Why are carbs and sugar separate?

perezlau

Can I replace my carb intake with sugar as that form of carb and still be ok?

Say I want to replace bread for a monster..? Lol forgive me if ridiculous but it's been a long day.

rheddmobile

Sugar and carbs aren’t really separate, sugar is one type of carb. If you logged a sugary drink it would appear under both total carbs and sugar.

If you are trying to lose weight, what matters is total calories, not macros. You may find that drinking your calories is less satisfying than eating them, but if you are under your calorie goal, it won’t make any difference.

amaterasuthird

perezlau wrote: »

Can I replace my carb intake with sugar as that form of carb and still be ok?

Say I want to replace bread for a monster..? Lol forgive me if ridiculous but it's been a long day.

simple answer? All sugar is carbs, but not all carbs are sugar. Alot of carbs are fibre.

AnnPT77

And as long as you hit a reasonable calorie level, weight management goals will fall in line. For that, you don't have to hit macro/micro goals exactly . . . or at all.

But nutritional goals are very important, for health, energy level, body composition, and satiety. Even in that setting, trading off sugar vs. other carbs is a trivial issue, unless it hurts your satiety/appetite in a big way, or makes you get insufficient micronutrients (by trading fruit for soda often, for example).

You can drink the Monster. Just don't try to live on them.

lemurcat2

Carbs are sugar, starches, and fiber. Starches get broken down into sugar in the body. MFP has a separate sugar category largely because labels do, and because there's been so much fear mongering about sugar, but it's worth noting that the recommendations to limit sugar to 10% of calories or specific gram numbers are about ADDED sugar or free sugars (which include honey, syrup, and fruit juice), not intrinsic sugars in foods that are otherwise nutrient dense and may include fiber, like fruit and dairy (and also vegetables, although the sugar will be less since the calories are less).

I think the sugar category is kind of worthless unless you are unsure as to whether you are including high sugar packaged goods and find it easier to log and look than check the label.

Rather than distinguishing between sugar and starches, I think it makes more sense to look at the nutrient density and other specific qualities of your carb sources (as well as your fat sources, of course).

A Monster is basically sugar and caffeine, and doesn't really contribute to the nutrition in your day, so I wouldn't make them a significant part of my diet, but if you find them enjoyable on occasion or really satisfying, it's really just like having some ice cream or cheese or a cookie for dessert or saving cals for a higher than normal restaurant meal or having fries on occasion instead of roasted potatoes -- in other words, nothing wrong with it. Enjoy.

nirerats7

One thing to remember is your body can only process so much added sugar, the rest goes to fat. Added processed sugar is not a good thing. I see a lot of people on here eating yogurts that have a ton of sugar, they might be low in fat but the sugar is ridiculous. Your body needs good fats (not trans or saturated) but the kind you get from avocados and olive oil. Anyway I am ranting I just know once you get off sugar your body eventually begins to burn your fat stores for energy, rather than the sugar you are eating in your meals

cmriverside

nirerats7 wrote: »

One thing to remember is your body can only process so much added sugar, the rest goes to fat. Added processed sugar is not a good thing. I see a lot of people on here eating yogurts that have a ton of sugar, they might be low in fat but the sugar is ridiculous. Your body needs good fats (not trans or saturated) but the kind you get from avocados and olive oil. Anyway I am ranting I just know once you get off sugar your body eventually begins to burn your fat stores for energy, rather than the sugar you are eating in your meals

No, none of this.

*edit to say, except maybe the trans fat part.

kimny72

nirerats7 wrote: »

One thing to remember is your body can only process so much added sugar, the rest goes to fat. Added processed sugar is not a good thing. I see a lot of people on here eating yogurts that have a ton of sugar, they might be low in fat but the sugar is ridiculous. Your body needs good fats (not trans or saturated) but the kind you get from avocados and olive oil. Anyway I am ranting I just know once you get off sugar your body eventually begins to burn your fat stores for energy, rather than the sugar you are eating in your meals

Your body is constantly storing some fat and burning other fat, all the time. The only way added sugar causes you to gain weight is if you are in a calorie surplus, but that would happen regardless of what the excess calories came from.

