*RANT* Sugar, sugar, sugar!
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
Whether refined sugar or "fruit sugar" aka natural sugar, the body still processes it the same.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/546655-does-the-body-process-fruit-sugars-the-same-way-that-it-does-refined-sugar/
The only difference when it comes to sugar in a banana and a piece of cake, is the macronutrients of each item.
I rarely eat fruit unless it's my emergency food before a workout. Why? Because the same macronutrients you can get from fruit, you can get from vegetables.
If we are referring to type 2 diabetes, it would just make more sense to stick to fruits on the lower end of the glycemic index.
The glycemic index is a numerical rating assigned to carbohydrate foods and indicates how quickly a food will affect blood sugar levels. Low-glycemic-index foods raise blood sugar levels at a slower rate than higher glycemic index foods, says Saul. So low-glycemic-index foods will help you keep your blood sugar levels more stable — the goal for everyone with diabetes.
I EAT BY THE GLYCEMIC INDEX NOT JUST GRAMS OF SUGAR.0 -
I don't know if anyone else has recommended this, but take a look at the fruits recommended by the Paleo diet. They say no bananas, but offer up a lot of others.0
-
I have also been pre-diabetic and have PCOS so I do "try" to eat less sugar, but it isn't my main concern when losing weight because the sugar I do consume is mostly natural, so I figure shouldn't be as bad as let's say, a bag of M&M's...
Even those (like me) who are full on T2D are no longer told to track sugar. The important thing if you have anything going on with blood sugar (except T1D) is total carbs, not sugar.
0 -
I know I'm going to get backlash for saying this, but opinions are like butts, everyone has them...
Anyway, if you have PCOS and are pre-diabetic, you might want to research a ketogenic diet. It's essentially eating 70% fat, 25% protein, and 5% carb. This means keeping carbs to about 20g or a day. Its possible if fruit is eliminated and food it watched. It's been proven to help both ailments.
This is exactly what my pathetic post was recommending, only she was way more articulate
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Why no bananas?MomsterGina wrote: »I don't know if anyone else has recommended this, but take a look at the fruits recommended by the Paleo diet. They say no bananas, but offer up a lot of others.
Cavemen couldn't figure out how to work the peels. IT'S SCIENCE.0 -
-
I think that you are getting 75 carbs a day, right? So you are on a 30/30/40 plan or something around there? I can't see your diary, but if your carbs are at where mostly everyone else is at, except mine, then you would typically see it split the carbs into thirds, where you get 1/3 from sugary sources, 1/3 from fiberous sources, and the last from starches. So if you expect it to tell you to eat 50 or 60 grams of sugar, where do the starches and fiber come into play? I think that is what It is getting at.
Just out of curiosity, what is the ideal for fiber?
0 -
arditarose wrote: »
Bananas give me gas, as do most fruits....I dont like having gas, so I do not eat much fruits. My diet provides that I will not have gas, so I try to be on it whenever possible.0 -
I didn't read most of the posts. I will say, if you don't have a medical problem that requires you to monitor sugar, you'll be fine.
I suggest changing your settings to not show sugar and instead show carbs and fiber.0 -
RockstarWilson wrote: »I think that you are getting 75 carbs a day, right? So you are on a 30/30/40 plan or something around there? I can't see your diary, but if your carbs are at where mostly everyone else is at, except mine, then you would typically see it split the carbs into thirds, where you get 1/3 from sugary sources, 1/3 from fiberous sources, and the last from starches. So if you expect it to tell you to eat 50 or 60 grams of sugar, where do the starches and fiber come into play? I think that is what It is getting at.
Just out of curiosity, what is the ideal for fiber?
The recommended minimum amount is:
Men:
Age 50 or younger - 38 grams
Age 51 or older - 30 grams
Women:
Age 50 or younger - 25 grams
Age 51 or older - 21 grams
source: Mayo Clinic mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/fiber/art-20043983?reDate=150120150 -
No sorry, that's not a reason to automatically push the diabetes issues onto everyone especially when it's not even an issue.
Typically it's the "fruit is wonderful" or "natural sugars don't count" camp that bring up diabetes as an exclusion clause.
If 30-40% of the population have insulin resistance then of those trying to lose weight it could well be over half, but sugars are sugars are carbs and diabetics handle them the same as anyone just less well.0 -
HaggisWhisperer wrote: »It looks like the MFP guidelines are in line with the new draft recommendations from the WHO. I would probably shoot for the max of 25g (particularly since you have PCOS) but really try not to go over 50g to stay with the guidelines.
"WHO’s current recommendation, from 2002, is that sugars should make up less than 10% of total energy intake per day. The new draft guideline also proposes that sugars should be less than 10% of total energy intake per day. It further suggests that a reduction to below 5% of total energy intake per day would have additional benefits. Five per cent of total energy intake is equivalent to around 25 grams (around 6 teaspoons) of sugar per day for an adult of normal Body Mass Index (BMI).
