Net carbs is total carbs minus fiber (and sugar alcohols, but MFP doesn't track those). So how many total carbs would equate to 20g of net carbs depends entirely on the the fiber content of the foods you're consuming.

I highly recommend checking out Caveman Keto's Guide to Configuring MFP for Keto.

deansdad101 wrote: »

Kathyenfrance wrote: »

Hi
I'm starting Atkins on 1st January. Does anyone know how many carbs on MFP equates to Atkins 20g net carbs.? Thanks.

Kathy;

The whole issue of "net" vs "total" carbs is one upon which there is a VERY wide difference of opinion (as to which you "should" use).

Personally, I'm not a believer in the "net" method but in the end it really matters much less which method you chose than that you understand the differences and how the "number/day" might affect your success on whatever method of LC you select.

If you do 20 total carbs a day, how do you eat veggies? I can do 50 total a day and still get some yummy veggies in but 20 total and i lose one of my most favorite categories of foods! I could totally be vegetarian 5-6 days a week if i didnt have to do LCHF for health reasons and I LOVE veggies but the total carb thing keeps throwing me.

I ate some peas last night, doused in butter but LOVE me some sweet baby peas and threw my whole day over in total carbs. Fruit is Meh for me, but I MUST HAZ ALL THE VEGGIES! and its really messing with my numbers.

BTW Dragonwolf, none of the scripts on the page you linked worked for me. Which stinks cause having a break down of every meal and a pie chart on my page would have been very cool.

frob23 wrote: »

Alliwan wrote: »

If you do 20 total carbs a day, how do you eat veggies? I can do 50 total a day and still get some yummy veggies in but 20 total and i lose one of my most favorite categories of foods! I could totally be vegetarian 5-6 days a week if i didnt have to do LCHF for health reasons and I LOVE veggies but the total carb thing keeps throwing me.

Peas are right out!

Oh the humanity!

Ok so i need to pick better veggies. I stopped eating corn, potatoes and carrots, well all but a couple baby carrots once in awhile, but peas ill have to cut out too. I eat a lot of cauliflower and broccoli. Spinach and arugula i eat in my eggs but have a harder time eating those by themselves. Ill just have to work harder at making better choices i guess. I so love my veggies!

Alliwan wrote: »

deansdad101 wrote: »

Kathyenfrance wrote: »

Hi
I'm starting Atkins on 1st January. Does anyone know how many carbs on MFP equates to Atkins 20g net carbs.? Thanks.

Kathy;

The whole issue of "net" vs "total" carbs is one upon which there is a VERY wide difference of opinion (as to which you "should" use).

Personally, I'm not a believer in the "net" method but in the end it really matters much less which method you chose than that you understand the differences and how the "number/day" might affect your success on whatever method of LC you select.

If you do 20 total carbs a day, how do you eat veggies? I can do 50 total a day and still get some yummy veggies in but 20 total and i lose one of my most favorite categories of foods! I could totally be vegetarian 5-6 days a week if i didnt have to do LCHF for health reasons and I LOVE veggies but the total carb thing keeps throwing me.

I ate some peas last night, doused in butter but LOVE me some sweet baby peas and threw my whole day over in total carbs. Fruit is Meh for me, but I MUST HAZ ALL THE VEGGIES! and its really messing with my numbers.

I don't do it personally, but from what I've seen, the bulk of one's carbs at that level would come from things like greens and cruciferous vegetables, which have low levels of carbohydrates in general. Chosen wisely, I think you can get a good 3 or so servings of vegetables in per day.

Net carbs aren't exactly rocket science to figure out. Just subtract the fiber. There are scripts here that will do it for you, but even without them it is grade school math.

Deansdad

Yeah its more of a love. Ive always loved veggies, even when i was on baby food mom would say the veggies was what i would eat first. Fruit is meh, no biggie to leave, bread no biggie. But even when I used to go to the buffet its the salad bar id fill up on. So that's my big struggle. Meat is sorta Meh for me too, its ok but has to be done right and cant be reheated or it tastes different and not good. So working thru all the issues because of health issues but boy i miss veggies dripping in butter!

I'll just have to choose wisely and do better with picking the right veggies.

Alliwan, Look at my foods. I eat veggies almost every day. I just do not do too many carbs in other things. I mostly save my carbs for veggies. For me this seems to be working. I had such a hard time in the beginning not eating many veggies. My go to is cauliflower,broccoli,zucchini, cabbage and some onion. I try to stay 20 carbs or under daily.

