Let's talk SUGAR!!!!

Sugar really is sugar when you come down to it, no matter what the source is. It all raises your blood sugar levels. Diabetics have to limit all of it, if that helps at all as proof! Fruit, vegetables, white/wheat bread/pasta, potatoes, candy, cake, chocolate, cookies, ice cream, honey, maple syrup, nutella, etc....even though fruit & vegetables are technically healthier due to being less processed & having more nutrients/vitamins and will tend to keep you fuller due to a lower energy density. Basically meaning, you could eat a huge bowl of sliced apples for 300 calories but three reese's peanut butter cups would have the same calorie content...which would make you feel fuller physically? The apples. Then again, which would make you feel more satisfied mentally? Maybe the pb cups. So you have to make your choice.

The sugars from fruit really are not the "good sugars". It seems almost laughable to say they are equally as bad as the sugars from cookies, but to our bodies it is processed that way. I'm not saying you shouldn't eat fruit, but you should eat it in moderation just like everything else. Now that's not to say that cookies are not more damaging overall to your body that fruit...they are, but that's not due to the sugar content alone. It's because of the saturated fat, processed oils, lack of vitamins/minerals, high energy density, how easy it is to eat one cookie and want to keep eating the entire box of cookies, etc.

I find that my sugar cravings, and cravings to overeat in general, lessen when I limit all sugar, including fruit & vegetables. And when I do eat a piece of fruit, WOW is it sweet. And candy/cake/real desserts...holy crap, almost makes me feel sick.

Sugar really is sugar when you come down to it, no matter what the source is. It all raises your blood sugar levels. Diabetics have to limit all of it, if that helps at all as proof! Fruit, vegetables, white/wheat bread/pasta, potatoes, candy, cake, chocolate, cookies, ice cream, honey, maple syrup, nutella, etc....even though fruit & vegetables are technically healthier due to being less processed & having more nutrients/vitamins and will tend to keep you fuller due to a lower energy density. Basically meaning, you could eat a huge bowl of sliced apples for 300 calories but three reese's peanut butter cups would have the same calorie content...which would make you feel fuller physically? The apples. Then again, which would make you feel more satisfied mentally? Maybe the pb cups. So you have to make your choice.

The sugars from fruit really are not the "good sugars". It seems almost laughable to say they are equally as bad as the sugars from cookies, but to our bodies it is processed that way. I'm not saying you shouldn't eat fruit, but you should eat it in moderation just like everything else. Now that's not to say that cookies are not more damaging overall to your body that fruit...they are, but that's not due to the sugar content alone. It's because of the saturated fat, processed oils, lack of vitamins/minerals, high energy density, how easy it is to eat one cookie and want to keep eating the entire box of cookies, etc.

I find that my sugar cravings, and cravings to overeat in general, lessen when I limit all sugar, including fruit & vegetables. And when I do eat a piece of fruit, WOW is it sweet. And candy/cake/real desserts...holy crap, almost makes me feel sick.

Excellent post. The real issue IMHO, is not sugar but carb intake in general. Sugar is a carb. All carbs become blood glucose. If you set a reasonable carb macro target and stick to it, worrying about sugar is not the issue. And no, fruit sugar is not any better than any other sugar. Or worse for that matter. Sugar is not inhernently bad. It is useful in the proper dose and context.

Excellent post. The real issue IMHO, is not sugar but carb intake in general. Sugar is a carb. All carbs become blood glucose. If you set a reasonable carb macro target and stick to it, worrying about sugar is not the issue. And no, fruit sugar is not any better than any other sugar. Or worse for that matter. Sugar is not inhernently bad. It is useful in the proper dose and context.

Sugar is one half glucose and one half fructose. Excess fructose consumption has been connected to obesity and insulin resistance (and few other things I can't remember). One should try to limit the amount of sugar consumed while trying to meet carb requirements.

And what dosage and in what context? That would be my point. What difference would it make if the dosage were low enough in the overall context of well managed calories and macronutrients?

