Recalibration time -- what is the "low" in "low carb"?
Dragonwolf
Posts: 5,600 Member
I've seen a number of people lately who seem to be under the impression that a much lower level of carbohydrates is required for things like ketosis and that still very clearly low carb levels are "high(er) carb." Let's recalibrate that...
I'm personally a fan of Mark Sisson's carbohydrate curve as a good illustration of the levels:
So what do we have here? We have different zones of carbohydrates and what they mean.
300+ - "Danger zone." This is your Standard American Diet amount. That's a *** ton, and is very likely to cause weight gain in most people (as beautifully illustrated by...well...just about everyone out there).
150-300 - He calls this the "insidious weight gain" zone. I'm not totally sure I agree with the exact bounds, particularly as 150g at the lower end, but it definitely does get progressively harder to lose or maintain weight the farther into this zone you get.
100-150 - His "Primal weight maintenance" zone. 150g is also the "official" upper end number of what this group considers "low carb." Beyond 150g and it's generally agreed here that you're more into "moderate" or even "high" carb range. However, it is still lower than SAD, and we're very loose with it. We won't take away your low carber card for eating 175g.
50-100 - His "sweet spot" zone, which I generally agree with. While many of us do need fewer, most people can actually thrive in this range. Note: this is not "high" or even "moderate" carb. This also qualifies as low carb. As our good friend @wabmester has pointed out on several occasions, you're also in a mild state of ketosis in this range. This means that you can get some of the lower-level benefits of ketosis, without many of the challenges. Also, those who are highly active, doing high intensity athletics, can even be in deeper ketosis at this level of carb intake.
20-50 - I'm going to deviate from the chart here, because this is our big trouble spot (the chart is a good visual of this and the next zone, together, though). However, 50g is actually the start of typical keto frameworks. Some plans do have you aim for 20g, but that's largely a sort of "toss head-first into the deep end" tactic to force you to break habits. You usually only do that for a week, maybe two. The takeaway here, though, is that for most people, you will not knock yourself out of ketosis if you consume 35g.
0-20 - This is pretty much your "carnivore" end of the spectrum. The people that sit here are, at most, eating only a couple of servings of vegetables (especially if that 20g is all carbs, not net), and are consuming meat and fat almost exclusively. This is also the area where people who need ketosis, specifically, for health reasons (ie - seizure control) are most likely to sit. Most people do not need to be this low, especially if they're only doing low carb for weight loss.
So there you have it, folks, your recalibration on carb levels. Now, go forth and eat low carb, in whatever zone you choose!
I'm personally a fan of Mark Sisson's carbohydrate curve as a good illustration of the levels:
So what do we have here? We have different zones of carbohydrates and what they mean.
300+ - "Danger zone." This is your Standard American Diet amount. That's a *** ton, and is very likely to cause weight gain in most people (as beautifully illustrated by...well...just about everyone out there).
150-300 - He calls this the "insidious weight gain" zone. I'm not totally sure I agree with the exact bounds, particularly as 150g at the lower end, but it definitely does get progressively harder to lose or maintain weight the farther into this zone you get.
100-150 - His "Primal weight maintenance" zone. 150g is also the "official" upper end number of what this group considers "low carb." Beyond 150g and it's generally agreed here that you're more into "moderate" or even "high" carb range. However, it is still lower than SAD, and we're very loose with it. We won't take away your low carber card for eating 175g.
50-100 - His "sweet spot" zone, which I generally agree with. While many of us do need fewer, most people can actually thrive in this range. Note: this is not "high" or even "moderate" carb. This also qualifies as low carb. As our good friend @wabmester has pointed out on several occasions, you're also in a mild state of ketosis in this range. This means that you can get some of the lower-level benefits of ketosis, without many of the challenges. Also, those who are highly active, doing high intensity athletics, can even be in deeper ketosis at this level of carb intake.
20-50 - I'm going to deviate from the chart here, because this is our big trouble spot (the chart is a good visual of this and the next zone, together, though). However, 50g is actually the start of typical keto frameworks. Some plans do have you aim for 20g, but that's largely a sort of "toss head-first into the deep end" tactic to force you to break habits. You usually only do that for a week, maybe two. The takeaway here, though, is that for most people, you will not knock yourself out of ketosis if you consume 35g.
