Sugar-Do you count natural sugars?
Options
Replies
-
-
You know I never understood the attitudes on this forum that if someone doesn't do things the way you do, it's wrong. I will do things my way, you continue doing things your way.0
-
To your body sugar is sugar, whatever its source, so don't be fooled by the whole idea of natural vs. processed and one being better or worse than the other.
There's a thought that too much sugar isn't good for you, it's an inflammatory, etc. etc. However, unless you have a reason to be watching sugar, there's no real need to track is separately from carbs, of which sugar is one. Change sugar to something else you'd rather check. I prefer to track things like calcium and iron intake, personally.
I will just have to agree to disagree, natural sugars IMO are different from processed sugars.
I don't think they are, but the foods they are in are often quite different.
To me, some rhubarb sauce or oatmeal with a little sugar isn't much different than a non-sweetened apple or apple sauce. But an apple and a chocolate chip cookie are quite different (although neither is "bad"). Although the apple likely has more sugar* (going by an average apple and the recipe in my recipe box), the cookie has fewer vitamins, less fiber, and more calories (due to butter and, to a lesser degree, flour). I don't think added vs. not is the be-all, end-all, then, but I do pay attention to where it comes from (what foods I am eating).
*The sugar in an apple is a mix of glucose, fructose, and sucrose, and sucrose is broken down by the body into glucose and fructose. The sugar in the cookie is sucrose. So whatever the difference, I don't think it's the sugar -- I think it is other things about the foods. For example, adding butter and flour and a bit more sugar to the apple (as in an apple crisp) makes me more likely to overconsume it, yet I'd never eat sugar straight, ick, and have no desire to consume lots of sugar-containing things, like soda.0 -
-
You know I never understood the attitudes on this forum that if someone doesn't do things the way you do, it's wrong. I will do things my way, you continue doing things your way.
People aren't disagreeing with the way you're doing things (nobody cares if you personally don't want to consume added sugar), they're disagreeing with what you are presenting as facts. Someone stated a fact (sugar is sugar and your body will process sugars the same way) and you replied by saying they were different. If what you meant was they were different *for you* based on your personal preference, that's one thing. But that wasn't how your statement came across -- it seemed as if you were disagreeing with the fact that sugar is sugar.0 -
To your body sugar is sugar, whatever its source, so don't be fooled by the whole idea of natural vs. processed and one being better or worse than the other.
There's a thought that too much sugar isn't good for you, it's an inflammatory, etc. etc. However, unless you have a reason to be watching sugar, there's no real need to track is separately from carbs, of which sugar is one. Change sugar to something else you'd rather check. I prefer to track things like calcium and iron intake, personally.
I will just have to agree to disagree, natural sugars IMO are different from processed sugars.
Read this part again. See where it says IMO? That doesn't mean fact.0 -
People telling me to stop counting sugar and count something else IS telling me how to do things.0
-
You know I never understood the attitudes on this forum that if someone doesn't do things the way you do, it's wrong. I will do things my way, you continue doing things your way.
We're trying to assess your idea that refined sugar is in any way, shape or form "fake". Maybe try informing yourself on something before demonizing it as the source of all evil in your diet.0 -
To your body sugar is sugar, whatever its source, so don't be fooled by the whole idea of natural vs. processed and one being better or worse than the other.
There's a thought that too much sugar isn't good for you, it's an inflammatory, etc. etc. However, unless you have a reason to be watching sugar, there's no real need to track is separately from carbs, of which sugar is one. Change sugar to something else you'd rather check. I prefer to track things like calcium and iron intake, personally.
I will just have to agree to disagree, natural sugars IMO are different from processed sugars.
Read this part again. See where it says IMO? That doesn't mean fact.
I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant. When I have an opinion, it is usually based on my understanding of what the facts in the situation are.0 -
I have informed myself. I like how I feel when I avoid it instead of consuming lots of it. Why do you care?0
-
To your body sugar is sugar, whatever its source, so don't be fooled by the whole idea of natural vs. processed and one being better or worse than the other.
There's a thought that too much sugar isn't good for you, it's an inflammatory, etc. etc. However, unless you have a reason to be watching sugar, there's no real need to track is separately from carbs, of which sugar is one. Change sugar to something else you'd rather check. I prefer to track things like calcium and iron intake, personally.
I will just have to agree to disagree, natural sugars IMO are different from processed sugars.
Read this part again. See where it says IMO? That doesn't mean fact.
And that opinion is factually wrong.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »To your body sugar is sugar, whatever its source, so don't be fooled by the whole idea of natural vs. processed and one being better or worse than the other.
There's a thought that too much sugar isn't good for you, it's an inflammatory, etc. etc. However, unless you have a reason to be watching sugar, there's no real need to track is separately from carbs, of which sugar is one. Change sugar to something else you'd rather check. I prefer to track things like calcium and iron intake, personally.
I will just have to agree to disagree, natural sugars IMO are different from processed sugars.
Read this part again. See where it says IMO? That doesn't mean fact.
I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant. When I have an opinion, it is usually based on my understanding of what the facts in the situation are.
Well like I said, I will agree to disagree. My opinion, and my life. This works for me so I will continue to do it0 -
-
-
janejellyroll wrote: »To your body sugar is sugar, whatever its source, so don't be fooled by the whole idea of natural vs. processed and one being better or worse than the other.
There's a thought that too much sugar isn't good for you, it's an inflammatory, etc. etc. However, unless you have a reason to be watching sugar, there's no real need to track is separately from carbs, of which sugar is one. Change sugar to something else you'd rather check. I prefer to track things like calcium and iron intake, personally.
I will just have to agree to disagree, natural sugars IMO are different from processed sugars.
Read this part again. See where it says IMO? That doesn't mean fact.
I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant. When I have an opinion, it is usually based on my understanding of what the facts in the situation are.
Well like I said, I will agree to disagree. My opinion, and my life. This works for me so I will continue to do it
You've already said that your opinion isn't based on facts. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with, to be honest.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Yea it comes from nature but then it is processed and refined. Fruit comes straight from the plant and eaten.
If it works for you, eat all the sugar you want0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
There is a difference between telling someone how you do things and telling someone what to do0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »
Quoting myself...in case you missed my question.0 -
People telling me to stop counting sugar and count something else IS telling me how to do things.
I count sugar (and pay attention to added sugar, not intrinsic sugar), so I'm certainly not telling you not to do the same thing. But it's still not true to say the sugar in an apple is somehow different than that in a cookie, for the reasons set forth in my post above. Are an apple and a cookie different? Again, of course.
If I said: Texas is, IMO, larger than Florida, that's a statement of fact still. I would read the "IMO" as meaning "I think this is the case" or "this is what my understanding is." So I also did not read you as saying you consider them different in terms of your dietary priorities vs. factually different in some physical and significant way. If you meant that, it's a legitimate misunderstanding.0 -
You know I never understood the attitudes on this forum that if someone doesn't do things the way you do, it's wrong. I will do things my way, you continue doing things your way.
nobody is saying that...they are saying that biologically, sugar is sugar...fruit and veg come with a lot of other added benefits and nutrition...but sugar is sugar.
I also limit my added sugars because most sources are void of other nutrients and I get more than enough by way of naturally occurring sugars. Even with naturally occurring sugars, it is possible to over consume sugar...but a couple servings of fruit isn't going to get you there.
Biologically though...sugar is sugar.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions