Fructose and Glucose are not the devil!
MinimalistShoeAddict
Posts: 1,946 Member
Absent certain medical conditions there is nothing wrong with exceeding your sugar target on occasion so long as you are near your calorie and macro targets for the week. Sugar is not evil, whether it comes from fruit, doughnuts or candy (sugar comes from the same two components: fructose and glucose). I have maintained my ideal (long distance running) weight for over a year while consuming lots of sugar. I continue getting stronger and faster and my blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol levels are perfect.
I think dates for example are a great source of energy for long distance running. The sugar does not scare me.
My total fruit consumption (from today) is below:
Strawberries - Raw, 908 g
Bananas, 11 bananas
Medjool - Whole Fresh Dates W/Pit, 14 dates
Oranges - Raw, navels, 1 cup sections, without membranes
Avacado, Whole, Medium Hass, 2 Avacado
Apple - Golden Delicious , 2 Medium
Pinnaple, 100 g
I consumed a total of 447 grams of sugar from fruit. My caloric intake was 2787 calories (vs a goal of 2800). I will adjust my fat and protein macro targets (upwards) the next few days so my weekly macro averages remain on target.
I think dates for example are a great source of energy for long distance running. The sugar does not scare me.
My total fruit consumption (from today) is below:
Strawberries - Raw, 908 g
Bananas, 11 bananas
Medjool - Whole Fresh Dates W/Pit, 14 dates
Oranges - Raw, navels, 1 cup sections, without membranes
Avacado, Whole, Medium Hass, 2 Avacado
Apple - Golden Delicious , 2 Medium
Pinnaple, 100 g
I consumed a total of 447 grams of sugar from fruit. My caloric intake was 2787 calories (vs a goal of 2800). I will adjust my fat and protein macro targets (upwards) the next few days so my weekly macro averages remain on target.
0
Replies
-
i get that but all of the sugars you listed are unrefined natural sources. things like refined sugar and HFCS are definitely not something you want to be consuming 440 grams of. dont get me wrong i still enjoy many sweets and am maintaining good health and weight.0
-
:drinker:
Looks delicious.0 -
Sugar is evil! Tasty, tasty, evil...
0 -
i get that but all of the sugars you listed are unrefined natural sources. things like refined sugar and HFCS are definitely not something you want to be consuming 440 grams of. dont get me wrong i still enjoy many sweets and am maintaining good health and weight.
No matter the source sugar is sugar. The fructose/glucose breakdown percentages from HFCS and sugar found in certain fruits is similar (although the percentages vary by fruit). Honey is also similar in terms of fructose/glucose breakdown.
That said, yes of course all the fruit I ate today provided me with fiber and other nutrients that I would have missed if I had consumed only pure table sugar instead0 -
Love this! No need to eliminate and/or avoid one particular type of food source. The whole point of this is that moderation, or some sort of balance of macros, is the key to weight management and health.
One good thing to note is that OP's sugar doesn't always come from natural sources. He regularly eats ice cream and cookies.
p.s. He's not exactly a heavy dude either.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
looks like a great day of intake
0 -
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_144391.html
Added Sugar in Diet Tied to Death Risk From Heart TroubleBut the added sugar Americans consume as part of their daily diet can -- on its own, regardless of other health problems -- more than double the risk of death from heart disease, a new study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found.
...
"I could be eating a 2,000-calorie diet, not overeating, not overweight. But if I just drink a can of soda a day, I increase my risk of dying from [heart] disease by one-third," said Schmidt, a professor of health policy at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine. "I think people would assume one can of soda a day would not have that kind of impact over the course of their lives."
...
The risk of heart-related death increases 18 percent with the average American diet that receives about 15 percent of daily calories from added sugar, compared to diets containing little to no added sugar, the study authors found.
The risk is 38 percent higher for people who receive 17 percent to 21 percent of their calories from added sugar, and more than double for people who get more than 21 percent of their daily diet from added sugar, Yang said.
