Another look at the Sugar issue

Crawflowr

OK, I know there are millions of threads on sugar, but I think I've come to a realisation about MFP's sugar levels that seems important to me and so I thought I'd share.

I've always found the MFP limit for sugar very restrictive (for me on 1430 calories it is only 29g), this has resulted in me eating very little fresh fruit (I admit I was never a big fruit eater). However this has always bothered me. So I've been looking around trying to do some reasearch into where MFP has taken there limit for sugar from. I have concluded that the sugar limit presented by MFP has resulted from the limit suggested by the USDA of 5-15% Solid Fats and Added Sugars (SoFaS) this would explain why the limit is 8% of the calories with saturated fats being limited to 10%. However the sugar value on labels doesn't distinguish added sugar from intrinsic or milk sugars that are meant to be better.

In the UK the Food and Drink Federation who devise the Guideline Daily Amounts (GDA) recommend a breakdown of 49% total carbohydrates of which 19% is total sugars with only 10% coming from Non-Milk Extrinsic Sugars (NMES) (Added sugars in the US terminology). So for a normal female on 2000 calories a day this equates to 90g of total sugars of which only 50g can come from NMES (men get 120g total sugar and 65g NMES). For me on 1430 calories a day this means around 60g total sugars and 36g NMES.

This limit encourages me to eat more fresh fruit so I can use up my remaining 24g of sugar allowance (for a normal adult this would equates to the 5 fruits and vegetables we are always being encouraged to eat). These guidelines are so much more liberating than the 8% total sugar limit MFP imposes.

Of course people with diabetes have different rules to follow.

Check out http://www.fdf.org.uk/publicgeneral/gdas_science_jul09.pdf for the full report.

JayBeeGo

An interesting post which could well make the issue of sugar somewhat clearer and considered in a more meaningful way.
Thanks for the link to the pdf which I've read a few times and if you would be kind enough can you confirm if my understanding is somewhere near correct or whether I'm simply cooking the books.

The recommendations from the pdf seem to be 47% of total calorie intake from carbs ie male on 2500 cals = 1175 cals = 294 g ~ presumably rounded off to 300g.

The recommendation for all sugar as 19% of 2500 cals = 475 cals = 118.8 g ~ rounded off to 120g.
The maximum from NMES/added sugar of 10% of 2500 cals = 250 cals = 62.5g ~ rounded off to 65g.
Giving a figure of 120g - 65g ie 55g from sugar naturally present in food.

An intake of up to 55g of sugar from eg fresh fruit and veg on the assumption that all the sugar is present naturally and up to a further 65g of sugar not naturally present in all foods consumed.

Presumably you simply work out the corresponding values for different total calorie intake on a pro rata basis although my maths/logic fails once I try to work out the figures you quote for your own calorie intake.

UponThisRock

missing the forest for the trees

Crawflowr

An interesting post which could well make the issue of sugar somewhat clearer and considered in a more meaningful way.
Thanks for the link to the pdf which I've read a few times and if you would be kind enough can you confirm if my understanding is somewhere near correct or whether I'm simply cooking the books.

The recommendations from the pdf seem to be 47% of total calorie intake from carbs ie male on 2500 cals = 1175 cals = 294 g ~ presumably rounded off to 300g.

The recommendation for all sugar as 19% of 2500 cals = 475 cals = 118.8 g ~ rounded off to 120g.
The maximum from NMES/added sugar of 10% of 2500 cals = 250 cals = 62.5g ~ rounded off to 65g.
Giving a figure of 120g - 65g ie 55g from sugar naturally present in food.

An intake of up to 55g of sugar from eg fresh fruit and veg on the assumption that all the sugar is present naturally and up to a further 65g of sugar not naturally present in all foods consumed.

Presumably you simply work out the corresponding values for different total calorie intake on a pro rata basis although my maths/logic fails once I try to work out the figures you quote for your own calorie intake.

Yes I think your reading of the recommendations are right.

The 60g sugar I've upped my intake to comes from 19% of a 1430 calorie diet which is 271.7 calories which equates to 68g (at 4 calories per 1g which is the conversion rate for carbs) so my maths did slip a bit

Crawflowr

missing the forest for the trees

Not sure I understand what you mean by this?

UponThisRock

missing the forest for the trees

Not sure I understand what you mean by this?

If you focus on the big picture, you're not going to eat enough sugar to harm your diet.

Crawflowr

missing the forest for the trees

Not sure I understand what you mean by this?

If you focus on the big picture, you're not going to eat enough sugar to harm your diet.

I appreciate the levels of sugar you eat don't affect your weight loss but they might affect your health. The reason I put this up was I see so many people commenting on how low the MFP sugar level is and how they struggle to meet the levels, if like me they don't like to see red numbers at the end of the day. I thought they might appreciate knowing that the MFP sugar limitation is only really meant to apply to added sugar (NMES) and thus eating that piece of fruit that isn't high in calories but is high in sugar is really OK.

nebulinda

I appreciate the levels of sugar you eat don't affect your weight loss but they might affect your health. The reason I put this up was I see so many people commenting on how low the MFP sugar level is and how they struggle to meet the levels, if like me they don't like to see red numbers at the end of the day. I thought they might appreciate knowing that the MFP sugar limitation is only really meant to apply to added sugar (NMES) and thus eating that piece of fruit that isn't high in calories but is high in sugar is really OK.

Yes, thank you. I see so many people saying that they will reduce or cut out fruits so they can reduce their sugar intake. I wish MFP had a way to differentiate between added sugar and natural sugar (yes, I know not eating processed foods will solve that problem. But, girl scout cookies.)

neanderthin

RDA's are subjective and are minimum requirements for people that are sedentary, and for all intents and purposes mean little to the individual. Anyway it's added sugar that is to be restricted based on the ever increasing numbers of new obese people everyday and it's just a polite way of saying.....quit or slow down eating junk, duh. lol