Carbs vs Net Carbs
munaescobar5
Posts: 2 Member
I am almost 50 and have turned into a very carb sensitive person. I’m in menopause which doesn’t help. Anyway, as per my Dr’s recommendation, I need to lower my carbs. I am so confused though whether I should follow carbs or net carbs. I have read so much online but there is just so much on that topic. I want to hear from people who may be in my stage of life too and may have cut carbs (not ketosis necessarily) but have lowered carbs, what has worked for you as far as number of carbs, net, gross and all that. I personally have been trying to stay under 65 net carbs for the past 3 weeks and while I feel better (not as poofy) I have doubts about my carb counting. Some positive and helpful insight is appreciated.
I have a big family and have been doing good for at least 5 years with baking with almond/coconut flour, reducing sugar and cooking healthy and when I do make bread products I grind my own wheat. But, after focusing so long on caring for my 5 kids (ages 14-29) I am finally ready to to control my health because in reality I’m not getting younger.
I have a big family and have been doing good for at least 5 years with baking with almond/coconut flour, reducing sugar and cooking healthy and when I do make bread products I grind my own wheat. But, after focusing so long on caring for my 5 kids (ages 14-29) I am finally ready to to control my health because in reality I’m not getting younger.
Tagged:
0
Replies
-
Can I just ask what you mean by “carb sensitive”, and why has your GP asked you to lower carbs? Are you pre diabetic/ have allergies? Just so that we can work out whether our experiences could help you or not.0
-
I gain weight easily with carbs. For example, following weight watchers to a T for 3 months and not losing an ounce. They do low fat, but carbs are high. My dr says I am carb sensitive because I gain weight easily with carbs and they are a hindrance to my losing weight1
-
Lowering carbs lowers calories. Lowering calories causes weightloss. You have a calorie issue and not a carb issue. Generally when someone needs to lose weight carbs are what is lowered in order to correct the calorie surplus. Protein is important and good fats to some extent are also important, carbs are not important in an excess.4
-
From what you've said, it sounds like your doctor wants you to reduce carbs because they think that will make it easier for you to create a calorie deficit. The problem with WW could have been their "free foods" if you were doing that program, or one of the reasons here: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/why-am-i-not-losing-weight/ (Category 3, starts with # 23)
If I'm wrong, please elaborate with the specific medical terminology your doctor used.
The term “net carbs” does not have a legal definition and is not used by the Food and Drug Administration or recognized by American Diabetes Association. The FDA recommends using total carbohydrates on the nutrition facts label.
If you're not aiming for ketosis, no need to worry about net carbs.
There are mistakes that people commonly make that cause them to not lose weight that we might be able to spot if you change your Diary Sharing settings to Public. In the app, go to Settings > Diary Setting > Diary Sharing > and check Public. Desktop: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/account/diary_settings
0 -
Yeah, well WW isn't exactly an exact science, to put it kindly.
Log your food. Stay within your calorie goals and you'll lose weight.
I found when I was losing weight and using 1500-1600 calories I needed a big chunk of those calories for protein and fat basic requirements, and really had no choice but to cut back on wheat products and sweets. Cereals had to go, I would binge on those. Some higher carb foods I'm okay with like beans, starchy vegetables like potatoes and squash. Fruit is okay. Those things are all necessary parts of my well-balanced food. At 1500-1600 I was able to have one serving of either rice, pasta, or potatoes daily. I didn't have much bread or corn at all. That all set me at about 30%-50% Carbs, 35-45% Fat, and 20% Protein...or around 125-150g carbs. I didn't care about Net Carbs, I wasn't shooting for ketosis, just calories.2 -
Yes, no. Like the others said: carbs don't prevent fatloss. Eating too much of anything prevents fatloss. Many people get hungry quickly when they eat a lot of carbs, but the same is true for many people who eat a diet high in fat. You need to figure out what kind of person you are. Don't depend on free foods. Everything has calories that count. Depend on weighing and logging everything and then you really know how much you're eating. Hey, as a game you could continue your ww programme for another week and really put everything you eat on a scale, weight it, log it, and see how many calories you get. Including the free foods. I know I would easily gain weight on free food because this is how I mainly eat (kind of mediterranean).0
-
cmriverside wrote: »Yeah, well WW isn't exactly an exact science, to put it kindly.
Log your food. Stay within your calorie goals and you'll lose weight.
