Net Carbs - is it a real thing?

(Butter Withaspoon) #22

The only resource you are squandering is fat. Ketones are made from fat, so in effect you are peeing out fats. Don’t be sad!


No opinions, absolutely a thing, very well known for a long time now going back long before keto was popular.

Shut that off, aside from always being very wrong, what you’re doing in reality is given it back to eat again, therefor erasing your workout. Let you’re workouts be your deficit, or an added deficit. Figure out your macros and just stick to them daily until they need to change.

Congrats! Best addiction you’ll ever have!

(Wendy) #24

I think net carbs make your total intake more flexible. Gives you more choices. The key is moderation. Like most things.


I am a bit late, oh whatever, I will be quick.
Net carbs seem to matter to me, not total carbs. I probably ate 80-100g total carbs until fat adaption (never tracked, it’s a guess but it was WAY over my 40g total as I ate lots of fiber and erythritol every day), I saw no problem regarding ketosis and fat adaptation at all, it’s another matter I need to go lower to get other benefits.
So yep, I totally believe in net carbs in my case… But people say they need a low total so it’s individual.

(Todd Chester) #26

Hi Sivart1966,

I realize I am getting in on this a little late.

I am going to be the contrarian here. No it is not real. It is a marketing gimmick to carb load products to keep you happy, keep you addicted, and keep you buying their stuff. Stuff that does not require refrigeration, is cheap to producem and has a high profit margin.

What Keto is or is suppose to be is the "Historically Appropriate Human Diet" (HAHD). The Standard American Diet (SAD) is full of "historically inappropriate" high glycemic carbohydrates coming from plants that were hybridized for high glycemic carbohydrates NOT FOUND IN NATURE. For example: corn, rice, wheat, potatoes, sweet potatoes, winter squash. They are NOT historically appropriate and our bodies were not designed or evolved to consume them. The ONLY animals that do well on seeds are birds.

"Historically appropriate" carbs usually occur with “soluble fiber” (inulin,etc.). These are converted to sugar in your intestines by your microbiota (gut bacteria). They are converted more slowly, which keeps you from spiking, but they still cause your blood sugar to rise, but at a safe level/rate.

Now “Net Carbs” says that if you were to take a bowl of wheat flakes or a bowl of sugar and mix into it a bowl of flax seeds, that the net carbs would be zero and you would be safe. It is absolute rubbish.

What would happen is that both would be metabolized separately and your blood sugar would SPIKE. You would stay addicted to high glycemic carbs and you would get ZERO benefit from the HAHD as you are consuming "historically inappropriate" carbohydrates.

Here is the proper way to go about the HAHD. Go to

  1. look up your food (do a google search for “nutritiondata food” if you can’t find it)

  2. at the top of the page, look for “Glycemic Load”. Just add the up for the day. If you are diabetic, keep it under 15. If you are healthy, keep it under 20. DON’T CHEAT ON YOUR GLYCEMIC LOAD!

  3. if you are diabetic, keep your carbs under 15 per mean and 60 per day. No borrowing. If you are healthy, keep it under 100 per day.

Don’t do the Net Carb thing. It is just a marketing gimmick to push the SAD.

Hope this helps you out,


(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #27

Yes, this statement is rubbish. This is not what ‘net carbs’ means at all. 50 grams of sugar mixed with a bowl of indigestible straw equals 50 grams of net carbs.


@amwassil… too funny ya pointed out the math on it but ya know what the point was on it :slight_smile:

------------------------count total carbs. Simple as that if one wants more truth in their eating plan. Count net carbs and if one does well and thrives on that, then YOU are a person who can usually get away with higher carbs/body system effects in your life.

Our ‘critical carb limit’ for each of us is extremely personal from the body science standpoint of our insulin spikes and more but we also got the mind game of what the heck can I eat in life to make this work for me and also make it a life long eating plan…tough darn balance for alot of us to find ourselves on whatever eating plan we choose.

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #29

@Fangs Thanks, but no, I think the point was mistaken. Net does not mean average. It means that some of the total carbs consist of indigestible cellulose which is not digested by our gut bacteria. The poster does not appear to understand the difference. One could eat a bucketful of grass, for example, and the result would be diarrhea, not ‘slow release’ glucose.

However, I agree that different amounts of digestible carbs can affect different folks differently. And some of us can tolerate more than others. I don’t think there’s any argument about that at all. I also think it’s important to understand that net refers to digestible and is not an average.

PS: And, I further agree that plant derived carbs, whether digestible or not, contain other substances that adversely affect some folks and for them avoiding all carbs is a good idea.


