How low-carb is low-carb?

Hi to all,

I'm wondering - what's your daily intake of carbs? And what is the upper carb
limit that you'd personally consider as low-carb?

Please no name calling and shouting - just post what you think is truly fair and
square low-carb. Please refrain from posting if you're eating
toast/pasta/potatoes/rice on a daily basis unless you really feel that you
should post or you're on maintainence, because frankly, I think that's a bogus
low-carb diet. Anyway, to summarise, please answer the following questions:

(1) The upper limit for net carb intake on a daily basis, counting sugar
alcohols as carbs.

(2) The upper limit for net carb intake on a daily basis, counting sugar
alcohols as non-carbs.

(3) The upper limit of net carb count per 100g of any food, counting sugar
alcohols as carbs. E.g. would you self- impose a limit say that you wouldn't
eat any food where more than 5% of the ingredients are carbs.

(4) Same as (3), but counting sugar alcohols as non-carbs.

N.B. Net carbs = Total carbs - Fibre

I am asking these questions because I think - may be- there are two approaches
to low-carb. You can either control the ABSOLUTE level of carbs in your diet,
i.e. you count how many carbs you ingest a day. Alternatively you can count the
RELATIVE level of carbs by limiting yourself to eat only things that are less
than 4% carbs. I am thinking that the second method is a tad lousier but
possibly easier to maintain on a long term basis.

For me, I have decided that I would avoid all sugar alcohols. My answers for
(1) is 60g for maintenance, possibly around 30-40g for losing, (3) is 4%.

Your thoughts?

Ada

In article ,
Ada Ma wrote:

I'm wondering - what's your daily intake of carbs? And what is the upper
carb
limit that you'd personally consider as low-carb?

My understanding is that 100 grams per day or less is generally
considered low-carb. That's what will put one into ketosis.

Please no name calling and shouting - just post what you think is truly fair
and
square low-carb. Please refrain from posting if you're eating
toast/pasta/potatoes/rice on a daily basis unless you really feel that you
should post or you're on maintainence, because frankly, I think that's a
bogus
low-carb diet. Anyway, to summarise, please answer the following questions:

Well, aren't we judgemental?

Questionaire snipped.

I am asking these questions because I think - may be- there are two
approaches to low-carb.

Two? I think there are at least four "plans" which fall into low-carb
(Zone, Protein Power, South Beach, and Atkins) plus all the individual
approaches.

You can either control the ABSOLUTE level of carbs in your
diet,
i.e. you count how many carbs you ingest a day. Alternatively you can count
the
RELATIVE level of carbs by limiting yourself to eat only things that are less
than 4% carbs. I am thinking that the second method is a tad lousier but
possibly easier to maintain on a long term basis.

I've never run across the second, I think, unless you're talking about
those of us who avoid heavily carby foods and then eat what won't spike
our blood glucose, as measured by our glucometers. For some of us, that
can include your dread "toast/pasta/potatoes/rice on a daily basis."
Ever hear of portion control?

For me, I have decided that I would avoid all sugar alcohols. My answers for
(1) is 60g for maintenance, possibly around 30-40g for losing, (3) is 4%.

Your thoughts?

Well, for one, that you're pretty narrow-minded about what low-carbing
is.

Priscilla

My answers below are for non-Induction, weight maintenance.

"Ada Ma" wrote in message
...
Hi to all,

I'm wondering - what's your daily intake of carbs? And what is the upper
carb
limit that you'd personally consider as low-carb?

Please no name calling and shouting - just post what you think is truly
fair and
square low-carb. Please refrain from posting if you're eating
toast/pasta/potatoes/rice on a daily basis unless you really feel that you
should post or you're on maintainence, because frankly, I think that's a
bogus
low-carb diet. Anyway, to summarise, please answer the following
questions:

(1) The upper limit for net carb intake on a daily basis, counting sugar
alcohols as carbs.

100g


(2) The upper limit for net carb intake on a daily basis, counting sugar
alcohols as non-carbs.

75g


(3) The upper limit of net carb count per 100g of any food, counting sugar
alcohols as carbs. E.g. would you self- impose a limit say that you
wouldn't
eat any food where more than 5% of the ingredients are carbs.

25g


(4) Same as (3), but counting sugar alcohols as non-carbs.