The suggested limits on intake of sugars in the draft guideline apply to all monosaccharides (such as glucose, fructose) and disaccharides (such as sucrose or table sugar) that are added to food by the manufacturer, the cook or the consumer, as well as sugars that are naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit concentrates."
I'm trying to limit the amount of sugar in my diet - in my opinion there does appear to be enough of a relationship between sugar consumption and diabetes/metabolic syndrome disease (from an epidemiological standpoint) for me to try and make some changes.
It will be interesting to see what the final guidelines say when they are published.
I have PCOS and I'm over 100g of sugar probably every day, a good deal of it coming from my apple, strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, blackberries, etc.
Does that mean I get multiple Liam Neesons?
No, because that would be greedy - you have to share with the rest of us.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »HaggisWhisperer wrote: »It looks like the MFP guidelines are in line with the new draft recommendations from the WHO. I would probably shoot for the max of 25g (particularly since you have PCOS) but really try not to go over 50g to stay with the guidelines.
"WHO’s current recommendation, from 2002, is that sugars should make up less than 10% of total energy intake per day. The new draft guideline also proposes that sugars should be less than 10% of total energy intake per day. It further suggests that a reduction to below 5% of total energy intake per day would have additional benefits. Five per cent of total energy intake is equivalent to around 25 grams (around 6 teaspoons) of sugar per day for an adult of normal Body Mass Index (BMI).
The suggested limits on intake of sugars in the draft guideline apply to all monosaccharides (such as glucose, fructose) and disaccharides (such as sucrose or table sugar) that are added to food by the manufacturer, the cook or the consumer, as well as sugars that are naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit concentrates."
But note that this only includes "added sugars" and a few things that are basically considered "added sugars" (like honey). It would not include OP's banana.
That's because the reasoning that WHO used is not about the harms of sugar itself, but a concern that "added sugars" were associated with overconsumption of calories and low nutrient items (which they don't consider to apply to fruit and dairy).
After I posted this I realised that the quote was completely contradictory - in the first paragraph they say "<10% (or <5%) of TOTAL energy per day" and in the second they say that it is just added sugars, fruit juices etc. So I don't really know what they are saying. Maybe their final guidelines will be clearer.
0 -
Aus and the EU have gone for 90 grams a day of total sugars as a ceiling. The problem with "added sugars" and similar concepts is that you can't measure them in a product off the shelf.0
-
HaggisWhisperer wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »HaggisWhisperer wrote: »It looks like the MFP guidelines are in line with the new draft recommendations from the WHO. I would probably shoot for the max of 25g (particularly since you have PCOS) but really try not to go over 50g to stay with the guidelines.
"WHO’s current recommendation, from 2002, is that sugars should make up less than 10% of total energy intake per day. The new draft guideline also proposes that sugars should be less than 10% of total energy intake per day. It further suggests that a reduction to below 5% of total energy intake per day would have additional benefits. Five per cent of total energy intake is equivalent to around 25 grams (around 6 teaspoons) of sugar per day for an adult of normal Body Mass Index (BMI).
The suggested limits on intake of sugars in the draft guideline apply to all monosaccharides (such as glucose, fructose) and disaccharides (such as sucrose or table sugar) that are added to food by the manufacturer, the cook or the consumer, as well as sugars that are naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit concentrates."
But note that this only includes "added sugars" and a few things that are basically considered "added sugars" (like honey). It would not include OP's banana.
That's because the reasoning that WHO used is not about the harms of sugar itself, but a concern that "added sugars" were associated with overconsumption of calories and low nutrient items (which they don't consider to apply to fruit and dairy).
After I posted this I realised that the quote was completely contradictory - in the first paragraph they say "<10% (or <5%) of TOTAL energy per day" and in the second they say that it is just added sugars, fruit juices etc. So I don't really know what they are saying. Maybe their final guidelines will be clearer.
I've researched it. If you read more at the WHO site you will see it's clear, that the very low 25 is based on added, which is consistent with their rationale. Like I said above, especially for people who don't regularly watch carbs and calories, that distinction makes sense as a rule of thumb, although not based on a difference in the sugar.
0 -
I actually don't pay attention to that. The way I look at it is even though fruit does have a lot of sugar (natural sugar) it is still healthy! I'd rather eat fruit that take fruit out of my diet because I'm concerned about sugar. Your breakfast sounds great and healthy. I'd be more concerned if your sugar intake was mainly from desserts everyday. We are SUPPOSED to eat fruit!0
-
A diabetic does not process honey any differently than refined sugar. One is refined by the honey bee. Sugars from fruit are slowed down by the added fiber and are therefore safer for the diabetic (in moderation). There is so much misinformation here. I would advise recently diagnosed insulin resistant and pre-diabetic people to erase their brains of anything read here and take a class on diabetic menu planning.
