'Net Carbs', He Says, Means One Thing: Net Weight Gain (Greg Ellis)
 

Body Language | 'Net carbs,' he says, means one thing: Net weight gain

Posted on Mon, Mar. 22, 2004


Discounting "sugar alcohol" carbs on food packaging, says a nutrition author, misleadingly ignores their real calories.

By Art Carey

Inquirer Columnist

In case you haven't noticed, Americans are losing the Battle of the Bulge big time. A major reason: We are suckers for shortcuts and quick fixes that promise instant results without effort or discipline.

Once again, let me remind you: It's the calories, stupid.

In the diet wars, the bogeyman was once fat. Now, the menace is carbs, those gastronomic terrorists supposedly responsible for the epidemic of obesity.

But while carbs can be reduced, they can't be eliminated. Imagine life without fudge, popcorn and pizza. As the eminent nutritionist and bon vivant Robert Redford once observed: "Health food may be good for the conscience, but Oreos taste a hell of a lot better!"

So anti-carb fanatics have taken to classifying carbs: good vs. bad; impact vs. non-impact. This, in turn, has led to "the Net Carb Scam."

That's the term used by Greg Ellis, who is hopping mad about what he calls "a deliberate attempt by food manufacturers to mislead the public."

"It's totally deceptive," he sputters. "And they're not losing a wink of sleep over it as their wallets fill."

Ellis, 56, who lives in Glen Mills, Delaware County, has a doctorate in physiology from Temple and bills himself as a "certified nutrition specialist." He is the author of several self-published books that expound his theories about health and fitness, diet and exercise.

His best advertisement: his body. He is one manly stud. He brims with vigor and vitality. His physique is ripped and shredded. (And he's not shy about flaunting it. In promotional photos, his torso is clad only in suspenders, showcasing his ample pecs.)

His secret? Ellis devours plenty of red meat and is an advocate of a high-fat, low-carb diet.

"A low-carb diet will reduce your caloric intake by helping you eat less," he says. "Fat stays in your blood and feeds your tissue. Carbs are converted to body fat that is stored and no longer available for energy."

So what's this about the Net Carb Scam?

In a nutshell, Ellis argues, food producers are making carb calories disappear using marketing sleight of hand.

The other day, I did some field research, biking over to my neighborhood Genuardi's. In the pastry department, I found a cart loaded with luscious goodies. On the front of several packages was an "A" for Atkins and an official-looking seal bragging about "net carbs."

A serving of Entenmann's "Fabulous Fudge Nut Brownies" delivers only 8 grams of "net carbs." On the nutrition-facts box on the back, however, it lists total carbs as 20 grams.

What happened to the other 12 grams? The facts box says 4 grams are fiber, 8 are sugar alcohol.

Sugar alcohol?

It's neither sugar nor alcohol, Ellis says. It's a sweetener and "bulking agent" used to add taste and texture. Though it furnishes fewer calories than sugar, it's still a carbohydrate. Ergo, it still turns into glucose, and it can still make you fat.

Since sugar alcohol is absorbed by the small intestine slowly and incompletely, it causes little or no spike in blood sugar, hence little or no squirt of insulin.

Which is the rationale offered by food-makers. On pastry boxes I surveyed, there was a brief, small-print explanation: Dietary fiber and sugar alcohol were subtracted from the total-carb tally because they have "a minimal impact on blood sugar."

Deducting fiber is legit; it just passes through the body. But Ellis delivers a succinct response to the claim about sugar alcohol: bull.

"The spike in glucose and insulin has little to do with how the body disposes of a particular source of calories or fuel. It's the total amount of carbs that determines the body's ability to burn fat or store carbs as fat.

"It takes only a small increase in insulin to keep fat cells from releasing fat. Any carbs above this threshold, whether 'good' or 'bad,' will simply go to your belly or thighs."

What really galls Ellis is the notion that these "non-impact" carbs simply vanish. It's like filling up your car, he says. You either burn the gas driving, or it remains in the tank. It doesn't evaporate because you decide to call it something different.

Yes, the Food and Drug Administration is aware of this, a spokeswoman says. As part of a new assault on obesity, the agency will be drafting guidelines for such carb-related claims as "low," "reduced," "carb-free" and "net." The FDA pays attention to labels, she says, and wants to make sure they're not misleading.

And what saith the folks behind the big red A?

"Through independent testing, the Atkins products have consistently measured as marketed for net or impact carbohydrates," says Stuart Trager, chairman of the Atkins Physicians Council and an orthopedic surgeon at Pennsylvania Hospital.

The net-carb label, Trager says, is "a valuable tool that enables people to appreciate the difference between total carbs and those that impact their blood sugar, which allows people to make better choices."

What does Ellis advise? Avoid packaged foods bearing claims about net carbs. "That's the only way you can be sure you're not consuming too many carbs.

"If you want to go on a low-carb diet, cut out the carbs. If you want to lose weight, cut down your calories."

"Body Language" appears Mondays in The Inquirer. Contact staff writer Art Carey at 215-854-4588 or acarey~phillynews.com.


http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/li...lth/8244822.htm

:clap:

I couldn't agree more. I do not lose when I eat foods where sugar alcohols make up the deductions, and I am assuming from now on that in my case, they are not the same as fiber deductions.

I think they should tell people that products like this are only suitable for maintenance on a low carb diet. :(

Excellent article...I fully agree, and avoid the new "fad" products coming out....thanks, but I will take the healthy approach with real foods and not packaged stuff...I didn't trust the food industry before, I sure won't now!

Wow, I almost agree with Gregory Ellis for once. :rolleyes:

I agree with him on the sugar alcohol issue, and that some companies are clearly duping us. But it's not accurate to dismiss the entire net carb concept, which was originally coined by the Eadeses in Protein Power, as far as I know. The human body can not digest fiber, period. Subtracting fiber is fair game.

Ok, try this on for size.

The reason IMO people lose weight on Atkins is that they consume fewer calories. The reason we consume fewer calories IMO is because we cut back on the carbs, and that lower carb level keeps our blood sugar from spiking. When a person's blood sugar stays steady, they're not hungry, eat less, and so lose weight by reducing their calorie intake.

So, do sugar alcohols "count". Yes and no. Yes because they are calories. Since they're carbs, they will be metabolized just as any other carb and they will be the converted to glucose and either burned by the body or stored as fat. In this respect, they certainly count.

On the other hand, if the sugar alcohols do NOT cause a blood sugar response, then a person’s appetite will stay sated and that person will consume fewer calories because they're not hungry. In this respect, sugar alcohols do NOT count.

The question becomes an individual one. Do sugar alcohols cause you to feel hungry (like say a donut will) an hour or two of consuming them? If they do, then for you as an individual they must be counted as any other carb. If they don't then for you as an individual you can safely exclude them from the count of your daily carb intake.

Again, IMO low carb diets are all about controlling hunger and consequently eating fewer calories. Sugar alcohols may or may not sabotage your low carb diet. The only way for you to know is to experiment with them.

Dan

I think I agree with DanG on this issue. I have to count calories on Atkins to lose weight, even without consuming SA or extra carbs. I do find the appetite suppressing features of low carb works even when I do use sugar alcohols, which isn't all that often, but still, I do have the occassional chocolate or ice cream that uses them.

I have SAs as treats and I count half the amount of sugar alcohols as carbs.

When I have company over or I am going out somewhere I use them so I dont feel deprived.

SA do not cause a rise in blood sugar for me, but I definitely think I am getting some type of insulin response from them and I get knocked out of ketosis when I have too many of them.

I agree that people really shouldnt eat sugar alcohols in excess but I also dont think the FDA should regulate it. People can flip it to the back and see for themselves. Its not as though its hiding there.

They dont regulate weight watchers point system and the net carb system isnt calorie based.

Pasta obviously has a high amount of net carbs and inst super high in calories while a fatty cut of steak would have 0 net carbs and be much higher in calories.

People need to do things on their own.

I have never had a problem eating sugar alchols and continuing to lose weight. I may have slowed myself down, though.

I know people who stall out entirely on them, though. The effect of sugar alcohols seems to vary from person to person. Ice cream and chocolate have a ton of calories, so even if it's low carb it isn't as if you can have multiple daily servings and expect to lose an ounce.

I agree.

I would be willing to wager those folks who find they "stall on sugar alcohols" are actually stalling on the extra junk food calories that sugar alcohol products contain.

In fact, I've really never heard of a case in which a low carber who includes calorie counting as a part of their plan stalls whenever they eat SA products.

As far as I can tell, LC convenience food is not really compatible with an atkins-like program (a program which doesn't include calorie number counting). Even if a cookie contains 2 carbs, it may very well contain 250 calories! If your plan doesn't advocate an emphasis on calorie counting, then of course you are going to wind up over eating if you are presented with a plethora of LC ready made sweets. Even though these sweets won't physically make you hungrier (like the real thing would), a lifetime of conditioning yourself to binge on these types of bready sweet foods means very very few people who previously had a weight problem would be able to resist over eating them.

So I look at it like this. I am totally greatful for healthier alternatives to convenience and junk food, but if you ARE going to eat them, it would be wise to make sure that you are replacing calories in your diet, not adding new calories.

Thanks for posting this article. I was suspicious of the sugar alcohols anyway, mostly because they give me stomache cramps!

I suppose some products that include their nat carbs on the lable could still be ok-- I just have to check the small print to make sure the calculation is based on fiber.

I lost most of my weight having an atkins bar for lunch. Note I had the atkins bar for LUNCH, not as a snack. I found they satisfied my hunger and did not cause me trouble. I would not use them as "free food" while doing OWL, since I have always believed that in the end it was the calories (or lack there of) that caused my weight lost. I find Atkins very helpful in regulating my eathing.

brobin

Interesting Article about Low Carb/Net Carbs
 

Thought I'd post an interesting article in our local paper for discussion.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/8244822.htm

I agree 100% with Greg Ellis. The good folks at Atkins Nutritionals are shooting themselves in the foot, along with the entire LC lifestyle.

That guy cracks me up. One thing for sure, he doesn't suffer for lack of confidence. This is a quote from his netcarb website.

.

He fancies himself as the new and improved Atkins. And the website is to promote his new book, The Great American Diet Hoax: The Net Carb Scam. On that website he goes on a long and rambling denounciation of the netcarb concept.

I happen to agree with him, but I don't exactly see that there is enough there to fill a whole book.

Anyway, he grates on my nerves and I think he has that effect on a lot of people. He was posting here sometime ago, basically he was just trying to sell his current book. He was just dripping arrogance and while I don't know if he managed to sell many books here, I do know he p*ssed more than a few with his I-know-better-than-you attitude.

PS I agree with you Spud. They are seriously undermining their credibility with this netcarb crap. It's such a transparent greedy corporate grab.

I checked out his web site to see what his alternative was. Unfortunately all I found were long rambling articles and nothing about his plan, other than to but his book. At least on the Atkins web site you can get complete information obout the Atkins plan.