Sugar and carbs question

Well, from my perspective as a diabetic, I look at both. Cutting sugar (like candy, soda) will naturally cut carbs. But I have to look at the entire amount of carbs. Processed carbs like white bread, pasta, and rice really spike my blood sugar. Better to make sure any carbs you eat are more complex whole grains and such. I mean, I cut carbs and lost almost 30 lbs and didn't really calorie court without exercising so cutting carbs will help you lose weight. But I think that was also because a lot of the food I cut out was high in calories so also naturally reduced my calorie intake.

The macro targets on MFP can be considered minimums. if you are not balancing them well, just add more proteins and fats, and the carbs will come down naturally because youll run out of calories for them.
There's nothing wrong with eating carbs, they are what fuels your body. You really only need to limit them if you are diabetic.
Weight loss requires calorie deficit, nutrition requires moderation and balance.

micaelacookie wrote: »

I'm trying to cut down on both sugar and carbs for weight loss, but should I be focusing more on not eating sugars, or carbs?

It's calories for weight loss.

But I try to manage "added" sugar. When I'm fat; I eat too much added sugar. If I'm going to stay thin.....I can't go back to my usual routine. Management is not the same thing as elimination....that backfires for me.

I don't manage carbs (no medical issues).....but instead focus on meeting protein & fat goals. I don't want carbs crowding these macros out.

Good sources of protein: pork chops, eggs, cottage cheese, milk, eggs, fish, lean beef.
Also broccoli and green leafy veggies.
Add some snacks or make your three meals a little bit bigger.

If you are low on calories, look at this list for suggestions:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10142490/a-list-of-calorie-dense-foods/p1

avocado
cheese
full fat dairy
Greek yogurt
ice cream
peanut butter (or other nut butters)
dark chocolate
less lean cuts of meat (including beef, pork, sausage, etc.)
seeds (chia, flax, sunflower, etc.)
nuts
olive oil
coconut oil
butter
beans and lentils
protein shakes, bars, and smoothies
hummus
beef jerky
cornbread
tuna
full calorie condiments
full calorie sauces & dressings
sour cream
guacamole
whole grain pasta
rice
bacon
whole eggs
quinoa
fruit and fruit juices
pretzels
bananas
scones
muffins (bran, blueberry, banana nut, etc.)
potatoes (sweet, red, gold, purple, white, etc.)
dried fruit (raisins, apricots, plums, dates, etc.)
granola
coconut
salmon
edamame
olives
honey
molasses

micaelacookie wrote: »

I hardly ever eat enough calories to begin with. I just noticed that on my nutrition I eat way too many sugars/ lots of carbs. Thank you all for answering my question though it was helpful!

If you aren't eating enough calories then you aren't eating too many carbs.
IMHO it's a bit pointless recording sugars separately at all unless you have a specific medical condition - they are just a subset of carbs.

Maybe start by thinking what you should INCLUDE in your diet rather than what to exclude?

Titoki1 wrote: »

There's a lot of oversimplification in these replies. There's lots of research to say sugar, in particular fructose, is addictive, and encourages overeating.That's completely different from other carbs, although the more processed they are, the worse. Check out the work of Sarah Wilson and David Gillespie on this.

Adult women should have no more than 25g a day (6 teaspoons) of sugar, including fruit, according to the World Health Organisation, and the benefits aren't just weight loss - fructose has been implicated in a host of metabolic and other disorders. 25g is just a couple of pieces of fruit all up. Check out some labels and see how much is in fruit juice and 'diet' foods for example, where the fat has been replaced with sugar.

So pay attention to sugar in your stats. You'll probably find that when you stop eating excess fructose, your cravings for other foods will disappear after a few days, or weeks, of some quite painful withdrawal symptoms, and weight loss will be much easier when the cravings are gone.

You are misrepresenting the position of WHO.

Their statements regarding sugar are in reference to added sugars:

MARCH 2015 ¦ GENEVA - A new WHO guideline recommends adults and children reduce their daily intake of free sugars to less than 10% of their total energy intake. A further reduction to below 5% or roughly 25 grams (6 teaspoons) per day would provide additional health benefits.

Guideline on sugars intake for adult and children
Free sugars refer to monosaccharides (such as glucose, fructose) and disaccharides (such as sucrose or table sugar) added to foods and drinks by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, and sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Titoki1 wrote: »

There's a lot of oversimplification in these replies. There's lots of research to say sugar, in particular fructose, is addictive, and encourages overeating.

