are macros just as important as calories?

F00LofaT00K

The problem is that MFP has a limit there that was obviously designed to account only for added sugar. Counting everything defeats the purpose.

Are you sure about that? I have no idea if that's actually true. Have you looked up sugar limits and researched how and why they were created? And whether MFP's limit is the same or different from established limits? (I have not looked into it myself.)

That said, I'm sure vegetarians eating a lot of fruit will easily go way over their daily MFP limit.

Source: http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyDietGoals/Sugars-and-Carbohydrates_UCM_303296_Article.jsp#

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/25/aha.sugar.added/

So, it appears that limiting added sugars in foods is important. But neither article addresses what the safe limit is for sugars inherent in natural foods (like fruits, milk, etc.). I'm not talking about more complex carbs that break down. I'm talking about sugars. And then there is the gray area: semi-processed foods, like whole wheat flour. These have sugars in them, too. As we have seen it gets complicated very quickly.

I see what you mean. I did some looking around and can't find ANY information that isn't solely about added sugar. MUST. SEARCH. HARDER.

I think we're going to have to look to actual studies.

Oh...and per your other question, I do believe added sugar would vary by caloric requirement as well. But not by a whole lot. In fact, I've seen some suggestions that ideally we should consume no added sugar (impossible today unfortunately).

If you think about it, sugar is sugar, no matter where it's found. Or rather, glucose is glucose. I've also alluded to the idea that glycemic index isn't the end-all, be-all, either...food combinations can impact total glycemic load of a meal, for instance. Eat some fiber with your candy...it tastes better. Well, not really. But you get the picture (and I hope the OP does, too).

Btw, are those gerbils?

I would LOVE to find a peer-reviewed article site that has free studies for the general public to view. And no, that's a litter of 14 baby mice. Their end was filled with snakey terror, sadly.

Fithealthyforlife

The problem is that MFP has a limit there that was obviously designed to account only for added sugar. Counting everything defeats the purpose.

Are you sure about that? I have no idea if that's actually true. Have you looked up sugar limits and researched how and why they were created? And whether MFP's limit is the same or different from established limits? (I have not looked into it myself.)

That said, I'm sure vegetarians eating a lot of fruit will easily go way over their daily MFP limit.

Source: http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyDietGoals/Sugars-and-Carbohydrates_UCM_303296_Article.jsp#

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/25/aha.sugar.added/

So, it appears that limiting added sugars in foods is important. But neither article addresses what the safe limit is for sugars inherent in natural foods (like fruits, milk, etc.). I'm not talking about more complex carbs that break down. I'm talking about sugars. And then there is the gray area: semi-processed foods, like whole wheat flour. These have sugars in them, too. As we have seen it gets complicated very quickly.

I see what you mean. I did some looking around and can't find ANY information that isn't solely about added sugar. MUST. SEARCH. HARDER.

STILL can't find anything but this website: http://www.rodalenews.com/recommended-sugar-intake (never heard of it before so I have no idea if it's even reliable) but it makes me think that the suggestion to limit added sugars is because people with higher sugar diets tend to consume more calories. Limiting sugar could be a way for those people to eat fewer calories. Now I'm wondering if it doesn't matter for the average healthy person how much sugar they consume as long as they're also getting enough nutrients. Thoughts?

I would say it does matter. Because the more sugar we eat above some limit (how's that limit calculated???) the higher our risk of diabetes is. It has nothing to do with weight gain, as far as I know...necessarily. Though in many cases, it does.

Some also say that the more sugar you consume, the less micros you'll tend to consume or absorb (and maybe even less protein). I think some of that is due to food substitutions. But some may be due to biochemical effects on metabolism/digestion/hunger, and gut bacteria, too.

F00LofaT00K

The problem is that MFP has a limit there that was obviously designed to account only for added sugar. Counting everything defeats the purpose.

Are you sure about that? I have no idea if that's actually true. Have you looked up sugar limits and researched how and why they were created? And whether MFP's limit is the same or different from established limits? (I have not looked into it myself.)

That said, I'm sure vegetarians eating a lot of fruit will easily go way over their daily MFP limit.

Source: http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyDietGoals/Sugars-and-Carbohydrates_UCM_303296_Article.jsp#

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/25/aha.sugar.added/

So, it appears that limiting added sugars in foods is important. But neither article addresses what the safe limit is for sugars inherent in natural foods (like fruits, milk, etc.). I'm not talking about more complex carbs that break down. I'm talking about sugars. And then there is the gray area: semi-processed foods, like whole wheat flour. These have sugars in them, too. As we have seen it gets complicated very quickly.

