Right: Experts, help me out here...
AlexandraCarlyle
Posts: 1,603 Member
What SHOULD this look like...? (I cannot for the life of me understand the right-hand selection box - the one with fats,
potassium, etc....)
I think I need to start keeping tabs on intake, don't you...?!
potassium, etc....)
I think I need to start keeping tabs on intake, don't you...?!
0
Replies
-
Focus on the left side and you should do 10% Carbs, 30% Protein, 60% Fat. That is a minimum in my opinion. I am 5% Carbs 20% protein and 75% fat0
-
I never altered the right side in MFP, only daily calories at 1700 and the macros as I listed.0
-
Just want to note, we have no experts here, just more experienced folks and/or research nerds/geeks (like me...lol).
The only thing I would worry about, personally, on that right side is sodium. The rest, as long as you are eating a variety of whole foods, I wouldn't really worry much. Not all labels report those things, and vitamin needs are completely different when eating a low carb diet. For example, vitamin C is so high on SAD because of the way carbs and C are processed. Potassium isn't always a label requirement, so your numbers could be off dramatically. Plus, with entries into the MFP diary coming from many different sources, these numbers could be incorrect, and have been found to be in any number of cases... Many folks need to supplement magnesium, but as you can see, that's not even on this list!
@AlexandraCarlyle
EDITED TO ADD: The reason the right side looks so wacky is because it is set up for SAD/higher carb eating, complete with all the fearmongering of modern medicine.3 -
What do you think about the fats...? Trans is staying at 0%, FYI....1
-
Yes Trans Fat should absolutely stay at zero, but if you are eating Whole (non-processed) Foods, Healthy Fats you will not be ingesting Trans Fats...1
-
As far as the right hand side goes, I think sodium is the main one you want to change. 3000 mg is an absolute minimum, but 4000 is probably a better target.
Given fiber is a carb, there is almost no way to hit 25g with 30g of carb. That said, if you aren't eating all that processed carbage, you don't need a lot of fiber to keep things moving along. I don't think fiber is really worth tracking as long as you are eating real food. You will get what you need.
I don't know about goals for the different fats. I will say you want your fats to primarily be saturated and monounsaturated. It isn't that poly are necessarily bad, as both omega 3 and omega 6 are essential and they are poly. That said, you would have a hard time not getting enough omega 6. You do want to make sure you get enough omega 3 (fatty fish - tuna, salmon, sardines are best options).
Polyunsaturated fats are more easily oxidized which is not good - think about needing antioxidants. It is better to reduce oxidation in the first place than to need a bunch of antioxidants.
On the left side, however, I think that either your protein is really high or your calories are too low. You have protein set high enough to be a 6' man, but 1200 calories is really low even during weight loss for a 6' man.
If you are super active, this much protein may be fine also, but then the 1200 calories would be too low, IMHO.3 -
There is no biological need for transfats, and transfats are one of the 2 or 3 legitimately BAD fats that pretty much everyone agrees are bad/unhealthy fats...0
-
Yes. Trans fat should be avoided when they come from processing food. That said, if you eat grass fed beef, there will be a minimal amount of trans fat created when that is cooked. I would not worry about that trans fat.2
-
@AlexandraCarlyle if your on board with LCHF you are going to read every label that is in a package. Even salad dressings that have Canola or Soybean, Vegetable Oil, while not trans fat you are going to AVOID. I make my own salad dressing and mayonnaise. It is so easy and since I use olive oil, vinegar, (eggs for mayo) then I know that only good non-industrial processed ingredients are being used.2
-
I didn't set the calorie count, the 'program' did when I first registered and set my target weight....
I have changed the readings on the left, to the recommendations given by @johnnylew in his first post.
I'm very natural in my approach to food. There is NOTHING processed, in my diet - it's all home-made, from scratch....
How is this, now...?
0 -
@AlexandraCarlyle if your on board with LCHF you are going to read every label that is in a package. Even salad dressings that have Canola or Soybean, Vegetable Oil, while not trans fat you are going to AVOID. I make my own salad dressing and mayonnaise. It is so easy and since I use olive oil, vinegar, (eggs for mayo) then I know that only good non-industrial processed ingredients are being used.
I've never been such an avid reader of labels, all my life; everything comes under scrutiny, and nothing gets past me!
