how many grams of sugar daily?? what is recommended

[Jack3dNoob]

roughly on a 2700 calorie diet daily 310c/230p/60f, was curious to how many grams of sugar i should be having or whats recommended?

[xJellyBirdx]

I would worry less about how much sugar you are having and more about your fat intake being under 72g. Have as much sugar as you want as long as it fits in your macros if you wish. There is no recommended amount.

[cumminslifter]

there is no sugar recommendation. unless you have diabetes or something of the like then sugar intake isnt something to be overly concerned with besides keeping fructose under 50g a day

[eriquee]

You should stay below 50g Fructose/day the less the better. For health reasons in the long-haul.

Sugar = 50% fuctose 50%glucose. HFCS = 55% fructose 45%glucose.

[Rufflez]

Iifym

[maxmuscleseeker]

an actual sugar recommendation doesnt exist, more or less an upper limit of what you can. That said, fast sugars themselves have limited functionality, so why kill yourself with them? only time I could envision you actually wanting them would be intra-post workout or maybe upon waking. Other than that, nope less is best

[softpounder]

only time I could envision you actually wanting them would be intra-post workout or maybe upon waking. Other than that, nope less is best

What are you saying?

What the truck?

Sugar intake during intra or post-workout is magic now?

Oh, having sugar while waking up is magical too?

The, what? My brain is exploding.


Stop posting.

[Jack3dNoob]

What are you saying?

What the truck?

Sugar intake during intra or post-workout is magic now?

Oh, having sugar while waking up is magical too?

The, what? My brain is exploding.


Stop posting.

so essentially lower the better? alright.

[Big.Jazayrli]

roughly on a 2700 calorie diet daily 310c/230p/60f, was curious to how many grams of sugar i should be having or whats recommended?

I don't really think there's a set number.. don't live off of it or be unreasonable with it and you'd be fine I imagine

[Gxp23]

Your fats are low.

[Mrpb]

Keep added sugar (as opposed to intrinsic sugar in milk or whole fruit) limited to roughly 10% of total calories. This will allow for moderation & sane dietary practices while also hedging your bets away from the adverse potential of excess intake. Certain athletes involved in high-volume endurance competition (and other highly physically active folks) can safely exceed this in order to meet the demands of their sport.

Source: http://paleomovement.com/alan-aragon-paleo-critic/

PS. your protein intake is higher than necessary.

[Jack3dNoob]

question is about sugar >.<

[cumminslifter]

question is about sugar >.<

and i answered your question fully

[schnauzers]

Check this out (a bit long):

Your Problem With Sugar is THE Problem With Sugar

http://www.fitnessbaddies.com/your-p...em-with-sugar/

[maxmuscleseeker]

What are you saying?

What the truck?

Sugar intake during intra or post-workout is magic now?

Oh, having sugar while waking up is magical too?

The, what? My brain is exploding.


Stop posting.

I'm saying why would I voluntarily take fast carbs otherwise? maybe you should take some gummy bears for lunch with a gatorade and see what benefit that will do for ya. I'm not saying CARBS I'm talking about sugar bro, sugar in the sense of RAPIDLY digesting.

[xJellyBirdx]

I'm saying why would I voluntarily take fast carbs otherwise? maybe you should take some gummy bears for lunch with a gatorade and see what benefit that will do for ya. I'm not saying CARBS I'm talking about sugar bro, sugar in the sense of RAPIDLY digesting.

Sugars are carbohydrates. There are even slow digesting sugars called complex, but you seem to be talking about simple sugars.

[cumminslifter]

I'm saying why would I voluntarily take fast carbs otherwise? maybe you should take some gummy bears for lunch with a gatorade and see what benefit that will do for ya. I'm not saying CARBS I'm talking about sugar bro, sugar in the sense of RAPIDLY digesting.

you know sugar is carbs right? and what about rapid digesting carbs?

[maxmuscleseeker]

why is such a simple thing going over heads? of course I know sugar is a carbohydrate.

[cumminslifter]

why is such a simple thing going over heads? of course I know sugar is a carbohydrate.

i dont see what point your trying to make

[thepowerof140]

I would worry less about how much sugar you are having and more about your fat intake being under 72g.

Please provide conclusive proof and information as to why eating under 72g of fat is harmful to the OP. What about the micro profiles of that fat?

His protein intake is quite high, but maybe he functions better with higher amounts, still he could lower it and get more carbs or fat in if he so chooses.

[isaiah41v10]

there is no sugar recommendation. unless you have diabetes or something of the like then sugar intake isnt something to be overly concerned with besides keeping fructose under 50g a day

Why keep fructose especially under 50g a day?

[cumminslifter]

Why keep fructose especially under 50g a day?

