Daily sugar intake

DapperKay

Hey guys - for those of you who track it, how much sugar do you allow yourself in a day?

I've heard and read articles advising on wildly different numbers (from 35g to 90g all seemed to feature). I tried for a while to stick between 40-50g but it was difficult as I do generally have quite a sweet tooth (within reason of course).

Given your goals are all different - but I was wondering what you guys consider normal for you and why?

tennisdude2004

As long as it fits into your macros and calorie target you can eat as much as you like.

I try and keep my sugar intake as low as possible (I'm not sure of the exact amount as I do not log my food), but my basic source is veggies and a small amount of fruit (plus dark chocolate and some other treats, every so often).

Sugar is basically void of nutrients so the calories you take up with sugar you are not getting from other more nutritional sources.

That being said if you are eating it in things that have additional nutrients, or are in themselves nutrient rich (like fruit for example), then as long as it fits it doesn't really matter.

If you are calorie counting as part of your weight loss strategy - then I suppose the only thing to focus on is:

Log it and enjoy it!

psuLemon

I don't track sugar, but usually its around 120g a day. And unless you have a medical condition, it won't impede your weight loss as long as you are in a calorie deficit. Having said that, my priorities are calories and then protein.

DapperKay

Right on - until you read this serious bummer of an article (25g - you gotta be kidding me!!):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26449497

I paid no attention - but was wondering if I was overdoing it. Over the past 2 months I'd averaged 50g (which I thought was okay - given that I am in maintenance and I am not gaining or losing weight no more).

tennisdude2004

Right on - until you read this serious bummer of an article (25g - you gotta be kidding me!!):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26449497

I paid no attention - but was wondering if I was overdoing it. Over the past 2 months I'd averaged 50g (which I thought was okay - given that I am in maintenance and I am not gaining or losing weight no more).

Personally I agree with the article - but I think it is addressed mainly to people who eat in a surplus as opposed to a majority of people on MFP who eat in a deficit or maintain.

I think the way to tackle obesity is not to vilify a particular food (although educating people on the benefit / or lack of benefit is a good thing) is to get people to understand portion control and the concept of calorie deficit and calorie surplus.

I really do no think most people have a clear understanding of what over eating does to the body (apart from making them look bigger).

DapperKay

Right on - until you read this serious bummer of an article (25g - you gotta be kidding me!!):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26449497

I paid no attention - but was wondering if I was overdoing it. Over the past 2 months I'd averaged 50g (which I thought was okay - given that I am in maintenance and I am not gaining or losing weight no more).

Personally I agree with the article - but I think it is addressed mainly to people who eat in a surplus as opposed to a majority of people on MFP who eat in a deficit or maintain.

I think the way to tackle obesity is not to vilify a particular food (although educating people on the benefit / or lack of benefit is a good thing) is to get people to understand portion control and the concept of calorie deficit and calorie surplus.

I really do no think most people have a clear understanding of what over eating does to the body (apart from making them look bigger).

Good point - I think if we approach it that way then maybe it does make more sense. Because let's take a cup of OJ for instance - this has around 20g of sugars. If WHO are right, then you are left with a mere 5g of sugars for the rest of the day, a mouse needs more than that.

I do wonder though if we had MFP say 50 or 60 years ago, because this seems to be the time when nutritionists and health folks think that food started getting too processed with extra sugar and salt added here and there (I think they are right - they exaggerate though). I wonder then if 25g of sugar was the norm then? WHO are saying the reason most people consume excess sugar is because many of it is hidden and that people don't read labels. That's fine - but doesn't that partly put the blame on the producers? Shouldn't the WHO be lobbying to curb bad practices like ingesting sugar in all foods here and there? Maybe that's too political - I just think there should be a happy middle somewhere.

psuLemon

Right on - until you read this serious bummer of an article (25g - you gotta be kidding me!!):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26449497

I paid no attention - but was wondering if I was overdoing it. Over the past 2 months I'd averaged 50g (which I thought was okay - given that I am in maintenance and I am not gaining or losing weight no more).

Personally I agree with the article - but I think it is addressed mainly to people who eat in a surplus as opposed to a majority of people on MFP who eat in a deficit or maintain.

I think the way to tackle obesity is not to vilify a particular food (although educating people on the benefit / or lack of benefit is a good thing) is to get people to understand portion control and the concept of calorie deficit and calorie surplus.

I really do no think most people have a clear understanding of what over eating does to the body (apart from making them look bigger).

I see this as their recommendation to lower calories overall, which is the real reason for obesity, not sugar. In fact, i will quote a statistic that Yarwell posted in another sugar thread. As you can tell, sugar hasn't changed much, but what has is the calorie intake. Since sugar is low in nutrients but calorie dense, lowering sugar is an easy way to cut calories. My overall issue is, our societies try to pinpoint or blame one piece of the pie as opposed to looking at the whole picture; just look at the anti-fat diets in the 90's. And what did we learn now, that fat is really good for you, and lowering it can cause issues.

http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf only gets us to 2000.

www.ers.usda.gov/.../LossAdjusted_Food_Availability/sugar.xls gives us the following grams/day per head for 20 years to 2012, "all caloric sweeteners" ie sucrose + HFCS + honey + glucose etc etc (not fruit juice)

107.3
110.6
112.6
115.6
117.2
117.9
119.9
118.6
116.9
116.7
113.0
112.0
113.0
111.3
107.1
107.5
103.2
105.0
104.3
103.7

tennisdude2004

Right on - until you read this serious bummer of an article (25g - you gotta be kidding me!!):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26449497

I paid no attention - but was wondering if I was overdoing it. Over the past 2 months I'd averaged 50g (which I thought was okay - given that I am in maintenance and I am not gaining or losing weight no more).

Personally I agree with the article - but I think it is addressed mainly to people who eat in a surplus as opposed to a majority of people on MFP who eat in a deficit or maintain.

I think the way to tackle obesity is not to vilify a particular food (although educating people on the benefit / or lack of benefit is a good thing) is to get people to understand portion control and the concept of calorie deficit and calorie surplus.

I really do no think most people have a clear understanding of what over eating does to the body (apart from making them look bigger).

I see this as their recommendation to lower calories overall, which is the real reason for obesity, not sugar. In fact, i will quote a statistic that Yarwell posted in another sugar thread. As you can tell, sugar hasn't changed much, but what has is the calorie intake. Since sugar is low in nutrients but calorie dense, lowering sugar is an easy way to cut calories. My overall issue is, our societies try to pinpoint or blame one piece of the pie as opposed to looking at the whole picture; just look at the anti-fat diets in the 90's. And what did we learn now, that fat is really good for you, and lowering it can cause issues.

http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf only gets us to 2000.

www.ers.usda.gov/.../LossAdjusted_Food_Availability/sugar.xls gives us the following grams/day per head for 20 years to 2012, "all caloric sweeteners" ie sucrose + HFCS + honey + glucose etc etc (not fruit juice)

107.3
110.6
112.6
115.6
117.2
117.9
119.9
118.6
116.9
116.7
113.0
112.0
113.0
111.3
107.1
107.5
103.2
105.0
104.3
103.7

Yes interesting stats.

I think for reducing calories sugar does seem to be the low hanging fruit!

I agree that our obesity issue isn't the fault of sugar, there are lots of factors - the digital age and people being less active is a big issue, not to mention the schools underfunding of children's PE classes.

gaelicstorm26

I eat between 10-35 grams of sugar daily. I'm a Type II diabetic so I'm doing that on purpose. They are also probably low because I have a low carb diet. Everyone approaches the journey in a different way.