I grew up in the West Indies where they grow sugar cane. I imagine it would take a while to chew out the sugar straight from the cane, which would slow it's absorption. Not to mention wear down the teeth. I've tried.
What about the people that don't have diabetes? Because it seems like every time a sugar conversation comes up we hear "In diabetics and insulin resistant" but what about the non?
People without The Beetus can safely eat sugars according to their psychological preferences. So, you know, if it causes you emotional turmoil, don't eat it. But, even if you are trying to lose weight, if it fits in your calorie plan, it won't cause you to gain wait any more than any other type of food with the same calorie total.
The diabetic and insulin resistant caveat "keeps coming up" because that is the only biological reason to cut sugar.
So then why does it need to end up at diabetes every time people start with the whole fruit is good, refined sugar is bad or fructose alarmist come up. Someone says they are addicted or generally wants to reduce it because they "know" it's bad for us, a bunch of people come in and say it's not, then people pop in..........Diabetes!!!! All roads seem to lead to diabetes.
Why are the responses from the "sugar is sugar" crowd is the same whether someone says " I know it's bad for us", or "I know it's bad for me"? As if responders have a clue what is bad for someone else.0 -
I'm confused why this is still being debated? If you don't have medical issues with sugar consumption, diagnosed from a medical professional, WHY DO YOU CARE?0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »A diabetic does not process honey any differently than refined sugar. One is refined by the honey bee. Sugars from fruit are slowed down by the added fiber and are therefore safer for the diabetic (in moderation). There is so much misinformation here. I would advise recently diagnosed insulin resistant and pre-diabetic people to erase their brains of anything read here and take a class on diabetic menu planning.
I grew up in the West Indies where they grow sugar cane. I imagine it would take a while to chew out the sugar straight from the cane, which would slow it's absorption. Not to mention wear down the teeth. I've tried.
What about the people that don't have diabetes? Because it seems like every time a sugar conversation comes up we hear "In diabetics and insulin resistant" but what about the non?
People without The Beetus can safely eat sugars according to their psychological preferences. So, you know, if it causes you emotional turmoil, don't eat it. But, even if you are trying to lose weight, if it fits in your calorie plan, it won't cause you to gain wait any more than any other type of food with the same calorie total.
The diabetic and insulin resistant caveat "keeps coming up" because that is the only biological reason to cut sugar.
So then why does it need to end up at diabetes every time people start with the whole fruit is good, refined sugar is bad or fructose alarmist come up. Someone says they are addicted or generally wants to reduce it because they "know" it's bad for us, a bunch of people come in and say it's not, then people pop in..........Diabetes!!!! All roads seem to lead to diabetes.
Why are the responses from the "sugar is sugar" crowd is the same whether someone says " I know it's bad for us", or "I know it's bad for me"? As if responders have a clue what is bad for someone else.
the rebuttal doesn't change just because the the question comes in a different form.
And as we always say- outside of medical conditions- it's not relevant.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »A diabetic does not process honey any differently than refined sugar. One is refined by the honey bee. Sugars from fruit are slowed down by the added fiber and are therefore safer for the diabetic (in moderation). There is so much misinformation here. I would advise recently diagnosed insulin resistant and pre-diabetic people to erase their brains of anything read here and take a class on diabetic menu planning.
I grew up in the West Indies where they grow sugar cane. I imagine it would take a while to chew out the sugar straight from the cane, which would slow it's absorption. Not to mention wear down the teeth. I've tried.
What about the people that don't have diabetes? Because it seems like every time a sugar conversation comes up we hear "In diabetics and insulin resistant" but what about the non?
People without The Beetus can safely eat sugars according to their psychological preferences. So, you know, if it causes you emotional turmoil, don't eat it. But, even if you are trying to lose weight, if it fits in your calorie plan, it won't cause you to gain wait any more than any other type of food with the same calorie total.
The diabetic and insulin resistant caveat "keeps coming up" because that is the only biological reason to cut sugar.
So then why does it need to end up at diabetes every time people start with the whole fruit is good, refined sugar is bad or fructose alarmist come up. Someone says they are addicted or generally wants to reduce it because they "know" it's bad for us, a bunch of people come in and say it's not, then people pop in..........Diabetes!!!! All roads seem to lead to diabetes.
Why are the responses from the "sugar is sugar" crowd is the same whether someone says " I know it's bad for us", or "I know it's bad for me"? As if responders have a clue what is bad for someone else.
the rebuttal doesn't change just because the the question comes in a different form.
And as we always say- outside of medical conditions- it's not relevant.
