I subtract it, I eat a lot of veggies and I find it doesn't hurt me.

Cherie1n2n3n4 wrote: »

I watched weisman's 2014 conference last night on YouTube and that's what's confused me. He says don't subtract it because although most people don't digest indigestible fiber, some people do... So avoid it till you know, but I see no way to get my nutrients without subtracting. Plus weisman implies eggs are "free" like in the old school Adkins, so I know he's over generalizing. Just wanted to see what was working.

Cherie;

I think you are referring (?) to Dr. Eric Westman's YT video
Dr Westman 2014
if so, I think your "take aways" might be somewhat out of context.

Yes, he is "generalizing" to a degree but the talk was intended to be "the basics", and aimed at those just starting out (ala Atkins "induction"). He mentions a few times that "...."that's the advanced course", or, "...after you are adapted you may be able to...." so that may be part of what you are seeing as "generalized" or confusing.

On a sidenote, Frob and I are sort of a "good cop/bad cop" act at times in that we disagree on some of the "specifics" but while it's true that we disagree on some of it, we agree on much more than we disagree and neither of us consider the other "wrong" (or "right") - it's just different and I think I can speak for him when I say that you being "exposed" to both points of view and deciding for yourself which course of action is "right" for YOU - is what is really important.

While I do agree with him that there are "reasons" why some count "net" and others "total carbs", I'm not so sure that they are "good" reasons, but this too is open to interpretation and everyone must decide for themselves what "works" for them.

As the "bad cop", I'm very much in the Westman "camp" when it comes to the need for very strict adherence, at least at first, IF the "goal" is actually reaching "ketosis, Fat Adaptation, Nutritional Ketosis" (which is what differentiates "ketosis" from "just" LC).

Yes, I do "git" the part about "if it's too strict they won't come (or stay)" and it is true. That would be considered one of the "good reasons" by some - no argument there.

But us "bad cops" would counter that since "most" people come to "keto" with the belief that just eating "less than 50 (or 20, or whatever) carbs is an "automatic entry" to NK ("ketosis"), AND since they are not willing to actually test (and measure) for blood ketone levels with the "only" testing method that can positively determine that they are (or are not) maintaining sufficient levels (blood B-OHB) - advocating a "strict" regimen (like Westman does), has a much higher likelihood of achieving success since there is so much variation between individuals AND a pretty good chance that "many" (if not "most") of the folks that are here, are because they have weight "issues" to begin with and the correlation between weight issues and insulin resistance "issues" is quite high (which adds to the "individual variations" and "probably" means lower, overall, "numbers" will be required.

Off the soapbox, and back to your original concerns though - my view is that it really doesn't matter one way or the other if you (or anyone else) wants to use "net" or "total" when counting carbs - it only "matters" that you do (count) and that you strictly adhere to whatever number you decide. That number "might" be 20 TOTAL carbs, OR it might have to be 5 NET carbs (if the same meal contained 15g "fiber"), it's the same thing (but just an example).

Regardless of the counting "method" used, IF 20 total = 5 net, AND if either number is too high for YOU to achieve (and/or "maintain") B-OHB levels >0.5+mmol, you are NOT "in ketosis".
Likewise, if you can maintain those levels at 100 total (and 100T = 75N (or whatever) then whichever number you decide to use is fine.

For me, it's just easier to use "total" and skip all the mathematical gyrations to compute "net" but it matters not which one anyone uses - only that they are consistent and ultimately "find" the number that "works" for them.

Westman argues that 20 TOTAL (which is obviously lower than 20 NET will have a higher probability of success for those just starting out and part of the process is determining what the "actual" number for YOU is anyway, so it's going to be adjusted as you go along.

As you probably know, the "original Atkins" (and many of the early pioneer Drs in LC) used "Total" as the standard and it was only because of the fact that "net" was an "easier pill to swallow", that it came into vogue in the first place. ("good cop/bad cop").

Long way around to say that while the solubility of fiber is indeed a question for at least some, the "..avoid it til you know..." is the more conservative approach in the beginning and why he (and I) advocate that position.

As far as your concerns that, "I see no way to get my nutrients without subtracting...", that's simply not a correct assumption - a well designed LCHF "diet" can and will provide ALL the nutrients required even at 0 TOTAL carb levels (assuming "normal" health and requirements). In addition, many of those nutrients will actually be metabolized (due to increased fat levels, where they might not have been with prior, high carb intake) so it should not be a concern.

On the "eggs are free..." thing - I don't think that is what he was saying at all (but I do agree that he could have made his point in a "clearer" and less confusing way.)

In the context of his remarks, what he was saying (IMO) is that they are "free" in that they are a "superfood" and one need NOT be concerned about eating as many as you like WITHIN the confines of total daily carb restriction numbers and not worry about the egg "myths" (cholesterol, etc) we've had beaten into us for so long since they are not true.

As I'm sure is obvious by now, I'm a supporter of Dr Westman's philosophy based as much on his level of success as anything else.

