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 .

There is another stall factor in sugar alcohols, and potentially alcohol as well. Sugars, including alcohols, will burn before fat will, so if you are trying a ketotic approach to weight loss, it can knock you out of ketosis or stall ketosis if you do not burn the calories off via activity and then some.

Here's my take on it:

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showpost...20&postcount=11

And this is what makes me nervous about it. It is absoluteley unnecessary.

As a sweetener, splenda can do the job without adding any carbs. As a bulking agent, it is hard to believe that they can't find another bulking agent which can replace sugar alcohols.

Maybe if they make low carb products without sugar alcohol there will be some sacrifice in taste but the gain will obviously be much more important.

The whole concept of not counting your calories and eating until you are satisfied (which means eating as much as you want in the mind of many people) was based on the pre lc-junk period. Proteins and fats are self-limiting. Anything snacky and calorific like nuts and cheese was limited. But with the advent of all these new products, the balance is tipped. Now it's easy to consume vast amount of calories and carbs.

Atkins was never a calorie-restricted plan, but by it's very nature, calorie restriction was built-in. With all the new "options", that's no longer true and that's going to mess a lot of people.

Spot on, I couldn't agree more.

But which is to blame for the eventual mess ups - the food or the plan? Personally, I think the plan is to blame. Don't get me wrong, I love atkins for what it did for me and how it introduced the country to carb control, but the plan is not perfect. It is a flawed concept from the begining to ask for people to maintain a low weight by restricting their options to binge and putting very little emphasis on calories. I believe the atkins plan not only restricts carbohydrates for physiological reasons, but the reason the levels he does recommend are so low is to restrict peoples options to over eat (in atkins for life he talks of 50 grams being a maintanence level for many people, which is far too low to be healthy imo). It takes a very high carb diet to bring back those physiological swings and cravings, I don't think anything moderate glycemic and under 40% isn't going to do it. I have been steadily raising my carbs now that I am approaching maintanence, so far I am up to 40 net grams. At 40 grams I don't feel any more hungry than I did at 20, although I do feel a hell of a lot more alive and alert.

We low carbers are blessed that we can purchase snack foods as treats which don't impact our blood sugars, but this asinine mentality that it is the sugar alcohols and not the calories causing stalls has got to change. We have to change the outlook that a candy bar is a snack like a piece of celery is a snack. Those chocolates have bigtime calories. It is perfectly alright to indulge every now and then, but if you do it responsibly by replacing calories instead of adding them, you won't stall out or gain weight.

For example, the "new" whole grain lc fiber bagels that I eat have similar caloric content to regular bagels, but I don't crave a second bagel.

There is a factor for those of us who are sensitive to carb-loading that triggers our addictions/appetite which irrespective of calories. Moreover, very lc, as some of us do it, is not for everyone.

Certainly not everyone on the planet has heart disease or diabetes, is overweight or seriously overweight and has 50 lbs to lose.

Maintenance in Atkins has a huge range from 40 - 100 grams of carbs and up depending on lifestyle, etc.--and here's the key DEPENDING on the individual's metabolism. Eat as many carbs--as your body needs and will tolerate. That's what Atkins is about.

It's not about staying in the Induction 20 gram carb range for life. The variety of fruits and vegetables, grains, legumes, and other whole foods that you will arbitrarily cut out from that type of restriction isn't supposed to be the long haul, I agree.

But, there is a difference in lc snacky food and non-lc snacky food, even if it still goes by the "processed" label.

Good lc processed food has minimal additives and more whole ingredients. It just takes a little looking out for. Sweeping it all under the rug without looking at the products individually may mean that you miss out on something really good.

I know that folks criticize the Hood Carb Countdown beverage, but if you look at the ingredients and nutrition profile, it may well be a healthier product than whole milk. Should you always replace whole milk with it? No. But it certainly could have a place as a nutritive fill in.

It's the sugar alcohols and trans fats which I think should be avoided as much as possible.

