How many grams of sugar should I be eating in total?? Please help

lemurcat12 wrote: »

There's no credible evidence suggesting that you need to limit intrinsic sugars from vegetables, fruits, and dairy. Countries that set a total sugar limit merely add to their added sugar limit an estimated amount of sugars that people who eat according to recommended minimum amounts of vegetables, fruits, and dairy would be eating on average. They simply assume that most are not going to exceed that, but have not claimed that it's bad to do so.

What would be a problem is to eat so many calories from, say, fruit, that you don't get enough protein or fat, but that's likely uncommon.

IMO, what makes sense is to monitor total carbs and fiber (to get above the minimum for fiber) and then watch sugar to make sure you aren't getting more than you thought from unexpected sources. I am perfectly happy to exceed my sugar goal with fruits and veg, although it rarely happens.

Why do you think you are having too much? With those macros and your activity, it seems unlikely.

(I'll add that even the WHO doesn't say cut out ALL added sugar. They recommend keeping added sugar to 5% of calories or below. Nothing wrong with cutting it out if you prefer, but not necessary for health for most.)

^^ Yep concur with all this.

TL;DR - if you set your calorie and macro goals appropriately and meet them for the most part, there's no need (absent a medical condition) to fret over specific # of grams of sugar or the "type" of sugar.

If you havr insulin resistance of some sort (prediabetes, T2D, NAFLD) then the closer you can get your sugar to zero, the better your health will be. I am prediabetic, so I cut my carbs and sugars to treat it. My sugar is often close to zero but I eat almost no fruit and veggies are not more than half of my plate, nevermind the fact that I cut all added sugars and starches.

If I was not prediabetic, and didn't believe that cutting sugars was in my best interest, I wouldn't have done this.

If you are healthy, sugars from veggies and some fruits are not bad.

When I dropped most sugars from my diet I had a lot less cravings for food and lost weight. Yes it was from a lower caloric intake obviously but for me getting rid of sugar helped control my cravings for food.. I currently keep my sugar under 50 grams and most of that is from fruit.

Michael190lbs wrote: »

When I dropped most sugars from my diet I had a lot less cravings for food and lost weight. Yes it was from a lower caloric intake obviously but for me getting rid of sugar helped control my cravings for food.. I currently keep my sugar under 50 grams and most of that is from fruit.

OP hasn't mentioned struggling to control his calories or having problems with cravings, so I am curious how this relates to his post.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Michael190lbs wrote: »

When I dropped most sugars from my diet I had a lot less cravings for food and lost weight. Yes it was from a lower caloric intake obviously but for me getting rid of sugar helped control my cravings for food.. I currently keep my sugar under 50 grams and most of that is from fruit.

OP hasn't mentioned struggling to control his calories or having problems with cravings, so I am curious how this relates to his post.

Yet your quote and comment do?

Just to throw something into the conversation. The main issue with sugar are one that are rapidly absorbed, especially when you already had normal blood sugar levels and full glycogen stores in your muscles. This would cause high blood sugar, your bodies natural defense mechanism is Insulin (hormone) which turns this into fat. So speed of absorption is a significant factor.

It is also worth mentioning that all carbs basically become sugar too, what is worth watching here is it's Glycemic Index (GI.) A high GI (Potatoes, White Rice, Bread etc.) means they will be rapidly digested and absorbed causing a faster rise is blood sugar levels, thus the Insulin response kicks in. A low GI (Vegetables, Wild Rice etc.) means that they are slowly digested and absorbed.

Fiber is another key factor at play when looking at sugar absorption rates and fruit is a great example. An apple for example is not sugar I would worry about, the fiber acts like a matrix to keep sugar absorption rates low. However if we run that apple through a juicer, the apple juice has lots its fiber and so is very rapidly absorbed.

It can thus be beneficial to save high HI carbs or sugary treats for after a workout, this is because blood sugar is lowered and glycogen stores are depleted in your muscles. The faster sugar uptake serves to refuel to normal, thus helping to avoid the Insulin fat storage response. Insulin's opposing hormone is Glucagon, this kicks in when blood sugar is low and serves to convert fat into energy, you can try to manipulate this to your advantage with a three hour fast before a workout.

You'll hear many different options though and I encourage you to review them all and form your own opinion.

Michael190lbs wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Michael190lbs wrote: »

When I dropped most sugars from my diet I had a lot less cravings for food and lost weight. Yes it was from a lower caloric intake obviously but for me getting rid of sugar helped control my cravings for food.. I currently keep my sugar under 50 grams and most of that is from fruit.

OP hasn't mentioned struggling to control his calories or having problems with cravings, so I am curious how this relates to his post.

Yet your quote and comment do?

They do, because not everyone needs to cut added sugar from his or her diet. You addressed a specific concern to your own health, @lemurcat12 addressed general information as a starting point for anyone reading the thread about sugar.

It is true that not everyone needs to cut out added sugars. It is equally true that people do not need added sugars.

Cutting sugars can be helpful,or at worst benign, to a person's health. I can't think of any health benefits that only sugar can give.

... It does taste good though.

I just made lunch out of a bag of tootsie rolls. Is that bad?

Marathon running is hardly healthy the human body was NOT designed for it and a lot of people die trying to do them..