15g


N.B. Net carbs = Total carbs - Fibre

I am asking these questions because I think - may be- there are two
approaches
to low-carb. You can either control the ABSOLUTE level of carbs in your
diet,
i.e. you count how many carbs you ingest a day. Alternatively you can
count the
RELATIVE level of carbs by limiting yourself to eat only things that are
less
than 4% carbs. I am thinking that the second method is a tad lousier but
possibly easier to maintain on a long term basis.

For me, I have decided that I would avoid all sugar alcohols. My answers
for
(1) is 60g for maintenance, possibly around 30-40g for losing, (3) is 4%.

Your thoughts?

Ada


I dislike sugar alcohols too.

Ada Ma wrote:

For me, I have decided that I would avoid all sugar alcohols. My
answers for (1) is 60g for maintenance, possibly around 30-40g for
losing, (3) is 4%.

I don't do sugar alcohols. I count net carbs, total carbs minus fiber.
I aim at 30-50 grams/day, and also aim at 1200-2000 calories per day,
which varies between 6 - 16%.

My aim has been way off lately though, I have major appetite supression
happenning and am just not hungry enough to eat that much anymore. I
expect that my low end values have become my high end values over the
last month or so...

I expect maintenance level to be somewhere in the 80-100 grams level,
but won't know until I get there.

--
As you accelerate your food, it takes exponentially more and more energy
to increase its velocity, until you hit a limit at C. This energy has
to come from somewhere; in this case, from the food's nutritional value.
Thus, the faster the food is, the worse it gets.
-- Mark Hughes, comprehending the taste of fast food

Ada asked,
And what is the upper
carb
limit that you'd personally consider as low-carb?

-

Becky said,
I think mine is about 40 carbs per day. I've not been counting lately, but
rather, doing the "eating lower carbed foods only" thing as you suggested.
Maybe that is why I'm not losing anymore, or very slowly, as well. ...(of
course, exercise would help incredibly.)

But, I think if you are allowed 60-80 carbs per day, you probably could
eat a piece of bread or two, or some pasta type thing, etc...maybe even a
Snickers candy bar if the rest of your day was very low carb.

But, I generally try to just eat things that are Low
carb...individually...and that way, collectively, it should be end result,
LC. As I move closer to real life maintenance, I really need to "count"
my carbs to get an idea of what I'm doing, though, and actually purposely
"up" them...to ease into maintenance.

Sorry if I didn't answer your questions like you wanted. I think the
official answer to "what constitutes a low carb diet?" is under 100 carbs
per day.

Becky P.

Extremely judgemental I would say.. anyone who has done even the smallest
amount of reading and research on low carb would know that what is *low
carb* for one is too much for another, or even too low for someone else.
Plenty of us eat some types of bread, grains, even.. gasp.. the rare potato,
sometimes less "rare". Your attitude is what is *bogus* and was rather
unnecessary.. especially if you really think it's going to keep some of us
from responding because we didn't fit your criteria.... you post in a public
forum, you get public replies. You need to find out what works for you..
what works for others may be a good start but again, this is a VERY
individual thing.

Teeb

"Priscilla Ballou" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ada Ma wrote:

I'm wondering - what's your daily intake of carbs? And what is the
upper
carb
limit that you'd personally consider as low-carb?

My understanding is that 100 grams per day or less is generally
considered low-carb. That's what will put one into ketosis.

Please no name calling and shouting - just post what you think is truly
fair
and
square low-carb. Please refrain from posting if you're eating
toast/pasta/potatoes/rice on a daily basis unless you really feel that
you
should post or you're on maintainence, because frankly, I think that's a
bogus
low-carb diet. Anyway, to summarise, please answer the following
questions:

Well, aren't we judgemental?

Questionaire snipped.

I am asking these questions because I think - may be- there are two
approaches to low-carb.

Two? I think there are at least four "plans" which fall into low-carb
(Zone, Protein Power, South Beach, and Atkins) plus all the individual
approaches.

You can either control the ABSOLUTE level of carbs in your
diet,
i.e. you count how many carbs you ingest a day. Alternatively you can
count
the
RELATIVE level of carbs by limiting yourself to eat only things that are
less
than 4% carbs. I am thinking that the second method is a tad lousier
but
possibly easier to maintain on a long term basis.

I've never run across the second, I think, unless you're talking about
those of us who avoid heavily carby foods and then eat what won't spike
our blood glucose, as measured by our glucometers. For some of us, that
can include your dread "toast/pasta/potatoes/rice on a daily basis."
Ever hear of portion control?