0-20 - This is pretty much your "carnivore" end of the spectrum. The people that sit here are, at most, eating only a couple of servings of vegetables (especially if that 20g is all carbs, not net), and are consuming meat and fat almost exclusively. This is also the area where people who need ketosis, specifically, for health reasons (ie - seizure control) are most likely to sit. Most people do not need to be this low, especially if they're only doing low carb for weight loss.
So there you have it, folks, your recalibration on carb levels. Now, go forth and eat low carb, in whatever zone you choose!
0
Replies
-
Thank you!!
0 -
Thanks for posting this. I tend to stay in the 70-100 range and often feel like an outlier
. Maybe I. am losing more slowly, but it is a compromise I can live with. 0 -
I remember seeing this chart back when I first started, thank you for sharing.
0 -
Yep. I am carnivore for reasons outside of weight loss. Standard low-carb keto worked just fine for weight loss. There are other health and wellness factors that make avoiding all plants ideal for me.
I am a big proponent of finding what works best for your body. Of course, if something isn't working, I am going to suggest moving down in carbs as a first intervention. But, that is just because many people (myself included) try and start on the upper end so they can keep at least a few of their favorite foods.0 -
Thank you for posting this! Grams of carbs per day on the chart, is that total grams?0
-
I'd like to just say that this range is also very personal. I'm insulin resistant and carb sensitive, I don't do well at higher levels. I get cravings, hunger, and loss of energy if I eat over 30 total carb, so I think my curve might be a lot shorter and steeper then the one depicted.0
-
I'd like to just say that this range is also very personal. I'm insulin resistant and carb sensitive, I don't do well at higher levels. I get cravings, hunger, and loss of energy if I eat over 30 total carb, so I think my curve might be a lot shorter and steeper then the one depicted.
I agree with this. Those folks who seem to need very low carb , often under 20g, for health reasons like insulin resistance, may have a different slope on the graph. Same general shape and idea, just slightly different numbers.
0 -
Thanks for the info I'm in the 30 grams a day carbs category since my weightloss has stalled I was doing 50 grams but found that's when my weight just would not budge so I've dropped it to 30 hoping to see the scale and inches start coming back off I workout 5 days a week and try to keep it below 30 most days to stop the hunger that seems to be triggered for me from working out 0
-
I'd like to just say that this range is also very personal. I'm insulin resistant and carb sensitive, I don't do well at higher levels. I get cravings, hunger, and loss of energy if I eat over 30 total carb, so I think my curve might be a lot shorter and steeper then the one depicted.
I agree, based on my history, I think the "weight loss sweet spot" will end up being my "effortless weight maintenance" zone, if I'm lucky, with some regular exercise each day, when I'm safely and securely at my desired weight.
0 -
Thanks so much for posting this. I was telling hubby how so many on this board were on 20 and 30 carbs, when I'm happy when I hit 50 grams. I was wondering if I was doing it right. Now, if I could just start losing some weight.0
-
This is a great post. I've seen that graphic many times, And as I've said, I'm usually in that 50 to 100 range, sometimes up to 150. I eat a lot of plant foods, and have never considered myself particularly low carb, and definitely (until wab questioned it) NEVER thought I could be in ketosis. I'm trying to decide if I'm curious enough to pee on a stick lol. Especially given my activity level.
I did start logging a few days ago again, just to see where I was at.
Thursday was 99 carbs with 37 fiber, wednesday was 85 carbs with 42 fiber. I forgot to log yesterday, ha. So well, there's that.
I guess I have a pretty odd sense of things after all this time.
I did consciously lower things for a bit last year, mainly by removing the grains I do eat, legumes and fruit. I slept better (menopause), but missed legumes. So I went back to what I was doing.0 -
I'm usually in the 20-75g/day zone, which seems to both work for me AND keep me happy, and I do consider it to be low carb.0
-
Ringbearer2 wrote: »Thanks for posting this. I tend to stay in the 70-100 range and often feel like an outlier. Maybe I. am losing more slowly, but it is a compromise I can live with.