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/0...tose-alarmism/
tons of research on it

[isaiah41v10]

Don't you think that is a bit alarmist? Research is pretty far from making this connection. Harvard Health -"Experts still have a long way to go to connect the dots between fructose and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Higher intakes of fructose are associated with these conditions, but clinical trials have yet to show that it causes them."

[Mrpb]

Don't you think that is a bit alarmist? Research is pretty far from making this connection. Harvard Health -"Experts still have a long way to go to connect the dots between fructose and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Higher intakes of fructose are associated with these conditions, but clinical trials have yet to show that it causes them."

Personally I make a distinction between fructose coming from whole fruits and fructose in added sugars. I'm not really limiting my fruit intake.

This is a good piece by Alan Aragon:

There are several diligent scientific reviews that have been done on this topic, which I would encourage everyone to read, since the full text is publicly available. To quote a recent review by Salwa Rizkalla:

“Despite the epidemiological parallel between the marked increase of obesity and fructose consumption, there is no direct evidence linking obesity to the consumption of physiological amounts of fructose in humans (≤ 100g/day). A moderate dose (≤ 50g/day) of added fructose has no deleterious effect on fasting and postprandial triglycerides, glucose control and insulin resistance.”

I would also encourage everyone to read John White’s recent review challenging the fructose hypothesis, whose key points are quoteworthy:

“In considering the volume of contemporary literature on fructose, 1 conclusion stands clear: fructose is safe at typical intake levels but can produce adverse metabolic effects when abused—as is true of most nutrients. It turns out that the largest abusers of fructose are not American consumers, but research scientists. [...] It is only when researchers hyperdose human and animal subjects with fructose in amounts that exceed the 95th percentile by 1.5- to 3- and 4- to 5-fold, respectively, that adverse effects are provoked.”

The way I see it, the practical take-away for the general population would be to keep added sugar (as opposed to intrinsic sugar in milk or whole fruit) limited to roughly 10% of total calories. This will allow for moderation & sane dietary practices while also hedging your bets away from the adverse potential of excess intake. Certain athletes involved in high-volume endurance competition (and other highly physically active folks) can safely exceed this in order to meet the demands of their sport.

Source: http://paleomovement.com/alan-aragon-paleo-critic/

[MikeK46]

In Nutrition classes they teach you not to exceed something like 35 grams of simple sugar per day, which is nonsense of course and contradicts the recommendation to eat multiple servings of fruits & vegetables.

One reason for their recommendation is that if you're consuming tons of sugar, they will automatically assume you're eating too much junk food (not enough whole food) and run the risk of micronutrient deficiency.

Do try to avoid eating sugar multiple times every day. The bacteria in your mouth like to metabolize it and produce acids which can lead to cavities. We see this commonly in babies who are always sipping on juice or sucking on a lollipop.

[cumminslifter]

In Nutrition classes they teach you not to exceed something like 35 grams of simple sugar per day, which is nonsense of course and contradicts the recommendation to eat multiple servings of fruits & vegetables.

One reason for their recommendation is that if you're consuming tons of sugar, they will automatically assume you're eating too much junk food (not enough whole food) and run the risk of micronutrient deficiency.

Do try to avoid eating sugar multiple times every day. The bacteria in your mouth like to metabolize it and produce acids which can lead to cavities. We see this commonly in babies who are always sipping on juice or sucking on a lollipop.

this has always baffled me as well

[MikeK46]

this has always baffled me as well

There's really no logical rhyme or reason to some of the recommendations made by these "government-approved" agencies. What's funny is that the smart professors know it, but they have to teach it anyway. For my RD exam I will have to write that we should limit our SFA intake to lower the risk of CVD, for example.

At the same time, I do keep in mind that they're speaking to the average couch potato who eats a diet high in processed food and will never know even the basics of nutritional science.

[cumminslifter]

There's really no logical rhyme or reason to some of the recommendations made by these "government-approved" agencies. What's funny is that the smart professors know it, but they have to teach it anyway. For my RD exam I will have to write that we should limit our SFA intake to lower the risk of CVD, for example.

At the same time, I do keep in mind that they're speaking to the average couch potato who eats a diet high in processed food and will never know even the basics of nutritional science.

this is what the RDA (RDI) values are aimed for sadly, as they makeup the majority of our population

[Foe1605]

The way I see it, the practical take-away for the general population would be to keep added sugar (as opposed to intrinsic sugar in milk or whole fruit) limited to roughly 10% of total calories. This will allow for moderation & sane dietary practices while also hedging your bets away from the adverse potential of excess intake. Certain athletes involved in high-volume endurance competition (and other highly physically active folks) can safely exceed this in order to meet the demands of their sport.

Just out of curiosity, as it applies to long course triathlon training/racing, what would be acceptable? I probably take in 20% or more calories from added sugar in the form of gels, sports drink, etc.