Of course, when I was a youngster, there were no such labels, and 'best before' and 'use by' were factors of common sense, not the Food Standards Agency. I think these last two "professional recommendations" are probably the single highest cause of the obscene amounts of good food wasted every DAY by individuals and companies alike; the sheer mountain of perfectly good food that gets thrown away, simply because of a date determined by some unseen authority, is too disgusting and appalling to even talk about....
But I digress....2 -
AlexandraCarlyle wrote: »@AlexandraCarlyle if your on board with LCHF you are going to read every label that is in a package. Even salad dressings that have Canola or Soybean, Vegetable Oil, while not trans fat you are going to AVOID. I make my own salad dressing and mayonnaise. It is so easy and since I use olive oil, vinegar, (eggs for mayo) then I know that only good non-industrial processed ingredients are being used.
I've never been such an avid reader of labels, all my life; everything comes under scrutiny, and nothing gets past me!
Of course, when I was a youngster, there were no such labels, and 'best before' and 'use by' were factors of common sense, not the Food Standards Agency. I think these last two "professional recommendations" are probably the single highest cause of the obscene amounts of good food wasted every DAY by individuals and companies alike; the sheer mountain of perfectly good food that gets thrown away, simply because of a date determined by some unseen authority, is too disgusting and appalling to even talk about....
But I digress....
First, glad to read you aren't eating a bunch of processed food. IMO, that is the most important step of all is to eat real food. The fewer foods you eat that have labels, the better.
Second, those dates on products are set by manufacturer. I think we agree those are set more to get you to throw it away and by a replacement than when the product actually goes bad. Better for profits that way. And I say that as a capitalist through and through. However, I believe the best capitalism has to incorporate ethics.1 -
I think best by dates are a combo of worse case scenario prevention of lawsuits and a marketing factor to sell more products.3
-
Good point, @KnitOrMiss. Many companies will not give post-'best before' foods to charities for that very reason; at least, not obvious perishables, particularly meats and especially fish products and poultry. Tinned or preserved food is taken for granted as having a good leeway.
0 -
Best before dates truly are just a limited product guarantee. They do not have to reimburse you for a shoddy product after that date has past... and as such, there is an increase in liability restricting them to "donate' it elsewhere. Shameful. Even food banks technically have to dispose of any product that has passed that BBD... even by one day.0
-
Ok, I'm suffering from a mild case of doofus-confusion.
Question 1:
Tomato passata: per portion, there are 6.2 carbs.
Of which sugars are - 6.2.
Yet there is 2.9 fibre.
That's confusing me. If Fibre passes through undigested, is the carb reading correct?
Question 2:
Carbs 20.5
of which sugars 7.5
(that leaves 13.0 carbs)
Fibre 4.4
What is the remaining 8.6....?!0 -
1 - I would assume this label is showing you NET carbs and not actual carbs in the carb count.
2 - carbs that are not sugar and not fiber would be starch I believe.1 -
so, net carbs are the carbs with sugar/fibre omitted, yes...?
I'm a cook, for god's sake, you'd think I should have this in the bag by now. I feel so ashamed.....
0 -
Net carbs:
total carbs minus fiber
since fiber doesn't digest some people omit them from their carb tracking...this makes things like green vegetables more attractive to low carbers because they tend to have a lot of fiber...not everyone does net carbs, many do total carbs...I usually display both total carbs and fiber in my diary - if I go over on carbs, but I'm over less than my total fiber for the day then I don't sweat it...if I go over on carbs and my fiber is low then I know I've been eating junk food and not healthy food and it's time to get myself back on target2 -
AlexandraCarlyle wrote: »so, net carbs are the carbs with sugar/fibre omitted, yes...?
I'm a cook, for god's sake, you'd think I should have this in the bag by now. I feel so ashamed.....
The sugar counts as part of the net carbs. Some people omit the sugar alcohols however, like malitol, sorbitol, the various other sweeteners that end in -ol. They aren't digested the way real sugar is, so you don't get calories from them, so they 'don't count' in the way fiber doesn't count.1 -
Aw, @Steph_Maks thanks for that; however, I never either use, or purchase any single thing that has artificial sweeteners, or anything that doesn't just say 'sugar'. even something like glucose or sucralose is shunned.... Thanks for the heads-up though!0
-
tcunbeliever wrote: »Net carbs:
total carbs minus fiber
since fiber doesn't digest some people omit them from their carb tracking...this makes things like green vegetables more attractive to low carbers because they tend to have a lot of fiber...not everyone does net carbs, many do total carbs...I usually display both total carbs and fiber in my diary - if I go over on carbs, but I'm over less than my total fiber for the day then I don't sweat it...if I go over on carbs and my fiber is low then I know I've been eating junk food and not healthy food and it's time to get myself back on target
Oh, great;
So:
50g carbs
10g fibre
25g sugar, effectively means 40g carbs, 25g sugar!
