RutMan

Sorry folks, I never got an email this time about any new responses; I'm not ignoring you all, I promise! Thanks for the continued input here, I think I have a decent feel for how to approach sugar and carbs from a baseline point-of-view. You guys are all great!

Thanks hybrid. Unfortunately my question wasn't really "answered", in that I still haven't found any scientific evidence to back up either claim about sugar. I don't have the time to read every scientific journal out there, and thought that maybe someone here had already done it and was willing to share what they have found. But I didn't want to push it and come across looking like a greedy jerk, so I just let it go (no disrespect to Waldo and Rookie, I didn't specify that I was looking for actual evidence in the first place; my bad on an unclear question, but your input is valued). It's not a big deal anyways, my diet is pretty well managed. About 8 months ago I switched to a more paleo diet focusing on eliminating the crap and embracing the whole. It has worked great with little effort. I have lost 35 pounds in that time without a lick of exercise. I've been working on strength training the past couple months, and with that I have decided to start looking at what I'm eating more closely. Up to now I haven't tracked anything (calories, protein, sugar, etc), I've just eaten good stuff when I'm hungry and failed in the best way possible when necessary (out with friends, on vacation, etc). In this quest to see what I'm eating from a numbers perspective (more out of curiosity, but also to see if there are some areas that could use a little adjustment), sugar stuck out as my first major curiosity, and there seem to be two camps on the subject. To be clear, I don't mind sugar, nor do I mind added sugar, as long as it's not out of balance with the rest of my lifestyle. I just want to know the scientifically correct way of thinking about it. When I first read the recommendation about 35 grams/day for an adult male, and I looked at what I had eaten that day (most of an onion in breakfast, a banana in my protein shake for lunch and a Oikos triple zero greek yogurt as they seem to have the best sugar to protein ratio of the flavored yogurts we have tried while still tasting good), I was already at my sugar allotment, and it just felt pretty restrictive. Then I found the "natural" vs "added" debate and couldn't seem to figure out guidelines that accounted for both in their own way. Surely a 35g recommendation wouldn't include the natural sugars as there wouldn't be any room for ANY added sugars, much less a typical amount of whole fruit in a day. Thus my confusion. So, the best reading I've found explains how added sugars (since they don't come in a package that theoretically slows down absorption, and thus slows down the body's insulin reaction) will cause the body to react more quickly with its insulin production. With balanced consumption of added and regular sugars, this isn't a problem. When there are too many added sugars consumed regularly, it causes insulin production to be high all the time which causes problems with that system which can lead to diabetes and other health problems. <-- Whether or not this explanation is correct I don't know, but it sure sounds good. In conclusion, I guess that I know that what I'm doing is pretty much ok for my goals, I'm just trying to understand the details. Thanks again for all your help everyone!

Thanks for the replies guys. I felt the same way about the sugars (being equal regardless of the source), but everything I'm coming across (WHO, AHA, etc) refers to them as being different, but I'm not finding the clear reasons why. Obviously I've read about the fact that "natural" sugars come in a special package or at least come with a bunch of good stuff where "added" sugar does not, but as Rookie said, I've never felt that it matters. My main concern in the short term is trying to determine how to monitor my consumption of not only sugar but all aspects of my diet. I have no intention of micromanaging my diet indefinitely, but in getting started I need to know what each component looks like so I can develop habits and guidelines based on scientific evidence. Thanks again for each of your input.

I think we can all agree, excessive sugar intake is bad, and is probably the biggest cause of health decline in most developed nations. However, in trying to get a better understanding about sugar, I'm coming up short on a couple details, and I'm hoping someone can point me in the right direction. There are various recommendations on the amount of "free sugar" or "added sugar" that one should limit one's consumption to on a daily basis. Various organizations have different recommendations, but for the sake of argument, let's say that for adult females and males that limit is 25 and 35 grams respectively. What about sugars that occur naturally in fruit and vegetables? I can find no recommendation on how they add in to our diet's equation. Are those sugars just considered carbohydrates, and factored into our total carb intake recommendation for the day? Do they have their own limit? I'm just concerned about the lack of distinction that exists when trying to analyze one's food consumption, and I don't know how to handle this.

Thanks Donny and Salivanth, I appreciate the continued input.

Thanks Pavowski! You guys have been great, and that's only helping me stay excited about the path we're on!

Thanks Kaylya! While of course I'm not limiting myself to just one activity for the rest of my life, in just starting out I figure doing something is better than nothing, and if I can keep it fairly simple in the beginning while ensuring it is a well-rounded whole body fitness solution, that will help me keep it up. Who knows what I will find enjoyable and satisfying in the future!

Excellent. From my reading, and reinforced by what you've said here, it sounds like the health benefits of running can be had through other means, and incorporating cardio into my lifting routine is my way to go. I will continue doing some running as my wife likes it and I like running with her, but it won't be a focus of my exercise routine. After over a month of regular exercise, I'm still excited about the way I feel, and the transformation I've seen in myself. NF has been a great resource, and I really feel like it is providing me with the tools for a lifetime of fitness, not just a quick fix (which, of course, doesn't exist). Thanks for posting!

My wife has been getting into running pretty seriously for the last year or so, so I joined her gym and started running. Not bad, but it doesn't really trip my trigger. After reading more on NF and Mark's Daily Apple, I get the impression that the primary benefit of running is a good cardio workout, and if that can be obtained through another exercise, running/walking isn't really necessary. I've just started with Steve's Dynamic Warmup and Beginner Bodyweight Workout (switching from the lifting routine I was provided by a trainer at the gym, not that it was bad, but the bodyweight stuff seems to push me better and be a little more complete), and these really get my heart going. If I do the warmup, then three circuits of the workout, I am more out of breath and "worked out" than the equivalent time running (this routine takes about 40-50 minutes). So, with all that, if I get my cardio from other sources of activity (such as a well-paced lifting circuit), is running providing me with a health benefit that another activity isn't? Or to put it another way, does running do anything more than provide a cardio workout and burn calories? I'm not opposed to running, and still will on occasion, but it'd be nice to focus my efforts on things that I am more interested in, while making sure that I am still fulfilling a well-rounded health routine (diet and exercise).