help with sugar intake, please!!

Options
2»

Replies

  • EccentricDad
    EccentricDad Posts: 875 Member
    Options
    so i like to have brown sugar on my oatmeal in the morning and its enough to fill my "sugar" intake for the day. but that usually is just about all the sugar i eat in the day. but when i log in my fruits, my sugar intake makes it look like i ate cookies all day lol. does anyone on here not log in fruits and veggies? since most are low carb/low cal/low fat anyways? thank you!!

    Disregard sugar intake, only worry about overall calories and overall carbs.

    THIS!
    But I still want people to understand how sugar works; without knowing, the body can't burn it off and the fat that was put in fat cells to force sugar to be burned first will turn into stored fat.
  • lady_jessi
    lady_jessi Posts: 77 Member
    Options
    Dr. Lustig has done extensive research on sugar and it's effect on the body. See this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

    His other videos/written works are pretty good too.

    I count the calories in fruits/vegetables, but I don't care at all about their sugar content. And honestly I feel that refined sugar can be fine as long as you don't over-do it. I put a sugar/stevia mix in my tea when I have it for instance. And I'll eat ice cream sometimes. Moderation is key.
  • anjukins
    anjukins Posts: 103 Member
    Options
    And just to add fuel to the fire, yogurt *is* "naturally occuring", in the "where can I catch me a greek yogurt" sense (though not quite as adventurous as that intentionally dismissive comment makes it sound!)-- ie milk can be colonized by wild-strain, yogurt-making bacterias without any help from humans at all. they're just kicking it in the air, and when they find something perfect in which to make their home, like in unrefrigerated milk, they set up shop! i'm sure that's how the first peeps "discovered" yogurt... their milk went funny and they loved it!!
  • ShaneOSX
    ShaneOSX Posts: 198
    Options
    Have you ever tried using stevia? It is a natural sweetener and although it does taste different it is a pleasant way to sweeten things without blowing your sugar count our of the water. I also used to be an avid oatmeal and brown sugar person. Another alternative I tried was putting a few dried cranberries and sliced almonds in my oatmeal. It also helps the oatmeal to seem sweeter and the almonds help the whole meal break down more slowly(good fat). When you have the right balance of carbs protein and fat you will feel fuller for longer.

    Stevia, truvia, nutrisweet, asparatame, high fructose corn syrup, sorbitol, and sugar alcohol, and all the other "added sugars" are still sugar carbs! They are just not added in the "sugars" part of the label because the FDA doesn't require starches and chemical compounds that are "complex" to be considered in the "sugar" label. But no matter what you are told, ALL carbs are sugar (fibers are just not digestible) and ALL added sugars give calories and hit your blood sugar.

    This is not even close to accurate. For one, several of those are toxic, like aspartame. HFCS is under fire for a reason. Fiber has a completely different effect than sugar. Sugar alcohols do not effect blood sugar, and what's more are not fully metabolized, you can actually subtract a percentage of the carbs from the nutrition label if they are made of sugar alcohols.
  • ShaneOSX
    ShaneOSX Posts: 198
    Options
    And just to add fuel to the fire, yogurt *is* "naturally occuring", in the "where can I catch me a greek yogurt" sense (though not quite as adventurous as that intentionally dismissive comment makes it sound!)-- ie milk can be colonized by wild-strain, yogurt-making bacterias without any help from humans at all. they're just kicking it in the air, and when they find something perfect in which to make their home, like in unrefrigerated milk, they set up shop! i'm sure that's how the first peeps "discovered" yogurt... their milk went funny and they loved it!!

    Thank you. I'm wondering how many more people are going to fail to read that difference correctly in this thread.
  • ShaneOSX
    ShaneOSX Posts: 198
    Options
    Have you ever tried using stevia? It is a natural sweetener and although it does taste different it is a pleasant way to sweeten things without blowing your sugar count our of the water. I also used to be an avid oatmeal and brown sugar person. Another alternative I tried was putting a few dried cranberries and sliced almonds in my oatmeal. It also helps the oatmeal to seem sweeter and the almonds help the whole meal break down more slowly(good fat). When you have the right balance of carbs protein and fat you will feel fuller for longer.