I found when I was losing weight and using 1500-1600 calories I needed a big chunk of those calories for protein and fat basic requirements, and really had no choice but to cut back on wheat products and sweets. Cereals had to go, I would binge on those. Some higher carb foods I'm okay with like beans, starchy vegetables like potatoes and squash. Fruit is okay. Those things are all necessary parts of my well-balanced food. At 1500-1600 I was able to have one serving of either rice, pasta, or potatoes daily. I didn't have much bread or corn at all. That all set me at about 30%-50% Carbs, 35-45% Fat, and 20% Protein...or around 125-150g carbs. I didn't care about Net Carbs, I wasn't shooting for ketosis, just calories.
BTW, I am female and almost 57.
I've reduced carbs in the past, but found out what I really needed to reduce were foods that don't fill me up, which are high carb foods like bread, or, more commonly, high carb and fat foods like sweets and baked goods.
I am also fine with beans, starchy vegetables, and fruit. Rice & beans dishes from various cuisines are a staple.
I reduced servings of pasta because it doesn't really provide a lot of satiety for me, and increased protein and veggies.1 -
Don't bother with net carbs, just count total carbs. I suspect your Dr' has prescribed low carb because you have an insulin problem and maybe a weight problem or both and possibly other issues. Low carb, and I would classify low carb to be 100 g's and lower to be the maximum, Harvard in their wisdom believes 40% is low carb, how they come to these conclusions is baffling. Within those numbers, 100 or less hormonal dysfunction is usually effected and improved allowing for our hunger hormones to come back to hemostasis and where satiety kicks in and weight loss can be easier. A low carb diet is essentially a whole food diet and I would suggest to keep it that simple. Lots of processed foods are dedicated to low carbs, because they can't make money off whole foods and will always show net carbs giving you the impression those 30g' of carbs in their product is actually lower and you'll be ok, yeah no, I wouldn't bother.0
-
neanderthin wrote: »Don't bother with net carbs, just count total carbs. I suspect your Dr' has prescribed low carb because you have an insulin problem and maybe a weight problem or both and possibly other issues. Low carb, and I would classify low carb to be 100 g's and lower to be the maximum, Harvard in their wisdom believes 40% is low carb, how they come to these conclusions is baffling. Within those numbers, 100 or less hormonal dysfunction is usually effected and improved allowing for our hunger hormones to come back to hemostasis and where satiety kicks in and weight loss can be easier. A low carb diet is essentially a whole food diet and I would suggest to keep it that simple. Lots of processed foods are dedicated to low carbs, because they can't make money off whole foods and will always show net carbs giving you the impression those 30g' of carbs in their product is actually lower and you'll be ok, yeah no, I wouldn't bother.
Assuming that your bafflement is that % is used rather than grams, what's the problem with %? It makes sense to me as people consume such a wide variety of calories. If a tall, young, active male is consuming more than twice the calories of a short, older, sedentary female, wouldn't it make sense for him to be able to eat more grams of carbs and still be low carbing?1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Don't bother with net carbs, just count total carbs. I suspect your Dr' has prescribed low carb because you have an insulin problem and maybe a weight problem or both and possibly other issues. Low carb, and I would classify low carb to be 100 g's and lower to be the maximum, Harvard in their wisdom believes 40% is low carb, how they come to these conclusions is baffling. Within those numbers, 100 or less hormonal dysfunction is usually effected and improved allowing for our hunger hormones to come back to hemostasis and where satiety kicks in and weight loss can be easier. A low carb diet is essentially a whole food diet and I would suggest to keep it that simple. Lots of processed foods are dedicated to low carbs, because they can't make money off whole foods and will always show net carbs giving you the impression those 30g' of carbs in their product is actually lower and you'll be ok, yeah no, I wouldn't bother.
Assuming that your bafflement is that % is used rather than grams, what's the problem with %? It makes sense to me as people consume such a wide variety of calories. If a tall, young, active male is consuming more than twice the calories of a short, older, sedentary female, wouldn't it make sense for him to be able to eat more grams of carbs and still be low carbing?
Maybe he thinks body size is irrelevant? In low carb communities, they often refer to 50 grams carbs or less, with no reference to body size.1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Don't bother with net carbs, just count total carbs. I suspect your Dr' has prescribed low carb because you have an insulin problem and maybe a weight problem or both and possibly other issues. Low carb, and I would classify low carb to be 100 g's and lower to be the maximum, Harvard in their wisdom believes 40% is low carb, how they come to these conclusions is baffling. Within those numbers, 100 or less hormonal dysfunction is usually effected and improved allowing for our hunger hormones to come back to hemostasis and where satiety kicks in and weight loss can be easier. A low carb diet is essentially a whole food diet and I would suggest to keep it that simple. Lots of processed foods are dedicated to low carbs, because they can't make money off whole foods and will always show net carbs giving you the impression those 30g' of carbs in their product is actually lower and you'll be ok, yeah no, I wouldn't bother.