There is no way you could know that.0 -
what if someone has a medical condition?
you're absoulutely correct- which is why- the rest of us do a double facepalm when people broach a topic/ask a question and five pages later go "oh by the way I have X, Y and Z that I'm allergic and intolerent to"
0 -
what if someone has a medical condition?
No, whether sugar is bad beyond a medical condition. Whether it triggers binges or bloating or anything else besides disease complications. There are numerous reasons outside a medical condition that sugar might be bad for me. Bad is not inherently linked to disease.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
So outside of a medical condition how would sugar be bad for skmeone?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »A diabetic does not process honey any differently than refined sugar. One is refined by the honey bee. Sugars from fruit are slowed down by the added fiber and are therefore safer for the diabetic (in moderation). There is so much misinformation here. I would advise recently diagnosed insulin resistant and pre-diabetic people to erase their brains of anything read here and take a class on diabetic menu planning.
I grew up in the West Indies where they grow sugar cane. I imagine it would take a while to chew out the sugar straight from the cane, which would slow it's absorption. Not to mention wear down the teeth. I've tried.
What about the people that don't have diabetes? Because it seems like every time a sugar conversation comes up we hear "In diabetics and insulin resistant" but what about the non?
People without The Beetus can safely eat sugars according to their psychological preferences. So, you know, if it causes you emotional turmoil, don't eat it. But, even if you are trying to lose weight, if it fits in your calorie plan, it won't cause you to gain wait any more than any other type of food with the same calorie total.
The diabetic and insulin resistant caveat "keeps coming up" because that is the only biological reason to cut sugar.
So then why does it need to end up at diabetes every time people start with the whole fruit is good, refined sugar is bad or fructose alarmist come up. Someone says they are addicted or generally wants to reduce it because they "know" it's bad for us, a bunch of people come in and say it's not, then people pop in..........Diabetes!!!! All roads seem to lead to diabetes.
Why are the responses from the "sugar is sugar" crowd is the same whether someone says " I know it's bad for us", or "I know it's bad for me"? As if responders have a clue what is bad for someone else.
the rebuttal doesn't change just because the the question comes in a different form.
And as we always say- outside of medical conditions- it's not relevant.
There is no way you could know that.
Personal preference. Personal beliefs. Personal psycohology. Personal opinion.0 -
So outside of a medical condition how would sugar be bad for skmeone?
I don't think anyone disputes that there are medical reasons why sugar can be physically bad for some people (with the exception of those who say it is physically bad for ALL people but any general GIS will disprove that notion). The debate seems to center around psychological effects. Is sugar acting like a drug causing a person to crave more because of the pleasure they get from it? I don't know the answer to that. Perhaps it does, perhaps it is just an excuse for a lack of self control.
0 -
After tracking sugar since the beginning but having healthy levels and a clean blood panel, I've decided to track fiber instead of sugar. Thanks for posting what you guys have done. 0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
So outside of a medical condition how would sugar be bad for skmeone?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »A diabetic does not process honey any differently than refined sugar. One is refined by the honey bee. Sugars from fruit are slowed down by the added fiber and are therefore safer for the diabetic (in moderation). There is so much misinformation here. I would advise recently diagnosed insulin resistant and pre-diabetic people to erase their brains of anything read here and take a class on diabetic menu planning.
I grew up in the West Indies where they grow sugar cane. I imagine it would take a while to chew out the sugar straight from the cane, which would slow it's absorption. Not to mention wear down the teeth. I've tried.
What about the people that don't have diabetes? Because it seems like every time a sugar conversation comes up we hear "In diabetics and insulin resistant" but what about the non?
People without The Beetus can safely eat sugars according to their psychological preferences. So, you know, if it causes you emotional turmoil, don't eat it. But, even if you are trying to lose weight, if it fits in your calorie plan, it won't cause you to gain wait any more than any other type of food with the same calorie total.
The diabetic and insulin resistant caveat "keeps coming up" because that is the only biological reason to cut sugar.
So then why does it need to end up at diabetes every time people start with the whole fruit is good, refined sugar is bad or fructose alarmist come up. Someone says they are addicted or generally wants to reduce it because they "know" it's bad for us, a bunch of people come in and say it's not, then people pop in..........Diabetes!!!! All roads seem to lead to diabetes.
Why are the responses from the "sugar is sugar" crowd is the same whether someone says " I know it's bad for us", or "I know it's bad for me"? As if responders have a clue what is bad for someone else.
the rebuttal doesn't change just because the the question comes in a different form.
And as we always say- outside of medical conditions- it's not relevant.
There is no way you could know that.
Personal preference. Personal beliefs. Personal psycohology. Personal opinion.
None of that means the way your body processes is any different.
those are all PERSONAL opinions. NO actual reality about how something works.
I personally hate that 2 +2 is 4.
I wish it was 5- but it's not. So my personal opinion doesn't impact the math at all.0
This discussion has been closed.
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