Same here.0 -
ShootingStar72 wrote: »Thank you for posting this! Grams of carbs per day on the chart, is that total grams?
Yes. I personally think counting net carbs just complicates things. Making the number lower by subtracting stuff isn't better. It's just applying math to use a lower number. Ultimately, it's still eating the whole number of carbs. I think sometimes we just get caught up in "wanting" to have a lower number because of some idea that it's "better".
This whole post is a perfect visual that anything under 150 is "better"... Maybe even higher than that if you're particularly active. Everyone has their own "better" and just because mine is 20-ish total, doesn't mean I would or should make any judgement about someone else's "better" being 50, 80, 150 or more.
When I started, I was counting net, and I can tell you that was because I thought it sounded better to have a lower number. I felt somehow like I was more committed and determined because it was so few carbs. Maybe I needed to see it that way for motivation at first, but I realized it didn't really matter. Math didn't actually mean I ate fewer carbs. Once I got into the flow, I naturally found my "sweet spot" and math and I broke up. Lol0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »ShootingStar72 wrote: »Thank you for posting this! Grams of carbs per day on the chart, is that total grams?
Yes. I personally think counting net carbs just complicates things. Making the number lower by subtracting stuff isn't better. It's just applying math to use a lower number. Ultimately, it's still eating the whole number of carbs. I think sometimes we just get caught up in "wanting" to have a lower number because of some idea that it's "better".
This whole post is a perfect visual that anything under 150 is "better"... Maybe even higher than that if you're particularly active. Everyone has their own "better" and just because mine is 20-ish total, doesn't mean I would or should make any judgement about someone else's "better" being 50, 80, 150 or more.
When I started, I was counting net, and I can tell you that was because I thought it sounded better to have a lower number. I felt somehow like I was more committed and determined because it was so few carbs. Maybe I needed to see it that way for motivation at first, but I realized it didn't really matter. Math didn't actually mean I ate fewer carbs. Once I got into the flow, I naturally found my "sweet spot" and math and I broke up. Lol
Why do you feel the grams of fibre count? They are not digested.0 -
I count net not because I want a lower number but because eating 27 grams of sugar and 3 grams of fiber is a whole different ballgame than eating 27 grams of fiber and 3 grams of sugar- with differing effects on blood glucose and insulin, and I want to reflect that difference in my counting. It just so happens that both fiber and sugar fit in a big giant category called "carbs," but that doesn't mean they are the same.0
-
sault_girl wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »ShootingStar72 wrote: »Thank you for posting this! Grams of carbs per day on the chart, is that total grams?
Yes. I personally think counting net carbs just complicates things. Making the number lower by subtracting stuff isn't better. It's just applying math to use a lower number. Ultimately, it's still eating the whole number of carbs. I think sometimes we just get caught up in "wanting" to have a lower number because of some idea that it's "better".
This whole post is a perfect visual that anything under 150 is "better"... Maybe even higher than that if you're particularly active. Everyone has their own "better" and just because mine is 20-ish total, doesn't mean I would or should make any judgement about someone else's "better" being 50, 80, 150 or more.
When I started, I was counting net, and I can tell you that was because I thought it sounded better to have a lower number. I felt somehow like I was more committed and determined because it was so few carbs. Maybe I needed to see it that way for motivation at first, but I realized it didn't really matter. Math didn't actually mean I ate fewer carbs. Once I got into the flow, I naturally found my "sweet spot" and math and I broke up. Lol
Why do you feel the grams of fibre count? They are not digested.
That's not true for all fiber or for everyone equally.
And it's not that I even think that because I think they count for the sake blood sugar. I just think it's not really necessary to bother subtracting them.
What I'm saying is, instead of subtracting fiber and aiming for whatever goal you set, just adjust the goal to allow for fiber...
