Sugar Over but Calories Under

Hmmmm. Good Question.

Yes, you will still lose weight. From a weigh loss perspective, it's how much you eat, not what you eat.

Yes. In addition, the sugar limit on MFP is based on the FDA recommendation for added sugar, but the sugar total is for all sugars, so it doesn't have any meaning. I don't even bother tracking sugar.

In the short term, yes. In the long term, you need to be careful with sugar intake, if you are not reducing your long term sugar/carbs, the chances are you will put on any weight that you have lost.

Nope. You will only put on weight if you eat over your maintenance. The type of food does not matter.

I stopped paying attention to everything but the calories. so much less stressful

In a word - yes.

Don't forget, MFP doesn't distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' sugar. Whether you eat a banana or a chocolate - it will still be regarded as sugar. I am often over my sugar goal as I eat a lot of fruit. Don't worry too much about it

The type of food does matter in the long run, calories in/calories out is a flawed method. You have to be careful if you are maintaining a high sugar habit (i.e. Coca-Cola) but cutting food for example. That is my point.

how exactly is calories in vs calories out "flawed"….?

you can drink coca cola, be in a calorie deficit, and continue to lose weight...

It's flawed if you have a wider goal of being healthy rather than just losing weight

Calories in vs out is simply a statement that X amount of calories for a certain person means gaining, maintaining, losing. I don't see how you can dispute it...If I eat 2500 calories, I'll gain. If I eat 1700 I'll lose. Fin.

The type of food does matter in the long run, calories in/calories out is a flawed method. You have to be careful if you are maintaining a high sugar habit (i.e. Coca-Cola) but cutting food for example. That is my point.

how exactly is calories in vs calories out "flawed"….?

you can drink coca cola, be in a calorie deficit, and continue to lose weight...

It's flawed if you have a wider goal of being healthy rather than just losing weight

Oh. So I'm unhealthy because I have a balanced diet and ignore sugar? My body breaks it down just like anything else. Aside from medical reasons sugar is merely a carb. A tasty one at that.

I don't believe that was what I said or that I was addressing you so I fail to see how you've leapt to that conclusion.

The type of food does matter in the long run, calories in/calories out is a flawed method. You have to be careful if you are maintaining a high sugar habit (i.e. Coca-Cola) but cutting food for example. That is my point.

how exactly is calories in vs calories out "flawed"….?

you can drink coca cola, be in a calorie deficit, and continue to lose weight...

It's flawed if you have a wider goal of being healthy rather than just losing weight

Oh. So I'm unhealthy because I have a balanced diet and ignore sugar? My body breaks it down just like anything else. Aside from medical reasons sugar is merely a carb. A tasty one at that.

I don't believe that was what I said or that I was addressing you so I fail to see how you've leapt to that conclusion.

Sorry, it's early. I'll sulk away to my cave

However calories in vs out is kind of the ruling factor in weight...btw.

The things that matter:

Losing weight - calories in versus calories out

Body composition - macros; getting an adequate amount of protein, carbs (including fiber), and fats in a ratio that fits your lifestyle (e.g., weightlifting - more protein, running - more carbs, etc)

Body function and optimization - micronutrients (vitamins and minerals)

The things that don't matter so long as you're meeting the above goals:

sugar grams per day.
organic versus inorganic.
"clean" versus "junk". What some call junk, like pizza, might be loaded with micronutrients.

It really doesn't matter how many grams of sugar you get in a day.

I eat a lot of fruit, so I go way over on sugar. Therefore, I don't bother tracking it. I'm not going to give up fruit.

Thanks for your fascinating input, it's certainly food for thought. Perhaps I'll be able to live a long and healthy life by simply consuming that single source.

Because everything is black and white. There's no gray area for consumption of other things. The word moderation just has to be said otherwise, you'll just assume everyone is saying to drink all your calories in soda. Okay.

His argument is a straw man argument; reductio ad absurdum.

It's what people do when they can't make a valid point with usable data, so they reduce it to an absurdity because it's the only way a supporting counterpoint can be made.

I knew that minoring in logic and philosophy would pay off in some meaningless and insignificant way at some point.

No, I think that you'll find that my argument is a perfectly valid response to the witless mantra that asserts that no distinction can or ought to be made between the source of calories. The source may have no impact in terms of weight gain, but it has a great deal of relevance with respect to living a healthy life. One only needs to view the vast volume of questions appearing on this site which demonstrate a shared lack of basic knowlege on the part of many posters. Telling these people that it doesn't make any difference what they eat as all calories are "the same" is, at best, reckless. But, given that I find interracting with zealots of any type tedious I really can't be bothered to engage further. Good luck with the rest of your education.

Thanks for your fascinating input, it's certainly food for thought. Perhaps I'll be able to live a long and healthy life by simply consuming that single source.

Because everything is black and white. There's no gray area for consumption of other things. The word moderation just has to be said otherwise, you'll just assume everyone is saying to drink all your calories in soda. Okay.

His argument is a straw man argument; reductio ad absurdum.

It's what people do when they can't make a valid point with usable data, so they reduce it to an absurdity because it's the only way a supporting counterpoint can be made.

I knew that minoring in logic and philosophy would pay off in some meaningless and insignificant way at some point.

No, I think that you'll find that my argument is a perfectly valid response to the witless mantra that asserts that no distinction can or ought to be made between the source of calories. The source may have no impact in terms of weight gain, but it has a great deal of relevance with respect to living a healthy life. One only needs to view the vast volume of questions appearing on this site which demonstrate a shared lack of basic knowlege on the part of many posters. Telling these people that it doesn't make any difference what they eat as all calories are "the same" is, at best, reckless. But, given that I find interracting with zealots of any type tedious I really can't be bothered to engage further. Good luck with the rest of your education.

Someone would have to be a complete idiot to read, "It's OK to go over on your sugar," as, "It's OK and healthy to live entirely on sugar and nothing else."

You're being obtuse.