Although the study found that eating more food with added sugar was tied to a higher risk of heart-related death, it did not prove a cause-and-effect relationship.0 -
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_144391.html
Added Sugar in Diet Tied to Death Risk From Heart TroubleBut the added sugar Americans consume as part of their daily diet can -- on its own, regardless of other health problems -- more than double the risk of death from heart disease, a new study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found.
...
"I could be eating a 2,000-calorie diet, not overeating, not overweight. But if I just drink a can of soda a day, I increase my risk of dying from [heart] disease by one-third," said Schmidt, a professor of health policy at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine. "I think people would assume one can of soda a day would not have that kind of impact over the course of their lives."
...
The risk of heart-related death increases 18 percent with the average American diet that receives about 15 percent of daily calories from added sugar, compared to diets containing little to no added sugar, the study authors found.
The risk is 38 percent higher for people who receive 17 percent to 21 percent of their calories from added sugar, and more than double for people who get more than 21 percent of their daily diet from added sugar, Yang said.
Although the study found that eating more food with added sugar was tied to a higher risk of heart-related death, it did not prove a cause-and-effect relationship.
See the bolded part. The problem is that sugar is not tied to heart disease, but those who ate more sugar (and thus were probably more likely to be overweight) had higher occurrences of heart disease. Saying that sugar causes heart disease is like saying salt causes obesity: they don't. The salt/obesity link was that more self-reported and measured salt consumption was observed in the overweight/obese (since they tended to eat more processed foods/more foods and thus more salt in general).
Correlation =/= causation. This is more sensationalism. And yes, you should be intelligent about what you consume, and most things should be in moderation. But don't tout observational studies as if they were gospel or even worth the same as clinical studies.0 -
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_144391.html
Added Sugar in Diet Tied to Death Risk From Heart TroubleBut the added sugar Americans consume as part of their daily diet can -- on its own, regardless of other health problems -- more than double the risk of death from heart disease, a new study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found.
...
"I could be eating a 2,000-calorie diet, not overeating, not overweight. But if I just drink a can of soda a day, I increase my risk of dying from [heart] disease by one-third," said Schmidt, a professor of health policy at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine. "I think people would assume one can of soda a day would not have that kind of impact over the course of their lives."
...
The risk of heart-related death increases 18 percent with the average American diet that receives about 15 percent of daily calories from added sugar, compared to diets containing little to no added sugar, the study authors found.
The risk is 38 percent higher for people who receive 17 percent to 21 percent of their calories from added sugar, and more than double for people who get more than 21 percent of their daily diet from added sugar, Yang said.
Although the study found that eating more food with added sugar was tied to a higher risk of heart-related death, it did not prove a cause-and-effect relationship.
See the bolded part. The problem is that sugar is not tied to heart disease, but those who ate more sugar (and thus were probably more likely to be overweight) had higher occurrences of heart disease. Saying that sugar causes heart disease is like saying salt causes obesity: they don't. The salt/obesity link was that more self-reported and measured salt consumption was observed in the overweight/obese (since they tended to eat more processed foods/more foods and thus more salt in general).
Correlation =/= causation. This is more sensationalism. And yes, you should be intelligent about what you consume, and most things should be in moderation. But don't tout observational studies as if they were gospel or even worth the same as clinical studies.
No, you are wrong. Added sugar is tied to heart diesease, there is a correlation that ties them together. It is a study, not sensationalism. I purposely quoted the line re: cause and effect.
Neither I nor the article said sugar causes heart disease. It is merely data for consideration.0 -
Not to mention protein and fat.i get that but all of the sugars you listed are unrefined natural sources. things like refined sugar and HFCS are definitely not something you want to be consuming 440 grams of. dont get me wrong i still enjoy many sweets and am maintaining good health and weight.
No matter the source sugar is sugar. The fructose/glucose breakdown percentages from HFCS and sugar found in certain fruits is similar (although the percentages vary by fruit). Honey is also similar in terms of fructose/glucose breakdown.
That said, yes of course all the fruit I ate today provided me with fiber and other nutrients that I would have missed if I had consumed only pure table sugar instead0 -
Sugar is great for runners, who need the energy!
