Recalibration time -- what is the "low" in "low carb"?
Replies
-
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 -
I won't speak for what sunny meant with her post. But for me I don't worry about the net gross thing, in the beginning I did and still have my stats set up with fiber next to carb for easy subtraction.
Now though I try to focus on the foods I'm eating rather than their net carb count. If I'm making good choices I feel better if I eat quest bars and a bunch of sugar free candy I don't feel good. If I eat a big salad and some green beans and my carbs are higher that's fine, if I eat a bunch of sugar free stuff and my carbs are higher that's a different thing even if the net is the same. I also dint have a hard target for my carbs per day, I say under 100 somedays I'm at 20 some I'm at 99 and occasionally I'm over 100.
Sometimes people can get obsessed with that stuff which can lead to unhealthy eating habits (im not saying this about anyone in here at all so please no one take offense) it can tend towards control issues with food intake where less and less is viewed as better.
0 -
I am at 20 carbs total normally (apart from today, don't look) mainly because that was what I read to be good and now I am just used to it. I am a Quest bar eater though and I only count the NET for those, I have a couple at the weekend as a dessert with cream on top and a couple of frozen raspberries.
Once I have lost all my weight I am looking forward to going into Keto maintenance although I have never actually measured my ketones. I might get one of those Ketonix do-dahs.0 -
auntstephie321 wrote: »I won't speak for what sunny meant with her post. But for me I don't worry about the net gross thing, in the beginning I did and still have my stats set up with fiber next to carb for easy subtraction.
Now though I try to focus on the foods I'm eating rather than their net carb count. If I'm making good choices I feel better if I eat quest bars and a bunch of sugar free candy I don't feel good. If I eat a big salad and some green beans and my carbs are higher that's fine, if I eat a bunch of sugar free stuff and my carbs are higher that's a different thing even if the net is the same. I also dint have a hard target for my carbs per day, I say under 100 somedays I'm at 20 some I'm at 99 and occasionally I'm over 100.
Sometimes people can get obsessed with that stuff which can lead to unhealthy eating habits (im not saying this about anyone in here at all so please no one take offense) it can tend towards control issues with food intake where less and less is viewed as better.
Out of curiosity - are you limiting to carbs to control blood sugar? If not, that may be the difference. If I were just interested in lowering carb intake without that specific motivation I know I would be a lot more inclined to focus on food choices than grams of carbs (I probably wouldn't even be paying any specific attention to carbs). But since my goal is to maintain my blood glucose within non-diabetic normal ranges, the difference between gross and net carbs is huge.
As for control issues (no offense taken) - for now I am absolutely obsessed. I've tracked every bite as closely as I can (aside from a few pickles) since October (diabetes diagnosis), and chart it against blood glucose.
I hate that I have to be so narrowly focused on food intake. Once I find some space to breathe (around August), and have a good long track record (10 months) I'll have to find a way to eat safely without counting 3 separate things (carbs, protein, and calories). It is not sustainable for me, personally, over the long haul. I had a perfect routine worked out that didn't require me to count anything- unfortunately, it is higher carb than I can currently consume so I'll have to find a new one.0 -
@neohdiver I started low carb because of insulin resistance. I don't monitor bg.
I think it's normal to be obsessed in the beginning, I was to, and stressing out over it. Gradually the longer I went the more I learned and knew what I could handle and how I would feel. I still track every bite but am forgiving if I forget something or it's not 100% accurate. Eventually you learn your body so well that you almost know what to expect ate eating something. It takes time to get comfortable with that but it sounds like you're on a good path towards it.
Oh and sometimes you're body will throw a wrench in things and you'll be all confused again but you get through it and things start falling in line again.
One thing that this whole process has really cemented for me is that even if you make some big mistakes or get lost along the way, it's not the end of the world you just refocus and get going again. It's helped a lot to keep that in mind to not get overly obsessed with every bite.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!!!! Dang...never dawned me that low carb was the culprit. I blamed it on older female maladies!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.
I think I've come across entirely differently than intended.
I don't know how to express what I am meaning.0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »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.
I think I've come across entirely differently than intended.
