Understanding natural sugar
sonex825
Posts: 7 Member
Hello all, relatively new user here. I am a few days away from 43 years old and started really getting serious about watching what I eat a few weeks ago. I've had a history of high cholesterol and somewhat high blood pressure. I foolishly thought I was eating OK until I started really looking at what I ate and realized I was eating pretty bad! I started using MFP to help me reduce my cholesterol and sodium intake because I don't want to depend on statins or blood pressure pills if I can do something about it naturally. I have been doing very well with it and have also shed quite a bit of weight.
I am now trying to understand my other nutrients too. I spent most of my time watching my sodium and cholesterol, and more recently, sugar too. My wife has also been paying more attention to what she eats and we started talking about sugar so I came here to read more. I tried reading some other threads about sugar and saw that some just worry about calories and not so much about sugar from fruit. I haven't really been paying much attention to calories but based on a quick review of my diary, I haven't gone over them at all. I have been avoiding added sugars but have had to avoid natural sugar too because I wasn't sure. Just yesterday I was a little hungry after dinner and was going to have a dessert apple but realized I was already over my sugar for the day so I avoided it. My sugar goal was 88 yesterday, and I had 94.
My wife has a much lower sugar limit (26... which doesn't even seem fair) and she was almost over her daily sugar after some greek yogurt, a few strawberries and maybe 18 blueberries.
I don't have diabetes or any sugar sensitivity that I am aware of but I do have a sweet tooth. I am not saying I want to eat nothing but fruit but I have been a little shy about eating extra fruit or even adding a spoon or two of honey because the sugar content is so high. I would love to have a tea with a spoon or so of honey but since it was so much sugar I avoided it too. Is there really a limit on natural sugar (with common sense)? I am still focused mostly on my cholesterol and sodium but since I am eating better I might as well eat as optimum as I can.
Thank you in advance!
I am now trying to understand my other nutrients too. I spent most of my time watching my sodium and cholesterol, and more recently, sugar too. My wife has also been paying more attention to what she eats and we started talking about sugar so I came here to read more. I tried reading some other threads about sugar and saw that some just worry about calories and not so much about sugar from fruit. I haven't really been paying much attention to calories but based on a quick review of my diary, I haven't gone over them at all. I have been avoiding added sugars but have had to avoid natural sugar too because I wasn't sure. Just yesterday I was a little hungry after dinner and was going to have a dessert apple but realized I was already over my sugar for the day so I avoided it. My sugar goal was 88 yesterday, and I had 94.
My wife has a much lower sugar limit (26... which doesn't even seem fair) and she was almost over her daily sugar after some greek yogurt, a few strawberries and maybe 18 blueberries.
I don't have diabetes or any sugar sensitivity that I am aware of but I do have a sweet tooth. I am not saying I want to eat nothing but fruit but I have been a little shy about eating extra fruit or even adding a spoon or two of honey because the sugar content is so high. I would love to have a tea with a spoon or so of honey but since it was so much sugar I avoided it too. Is there really a limit on natural sugar (with common sense)? I am still focused mostly on my cholesterol and sodium but since I am eating better I might as well eat as optimum as I can.
Thank you in advance!
0
Replies
-
There is nothing magical about the sugar target MFP gives you...it's just an arbitrary % of your calorie target. Most health organizations address added sugars, not naturally occurring sugars in veg and fruit. Fruit is chalk full of vitamins and minerals and fiber and in many cases high doses of antioxidants...there's nothing wrong with fruit so long as it's not drowning out other nutritional needs.8
-
If you are concerned about your eating habits, ask your dr. MFP default targets are random numbers.1
-
Not so much concerned about my eating habits as I am trying to figure out the app and how it fits into the big picture. Seems it would make sense to be able to track added sugar on a line of its own if it was so different. Might be something I ask about when I visit the doctor next time. I really look forward to seeing if the eating well has had a decent impact on my lab work.1
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »There is nothing magical about the sugar target MFP gives you...it's just an arbitrary % of your calorie target. Most health organizations address added sugars, not naturally occurring sugars in veg and fruit. Fruit is chalk full of vitamins and minerals and fiber and in many cases high doses of antioxidants...there's nothing wrong with fruit so long as it's not drowning out other nutritional needs.
Makes sense. I assume honey and maple syrup is somewhere in between but a better choice than white sugar and pancake syrup.