A funny thought went through my brain this morning. It ties to what you said about peas. I was wondering how much butter wold make peas OK. HA. I was reading my favorite book on this LCHF WOE today while waiting for hubby at the dentist and he sad down the road when we lose the weight we want to e can ease on up to a level of carbohydrates our bodies can handle. I know this is true. I was LC for 10 years and then eased on up and stayed at a very comfortable weight for many years after that but then I got too careless and it will get you in the end big time.

shadesofidaho wrote: »

A funny thought went through my brain this morning. It ties to what you said about peas. I was wondering how much butter wold make peas OK.

A proper ratio should be something around a 1 to 1 ratio of butter to peas by weight. So, a stick of butter for about 3/4 of a cup of peas would be about right.

That would be Fat/Protein/Carbs: 90.22% / 2.93% / 6.83%

Yeah, of course it's not about percents or ratios. And, this would be almost 17 grams of carbs for just that. So, I would be careful about having any other carbs after that during the day.

shadesofidaho wrote: »

Alliwan, Look at my foods. I eat veggies almost every day. I just do not do too many carbs in other things. I mostly save my carbs for veggies. For me this seems to be working. I had such a hard time in the beginning not eating many veggies. My go to is cauliflower,broccoli,zucchini, cabbage and some onion. I try to stay 20 carbs or under daily.

A funny thought went through my brain this morning. It ties to what you said about peas. I was wondering how much butter wold make peas OK. HA. I was reading my favorite book on this LCHF WOE today while waiting for hubby at the dentist and he sad down the road when we lose the weight we want to e can ease on up to a level of carbohydrates our bodies can handle. I know this is true. I was LC for 10 years and then eased on up and stayed at a very comfortable weight for many years after that but then I got too careless and it will get you in the end big time.

SOI:

I know it's not the message many will "want" to hear, and I too was on board with the "ok to increase carbs when hit maintenance..." litany, but the more I learn about the "other" benefits of maintaining adequate ketone body levels - the less I'm inclined to think it's a good strategy.

IF those advocating the "build back up" strategy, include "but not high enough to inhibit B-OHB production" then I'm ok with it, but if the only consideration is weight loss/maintenance, I'd argue that it's probably not a wise choice for most.

No question that "any" reduction in carb/sugars/grain/processed foods/etc consumption is "better" than none - be it from 350 to 250 or 100 to 40. But there is more and more science coming almost every day that maintaining levels that keep you "in" (defined as producing k-bodies >0.5-0.8) is a real "line" when it comes to long term health benefits in any number of potential maladies.

While a reduction of 10g/day (say from 50 to 40) will produce a "marginal" benefit in weight loss (number grabbed out of thin air just for example - let's say 5%), the same 10g/day, IF it "crosses the line" where one is (or is not) producing B-OHB at an adequate level (>0.5+), the health benefits alone might equate to a 20% (again, total "guess" just for example) - even if it is the same 50 to 40.

If it's true that it's more of a hard "line" (B-OHB >0.5+, which I believe it is), than a "sliding scale" when it comes to the ancillary health benefits, then the same example would hold true in reverse.

An increase from 20->30 might mean a minuscule change in weight control, BUT IF that individual's carb tolerance was 25, and by going to 30 his/her B-OHB level fell below 0.5, the result would be a 20% DECREASE in health related benefits.

Same 10 carb changes but markedly different results!

Granted, my "example" is WAY oversimplified, AND the "example" %'s are TOTALLY picked out of the clouds, AND there are a number of "assumptions" which are NOT based on "settled" science, but, all that said, there IS a large and growing segment of the research community that is moving toward the point of endorsing the "adequate levels of B-OHB" requirement to produce marked improvements in health markers, concepts.

Simply put, being "in" nutritional ketosis "might" (and becoming closer and closer to "will" every day), result in "significantly" reduced risk levels of succumbing to the ravishes of any number of the now relatively "common" age related diseases.

Whether that level is 0.5, 0.8, or 1.0, (or even if is a strict "cut-off" rather than a true "sliding scale"), is, as yet undecided and yet to be determined - and likely to be found to be a different "number" depending on "which" health marker/disease one is considering.

But IF it's close, and does prove to be true for, say, Alzheimer's, T2D, or cancer - would the "promise" of being able to higher levels of carbs (above your tolerance level) really be worth the "risk/reward"?

I do know that for (probably) the majority of folks here (or considering LC), they are doing so primarily for weight reduction reasons, and that's GREAT (because it does work, and in almost all cases the weight loss IS the "best bang for the buck" one can achieve in a relatively short period of time to improve their overall health.

It is also a "goal" for which one can see incremental progress and an actual "pot of gold" at the end of the proverbial rainbow, unlike the "possible", long term health benefits which may or may not even impact them personally.

