sugar intake (Bad v Good)

SAH1906

MFP gives me 49 grams of sugar per day. If I eat just 3 apples in a day...I'm over. Now I do go over for OTHER reasons too, but it just seems to me that going over w 3 fruits a day on a 1870 calorie diet is a bit flawed.

So my question is, is it (HEALTH -WISE) to go over on sugar if the sugars are from fruits and not processed?

mrmagee3

MFP gives me 49 grams of sugar per day. If I eat just 3 apples in a day...I'm over. Now I do go over for OTHER reasons too, but it just seems to me that going over w 3 fruits a day on a 1870 calorie diet is a bit flawed.

So my question is, is it (HEALTH -WISE) to go over on sugar if the sugars are from fruits and not processed?

Somebody finally asked this question. It's about time.

nomeejerome

unless you have a medical condition, do not worry about it.

TheSlorax

from what I understand, MFP's limits are for ADDED sugar. however, they count the sugars in fruits with no distinction from added sugars.

eta: I have no opinion on the matter either way, but that may help answer your question.

msw1age

Humans have been eating fruit for hundreds of thousands of years. They're good for you.

callmenikita

MFP gives me 49 grams of sugar per day. If I eat just 3 apples in a day...I'm over. Now I do go over for OTHER reasons too, but it just seems to me that going over w 3 fruits a day on a 1870 calorie diet is a bit flawed.

So my question is, is it (HEALTH -WISE) to go over on sugar if the sugars are from fruits and not processed?

I do green smoothies with Kale, spinach, carrot juice & a LOT of fruits... i always go over my sugar and never worry about it.

All calories arent created equal. Refined sugars are obvioiusly what they are couting but if you snack on fruits & veggies you will always go over the standard that they have. Stay away from those refined sugar though!!

callmenikita

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/29/fruit-sugar-versus-white-sugar_n_3497795.html

sympha01

MFP's default sugar limits are absurdly low: < 8% of calories. EVEN IF they meant to limit to "added" sugar as opposed to sugar naturally occurring in plant-based foods, that's aggressively low. And add to that, that their own database doesn't allow users to distinguish between "added" sugar and naturally occurring sugar (to be fair, food labels don't distinguish either). But that's even more reason why they shouldn't set their own defaults so low -- it's incompatible with their system!!!!

You can set your sugar goals to as high as 25% of calories, as long as you're not diabetic or pre-diabetic, and with the general healthy advice to get the majority of your carbs from natural whole foods and less from packaged foods that might have "added" sugar anyway.

dinglekerri

I've been struggling with the good sugar vs bad sugar question myself. Won't sugar, even GOOD sugar turn into fat if not used?

sympha01

I've been struggling with the good sugar vs bad sugar question myself. Won't sugar, even GOOD sugar turn into fat if not used?

All calories turn into fat if not used. That's why we count calories.

KateK8LoseW8

I've been struggling with the good sugar vs bad sugar question myself. Won't sugar, even GOOD sugar turn into fat if not used?

All calories turn into fat if not used. That's why we count calories.

This. You really only need to pay close attention to sugar intake if you have a medical reason to. There's no reason you couldn't eat even a candy bar if you budgeted for it in your calorie allowance, it won't turn into fat if the body can use it. And if you're eating at a deficit, your body is going to use it.

sympha01

This. You really only need to pay close attention to sugar intake if you have a medical reason to. There's no reason you couldn't eat even a candy bar if you budgeted for it in your calorie allowance, it won't turn into fat if the body can use it. And if you're eating at a deficit, your body is going to use it.

Yeah. To be fair, there is a lot of semi-reasonable science and even (gasp!) consensus in the medical world that eating EXCESSIVE added sugar is bad for your health. But I also think a lot of the consensus is more around the idea that people eat too much junk food, junk food has a lot of calories, not a lot of nutrients, and the sugar : fiber ratio is such that insulin spikes can occur and insulin spikes are bad. People should eat less junk food. (This is not the same as saying people can never have junk food).

But even Robert Lustig, who is kind of king of the anti-sugar brigade, has recently been quoted in the NY Times as saying that sugar in whole fruit is NO BIG DEAL, we can chill about it. The worst thing he says about fruit is that we should be very skeptical of the healthfulness of fruit juice, but only because it's calorie (sugar) dense without any fiber to mitigate the insulin response.

