Anyone on a low carb diet?

mommyshortlegs

Don't forget to subtract fiber to ascertain net carbs. Unfortunately MFP doesn't do this subtraction for us yet, which throws off percentages.

N200lz

mommyshortlegs wrote: »

Don't forget to subtract fiber to ascertain net carbs. Unfortunately MFP doesn't do this subtraction for us yet, which throws off percentages.

Yes, you are correct although I have found that some entries (and I'll use Quest Bars as an example) can show total carbs as well as net carbs based upon your selection. Both are usually there as a selection.
Also, the sugars in Greek Yogurt is a bad number as they have already been eliminated in the fermentation process. Blame that on bad math in the manner in which it is calculated.

TrailNurse

I am Ketogenic so I try to keep my net carbs less than 30. Keeps my appetite in check and helps me build awesome muscles.

nvmomketo

Unless you are on a medically prescribed low carb diet which instructed you to eat 25g of carbs per day, are trying to stay very low carb for a health reason, or trying to stay in ketosis, then you should be fine.... Unless that level of carbs triggers overeating for you.

Dare2Believe

mommyshortlegs wrote: »

Don't forget to subtract fiber to ascertain net carbs. Unfortunately MFP doesn't do this subtraction for us yet, which throws off percentages.

If you don't mind using a hack there is a way to set up MFP to count net carbs. Here is a video showing how (if link doesn't work look for YouTube video: How To: Setup MyFitnessPal for Net Carbs by Manda Panda

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtHtVCblKlc&index=6&list=FL3Dq9g93AXBeCdVAU5qoQdw

mccindy72

N200lz wrote: »

mccindy72 wrote: »

That'\s not how it works. If you are weighing your food and tracking your calorie intake, then you know how many calories you are eating. There's no magic way to have your calorie intake be low enough to lose weight, just because you are keeping your carb intake low. If you gained some weight back, it was because you were eating more calories than you were burning.

I've heard that a lot but as I said, after reading the material Dr. Jonny Bowden assembled, I learned there's more to it than just calories as there is more to it than just carbs.
Excerpt:

Calories Count, But They’re Not the Whole Picture Every conventional weight loss program—or at least the vast majority of them—is based in some way on the principle that everything ultimately comes down to calories. I don’t agree. But just because calories aren’t the whole picture does not mean they’re out of the show. They’ve just been moved from a starring role to that of a supporting—but still important—player. This was never better illustrated than in a brilliant study done at Harvard by Dr. Penelope Greene.ǂ Here’s what she did: She took two groups of people and put them on different diets. Group one got 1500 calories of low-fat food. Group two got 1800 calories of low-carb food. Sounds like a cool experiment, right? If weight loss is solely about calories, group two— the 1500 calorie group—should have lost more weight than group one, since they were eating 300 calories a day (2100 calories a week!) less than group one. The fact that group one was eating different kinds of food than group two shouldn’t have mattered. Those eating the higher-calorie diet would have been expected—under the “calories is all” theory—to gain more weight. But that’s not what happened. Group two—the group eating a low-carb diet of 1800 calories a day—actually lost more weight than the group eating a high-carb diet of 1500 calories a day. If it was all about calories, the higher-calorie, low-carb group should not have won the weight loss contest. You might be forgiven for concluding, from this study, that calories don’t really matter. Not so fast. Dr. Greene added an ingenious twist to the study. She threw in a third group. The third group also got the same low-carb food that group two got, but instead of eating 1800 calories of low-carb food like group two did, they ate 1500 calories worth, the same number of calories that group one had consumed. Dr. Greene called this the “low-carb, low-calorie” group. And these folks lost the most weight of all. Clearly something is going on here besides calories. But equally clearly, calories are hardly irrelevant. In our eagerness to focus on the missing link in weight loss—hormones like fat-storing insulin—we should be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. Bottom line: Calories count. But they are very far from the whole picture.

3 groups of 7 people? Also, this is just one lady, taking 21 people and putting the three groups on separate diets. There's not much scientific to this study. If the N pools were larger, and the people kept isolated from any outside possibility of ingesting any other food, okay. And if the diets were carefully controlled and macro-isolated, sure. How do we know that all of the people in her study adhered to the calorie intake and macro ratio? Do we know if all of the calories were carefully weighed and documented to ensure proper numbers? Without a proper double-blind scientific study, there's never perfect accuracy in study results.