If the pot of gold includes the added enticement of a "promise" to be able to "return to my old ways", that fact alone is likely to convince at least a few "fence sitters" that, "it's worth it, I can do this". (which, in itself, isn't necessarily a bad thing and has in fact been used in the past so we know it works).

Discussing this topic is in NO WAY meant to discourage anyone from considering LC (whatever "version"), even if it IS ONLY for that reason.

For me though (and others are certainly free to agree, disagree, or completely ignore), while the "weight loss" issue is indeed important - the long term health considerations are at least as important, if not more.

If I can make no other contribution than to persuade even a few to become aware of the "other" benefits of maintaining a state of nutritional ketosis beyond the point at which they reach their weight "goals" - I'll take that one.

shadesofidaho wrote: »

Deansdad, I do know I was LCHF for 10 years. I do know I was able to increase the amount of carbs I could eat daily and stay in ketosis. I know after a few years my WOE was so ingrained I rarely counted carbs. I just stayed away from the no no's. Except for above ground vegetables. I will be honest I was a scary 100 pounds during those 10 years. Way to thin for me. I loved it because it was the first time in my life people actually worried I was too thin when before that I was always the fat one. I was 168 when I dropped to 100 within about 6 months. I think I was bordering on an eating disorder to begin with in both directions. I was so strict. I think I was doing 5 carbs a day and thrilled if it were none.

I just know for me I was able to increase the veggies. This was my only increase in carbs I allowed myself during the 10 years I was on the Atkins diet.

And then my thyroid quit me. Everything blew up in my face and I was afraid by eating so strict on the Atkins I had done some thing to damage myself. I gave it up and went back to low cal low fat. From then on it was a constant weight gain.

I do want to get and stay healthy. I am not going to be a slave to my WOE. If I make it too complicated I will not be able to stick to it. I think a ten year span of success with keeping my weight down and good health was a pretty good track record. I do not plan on adding back grains and sugars.

I forgot. I do not know what B-OHB means.

SOI:

Please don't take my remarks as an attack on your WOE or as questioning what "works" for you, they are "absolutely" NOT meant in that fashion and in fact, most (if not all), not directly addressed to you (sorry if by "quoting" your previous you took them that way, my bad).

Anyway, you are to be commended for, and have every right to be proud of your "history" with LCHF - it's way more than just "a pretty good track record..." - something like 95% of those on "normal" diets fail completely after a year, yet alone 10, so yours is quite literally one of a very few "long term" success stories.

The point I was trying to make (in my "bull in the china shop" way) regarding vegs, is NOT that you (or anyone else) either "can't" or "shouldn't" increase veg carbs or eat them at all but rather that "whatever" they decide to to re vegs they should do for the "right" reasons (for THEM).

But the more important point (to me) is that whatever one selects to raise their carbs (if they do) - does not exceed the level, which for THEM, would raise their blood ketone level above that which "appears" to be the threshold for producing significant health benefits as it relates to future disease.

It's not really an issue of "making it more complicated", more of one of each person deciding for themselves if the science that currently exists is convincing enough to them, to consider NOT elevating their carb levels just because Atkins (or any other plan) "gave them permission" to.

On the thyroid thing. As far as I know, there is no "evidence" of a properly designed LCHF diet EVER having "caused" a thyroid issue.
There might have doctors who "said" it was the "cause" (probably have been in the medical "lore") but that could just as easily been based more on an inability to explain the actual "cause" or the doc's "belief" that LCHF was "bad" because it didn't conform to what he was taught was the "right" diet, as anything else.
Can't say it doesn't exist, but I've not come across any legitimate study results that would support the proposition that LCHF "causes" thyroid problems.

Anecdotally, my bride has been a hashimoto sufferer for most of her adult life. On synthroid for more years than I can count, told "weight gain was inevitable" by numerous docs, and had dosage increased numerous times on a fairly regular basis over the years.

Since starting LCHF (less than a year ago) she has not only lost over 30 lbs, been maintaining now for a month or so, but more importantly had her synthroid dose cut in half - twice, for the first time EVER since beginning treatment many decades ago.

B-OHB is "short" for beta-Hydroxybutyric acid, which, in a "nutshell" is the chemical name for the ketones carried in the bloodstream and the ones that really "matter" when it comes to ketosis.

There are actually three types of ketones that can be measured (in blood, breath, or urine) but each are different types and what is being measured in breath or urine is more as an "indicator" of blood ketones (B-OHB) than as an actual measurement of the B-OHB itself (which is the one really doing the "work").

GROSS over-simplification but if you would like a more detailed explanation (from someone who actually "knows" the medical jargon),
here you go:
tinyurl.com/ncul3tu