Monitor Fiber, sodium or cholesterol?

For one new thing to track I'd actually go for sugar.

I wouldn't bother with Cholesterol. From what I have read:

1. Most of the cholesterol in your blood is made by the body not absorbed from the gut.
2. Most of the cholesterol absorbed by the gut is secreted into the gut higher up and not from food.
3. The whole good/bad picture with different densities of cholesterol is too complex to track with a single number.

For the fibre, how are you doing? If you're getting enough then maybe time to track something else. If you're not then continue to track it. With sodium you could track it for a while and see - again if you find you're not eating too much then you can turn it off again.

Actually you can play around because I think which nutrients to track actually only affects the display so you could view the same day with various different nutrients turned on or off.

MFP tracks it all, just only displays in your diary what you tell it to. I'd vote for paying attention to fiber, which is important for digestion, regulating blood sugar, and generally feeling full... and aiming to up fiber intake probably leads to eating more plants.

I admit I don't track either.

Good day MFPers!

I'm rebooting my diary,

I monitor carbs, protein, fat, sat fat and fiber currently on my diary.


I know I want to keep the first four for sure, but I'm curious what y'all feel is most important for the last category:

-Fiber
-Sodium
-Cholesterol


I don't currently have any blood pressure issues, which of these do you think it's most important to keep tabs on?


Cheers!

You should be monitoring fat, because you need to make sure you get enough. Your fat target should be considered a minimum, not a maximum.

There's really no reason to monitor saturated fat. Nor is there a reason to monitor cholesterol. The only reason to monitor sodium is if you have a medical condition such as high blood pressure that requires you to have a low-sodium diet. You don't, so don't monitor sodium.

Absolutely monitor fiber. Getting enough fiber actually has a positive impact on health.

There's really no reason to monitor saturated fat.

That's my thought as well, but it's obviously up to you. I would monitor trans fats before sat, but if you are staying away from processed foods you shouldn't be getting too many of those.

I look at sugar and sodium. Sodium is mostly a curiosity because I want to see how much is in various foods and I never log my salt to taste stuff and because unless you have high blood pressure, you are likely to be fine (too little sodium is as bad as too much). I have been thinking of swapping it out for something like fiber or potassium but I haven't made up my mind yet.

Potassium is a worthwhile thing to log, but the problem is that it's not required to be listed on labels. So unless you never eat anything that you don't make yourself from raw ingredients, you're probably going to miss a lot of your actual potassium intake.

Agree with what was said above.

Just want to add that I don't see cholesterol information on many food packages, so even if you tracked it you would be working with incomplete information (and therefore useless if you are trying to stay under a maximum).

Not sure where you live, but in the US (where the OP is located) it's required information.

Thanks for the replies everyone, seems like I will stick with Fiber.


I do like logging the Sat. fats, as it helps me make sure I'm eating good fat. Trans fat wouldn't be a bad idea either, but I'm finding that most companies are getting that out of their products, so it's becoming less of an issue.

Saturated fat isn't "bad fat."

Not sure where you live, but in the US (where the OP is located) it's required information.

Ah, I live in France, and it would seem that it isn't mandatory information. Nevermind! (Either way, cholesterol still would not be my first choice to track.)