I don't have any statistics to back me up but I bet you that Americans eat the greatest amount of highly processed and refined food in the world. That has been the greatest change over the past 20 years. Yes, people are consuming more carbs than ever, but it's of the processed sort. If you look at other countries, like France, they eat a lot of carbs, and not the wholegrain sort either. They eat baguettes and croissants and pastries. Yet they have a relatively low rate of obesity and heart diseases. But you'll notice they don't (or didn't used to) eat a lot of twinkies, pop tarts, soft drinks, and fast food. So that makes me suspect that the problem is not so much carbs but junk food.

That's why I am so against processed low-carb food. We have gotten so far away from the way our ancestors used to eat, that some of what we eat can barely be recognized as food. I believe that eating denatured low-carb food is getting out of a trap only to jump into another one. Looking at the ingredients, you'll never convince me that low-carb milk is somehow healthier than it's relatively unprocessed counterpart.

I wonder if anyone has a good link to a resource incorporating the concept of "whole foods" eating into Atkins/LC. It makes a lot of sense-- the proponents of whole foods focus on raw or minimally cooked veggies and fresh meats, avoiding super-processed stuff (including bread!!!) and junk, simple because those foods have greater nutritional values.

I believe that I feel best eating basic whole foods. As I said, artificial sweeteners don't agree with me, so it's not hard for me to avoid them. I even got some plain psyllium seed husks from the natural food store to replace sugarless metamucil as a fiber source (I sprinkle it on my salad).

In the future, when I'm done losing weight and am just maintaining, I think I'll prefer *real* chocolate to the LC versions. A very small square of high quality, delicate gourmet dark chocolate would probably provide a whole lot more pleasure than the LC stuff I see in the store. I think the trick is teaching myself to see treats as special, and not a part of my regular eating.

I'm glad I'm seeing all this now, at the beginning, so I don't mess myself up with the LC junk food. I don't have enough info to know for sure if it's good or bad, but it's enough to make a personal decision to avoid it.

Actually, I think all low carb products are usually self-limiting. I get full faster and I stay full longer. Some just taste so nasty that they're self-limiting in that regard.
They don't cause that precipitious drop in blood sugar that makes me go back to the cupboard an hour later.

If I overeat of them, I generally feel just like I'd over-eaten on fat or protein, because usually they are fat and protein. It's like having twice as much ham and bacon, not like the old days of having too much ice cream with sugar.

For instance, the other day I found a low carb ice cream that was a little too good. And I over-indulged.... But then I was so full from that I couldn't eat dinner and that fullness carried into the next day when I found I ate less then.

Now, I won't be buying that ice cream all the time, because I know I'll over-do on it, but having it for a rare treat is a fine thing. And if I over-indulge, I won't be hungry at the next meal time. It balances out, calorie-wise if not nutrition-wise. Thus it should be a rare treat.

That's completely different from how I feel eating high carb or sugary products.

And, for me, sugar alcohols don't act the same as sugar making me want to eat again.

So, I choose to use low carb products and I like seeing more choices come onto the market. Although, I wish they'd find a sweetner that works better with chocolate than Splenda and doesn't cause the tummy upset of sugar alcohols.

This is exactly what Lifetime Maintenance is about (read Atkins for Life).

Here's a clip from the Atkins website:

http://atkins.com/helpatkins/faqs/faqfood/index.html

Quote:

Once I've reached my goal weight, what kinds of foods are allowed and not allowed on Lifetime Maintenance? To a large extent your personal maintenance regimen will be regulated by your carbohydrate threshold, which in turn is a result of your metabolism and your activity level. Younger people and men tend to have higher metabolisms than older people and women. If you have a high carbohydrate threshold and do vigorous exercise on a regular basis, you may be able to regularly eat starchy vegetables, beans and other legumes, whole grains and fruit in moderation. On the other hand, if you have a low carb threshold and are not very active, you may have to stay away from many of these foods or have them only as an occasional treat. In either case, your nutrition program will continue to stress whole foods and avoid sugar, white flour, hydrogenated fats and any processed foods.