One question though: how on earth are you not sick of bananas after that many????0 -
Yes there is definitely a connection. Of course context and dosage needs to be applied here, but it's not only sugar but refined carbs. Basically the more of these that are in a diet certain health indicators deteriorate....this of course is only a risk factor which can never actually show causation, but again not many things in health have direct causation, like say HIV for example.http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_144391.html
Added Sugar in Diet Tied to Death Risk From Heart TroubleBut the added sugar Americans consume as part of their daily diet can -- on its own, regardless of other health problems -- more than double the risk of death from heart disease, a new study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found.
...
"I could be eating a 2,000-calorie diet, not overeating, not overweight. But if I just drink a can of soda a day, I increase my risk of dying from [heart] disease by one-third," said Schmidt, a professor of health policy at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine. "I think people would assume one can of soda a day would not have that kind of impact over the course of their lives."
...
The risk of heart-related death increases 18 percent with the average American diet that receives about 15 percent of daily calories from added sugar, compared to diets containing little to no added sugar, the study authors found.
The risk is 38 percent higher for people who receive 17 percent to 21 percent of their calories from added sugar, and more than double for people who get more than 21 percent of their daily diet from added sugar, Yang said.
Although the study found that eating more food with added sugar was tied to a higher risk of heart-related death, it did not prove a cause-and-effect relationship.
See the bolded part. The problem is that sugar is not tied to heart disease, but those who ate more sugar (and thus were probably more likely to be overweight) had higher occurrences of heart disease. Saying that sugar causes heart disease is like saying salt causes obesity: they don't. The salt/obesity link was that more self-reported and measured salt consumption was observed in the overweight/obese (since they tended to eat more processed foods/more foods and thus more salt in general).
Correlation =/= causation. This is more sensationalism. And yes, you should be intelligent about what you consume, and most things should be in moderation. But don't tout observational studies as if they were gospel or even worth the same as clinical studies.
No, you are wrong. Added sugar is tied to heart diesease, there is a correlation that ties them together. It is a study, not sensationalism. I purposely quoted the line re: cause and effect.
Neither I nor the article said sugar causes heart disease. It is merely data for consideration.0 -
bump0
-
No, you are wrong. Added sugar is tied to heart diesease, there is a correlation that ties them together. It is a study, not sensationalism. I purposely quoted the line re: cause and effect.
Neither I nor the article said sugar causes heart disease. It is merely data for consideration.
The problem is that the other parts you quoted are out of context. And yes, it is a study, but I said it is not a clinical study, but I should have specified that it was not a clinical intervention study (to study the effects of sugar consumption). It is a meta-analysis of the data already collected, and again I think the researchers are pointing out that people who eat more sugar had higher incidents of heart disease, but I am willing to bet that those same people with the increased risks were unhealthy in having high amounts of body fat (which may not show up as a previous health condition depending on the study observed).
My point is to add the healthy dose of realism and perspective to the article. I do not want people to read this thinking sugar = heart disease, because that is not the case (or has not been proven anyway).0 -
No, you are wrong. Added sugar is tied to heart diesease, there is a correlation that ties them together. It is a study, not sensationalism. I purposely quoted the line re: cause and effect.
Neither I nor the article said sugar causes heart disease. It is merely data for consideration.
The problem is that the other parts you quoted are out of context. And yes, it is a study, but I said it is not a clinical study, but I should have specified that it was not a clinical intervention study (to study the effects of sugar consumption). It is a meta-analysis of the data already collected, and again I think the researchers are pointing out that people who eat more sugar had higher incidents of heart disease, but I am willing to bet that those same people with the increased risks were unhealthy in having high amounts of body fat (which may not show up as a previous health condition depending on the study observed).
My point is to add the healthy dose of realism and perspective to the article. I do not want people to read this thinking sugar = heart disease, because that is not the case (or has not been proven anyway).
You'd lose that bet. Maybe you should read the article.0 -
No, you are wrong. Added sugar is tied to heart diesease, there is a correlation that ties them together. It is a study, not sensationalism. I purposely quoted the line re: cause and effect.
