How MFP records sodium and sugar

jonason62

On some days I notice my sodium, and sometimes my sugar, intakes are recorded as over the recommended amount, however I don’t add salt to foods, avoid processed foods or ready meals, and rarely eat sweet things. Is there an assumption that, for example, I am adding salt to a boiled egg (I don’t) or to vegetables? My main source of sugar comes from fresh fruit, never fruit juice. Surely sugar in fruit is not doing the harm of sugar in cakes, biscuits etc? Any thoughts?

deannalfisher

most foods have elements of sodium/sugar to them - as part of the processing/creation etc

that being said - sugar is sugar is sugar - sugar in a cake, is the same as sugar in fruit (the fruit will have added fiber etc)

Panini911

based on the entry you select in the database which is mostly user generated. so depends if the user entered all the data correction for all the macros/nutrients.

funny enough i noticed today that my eggs were fairly high in sodium in the entry. i really don't check much as my sodium is usually within range unless I eat something know is salty (or prepackaged)

My registered dieticians all said sugar is sugar is sugar. it all adds up regardless of source. this was said at a weight loss clinic i went to on sugar. I also assumed a fruit (natrual) was better than candy but they didn't agree.

MikePTY

Can you make your diary public? Without seeing it, there's not much of a conclusion we can make on the sodium. Many foods naturally have some sodium in it. It's also possible you are choosing entries for foods of a certain brand or prepared a certain way that may have additional sodium that is not actually in the foods you are eating. Hard to tell.

As far as sugar, MFP doesn't make any moral judgments on the sugar you eat. It logs all sugar as sugar.

ccrdragon

jonason62 wrote: »

On some days I notice my sodium, and sometimes my sugar, intakes are recorded as over the recommended amount, however I don’t add salt to foods, avoid processed foods or ready meals, and rarely eat sweet things. Is there an assumption that, for example, I am adding salt to a boiled egg (I don’t) or to vegetables? My main source of sugar comes from fresh fruit, never fruit juice. Surely sugar in fruit is not doing the harm of sugar in cakes, biscuits etc? Any thoughts?

Exactly what harm is there to the sugar in cakes, cookies, etc? There are a lot of guru's and websites that try to demonize sugar but that is horse pucky... there is no difference between the sugar that is in the bowl on the table and the sugar that comes in food - your body breaks it all down to glucose and uses it for energy. Unless you have a medical reason to avoid sugar (or limit it) such as diabetes, or you are eating so many sugary treats that you are crowding out foods that supply other nutrients, you really don't need to worry about sugar.

The same goes for salt.

Also, you can check the entries that you are using from the food database against a known source such as the USDA database to see if the values are correct. The MFP food database is crowd-sourced, so there are many entries that are not complete or otherwise incorrect.

rockymir

In a word...poorly.

lemurcat2

jonason62 wrote: »

On some days I notice my sodium, and sometimes my sugar, intakes are recorded as over the recommended amount, however I don’t add salt to foods, avoid processed foods or ready meals, and rarely eat sweet things. Is there an assumption that, for example, I am adding salt to a boiled egg (I don’t) or to vegetables?

No, but you could be choosing bad entries. As others have noted, if you open your diary we could check. There is sodium naturally in food, though, although I wouldn't think it would be that high unless you are eating foods that are somewhat processed (packaged, canned, or of course from restaurants).

My main source of sugar comes from fresh fruit, never fruit juice. Surely sugar in fruit is not doing the harm of sugar in cakes, biscuits etc? Any thoughts?

Sugar itself is not an issue, and certainly not from fruit, IMO, although I'd make sure fruit doesn't crowd out sufficient protein, veg, healthy fat, or other things you need in your diet. Pretty easy to go over the sugar goal without that being the case, however.

I think it makes more sense to watch overall protein, fat, and fiber, and just make sure you aren't getting the sugar from surprising sources (i.e., that you didn't realize it was added to some food in greater amounts than you assumed).

I eat lots of fresh fruit in the summer, especially, and can easily go over my sugar without any added sugar, and I don't care.

