Net Carbs - Bullshit or not?

[gauge22-v2]

I understand the concept that fiber takes more energy to convert, but not sure if I buy this "mantra" that has been preached for a while.

I do not configure my diet by net carbs. If I were to do so Cronometer spits out almost 40grams LESS carbs based on what I typically eat.

What are your thoughts?

Misleading?

Valid?

Bullshit?

If it is valid does that mean protein should be net TEF?

 

[Inkniron87]

I’ve always wondered the same thing. I have always treated it as bullshit tho in my figuring just to be accurate worst case. 20g of carbs with 6g of impact carbs is 20 carbs to me as of now

 

[Sammy_J]

I usually treat it as BS as well, a carb is a carb in my count.

 

[Mufasa123]

My assumption is that fiber doesn't provide energy/glucose like fat, protein, other carbs. If calorie is a unit of energy available after consumption than you'd net them out.

Given how many people are using the net measure for keto, diabetes or insulin management, I'm thinking this is indeed useful and accurate. A good portion are doing testing constantly too esp diabetics. I am super sensative to carbs - they heavily drive water retention, blood pressure and inflammation and associated tremor issues. Going by net carbs and fiber rich product makes this possible whereas eating a pure carb alternative in same amount, I'd need a lot more drugs (or not do any of the low net products which is what I did before they were available). Eventually I'll try one of those monitors for testing stuff but my results via diet and focus on net carbs it's a huge difference in managing my personal issues.

 

[Big Dave Smith]

The reason why is because you don’t actually make use of the non-net carbs in the same way. They don’t convert to glucose, and don’t carry out the same physiological functions.

You can’t really have a belief here. It’s whether you know how macros work, or you don’t.

Also, calories “the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1°C”. This is not measured in the human body. It’s in a lab setting.

There’s a bread available on the east coast called “647” bread. It has 6g net carbs per serving, so you’re only getting glucose from those 6g. The remaining non net carbs are passed. Even though they have a caloric value, that value doesn’t represent what happens in the body.

It’s not a lie, as normal people who have diabetes would have account for this information when administering their medications.

 

[hevi-head]

The reason why is because you don’t actually make use of the non-net carbs in the same way. They don’t convert to glucose, and don’t carry out the same physiological functions.

You can’t really have a belief here. It’s whether you know how macros work, or you don’t.

Also, calories “the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1°C”. This is not measured in the human body. It’s in a lab setting.

There’s a bread available on the east coast called “647” bread. It has 6g net carbs per serving, so you’re only getting glucose from those 6g. The remaining non net carbs are passed. Even though they have a caloric value, that value doesn’t represent what happens in the body.

It’s not a lie, as normal people who have diabetes would have account for this information when administering their medications.

I agree with what you’re saying but the calories are still there so where should the non impact carbs be entered into your macro percentages?

 

[luki7788]

In my opinion, people who think too much about stuff like this are just overanalyzing everything. Just track all your calories — track everything you eat.
If there’s something constant in your diet, like let’s say you take 10 g of omega-3 every day, or you eat 1000 g of green veggies daily — don’t count it. Just treat it as a fixed part of your diet that stays the same all year.

Just track everything else - keep simple

 

[td]

I agree with what you’re saying but the calories are still there so where should the non impact carbs be entered into your macro percentages?

It gets complicated if you really want to geek out. The calories "are there." But they aren't digested. Most pass through the stool.

Really though, some are digested by the bacteria in the gut which in turn make short-chain fatty acids like butyrate which you can use as energy.

Be consistent. Either always count them or never count them. When you're manipulating a diet, the important component is the relative change each week, not absolute. That's why it doesn't matter if you count incidental macronutrients or not. Just be consistent with the methodology.

 

[buck]

I track my total macros then let the body figure the rest out. Proportionally net or not, things will turn out the same as i gain or lower the amount i eat.

 

[Mufasa123]

I agree with what you’re saying but the calories are still there so where should the non impact carbs be

If you really want to be accurate or are doing it for a real reason - use fiber and then only truly digestible carbs/energy goes to macros.

For me/medical (which is a real reason) it matters so I'm a lot more conscious of the net carbs and total carb consumption.

 

[Big Dave Smith]

I agree with what you’re saying but the calories are still there so where should the non impact carbs be entered into your macro percentages?

They shouldn’t. You’re still associating calories with having a function in the body.

The calorie unit is a quantitative measurement use in a lab.