Maybe you should focus on OP's specific question. She is undereating. Her problem, probably, is that she needs more calories, and specifically more protein and fat. If she gets enough protein and fat, she may not have too many carbs, but at this point we have absolutely no reason to assume that she is having an issue with overeating fructose.

The specific question I saw was: "I'm trying to cut down on both sugar and carbs for weight loss, but should I be focusing more on not eating sugars, or carbs?"

I overlooked her second post, so if she's not hitting her calories, then you're right, she probably isn't overeating, and there's good reason for concern there. OP, please hit your calories with a mix of your choice of high-quality sources of protein, vegetables, legumes, dairy and fruit!

And no, it's not addictive, or why do Americans consistently eat less fruit -- an excellent source of fructose -- than is recommended?

There is sound evidence to suggest fructose acts on the brain in the same way as other addictive substances, but you can research that yourself, and your comment about Americans and fruit, fruit not being addictive, and fructose not being found alone suggests you need to read some more about this, so I'll let you Google. Glucose = not addictive (is fuel for body and brain, as we know). Fructose = addictive.

As for Americans, I'll ignore the fact that packaged convenience foods are available every 10 paces and point out that because fruit is packaged with fibre and water, it's difficult to overeat (except grapes and other very sweet fruits are very easy to pop like candy). There is the fructose of 3-4 apples in 8oz of juice, for example. Who's going to eat 3 apples at once?

Adult women should have no more than 25g a day (6 teaspoons) of sugar, including fruit, according to the World Health Organisation This is just a lie. Where did you find it? The WHO recommends no more than 10% of total calories (200 calories if one is on a 2000 cal diet, or 50 g) from ADDED sugar, and further recommends no more than 5% if that is feasible (or 25 g). BUT, this does not, absolutely does not, include fruit, and their explanation is due to the extra calories (often from fat as much as sugar) found in foods with lots of added sugar.

You're right, I put "including fruit", when I was thinking of Wilson's stance on fructose, not WHO's (Wilson approves of the guidelines but generally recommends to include fruit in the totals, since it does contain fructose). (Also, lol, you suggest I'm lying to advance an evil healthy-eating agenda and suggest ways to try and improve someone's health after they've asked for it? How dastardly of me.)

But I'm not going to war over 2 pieces of fruit (roughly 25g sugar). We eat far too much fructose. Think of how sweet apples are these days compared to the tart, now heritage varieties available several hundred years ago. We're engineering our fruit to be sweeter, and we're hardwired to crave sugar because it's the best way to store fat, and there's no appetite off switch for fructose. What I've said here are excellent guidelines for everyone to follow in general daily life, so if anyone else has been introduced to this topic, I definitely recommend reading Gillespie & Wilson, and checking out the fabulous That Sugar Film which makes our global fructose problem approachable and fun. Good luck OP.

Titoki1 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Titoki1 wrote: »

There's a lot of oversimplification in these replies. There's lots of research to say sugar, in particular fructose, is addictive, and encourages overeating.

Maybe you should focus on OP's specific question. She is undereating. Her problem, probably, is that she needs more calories, and specifically more protein and fat. If she gets enough protein and fat, she may not have too many carbs, but at this point we have absolutely no reason to assume that she is having an issue with overeating fructose.

The specific question I saw was: "I'm trying to cut down on both sugar and carbs for weight loss, but should I be focusing more on not eating sugars, or carbs?"

I overlooked her second post, so if she's not hitting her calories, then you're right, she probably isn't overeating, and there's good reason for concern there. OP, please hit your calories with a mix of your choice of high-quality sources of protein, vegetables, legumes, dairy and fruit!

And no, it's not addictive, or why do Americans consistently eat less fruit -- an excellent source of fructose -- than is recommended?

There is sound evidence to suggest fructose acts on the brain in the same way as other addictive substances, but you can research that yourself, and your comment about Americans and fruit, fruit not being addictive, and fructose not being found alone suggests you need to read some more about this, so I'll let you Google. Glucose = not addictive (is fuel for body and brain, as we know). Fructose = addictive.

As for Americans, I'll ignore the fact that packaged convenience foods are available every 10 paces and point out that because fruit is packaged with fibre and water, it's difficult to overeat (except grapes and other very sweet fruits are very easy to pop like candy). There is the fructose of 3-4 apples in 8oz of juice, for example. Who's going to eat 3 apples at once?