If you have a scientific source for:

nirerats7 wrote: »

One thing to remember is your body can only process so much added sugar, the rest goes to fat.

I'd love to see it, especially if it quantifies how much added sugar your body can process per day. :drinker:

quiksylver296

Monster Ultra Zero has no carbs. The white one is best.

Have your cake Monster and eat it, too!

I switched out my sugar tracker for fiber years ago.

lemurcat2

To elaborate:

nirerats7 wrote: »

One thing to remember is your body can only process so much added sugar, the rest goes to fat.

Net fat will not be added absent a calorie surplus, and it's very unlikely to come from sugar, as it's much easier to create fat from fat (since most people eat fat and carbs this is not particularly important, just as the fact the body CAN convert sugar to fat under the right circumstances is not).

Whether sugar is added (free) or inherent has nothing to do with this. Your body breaks sucrose down into glucose and fructose, it breaks HFCS down into the same, it breaks down the sugars in fruit (which include sucrose, glucose, and fructose), it breaks down the sugars in milk and other dairy (whether added or not), it breaks down starches into sugar, etc.

Added processed sugar is not a good thing.

What is the word "processed" supposed to be indicating here? Sucrose is from sugar cane or sugarbeets and is (or is comprised of) the same sugars you will find in fruits.

Added sugar should be limited, IMO, because it tends to be included in lots of low nutrient, high cal foods (typically with lots of fat too), and therefore tends to add unnecessary and unhelpful calories. But it also can make a food or diet more enjoyable in moderate amounts, so there's no reason to demonize it or grossly exaggerate its harms. Among other things, again, OF COURSE it cannot cause you to gain fat in a calorie deficit.

I see a lot of people on here eating yogurts that have a ton of sugar, they might be low in fat but the sugar is ridiculous.

Hmm. Most low fat flavored yogurts I'm aware of tend to have fake sugar. I don't know how many people eat them (I do not), as I do not snoop in their diaries or judge what others eat unless they start judging other people's diets first.

Your body needs good fats (not trans or saturated) but the kind you get from avocados and olive oil.

Eating some sugar doesn't prevent you from eating healthy fats. The amount of fat we need is not that high (although some of us like to eat more than we need because we find it helps create a sustainable diet).

Anyway I am ranting I just know once you get off sugar your body eventually begins to burn your fat stores for energy, rather than the sugar you are eating in your meals

I'm not sure what "getting off sugar" is, and everyone burns a combination of fat and sugar for energy (from our meals if we are eating at maintenance or in a surplus, and from our body fat too if in a deficit). Whether or not we eat some added sugar has zero to do with this.

sammidelvecchio

The white zero monster is truly life changing

J72FIT

nirerats7 wrote: »

One thing to remember is your body can only process so much added sugar, the rest goes to fat.

Not in an energy deficit...

nirerats7 wrote: »

Added processed sugar is not a good thing.

Context...

nirerats7 wrote: »

I just know once you get off sugar your body eventually begins to burn your fat stores for energy, rather than the sugar you are eating in your meals

If you are not in an energy deficit, your body will not be burning anything...

RelCanonical

In short, they're separate because they're separate on food labels. However, keep in mind that total "carbohydrates" on food labels include sugar - fiber and sugar are just breakdowns of what the carbs in the food consist off, with the remainder being starch. So fiber+sugar+starches=carbs on the food label.

I haven't really looked up WHY they're broken down that way, but they are somewhat concrete chemistry categories, not socially defined. As far as your question, starches will take a little longer to break down, so they will have a different effect on your body as far as bursts of energy, but it is on a spectrum, so it really depends on if you're replacing a high-fiber food with a sugary food, or if you're replacing white bread (one of the simpler starches) with sugar, where there won't be much of a difference.

From a pure calorie standpoint, there's no difference. It's all based on satiation and "spreading out" your energy or getting it in a quicker burst.

I kind of wish they'd break down protein too so you know when you're getting a complete protein, but ya know, food labels are already pretty long and you gotta work with food lobbyists and all that to get these things through.

perezlau

Thank you all!

phred_52

All the above answers are above my brain level, lol. All I know is I use appx 3.5lbs of sugar monthly with coffee, and I've lost 12 lbs in a very short time.