If something has 10g carbs and 5g net carbs, your body absorbs/uses 5g carbs. You eliminate the non-net carbs.

So you’re absorbing 20 calories and eliminating 20 unusable calories. You’re only using 20 calories, so that’s what you count.

 

[gauge22-v2]

I think this is important. If you do not eat the exact same carb sources day in and day out.

Dropping 25 grams of carbs from a meal would be 100 calories, give or take. But dependent on the source of the carbs the NET carbs needs to be taken.

In the case of yams vs rice it is a 13% difference using NET carbs...Yeah I am a CPA numbers geek....

Correct?

 

[neutrino]

I have had my cronometer set to tune them out from the very beginning (and account for TEF). Not really sure if its BS, but just like an inaccurate scale - so long as the error margin remains consistant over the years - it really doesnt matter. So you think you are eating say 2400/day to maintain when in fact it is 2700 - no big deal. The setting remains static, so it will have no effect over along period of time

But if you really wanted to find out, have your diet completely static for a few weeks while keeping fiber not accounted for, then flip the setting off and see the result from eating the same amount of calories from non-fibrous carb sources. Compare and find out for yourself

 

[Big Dave Smith]

The only things that matter…

1- Collect the information that you are going to put to use.

2- Make good decisions with it.

I swap macros constantly. It’s useable information for me to do so.

If you have never used this information and won’t influence your decisions, it’s not applicable.

Build a foundational pattern. Adhere to it based on however you measure it.

That’s it.

 

[need4tren]

I do things a little different, I don’t track staples as tracked calories, meaning fibre supplements, veggie supplements and fish oil all go untracked

I do use more fish oil outside of dieting I’ll do 1 ounce in a plastic medicine cup (shot glass) morning and night when I’m not dieting, when I transition into a diet I keep it at 10g

 

[bbxtreme]

I understand the concept that fiber takes more energy to convert, but not sure if I buy this "mantra" that has been preached for a while.

I do not configure my diet by net carbs. If I were to do so Cronometer spits out almost 40grams LESS carbs based on what I typically eat.

What are your thoughts?

Misleading?

Valid?

Bullshit?

If it is valid does that mean protein should be net TEF?

A lot of good answers and not sure I can top any of it. But I’ll add my 0.02.

If you’re getting 40 grams of fiber per day that’s pretty impressive. Wanted to acknowledge that first as many neglect fiber in their diet.

That aside, don’t get caught up in the weeds. Log your carbs and calories as at the end of the day-

A) it will be a very minor detail that makes a small difference if at all
B) there really is no “free” calories

Call it a carb, fiber, excess energy expenditure etc, but at the end of the day you need fiber and you also need to know your baseline. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone gain weight from eating too much fiber or vegetables so wouldn’t get hung up on it.

I personally don’t track my vegetables on my meal plan, nor do I stress about them or their calories if anything I hope and hope to get more daily than is on my plan. For most bodybuilders getting vegetables and fiber in is a big accomplishment as it’s the last thing we want to eat after endless chicken and rice to meet our caloric needs. I tell people eat all the fibrous veggies you want in this sport.

 

[gauge22-v2]

Just running to the store to get popcorn.

Kidding, maybe....

Is chicken and popcorn a thing?

 

[td]

When I'm dieting hard, I will fuck up some popcorn rice cakes! If you crumble them up in a big metal bowl, you can kind of pretend. Add more salt, always,

Just running to the store to get popcorn.

Kidding, maybe....

Is chicken and popcorn a thing?

 

[AllOkJumpmaster]

I track all carbs as carbs, and have my guys do the same. It has never failed me. I am simple man, yet not an ignorant to science man. That said if you are fairly consistent with your intake and your sources, no matter which way you track, it will always come down to energy consumption // energy expenditure. I have a few lifestyle folks that thrive on using an older school meal plan, and using the diabetic exchange, and no weighing / militant tracking...

 

[specter]

They shouldn’t. You’re still associating calories with having a function in the body.

The calorie unit is a quantitative measurement use in a lab.

If something has 10g carbs and 5g net carbs, your body absorbs/uses 5g carbs. You eliminate the non-net carbs.

So you’re absorbing 20 calories and eliminating 20 unusable calories. You’re only using 20 calories, so that’s what you count.

Same with nuts, they may hold a fuck ton of fat but you dont absorbe all that fat some just passes thru your system.