Got it! and the balance of 15g is starch....0 -
Steph_Maks wrote: »AlexandraCarlyle wrote: »so, net carbs are the carbs with sugar/fibre omitted, yes...?
I'm a cook, for god's sake, you'd think I should have this in the bag by now. I feel so ashamed.....
The sugar counts as part of the net carbs. Some people omit the sugar alcohols however, like malitol, sorbitol, the various other sweeteners that end in -ol. They aren't digested the way real sugar is, so you don't get calories from them, so they 'don't count' in the way fiber doesn't count.
That's a good point.
I think the impact of A-Ss may be a YMMV thing that varies with the specific sweetener and individual reaction.
Personally, I only subtract erythritol at 100%, 50% for everything else (but like a lot of my other n=1 derived "knowledge", it may be closer to superstition).0 -
Also, I further found other information that may be of interest, both to UK and USA members: I copied and pasted this from the 'diabetes.co.uk' website.You would be correct to deduct the fibre if you lived in the USA.
However, food labelling is different in the UK. Here, the fibre element has already been deducted, so you need to look at the total carbs.
In the USA the fibre is not deducted on the label, so in USA you would be correct in deducting it and using net carbs....
... also, US labels are by the serving size, European by the 100g. US say Carbs with fiber underneath as it is part of the Carb count. In Europe the fibre is placed separately.
So: (excluding sugar, for these purposes)
USA:
16.5g carbs
9g fiber
so that would be only 7.5g carbs.
UK:
16.5g carb
9g fibre
Total carbs = 25.5g
0 -
By the way, what is the general consensus on Pumpkin Puree?
I'd probably use butternut squash, because that's available AYR....0 -
AlexandraCarlyle wrote: »Also, I further found other information that may be of interest, both to UK and USA members: I copied and pasted this from the 'diabetes.co.uk' website.You would be correct to deduct the fibre if you lived in the USA.
However, food labelling is different in the UK. Here, the fibre element has already been deducted, so you need to look at the total carbs.
In the USA the fibre is not deducted on the label, so in USA you would be correct in deducting it and using net carbs....
... also, US labels are by the serving size, European by the 100g. US say Carbs with fiber underneath as it is part of the Carb count. In Europe the fibre is placed separately.
So: (excluding sugar, for these purposes)
USA:
16.5g carbs
9g fiber
so that would be only 7.5g carbs.
UK:
16.5g carb
9g fibre
Total carbs = 25.5g
This appears to be correct understanding to me.0 -
AlexandraCarlyle wrote: »By the way, what is the general consensus on Pumpkin Puree?
I'd probably use butternut squash, because that's available AYR....
I don't recall the carbs for pumpkin but I think if it's fits into your carb limit, and it's unsweetened that it should be fine. I know I made some pancakes that had a couple tablespoons once and they were very low carb. Might have been a Maria Emmerich recipe...0 -
Q1.AlexandraCarlyle wrote: »Ok, I'm suffering from a mild case of doofus-confusion.
Question 1:
Tomato passata: per portion, there are 6.2 carbs.
Of which sugars are - 6.2.
Yet there is 2.9 fibre.
That's confusing me. If Fibre passes through undigested, is the carb reading correct?
Question 2:
Carbs 20.5
of which sugars 7.5
(that leaves 13.0 carbs)
Fibre 4.4
What is the remaining 8.6....?!
In all the European countries, England is still part of them, the fiber is already subbed out, but still listed on the packaging.
Q2
Not all carbs are fiber and sugar, there is starch in them as well.
As for pumpkin, I prefer to roast my own so no sugar gets added to it. You can then puree it for pies, cheesecake etc. I love grilled pumpkin right off the grill. Habit from my days in Australia.0 -
Thanks to both @Sunny_Bunny_ and @retirehappy for your inputs! I bought a butternut squash yesterday (bit of a beast!) and cut it into 1/4s, de-seeded it, and roasted it in its skin; when done and cooled, I processed it to a pulp then passed it through a sieve, to get rid of all the skin shreds. Tasting it, it's more than sweet enough for my palate without adding any form of sweetener at all. froze it in 3 containers....
Am aiming to make healthy (Almond) milk shakes with it....1
This discussion has been closed.