I see what you mean. I did some looking around and can't find ANY information that isn't solely about added sugar. MUST. SEARCH. HARDER.

STILL can't find anything but this website: http://www.rodalenews.com/recommended-sugar-intake (never heard of it before so I have no idea if it's even reliable) but it makes me think that the suggestion to limit added sugars is because people with higher sugar diets tend to consume more calories. Limiting sugar could be a way for those people to eat fewer calories. Now I'm wondering if it doesn't matter for the average healthy person how much sugar they consume as long as they're also getting enough nutrients. Thoughts?

I would say it does matter. Because the more sugar we eat above some limit (how's that limit calculated???) the higher our risk of diabetes is. It has nothing to do with weight gain, as far as I know...necessarily. Though in many cases, it does.

Right... diabetes. I REALLY want to find some decent info on suggested total sugar intake.

ETA:

the studies indicate that high sugars intake (eg, > 20% of energy from sucrose) should be avoided because sugars have no nutritional value other than to provide calories

I think this is the best answer we'll get???
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/4/827S.full

It at least explains why there is the distinction made between "natural" and "added" sugars (something I've always wondered about)... the reason basically being because Americans be dumb.

zyxst

In to find later.

And because I sense this will become a sugar is ebil thread.

F00LofaT00K

In to find later.

And because I sense this will become a sugar is ebil thread.

sugar is sweet, silly.

Fithealthyforlife

So, it appears that limiting added sugars in foods is important. But neither article addresses what the safe limit is for sugars inherent in natural foods (like fruits, milk, etc.). I'm not talking about more complex carbs that break down. I'm talking about sugars. And then there is the gray area: semi-processed foods, like whole wheat flour. These have sugars in them, too. As we have seen it gets complicated very quickly.

I see what you mean. I did some looking around and can't find ANY information that isn't solely about added sugar. MUST. SEARCH. HARDER.

STILL can't find anything but this website: http://www.rodalenews.com/recommended-sugar-intake (never heard of it before so I have no idea if it's even reliable) but it makes me think that the suggestion to limit added sugars is because people with higher sugar diets tend to consume more calories. Limiting sugar could be a way for those people to eat fewer calories. Now I'm wondering if it doesn't matter for the average healthy person how much sugar they consume as long as they're also getting enough nutrients. Thoughts?

I would say it does matter. Because the more sugar we eat above some limit (how's that limit calculated???) the higher our risk of diabetes is. It has nothing to do with weight gain, as far as I know...necessarily. Though in many cases, it does.

Right... diabetes. I REALLY want to find some decent info on suggested total sugar intake.

ETA:

the studies indicate that high sugars intake (eg, > 20% of energy from sucrose) should be avoided because sugars have no nutritional value other than to provide calories

I think this is the best answer we'll get???
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/4/827S.full

It at least explains why there is the distinction made between "natural" and "added" sugars (something I've always wondered about)... the reason basically being because Americans be dumb.

[/quote]

Americans are dumb b/c we sacrifice foods with good macros and micros for foods with extra sugar? lol.
I think another thing is that too much sugar itself is bad...


Here's an absolute gem. Remember sugars are the breakdown product of complex carbs. When our total sugar intake goes too high, we overload the carbohydrate metabolic pathways, cause negative feedback, etc.:

A very-low-fat diet (≈20% or less of total energy from fat) accompanied by a high intake of carbohydrate can precipitate metabolic changes that may result in atherogenic dyslipidemia (11). The lipoprotein profile of atherogenic dyslipidemia is characterized by elevated triacylglycerols; small, dense LDLs; and low concentrations of HDLs (12). High-carbohydrate diets (13, 14), especially diets high in sugars (11, 13), have been associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

And I remember reading elsewhere that such a metabolic profile contributes to diabetes. I think the current view is basically that type II diabetes is precipitated by distressed fat cells secreting pro-inflammatory substances.

F00LofaT00K

So, it appears that limiting added sugars in foods is important. But neither article addresses what the safe limit is for sugars inherent in natural foods (like fruits, milk, etc.). I'm not talking about more complex carbs that break down. I'm talking about sugars. And then there is the gray area: semi-processed foods, like whole wheat flour. These have sugars in them, too. As we have seen it gets complicated very quickly.

I see what you mean. I did some looking around and can't find ANY information that isn't solely about added sugar. MUST. SEARCH. HARDER.

STILL can't find anything but this website: http://www.rodalenews.com/recommended-sugar-intake (never heard of it before so I have no idea if it's even reliable) but it makes me think that the suggestion to limit added sugars is because people with higher sugar diets tend to consume more calories. Limiting sugar could be a way for those people to eat fewer calories. Now I'm wondering if it doesn't matter for the average healthy person how much sugar they consume as long as they're also getting enough nutrients. Thoughts?