I guess the same goes for fats. One can eat a lot of nuts or avocado and go over the fats too but they arent "bad" fats. I put 1 TBSP of Cacao nibs in my Muesli this morning and was shocked that a serving is 3 TBSP and that full serving was worth 19% of the total fat but even crazier it was 45% of the daily saturated fat on the nutrition label!
Is it really that bad or am I missing something?0 -
MFP's default sugar percentage is 15%. That means at the LOWEST target for a woman (1200) it will be 45. Your target will depend solely on your total cals. Many will say to focus more on: (1) cals; (2) fiber; (3) protein; and (4) carbs as a limit, and if you hit all those your sugar will be fine. I'd say look at where your sugar is coming from or just be sensible -- if you have sufficient protein, some healthy (omega-3 (esp fatty fish) and plant-sourced, like nuts and seeds, olives, avocado) fats, plenty of fiber, and a perusal of your diary suggests your sugar is mostly intrinsic (like from fruit and veg and unsweetened dairy), the total amount does not matter. MFP's 15% is more based on the assumption that people aren't eating all that much fruit and veg.5
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »There is nothing magical about the sugar target MFP gives you...it's just an arbitrary % of your calorie target. Most health organizations address added sugars, not naturally occurring sugars in veg and fruit. Fruit is chalk full of vitamins and minerals and fiber and in many cases high doses of antioxidants...there's nothing wrong with fruit so long as it's not drowning out other nutritional needs.
Makes sense. I assume honey and maple syrup is somewhere in between but a better choice than white sugar and pancake syrup.
Pancake syrup = maple syrup, or am I missing something?
There's actually little difference. Honey may have a few more nutrients but if consumed in a reasonable amount there is no meaningful difference.4 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »There is nothing magical about the sugar target MFP gives you...it's just an arbitrary % of your calorie target. Most health organizations address added sugars, not naturally occurring sugars in veg and fruit. Fruit is chalk full of vitamins and minerals and fiber and in many cases high doses of antioxidants...there's nothing wrong with fruit so long as it's not drowning out other nutritional needs.
Makes sense. I assume honey and maple syrup is somewhere in between but a better choice than white sugar and pancake syrup.
Pancake syrup = maple syrup, or am I missing something?
There's actually little difference. Honey may have a few more nutrients but if consumed in a reasonable amount there is no meaningful difference.
Pancake syrup in many places is this god-awful blech corn syrup - based ew monstrosity sort of pretending to be maple syrup out of cheapness.8 -
(note that my judgementalness has nothing to do with the nutritional profiles of various syrups versus the real thing)4
-
MFP's default sugar percentage is 15%. That means at the LOWEST target for a woman (1200) it will be 45. Your target will depend solely on your total cals. Many will say to focus more on: (1) cals; (2) fiber; (3) protein; and (4) carbs as a limit, and if you hit all those your sugar will be fine. I'd say look at where your sugar is coming from or just be sensible -- if you have sufficient protein, some healthy (omega-3 (esp fatty fish) and plant-sourced, like nuts and seeds, olives, avocado) fats, plenty of fiber, and a perusal of your diary suggests your sugar is mostly intrinsic (like from fruit and veg and unsweetened dairy), the total amount does not matter. MFP's 15% is more based on the assumption that people aren't eating all that much fruit and veg.
This ^^^^^.
If your goal is health, getting the right stuff into your eating, and getting to a healthy body weight, is IMO of much higher payoff than worrying about getting supposedly "bad" things out of your eating.
If you try to stay close to your calorie goal, get enough protein (treat it as a minimum), work on getting a higher proportion of fats from the more typically underconsumed types (Omega-3s like the fatty fish, MUFAs/PUFAs from things like olive oil, avocados, nuts, nut butter, seeds . . .), and eat plenty of varied, colorful veggies and fruit (5+ servings daily at least, and more is better) . . . sugar is not likely to be much of a problem.
So much in magazines, videos, and the blogosphere is about what "bad things" to eliminate to reach a healthy diet. IMO, that can be a distraction from the more important goal of getting the right macro and micronutrients, within a sensible calorie level, which is the core of good nutrition and dietary health.
