Why not NET carbs?
Bob314159
Posts: 1,178 Member
I've seen info in various places that I should not track net carbs - cause fiber still counts. Why? And what about the extra psylium I take to compensate for the mass reduction in carb foods. I don't bother tracking it - but that could add another 10 grams per day and put me way over.
0
Replies
-
Various places? If you understand how this stuff works, you won't need to rely on various places or ketone meters.
Net is really what matters, but a lot of people like the "safety margin" of total.0 -
lol - still don't fully understand and the more I read the more conflicts on information I find.
What I do know now is that I now can eat heavy meat meals without indigestion, I can skip breakfast if I'm in a rush and not eat till 6pm with no hunger, and I no longer worry about calories - yet for the last 2 weeks I'm under MFP's number.0 -
One advantage of being in the UK, we only have net carbs so we don't have any of this net/total angst!
0 -
The bruises on my forehead are almost
healed now from the net/total debate.
I went with total, no fuss.
What you see is what you get.
USA labels here.
OR 
0 -
I track total carbs, heck with that fiber subtraction thing. I read somewhere some people do digest fiber. If so, I'm sure my greedy, ravenous gut does.0
-
The reason most people don't count fiber as part of their carb intake is because it doesn't raise blood sugar like other carbs. The blood sugar spikes and drops are one thing we're trying to avoid in a LCD but since fiber doesn't affect this, a lot of low-carbers, myself included, don't count fiber and just stick with net carbs.0
-
From a thread in the LaunchPad:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10057456/so-which-is-it-total-carbs-or-net-carbsTotal or Net?
The whole issue of "net" vs "total" carbs is one upon which there is a VERY wide difference of opinion.
The practice of counting “net” carbs works this way. Simply, you take the total carbohydrate count of a food and subtract the dietary fiber and/or the sugar alcohols. The rationale behind this is threefold. First, dietary fiber is widely believed to be indigestible. Dietary fiber is composed of cellulose, and humans, unlike some other creatures, cannot process them. And if this is so, then since it is not digestible, then it doesn't affect blood glucose levels, so it doesn't count. Secondly, sugar alcohols are believed to not be around long enough to affect blood sugar either, so they do not count. Thirdly, some use the motivation of subtracting the fiber to encourage themselves to eat more fiber rich foods. To them, a better choice in carbs means they can eat more carbs.
Plans like Atkins, some ketogenic diets, and others allow for the subtraction of these two elements. However, like with anything, human beings are different. This is where the difference of opinion hinges. Different foods have been shown to have different results in individuals, sometimes in how it affects blood glucose. There have been instances when a high fiber food does indeed cause a blood sugar spike and sugar alcohols linger long enough to do so as well. Some people have also recognized stalls in their weight loss as a result of consuming sugar alcohols in their diets.
As a result of this, many low-carb eaters prefer to count “total” carbs instead. The rationale being: “carbohydrates are carbohydrates.” Also, many view foods made with sugar alcohols as unacceptable in their diet, because they are only found in highly processed foods. Many of this camp prefer to keep “real foods” (aka unprocessed foods) in their diets.
So Who Is Right?
As with so many other topics you encounter in the low-carb communities, it depends on who you ask, and it depends on how your body responds. Do the research on your foods and their ingredients, and choose which method seems right for you. Keep tabs on the affects of your approach on your body, and then make the decision whether or not to stay with your chosen carb-counting method, or decide to change to another.
YMMV...total vs. net carbs are going to be a Your Mileage May Vary issue. People respond differently to different carbohydrates. I know from personal experience, that when I had gestational diabetes, I could eat reasonable servings of pasta or corn without a blood glucose blowout. But bread or potatoes....fuhgettaboutit. My mother, who has been diabetic for 18 years, has a different set of "apocalypse" carbohydrates.
Pick one approach and see if you can do net carbs. If it isn't working, scrutinize further. Discover which carbs produced the worst reactions for you or your personal carb tolerance threshold. It may be lower than you think. Then again, it may be higher than you would have thought.
0 -
"Plans like Atkins, some ketogenic diets, and others allow for the subtraction of these two elements. However, like with anything, human beings are different. This is where the difference of opinion hinges. Different foods have been shown to have different results in individuals, sometimes in how it affects blood glucose. There have been instances when a high fiber food does indeed cause a blood sugar spike and sugar alcohols linger long enough to do so as well. Some people have also recognized stalls in their weight loss as a result of consuming sugar alcohols in their diets."
Yep, that's me. Like Jack London's tales of starving sled dogs, I bet I could digest boot leather.0 -
I find I need less calories
The YMMV comment is so true for me. Maybe it is just age related
I have to watch carbs and calories
Seems not fair! But what are the options really?
Accept it and lose weight or don't and stay fat....
I begrudgingly accept my reality0 -
AppetiteControlFreak wrote: »I find I need less calories
The YMMV comment is so true for me. Maybe it is just age related
I have to watch carbs and calories
Seems not fair! But what are the options really?
Accept it and lose weight or don't and stay fat....