I would say it does matter. Because the more sugar we eat above some limit (how's that limit calculated???) the higher our risk of diabetes is. It has nothing to do with weight gain, as far as I know...necessarily. Though in many cases, it does.

Right... diabetes. I REALLY want to find some decent info on suggested total sugar intake.

ETA:

the studies indicate that high sugars intake (eg, > 20% of energy from sucrose) should be avoided because sugars have no nutritional value other than to provide calories

I think this is the best answer we'll get???
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/4/827S.full

It at least explains why there is the distinction made between "natural" and "added" sugars (something I've always wondered about)... the reason basically being because Americans be dumb.

Americans are dumb b/c we sacrifice foods with good macros and micros for foods with extra sugar? lol.
I think another thing is that too much sugar itself is bad...


Here's an absolute gem. Remember sugars are the breakdown product of complex carbs. When our total sugar intake goes too high, we overload the carbohydrate metabolic pathways, cause negative feedback, etc.:

A very-low-fat diet (≈20% or less of total energy from fat) accompanied by a high intake of carbohydrate can precipitate metabolic changes that may result in atherogenic dyslipidemia (11). The lipoprotein profile of atherogenic dyslipidemia is characterized by elevated triacylglycerols; small, dense LDLs; and low concentrations of HDLs (12). High-carbohydrate diets (13, 14), especially diets high in sugars (11, 13), have been associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

And I remember reading elsewhere that such a metabolic profile contributes to diabetes. I think the current view is basically that type II diabetes is precipitated by distressed fat cells secreting pro-inflammatory substances.
[/quote]

Americans are dumb b/c we sacrifice foods with good macros and micros for foods with extra sugar?

No, no... my sarcasm fails via text. By "we're dumb" I'm referring to:

Focus groups showed that added sugars was a concept that consumers could readily understand and thus an emphasis on added sugars might be likely to lead to behavior changes

AvonBell

Guys, it's simple:

Sugar is sugar is sugar. It doesn't matter where it comes from. It has zero nutritional value (which is why there is no recommended daily allowance) and can lead to various ailments. The reason we don't count natural sugar is because the foods that contain natural sugar are nutritional for other reasons and it's normally confectionary, beverages, and other sweets that lead to excess sugar consumption and sickness.

That doesn't mean you can eat unlimited fruit. Limiting fruits to a few servings per day is probably a good idea. But you should more focused on cutting the cookies, candy, and pop where all this added sugar can be found. Read nutrition labels and look for the sugar, it can come in many disguises[1].

[1] http://www.rd.com/health/healthy-eating/recognizing-sugar-on-nutrition-labels/

jaydangler

Put it this way-

If you are doing a proficient job at hitting your macro limits, then your caloric intake will take care of itself.
When measuring macros, they should correspond to your caloric intake.

So if you're targeting to consume 2000 calories a day you can break it down like this:

150 carb: 600 cal
200 pro: 800 cal
66 Fat: 600 cal

This is an example of a 40% protein 30% carb 30% fat intake.

There- If you hit each of those macros efficiently, your caloric intake will take care of itself.

zyxst

In to find later.

And because I sense this will become a sugar is ebil thread.

sugar is sweet, silly.

And sweet can't be evil? Have you never seen It's A Wonderful Life?

shred_me_up

Personally I dont pay attention to sugar but as others said , thats not a macro.

pcastagner

Are hammers more important than wrenches?

Depends on your task now, doesn't it?



Also, of course sugar has nutritional value. Lots of ATP to be had in a spoon of sugar.

psuLemon

There is absolutely nothing wrong with sugar. Below is a great article that breaks down the effects of sugar. Also take into consideration, even if we eat cookies and ice cream (or a daily klondike bar) it doesn't mean we aren't achieving our other macronutrient goals. I still hit my protein intake and fat intake while eating 100-140g's of sugar. This ridiculous thought process that if you eat any type of added sugar or non natural source of sugar is bad for you or can effect your weight loss goals is mind blowing. Yes for improved health, you want to try to maximize your macro and micronutrient intake, but eating a candy bar will not hurt your goals pending you fall within an acceptable calorie goal.

Also, keep in mind, most of these studies are looking at the average person and generally not done under a calorie restricted environment.


http://www.fitnessbaddies.com/your-problem-with-sugar-is-the-problem-with-sugar/

neanderthin

Personally I dont pay attention to sugar but as others said , thats not a macro.

Sugar is a carbohydrate, and a carbohydrate is a macro.