HOW MUCH SUGAR IS TOO MUCH?

HappyStack · February 2014

So how does that not answer your question?

Oh, I see what you're getting at.

CVD is not synonymous with "heart-attack"... it was largely tongue-in-cheek. A person cannot validly base their opinion on an abstract that inadequately represents the research therein, particularly if they misinterpret what the risk is.

ggilbert95 · February 2014

I get more sugar than that from fruit. :noway:

1) If you are tracking total energy intake, setting your macros reasonably, and eating "mostly whole foods" and limiting your "junk food" to a reasonable portion of total calories then you don't really need to bother tracking sugar at all.

2) The AHA recommendations are based on added sugars and they exclude naturally occurring sugars.

EDIT: In fact, I'll type more.....

It's important to note a few things: The American Heart association is basing their sugar recommendation on roughly half (give or take) of one's discretionary calorie intake. You can see evidence of that from this study which is where their sugar recommendations are coming from.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011.full.pdf

They are basically giving a range of discretionary calories (calories that you are free to spend once nutrient needs are met with the other calories) from about 10 to 20% and then taking roughly half of that coming straight from added sugar.

So in short, this recommendation (again, by the AHA) is based on total energy intake.

For an active male who may maintain on 3000 calories, they would recommend 512 discretionary calories of which 288kcals could come from added sugars. Note that this does not include naturally occurring sugars which is somewhat silly since it's all sugar.

Finally, note in the text that one concern of added sugars it that it causes people to expand their discretionary intake beyond their recommended limits which could effect nutrient sufficiency of the overall diet. If this is their reason for limiting sugar to half of the discretionary calories then you could basically double that sugar limit provided that you're still sticking to a reasonable discretionary intake.

I had a feeling it had to do with added sugar rather than naturally occuriing ones, as I go over 25gms a day. I try to keep my sugar at 25grms or lower.

jofjltncb6 · February 2014

I get more sugar than that from fruit. :noway:

1) If you are tracking total energy intake, setting your macros reasonably, and eating "mostly whole foods" and limiting your "junk food" to a reasonable portion of total calories then you don't really need to bother tracking sugar at all.

2) The AHA recommendations are based on added sugars and they exclude naturally occurring sugars.

EDIT: In fact, I'll type more.....

It's important to note a few things: The American Heart association is basing their sugar recommendation on roughly half (give or take) of one's discretionary calorie intake. You can see evidence of that from this study which is where their sugar recommendations are coming from.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011.full.pdf

They are basically giving a range of discretionary calories (calories that you are free to spend once nutrient needs are met with the other calories) from about 10 to 20% and then taking roughly half of that coming straight from added sugar.

So in short, this recommendation (again, by the AHA) is based on total energy intake.

For an active male who may maintain on 3000 calories, they would recommend 512 discretionary calories of which 288kcals could come from added sugars. Note that this does not include naturally occurring sugars which is somewhat silly since it's all sugar.

Finally, note in the text that one concern of added sugars it that it causes people to expand their discretionary intake beyond their recommended limits which could effect nutrient sufficiency of the overall diet. If this is their reason for limiting sugar to half of the discretionary calories then you could basically double that sugar limit provided that you're still sticking to a reasonable discretionary intake.

I had a feeling it had to do with added sugar rather than naturally occuriing ones, as I go over 25gms a day. I try to keep my sugar at 25grms or lower.

What is special about "added" as compared to "naturally occurring" sugars? I mean, what differences are there at a molecular level?

Joanne_Moniz · February 2014

With reference to the 500 extra calories... We can still eat low calorie and unknowingly go overboard on fructose, the main culprit in the fight against obesity..... That is the problem at hand

Elaborate. I truly doubt that people are getting obese eating too much fruit.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Joanne_Moniz · February 2014

Fruit?? of course not. Sugar is made up of glucose and fructose and fructose is the problem. It is NOT metabolized as glucose is... Simplicity does not need to be complicated. A healthy diet is low in sugar and that way of eating helps one to lose weight and maintain an ideal weight.. plain and simple

ndj1979 · February 2014

I get more sugar than that from fruit. :noway:

1) If you are tracking total energy intake, setting your macros reasonably, and eating "mostly whole foods" and limiting your "junk food" to a reasonable portion of total calories then you don't really need to bother tracking sugar at all.

2) The AHA recommendations are based on added sugars and they exclude naturally occurring sugars.

EDIT: In fact, I'll type more.....

It's important to note a few things: The American Heart association is basing their sugar recommendation on roughly half (give or take) of one's discretionary calorie intake. You can see evidence of that from this study which is where their sugar recommendations are coming from.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011.full.pdf

They are basically giving a range of discretionary calories (calories that you are free to spend once nutrient needs are met with the other calories) from about 10 to 20% and then taking roughly half of that coming straight from added sugar.

So in short, this recommendation (again, by the AHA) is based on total energy intake.

For an active male who may maintain on 3000 calories, they would recommend 512 discretionary calories of which 288kcals could come from added sugars. Note that this does not include naturally occurring sugars which is somewhat silly since it's all sugar.

Finally, note in the text that one concern of added sugars it that it causes people to expand their discretionary intake beyond their recommended limits which could effect nutrient sufficiency of the overall diet. If this is their reason for limiting sugar to half of the discretionary calories then you could basically double that sugar limit provided that you're still sticking to a reasonable discretionary intake.

I had a feeling it had to do with added sugar rather than naturally occuriing ones, as I go over 25gms a day. I try to keep my sugar at 25grms or lower.