Does anyone have foods that they eat that are low in sugar? I'm having a hard time staying below my daily sugar limit but over 1000 calories. I don't want to be below 1,200 calories but find when I try to get to 1,200 I'm way over the sugar.

Ideas?

Since we are on this topic. I am actually quite confused myself. How is it that I have eaten only 500kcal (give or take), barely grazed passed half of my carb quota for the day BUT I've busted my sugar target for the day by like 17grams? Am I doing something stupidly wrong here?

All I have had thus far are;
1) 50g Greek Yoghurt
2) 1 medium banana
3) Black Coffee (no sugar at all)
4) 1 cup strawberriees
6) 2tbs Eggplant, red pepper and onion spread
7) 5 whole grain crackers
8) 5 cherry tomatoes
9) 1 nectarine

Sorry if this has been touched on before, I am new and incredibly confused.

Since we are on this topic. I am actually quite confused myself. How is it that I have eaten only 500kcal (give or take), barely grazed passed half of my carb quota for the day BUT I've busted my sugar target for the day by like 17grams? Am I doing something stupidly wrong here?

All I have had thus far are;
1) 50g Greek Yoghurt
2) 1 medium banana
3) Black Coffee (no sugar at all)
4) 1 cup strawberriees
6) 2tbs Eggplant, red pepper and onion spread
7) 5 whole grain crackers
8) 5 cherry tomatoes
9) 1 nectarine

Sorry if this has been touched on before, I am new and incredibly confused.

too much fruit, not enough veggies, and missing protein! How do you survive w/o starving all day long? I can only imagine the blood sugar spike and crash if I ate like this. I find I MUST have enough protein & complex carbs to keep from reaching for sweet things (including too much fruit).

Since we are on this topic. I am actually quite confused myself. How is it that I have eaten only 500kcal (give or take), barely grazed passed half of my carb quota for the day BUT I've busted my sugar target for the day by like 17grams? Am I doing something stupidly wrong here?

All I have had thus far are;
1) 50g Greek Yoghurt
2) 1 medium banana
3) Black Coffee (no sugar at all)
4) 1 cup strawberriees
6) 2tbs Eggplant, red pepper and onion spread
7) 5 whole grain crackers
8) 5 cherry tomatoes
9) 1 nectarine

Sorry if this has been touched on before, I am new and incredibly confused.

too much fruit, not enough veggies, and missing protein! How do you survive w/o starving all day long? I can only imagine the blood sugar spike and crash if I ate like this. I find I MUST have enough protein & complex carbs to keep from reaching for sweet things (including too much fruit).

Whoops! Forgot to add about 100g of broccoli! Sorry!

Thing is that Brocolli is rather filling. If I eat loads, I feel icky for the rest of the day!

I've tried to up my protein with eggs to the mix but my protein markers had come up red in the past and I kinda want to steer away from that if that if I am doing that wrong too. Thanks for your feedback!

Excellent post. The real issue IMHO, is not sugar but carb intake in general. Sugar is a carb. All carbs become blood glucose. If you set a reasonable carb macro target and stick to it, worrying about sugar is not the issue. And no, fruit sugar is not any better than any other sugar. Or worse for that matter. Sugar is not inhernently bad. It is useful in the proper dose and context.

Sugar is one half glucose and one half fructose. Excess fructose consumption has been connected to obesity and insulin resistance (and few other things I can't remember). One should try to limit the amount of sugar consumed while trying to meet carb requirements.

And what dosage and in what context? That would be my point. What difference would it make if the dosage were low enough in the overall context of well managed calories and macronutrients?

A person consuming most of their carbs from, say, Frosted Flakes is more likely to build insulin resistance than a person who eats most of their carbs from, say, potatoes. Now, this person who loves his/her (delicious!) Frosted Flakes is hitting their target carb macros and calories for weight loss and is successfully losing weight. However, due to insulin resistance, this person's weight loss will come at the expense of not just fat, but of lean body mass. Let's say this person lost 60lbs in 3 years and started at 30% body fat. Because of insulin resistance, the 60 lbs lost would register as 2 or 3% decrease as opposed to a 10 or 15% decrease. You can't look at weight loss in a healthy manner without looking at body composition as well.