It's possible to cut so-called "bad foods" to zero, and still get poor overall nutrition (not enough protein, excessive proportion of Omega-6 or saturated fats, insufficient fiber/micronutrients, etc.).6 -
Just a suggestion. A good source for science-based, up-to-date information about nutrition is "Nutrition Source" from Harvard's School of Public Health. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/
I notice you talked about eating a low-cholesterol diet to have lower serum (blood) cholesterol. This reflects an older, now pretty much debunked, idea of how dietary cholesterol works for the vast majority of us.
Unfortunately, any limiting numbers on sugar are based on "added sugar" but this is not reflected in many labels and so the database entries don't include it as a separate number. While you are trying to keep a limit on added sugars, the MFP calculator is busily counting all kinds of sugar, added and incidental. Drink a glass of milk and your sugar count will go up -- definitely not a reflection of "added sugars."
So, ignore the sugar numbers on MFP. They are fatally flawed and have been for years. Meanwhile, concentrate on avoiding added sugars by not eating things with sugars in their lists of ingredients. For example, Skippy peanut butter's list of ingredients is "roasted peanuts, sugar, hydrogenated vegetable oil (cottonseed, soybean and rapeseed oil) to prevent separation, salt." Teddy Bear peanut butter's list is only "peanuts, salt."4 -
About the new label with added sugar and some basic but not bad information about added sugar and nutrition: https://www.fda.gov/food/new-nutrition-facts-label/added-sugars-new-nutrition-facts-label0
-
HeidiCooksSupper wrote: »I notice you talked about eating a low-cholesterol diet to have lower serum (blood) cholesterol. This reflects an older, now pretty much debunked, idea of how dietary cholesterol works for the vast majority of us.
What do you mean? Are you suggesting high cholesterol isn't bad? I had high, BAD cholesterol, and low, GOOD cholesterol.0 -
HeidiCooksSupper wrote: »I notice you talked about eating a low-cholesterol diet to have lower serum (blood) cholesterol. This reflects an older, now pretty much debunked, idea of how dietary cholesterol works for the vast majority of us.
What do you mean? Are you suggesting high cholesterol isn't bad? I had high, BAD cholesterol, and low, GOOD cholesterol.
It used to be more strongly believed that eating dietary cholesterol had negative effects on blood (serum) cholesterol. More recent research suggests that dietary cholesterol intake is not as big a factor as once believed.
I had high bad (LDL) cholesterol, and low good (HDL) cholesterol, too. And now I don't. Mostly, what changed was bodyweight, in my case. YMMV.3 -
HeidiCooksSupper wrote: »I notice you talked about eating a low-cholesterol diet to have lower serum (blood) cholesterol. This reflects an older, now pretty much debunked, idea of how dietary cholesterol works for the vast majority of us.
What do you mean? Are you suggesting high cholesterol isn't bad? I had high, BAD cholesterol, and low, GOOD cholesterol.
I believe what Heidi is referring to is how more recent studies have shown little to no correlation in consumption of high dietary cholesterol to higher blood cholesterol.
Obviously you should listen to your doctor, but for many people with higher blood cholesterol, losing weight and becoming more active will have a positive impact on your levels. Other people seem to just be genetically prone to higher cholesterol no matter how "good" they are and need to take medication.4 -
HeidiCooksSupper wrote: »I notice you talked about eating a low-cholesterol diet to have lower serum (blood) cholesterol. This reflects an older, now pretty much debunked, idea of how dietary cholesterol works for the vast majority of us.
What do you mean? Are you suggesting high cholesterol isn't bad? I had high, BAD cholesterol, and low, GOOD cholesterol.
As others have said, more recent studies indicate that the correlation between dietary intake of cholesterol and blood serum levels isn't what we once thought. Essentially, your body makes the stuff...when dietary intake is low, your body makes more...when dietary intake is higher, your body produces less.
There is a substantial link between high LDL and low HDL and heredity...outside of that, the biggest risk factor is being overweight and being inactive. At one point my LDL is pretty high...around 170 or so and my HDL was low. I lost 40 Lbs and became much more active and my levels are not in the optimal range...my LDL hovers around 92. I do tend to get spikes when my exercise level dips as I'm also fighting an uphill hereditary battle. Literally everyone in my extended family has cholesterol issues, even if they aren't overweight.
I don't go out of my way to eat a lot of dietary cholesterol, but I also don't avoid things like eggs or shell fish either.1 -
HeidiCooksSupper wrote: »I notice you talked about eating a low-cholesterol diet to have lower serum (blood) cholesterol. This reflects an older, now pretty much debunked, idea of how dietary cholesterol works for the vast majority of us.
What do you mean? Are you suggesting high cholesterol isn't bad? I had high, BAD cholesterol, and low, GOOD cholesterol.
It used to be more strongly believed that eating dietary cholesterol had negative effects on blood (serum) cholesterol. More recent research suggests that dietary cholesterol intake is not as big a factor as once believed.
I had high bad (LDL) cholesterol, and low good (HDL) cholesterol, too. And now I don't. Mostly, what changed was bodyweight, in my case. YMMV.
I think this varies by person. It's a minority of people but helps for some. Similarly, some people also find that decreasing sat fat helps with cholesterol. My dad (who was never overweight and always active tried that on dr's advice) and found it to help.3 -
Pancake syrup = maple syrup, or am I missing something?
Pancake syrup is "artifical", and sold as a substitute for maple syrup. Typically it's just corn syrup or glucose syrup
Real maple syrup comes from a tree and has antioxidants and other benefits. It's also way more expensive in comparison and tastes like heaven.1 -
Pancake syrup = maple syrup, or am I missing something?
Pancake syrup is "artifical", and sold as a substitute for maple syrup. Typically it's just corn syrup or glucose syrup
Real maple syrup comes from a tree and has antioxidants and other benefits. It's also way more expensive in comparison and tastes like heaven.
I've always understood "pancake syrup" to mean maple syrup (so I strongly disagree with the claim "typically" -- maybe it's regional or generational. Interesting to learn that there are other kinds of syrup, but weird to call them "pancake syrup" as if most people didn't usually think of maple syrup as the prime kind of syrup for pancakes. I knew there were low cal options, but they are usually made with sugar substitutes and people call them syrup subs or low cal syrups. I didn't actually know there were high cal sugary syrups that were not maple (and again I think they need a better name than "pancake syrup" since for me pancakes mean maple syrup and I doubt I'm unusual on that).
So that all said, I totally disagree that one should assume "pancake syrup" = something other than maple syrup.1 -
Pancake syrup = maple syrup, or am I missing something?
Pancake syrup is "artifical", and sold as a substitute for maple syrup. Typically it's just corn syrup or glucose syrup
Real maple syrup comes from a tree and has antioxidants and other benefits. It's also way more expensive in comparison and tastes like heaven.
I've always understood "pancake syrup" to mean maple syrup (so I strongly disagree with the claim "typically" -- maybe it's regional or generational. Interesting to learn that there are other kinds of syrup, but weird to call them "pancake syrup" as if most people didn't usually think of maple syrup as the prime kind of syrup for pancakes. I knew there were low cal options, but they are usually made with sugar substitutes and people call them syrup subs or low cal syrups. I didn't actually know there were high cal sugary syrups that were not maple (and again I think they need a better name than "pancake syrup" since for me pancakes mean maple syrup and I doubt I'm unusual on that).
So that all said, I totally disagree that one should assume "pancake syrup" = something other than maple syrup.
I'm pretty sure that "pancake syrup" is a term specifically used to get around legal restrictions on what can be called "maple syrup." So while lots of people put maple syrup on their pancakes, if a package says "pancake syrup," my default assumption is that it is a non-maple syrup designed to somewhat replicate the flavor while being cheaper.8 -
@lemurcat2 Not sure if this “syrup” difference is a U.S. thing, but it is real! Cracker Barrel, a family restaurant on many interstates in the U.S., always had 100% maple syrup. About 5 years ago they started serving “100% Pure Natural Syrup”. In smaller writing on the bottle it says 55% Pure Maple Syrup, 45% Cane Syrup”. My husband stopped ordering pancakes there when they made that change!
I have one of the little bottles on my fridge, so the verbiage cane right off the label. Not sure why I haven’t tossed it. 🤪 Many restaurants went away from real maple syrup to reduce costs.2 -
0 -
Yeah but what if you want to use the pancake syrup on waffles, huh? HUH??????
3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
Pancake syrup = maple syrup, or am I missing something?
Pancake syrup is "artifical", and sold as a substitute for maple syrup. Typically it's just corn syrup or glucose syrup
Real maple syrup comes from a tree and has antioxidants and other benefits. It's also way more expensive in comparison and tastes like heaven.
