New Atkins Book

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Susan wrote:

The problem with net carb counts is that we digest and react to about
half the calories in fiber,

Early on DR Atkins suggested deducting insoluble fiber but not soluble
fiber. Not being termites humans do not get any calories from
digestible fiber. Having intestinal bacteria that does digest soluble
fiber humans get roughly half of the calories from soluble fiber. But
labels do not give the partial counts of the two types.

so deducting them often gives worse results,
at least glucose meters seem to think so.

A lot of folks say that because the fiber is digesting into "short chain
fatty acids" and thus are not converted into carbs. I thought the
fiber got digested to lactic acid not a fatty acid so I never got what
the statement meant. Your meter readings mean more than such
statements I say.

Do you suggest counting half of fiber calories as carb or carb-alike
because of your meter readings? Meter readings are hard data on the
topic.

Fiber: fatty-acids, proteins? I thought fiber was like cellulose,
insoluble glucose chains.

Never mind. I sorted it out.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html

Billy wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

A lot of folks say that because the fiber is digesting into "short chain
fatty acids" and thus are not converted into carbs. I thought the
fiber got digested to lactic acid not a fatty acid so I never got what
the statement meant. Your meter readings mean more than such
statements I say.

Fiber: fatty-acids, proteins? I thought fiber was like cellulose,
insoluble glucose chains.

Fiber is made of glucose chains that are not digestible by enzymes
contained in the human genome. The soluble fiber is made of glucose
parts that can be digested by the bacteria we carry - It's an example of
symbiosis. The insoluble fiber is made of glucose parts that can be
digested by the bacteria that termites carry - It's a different example
of symbiosis.

Your point about fatty acids from fiber was also my confusion. If the
process is our bacteria digest it so they get some of the calories and
we get some of the calories then fatty acids are not the result of any
digestion process. A digestion process would reduce it to glucose units
and/or smaller molecules that can be reassembled into glucose, so no
fatty acids would result. But digestion is not the only thing that
happens in the intestines. The bacteria could absorb the fiber, digest
it into glucose, use the glucose to fuel their metabolic processes, and
emit fatty acids as the benefit for the symbiote human.

Susan's report of meter results is the ticker for me. The hard data
from the meter says that whatever it is the human body produces glucose
from it. I don't have to care about what a "short chain fatty acid" is
because whatever it is the human body turns it into glucose according to
Susan's meter.

Since the "short chain fatty acid" absorbed is not a sugar as such I'll
call it a "carb-alike". There are other "carb-alike" substances that
are converted to glucose by our bodies. Glycerine becomes glycerol
becomes glucose for example. The substances I call "carb-alikes" are
low glycemic load but there's more to low carbing than glycemic load or
we would not count the carb grams in broccoli.

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Billy wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

A lot of folks say that because the fiber is digesting into "short chain
fatty acids" and thus are not converted into carbs. I thought the
fiber got digested to lactic acid not a fatty acid so I never got what
the statement meant. Your meter readings mean more than such
statements I say.

Fiber: fatty-acids, proteins? I thought fiber was like cellulose,
insoluble glucose chains.

Fiber is made of glucose chains

Fiber, for scientists, is referred to as glucans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucan

that are not digestible by enzymes
amylase
contained in the human genome. The soluble fiber is made of glucose
parts that can be digested by the bacteria we carry - It's an example of
symbiosis.

For us, this takes place in the large intestine.

The insoluble fiber is made of glucose parts that can be
digested by the bacteria that termites carry - It's a different example
of symbiosis.

Your point about fatty acids from fiber was also my confusion. If the
process is our bacteria digest

Should read "ferment" in place of "digest".

it so they get some of the calories and
we get some of the calories then fatty acids are not the result of any
digestion process. A digestion process would reduce it to glucose units
and/or smaller molecules that can be reassembled into glucose, so no
fatty acids would result. But digestion is not the only thing that
happens in the intestines. The bacteria could absorb the fiber, digest
it into glucose, use the glucose to fuel their metabolic processes, and
emit fatty acids as the benefit for the symbiote human.