Again, the kind of LIVABLE advice that just about everyone agrees on: eat all the whole fruit you want, really, but watch your calories. Get plenty of fiber. Try to eat much less junk food. It's okay to have junk food once in a while if you really "need" it.

The problem with sugar is no one is sure how to track it. Government regulation regarding food labels is in a particularly messed up place right now regarding sugar, because they want to give people advice about reducing sugar from processed junk, they want to incent manufacturers to sweeten packaged food less, but don't know how to create an enforceable, meaningful system. If Unilever came out with a cracker tomorrow that had sugar or corn syrup to flavor it, that would definitely be added sugar. But if Unilever sweetened the cracker with grape juice extract, that would also have sugar (probably the same amount, chemically), and no better for you. Could Unilever market that product "sweetened with fruit juice, no added sugar"? Compare that to Nabisco's Fig Newtons. Obviously the fruit filling has actual whole fruit in it. That's good, right? Less obviously, the filling also has additional sweeteners in it, and of course the cake around the filling is also sweetened. What kind of standard could governments create for tracking "added sugar" that was meaningful? And so they are currently in a place where all sugar is tracked on the label, even though the health people don't think we need to worry about sugar in whole fruit as long as we're counting the calories.

KateK8LoseW8

This. You really only need to pay close attention to sugar intake if you have a medical reason to. There's no reason you couldn't eat even a candy bar if you budgeted for it in your calorie allowance, it won't turn into fat if the body can use it. And if you're eating at a deficit, your body is going to use it.

Yeah. To be fair, there is a lot of semi-reasonable science and even (gasp!) consensus in the medical world that eating EXCESSIVE added sugar is bad for your health. But I also think a lot of the consensus is more around the idea that people eat too much junk food, junk food has a lot of calories, not a lot of nutrients, and the sugar : fiber ratio is such that insulin spikes can occur and insulin spikes are bad. People should eat less junk food. (This is not the same as saying people can never have junk food).

But even Robert Lustig, who is kind of king of the anti-sugar brigade, has recently been quoted in the NY Times as saying that sugar in whole fruit is NO BIG DEAL, we can chill about it. The worst thing he says about fruit is that we should be very skeptical of the healthfulness of fruit juice, but only because it's calorie (sugar) dense without any fiber to mitigate the insulin response.

Again, the kind of LIVABLE advice that just about everyone agrees on: eat all the whole fruit you want, really, but watch your calories. Get plenty of fiber. Try to eat much less junk food. It's okay to have junk food once in a while if you really "need" it.

The problem with sugar is no one is sure how to track it. Government regulation regarding food labels is in a particularly messed up place right now regarding sugar, because they want to give people advice about reducing sugar from processed junk, they want to incent manufacturers to sweeten packaged food less, but don't know how to create an enforceable, meaningful system. If Unilever came out with a cracker tomorrow that had sugar or corn syrup to flavor it, that would definitely be added sugar. But if Unilever sweetened the cracker with grape juice extract, that would also have sugar (probably the same amount, chemically), and no better for you. Could Unilever market that product "sweetened with fruit juice, no added sugar"? Compare that to Nabisco's Fig Newtons. Obviously the fruit filling has actual whole fruit in it. That's good, right? Less obviously, the filling also has additional sweeteners in it, and of course the cake around the filling is also sweetened. What kind of standard could governments create for tracking "added sugar" that was meaningful? And so they are currently in a place where all sugar is tracked on the label, even though the health people don't think we need to worry about sugar in whole fruit as long as we're counting the calories.

Agreed 100% on all points.

Confuzzled4ever

added sugar is what i have to watch. (I just ate a little debbie though... so i'm just awaiting the headache that will follow. *sigh*) Sugar that is in natural unaltered foods is good sugar. Sugar that is added in is not. Mostly in things like.. well little debbies..and other processed junk..i can't believe i just ate that..

redladywitch

Sugar isn't a bad thing. Unfortunately, your body thinks an apple or a cookie is sugar. If you have no medical reasons, then go for it.

SAH1906

Thank you to those of you who actually answered my question. To the others that decided to just be sarcastic...

PicoJulie

Bump. (Lots of good info here!)

I love orange juice, but I'm starting to think maybe I need to nix it a little (not everyday) for fresh oranges... I dono. :grumble: