This guy is a real fool, I can't believe people agree with him. No one is trying to make fuel disappear, because true carbohydrate content is listed on the nutritional facts. The whole point of the "net carbs" concept is to do exactly what the disclaimer on the package says: to aid folks who are specifically on low carb plans count their "impact carbs". The net carb concept is exclusively for LC dieters, and as far as counting carbs is concerned, the net carb concept is no more misleading than the weight watchers points concept.

The key to understanding why this is a legit definition is based in how we define the term "impact carb". As far as LC diets are concerned, an "impact carb" is any carb which is likely to cause a dramatic rise in blood sugar levels. Guess what? The product does exactly as advertised.

What Ellis isn't telling us is that percentage of calories that comes from carbs is in of itself, apart from caloric content, very very important in determining future body weight. We all know this, even he knows it, but still he refuses to acknowledge the value of the net carb concept. He needs a sticking point to promote his stupid program, and attacking atkins for supporting "net carbs" is as good a reason as any I guess. If a products carb makeup is slowly or not at all digested sugar alcohols and fiber, this product will not spike blood sugar. The sugar will be slowly released into the blood, akin to how the body derives glucose from gluconeogenisis (the synthesis of protein's amino acids into fuel). If the product won't spike blood sugar, it won't contribute the violent energy swings that lead to over eating, metabolic disorders, and diabesity.

I see so many people on this board criticize the LC candies, blaming them for stalls and what not. Personally I am grateful I have more options, but it seems other people are more comfortable without options because they don't trust their ability to make sound nutritional decisions. It really saddens me that there are some people who use low carb as a way to remove personal responsibility for their behavior. Let's face it; the real problem with low carb junkk food, just like with the 80s low fat junk food, is that too many lc dieters pay no attention to calories or portions. Now when your only eating 20 carbs worth of VLC veggies, meat, and fats, the damage you can do by not counting calories or thinking of portions is pretty limited. Throw in tasty low carb snack foods and boom, instant calorie fest... suddenly your plan no longer works and you're "stalled out".

It doesn't even have to be a physically large quantity of food to ruin your diet. Sweetened fat (i.e. chocolate) is very calorically dense. Read the labels some time. A 2 ounce candy bar with "2 impact carbs" may very well have over 300 calories. It certainly looks innocent and harmless enough, rather small in size relative to what we americans expect from a snack food. No one would think such a tiny thing extra could stall them or even cause a gain, but it won't take more than 1 eaten in its entirety, in addition to the usual dietary fare, to blow most peoples caloric deficit. It really is all about calories in the end, I don't care what anyone says. A high carb diet (among other things) may inhibit metabolic function, and therefore low carbers can afford to eat more calories (or eat less calories and lose weight faster), but in the end losing fat is all about metabolic activity, transforming fat into thermal energy, etc.

These candies are more forgiving in maintenance, since in maintenance we no longer need to create caloric deficits, therefore giving us more wiggle room to eat without thought or planning. It is no small coincidence that Dr. A told us to lay off the endulge until most of the weight loss was over with .