The energy seems to come from the process. Soluble fiber (depending on
type and side chains, including amino acids) is reduced to fatty acid
(It is these short-chain fatty acids--butyric, acetic (ethanoic),
propionic, and valeric acids--that scientific evidence is revealing to
have significant health properties.[50]) and farts. (See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_fiber#Soluble_fibre_fermentation)
This makes sense because glucose is an aldehyde (See: Fischer projection
of glucose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucose). The top group, an
oxygen and a hydrogen attached to the #1 carbon in the chain, is an
aldehyde group. Replace the hydrogen with a hydroxyl (OH-) and you have
a fatty acid. Somewhere in the process, the bacteria chip off some
energy.
(See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta-glucan#Beta-glucan_chemistry

Susan's report of meter results is the ticker for me. The hard data
from the meter says that whatever it is the human body produces glucose
from it. I don't have to care about what a "short chain fatty acid" is
because whatever it is the human body turns it into glucose according to
Susan's meter.

I suspect it is burn as protein (amino acids) not carbs.


Since the "short chain fatty acid" absorbed is not a sugar as such I'll
call it a "carb-alike". There are other "carb-alike" substances that
are converted to glucose by our bodies. Glycerine becomes glycerol
becomes glucose for example.

I found no substantiation for this assertion.

The substances I call "carb-alikes" are
low glycemic load but there's more to low carbing than glycemic load or
we would not count the carb grams in broccoli.

All in all, a good romp ;O)
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html

On Apr 26, 3:50*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote:
Susan wrote:

The problem with net carb counts is that we digest and react to about
half the calories in fiber,

Early on DR Atkins suggested deducting insoluble fiber but not soluble
fiber. *Not being termites humans do not get any calories from
digestible fiber. *Having intestinal bacteria that does digest soluble
fiber humans get roughly half of the calories from soluble fiber. *But
labels do not give the partial counts of the two types.

so deducting them often gives worse results,
at least glucose meters seem to think so.

A lot of folks say that because the fiber is digesting into "short chain
fatty acids" and thus are not converted into carbs. *I thought the
fiber got digested to lactic acid not a fatty acid so I never got what
the statement meant. *Your meter readings mean more than such
statements I say.

Do you suggest counting half of fiber calories as carb or carb-alike
because of your meter readings? *Meter readings are hard data on the
topic.


It astounds me that you would accept one anecdotal report as "hard
data" on anything. In reality, it establishes nothing.

wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
Susan wrote:

at least glucose meters seem to think so.

Do you suggest counting half of fiber calories as carb or carb-alike
because of your meter readings? *Meter readings are hard data on the
topic.

It astounds me that you would accept one anecdotal report as "hard
data" on anything.

Yep. There's the problem of what the words mean. Anecdotal data, hard
data, statistically valid data, scientificially publishable data.

Susan's report of others having her meter readings is anecdotal data.
Susan's report of her own meter readings is hard data. To be
statistically valid data we'd need to analyse a lot of volunteers, see
what their data is, then do a numerical analysis on the data. To be
scientifically publishable there would need to be a control group and
various other requirements.

So how to form conclusions? If it were necessary to understand the
science before forming a conclusion then I would doubt the sun will come
up tomorrow morning because nuclear physics still doesn't get the
details of fusion in a stellar core. So are their studies with tabular
data on the topic of meter readings and fiber digestion? Until there
are I will go with the best quality that is available on the topic and
at the moment it's Susans reports.

As always any conclusion in science has to be provisional and subject to
change as the data gets better. I've reformed my view of low carbing a
number of times over the years based on improved data but most studies
are still about point topics that have long since been settled to most
people who actually do low carbing.

One of the steps of the Scientific Method is to "Formulate a
hypothesis". It does not take scientifically valid published data to
formulate a hypothesis. One of the steps is to do a publication search
and start improving the data. Real working scientists in the field are
able to get studies funded that demonstrate small points with better
data. Being an armchair hobbiest I get to swim in the more speculative
end of the pool. That only makes me unscientific if I ignore
considerations of quality of data or it only makes your view of me as
unscientific if you ignore my considerations of quality of data.

In science the data and the predictability rule. The narrative
explanations are only "true" to the extent they suggest mathematical
model. The mathematical models are only "true" to the extent they
correctly predict the outcome of experiments. What's "true" is the data
and the repeatablity statistics.