Hopefully that makes more sense than how I said it before.0 -
Love this...I'm usually between 50-75, sometimes as low as 30, but rarely over 100 for the most part. Good info!0
-
50 is my sweet spot for weight loss. I maintained for three years at under 1000
-
I'm in the 50 to 85 range most of the time. Today was 63 total carbs. Went to my Grandaughter's 17th birthday party and picked up Buffalo wings to share. Had 3. The rest disappeared fast! NSV!0
-
Thank you for posting! This was very interesting to read. 0
-
Thanks so much for posting this!0
-
This is great info. My personal choice us to stay under 20 carbs, no carbs from sugar or grains. I've kicked fibromyalgia in the butt by eliminating carbs. Anything over 20 carbs and I can feel it.0
-
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »sault_girl wrote: »
Why do you feel the grams of fibre count? They are not digested.
That's not true for all fiber or for everyone equally.
And it's not that I even think that because I think they count for the sake blood sugar. I just think it's not really necessary to bother subtracting them.
What I'm saying is, instead of subtracting fiber and aiming for whatever goal you set, just adjust the goal to allow for fiber...
Hopefully that makes more sense than how I said it before.
I'm not entirely clear what you're saying here - but for purposes of controlling my blood sugar, it is definitely net carbs that matter most. Eating a salad with 30+ grams of carbs (20 net) doesn't bother my blood glucose level significantly. Eating 30+ grams of a dried strawberry (30+) sends it through the roof.
Adjusting the gross goal for a meal to 30+wouldn't achieve the same control, because the fiber is how I distinguish between the 30 grams of carbs I can eat (a salad like the one I just consumed) - and the 30 I can't (a piece of bread or a dried strawberry - both of which exceed 20 net carbs (generally what my body can hand), but not 30 gross carbs. Setting a net goal largely takes into account how my body processes fiber-heavy carbs (as if they only consisted of the non-fiber portion) v. non-fiber carbs (all of it hits my bloodstream).
0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »sault_girl wrote: »
Why do you feel the grams of fibre count? They are not digested.
That's not true for all fiber or for everyone equally.
And it's not that I even think that because I think they count for the sake blood sugar. I just think it's not really necessary to bother subtracting them.
What I'm saying is, instead of subtracting fiber and aiming for whatever goal you set, just adjust the goal to allow for fiber...
Hopefully that makes more sense than how I said it before.
I'm not entirely clear what you're saying here - but for purposes of controlling my blood sugar, it is definitely net carbs that matter most. Eating a salad with 30+ grams of carbs (20 net) doesn't bother my blood glucose level significantly. Eating 30+ grams of a dried strawberry (30+) sends it through the roof.
Adjusting the gross goal for a meal to 30+wouldn't achieve the same control, because the fiber is how I distinguish between the 30 grams of carbs I can eat (a salad like the one I just consumed) - and the 30 I can't (a piece of bread or a dried strawberry - both of which exceed 20 net carbs (generally what my body can hand), but not 30 gross carbs. Setting a net goal largely takes into account how my body processes fiber-heavy carbs (as if they only consisted of the non-fiber portion) v. non-fiber carbs (all of it hits my bloodstream).
I'm mostly referring to the net carb usage where someone would be subtracting the fiber from quest or Atkins bars. Even though a decent portion of that is listed as fiber. It often does have an effect. It's not the same with vegetables. If I have a veg heavy day, I just allow more carbs. I don't bother subtracting.
Anyway, I'm not saying what it appears you think I am saying. I'm not saying if you allow 30g for dinner then it doesn't matter what the 30g comes from. I'm saying, if 30g is what you can tolerate and you want to have a bunch of vegetables that would take you up to 40g, then eat them and just go with 40g. It's ok to say you had 40, because you know 10 or whatever was fiber. And I'm not even saying don't do that either. I'm just saying I personally don't understand using net, because it seems more difficult. Just my opinion.
If someone is only subtracting vegetable fiber, the total count will not be off by that much. But my example of subtracting when I first started was allowing sugar alcohols and quest bars and I just didn't want to count all their carbs.
0 -
@neohdiver, I get what you're saying. That's what works for me, too, and I don't mind taking a second to subtract.0
-
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »sault_girl wrote: »
Why do you feel the grams of fibre count? They are not digested.
