low sugar... everything I read says that spikes in insulin levels tell the body to store fat and the body becomes less and less efficient at handling sugar (including what it converts from starch) ....so I try hard to restrict carbs
but I eat unprocessed foods and limit my dairy so low fat is not really an issue for me.
My thing now is barely processed foods/whole foods. Cheese is a little different, but I want more whole foods than anything else. Fresh vegetables. Whole grains. No white flour. Low sodium. Little to no saturated fats-good fats like that which comes with nuts and seeds. Plant fats-but not partially hydrogenated or hydrogenated vegetable fats. I could go on and on.
Fitness Minutes: (34,908)
2,323 1/16/13 7:56 A
No because if it is low in fat or sugar it can be high in salt. Also I don't like fake sugar. I would rather have high real sugar than the fake sugar. Same for fat.
Fitness Minutes: (1,353)
1,581 1/16/13 7:51 A
My friend has used weight watchers to lose over 30 lbs, her advisor said ALWAYS choose sugar free versus fat free.
My trainer echoed the same thing.
We need fat for vitamin absorption. Many fat free items (like salad dressings, puddings...) add lots of salt and sugar to make up for taste.
Lots of sugar causes sugar swings, lower energy, and may keep fat cells holding on in our abdomen and hips and thighs.
I hve to deal with both being diabetic. The best way for me is to buy fresh everything. No additives of any kind. Chicken and seafood with some red meat, and some frozen vegetables is what I buy most. If I can get it fresh I will avoid processed foods.
I don't buy products that are labeled reduced fat or low sugar. Usually they have something about them that isn't good for me. If I can't get a naturally low fat or low sugar food I would choose natural over artificial reduced products even if they have more fat or sugar.
You might try plain Greek yogurt instead of sour cream.
Fitness Minutes: (87,796)
11,708 1/16/13 6:13 A
I think things need a little fat to taste good, I go for low sugar. I do drink ff milk though.
Which one had fewer calories? That's what matters most to most people, barring any special medical conditions. Calories aren't the only thing that matters to weight control, but they're the main thing.
Only if the calories are close would I move on to start deciding between fat and sugar. And at that point, it starts to matter what kind of fat and what kind of sugar. In sour cream, "sugar" probably means lactose, the natural sugar that's always present in milk. If you remove the fat from milk (or cream, or yogurt, etc), then in order to get a full cup or tablespoon or whatever, you get more of whatever else is in that food. Read the ingredients to make sure they didn't add sugar or corn syrup or something to stabilize it, but probably it just has a tiny bit more of carbs and protein because taking out the fat left more room in the cup that had to be filled. If the serving size were larger, you'd probably see that it's higher in protein, calcium, and possibly even some vitamins. If there are no added sugars, then I would use a lower-fat, lower calorie product, because it's not really higher in sugar-- it's just higher in "not-fat."
With some foods, though, a healthy natural fat might be replaced with added sugar. That's what happens with most brands of reduced-fat peanut butter, for example. Peanut oil is one of the healthy fats, so unless you have a health problem that requires you to avoid all kinds of fat, there's no advantage to a low-fat peanut butter. You're losing part of the healty fat that's the reason you eat peanut butter to begin with, while getting extra added sugar that you don't need.
And remember that cookies, cakes, potato chips, etc, are foods that you don't need and shouldn't eat very often, regardless of whether they're reduced fat or reduced sugar. That's why low-fat got a bad name; people saw the recommendation that said "eat less fat" and decided it gave them permission to eat whatever they wanted as long as it wasn't fat. Anybody remember Snackwells cookies? They were "fat free" but had just as many calories as Mallomars, which had something like 1g of fat anyway. But because they were fat free, people chose to believe they could eat a whole box for lunch and it would be "healthy." The same thing is happening now with "low carb." Too many calories are too many calories, regardless of where they come from.
Low Sugar is more important. If you cut out all the fats then your body also loses out on the healthy fats! I am not saying to go crazy with all the whole fat foods cause it can also be bad for you but little to no sugar is better for you then never eating any fats!
I've had weight loss surgery, so my answer may not work for everyone. I always go for less sugar. My body no longer processes sugars well and so it is a big no no for me. When it comes to sour cream or cottage cheese, etc. I check the labels and if there is a huger difference in fat but not a huge difference in sugar I'll get the lower fat one, but if the sugar is a lot higher in the non-fat version then I stick with the fattier one and just watch my portions.
Fitness Minutes: (0)
29 1/15/13 1:06 P
Yesterday I bought low fat sour cream even though there was less sugar in the regular one. I am so conditioned to eating low fat and since I track on here I want to stay within my range for the day.
My problem is I read how sugar causes fat and eating less sugar is more important than less fat. I agree with this theory but also know calories count.
Would you have grabbed the less sugar option or the less fat option?
SparkPeople, SparkCoach, SparkPages, SparkPoints, SparkDiet, SparkAmerica, SparkRecipes, DailySpark, and other marks are trademarks of SparkPeople, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
SPARKPEOPLE is a registered trademark of SparkPeople, Inc. in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia. All rights reserved.