I wouldn't say that added sugar "does harm" either if consumed in moderation within the context of a nutritious and calorie-appropriate diet. The issue with foods like cakes is often that they are high cal and for some people hard not to overeat, and shouldn't take up too much of the diet since they crowd out more nutritious foods, but the calories are typically as much from fat as sugar. Sugar is just today's favorite villain.

jonason62

Thanks for all the responses. Regarding sugar in fruit, I always thought that sugar in fruit and vegetables was utilised in a different way from cane sugar/honey etc, in a similar way that unrefined carbs were utilised more effectively than refined carbs.

Susieq_1994

jonason62 wrote: »

Thanks for all the responses. Regarding sugar in fruit, I always thought that sugar in fruit and vegetables was utilised in a different way from cane sugar/honey etc, in a similar way that unrefined carbs were utilised more effectively than refined carbs.

Neither of these are true. Refined carbs, unrefined carbs, fruit, vegetables, and table sugar are all broken down to glucose (fructose and galactose sugars are turned into glucose by your liver) because that's the form of energy your body is best able to use. The fiber in less refined foods, like whole fruit, vegetables, and whole grains promote a healthy digestive tract and can contribute to satiety--in other words, help you eat less and be more "regular". Also, whole fruits and unrefined grains may have more vitamins/minerals that were stripped out or destroyed during the processing (many, though not all, of these are added back in through enrichment later in the processing). The sugar, however, all does the same thing and behaves in the same way.

lemurcat2

jonason62 wrote: »

Thanks for all the responses. Regarding sugar in fruit, I always thought that sugar in fruit and vegetables was utilised in a different way from cane sugar/honey etc, in a similar way that unrefined carbs were utilised more effectively than refined carbs.

In addition to what susieq said, which I agree with, people often think there are different types of sugar in fruit vs added sugar (fructose vs. glucose or some such). That's not true. Fruit is a mix of fructose, glucose, and sucrose (which itself is half sucrose and half glucose and gets broken down into the two easily by our bodies). The amounts of each vary by person. Table sugar and added sugar in most higher quality foods (more expensive, IMO tastes better) is sucrose, which is glucose + fructose (50/50). It actually comes from plants (sugar cane or beets). Even HFCS (which obviously comes from corn) is actually fructose (55%) + glucose (45%). So we are talking about the same sugars.

The difference in how your body processes them is that glucose is the one that tends to spike blood sugar and can be an issue if one has insulin issues (but same with starchy carbs). Fructose can be damaging to the liver in extreme amounts -- can be an issue if one eats a crazy amount of sugary sweets over time or lots of sugary soda, for some people, but not in moderation, which is why no one credible thinks fruit (which contains more fructose than table sugar as a percentage) is going to hurt us.

So it's not that some sugar is bad and some good, but that one should use moderation or limit high cal, lower nutrient foods that don't provide much besides some calories and enjoyment, so as not to go over calories or crowd out things we need. Like susieq says, fruit provides more nutrients, typically fewer cals, and fiber.

With refined vs whole grains, I'll just add that rather than your body using refined less effectively, it's the opposite. Because of the lack (or lower amount) of fiber it's quite easy to digest, and some think we can get some of the nutrients from it (which are generally fortified -- they are stripped out when refined and then added back) more easily than from the whole grains, which are harder to digest due to fiber. But the fiber itself is good for us, there's somewhat more protein than refined, and also many of us just think that there's more benefits from many whole (or wholer, since all these foods are processed somewhat) foods that have long been eaten and correlate with positive health results than we know, and so fortifying may not be replacing all that is lost.

The biggest issue for some with more refined grains is that they often are not perceived as sating, because they are digested so quickly. Personally, I tend to prefer whole grains, but when I consume refined with veg and a source of fat and protein (white rice plus a nutrient-dense curry or stir fry, pasta with olive oil, lots of veg, and shrimp), then I am not hungry sooner.

MPDean

Sugar is evil, except in sprouted grains. At least that's what the internet told me.

lorrpb

I doubt the amount of salt sprinkled on an egg or serving of veggies will put you seriously over for the day.