Assuming that your bafflement is that % is used rather than grams, what's the problem with %? It makes sense to me as people consume such a wide variety of calories. If a tall, young, active male is consuming more than twice the calories of a short, older, sedentary female, wouldn't it make sense for him to be able to eat more grams of carbs and still be low carbing?
The issue is 40% is not low carb, in my opinion, that is the bafflement I would have. I am keto and my carb percent is basically 5%, but I also pay attention to total carb numbers as well.0 -
To the original poster, go with total carbs for sure to start. If you want to go to net carbs eventually, you can always do that, but I would say total carbs are better to start.
For those who speak about calories being what is important to weight loss, you do not know why the doctor wanted carbs cut. When he says carb sensitive he may be saying "insulin resistant" or "getting close to pre-diabetic". Simply saying don't worry about carbs without that information is assuming something you shouldn't.2 -
protein is the key macro that needs to be in grams. Fat also to some extent. As you lose, it’s generally a good idea to not lower protein much if at all as protein should really be based on lean weight.kshama2001 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Don't bother with net carbs, just count total carbs. I suspect your Dr' has prescribed low carb because you have an insulin problem and maybe a weight problem or both and possibly other issues. Low carb, and I would classify low carb to be 100 g's and lower to be the maximum, Harvard in their wisdom believes 40% is low carb, how they come to these conclusions is baffling. Within those numbers, 100 or less hormonal dysfunction is usually effected and improved allowing for our hunger hormones to come back to hemostasis and where satiety kicks in and weight loss can be easier. A low carb diet is essentially a whole food diet and I would suggest to keep it that simple. Lots of processed foods are dedicated to low carbs, because they can't make money off whole foods and will always show net carbs giving you the impression those 30g' of carbs in their product is actually lower and you'll be ok, yeah no, I wouldn't bother.
Assuming that your bafflement is that % is used rather than grams, what's the problem with %? It makes sense to me as people consume such a wide variety of calories. If a tall, young, active male is consuming more than twice the calories of a short, older, sedentary female, wouldn't it make sense for him to be able to eat more grams of carbs and still be low carbing?
Using % and protein can get lowered too much. Carbs are simply filled in as needed to hit your calorie target once protein and fats are established.
As you age Muscle Protein Synthesis becomes more difficult so lowering protein is a very bad idea.
1 -
Thank you for clarifying, that’s helpful. I am similar to you in that I’m nearly 50, in full blown peri and I did lose weight. But I didn’t overly cut carbs, because I feel weak and not good when I do. What I did was focused on my protein macro and then split fat, carbs (and sometimes alcohol) to make up the rest of my calories. I weighed absolutely everything - every pea, gram of oil and ml ofmunaescobar5 wrote: »I am almost 50 and have turned into a very carb sensitive person. I’m in menopause which doesn’t help. Anyway, as per my Dr’s recommendation, I need to lower my carbs. I am so confused though whether I should follow carbs or net carbs. I have read so much online but there is just so much on that topic. I want to hear from people who may be in my stage of life too and may have cut carbs (not ketosis necessarily) but have lowered carbs, what has worked for you as far as number of carbs, net, gross and all that. I personally have been trying to stay under 65 net carbs for the past 3 weeks and while I feel better (not as poofy) I have doubts about my carb counting. Some positive and helpful insight is appreciated.
I have a big family and have been doing good for at least 5 years with baking with almond/coconut flour, reducing sugar and cooking healthy and when I do make bread products I grind my own wheat. But, after focusing so long on caring for my 5 kids (ages 14-29) I am finally ready to to control my health because in reality I’m not getting younger.
Milk. I continued to make and eat my own bread, scones, cakes and sweets, but I made sure they fitted into my daily calorie limit, and that they weren’t replacing good foods (ie I got my veggies in).
What you eat is up to you, and if you find it difficult to moderate carbs then lower carb may help you to stick to your calorie limit. I am also not a fan of WW as I’m a volume eater, and I could eat a LOT of the “free” foods.