Neither I nor the article said sugar causes heart disease. It is merely data for consideration.
The problem is that the other parts you quoted are out of context. And yes, it is a study, but I said it is not a clinical study, but I should have specified that it was not a clinical intervention study (to study the effects of sugar consumption). It is a meta-analysis of the data already collected, and again I think the researchers are pointing out that people who eat more sugar had higher incidents of heart disease, but I am willing to bet that those same people with the increased risks were unhealthy in having high amounts of body fat (which may not show up as a previous health condition depending on the study observed).
My point is to add the healthy dose of realism and perspective to the article. I do not want people to read this thinking sugar = heart disease, because that is not the case (or has not been proven anyway).
You'd lose that bet. Maybe you should read the article.
Perhaps you can point out where they stated that they controlled for body fat levels, because I didn't see that part. They instead gathered data from studies and established correlations. But until I see that the rate of heart disease had no significant tie to body fat, you cannot rule it out (and neither did they--they instead decided to focus on sugar intake, which is my concern).
EDIT: This is the same reason saturated fat was nailed so long ago. They studied numerous factors, and decided to focus on one correlation without actually backing up their hypothesis with evidence.0 -
No, you are wrong. Added sugar is tied to heart diesease, there is a correlation that ties them together. It is a study, not sensationalism. I purposely quoted the line re: cause and effect.
Neither I nor the article said sugar causes heart disease. It is merely data for consideration.
The problem is that the other parts you quoted are out of context. And yes, it is a study, but I said it is not a clinical study, but I should have specified that it was not a clinical intervention study (to study the effects of sugar consumption). It is a meta-analysis of the data already collected, and again I think the researchers are pointing out that people who eat more sugar had higher incidents of heart disease, but I am willing to bet that those same people with the increased risks were unhealthy in having high amounts of body fat (which may not show up as a previous health condition depending on the study observed).
My point is to add the healthy dose of realism and perspective to the article. I do not want people to read this thinking sugar = heart disease, because that is not the case (or has not been proven anyway).
You'd lose that bet. Maybe you should read the article.
Perhaps you can point out where they stated that they controlled for body fat levels, because I didn't see that part. They instead gathered data from studies and established correlations. But until I see that the rate of heart disease had no significant tie to body fat, you cannot rule it out (and neither did they--they instead decided to focus on sugar intake, which is my concern).
EDIT: This is the same reason saturated fat was nailed so long ago. They studied numerous factors, and decided to focus on one correlation without actually backing up their hypothesis with evidence.
From the NIH article:
I could be eating a 2,000-calorie diet, not overeating, not overweight. But if I just drink a can of soda a day, I increase my risk of dying from [heart] disease by one-third," said Schmidt, a professor of health policy at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine. "I think people would assume one can of soda a day would not have that kind of impact over the course of their lives."
From a Reuters article (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/03/us-sugar-diet-idUSBREA121IK20140203)
That increased risk couldn't be explained by differences in people's age, sex, education, smoking habits, physical activity, medications, blood pressure, weight or other components of their diets.
...
"What's really interesting and important for readers to understand is they linked sugar consumption - independent of all other risk factors - to cardiovascular disease," Schmidt told Reuters Health.
From pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24493081)
These findings were largely consistent across age group, sex, race/ethnicity (except among non-Hispanic blacks), educational attainment, physical activity, health eating index, and body mass index.0 -
Sugar is great for runners, who need the energy!
One question though: how on earth are you not sick of bananas after that many????
Thanks! I agree and plan to continue consuming lots of sugar as I train for my next marathon and first ultra this year.
I like bananas but it is rare that I eat this many in one day. I just posted my diary from today to prove a point. High sugar intake on occasion will not kill me. My protein and fat goals will be adjusted upwards today and I will still hit my weekly macro targets.
My blood sugar levels remain perfect and my body fat % remains ideal for long distance running.
Prior to a marathon I do carb load with high glycemic index foods but do so with less fruit in order to reduce fiber consumption. The studies supporting my carb and caffeine loading protocol can be found here:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1091070-carb-loading-the-western-australia-method0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions