natural vs. processed sugar

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/507051-sugar-sugar-sugar

The limiting sugar intake thing I think is more aimed towards processed foods with added sugar, as it just adds calories without nutrients, so you might be missing out on good vitamins and minerals (compared to if you ate that amount of sugar and calories contained in fruits). That thread is a good one, and the best point (besides the explanations) I saw was that Sugar = Carbs, so why track it twice, and also if you have a calorie deficit, sugar makes no difference in your weight loss (unless you are diabetic, etc). Frankly, I'd delete the sugar column from your diary and focus on the more important columns, like calories, fat, fiber, and if you want, sodium and maybe carbs. In short, eat fruit and enjoy it and don't sweat the small stuff

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/507051-sugar-sugar-sugar

thanks.... though the molecular structure charts are no help whatsoever, I am currently taking chemistry in college and it's been a rough semester so far. I have no idea what any of that means. But what your point was is basically, the amount of sugar doesn't matter as long as your calories are in deficit... ? So why, then, are we constantly being bombarded with diet and nutrition info that says to limit sugar intake?

The point of the diagrams is that sucrose is just fructose and glucose joined together.

The advice to limit sugar intake is just like the advice to "limit fat intake," or "eat clean foods." It's meant as basic rules of thumb to get the general public to eat a little healthier. Keep in mind, the general public isn't counting calories or micro nutrients, they're just pretty much eating when hungry, and eating whatever is put in front of them. The general advice is meant to get those folks to make better food choices.

You can rack up a lot of calories in sugar without getting full, and without getting many nutrients (unless its fruit), which will lead most people to overeat. So, if you're not counting calories, you have to be careful.

But for the folks like the ones on MFP that are counting calories, there's really no reason to focus on sugar specifically. As long as your diet has a reasonable amount of balance, and your calorie goals are in check, then going over MFP's sugar limit is not going to hurt you. Put another way, you are automatically limiting your sugar my limiting your calories and making sure you're eating a reasonable amount of everything else.

I would treat the MFP carb, sugar, and fat limits as general guidelines to make sure your diet is balanced rather than something that's going to hurt you if you go "over." (The red numbers confuse people, IMO).

You're also being bombarded with such information because many people giving diet advice have no idea what they're talking about.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/507051-sugar-sugar-sugar

thanks.... though the molecular structure charts are no help whatsoever, I am currently taking chemistry in college and it's been a rough semester so far. I have no idea what any of that means. But what your point was is basically, the amount of sugar doesn't matter as long as your calories are in deficit... ? So why, then, are we constantly being bombarded with diet and nutrition info that says to limit sugar intake?

The point of the diagrams is that sucrose is just fructose and glucose joined together.

The advice to limit sugar intake is just like the advice to "limit fat intake," or "eat clean foods." It's meant as basic rules of thumb to get the general public to eat a little healthier. Keep in mind, the general public isn't counting calories or micro nutrients, they're just pretty much eating when hungry, and eating whatever is put in front of them. The general advice is meant to get those folks to make better food choices.

You can rack up a lot of calories in sugar without getting full, and without getting many nutrients (unless its fruit), which will lead most people to overeat. So, if you're not counting calories, you have to be careful.

But for the folks like the ones on MFP that are counting calories, there's really no reason to focus on sugar specifically. As long as your diet has a reasonable amount of balance, and your calorie goals are in check, then going over MFP's sugar limit is not going to hurt you. Put another way, you are automatically limiting your sugar my limiting your calories and making sure you're eating a reasonable amount of everything else.

I would treat the MFP carb, sugar, and fat limits as general guidelines to make sure your diet is balanced rather than something that's going to hurt you if you go "over." (The red numbers confuse people, IMO).

You're also being bombarded with such information because many people giving diet advice have no idea what they're talking about.

Thanks for the input. The other thing to add is that table sugar and a lot of the refined carbs out in the world, don't have much nutrional value. A peice of fruit is going to have fiber, vitamin a, potassium etc. A tablespoon of table sugar has none of that. Most soft drinks, white carbs, etc have none either. While your body may break it down and store them both the same way, you are getting added benefits from the fruit.

The old sugar is sugar or fat is fat thing....true enough. Calories are calories. But there are "good fats" and "good sugars" so overall, it is better to cut out the bad fats and bad sugars (processed) and make healthy choices, watch your calories and get plenty of exercise! There ya go.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/507051-sugar-sugar-sugar

thanks.... though the molecular structure charts are no help whatsoever, I am currently taking chemistry in college and it's been a rough semester so far. I have no idea what any of that means. But what your point was is basically, the amount of sugar doesn't matter as long as your calories are in deficit... ? So why, then, are we constantly being bombarded with diet and nutrition info that says to limit sugar intake?

The point of the diagrams is that sucrose is just fructose and glucose joined together.

The advice to limit sugar intake is just like the advice to "limit fat intake," or "eat clean foods." It's meant as basic rules of thumb to get the general public to eat a little healthier. Keep in mind, the general public isn't counting calories or micro nutrients, they're just pretty much eating when hungry, and eating whatever is put in front of them. The general advice is meant to get those folks to make better food choices.

You can rack up a lot of calories in sugar without getting full, and without getting many nutrients (unless its fruit), which will lead most people to overeat. So, if you're not counting calories, you have to be careful.

But for the folks like the ones on MFP that are counting calories, there's really no reason to focus on sugar specifically. As long as your diet has a reasonable amount of balance, and your calorie goals are in check, then going over MFP's sugar limit is not going to hurt you. Put another way, you are automatically limiting your sugar my limiting your calories and making sure you're eating a reasonable amount of everything else.

I would treat the MFP carb, sugar, and fat limits as general guidelines to make sure your diet is balanced rather than something that's going to hurt you if you go "over." (The red numbers confuse people, IMO).

You're also being bombarded with such information because many people giving diet advice have no idea what they're talking about.

Thanks for the input. The other thing to add is that table sugar and a lot of the refined carbs out in the world, don't have much nutrional value. A peice of fruit is going to have fiber, vitamin a, potassium etc. A tablespoon of table sugar has none of that. Most soft drinks, white carbs, etc have none either. While your body may break it down and store them both the same way, you are getting added benefits from the fruit.

The anti-white carb stance makes potatoes, parsnips, and cauliflower very sad.