What is special about "added" as compared to "naturally occurring" sugars? I mean, what differences are there at a molecular level?

none

end thread/

ndj1979 · February 2014

Fruit?? of course not. Sugar is made up of glucose and fructose and fructose is the problem. It is NOT metabolized as glucose is... Simplicity does not need to be complicated. A healthy diet is low in sugar and that way of eating helps one to lose weight and maintain an ideal weight.. plain and simple

ummm negtative..calorie deficit is what leads to losing weight.

fruit also contains glucose, so I am not sure what your point is. "The molecular structure and composition of sugar molecules is the same no matter where they come from" - Joy Dubost, R.D

SideSteel · February 2014

Fruit?? of course not. Sugar is made up of glucose and fructose and fructose is the problem. It is NOT metabolized as glucose is... Simplicity does not need to be complicated. A healthy diet is low in sugar and that way of eating helps one to lose weight and maintain an ideal weight.. plain and simple

If you are claiming that fructose is a problem but fruit is obviously not a problem then what happens to the fructose in these items? Why is this fructose ok, but other fructose is not?

DamePiglet · February 2014

Simplicity does not need to be complicated.

It seems to me that caloric deficit is simplicity. Being overly concerned about sugar is complicated.

I'll just pass on the food demonizing & fear mongering and focus on my well-balanced diet, thanks.

neanderthin · February 2014

Fruit?? of course not. Sugar is made up of glucose and fructose and fructose is the problem. It is NOT metabolized as glucose is... Simplicity does not need to be complicated. A healthy diet is low in sugar and that way of eating helps one to lose weight and maintain an ideal weight.. plain and simple

Joanne try and make a logical argument against why nature put fructose in any whole food if what you believe to be true, which is, fructose is a problem. Your talking a bit like a kool aid drinking deciple.........that's not logical. I suspect no conversation is going to make any sense to you and it'll have to be the learning curve we all have to go through in this complicated landscape called nutritional science. Fruit is made up of glucose and fructose and simplicity doesn't have to be complicated.

QuietBloom · February 2014

In. Late, but in.

Greytfish · February 2014

What is special about "added" as compared to "naturally occurring" sugars? I mean, what differences are there at a molecular level?

They can be different variations of sugars, but you're missing the forest for the trees. To keep sugar in a particular range it's simply easier to drink black coffee over "light & sweet" coffee than it is to cut out foods that naturally contain sugars and lose the other nutrientsas well.

LADYJDOWD · February 2014

I have enjoyed reading this, very helpful information

jofjltncb6 · February 2014

What is special about "added" as compared to "naturally occurring" sugars? I mean, what differences are there at a molecular level?

They can be different variations of sugars, but you're missing the forest for the trees. To keep sugar in a particular range it's simply easier to drink black coffee over "light & sweet" coffee than it is to cut out foods that naturally contain sugars and lose the other nutrientsas well.

I see the forest just fine. It's others in this discussion who are inches away from one particular tree, staring at it intently and insisting that it is the one and only essential tree to the overall plan of walking through the forest.

TR0berts · February 2014

What is special about "added" as compared to "naturally occurring" sugars? I mean, what differences are there at a molecular level?

They can be different variations of sugars, but you're missing the forest for the trees. To keep sugar in a particular range it's simply easier to drink black coffee over "light & sweet" coffee than it is to cut out foods that naturally contain sugars and lose the other nutrientsas well.

I see the forest just fine. It's others in this discussion who are inches away from one particular tree, staring at it intently and insisting that it is the one and only essential tree to the overall plan of walking through the forest.

Are you telling me that, in this forest of redwoods and oaks, that all the shade isn't really coming from this one birch tree in the middle?

rml_16 · February 2014

Take my sugar away and I will cut you.

Fithealthyforlife · February 2014

I actually read about this guy who ate practically no solid food, and ate 2000 calories of added sugar each day in 25 cups of tea (and only 400 calories of real food). His lack of macros and micros resulted in a bodyweight like 90 lbs or something. It was on a British TV show apparently.

Apparently a "calorie" is not really a calorie after all. ;-)

rml_16 · February 2014

I actually read about this guy who ate practically no solid food, and ate 2000 calories of added sugar each day in 25 cups of tea (and only 400 calories of real food). His lack of macros and micros resulted in a bodyweight like 90 lbs or something. It was on a British TV show apparently.

Apparently a "calorie" is not really a calorie after all. ;-)

I have no idea what you just wrote.

He weighed 90 pounds at the end? He lost 90 pounds? He gained 90 pounds? How do they know it was a lack of macros and micros and not just too few (too many?) calories?

neanderthin · February 2014

I actually read about this guy who ate practically no solid food, and ate 2000 calories of added sugar each day in 25 cups of tea (and only 400 calories of real food). His lack of macros and micros resulted in a bodyweight like 90 lbs or something. It was on a British TV show apparently.

Apparently a "calorie" is not really a calorie after all. ;-)

No, it means all calories are not created equal......a calorie is just simply a measure of energy. Nothing better than a total extreme example to illustrate that as well........but for some it's magic.

msf74 · February 2014

I actually read about this guy who ate practically no solid food, and ate 2000 calories of added sugar each day in 25 cups of tea (and only 400 calories of real food). His lack of macros and micros resulted in a bodyweight like 90 lbs or something. It was on a British TV show apparently.

Apparently a "calorie" is not really a calorie after all. ;-)

It was on "Supersize v Superskinny".

I literally watched that entire episode with my mouth open. The dude was taking in 2,500 calorie per day of which 2,000 calories came from added sugar in his tea. He was dangerously underweight.

HOW MUCH SUGAR IS TOO MUCH?

Replies

Categories