That's not true for all fiber or for everyone equally.
And it's not that I even think that because I think they count for the sake blood sugar. I just think it's not really necessary to bother subtracting them.
What I'm saying is, instead of subtracting fiber and aiming for whatever goal you set, just adjust the goal to allow for fiber...
Hopefully that makes more sense than how I said it before.
I'm not entirely clear what you're saying here - but for purposes of controlling my blood sugar, it is definitely net carbs that matter most. Eating a salad with 30+ grams of carbs (20 net) doesn't bother my blood glucose level significantly. Eating 30+ grams of a dried strawberry (30+) sends it through the roof.
Adjusting the gross goal for a meal to 30+wouldn't achieve the same control, because the fiber is how I distinguish between the 30 grams of carbs I can eat (a salad like the one I just consumed) - and the 30 I can't (a piece of bread or a dried strawberry - both of which exceed 20 net carbs (generally what my body can hand), but not 30 gross carbs. Setting a net goal largely takes into account how my body processes fiber-heavy carbs (as if they only consisted of the non-fiber portion) v. non-fiber carbs (all of it hits my bloodstream).
I'm mostly referring to the net carb usage where someone would be subtracting the fiber from quest or Atkins bars. Even though a decent portion of that is listed as fiber. It often does have an effect. It's not the same with vegetables. If I have a veg heavy day, I just allow more carbs. I don't bother subtracting.
Anyway, I'm not saying what it appears you think I am saying. I'm not saying if you allow 30g for dinner then it doesn't matter what the 30g comes from. I'm saying, if 30g is what you can tolerate and you want to have a bunch of vegetables that would take you up to 40g, then eat them and just go with 40g. It's ok to say you had 40, because you know 10 or whatever was fiber. And I'm not even saying don't do that either. I'm just saying I personally don't understand using net, because it seems more difficult. Just my opinion.
If someone is only subtracting vegetable fiber, the total count will not be off by that much. But my example of subtracting when I first started was allowing sugar alcohols and quest bars and I just didn't want to count all their carbs.
With some foods it can make a big difference. Avocados for example: a superfood that many people are missing out on because of the gross/net argument. A nice sized avocado has 13 grams of Carbs with 10 grams of Fiber = 3 Net.
Even with your Quest/Atkins bars example - net is net: fiber and sugar alcohols aren't processed. Since you agree that the difference is negligible and it just makes you feel better - why not do it? 0 -
As I'm going on, I find I prefer the lower carb number (<20 net) because I really like fat and meat.
Is that okay?0 -
@DorkothyParker if you like being a carnivore like @FIT_Goat then imo of course that is ok. It is about finding what works for each of us. Like you, I have found myself trying out less than 20g carbs.
I choose to avoid sweeteners, sugar alcohols, grains, fruits (rare exceptions), startches such as beans n root veggies. With extra carbs to play with (20 to 50g) I eat more green leafy veg, extra avocados, an ocassional berry, tomatoes and yoghurt, compared with on less than 20g carb. My thinking may be a legacy of "5 a day" messaging but somehow the idea of micronutrients diversity in sources feels like that is healthier diet than pure carnivore. However, some people here find carnivore works for them. I figure each human is different so time to experiment n learn what my body responds best to.
For me, I want to see if a few months of even lower carbs (<20g) makes me feel better and is more sustainable or if 20 to 50 is my sweet spot, or higher?. Given what I am learning now, I think 20 to 50 will be my end point but experiment still underway. V low carb is helping me realise how to add more fats back in, which is useful regardless of which way I choose to eat. Very interesting and I am loving trying new recipes and learning off the wonderful crew here.
Thanks @Dragonwolf for making the peer pressure of lowest carb feel less intimidating by making the choices of low carb more explicit. I think it really helps us all feel good about finding what works for us.
0 -
DorkothyParker wrote: »As I'm going on, I find I prefer the lower carb number (<20 net) because I really like fat and meat.
Is that okay?
That is definitely okay. People thrive for long periods of time on minimal carbs. Just know that you always have some room and don't hesitate to reassess things based on how you feel.0