For me, I have decided that I would avoid all sugar alcohols. My
answers for
(1) is 60g for maintenance, possibly around 30-40g for losing, (3) is
4%.

Your thoughts?

Well, for one, that you're pretty narrow-minded about what low-carbing
is.

Priscilla

Ada Ma wrote:
I am asking these questions because I think - may be- there are two
approaches to low-carb. You can either control the ABSOLUTE level of
carbs in your diet, i.e. you count how many carbs you ingest a day.
Alternatively you can count the RELATIVE level of carbs by limiting
yourself to eat only things that are less than 4% carbs. I am thinking
that the second method is a tad lousier but possibly easier to maintain
on a long term basis.

I'd think the first approach is easier and better, as it allows high
carb foods in small amounts.

For me, I have decided that I would avoid all sugar alcohols. My
answers for (1) is 60g for maintenance,

I was around 60 g for losing, which equalled about 11% of my calorie intake.

possibly around 30-40g for
losing, (3) is 4%.

Your thoughts?

Do you mean energy % or weight %? I think 40% by energy is low carb for
maintenance ("normal" diets have 65-70% carbs), and 20% for body
pruning. But I also consider a LC woe to be more than carb numbers, but
one where one selects the carbs wisely - ie. aim for (not necessarilly
restricted to) the good carbs. This means I do consider the Zone
lowcarb, and it is pretty good for maintenance.

"Archon" wrote in message
news
Do you mean energy % or weight %? I think 40% by energy is low carb for
maintenance ("normal" diets have 65-70% carbs), and 20% for body
pruning.

40% sounds pretty close to "traditionnal" diet than low carb. 40% from
carbs, 35% from fat and 25% from proteins are figures you can often find in
balanced diets. That's pretty close to what I actually eat while losing
weight (which is also what I eat when I'm not, I'm doing mere portion
control).
The 65-70% is not something I would define as normal. If you eat a decent
amount of proteins, that would put fats in the 5-15% range, which is
*extreme* low fat (when doctors were saying "low fat", they were thinking
20%). Less than 10% fat is insane, very unsatisfactory (hard to get any
satiety, lack of taste, hard to cook) and very unhealthy.

But I also consider a LC woe to be more than carb numbers, but
one where one selects the carbs wisely - ie. aim for (not necessarilly
restricted to) the good carbs. This means I do consider the Zone
lowcarb, and it is pretty good for maintenance.

If you only limit the kind of carbs, you are again pretty close to a
traditionnal diet. Not that long ago, the main sources of carbs were still
unprocessed stuff. Again, not totally unlike what I'm currently doing. I
still would not consider I'm doing LC.

Lictor wrote:
40% sounds pretty close to "traditionnal" diet than low carb. 40% from
carbs, 35% from fat and 25% from proteins are figures you can often find in
balanced diets. That's pretty close to what I actually eat while losing
weight (which is also what I eat when I'm not, I'm doing mere portion
control).
The 65-70% is not something I would define as normal. If you eat a decent
amount of proteins, that would put fats in the 5-15% range, which is
*extreme* low fat (when doctors were saying "low fat", they were thinking
20%). Less than 10% fat is insane, very unsatisfactory (hard to get any
satiety, lack of taste, hard to cook) and very unhealthy.

Danish official recommended numbers a 10-15% protein, Max (not "aim
for") 30% fat (and the lowfat hype epidemic in DK, probably causing 20%
to be normal), and the rest is carbs, with white boiled potatoes and rye
bread being the recommended stables (few veggies in Danish dishes).
A serving size of meat in DK is a third of the pound for dinner, and you
are supposed to get satiated by stuffing up with potatoes.

My understanding is that 100 grams per day or less is generally
considered low-carb. That's what will put one into ketosis.

For over a week now I have eaten less only meat, cheese and eggs. On 1
night I had some spaghetti sauce poured over chix breast, but that was last
week. I drink over 100 Oz of water a day. Today's food for example:
Breakfast was 3 deviled eggs made with Mayo and French's mustard, lunch was
2 patties of sausage (about 5-6 oz total) with butter and supper was about 6
oz of Black Angus Beef (sirloin) on the BBQ. I don't see any carbs here,
yet I am still not in ketosis. Perhaps the water intake is keeping me out?
No hunger, no cravings for sweets and an exhausting workout at the health
club. Since I was using the outdoor grill I seized the opportunity to cook
up some burgers, chix breast and pork to test out the new vacuum sealer.
What a nice convenience!

Gunn