| Lau924
|
|
|
[quote="Judynyc"] ladybugnessa wrote: I have friends that are atkins devotees (not doing too well I might add) who insist that my NET carbs are what's important.
it makes my head spin.
Net carbs = Total carbs - fiber - sugar alcohol (s/a is debatable)
You subtract them out b/c they do not cause a large fluctuation in your blood sugar. |
|
Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:57 pm |
|
| ladybugnessa
|
|
|
[quote="Lau924"] Judynyc wrote: ladybugnessa wrote: I have friends that are atkins devotees (not doing too well I might add) who insist that my NET carbs are what's important.
it makes my head spin.
Net carbs = Total carbs - fiber - sugar alcohol (s/a is debatable)
You subtract them out b/c they do not cause a large fluctuation in your blood sugar.
oh i know how to calculate it...
i just think it's hogwash. |
|
Tue Jun 12, 2007 3:03 pm |
|
| Lau924
|
|
|
I think it makes sense though... SB emphasizes the value of high fiber foods and also the value of keeping stable blood sugar throughout the day. WW uses fiber content to decrease the points in food. The sugar alcohol I think is questionable since there is no real proof either way (as far as any Atkinsers that I had spoken to) of it affecting your blood sugar or not.
I guess Dr Atkins figures why stress over a good carb that wont really harm your diet? |
|
Tue Jun 12, 2007 3:25 pm |
|
| Judynyc
|
|
|
The whole net carb thing is based on good science.....if you count carbs that is...and we don't so its a moot point to us on SBD.
Subtracting out fiber that has no effect on blood sugar is a good thing...we pay attention to the GI of foods as this shows us which carbs are the "good carbs" and will have a slow and minimal impact on our BS. :idea:
This is what Dr A spoke about today too. :wink: |
|
Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:15 am |
|
| EMM
|
|
|
Redroxco,
No, I mean like your doctors.
You know, the ones who have their heads shoved so far up their asses they can give themselves a colonoscopy?
I'm sure you're all familiar with them, you seem to put your lives in their slimy hands so often.
Well, they say brains skip a generation. |
|
Wed Jun 13, 2007 12:58 pm |
|
| Judynyc
|
|
|
EMM wrote: Redroxco,
No, I mean like your doctors.
You know, the ones who have their heads shoved so far up their asses they can give themselves a colonoscopy?
I'm sure you're all familiar with them, you seem to put your lives in their slimy hands so often.
Well, they say brains skip a generation.
Sheeesh....looks like your theory of brains skipping a generation has bitten you where the sun does not shine!! :P
Why are you even still here? You offer nothing of value to this conversation and are here to simply antagonize people. :evil: |
|
Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:45 pm |
|
| Kimboroni
|
|
|
| That's just what trolls do! It's inexplicable. |
|
Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:02 pm |
|
| A-Rod
|
|
|
EMM wrote: No, I mean like your doctors.
You know, the ones who have their heads shoved so far up their asses they can give themselves a colonoscopy?
I'm sure you're all familiar with them, you seem to put your lives in their slimy hands so often.
right, because this [trusting doctors?] is a bad idea when compared with _______?
gee tennessee, i don't get it. |
|
Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:06 pm |
|
| musicmom
|
|
|
I was actually glad to see Dr. Agatston refer to Dr. Atkins in SBD and give him some credit. If I remember correctly, he said something to the effect that he respected Dr. Atkins' work very much but some of the more recent science that has come out after his time helped Dr. Agatston to improve on some of Atkin's basic theories.
At any rate, for me doing Atkins worked to lose weight, but I was never fully invested in it just because the saturated fat levels seemed unreasonable for long-term health given studies in cardiology -- not a permanent way of eating. And also, the question of the healthfulness of ketosis was never quite convincing to me. You can read cogent arguments both for and against it. So I did it for awhile to good effect (20# or so) but not whole-heartedly, more as a concession to help lose some weight, which was even more unhealthy than the diet itself, in my opinion. I eventually let it go and kept off some of the weight.
Surprisingly, a couple years later when I found out I had gestational diabetes, I ended up unintentionally going back to the basic Atkins approach sheerly based on my blood chemistry. I was testing every single time I had something to eat, plus morning and evening (8-10 times a day), along with journalling every morsel. I learned a remarkable amount about my own blood sugar. If I ate more than 5g carbs in the morning without exercising, my blood glucose would go over my parameter. I could get away with maybe 10 if I exercised right after eating, depending on the food. I found that pairing my carbs with fat (whether sat or un-sat was a key -- without the fat, for example, I could not have the high-fiber seed bread that worked for me. With a T of cream cheese or margarine/butter, it was alright.) I could not eat any kind of whole wheat/grain bread at all in the mornings, no matter what. And the net carbs really did make a big difference for me. Things with fiber I could get away with much easier than things without.
I wish I'd known more about SBD during that time and experimented a little more with it. But even things like carrots, onions, tomatoes, and other veggies would make my bs spike, so I'm not sure how much difference it would have made.
At any rate, now that I don't have a pregnancy to consider, I am so much happier with SBD than I ever was with Atkins. Although I agree completely that there is not a terribly large difference with the current evolvement of Atkins and SBD, still, the amt. of sat. fat allowed in Atkins and the perspective that ketosis is a positive thing remains troubling to me, especially for a long-term WOE, even to lose weight. I would not go back on it unless it was a pretty extreme situation. SBD seems so much more well-rounded and livable over the long haul.
And I'm happy to report that after only a few weeks on SBD and dropping a total of about 20# my blood sugar issues are completely gone and I'm testing normal all the time. |
|
Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:52 pm |
|
| Judynyc
|
|
|
musicmom wrote: At any rate, now that I don't have a pregnancy to consider, I am so much happier with SBD than I ever was with Atkins. Although I agree completely that there is not a terribly large difference with the current evolvement of Atkins and SBD, still, the amt. of sat. fat allowed in Atkins and the perspective that ketosis is a positive thing remains troubling to me, especially for a long-term WOE, even to lose weight. I would not go back on it unless it was a pretty extreme situation. SBD seems so much more well-rounded and livable over the long haul.
And I'm happy to report that after only a few weeks on SBD and dropping a total of about 20# my blood sugar issues are completely gone and I'm testing normal all the time.
Good for you!! That is a wonderful result.
....I agree on the ketosis issue...not sure its a good place to dwell. But too bad for so many who do not do atkins properly and end up at their goal weight eating a measly 20 grams of carbs a day and still being in ketosis....then they are bewildered as to why they can't keep the weight off when they start to eat carbs again. :roll: .....
Dr M Eades talked about this issue in his blog last week and I posted in the Health section on this forum. We, on SBD, while we are still losing our weight, add in good carbs so that our metabolism adjusts to handling them and we keep losing. I believe that it is this reason alone that I'm able to maintain my weight loss...because I eat the same way now as I ate to lose it + a few treats. :idea: approx 100 grams of carbs a day.
The good carbs actually stoke the fires of our metabolism....staying in phase I or Induction is not a wise choice, unless you are a type I diabetic...or some kind of masochist and relish living without eating any good carbs. :wink: |
|
Sun Jun 17, 2007 11:28 pm |
|