already eaten 25g of fiber today, and I have 150 cals left, why is the "natural" sugar in the apple better for me than the sugar in the soda? Once it hits the blood stream, it's all sugar.

    How does the fiber change how the sugar affects the liver?
  • ktekcktekc Posts: 763Member Member Posts: 763Member Member
    of course the apple is "better" but it has nothing to do with the sugar that's in it. Its the vitamins and nutrients it has that the cola dosen't.
  • L1zardQueenL1zardQueen Posts: 6,158Member Member Posts: 6,158Member Member
    ktekc wrote: »
    of course the apple is "better" but it has nothing to do with the sugar that's in it. Its the vitamins and nutrients it has that the cola dosen't.

    But what if I don’t want to eat another apple today? Eat it anyway or have a treat?
  • ktekcktekc Posts: 763Member Member Posts: 763Member Member
    ktekc wrote: »
    of course the apple is "better" but it has nothing to do with the sugar that's in it. Its the vitamins and nutrients it has that the cola dosen't.

    But what if I don’t want to eat another apple today? Eat it anyway or have a treat?

    eat whatever you like that fits in your day. or even if it doesn't, have at it. im just saying the type of sugar isnt what makes the apple "healthier".
  • rheddmobilerheddmobile Posts: 3,229Member Member Posts: 3,229Member Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    Also, while I do believe people should watch their sugar intake, sugar is sugar...your body doesn't know the difference between sugar that is in a piece of fruit or sugar that has been added to a product.

    So you think an apple and an equivalent calorie amount of Coca-Cola are equally bad for your health? The fiber does make a difference in how the sugar is processed by the body and especially its effect on the liver.

    But it's not the sugar that's different, which is what he's saying. If I've already eaten 25g of fiber today, and I have 150 cals left, why is the "natural" sugar in the apple better for me than the sugar in the soda? Once it hits the blood stream, it's all sugar.

    How does the fiber change how the sugar affects the liver?

    This isn't quite accurate. I'm a diabetic and frequent testing allows me to see exactly the difference between an apple and a soda. A soda will raise glucose levels rapidly, outpacing my ability to produce insulin, and causing my levels to peak much higher than an equivalent amount of sugar from an apple. The long term effect that knocking blood sugar about rapidly has on the liver and pancreas isn't agreed on even by specialists in the subject, but the difference in short term effect is pretty darned obvious to anyone with a home glucose monitor.
  • kimny72kimny72 Posts: 9,569Member Member Posts: 9,569Member Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    Also, while I do believe people should watch their sugar intake, sugar is sugar...your body doesn't know the difference between sugar that is in a piece of fruit or sugar that has been added to a product.

    So you think an apple and an equivalent calorie amount of Coca-Cola are equally bad for your health? The fiber does make a difference in how the sugar is processed by the body and especially its effect on the liver.

    But it's not the sugar that's different, which is what he's saying. If I've already eaten 25g of fiber today, and I have 150 cals left, why is the "natural" sugar in the apple better for me than the sugar in the soda? Once it hits the blood stream, it's all sugar.

    How does the fiber change how the sugar affects the liver?

    This isn't quite accurate. I'm a diabetic and frequent testing allows me to see exactly the difference between an apple and a soda. A soda will raise glucose levels rapidly, outpacing my ability to produce insulin, and causing my levels to peak much higher than an equivalent amount of sugar from an apple. The long term effect that knocking blood sugar about rapidly has on the liver and pancreas isn't agreed on even by specialists in the subject, but the difference in short term effect is pretty darned obvious to anyone with a home glucose monitor.

    This is an honest question, is that because you're diabetic? Or is that in a healthy person as well?
  • CharlieBeansmomTraceyCharlieBeansmomTracey Posts: 7,351Member Member Posts: 7,351Member Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    Also, while I do believe people should watch their sugar intake, sugar is sugar...your body doesn't know the difference between sugar that is in a piece of fruit or sugar that has been added to a product.

    So you think an apple and an equivalent calorie amount of Coca-Cola are equally bad for your health? The fiber does make a difference in how the sugar is processed by the body and especially its effect on the liver.

    But it's not the sugar that's different, which is what he's saying. If I've already eaten 25g of fiber today, and I have 150 cals left, why is the "natural" sugar in the apple better for me than the sugar in the soda? Once it hits the blood stream, it's all sugar.

    How does the fiber change how the sugar affects the liver?

    This isn't quite accurate. I'm a diabetic and frequent testing allows me to see exactly the difference between an apple and a soda. A soda will raise glucose levels rapidly, outpacing my ability to produce insulin, and causing my levels to peak much higher than an equivalent amount of sugar from an apple. The long term effect that knocking blood sugar about rapidly has on the liver and pancreas isn't agreed on even by specialists in the subject, but the difference in short term effect is pretty darned obvious to anyone with a home glucose monitor.

    and the rise in glucose levels for you and its effects on your liver and being diabetic is one thing. but in a person without diabetes its not going to be a big deal. the only difference with the sugar from and apple is the fiber makes digestion slower and the insulin doesnt peak as fast as it would with the soda because its lacks fiber. so it would be metabolised quicker, also because its liquid..fats and proteins are also said to be digested slower. but any food can cause an insulin response which is a normal body function just in those with diabetes it can affect their health in negative ways.
  • rheddmobilerheddmobile Posts: 3,229Member Member Posts: 3,229Member Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    Also, while I do believe people should watch their sugar intake, sugar is sugar...your body doesn't know the difference between sugar that is in a piece of fruit or sugar that has been added to a product.

    So you think an apple and an equivalent calorie amount of Coca-Cola are equally bad for your health? The fiber does make a difference in how the sugar is processed by the body and especially its effect on the liver.

    But it's not the sugar that's different, which is what he's saying. If I've already eaten 25g of fiber today, and I have 150 cals left, why is the "natural" sugar in the apple better for me than the sugar in the soda? Once it hits the blood stream, it's all sugar.

    How does the fiber change how the sugar affects the liver?

    This isn't quite accurate. I'm a diabetic and frequent testing allows me to see exactly the difference between an apple and a soda. A soda will raise glucose levels rapidly, outpacing my ability to produce insulin, and causing my levels to peak much higher than an equivalent amount of sugar from an apple. The long term effect that knocking blood sugar about rapidly has on the liver and pancreas isn't agreed on even by specialists in the subject, but the difference in short term effect is pretty darned obvious to anyone with a home glucose monitor.

    This is an honest question, is that because you're diabetic? Or is that in a healthy person as well?

    It's more pronounced because I'm diabetic, so my cells are resistant to insulin. A normal person's insulin response would keep their blood glucose level from going too high, even with the consumption of quite a large amount of quick digesting sugar. However, even a normal person would have to make more insulin more quickly to digest sodas compared to apples, so their blood sugar would then drop more quickly. Also, insulin causes hunger, and more insulin causes more hunger.

    Another thing is, it's still up in the air whether or not this sort of insulin response is one of the factors leading to diabetes. Some research indicates it's not a factor, other research is contradictory. But it's one of the reasons there even IS a brand new suggested limit on added sugars.
Sign In or Register to comment.