I don't know how to express what I am meaning.
Sometimes the written word just isn't the best at conveying subtle concepts. Thanks for trying to explain!0 -
auntstephie321 wrote: »@neohdiver I started low carb because of insulin resistance. I don't monitor bg.
I think it's normal to be obsessed in the beginning, I was to, and stressing out over it. Gradually the longer I went the more I learned and knew what I could handle and how I would feel. I still track every bite but am forgiving if I forget something or it's not 100% accurate. Eventually you learn your body so well that you almost know what to expect ate eating something. It takes time to get comfortable with that but it sounds like you're on a good path towards it.
Oh and sometimes you're body will throw a wrench in things and you'll be all confused again but you get through it and things start falling in line again.
One thing that this whole process has really cemented for me is that even if you make some big mistakes or get lost along the way, it's not the end of the world you just refocus and get going again. It's helped a lot to keep that in mind to not get overly obsessed with every bite.
I don't find it particularly stressful - just annoying and time consuming (although food preparation itself takes much more of my time). I'd be a lot less careful if I didn't have a specific diagnosis (and the recent research hadn't just come out about the link between prediabetes (which I've already passed) and undiagnosed chronic kidney disease. We have one near-certain transplant in our family's future (unrelated rare disease), so I know way too much about the transplant system (and the aftermath) to take the threat of kidney loss lightly. As friends of mine with liver transplants describe it - you're just trading one chronic illness for another. I'll keep the one I know, thank you very much.
I know pretty much what I can eat, and what I can't (although the growing season will bring fresh challenges - particularly with tomatoes - I'll be curious to see if I am one of the ones who can eat them or not). But I've managed to navigate meals out, even at at one-off restaurants, without spiking. If I don't know what's in the item, I take pictures and piece it together as best I can (and then use my blood glucose response as a gauge about how close I am). A lot of my mid-day testing now is not really to check response to specific meals, but so that I have a significant quantity of datapoints I can use to estimate my A1c.
But You're right that bodies can do bizarre things. One was particularly annoying. I navigated Thanksgiving and the entire Christmas season staying within my carb allotment all the time and within my calorie cap nearly all the time (over 2 days by a combined total of 144 calories). Despite that, starting around December 12 through the 25th, both blood sugar and weight went wacko. I pull up my 180 day weight report and there's this little bulge there. I pull up my BG logbook & there's the same bulge (an average of about 10 points higher for no objective reason).
Really?? I know a lot of people expect bulges in November/December because they give themselves a bit of dietary leeway - but I didn't. I gave myself permission to go over calories on Christmas day - I didn't even count them up until the end of the day. Bottom line, nothing within my carb count was appetizing enough to make it worth the extra calories! (Never did figure out any objective cause for it.)
0 -
@neohdiver I wonder, were you under stress at that time? I know it can be a stressful time of year for many. It's possible the stress caused the bg issues that then caused your body to store everything.0
-
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »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.
I think I've come across entirely differently than intended.
I don't know how to express what I am meaning.
Sometimes the written word just isn't the best at conveying subtle concepts. Thanks for trying to explain!
Thanks for understanding. I really wasn't intending to challenge the net carb method and I realized it was coming out that way. The more I was trying to clear it up, the more it seemed to get muddy. Lol
I had a very minor actual point that I just couldn't say right. I don't want to derail the whole thread trying to get my thoughts and words to align. I respect everyone's methods and thought what I was saying was more of a "don't stress trying to have lower carbs" just because something you read or heard made you think it's better. Some of this thinking does exist. It did for me to a degree in the beginning. Then I relaxed about it and everything was better.
Anyway, the graphic is an awesome reference.0 -
auntstephie321 wrote: »@neohdiver I wonder, were you under stress at that time? I know it can be a stressful time of year for many. It's possible the stress caused the bg issues that then caused your body to store everything.