Could you track your food on here for a couple of weeks to see what you are actually taking in, in terms of calories? Then try MFP’s set up to lose weight? It can feel daunting in menopause but I promise it’s possible, and there are some lovely ladies on here who lost weight into and past menopause, and kept it off.0 -
rileysowner wrote: »To the original poster, go with total carbs for sure to start. If you want to go to net carbs eventually, you can always do that, but I would say total carbs are better to start.
For those who speak about calories being what is important to weight loss, you do not know why the doctor wanted carbs cut. When he says carb sensitive he may be saying "insulin resistant" or "getting close to pre-diabetic". Simply saying don't worry about carbs without that information is assuming something you shouldn't.
That's why she was asked for clarification, and her clarification did not include an actual medical condition.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Don't bother with net carbs, just count total carbs. I suspect your Dr' has prescribed low carb because you have an insulin problem and maybe a weight problem or both and possibly other issues. Low carb, and I would classify low carb to be 100 g's and lower to be the maximum, Harvard in their wisdom believes 40% is low carb, how they come to these conclusions is baffling. Within those numbers, 100 or less hormonal dysfunction is usually effected and improved allowing for our hunger hormones to come back to hemostasis and where satiety kicks in and weight loss can be easier. A low carb diet is essentially a whole food diet and I would suggest to keep it that simple. Lots of processed foods are dedicated to low carbs, because they can't make money off whole foods and will always show net carbs giving you the impression those 30g' of carbs in their product is actually lower and you'll be ok, yeah no, I wouldn't bother.
Assuming that your bafflement is that % is used rather than grams, what's the problem with %? It makes sense to me as people consume such a wide variety of calories. If a tall, young, active male is consuming more than twice the calories of a short, older, sedentary female, wouldn't it make sense for him to be able to eat more grams of carbs and still be low carbing?rileysowner wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Don't bother with net carbs, just count total carbs. I suspect your Dr' has prescribed low carb because you have an insulin problem and maybe a weight problem or both and possibly other issues. Low carb, and I would classify low carb to be 100 g's and lower to be the maximum, Harvard in their wisdom believes 40% is low carb, how they come to these conclusions is baffling. Within those numbers, 100 or less hormonal dysfunction is usually effected and improved allowing for our hunger hormones to come back to hemostasis and where satiety kicks in and weight loss can be easier. A low carb diet is essentially a whole food diet and I would suggest to keep it that simple. Lots of processed foods are dedicated to low carbs, because they can't make money off whole foods and will always show net carbs giving you the impression those 30g' of carbs in their product is actually lower and you'll be ok, yeah no, I wouldn't bother.
Assuming that your bafflement is that % is used rather than grams, what's the problem with %? It makes sense to me as people consume such a wide variety of calories. If a tall, young, active male is consuming more than twice the calories of a short, older, sedentary female, wouldn't it make sense for him to be able to eat more grams of carbs and still be low carbing?
The issue is 40% is not low carb, in my opinion, that is the bafflement I would have. I am keto and my carb percent is basically 5%, but I also pay attention to total carb numbers as well.
Basically. With carbs it's about the grams and most "real" low carb diets are generally 50g's or less which also has no relationship to the total amount of calories that are required for a particular diet and in that context those calories are made up in protein and fat. Basically size or gender has nothing to with the mechanisms of low carb and it's about the total amount of carbs which if in a % basis can't be controlled properly.
Harvard conduct a lot of studies comparing low fat diets to low carb diets and when looking at the data most of the time they're comparing a diet with 55% carbs to 40% carb and then they draw the conclusion that there's little or no difference, well duh. In the scientific community Harvard is very well known for their biases and Harvard is pretty much ground zero for a vegetarian lifestyle as well as epidemiology, now there's 2 variables that make the perfect synergy for about any dogma you can ever decide to formulate, no doubt about that, and formulating studies that support their argument isn't an uncommon one, everyone does it, but Harvard is consistent, I'll give them that.2 -
I eat very low carbs (under 20 g. per day), I think everyone has to find their sweet spot.
There are people who can eat a lot of carbs without trouble; a lot of these people just don't believe carbs can give other people sooooo many problems. There are people who even a moderate to low amount of carbs causes inflammation, fatigue, hunger, cravings, blood sugar spikes, insulin rushes, etc., and there are people (like myself) who agree with you that it feels like trying to lose weight while eating carbs is more difficult. There's more to it than calories in/calories out IMO.
A lot of people who eat average American diets eat a lot of carbs and sugars, so the pancreas gets hyper-sensitive and when you eat and it starts to over-react. When you start eating, it panics and lets loose a flood of insulin, and you end up with more insulin than you need in your blood (hyperinsulinemia).