    Indeed. I've been trying to make myself like Stevia, but in stuff like coffee it's just not working for me. I'm trying Nectresse next, here's hoping.

    http://www.nectresse.com
  • jjefferies7
    jjefferies7 Posts: 120
    Options
    naturally occuring sugars are going to be no different compared to other added sugars. sugar is sugar. sugars a carb and carbs are carbs. disregard tracking sugar intake. focus more on hitting your macro and micronutrient goals.

    While it is true having too much sugar is bad for you, fruit sugar is readily available for the body to burn within 15 minutes of eating it (so I've read). So if you are having fruit, do a light exercise after to burn it off. If you are having a fruit and can't exercise, choose a low glycemic value fruit to get your carb kick.

    its not mandatory to do a light exercise after having fruit or any sugar for that matter, its not going to make a difference in your weight loss aside from if the exercise is putting you into a further deficit. also the glycemic index is very innaccurate and irrelevant in most cases.
  • EccentricDad
    EccentricDad Posts: 875 Member
    Options
    This is not even close to accurate. For one, several of those are toxic, like aspartame. HFCS is under fire for a reason. Fiber has a completely different effect than sugar. Sugar alcohols do not effect blood sugar, and what's more are not fully metabolized, you can actually subtract a percentage of the carbs from the nutrition label if they are made of sugar alcohols.

    The facts:
    1) All chemically created sweeteners are toxic.
    2) Sugar alcohol is created by taking a starch (like corn) and hydrogenating them to a 3rd of the original molecule. So essentially they are starchs but 1/3 the calories. They are still carbs and they still affect the blood sugar like a normal starch would (aka complex carb).
    3) Nothing allows you subtract calories. NOTHING.
    4) HFCS is under fire because molecularly it is the EXACT same as sucrose. The body doesn't care if it's sucrose (table sugar) or HFCS, they both send blood sugar levels to spike, and they both cause an insulin response. The only major difference? The FDA doesn't require HFCS to be logged as sugar.
  • tragicpixie
    tragicpixie Posts: 71
    Options
    I don't really worry about MFP's sugar I try to eat low on the glycemic index because I feel better that way. MFP doesn't seem to account for this system, so I just ignore it. The glycemic index tells you how fast sugars break down in your system (sugar is sugar and that's still going to be calories and be used by your body but how fast it can leave your body needing more energy varies).
    I'm not really sure if this helps me lose weight - I don't really use it for that. I use this because when I was in college I had a lot of health issues and started getting serious blood sugar crashes.
  • ShaneOSX
    ShaneOSX Posts: 198
    Options
    This is not even close to accurate. For one, several of those are toxic, like aspartame. HFCS is under fire for a reason. Fiber has a completely different effect than sugar. Sugar alcohols do not effect blood sugar, and what's more are not fully metabolized, you can actually subtract a percentage of the carbs from the nutrition label if they are made of sugar alcohols.

    The facts:
    1) All chemically created sweeteners are toxic.
    2) Sugar alcohol is created by taking a starch (like corn) and hydrogenating them to a 3rd of the original molecule. So essentially they are starchs but 1/3 the calories. They are still carbs and they still affect the blood sugar like a normal starch would (aka complex carb).
    3) Nothing allows you subtract calories. NOTHING.
    4) HFCS is under fire because molecularly it is the EXACT same as sucrose. The body doesn't care if it's sucrose (table sugar) or HFCS, they both send blood sugar levels to spike, and they both cause an insulin response. The only major difference? The FDA doesn't require HFCS to be logged as sugar.