I'm under enormous stress all the time . . . so when someone suggests stress, my immediate reaction is that I'm always at an 11 on a 1-10 scale for stress - I'm not sure that going to 11.5 is a significant difference
(Seriously, I'm at an 11, pretty much constantly for the last 7 years - major family health issues, I'm the only one capable of putting food and medicine on the table, and a light work week is 60 hours - that constant stress is the reason my last weight loss didn't stick. When I'm stressed, I do what is easy, quick, and open, but not necessarily healthy, especially when I'm heading home from my 9-5 job at 2 am without having had much to eat all day).
That said, there were a couple of all-nighters in that time period and I have noticed that staying up all night impacts my blood glucose the next day (just not usually longer than one day - and this elevation was steadily about 10 points higher than it had been), and I have not previously noticed an impact on weight loss.0 -
Thanks for posting the chart. I'd say I fall within the profile.
I've been doing LCHF for about 9 mos. Looking over the trends, my 'sweet spot' for carbs is 20-40g. That is the range that most fits into my eating habits, and most do-able with my hunger patterns. This has resulted in a .5 pound/weekly weight loss @1300 kcal.
Between 0-20g and I saw I can lose more weight faster, but I feel a little manic and I find it seems to interfere with sleep. Between 45-115g @1300kcal seems to be maintenance.
0 -
I tend to eat like, 50-100 g of carbs per day, and I find it's easiest to maintain this WOE on that. Although my WOE is slightly different, as I tend to have maybe a 60/20/20 PFC ratio
0 -
blacktie347 wrote: »I tend to eat like, 50-100 g of carbs per day, and I find it's easiest to maintain this WOE on that. Although my WOE is slightly different, as I tend to have maybe a 60/20/20 PFC ratio
Are those macros more Dukan like? Not that it matters, just curious.
0 -
Very interesting chart. Thanks OP for posting.
I'm starting to wonder if I started out too low. I have no health issues and am just looking to lose weight. Ok, it's a LOT of weight and is in and of itself a health issue but no diabetes or anything like that. For the first four months I've been trying to stay at or below 20g. It has worked very well helping me toward my goal but I wonder if by going so low it might mean I will have a hard time increasing even just a little. Sort of like making myself over sensitive to carbs. Does that make any sense? I might just be over analyzing things. I know that sometimes I have a more carbs and it doesn't seem to kick me out of keto...at least according to the sticks.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »blacktie347 wrote: »I tend to eat like, 50-100 g of carbs per day, and I find it's easiest to maintain this WOE on that. Although my WOE is slightly different, as I tend to have maybe a 60/20/20 PFC ratio
Are those macros more Dukan like? Not that it matters, just curious.
It's similar, from what I briefly read - this is mostly a guess on my part. Basically, I just find that this seems to work most easily for me, since I'm also in the CICO group
0 -
If 300 is the beginning of the Danger Zone, most of the folks I see during any visit to our local shopping mall must be in the About to Explode Zone. I don't know how some of those people actually manage to negotiate the obstacles of real life, like airplane seats and restroom stalls.0
-
mandycat223 wrote: »If 300 is the beginning of the Danger Zone, most of the folks I see during any visit to our local shopping mall must be in the About to Explode Zone. I don't know how some of those people actually manage to negotiate the obstacles of real life, like airplane seats and restroom stalls.
Actually, there's an article in the New York Times about that: "Seats were 18 inches wide before airline deregulation in the 1970s and have since been whittled to 16 and a half inches, he said, while seat pitch used to be 35 inches and has decreased to about 31 inches. At the same time, the average man is 30 pounds heavier today than he was in 1960 (196 pounds compared with 166 pounds) and the average woman is 26 pounds heavier (166 pounds, up from 140 pounds), Mr. Cohen said, citing statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smaller seats and larger passengers mean planes may not be capable of rapid evacuation in the event of an emergency, he said. “This affects safety and health.”"
Edited for grammar.0 -
New Airbus patent filing due to obesity epidemic.
0 -
mandycat223 wrote: »If 300 is the beginning of the Danger Zone, most of the folks I see during any visit to our local shopping mall must be in the About to Explode Zone. I don't know how some of those people actually manage to negotiate the obstacles of real life, like airplane seats and restroom stalls.
Too funny. Thxs for this. Love the concept of the "about to explode zone"0
This discussion has been closed.