I highly recommend his book (which is "free" to borrow if you are a subscriber, or $5 for the ebook, if not)
A Low Carb Keto Diet Manual

And while I'm not a "big" FB fan, I do "follow" the FB group he recommended (as well as his own).

If you're interested, here's the link;
The Low Carb Support Group

Cherie1n2n3n4 wrote: »

Thank you deansdad101for the clarity. I also did some more digging on my own into the subject as well as a review of the lists of foods that should be adheared to. I think my personal goals will be less than 20 net carbs with 15 of those being from vegetable sources.

Cherie;

"Good chance" it WILL work for you (I truly hope it does) - but if not, at least you'll have a good idea of maybe why not and a place to start to find out what will.

As much as I agree with Dr Westman's approach, it's important to remember that his is one among many (albeit one with a pretty good "track record"), and other "experts" offer alternative plans and advice (some of which have also proven "successful").

All of this would be so much easier if we could just say "eat x cals, y carbs, and z proteins...and it WILL work for everyone" (kind of like those that say "cals are ALL that matters") - problem is, we can't, and neither approach will "work" for every individual.

Which pretty much puts the ball back in your (all "yous") court <G> and you are pursuing the "only" course that is guaranteed to work - learning how and why whatever you finally decide on, affects YOU and YOUR body.

Knowledge truly is power.

Best of luck and please do keep us advised as you go along.

Thanks

Dragonwolf wrote: »

frob23 wrote: »

If you are unable to make progress, then experiment without subtracting fiber. You need pretty strong evidence that it's a problem for you before you remove it. On top of that, it is my understanding that the fiber you are able to digest does not effect blood sugar because it is turned into fatty acids by the bacteria that break it down.

If you have a significant amount of time with various levels of fiber that shows more fiber is worse, then you can experiment with cutting it down or not subtracting it. Without personal evidence that it's a problem, just subtract it.

In this context, the OP is not talking about subtracting fiber as in removing it from their diet, but rather is talking about subtracting fiber from their carb count. e.g. -- If they have a goal of 40g of carbs, and they eat 55g of total carbs, with 20g of fiber, do they count it as 55g of carbs, or 35g (55-20=35)?

Yes, but they are talking about remaining under 20g total carbs, which would likely require removing some fiber from their diet. Basically, if they don't want to treat it as free (fiber doesn't count against carbs), they should have some reason for that. The effect of fiber on insulin and blood glucose is typically minute.

As far as your concerns that, "I see no way to get my nutrients without subtracting...", that's simply not a correct assumption - a well designed LCHF "diet" can and will provide ALL the nutrients required even at 0 TOTAL carb levels (assuming "normal" health and requirements). In addition, many of those nutrients will actually be metabolized (due to increased fat levels, where they might not have been with prior, high carb intake) so it should not be a concern.

On this DD and I are in complete accord. I eat no vegetables or fruit of any sort, and I have no trouble meeting my nutritional requirements.

I don't think vegetables are bad. And they certainly provide some bulk and can be mentally beneficial (to calm you are everyone else down regarding the health effects of this way of eating), but they're not strictly necessary.

traveljjo wrote: »

Hello folks,

I am on the hunt for fellow ketogenic dieters to sympathize with. Its been 3 days and so far so good. No "flu". I have been low carb before, but have not loaded on the fats before now. It seems to have helped...my activity level has been light (pilates/yoga/walking). My health has deteriorated over the last year, and my symptoms are all in line with insulin resistance - so thats why I started it. Looking forward to meeting some new friends!

Jennifer

Jenn;

Welcome Aboard, we're glad you're here!!

We're a "mixed" group in that there are folks engaged in a number of different "flavors" of LC (from "just" LC to VLC/Nutritional Ketogenic and pretty much everything in between.

There is a tremendous amount of "support" available for those currently using most any LC "diet" you can think of (atkins, paleo, primal, etc) so you are sure to find someone doing the same as you, someone at the same "stage", and someone with the same "questions" you may be asking.

So have a look around - check out the older threads, and pay a visit to our "library", The LCD Launch Pad (look to the top of this page and click the link (title) "The LCD Launch Pad - Start Here".

In the future, you'll find greater success in having folks reply directly to your post by starting a new thread with a topic heading like "Hi, Jenn here, I'm new to the group and would like......" (or whatever, just an example.

Don't be shy, give it a try - bet you'll be glad you did!

And, whatever questions, concerns, or suggestions you have - jump in to an existing thread (you can either use the "quote" button or simply put the name of the person you are replying to at the top of your reply so it's clear who you are replying to.

Regarding your insulin resistance (IR) "isues", moving from "symptoms" -> "pre" -> "T2D", is NOT a predetermined "fate".

IR CAN be stopped in its tracks (or at least the "progress" slowed to a crawl with proper diet. (Just not the one we've all been told was "proper" for most of our lives).

While it's not a guarantee, many have gone before you, more than a few currently active in this group, and thousands of folks that LCHF "docs" see in their practices, have done just that and it's likely that you will be able to as well.

New Year, new day.......NEW YOU!!!