I'll admit my arthritic knees couldn't handle more than 30 km, I was never close to death though. A lot?? Doubt it.

nvmomketo wrote: »

Glucose may be handy to elite athletes where fractions of a second matter. I doubt anyone here is that sort of athlete.

Whether one is or not isn't the point. I was merely pointing out one benefit of sugar since you admittedly couldn't come up with one.

juggernaut1974 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

Glucose may be handy to elite athletes where fractions of a second matter. I doubt anyone here is that sort of athlete.

Whether one is or not isn't the point. I was merely pointing out one benefit of sugar since you admittedly couldn't come up with one.

Okay. You got me. An elite world class athlete who competes in exlosive energy sports like the 100m sprint, would probably have a slight edge on someone who was eating very low carbs and di not consume any carbs prior to competing. True. That is a benefit of some carbs in the diet.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

juggernaut1974 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

Cutting sugars can be helpful,or at worst benign, to a person's health. I can't think of any health benefits that only sugar can give.

Quick release energy.

There's a reason marathon runners don't gnaw on pork chops during a race.

There's a reason that marathoners and ultra sport athletes don't bonk on a LCHF diet too - they aren't relying on stored glycogen. There is no wall to hit anymore.

Athletes who are in ketosis will often consume some carbs for some quick release energy. The glucose is used during the activity and they never have to come out of ketosis. And again, if they don't have quite enough glycogen to tide them through, they can burn fats - no bonk.

Glucose may be handy to elite athletes where fractions of a second matter. I doubt anyone here is that sort of athlete.

Are there any competitive marathoners who do keto? The elite ones tend to do 80-10-10. Ultras--long and slow--are more fitted for keto, as is a slow casual marathoner, perhaps, although I'd want to hear experiences.

I recently did a half ironman tri, and I know I needed my Clif Shots. I'd be interested in the experiences of anyone who has done one without consuming anything during the race, however, as you seem to be saying is the case.

Mr. Knight has posted some good stuff about this in other threads.

Keto is definitely is more common among the ultramarathoners.
http://www.ultrarunning.com/features/health-and-nutrition/the-emerging-science-on-fat-adaptation/

Peter Attia has experimented on himself for years. He's not an elite athlete, but he's head and shoulders above most of us and does tri's. http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance

http://www.runnersworld.com/newswire/do-low-carb-diets-improve-endurance-performance.

To be honest, I don't know of any professional marathoners who eat a LCHF diet, but then again, I don't know of any proffessional marathoners. Period. I don't follow much in proffessional sports.

I think there are a few football players and basketball players doing LCHF.

nvmomketo wrote: »

juggernaut1974 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

Glucose may be handy to elite athletes where fractions of a second matter. I doubt anyone here is that sort of athlete.

Whether one is or not isn't the point. I was merely pointing out one benefit of sugar since you admittedly couldn't come up with one.

Okay. You got me. An elite world class athlete who competes in exlosive energy sports like the 100m sprint, would probably have a slight edge on someone who was eating very low carbs and di not consume any carbs prior to competing. True. That is a benefit of some carbs in the diet.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

juggernaut1974 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

Cutting sugars can be helpful,or at worst benign, to a person's health. I can't think of any health benefits that only sugar can give.

Quick release energy.

There's a reason marathon runners don't gnaw on pork chops during a race.

There's a reason that marathoners and ultra sport athletes don't bonk on a LCHF diet too - they aren't relying on stored glycogen. There is no wall to hit anymore.

Athletes who are in ketosis will often consume some carbs for some quick release energy. The glucose is used during the activity and they never have to come out of ketosis. And again, if they don't have quite enough glycogen to tide them through, they can burn fats - no bonk.

Glucose may be handy to elite athletes where fractions of a second matter. I doubt anyone here is that sort of athlete.

Are there any competitive marathoners who do keto? The elite ones tend to do 80-10-10. Ultras--long and slow--are more fitted for keto, as is a slow casual marathoner, perhaps, although I'd want to hear experiences.

I recently did a half ironman tri, and I know I needed my Clif Shots. I'd be interested in the experiences of anyone who has done one without consuming anything during the race, however, as you seem to be saying is the case.

Mr. Knight has posted some good stuff about this in other threads.

Keto is definitely is more common among the ultramarathoners.
http://www.ultrarunning.com/features/health-and-nutrition/the-emerging-science-on-fat-adaptation/

Peter Attia has experimented on himself for years. He's not an elite athlete, but he's head and shoulders above most of us and does tri's. http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance

http://www.runnersworld.com/newswire/do-low-carb-diets-improve-endurance-performance.

To be honest, I don't know of any professional marathoners who eat a LCHF diet, but then again, I don't know of any proffessional marathoners. Period. I don't follow much in proffessional sports.

I think there are a few football players and basketball players doing LCHF.

Mr. Knight has posted about how they aren't anywhere near keto when in-season, at least. I should track down his posts, as I believe they had links. He said they aren't really low carb, just lower carb than the typical high carb athlete diet, if memory serves, and they are still a minority. If it was helpful I'd expect a lot more would be experimenting with it.

I'll read about Attia (I'm pretty familiar with Noakes' arguments, and not convinced, and Noakes did eat a high carb diet when competing, and of course has other reasons for his POV).