This is an extreme example, but I'm just trying to highlight what insulin resistance from fructose over-consumption might do to an obese person who is trying to lose weight and lower the risk factors associated with not just weight, but body composition. I didn't even mention the fact that fructose is stored as fat at a much higher rate than glucose, even while on a deficit diet (I guess I just did).

In the context and dose you show above, I would agree with you but as you said, it is an extreme example. Not to say there are not people out there who eat that poorly. The incidence of insulin resistance shows there is. But, on the other hand, I would not say it is representative of the larger segment of the population by any means. maybe some sugary junk. So, some complex carbs and some simple and not a high % overall of fructose (if indeed fructose is the boogie man it's made out to be).

If this person is in calorie deficit and eating a macro mix of, say, 30% protein, 30% fat and 40% carbs and were eating with any common sense at all, the amount of sugar they are consuming would not be anything to be concerned about and they certainly would be in no danger of insulin resistance. This is a more typical scenario for those here.


A more typical scenario is someone on a calorie target of from 1500 to 2500 calories per day, depending on size, with a carb target of somewhere between 100 and 250 grams and eating some fruit, some veggies, some dairy, some starches and possibly some sugary junk.

Another question would be how would someone in calorie deficit store fat by ingesting fructose? At the end of the day in deficit, they would have a net loss of fat regardless of macro composition in almost all cases (the exceptions being those that are already insulin resistant.)

I completley agree that managing sugar as part of your carb mix is important. But not to the extreme degree that I've seen it on this board. Look at this very thread as an example. MFP's sugar goal is for added sugar but can't be seperated out so all sugar get's counted and then people panic about being over from eating fruit and veggies!! People in this thread are recomending tracking sugar in the daily diary and others are taking them up on that. Truthfully, I think that is pointless and will only lead to frustration and lack of compliance.

I stand by what I originally said with a slight modification: Set your carb marco correctly, (forget MFP default way too high carb and way too low protein) and don't worry about tracking sugar. This assumes some common sense and balance in carb intake and sugar intake within that carb intake. And for heaven's sake, don't get all your carbs from Frosted Flakes!! :laugh:

Sugar really is sugar when you come down to it, no matter what the source is. It all raises your blood sugar levels. Diabetics have to limit all of it, if that helps at all as proof! Fruit, vegetables, white/wheat bread/pasta, potatoes, candy, cake, chocolate, cookies, ice cream, honey, maple syrup, nutella, etc....even though fruit & vegetables are technically healthier due to being less processed & having more nutrients/vitamins and will tend to keep you fuller due to a lower energy density. Basically meaning, you could eat a huge bowl of sliced apples for 300 calories but three reese's peanut butter cups would have the same calorie content...which would make you feel fuller physically? The apples. Then again, which would make you feel more satisfied mentally? Maybe the pb cups. So you have to make your choice.

The sugars from fruit really are not the "good sugars". It seems almost laughable to say they are equally as bad as the sugars from cookies, but to our bodies it is processed that way. I'm not saying you shouldn't eat fruit, but you should eat it in moderation just like everything else. Now that's not to say that cookies are not more damaging overall to your body that fruit...they are, but that's not due to the sugar content alone. It's because of the saturated fat, processed oils, lack of vitamins/minerals, high energy density, how easy it is to eat one cookie and want to keep eating the entire box of cookies, etc.

I find that my sugar cravings, and cravings to overeat in general, lessen when I limit all sugar, including fruit & vegetables. And when I do eat a piece of fruit, WOW is it sweet. And candy/cake/real desserts...holy crap, almost makes me feel sick.

