Too much sugar in fruit, is that bad?

No one claims food choice doesn't matter, that's not what "a calorie is a calorie" even means. You are arguing against a strawman to misrepresent what people here say, why?

Counting sugar grams within the context of a healthy balanced diet is unnecessary, in part because it's not going to be possible to consistently get excessive added sugar on that kind of diet, when you are eating reasonable calories and meeting other requirements.

Limiting fruit within the context of such a diet is particularly unnecessary and there is no credible support for a claim there is (not that that has ever stopped authority nutrition). The WHO and the US Dietary Guidelines recommend no more than 10% of calories (the WHO suggests that 5% might be even better) from added sugar, but say nothing about limiting sugar from vegetables, fruit, and dairy, and their reasoning for the limit -- association with excess calories and lower nutrient/high cal foods -- does not apply to intrinsic sugar. Oh, and about half the calories from most major sources of added sugar other than soda is fat.

Personally, I keep on eye on added sugar (although I've yet to be surprised), but don't care about overall sugar if I'm hitting my protein goal, getting in lots of vegetables and plenty of fiber, and some healthy fats. That's because I understand nutrition (and am happy to discuss it) and don't think how much sugar I eat is the determinant of what's a good diet. I eat lots of fruit in the summer, so have been high on sugar lately (I'm often quite low in the winter). Not going to pass on enjoying the summer fruits or many vegetables for that reason, or worry that by trying to finish off my tomato surplus (I had nearly 700 grams of tomatoes alone a few days ago, LOL) I will eat too much sugar.

"Calories" does not simply mean "food." To read "a calorie is a calorie" as "a food is a food" would be your comprehension error. Sadly, that misunderstanding is often used as click bait for headlines and such.

On the GI thing, I think this is interesting. http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/04/do-slower-digesting-carbohydrates-make.html Ludwig has been pushing the GI idea for a long time, but it really doesn't seem to hold up. I think any correlation tends to be that foods/diets that tend to be higher GI ALSO tend to be more nutrient-dense or satiating diets, but that it really has nothing to do with GI in general, which shouldn't matter much in a sensible mixed diet, or for healthy people.

StorkFootFamily wrote: »

Jane, you're right, I should have cited a source. I normally hesitate to post more than 1 link because I feel like I'm going to insult the reader's intelligence by making it seem like I don't think they're capable of doing their own research (after all, you are adults on the internet). Here is an article simplifying a study from Harvard: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/

I can't spend any more time on the subject today (I already spent more than I meant to!). Do you have any studies to post that scientifically explain why all calories are treated exactly the same in the body to convince me? I'll be happy to learn something new, and since you've established that it's a requirement to site a source, I'm a little surprised you haven't done it yet.

I only brought up the subject because I saw so many comments along the lines of "it doesn't matter, as long as you burn the calories." I honestly believe that health is more important than weight (and I thought health might be a concern for someone on a "nutrition" board), so I gave the original poster an answer that included information that might be beneficial if she is also concerned about her overall health (that the sugar in fruit is balanced nicely with fiber, so it isn't as much of a concern as added sugar).

I'm sorry I didn't specify that by "calorie content" I meant the food that you're eating (and how nutritionally viable it is) that make up your calorie count. I thought that was kinda obvious.

The thing is, the very thing you're accusing people of saying is something I have never seen people saying. Don't confuse "all you need to lose weight is a calorie deficit" with "it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you're in a calorie deficit."

While I've seen many helpful (and successful) MFPers say that a deficit is the key to weight loss, it is usually paired with advice like "a good balance of protein and fiber tends to be the key to satiety which helps with adherence." Protein and fiber also help stabilize blood sugar.

I understand your desire to be helpful, but calling out the regular posters here for doling out misinformation when you've clearly failed to do more than skim a few threads is not a great way to join the community.

valerialeek wrote: »

Stick to two serves of fruit

Why?

Yesterday I had grapes, an apple, and a banana. I hit my protein and fat goals for the day. What is the harm in eating more fruit (or anything else, for that matter) if you are within your goals for the day?

valerialeek wrote: »

Stick to two serves of fruit

Because...?

MFP bases their sugar "goal" on the recommendation that people get no more than 10% of their calories from added sugar. However, the system currently has no way to distinguish between added sugar and "natural sugar". So fruit sugars shouldn't even count towards that limit.

That said, I agree with others that there's no reason to limit sugar as long as you are feeling satiated and getting enough nutrients in your diet as a whole (and you don't have a medical reason).

StorkFootFamily wrote: »

Jane, you're right, I should have cited a source. I normally hesitate to post more than 1 link because I feel like I'm going to insult the reader's intelligence by making it seem like I don't think they're capable of doing their own research (after all, you are adults on the internet). Here is an article simplifying a study from Harvard: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/

I can't spend any more time on the subject today (I already spent more than I meant to!). Do you have any studies to post that scientifically explain why all calories are treated exactly the same in the body to convince me? I'll be happy to learn something new, and since you've established that it's a requirement to site a source, I'm a little surprised you haven't done it yet.

I only brought up the subject because I saw so many comments along the lines of "it doesn't matter, as long as you burn the calories." I honestly believe that health is more important than weight (and I thought health might be a concern for someone on a "nutrition" board), so I gave the original poster an answer that included information that might be beneficial if she is also concerned about her overall health (that the sugar in fruit is balanced nicely with fiber, so it isn't as much of a concern as added sugar).

I'm sorry I didn't specify that by "calorie content" I meant the food that you're eating (and how nutritionally viable it is) that make up your calorie count. I thought that was kinda obvious.

You may believe that health is more important than weight, but that doesn't really address the question in the OP. If you want to discuss your belief that health is more important than weight, you may want to start a thread discussing that (the debate area may be a good place for that thread).

As far as the claim that our weight is determined by the calories we eat and burn, you can believe it or disbelieve it as you choose. If you're inclined to dismiss that theory and throw your lot in with Ludwig's POV, I can't imagine any source I could post would convince you otherwise. Keep in mind that I never said "it doesn't matter" what one eats (I would never say that, as it isn't what I believe). My answer should be read *in the context of the OP's question* about weight loss.

I lost 60+ pounds while going over my MFP sugar goal every single day. Much of that time, the only added sugar I ate was some concentrated fruit juice that wasn't even at the top of the ingredient list in 1Tbsp of all-fruit spread (30 calories) I put in my oatmeal daily. Most of rest of the sugar was from fruit, or the milk sugars inherent in unsweetened nonfat/lowfat dairy foods, plus a tiny bit from miscellaneous other whole foods.

The only reason to limit fruit, IMO, is to make sure you're getting enough protein, fat, and micronutrients that don't happen to be in the fruits you prefer.

Good, balanced nutrition is an excellent goal for health. A calorie deficit is additionally necessary, if you want weight loss. After that, unless you have a major or minor medical condition, there's no reason to limit any specific food - unless the limitation helps you personally achieve good nutrition or stick with your calorie goal.

Consider changing your MFP diary layout to remove tracking sugar, and replace it with something of more daily interest to you (I replaced it with fiber tracking). You can still run a report if you want to look at sugar.