This is usually happening to people, building up long before they get a diagnosis of pre-diabetes or type 2 diabetes. Symptoms of this include sugar/carb cravings, frequently getting hungry or getting intense hunger pangs, fatigue, can make it difficult to concentrate, can make you feel anxious, or reduce focus or motivation.
More insulin in the blood than we need makes us weight loss resistant and insulin converts carbs to fat. This tends to lead some people to hypoglycemia over time, because that flood of insulin causes blood sugar drops. And eventually this will usually lead to insulin resistance, and then as our bodies become more resistant to the effects of insulin, the pre-diabetes/full blown diabetes diagnosis comes in. So it's just a bad track to be on.
Some people also find there is a difference in how you're eating your carbs; getting carbs from fruits and veggies can impact some people differently than getting carbs from grains or sugars. Some people find better luck sticking to whole grains, some even this doesn't help and they need to eat protein/fat with their carbs, and some need to just reduce the carbs, cutting most (or all) grains, etc.
We don't actually require grains, its one of those things like meat or dairy that you can cut out of your diet and get those nutrients elsewhere (veg, fruit, animal products, etc.).
This is why it's good to mess around with eliminating this or that for a while, or lowering carbs to see if going really low benefits you, raise fat/raise protein for a while, or just try a temporary elimination diet and begin adding things back slowly, one at a time, to see how they affect you.
As for net carbs, I do count net carbs when it comes to natural foods (fruits, veggies, etc.).
I am cautious when I eat any processed foods that claim to have a low net carb count-- this includes like those low-carb bars & snacks they charge a fortune for in the markets and drug stores, or even grains-- most of which are processed (even whole grains). I don't rely on the label, I'd rather see how they affect my blood-sugar level and if they give me too much of a spike. If don't have/don't wanna get a glucose meter you can just keep track of how you feel in the hours following the meal.1 -
The net carbs can help you identify carbs that are less likely to "spike" as they will have some fiber. As you can tell from the posts we all respond differently. I find that a focus on getting enough protein and enough vegetables (with some fruit) keeps me where I function best for weight loss and energy (less simple carbs, still get 20-30g fiber, but still above "keto"). You may try starting with total carbs and keeping an eye on your fiber and see how that works for you and before switching to net carbs. At the end of the day it has to work for you. As a note I do better if I keep the heavier carb meals earlier and try to keep dinner one of the lighter carb meals (more green veggies than root veggies). Best wishes on finding what works for you at this time.0
-
I would eat very little without carbs. I’m a 57 year old vegetarian who lost 70 pounds in the last couple of years.
My youngest is 16 (oldest 35) and I have 2 kiddos with special needs. I learned that I have to prioritize myself in order to take care of everyone else.
Calories in - calories out. Somehow I’m a runner now, pretty much everyday. Movement is super important.
I eat a lot of carbs. Carbs aren’t evil..
0 -
I would eat very little without carbs. I’m a 57 year old vegetarian who lost 70 pounds in the last couple of years.
My youngest is 16 (oldest 35) and I have 2 kiddos with special needs. I learned that I have to prioritize myself in order to take care of everyone else.
Calories in - calories out. Somehow I’m a runner now, pretty much everyday. Movement is super important.
I eat a lot of carbs. Carbs aren’t evil..
Carbs are an important consideration for anyone who's insulin resistant or diabetic (among others). It's still unclear to me where OP falls on that spectrum . . . let alone her subjective experience with carb intake and appetite.
Myself, female, age 67, severely hypothyroid (medicated), of course menopausal: I eat around 225-240g carbs most days (mostly veggies/fruits, and alongside adequate protein and fats. Health markers are great, athletic performance is good, everything seems fine. I ate fewer carbs when losing weight from obese to healthy weight than I do now in maintenance - probably around 150g daily to lose. (Calorie reduction needs to come from someplace!)
I'll bet I could fail to lose weight with WW, too, because a huge chunk of my daily calories tend to be WW free foods. I'm a believer that calories matter, at the foundation. But they're not the only thing that matters in all health scenarios, and there's more to weight loss in a practical sense (such as satiation and relative ease of complying with calorie goal, as examples), let alone issues of nutrition for body composition or fitness.
Carbs aren't evil for me. Carbs aren't evil for everyone.
But some people will do better if they manage carbs carefully. If OP wants to limit carbs, I support her. Is it essential that she limit carbs? I have no idea. I don't know enough about her.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions