should i be worried about the carbs from fruit?

i consistently find myself either going over or getting dangerously close to going over my carbs for the day, however when i look over my food diary i see that most if not all of these carbs are coming from fruits such as oranges and apples. should i be concerned about my high intake of these carbs and eat less fruit? or should i not count these as "actual" carbs and go on eating fruit as long as it stays within my caloric limit for the day?

Fruit carbs are the best carbs.

i consistently find myself either going over or getting dangerously close to going over my carbs for the day, however when i look over my food diary i see that most if not all of these carbs are coming from fruits such as oranges and apples. should i be concerned about my high intake of these carbs and eat less fruit? or should i not count these as "actual" carbs and go on eating fruit as long as it stays within my caloric limit for the day?

Fruit carbs are the best carbs.

Fruit carbs are fructose sugar. It isn't much different than drinking sugar water and having a little bit of fiber along with it.

Not that I am knocking fruit, sugar isn't bad for you as long as you aren't exceeding your calorie goal for the day...sugar just isn't very satisftying, tends to not fill you up for the long run. It isn't unhealthy.

absolutely not! especially with summer right around the corner. my only advice would be to eat the whole fruit instead of the juice form or mixing it into a smoothie.

Not at first, maybe for those "last ten pounds" it will matter more. It depends on how much you're going over limit, too.

Glucose is preferably the main sugar source, as increased fructose intake has been correlated with leptin (fat-storage hormone) secretion. The average human body can actually only process so much sugar in a day into glycogen (muscle-fueling energy) before it can no longer use it as immediate energy, thus converting the excess sugars into fat. Some people are less efficient at converting sugar into immediate energy reserves and are more likely to store excess sugar as fat; this is your typical "fast metabolism" vs "slow metabolism" dilemma. It's better to take in natural sugar with fiber (and a protein like seeds, greek yogurt, soy, or nuts)as opposed to processed and even substitute sugars in general, but I wouldn't say it's something you should "worry" about, unless you have a family history of diabetes or insulin resistance.

Short of having a medial condition, sugar and carbs shouldn't be a concern as long as you are hitting adequate levels of protein and fats. A calorie deficit = weight loss. Carbs = energy, fats = vitamin and mineral absorption and satiety, protein = satiety and muscle retention.

Bodies aren't a one size fits all thing. I've read many studies, thanks. I'm a nurse and I'm continuing education until I earn my doctorate. There are people who eat calories in a deficit, and while weight fluxuates, they seem to not lose fat or have even gained fat when measuring body %. I don't recommend sugar in high doses for anyone, even from fruit, but that's more for health reasons than ideal weight or aesthetic goals. The best way to know if something is working for an individual is to monitor it personally. But even then, as I said before, it's not something to worry about.

Bodies aren't a one size fits all thing. I've read many studies, thanks. I'm a nurse and I'm continuing education until I earn my doctorate. There are people who eat calories in a deficit, and while weight fluxuates, they seem to not lose fat or have even gained fat when measuring body %. I don't recommend sugar in high doses for anyone, even from fruit, but that's more for health reasons than ideal weight or aesthetic goals. The best way to know if something is working for an individual is to monitor it personally. But even then, as I said before, it's not something to worry about.

if they're not losing weight they're not eating at a deficit.

If they're not losing while eating a number of calories that a calculator predicts they should lose weight at, then that's an issue with the calculator being based on averages; they're not eating at a deficit if they're not losing weight. If all possible factors such as inaccuracy with portion sizes have been ruled out, then burning much fewer calories than the calculators predict may be indicative of hormonal issues e.g. hypothyroid. But even if they have this condition, not losing weight is from not eating at a deficit. Conditions like this skew the calories out side of the equation, making it much more difficult to eat at a deficit, and the solution is medical treatment that puts the metabolic rate back to where it should be, rather than trying to create a deficit by eating very little. But the point is that they're not failing to lose in spite of eating at a deficit; they're not eating at a deficit.

There are people who eat calories in a deficit, and while weight fluxuates, they seem to not lose fat or have even gained fat when measuring body %.

and as we all know, anecdotal evidence is the best kind of evidence.

What MrM27 said pretty much sums it up imo. Being a nurse and a student does not make you an expert and name-dropping your title and following it up with a vague anecdote to support your position that caloric deficit does not always result in weight loss is not exactly convincing evidence for a rather bold claim. But then again I'm not in the medical field so what do I know right.