are macros just as important as calories?

Sugar is not a macro - it's a micro(nutrient). As long as you are at a calorie deficit, you should lose weight, but too much sugar may make it hard to stick to your calorie goals.

Sugar is not a macro - it's a micro(nutrient). As long as you are at a calorie deficit, you should lose weight, but too much sugar may make it hard to stick to your calorie goals.

Sugar is just a carbohydrate which is a macro...

Calories will determine your weight

Macros will determine your body composition (how much fat you have)

Sugar should really be incorporated into carbohydrates IMO. If people want to track it separately, they could. It causes so much confusion.

Sugar is neither a macro or a micro. It's actually the simplest carb. A more correct way to look at it (glucose, specifically) is as the breakdown product of all (most) other carbs. It's really an energy source.

Think of it as a fast-release carb. Usually it's best to eat slower-release carbs, but there are certain situations where pure sugar is the best thing, or a good thing, too. Our biochemistry was designed to break down more complex carbs at a slower rate. That's why people get into trouble with high sugar diets. It perturbs the biochemical processes that produce evergy in the body.

As I understand it, weight gain is really a function of eating excess calories. Think about it...that fat tissue has to come from somewhere. It can't come out of thin air, but comes from excess food.

Sugar is a macro. It is a carbohydrate.

Ok, technically you're right, since it counts toward carbs. But what I was getting at is that it shouldn't be considered a replacment for complex (slower-release) carbs.

Just like you wouldn't consider a single amino acid to be a macro, we really don't consider glucose (a monosaccharide) to be a macro. Rather, it's the breakdown product. That's why MFP categorizes it separately.

I don't know exactly how grams of carbs equate to grams of sugar...I'm sure there are formulas...and I imagine glycemic index would be used in the conversion.

MFP has very low sugar recommendations. I tracked my sugar for a short time, but when I saw how impossibly low the sugar allotment was, I chose to track something else. I track protein, potassium, sodium, calcium and of course calories.

OP sugar will not make you gain weight..overeating will make you gain weight...

This.

But too much sugar--with or without weight gain from too many macros--tends to induce changes in the body that makes diabetes more likely.

That's why we hear bad things about fructose. It's a super sugar. It's absorbed and utilized very quickly. It's an easy way to take in too much sugar and have it metabolize too fast.

OP: MFP counts all sugar sources because it's sugar. It's that simple.

Of course, really it's not that simple. Some sugars are metabolized at different rates than others, and different enzymes are used, too. (Lactase, for instance, breaks down lactose). There are also molecules that are both a sugar and an alcohol at the same time (sugar alcohols--like sorbitol). But in general, all common sugars are considered fast-release carbs.

Also, even tough sugar is sugar (fast release carbs/energy/the simplest one) and it's wise not to go too far over your daily limit every day, where it's found does matter. People who eat a lot of fruit get a lot of sugar (even fructose). But apparently the fiber in the fruit helps prevent it from overloading the body. Sort of like making the fast release a bit of a slower release. So, if you're eating candy, it might be wise to eat something with fiber, like bran, at the same time (just my hunch).

And there are some more complex compounds that taste sweet, similar to sugars, but aren't sugars. Some of these have been found to be toxic.

...Counting everything defeats the purpose.

Are you sure about that? I have no idea if that's actually true. Have you looked up sugar limits and researched how and why they were created? And whether MFP's limit is the same or different from established limits? (I have not looked into it myself.)

That said, I'm sure vegetarians eating a lot of fruit will easily go way over their daily MFP limit. Whether that's dangerous or not is a whole other (more complex) question.

The problem is that MFP has a limit there that was obviously designed to account only for added sugar. Counting everything defeats the purpose.

Are you sure about that? I have no idea if that's actually true. Have you looked up sugar limits and researched how and why they were created? And whether MFP's limit is the same or different from established limits? (I have not looked into it myself.)

That said, I'm sure vegetarians eating a lot of fruit will easily go way over their daily MFP limit.

Source: http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyDietGoals/Sugars-and-Carbohydrates_UCM_303296_Article.jsp#

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/25/aha.sugar.added/

i usually go over my sugar and was wondering if that will effect my weight?

Not if you are eating a deficit. Also, MFP's sugar suggestion is really "added" sugars in stuff like baked goods and candy. I often times exceed the sugar goal just by eating "healthy" foods. As long as you're getting adequate nutrition and meeting your other goals, I wouldn't worry about it unless you have a family history of diabetes or something.

right as longs you eat the "good" sugar you will be fine…the "bad" sugar, however, will blow you up like an umpa loompa...

truth. i was just rolled back from the juicing room.

i usually go over my sugar and was wondering if that will effect my weight?

Not if you are eating a deficit. Also, MFP's sugar suggestion is really "added" sugars in stuff like baked goods and candy. I often times exceed the sugar goal just by eating "healthy" foods. As long as you're getting adequate nutrition and meeting your other goals, I wouldn't worry about it unless you have a family history of diabetes or something.

right as longs you eat the "good" sugar you will be fine…the "bad" sugar, however, will blow you up like an umpa loompa...

I would love to see where you read that... Because that's not even CLOSE to what I said, dude. The AHA suggests a limit of 6 tsp of "added" sugar in an adult female's diet per day. They take into consideration that the person is already getting sugar from sources in their diet that naturally have sugar. My suggestion from MFP is exactly that: 6 tsp worth of sugar. Unless is varies by caloric intake, which I am unaware of (though I could be wrong) I would assume that is the reason. I NEVER said eating "bad" sugar would make her fat... never even implied it. Sugar is sugar. Read the words that are typed, not the implication you decide is there.

The problem is that MFP has a limit there that was obviously designed to account only for added sugar. Counting everything defeats the purpose.

Are you sure about that? I have no idea if that's actually true. Have you looked up sugar limits and researched how and why they were created? And whether MFP's limit is the same or different from established limits? (I have not looked into it myself.)

That said, I'm sure vegetarians eating a lot of fruit will easily go way over their daily MFP limit.

Source: http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyDietGoals/Sugars-and-Carbohydrates_UCM_303296_Article.jsp#

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/25/aha.sugar.added/

So, it appears that limiting added sugars in foods is important. But neither article addresses what the safe limit is for sugars inherent in natural foods (like fruits, milk, etc.). I'm not talking about more complex carbs that break down. I'm talking about sugars. And then there is the gray area: semi-processed foods, like whole wheat flour. These have sugars in them, too. As we have seen it gets complicated very quickly.

I see what you mean. I did some looking around and can't find ANY information that isn't solely about added sugar. MUST. SEARCH. HARDER.

I think we're going to have to look to actual studies.

Oh...and per your other question, I do believe added sugar would vary by caloric requirement as well. But not by a whole lot. In fact, I've seen some suggestions that ideally we should consume no added sugar (impossible today unfortunately).

If you think about it, sugar is sugar, no matter where it's found. Or rather, glucose is glucose. I've also alluded to the idea that glycemic index isn't the end-all, be-all, either...food combinations can impact total glycemic load of a meal, for instance. Eat some fiber with your candy...it tastes better. Well, not really. But you get the picture (and I hope the OP does, too).

Btw, are those gerbils?