Excellent post. The real issue IMHO, is not sugar but carb intake in general. Sugar is a carb. All carbs become blood glucose. If you set a reasonable carb macro target and stick to it, worrying about sugar is not the issue. And no, fruit sugar is not any better than any other sugar. Or worse for that matter. Sugar is not inhernently bad. It is useful in the proper dose and context.

^Agree with this. And I think that for most normal, healthy, active people, sugar is not nearly the issue we make it out to be.

The MFP sugars are very unrealistic. I can go over with one serving of fruit and a SALAD!

Agreed. That's why I cringed earlier in this thread when I saw one person recommending to track them here and another saying they were now going to do that!

Having too little sugar is probably not the best thing in the world, but feeling down after quitting sugar means you were having too much.

Cutting out sugary drinks does not mean you are cutting out all sugar, there are sugars in lots of fruits, veggies, carbs, everything! Getting that lethargic just means your body is looking for that sugar rush, when it should be feeding off the fat stores (instead of the easy and accessible burn of sugar).

Give your body a chance to get over it's "sugar withdrawl" and you will be feeling up in no time.

Started to feel down, and need an immediate boost? Can't wait? Eat an apple. It's packed with sugar! It will give you more of an up than a cup of coffee!

No disrespect at all - but nursing moms were nursing just fine before sugary drinks and sweets. They got their energy from a more nutrient dense source!

Excellent post. The real issue IMHO, is not sugar but carb intake in general. Sugar is a carb. All carbs become blood glucose. If you set a reasonable carb macro target and stick to it, worrying about sugar is not the issue. And no, fruit sugar is not any better than any other sugar. Or worse for that matter. Sugar is not inhernently bad. It is useful in the proper dose and context.

Sugar is one half glucose and one half fructose. Excess fructose consumption has been connected to obesity and insulin resistance (and few other things I can't remember). One should try to limit the amount of sugar consumed while trying to meet carb requirements.

And what dosage and in what context? That would be my point. What difference would it make if the dosage were low enough in the overall context of well managed calories and macronutrients?

A person consuming most of their carbs from, say, Frosted Flakes is more likely to build insulin resistance than a person who eats most of their carbs from, say, potatoes. Now, this person who loves his/her (delicious!) Frosted Flakes is hitting their target carb macros and calories for weight loss and is successfully losing weight. However, due to insulin resistance, this person's weight loss will come at the expense of not just fat, but of lean body mass. Let's say this person lost 60lbs in 3 years and started at 30% body fat. Because of insulin resistance, the 60 lbs lost would register as 2 or 3% decrease as opposed to a 10 or 15% decrease. You can't look at weight loss in a healthy manner without looking at body composition as well.

This is an extreme example, but I'm just trying to highlight what insulin resistance from fructose over-consumption might do to an obese person who is trying to lose weight and lower the risk factors associated with not just weight, but body composition. I didn't even mention the fact that fructose is stored as fat at a much higher rate than glucose, even while on a deficit diet (I guess I just did).

Actually, I don't know that it is proven that there is a causal link between sugar consumption and diabetes. As far as I can tell, genetics is the major factor in determining whether you get diabetes or not. In identical twins, "[t]he concordance rate for any abnormality of glucose metabolism (either Type II diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance) at 15 years follow-up was 96%." (ref: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10064093). Non-identical twins see a similar % as in the general population.

There is a correlation between obesity and diabetes, yes, but which way does the arrow actually point? And, remember, correlation doesn't have to equal causation anyway.

Does anyone have foods that they eat that are low in sugar? I'm having a hard time staying below my daily sugar limit but over 1000 calories. I don't want to be below 1,200 calories but find when I try to get to 1,200 I'm way over the sugar.

Ideas?

Rice, pasta, potatoes, steel cut oats. These have high glucose and are very low in sugar.

But glucose IS a sugar...

I LOVE that MFP tracks your sugar. I entered into my diary a can of organic vegetable soup the other day and was surprised to see what MFP reported as its sugar content. I would never have even thought to check the label for sugar.