I've always understood "pancake syrup" to mean maple syrup (so I strongly disagree with the claim "typically" -- maybe it's regional or generational. Interesting to learn that there are other kinds of syrup, but weird to call them "pancake syrup" as if most people didn't usually think of maple syrup as the prime kind of syrup for pancakes. I knew there were low cal options, but they are usually made with sugar substitutes and people call them syrup subs or low cal syrups. I didn't actually know there were high cal sugary syrups that were not maple (and again I think they need a better name than "pancake syrup" since for me pancakes mean maple syrup and I doubt I'm unusual on that).
So that all said, I totally disagree that one should assume "pancake syrup" = something other than maple syrup.
I'm pretty sure that "pancake syrup" is a term specifically used to get around legal restrictions on what can be called "maple syrup." So while lots of people put maple syrup on their pancakes, if a package says "pancake syrup," my default assumption is that it is a non-maple syrup designed to somewhat replicate the flavor while being cheaper.
Hmm. From a marketing/labeling perspective, if a bottle said "pancake syrup," I'd assume it was something other than maple, sure. I don't look at syrup that much, buy maple, and just kind of assumed the other ones were low cal options (i.e., not maple, but also not sugary). So I have learned something!
However, when I talk about maple syrup just in conversation, I'd just call it syrup, or -- if we were talking about pancakes -- maybe pancake syrup and assume I would be understood to be maple syrup (oops!). So if someone were at my house and asked if I had "syrup" or even "pancake syrup," I'd assume maple syrup was what they were asking for.
If talking about the low cal stuff, which my parents used to want when they would visit me, as my dad would always want to make pancakes, and they liked the diet stuff well enough, they'd ask if I had the low cal or diet syrup. I might say, "yeah, I bought some fake syrup for you, and also have frozen strawberries or blueberries we can heat up (which makes a lovely topping for pancakes without syrup, IMO)." Fake in that context would not be considered insulting, just an acknowledgment that it wasn't actually maple syrup.
I wasn't aware -- and maybe it's a regional thing -- that in common speech people would refer to "pancake syrup" and specifically mean to exclude maple syrup.1 -
In my house, we have real maple syrup for the adults. The grandkids prefer the fake sugary blech over the real thing.0
-
@lemurcat2 Not sure if this “syrup” difference is a U.S. thing, but it is real! Cracker Barrel, a family restaurant on many interstates in the U.S., always had 100% maple syrup. About 5 years ago they started serving “100% Pure Natural Syrup”. In smaller writing on the bottle it says 55% Pure Maple Syrup, 45% Cane Syrup”. My husband stopped ordering pancakes there when they made that change!
Heh, I would do the same!
I don't go to breakfast chains often and last time I did (stuck in rural MS with nothing but a Waffle House available), I got eggs and bacon, so I guess I just may not have noticed this sad change. Even at local brunch places with maple syrup no doubt on offer, I usually go savory. I tend to have pancakes exclusively at home, or at my dad's, since he enjoys making them. So even the syrup world is passing me by, sigh. ;-)0 -
Blood cholesterol level and how much cholesterol you eat aren't directly related. Trans fats and high saturated fat should be more of your worry.HeidiCooksSupper wrote: »I notice you talked about eating a low-cholesterol diet to have lower serum (blood) cholesterol. This reflects an older, now pretty much debunked, idea of how dietary cholesterol works for the vast majority of us.
What do you mean? Are you suggesting high cholesterol isn't bad? I had high, BAD cholesterol, and low, GOOD cholesterol.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
Calorie value is what matters most for weight loss though. In terms of calories, they're the same.
Pancake syrup = maple syrup, or am I missing something?
Pancake syrup is "artifical", and sold as a substitute for maple syrup. Typically it's just corn syrup or glucose syrup
Real maple syrup comes from a tree and has antioxidants and other benefits. It's also way more expensive in comparison and tastes like heaven.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition 0 -
Colloquially, around here, we tend to say "maple syrup" as the blanket term for all syrups going on pancakes/waffles, with the understanding that more-often-than- not, it's going to be the cheap fake stuff rather than actual maple syrup due to the very, very large price difference. (And I live in one of the regions that produces it.. the odds of being served real maple syrup dwindle considerably elsewhere).0
-
(somewhat out of date, but in case interested...)
1
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