MACROS - Carbs vs Net Carbs

Can you say what your objective is, i.e., why you've chosen to count macros, and why total vs. net carbs are a particular concern? That might help you get more or better answers. Folks can tell you what they do, but it seems like the "why" piece would be useful.

Examples of objectives: Simply weight management; health issue like diabetes, insulin resistance, or the like; timing of nutrients around workouts; trying to change body composition (body fat percent vs. lean percent); performance at a sport or other active pursuit (which one(s)); multiple of those; something else instead or also?

I could say what I do, but it may be completely irrelevant to what you're trying to accomplish, y'know?

baylian wrote: »

All of the above....lol! Actually weight management, changing body comp (not easy at 62). TY

Don't dismiss your chances . . . please don't, because I'm female, 67, i.e., older than you are!

Obviously, anything I say about what I do is my opinion, based on my reading and experience. I'm not going to IMO all over the place - just assume it, please? I'm sure I'll say some things you already know, but I'm wordy like that. I promise I'll get to how I think about the total carbs vs. net carbs question.

What matters directly for weight loss is calories. It doesn't matter whether you count macros to reach the approximately needful calorie intake, or count calories while watching macros to keep overall nutrition in a sensible zone. (Reason, as you probably know: Each macro has a characteristic calorie level, about 4 calories per gram for protein and carbs, 9 calories per gram for fats, 7 calories per gram for alcohol. Counting one of macros or calories, and watching the other, gets you to about the same end point.)

Nutrition (and some individual factors around food choices) can matter indirectly for weight management. For example, sub-ideal nutrition (including too-low calories, i.e., too-fast weight loss) can tank energy level. If that happens, we may burn fewer calories than expected, can lose weight slower than we anticipate.

Or, as another example, sub-ideal nutrition can cause cravings or spike appetite, as can some sub-optimal food choices that aren't directly about nutrition (and which can be individual and subjective). If that happens, we'll probably fail to adhere to a weight-loss calorie level, either overeating occasionally to compensate, or maybe give up the weight loss effort altogether.

Still, the direct mechanism affecting body weight, on average over a few weeks, is calorie intake vs. calorie expenditure. (Usually eating fewer calories is quicker and easier than burning more of them, of course, but exercise is good for a body, and increasing daily life activity level makes a contribution to calorie burn, too . . . for many people, a bigger contribution than exercise does.)

Personally, as an active senior woman, I chose to count calories, and watch macros. I prioritize protein (for reasons I'll say more about later), setting a daily minimum in grams, and making it a point to hit or exceed that. I also set a fats goal in grams, because I'm the seemingly rare person that will under-eat fats if I don't pay attention.

I like to get at least 5 and ideally more like 10 daily 80-gram servings of varied, colorful veggies and fruit for micronutrients and fiber. I'm usually close to or over 10. When I hit that, my micros tend to fall into place without much detailed attention, and fiber total is very high. (Very = 40-60g range daily for fiber.)

TBH, that veggie/fruit intake tends to bring quite a lot of carbs, but I honestly don't pay attention to them as a controlled thing at all, as long as I come in around my calorie goal, and hit my protein/fats/veggie-fruit minimums.

So, I cheated: My answer is that I think macros matter quite a lot but I don't count either total carbs or net carbs. I let them fall where they may, at reasonable calorie intake.

It worked fine for me through losing about a third of my body weight at age 59-60 using MFP, and it's worked fine for me through around 7 years of maintaining a healthy weight since. I carry more muscle mass than most women our age, though not remotely close to bodybuilder levels. My exercise performance is pretty decent for our demographic. (I'm an on-water rower, mostly.) My cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure, etc., are all good.

Aging hippie that I am, I don't stick with any more than the minimum of rules and restrictions that I seem to need to meet my objectives, and so far I haven't had a reason to manage carbs explicitly. YMMV, and a lot of the blogosphere will tell you that controlling carbs is essential for weight loss among other things. 🤷‍♀️ My experience differs from the blogosphere's, in that regard, I guess.

If body composition changes are among the goals, then the biggest contributors are a good progressive strength training program faithfully performed, and good overall nutrition (especially but not exclusively adequate protein). A calorie deficit (weight loss) limits strength and muscle gain to some extent, so losing weight slowly may be better for body composition than trying to lose weight fast. (Obviously, if someone is severely overweight, they may need to lose weight more rapidly for other health reasons.)

If you don't have a good strength training program (or a personal trainer), there's a thread here with programs other MFPers have found effective:

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332083/which-lifting-program-is-the-best-for-you/p1

(Despite the title, it does include some bodyweight strength programs, not just lifting.)

I'm still not clear whether what your reasons are to eliminate, cycle, or otherwise closely manage carbs?

Protein and fats - well, actually a subset of amino acids and fatty acids respectively - are essential nutrients, in the sense that our bodies can't manufacture them out of any other nutrient. For best health (and some other outcomes) we need to eat some. Carbs are not essential nutrients in that technical sense. If we eat few or none, our bodies can essentially convert other foods into carbohydrates. In that sense, carb levels are more flexible.

Some people find that their energy tanks if they eat too few carbs. Those people will probably do better eating relatively more carbs. Some people find that their appetite spikes if they eat too many carbs. Those people will probably do better eating relatively fewer carbs. Those are experiments to try.

I hope it goes without saying that some food carb sources are more nutrition-dense than others. So, regardless of where a person falls on the carb intake spectrum, prioritizing higher-nutrition sources is probably going to result in better results, especially if working with reduced calories.

The carbs themselves don't really differ (other than the sugar/starch distinction, mostly, which isn't a massive thing when we're talking whole meals or even individual foods vs. that specific aspect of the food). It's more the overall nutritional and calorie contribution that differs. As a practical matter, even glycemic index is more about the group of things we eat at the same time, not about individual food items. Carbs do tend to be somewhat protein sparing, though, so personally I like to get some . . . especially as a short-endurance athlete.

At our age, protein and protein timing may be a bigger deal than for people who are younger, because we may metabolize it less efficiently. I do that as a bet hedge, and personal preference. It's easier for me to get in all the protein I need by spreading it out. This is a reasonably authoritative source on that side of the argument:

https://www.jamda.com/article/S1525-8610(13)00326-5/fulltext

Good gosh, that's too much yammering. I'm done! Best wishes for success with your new regimen!

TL;DR: I think overall nutrition is important, so I prioritize protein and fats, hit/exceed my gram minimums (100g protein, 50g fats) daily, and eat ridiculous quantities of veggies/fruits (shoot for 100g daily). I pay attention to my average calorie intake because I want to stay at a healthy weight, not be class 1 obese like I was in 2015 and earlier. I don't worry about carbs as long as I'm within calorie goal, so I don't count either net or total carbs. They're in my food diary, and I answer questions about them if asked, but I don't give them much mind otherwise. YMMV.

AnnPT77 wrote: »

(snipping a lot of my own blah blah blah for typo correction; too late to edit the original)

TL;DR: I think overall nutrition is important, so I prioritize protein and fats, hit/exceed my gram minimums (100g protein, 50g fats) daily, and eat ridiculous quantities of veggies/fruits (shoot for 100g daily). I pay attention to my average calorie intake because I want to stay at a healthy weight, not be class 1 obese like I was in 2015 and earlier. I don't worry about carbs as long as I'm within calorie goal, so I don't count either net or total carbs. They're in my food diary, and I answer questions about them if asked, but I don't give them much mind otherwise. YMMV.

Bolded: The number should be 800g as my daily target for veggies/fruits. Oops.