I begrudgingly accept my reality
Yeah, I'm pretty sick of it myself. But better than the food industry's 'diet plan': Go to work to have money to buy their crap. Come home, eat their crap, log the calories, then work out on the treadmill like a crazy gerbil to burn off the calories so as not to get too fat to work and not be able to buy their crap anymore.
At least low carb doesn't drive me nuts even when I do have to calorie count, too.0 -
AppetiteControlFreak wrote: »I begrudgingly accept my reality
This.
My forehead is flattening from palm slaps as well along with Mr. Smith, but this question will not go away. Ever.
And probably with good reason.
So....
If you can get away with it and find numbers that produce results - go for it! Smile. Be happy. Show us your pictures. We'll be happy with you!
My reality is morbid obesity and insulin resistance. So total carbs is it - for me. That is my reality.
If fiber was the only thing subtracted, and it was mostly green veggies, then I don't think it would be a big deal. But net carbs.... creep. Packaged food lies to you with net carb numbers and sugar alcohols. And then you get stuck and conclude LCHF "doesn't work", when the reality is - you never tried it.0 -
It comes down to there not being a true "rule". It's a matter of what kind of success do you find you have at different levels. Some people don't get the insulin response with fiber and others do. Those of us that aren't insulin resistant and diabetic are probably unaware of how it affects us in that way.
I hit a month long stall recently and looking back, I saw that my total carbs had gone up to mid 30's. Though, I'm not sure how much of that would've been fiber or other typically subtracted carbs. It may be a coincidence or maybe it's not, since I started losing again upon getting them back down to 25 or less consistently. I'm also losing slower but I'm also close to goal now... So many constantly changing factors... I think we need to keep an open mind during our journey and be willing to tweak and experiment to acheive our individual success.
Don't put too much faith in any one source you are reading. The varying information is probably due to either bad information or varying personal experience by the author, or both. Being in ketosis is more flexible than the strict guidelines you will often read online. But for each of us, we have a limit to the flexibility and that will vary widely from one person to the next. And it may even change during the process.0 -
So you guys who count total carbs only eat up to 20 g total carbs? That really sucks. I guess I hit 30-40 total carbs when I get around 20 g net carbs.0
-
-
So you guys who count total carbs only eat up to 20 g total carbs? That really sucks. I guess I hit 30-40 total carbs when I get around 20 g net carbs.
Doesn't suck at all.
Carbs are not essential.
Once the mental shift happens life is good and full of rich, delicious, satisfying foods.
And 30-40 is just fine and may work great for you! Find that sweet spot and ride it!
0 -
So you guys who count total carbs only eat up to 20 g total carbs? That really sucks. I guess I hit 30-40 total carbs when I get around 20 g net carbs.
Not me... I have mine set to a whole 23g total carbs.
I spend those 3 extra on my dinner veggies.
My daily sugar intake is a joke!
After I cut out the crap carbs it was pretty easy.
Some of the carbs I count I don't believe are carbs
but I gave up thinking about them. OR
0 -
I don't find it difficult to stay under 30 total. I aim for 20 but I don't stress it if I get closer to 30. I make 30 my max limit basically.
This is my average for the last month total carbs.
Today will be one of those days that I don't even go over 10. I'm only at 3.5 so far and it's almost dinner time. I've ended days as low as 5 before without even trying.0 -
I count net carbs, and just keep them at 50 or lower. I've only been doing keto for a couple of weeks, and my daily net carbs range from low 30s to 50...so total carbs can go as high as the low 70s. But I test in the light to moderate range (depending on time of day) using the ketostix every time I have tested.
Is there any benefit to going lower? Because if there isn't, I'm happy at the level I'm at. It let's me eat a good variety of foods that have some small amounts of carbs...like almonds, peanut butter, dairy, green vegetables, etc.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »I count net carbs, and just keep them at 50 or lower. I've only been doing keto for a couple of weeks, and my daily net carbs range from low 30s to 50...so total carbs can go as high as the low 70s. But I test in the light to moderate range (depending on time of day) using the ketostix every time I have tested.
Is there any benefit to going lower? Because if there isn't, I'm happy at the level I'm at. It let's me eat a good variety of foods that have some small amounts of carbs...like almonds, peanut butter, dairy, green vegetables, etc.
I don't think there is a benefit, except some people need lower to get into ketosis, or some like how they feel on lower carbs, or some like to be deeply into ketosis.
Some people find that they are in and out of ketosis at about 50g carbs. I'm one of those. It just seemed to draw out the keto flu longer for me. Dropping down felt better.
I would stick with your happy range though.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »I count net carbs, and just keep them at 50 or lower. I've only been doing keto for a couple of weeks, and my daily net carbs range from low 30s to 50...so total carbs can go as high as the low 70s. But I test in the light to moderate range (depending on time of day) using the ketostix every time I have tested.
Is there any benefit to going lower? Because if there isn't, I'm happy at the level I'm at. It let's me eat a good variety of foods that have some small amounts of carbs...like almonds, peanut butter, dairy, green vegetables, etc.
For me the benefit of 23g is better blood glucose numbers.
Along with meds & physical recreation my diabetes is under
much better control.
Sorry to say, I don't have any real knowledge about
ketosis. I'm in this just for the bg#s.
The weight loss is a nice bonus &
the food ain't too shabby either. OR
0