In reality, it establishes nothing.

That says you think I do not consider the quality of the data and the
degree of provision in my conclusions. Your conclusions on that front
about my conclusions are not a match to my history. In reality it
suggests further experiements that I will watch for. Not the same as
calling my provisional conclusions wrong or worthless.

Interesting - Near the beginning of section two in the new book there is
a list of seven principles. When I tried to write down my view of why
low carbing works and why the optimal approach isn't the obvious one I
came up with a list of seven principles. My list and theirs don't list
the same poits and don't appear to have the same goals.

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
Susan wrote:

at least glucose meters seem to think so.

Do you suggest counting half of fiber calories as carb or carb-alike
because of your meter readings? *Meter readings are hard data on the
topic.

It astounds me that you would accept one anecdotal report as "hard
data" on anything.

Yep. There's the problem of what the words mean. Anecdotal data, hard
data, statistically valid data, scientificially publishable data.

Susan's report of others having her meter readings is anecdotal data.
Susan's report of her own meter readings is hard data. To be
statistically valid data we'd need to analyse a lot of volunteers, see
what their data is, then do a numerical analysis on the data. To be
scientifically publishable there would need to be a control group and
various other requirements.

So how to form conclusions? If it were necessary to understand the
science before forming a conclusion then I would doubt the sun will come
up tomorrow morning because nuclear physics still doesn't get the
details of fusion in a stellar core. So are their studies with tabular
data on the topic of meter readings and fiber digestion? Until there
are I will go with the best quality that is available on the topic and
at the moment it's Susans reports.

As always any conclusion in science has to be provisional and subject to
change as the data gets better. I've reformed my view of low carbing a
number of times over the years based on improved data but most studies
are still about point topics that have long since been settled to most
people who actually do low carbing.

One of the steps of the Scientific Method is to "Formulate a
hypothesis". It does not take scientifically valid published data to
formulate a hypothesis. One of the steps is to do a publication search
and start improving the data. Real working scientists in the field are
able to get studies funded that demonstrate small points with better
data. Being an armchair hobbiest I get to swim in the more speculative
end of the pool. That only makes me unscientific if I ignore
considerations of quality of data or it only makes your view of me as
unscientific if you ignore my considerations of quality of data.

In science the data and the predictability rule. The narrative
explanations are only "true" to the extent they suggest mathematical
model. The mathematical models are only "true" to the extent they
correctly predict the outcome of experiments. What's "true" is the data
and the repeatablity statistics.

In reality, it establishes nothing.

To know what gravity does, is empirical knowledge.
To claim to know how it does it, may involve a mathematical construct of
"thingies" called gravitons.
It may be nice to know the later, but doesn't affect your use of the
former.
YMMV

That says you think I do not consider the quality of the data and the
degree of provision in my conclusions. Your conclusions on that front
about my conclusions are not a match to my history. In reality it
suggests further experiements that I will watch for. Not the same as
calling my provisional conclusions wrong or worthless.

Interesting - Near the beginning of section two in the new book there is
a list of seven principles. When I tried to write down my view of why
low carbing works and why the optimal approach isn't the obvious one I
came up with a list of seven principles. My list and theirs don't list
the same poits and don't appear to have the same goals.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html

Billy wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
wrote:

In reality, it establishes nothing.

To know what gravity does, is empirical knowledge.
To claim to know how it does it, may involve a mathematical construct of
"thingies" called gravitons.
It may be nice to know the later, but doesn't affect your use of the
former.

In a recent thread Orlando Enrique Fiol questioned my double standard
objecting to highly sweetened fruit but not to grain fattened livestock.
It was a valid point that needed to be addressed. The answer to that
comes from the arithmetic of gram counts that are common among low
carbers - When the gram count of carbs are low the sources of carb grams
are important to control. When the gram count of fats are high the
sources of fat grams are less important. For fats one can go all the
way from avoiding transfats and otherwise ignoring fatty acid ratios all
the way to tracking fatty acid types by gram and there's little change
in the results.