    1. I'm inclined to agree with that, but I didn't say otherwise to begin with.

    2. "There is less of an effect from sugar alcohols than either sugar or starch."- American Diabetes Association (and all other organizations)

    3. I didn't say calories, I said carbs. From the American Diabetes Association again:

    If a food has more than 5 grams of sugar alcohols:

    Subtract ½ the grams of sugar alcohol from the amount of total carbohydrate
    Count the remaining grams of carbohydrate in your meal plan

    4. HFCS is under fire for a variety of things, including potentially causing increased fat deposits in the abdomen. Most of that is unproven. But that's a whole other thread.

    5. Starting your post by calling it "The Facts" doesn't strengthen an argument.
  • tragicpixie
    tragicpixie Posts: 71
    Options
    also the glycemic index is very innaccurate and irrelevant in most cases.

    I don't think it's irrelevant, sugar definitely does affect everyone. Everyone's sensitivity will vary however some people really are sensitive enough to notice a difference between the kinds of sugar - especially in regard to energy levels and mood. Because some sugars leave the system more quickly, someone who eats a lot of highly processed foods, with their easily accessible carbs and processed sugar, will be noticing a lot more variation in mood and energy level than someone who is eating more whole grains and complex sugars. All the molecules are used in your body the same, but it takes time to get to them - which means your body doesn't need them again as quickly. Some people never notice, some people will: but just because something is the same chemical in your body doesn't mean their differences are irrelevant.
  • CyberEd312
    CyberEd312 Posts: 3,536 Member
    Options
    Lol at this thread

    Agreed!!

    I have lost 311 lbs. tracking Calories, Protein, Carbs, and Fats.... I live by the motto "Keep it simple stupid" I do not track anything past that... My diet is of such now (fruits,veggies, multi-grains, lean meats, etc) that I do not worry about sugar grams, sodium grams, etc.... I hit my macro's (50% carbs, 25% protein, 25% fats) and hit my caloric intake daily.. I drink 1/2 my body weight in ounces of water daily (125 oz. minimum) beyond that a get moving everyday.... Not saying this will work for all but I have lost a few pounds doing this method...
  • PayneAS
    PayneAS Posts: 669 Member
    Options
    I've been trying to make myself like Stevia, but in stuff like coffee it's just not working for me.

    I couldn't make myself like Stevia in my coffee either. So for that one thing I'll add regular sugar to. I figure 3 teaspoons a day of sugar aren't going to kill me.
  • EccentricDad
    EccentricDad Posts: 875 Member
    Options
    This is not even close to accurate. For one, several of those are toxic, like aspartame. HFCS is under fire for a reason. Fiber has a completely different effect than sugar. Sugar alcohols do not effect blood sugar, and what's more are not fully metabolized, you can actually subtract a percentage of the carbs from the nutrition label if they are made of sugar alcohols.

    The facts:
    1) All chemically created sweeteners are toxic.
    2) Sugar alcohol is created by taking a starch (like corn) and hydrogenating them to a 3rd of the original molecule. So essentially they are starchs but 1/3 the calories. They are still carbs and they still affect the blood sugar like a normal starch would (aka complex carb).
    3) Nothing allows you subtract calories. NOTHING.
    4) HFCS is under fire because molecularly it is the EXACT same as sucrose. The body doesn't care if it's sucrose (table sugar) or HFCS, they both send blood sugar levels to spike, and they both cause an insulin response. The only major difference? The FDA doesn't require HFCS to be logged as sugar.

    1. I'm inclined to agree with that, but I didn't say otherwise to begin with.

    2. "There is less of an effect from sugar alcohols than either sugar or starch."- American Diabetes Association (and all other organizations)

    3. I didn't say calories, I said carbs. From the American Diabetes Association again:

    If a food has more than 5 grams of sugar alcohols:

    Subtract ½ the grams of sugar alcohol from the amount of total carbohydrate
    Count the remaining grams of carbohydrate in your meal plan

    4. HFCS is under fire for a variety of things, including potentially causing increased fat deposits in the abdomen. Most of that is unproven. But that's a whole other thread.

    5. Starting your post by calling it "The Facts" doesn't strengthen an argument.

    LMAO! All I have to say is "Last word"

Categories