OK…good ol’ fun chat here…ahhh… the diff. cause I am one to think the indigestible cellulose is not digested STILL means the carbs are let loose in the body…the body doesn’t expel them so key being…which side of this pretend factor do we use???

so point of view on that comes into play from how we start this.

key being if one eats a pile of broccoli…whatever carbs, does one test the poop of what the carbs came out of the body with that indigestible part of the plant? Where is proof that indigestible carbs in some form come outta the body, I sure have not seen it. ON paper it seems real, but can we link real science studies to it?

The indigestible fiber does not come out whole as taken in, it has been acid effect, gut effected, body effected in tons of ways but might come out as a big pile of more poop but it has been ‘processed by the body’ so where did those ‘so called undigestible carbs’ go?

ya know I never believed that crap science chat…but now ya got me wanting to look it up or do you have it on hand? Now I am way more curious to prove or not…very interesting angles on it from each of our points of view when we start the chat from our views on how it begins.

again, just a chat on what goes down cause once in the body, WE THINK we can call it, but without proof on the real science one can’t…where is that real science to back ‘net’? There isn’t any I have seen, it IS a marketing stragety for sure to get people to buy but based on what real science? hmmm, still yet to see it but darn if I ain’t gonna go look for some…interesting to see what I find? There are tons of ways to ‘caluclate’ net carbs but based on what? The what science is key and I have never found that info yet? You got it?

Only thing I ever see is time line in guts. Your body takes a poop before it can break down those carbs in your system and it means it comes out the other end, but heck is that reality based on real science? I mean one can eat brocc and it doesnt set well and crap fast thru gut issues and allergy issues to that plant intake, what is the carb count when it came out and what was left behind? Then ya got people who eat brocc with their meal and they don’t hit the bathroom for 2-3 days? So IS any of that carb indigestible stuff used then?

bunk if ya ask me on a real personal body science LOL Sorry truly cause too many thoughts and which way to roll on net carbs for me so threw alot of my chat out there on it :sunny:

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #31

This is a rat study so the usual caveats apply. Still interesting. My general takeaway without reading the whole study is that like I said above, different stuff affects different folks differently. I think we agree about that.


It’s enough for me that 100g total carbs are apparently fine for ketosis in my case as long as the net is way lower… So I am sure net carbs are a thing.
But I suppose many people use tons of total carbs in sweeteners on keto. I saw recipes, people clearly didn’t come from some added sugar free diet, I couldn’t stomach those overly sweet things without liters of black coffee!
And it clearly doesn’t work so well for some but works for others…?
Similar things with fibers… Maybe some are used by us even if they are allegedly zero net, many people count xylitol as 100% net carbs and erythritol as 50% or what… I always counted xylitol as 40% and ignored all fibers and erythrytol (I used a lot, that’s why my total was so high all the time in my first keto period and fat adaptation went well so it worked nicely to me. I just had too much net carbs to get all the benefits I could later), I was lucky but this is individual according to experiences.

If one wants to be super safe, stay below 20g total (and if they are unlucky, it will be too much but the chances are tiny), I was realistic and ate way more net and unlimited total as it was my only way. But I went lower later, that was a good idea when I actually could do it…


from the article: and was unaffected by carbohydrates; whereas colonic crypt depth was greater in rats fed cellulose. Myenteron thickness in the cecum was unaffected by nutrition, but was greater in the colon of rats fed cellulose.

cellulose is in all veg to start so controlled diet to this level on what a human eats…being human and while rats ‘give us an idea’ we ain’t rats on a controlled diet LOL

This a cancer focused study vs. ‘a carb vs net carb study’ to boot.

from the article: After 21 days, rats were sacrificed by CO2 asphyxiation. Ceca were resected, emptied, and weighed

Now I get what the study is being about but this does not give what carbs came out of the body on a daily poop vs. what was ingested into a human. No human ate brocooli or lettuce and didn’t poop for 21 days and the carbs registered in this poop shows what was not used by the body.

I see some correlation but the stretch is WAY OFF what I am wanting to know.

Eat a lb. of broccoli.
Next day crap.
We know the carbs we ate, what are kept in us and what came out in true carb form not ever used by the body.

Squat if ya ask me. Net carbs is a joke so far from all I read and this thing doesn’t support the true question at all.

Again this is just a fun chat, never meant to be tough in any way cause for me persnally, I researched net carbs and not once have I found a study to support it in a real simple approach of this is a real deal. To me it is not. But that is a personal conclusion based on nothing out there that ever swung me the other way? It isn’t there, simple as that.

I want a study on truth science based on what is asked.

What carbs actually come out of the body after eating XYZ only veg with some indigestible carbs in it and how are those determined thru real facts? Again I can’t find it.