Now Trader4 questioned the statistical certainty level of my
conclusions. Given my assertive phrasing it's a completely valid
question. My assertive phrasing can easily be interpreted as my feeling
more certainty in my conclusions than is statistically valid. It's an
issue with my writing style. There's a line between assertive and
aggressive that I do not convey in person that I do convey in writing.
No matter the amount of practice I have not acheived the writing skill
to correctly qualify my statements. Whenever I try they come across as
long legalese not as descriptions.

Why do I reach the conclusions I do? What data have I based my
conclusions on? What's the quality of that data? Is there better data
on that topic available anywhere? Is there a scientific explanation for
my stance in addition to the observed data? Escpecially on points where
I disagree with what Dr Atkins appears to have written and on points
where people quote Dr Aktins regularly it is best to ask these questions
about my conclusions. The quality of the data and any history I have of
changing my mind on the topic based on increased data quanity or quality
are important considerations.

There's also the issue of formal qualifications. I'm an engineer with a
good scientific education with neither major nor degree in biochemistry
or medicine. On the one hand I can't rely on my own authority because
the only authority I have is from a few people who have tried my
suggestions and succeeded. On the other hand when I disagree with an
Atkins book quote and still claim to be an Atkins fan I have to be
careful in justifying my conclusions. For me it has to be all about the
data, the quantity of the data and the quality of the data. The data
has to follow the science and the science has to explain the data. Here
Trader4 called me on data quality. Data quality matters greatly. And
yet conclusions can be made on poor quality data so long as those
conclusions are provisional and subject to change when/if better quality
data emerges.

I do think that beginners need certainty more than they need long lists
of qualifications but that's not the cause of my declarative writing
style. Among the various side effects of my declarative writing style
that's one that's beneficial. Not all of the side effects are
beneficial. Plenty of folks disagree with me on a lot of points that
I've addressed any times over the years. Eventually it comes down to an
offer to gather better data than I have and get back to me. So far few
ever have. Susan and I go back and forth several topics and she's
gathered better data and changed my mind on some of my points over time.

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Billy wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
wrote:

In reality, it establishes nothing.

To know what gravity does, is empirical knowledge.
To claim to know how it does it, may involve a mathematical construct of
"thingies" called gravitons.
It may be nice to know the later, but doesn't affect your use of the
former.

In a recent thread Orlando Enrique Fiol questioned my double standard
objecting to highly sweetened fruit but not to grain fattened livestock.
It was a valid point that needed to be addressed. The answer to that
comes from the arithmetic of gram counts that are common among low
carbers - When the gram count of carbs are low the sources of carb grams
are important to control. When the gram count of fats are high the
sources of fat grams are less important. For fats one can go all the
way from avoiding transfats and otherwise ignoring fatty acid ratios all
the way to tracking fatty acid types by gram and there's little change
in the results.

Now Trader4 questioned the statistical certainty level of my
conclusions. Given my assertive phrasing it's a completely valid
question. My assertive phrasing can easily be interpreted as my feeling
more certainty in my conclusions than is statistically valid. It's an
issue with my writing style. There's a line between assertive and
aggressive that I do not convey in person that I do convey in writing.
No matter the amount of practice I have not acheived the writing skill
to correctly qualify my statements. Whenever I try they come across as
long legalese not as descriptions.

Why do I reach the conclusions I do? What data have I based my
conclusions on? What's the quality of that data? Is there better data
on that topic available anywhere? Is there a scientific explanation for
my stance in addition to the observed data? Escpecially on points where
I disagree with what Dr Atkins appears to have written and on points
where people quote Dr Aktins regularly it is best to ask these questions
about my conclusions. The quality of the data and any history I have of
changing my mind on the topic based on increased data quanity or quality
are important considerations.

There's also the issue of formal qualifications. I'm an engineer with a
good scientific education with neither major nor degree in biochemistry
or medicine. On the one hand I can't rely on my own authority because
the only authority I have is from a few people who have tried my
suggestions and succeeded. On the other hand when I disagree with an
Atkins book quote and still claim to be an Atkins fan I have to be
careful in justifying my conclusions. For me it has to be all about the
data, the quantity of the data and the quality of the data. The data
has to follow the science and the science has to explain the data. Here
Trader4 called me on data quality. Data quality matters greatly. And
yet conclusions can be made on poor quality data so long as those
conclusions are provisional and subject to change when/if better quality
data emerges.

