Recalibration time -- what is the "low" in "low carb"?
Options
Replies
-
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 -
I've <20 net carbs since I started. The only reason I'm considering upping it to 30 even 40 is the hopes that it will help me sleep better.
Is anybody else waking up at 3:00am since starting Keto?
Yes, we could operate on less sleep but I prefer to sleep all night.0 -
I started with 20 grams in late October. It took a bit to adjust, but I started losing regularly at around 1/2 pound a week so I just stayed with that. My plan is to gradually add in a few more gradually whenever I get to maintenance. If I had seen this chart, I probably would have started a little higher.0
-
I've <20 net carbs since I started. The only reason I'm considering upping it to 30 even 40 is the hopes that it will help me sleep better.
Is anybody else waking up at 3:00am since starting Keto?
Yes, we could operate on less sleep but I prefer to sleep all night.
Yes! If I wake up at 2 or 3 am (I have to get up at 5), there is no hope of going back to sleep even though I still feel tired. I just don't feel sleepy.
0 -
Great discussion. This is by far the best low carb community.0
-
I've <20 net carbs since I started. The only reason I'm considering upping it to 30 even 40 is the hopes that it will help me sleep better.
Is anybody else waking up at 3:00am since starting Keto?
Yes, we could operate on less sleep but I prefer to sleep all night.
Hm.. I should go back and look at my diary to see if my sleepless nights correspond with my lowest carb days. Never thought of it.0 -
-
I've <20 net carbs since I started. The only reason I'm considering upping it to 30 even 40 is the hopes that it will help me sleep better.
Is anybody else waking up at 3:00am since starting Keto?
Yes, we could operate on less sleep but I prefer to sleep all night.
I struggle to get to sleep now, but do manage to fall back to sleep when I wake up in the middle of the night. But thankfully despite less sleep, I wake up much more easily now.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.
I don't have much to deduct other than vegetable fiber (I don't use artificial sweeteners or artificially added fiber so I have no idea what they might add up to). My gross carbs on Friday were 65% more than my net carbs (38 v. 23). That's typical for me, and a pretty significant difference in the quantity of carbs I can consume as long as those carbs have fiber. At least with what I eat, there is a huge difference between gross and net carbs.
Your last comment, though, sounds as if you felt you were cheating when you used net carbs because, for you, it was a way you could claim you were eating lower carbs than you were?
If it works for you, great! I'm just trying to understand how it simplifies things.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?
The bold isn't exactly accurate. Some sugar alcohols, despite erroneous claims to the contrary, do indeed cause a blood sugar response. Especially ones like maltitol. If I recall correctly it does have a number on the glycemic index which is in the 30-40s. It's best, unless it's something GI zero like erythritol, to count at least half of the sugar alcohols in your carb total. And they haven't even measured the affect the sugar alcohols have on insulin. The fiber, most people can just subtract IMO, unless you know you are extremely carbohydrate sensitive. In reality, we don't know for 100% sure everything that goes on for every food inside those intestines and veins. YMMV applies for just about everything. Which makes sense as we each have a unique DNA signature.
Here's a couple interesting links to look over:
http://www.sugar-and-sweetener-guide.com/glycemic-index-for-sweeteners.html
http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/whattoeat/a/sugaralcohols.htm
0