p.s. I'm a big fan of golden flaxseed. Bob's Red Mill packages it and I buy it from my local natural foods store. Golden flaxseed is incredibly dense in nutrients, Omega 3's, and fiber and IMHO is better than psyllium husks. I think it also tastes good. I add a cup to lc baked muffins or pancakes, or even to standard cake mixes for my kids to boost the nutrition content and fiber. I use it as a flour replacement with ground almonds in meatballs or as a breading.

bvtaylor -

I know that atkins is very customizable carb wise, which is the reason i base my plan on atkins. In atkins for life he does say there are many different carb ranges, however dr. atkins does also seem to imply the very low ranges of 40-60 is where most people should fall. I just don't agree with that.

Whether or not i agree with it is in theory irrelevant, since the theory is that on atkins you will eventually eat as many nutritious carbs as you can metabolically handle. If this were true, I wouldn't have a problem, but the thing is it really is not. The reality is quite different. When people start adding back carbs, they notice they gain several pounds at once. This glycogen weight gain causes an immediate unwarranted freakout, and a false belief that they can't raise their carbs above a ridiculously low level without gaining weight.

Not once does atkins say in atkins for life that the first few pounds of carb weight gain are not fat and are to be expected. Never did I read in the AFL book that one shouldn't freak out if you immediately gain weight when eating carbs again, and to listen to the way your body physically feels instead to determine carb limit. Instead atkins actually indirectly encourages the hysterical knee jerk reaction most maintenance dieters eventually run into, by telling us to use the scale as a guide. Climb the carb ladder until you gain, and once you do, cut your carbs back until you don't anymore and lose the weight (glycogen actually), basically.

The reason atkins does this is because he wants people eating very little carbohydrate, because this way they have less food options, and therefore less options to over eat. I think he saw it like this... the more people who try his diet that believe they can only eat 35 carbs per day to maintain, the less immediate maintenance failures there will be, and the more popular his diet will become. Of course, over time such a limited and restricted diet is more likely to fail than a more diverse one which encourages portion control, but I don't think he either realized this or cared.

I hate to knock the atkins approach, since I do believe in most of it. I believe in most of his theories (the metabolic advantage of eating fat/protein; and the metabolic advantage of having normal insulin) but I cant but help see the gaping flaws in the way his plan is structured.
I just wish he had done a few things differently.

That is very interesting. I've got a long way to go yet until I get close to maintenance, but I will note that Dr. A does suggest a very gradual carb increase (I think it's about 5 net g per week) that starts long before maintenance goes into effect. He also stresses taking a long time to go through the stages. I suspect this is in part to prevent what you are describing; i.e., both triggered cravings as well as a sudden misconstrued weight gain. Our bodies fluctuate in weight quite a bit anyway, so I have thought it would be very difficult to find my "magic" carb numbers.

I know there's a lot of heated discussion as to the "ideal" amount of carbohydrates and what is "essential" to a healthy active lifestyle, and I tend to think from what I've read that there really is no magic one-size-fits all number for carbs, fats, or otherwise, although different lc plans try to do just that. After all not everyone in the world needs to cut down their carbohydrates, but those of us who have had a lifelong struggle with them need to and must.

I think a lot of figuring an ideal diet is based on sufficient vitanutrients as well as calories and carb/protein/fat balance that suits the lifestyle and constitution of the individual (which of course varies tremendously).

And after all someone who is 6'2" tall and sedentary might hypothetically eat more than someone who is 5'3" and active without becoming overweight, but it doesn't mean that the 5'3" person doesn't have the same appetite, just because they are shorter.

My 4'11" grandmother wore size 9 shoes, so she had a really big frame for someone so short. Her brothers were all over 6" tall. She was 135 lbs and had a medium figure most of her life.

It's all quite relative.