I do think that beginners need certainty more than they need long lists
of qualifications but that's not the cause of my declarative writing
style. Among the various side effects of my declarative writing style
that's one that's beneficial. Not all of the side effects are
beneficial. Plenty of folks disagree with me on a lot of points that
I've addressed any times over the years. Eventually it comes down to an
offer to gather better data than I have and get back to me. So far few
ever have. Susan and I go back and forth several topics and she's
gathered better data and changed my mind on some of my points over time.

Tune in next time folks for the Etiology of Consciousness.

It is a common trait among scientist to be neurotic about there
findings. Nobody wants to mess up, and everybody does.

Just tell us what you see Doug, and let us do the editing, OK?
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html

On Apr 28, 4:26*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote:
Billy wrote:
*Doug Freyburger wrote:
wrote:

In reality, it establishes nothing.

To know what gravity does, is empirical knowledge.
To claim to know how it does it, may involve a mathematical construct of
"thingies" called gravitons.
It may be nice to know the later, but doesn't affect your use of the
former.

In a recent thread Orlando Enrique Fiol questioned my double standard
objecting to highly sweetened fruit but not to grain fattened livestock.
It was a valid point that needed to be addressed. *The answer to that
comes from the arithmetic of gram counts that are common among low
carbers - When the gram count of carbs are low the sources of carb grams
are important to control. *When the gram count of fats are high the
sources of fat grams are less important. *For fats one can go all the
way from avoiding transfats and otherwise ignoring fatty acid ratios all
the way to tracking fatty acid types by gram and there's little change
in the results.

Now Trader4 questioned the statistical certainty level of my
conclusions. *Given my assertive phrasing it's a completely valid
question. *My assertive phrasing can easily be interpreted as my feeling
more certainty in my conclusions than is statistically valid. *It's an
issue with my writing style. *There's a line between assertive and
aggressive that I do not convey in person that I do convey in writing.
No matter the amount of practice I have not acheived the writing skill
to correctly qualify my statements. *Whenever I try they come across as
long legalese not as descriptions.

Why do I reach the conclusions I do? *What data have I based my
conclusions on? *What's the quality of that data? *Is there better data
on that topic available anywhere? *Is there a scientific explanation for
my stance in addition to the observed data? *Escpecially on points where
I disagree with what Dr Atkins appears to have written and on points
where people quote Dr Aktins regularly it is best to ask these questions
about my conclusions. *The quality of the data and any history I have of
changing my mind on the topic based on increased data quanity or quality
are important considerations.

There's also the issue of formal qualifications. *I'm an engineer with a
good scientific education with neither major nor degree in biochemistry
or medicine. *On the one hand I can't rely on my own authority because
the only authority I have is from a few people who have tried my
suggestions and succeeded. *On the other hand when I disagree with an
Atkins book quote and still claim to be an Atkins fan I have to be
careful in justifying my conclusions. *For me it has to be all about the
data, the quantity of the data and the quality of the data. *The data
has to follow the science and the science has to explain the data. *Here
Trader4 called me on data quality. *Data quality matters greatly. *And
yet conclusions can be made on poor quality data so long as those
conclusions are provisional and subject to change when/if better quality
data emerges.

I do think that beginners need certainty more than they need long lists
of qualifications but that's not the cause of my declarative writing
style. *Among the various side effects of my declarative writing style
that's one that's beneficial. *Not all of the side effects are
beneficial. *Plenty of folks disagree with me on a lot of points that
I've addressed any times over the years. *Eventually it comes down to an
offer to gather better data than I have and get back to me. *So far few
ever have. *

The problem is that your concept of "data" consists of anecdotal
reports from anyone posting on the internet. And I would also
strongly suspect that the data is NOT tabulated and interpreted with
an unbiased eye. In other words, you see what you want to see and
justify it in your own mind.

