Hi Everyone. Dr. Katz contributes to Oprah Magazine and in the new issue, he writes the following. What do you think regarding his statement about effective carbs?

Dear Dr. Katz:
I've seen health bars claiming to have very low "effective carb" counts, say, 2 or 3 grams per serving. Does this mean the body doesn't absorb the other 20 to 30 grams of carbs in these bars?

Response:
No, it's a marketing ploy. Effective carbohydrate is not a scientific phrase; it's the food industry's attempt to tap into the prevailing interest in carbohydrate restriction as a means of losing weight.

The term indicates how much carbohydrate is converted into glucose (blood sugar) most readily, contributing to a rise in insulin, which is associated with weight gain. But the notion is misleading. The only kind of carbohydrate not absorbed by the body is fiber; the rest is converted into glucose, albeit at different rates of speed. Complex carbohydrates, for example, require several metabolic steps to be broken down into glucose, so the process is slower.

The kind of health bar you mention typically has at most 6 grams of fiber and 10 to 20 grams of complex carbs, which eventually become blood sugar. For overall health, what's really effective is to focus on the fundamentals of good eating.

Dr. David L. Katz, M.D.

ljm

As it relates to sugar alcohols and glycerine used in those fake foods, I agree with Dr. Katz.

-Nat

Since the term "Effective" is not scientific and has no finite definition, it can be argued. But remember what we are trying to do, with this WOE we are trying to avoid the spikes of insulin that cause us to gain weight and crave for more sweets..
Sugar alcohol does not do that. It is being metabolized by the liver and eventually does get converted to glucose but very slow. BTW, eventually even protein can get converted to glucose...

So, yes some of those carbs do count as calories, and do get converted to glucose but it does not cause the bad insulin reaction that sugar and refined starches cause...

Maybe one day, someone will define what "effective carbs" mean, but in the mean time just read the label and make up your own mind..

Dr. Katz is welcome to come and sit beside me as I run my blood glucose readings on sugar alcohol foods. If the food industry has managed to con the American public, they've also managed to con my blood glucose meter...for up to 18 hours after eating these materials.

Neat trick! Maybe they can manage the same sleight-of-hand on french fries and potato chips...not to mention Ben & Jerry's!

I read that in this month's issue of Oprah too, and while I don't know if it's entirely correct, I am starting to think that the effective carb thing is a little bogus. At least for my body, I think sugar alcohols really slow me down. Maybe they are more carbs than I think?

Protein is being coverted to glucose on an almost constant basis as your body strives to maintain glucose homeostasis, however this process (called de novo gluconeogenesis) happens in the absence of insulin and in the presence of either cortisol, glucagon or epinephrine.

The process of storing fat into you fat cells needs both fat and insulin. The process of making fat requires both excess carbohydrates and insulin to activate fat synthesis. With glucagon being released instead these processes are inhibited. Thus, the mere conversion of amino acids into glucose by gluconeogenesis should not be misunderstood as a mechanism through which fat can be synthesized or deposited into the fat cells. The glucose produced by gluconeogenesis has a “tag” on it, and it will serve to supply for blood glucose when the levels fall.

And from this website's Tips section:

There are some claims that sugar alcohols don't have carbs, and therefore don't count; that they can be completely subtracted if listed on the label. This statement is not entirely "false" but it is misleading. Sugar alcohols do have carbs, and approx. 1/2 to 3/4 the calories of regular sugar. They are more slowly and incompletely absorbed from the small intestine than sugar, thus producing a much smaller and slower rise in blood sugar ... and consequently insulin. But this is a YMMV thing. Some Type 1 diabetics have reported that they sense an immediate "sugar rush" from eating even a small amount. Others notice no change, and absolutely no effect on ketosis.

To someone who started LCing following Protein Power the use of "effective" carbs on sugar alcohols rubs me the wrong way. ECC was dubbed by the Eades to refer to the fiber content in a food and it has since been bastardized.

-Nat

Not only that -- but the problem is not with ECC, but how Nutrition Facts are calculated.

When they are determining the NF for a food, they can tell only how much fat and how much protein is in the food.
Everything else is counted as carbohydrate.

I think two things are certain:

1) When determining the maximum number of carbs in a food, deduct only Fiber, as the Eades do. Keep in mind that the actual carb impact on your body can be anywhere between the "Net Carbs" and this maximum.

2) We should all eat whatever the hell we want. If the food stalls you, causes carb cravings, stop eating it. This is a way of life. We tend to all focus on counting too much. We need to be mindful of the effect of foods we eat on our body.

If you have a bar or something with 2 net carbs, but 18 max, it might make your carb count for the day near 40. This is not the end of the world.

If you eat three bars a day, though, it will have more of an impact.
Newsflash: Don't do that. Even if the count was only 2, they're not as good for you as real food.

I think Atkins specifically avoids discussing this kind of topic in DANDR for this obsessive focus on numbers.

Eat well, and the rest will follow.

a little bump action.