Adult women should have no more than 25g a day (6 teaspoons) of sugar, including fruit, according to the World Health Organisation This is just a lie. Where did you find it? The WHO recommends no more than 10% of total calories (200 calories if one is on a 2000 cal diet, or 50 g) from ADDED sugar, and further recommends no more than 5% if that is feasible (or 25 g). BUT, this does not, absolutely does not, include fruit, and their explanation is due to the extra calories (often from fat as much as sugar) found in foods with lots of added sugar.

You're right, I put "including fruit", when I was thinking of Wilson's stance on fructose, not WHO's (Wilson approves of the guidelines but generally recommends to include fruit in the totals, since it does contain fructose). (Also, lol, you suggest I'm lying to advance an evil healthy-eating agenda and suggest ways to try and improve someone's health after they've asked for it? How dastardly of me.)

But I'm not going to war over 2 pieces of fruit (roughly 25g sugar). We eat far too much fructose. Think of how sweet apples are these days compared to the tart, now heritage varieties available several hundred years ago. We're engineering our fruit to be sweeter, and we're hardwired to crave sugar because it's the best way to store fat, and there's no appetite off switch for fructose. What I've said here are excellent guidelines for everyone to follow in general daily life, so if anyone else has been introduced to this topic, I definitely recommend reading Gillespie & Wilson, and checking out the fabulous That Sugar Film which makes our global fructose problem approachable and fun. Good luck OP.

Sugar doesn't make you permanently store excess fat outside of the context of caloric intake. That is a complete misunderstanding of physiology. Excess calories from any macro lead to the net storage of excess fat.

That Sugar Film is not a good source for anything other than misinformation and fear mongering.

What you've said here are not excellent guidelines for people to follow, because you are demonizing fruit, a perfectly healthy, nutritious food and you are imparting misinformation that is not based on a real understanding of how the human body works.

Titoki1 wrote: »

I overlooked her second post, so if she's not hitting her calories, then you're right, she probably isn't overeating, and there's good reason for concern there. OP, please hit your calories with a mix of your choice of high-quality sources of protein, vegetables, legumes, dairy and fruit!

She said she's getting the message that comes with eating under 1000, and in her first message she said she was under calories. Many people high on sugar and under calories are exceeding 45 g with fruit, so jumping to cut down is IMO not appropriate without asking follow up questions and focusing on what she's not getting (which is the other reason, besides calories, that the WHO says to limit added sugar).

There is sound evidence to suggest fructose acts on the brain in the same way as other addictive substances, but you can research that yourself

No, there is not. There is evidence that the brain reacts to sugar and fat (which there are good evolutionary reasons for) and especially the combination as it reacts to other things that cause pleasure. This has nothing to do with fructose specifically.

Your saying to google suggests to me that know you you cannot respond. Where are we consuming all this fructose on its own and why is it different from the fructose in fruit?

As for juice, I don't drink it (except for rare occasion), but I seriously doubt juice is the main player in the obesity epidemic.

You're right, I put "including fruit", when I was thinking of Wilson's stance on fructose, not WHO's (Wilson approves of the guidelines but generally recommends to include fruit in the totals, since it does contain fructose). (Also, lol, you suggest I'm lying to advance an evil healthy-eating agenda and suggest ways to try and improve someone's health after they've asked for it? How dastardly of me.)

No, I thought you were copying from a source that was lying. Thank you for admitting it was incorrect, and that it is inapplicable in all likelihood to OP's question.

I said nothing about an evil healthy-eating agenda. An anti fruit agenda, perhaps, but that's not IMO healthy.

Who is "Wilson" and why should we care about his anti fruit stance?

We eat far too much fructose.

Eh, I don't.

Americans in general eat too much sugar (not specifically fructose), too much fat -- both leading to too many calories -- some would say too much protein too, although I don't particularly think so. We also (more significantly) on average tend to get fat and sugar from the wrong sources (probably the same amount of both as a percentage of calories would be 100% fine if it came from better sources).

checking out the fabulous That Sugar Film which makes our global fructose problem approachable and fun.

Oh good lord.

Can we get back to OP's actual question now?

What are your stats...ht/wt/age? How long have you been eating so low? Also, can you make your diary public. With that information we can help you out more.

To me it sounds like there is some inaccurate logging. There's no way that if you really were eating as low as 1050 calories per day you wouldn't be losing weight unless you're 4'2" or something. I'm not saying you're lying, just that however you're getting your estimate doesn't seem to be accurate.