Regarding this whole issue of the deductibility of carbs, I'd say the
issue of accounting for the soluble carbs in the grand scheme of
things doesn't matter for two reasons. First, with most foods people
doing any reasonable version of LC, the amount of indigestible fiber
is going to be the dominant type of fiber. Second, most of the
soluble fiber is fermented in the digestive tract and turned into
short chain fatty acids, which are actually beneficial to our health.
These are not carbs. The rest is apparently eliminated undigested.

So, I think from a practical standpoint it's OK to simply deduct all
the carbs from the carb count.

In article
,
" wrote:

On Apr 28, 4:26*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote:
Billy wrote:
*Doug Freyburger wrote:
wrote:

In reality, it establishes nothing.

To know what gravity does, is empirical knowledge.
To claim to know how it does it, may involve a mathematical construct of
"thingies" called gravitons.
It may be nice to know the later, but doesn't affect your use of the
former.

In a recent thread Orlando Enrique Fiol questioned my double standard
objecting to highly sweetened fruit but not to grain fattened livestock.
It was a valid point that needed to be addressed. *The answer to that
comes from the arithmetic of gram counts that are common among low
carbers - When the gram count of carbs are low the sources of carb grams
are important to control. *When the gram count of fats are high the
sources of fat grams are less important. *For fats one can go all the
way from avoiding transfats and otherwise ignoring fatty acid ratios all
the way to tracking fatty acid types by gram and there's little change
in the results.

Now Trader4 questioned the statistical certainty level of my
conclusions. *Given my assertive phrasing it's a completely valid
question. *My assertive phrasing can easily be interpreted as my feeling
more certainty in my conclusions than is statistically valid. *It's an
issue with my writing style. *There's a line between assertive and
aggressive that I do not convey in person that I do convey in writing.
No matter the amount of practice I have not acheived the writing skill
to correctly qualify my statements. *Whenever I try they come across as
long legalese not as descriptions.

Why do I reach the conclusions I do? *What data have I based my
conclusions on? *What's the quality of that data? *Is there better data
on that topic available anywhere? *Is there a scientific explanation for
my stance in addition to the observed data? *Escpecially on points where
I disagree with what Dr Atkins appears to have written and on points
where people quote Dr Aktins regularly it is best to ask these questions
about my conclusions. *The quality of the data and any history I have of
changing my mind on the topic based on increased data quanity or quality
are important considerations.

There's also the issue of formal qualifications. *I'm an engineer with a
good scientific education with neither major nor degree in biochemistry
or medicine. *On the one hand I can't rely on my own authority because
the only authority I have is from a few people who have tried my
suggestions and succeeded. *On the other hand when I disagree with an
Atkins book quote and still claim to be an Atkins fan I have to be
careful in justifying my conclusions. *For me it has to be all about the
data, the quantity of the data and the quality of the data. *The data
has to follow the science and the science has to explain the data. *Here
Trader4 called me on data quality. *Data quality matters greatly. *And
yet conclusions can be made on poor quality data so long as those
conclusions are provisional and subject to change when/if better quality
data emerges.

I do think that beginners need certainty more than they need long lists
of qualifications but that's not the cause of my declarative writing
style. *Among the various side effects of my declarative writing style
that's one that's beneficial. *Not all of the side effects are
beneficial. *Plenty of folks disagree with me on a lot of points that
I've addressed any times over the years. *Eventually it comes down to an
offer to gather better data than I have and get back to me. *So far few
ever have. *

The problem is that your concept of "data" consists of anecdotal
reports from anyone posting on the internet. And I would also
strongly suspect that the data is NOT tabulated and interpreted with
an unbiased eye. In other words, you see what you want to see and
justify it in your own mind.

Regarding this whole issue of the deductibility of carbs, I'd say the
issue of accounting for the soluble carbs in the grand scheme of
things doesn't matter for two reasons. First, with most foods people
doing any reasonable version of LC, the amount of indigestible fiber
is going to be the dominant type of fiber. Second, most of the
soluble fiber is fermented in the digestive tract and turned into
short chain fatty acids, which are actually beneficial to our health.
These are not carbs. The rest is apparently eliminated undigested.

So, I think from a practical standpoint it's OK to simply deduct all
the carbs from the carb count.

Unless, of course, it doesn't work for *you*. Metabolisms vary.

--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.