I wish some could LOL

just from atkins site: Net Carbs = Total Carbohydrates – Fiber – Sugar Alcohols (if applicable)

We know sugar alcohols sit WELL BAD for many thru tons of reasons and yet ‘they are ok’ on netting out the carbs :slight_smile: but doesn’t work for alot of us and then we got Fiber, which doesn’t set well for alot of us against plant based intake and what foods we do well on but not one time, when ya ASK the internet to ‘find real truth on what carbs are expelled thru that fiber’ can you ever get science to back it? So?

google it and ya hit ‘how to calculate’ but they never give truths thru science on what is being asked that I can find??

eat 1 lb brocc
what is carbed in the body and what is crapped out in real data showing your carbs were not absorbed ever thru that indigestible fiber?
Ain’t out there and not true. Simple as that to me til the science shows me diff.

I am one of those, show me people but I know many can do very very very well on netting the carbs cause their bodies can handle it and thru personal physical bodies can it work for them. Not doubting that, but no science is there truly on this indigestible fiber netting out carbs!

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #34

At work so can’t respond in detail. We probably agree on most. I’ll only point out now that were all carbs generally about the same in digestive results - good or bad for whomever - the human species would be out grazing with the cows, not eating them. The complexity of specific carbs matters, from the simplest single glucose molecule to the most chained, branched and convoluted. The simpler the overall molecular structure the more we can extract (ie ‘digest’) out of it. But maybe absolute zero is a moving target.


oh I think we sure agree on most and I get you can’t respond thru work and all.

all good always!!

key being I want the darn proof on that net carb stuff but darn if I can’t find any solid info on it at all in real science…and believe me thru the years I looked LOL

all cool M!

(Joey) #36

I’ve been thoroughly enjoying this exchange.

Not sure I would readily agree. But then again, I think our general understanding of the role of fiber in a “healthy” diet falls well short of the mark. Perhaps these papers might be of some interest? (I’ve highlighted the more salient passages for your convenience)…

DietaryFiber-Cnstipation.pdf (787.2 KB)

Fiber-H2O-Magnesium-Constipation.pdf (111.7 KB)

Fiber-ColorectalCancer.pdf (584.8 KB)

Finally, this paper is tucked behind a pay-wall, but the abstract is readable and may be of some interest…

Spoiler: Here’s the final sentence…

“There is growing evidence of the high impact of dietary fiber and foods with a low GI on single risk factors (e.g., lipid pattern, diabetes, inflammation, endothelial function etc.) as well as also the development of the endpoints of atherosclerosis especially CHD.”

Onward we go :vulcan_salute:


So agree that Fiber? in our digestive tracks and what humans require is a guess…darn a good guess at that but? :slight_smile: cause ALL this fiber talk is bunk point blank for those who don’t require it and studies never show truths on it as it should be shown…but if the majority rules or corp greed plays the funding game then?

(Todd Chester) #38

Straw or saw dust or toothpicks sautéd in butter are “indigestable carbs”. They go right through you. "Soluble fiber” such as inulin, etc. as “polysaccharides” and are converted to sugar by the your microbiom in your intestines. A slow, gently “historically appropriate” release.

What the “Net Carb” scam purports is that you can subtract polysaccharides from your carb count. Good luck with that. If you do not have blood sugar issues and are not one of the eleven that will get diabetes, more power to you. You still need to watch out for the inflammation problems a high glycemic diet will cause (damage to your heart and circulatory system, etc.), not to mention the T3 diabetes (alzheimer’s). You will not get the benefits of the “historically appropriate human diet”

Next prepackaged “granola” bar you see in the supermarket touting “Keto” and “zero net carb”, check out the ingredient list. Lots and lots of sugars and carbs. It is a scam.

(Todd Chester) #39

“Net carbs” does not differentiate between “indigestible” and microbiome digestible “polysaccharides”. “Net carbs” is a marketing scam to get you to consume cheap, easy to store high glycemic carbs that keep you addicted and keep you buying their high margin historically inappropriate products.

(Todd Chester) #40

“Diarrhea” is your body ejecting something it thinks is toxic. Indigestible fiber helps you crap, but that is not diarrhea (no yellow bile). If you are having troubles with your microbiome and can’t properly digest polyacrylamide, the tip off is that you FART like crazy, not diarrhea.


until some one EVER shows proof to me I sure agree :sunny:
yup, ALL about the products thru company greed vs. a shred, a literal shred of the tiniest bit of small truth and away we go…net the world on carbs to line the corps pocket! Works so well on packaged frozen meals and bars and desserts and more, that darn, under ‘this code of food choice’ is WAY more higher expensive…ugh

yet again not one shred of real study that can prove ever that net is real…ain’t gonna be either if one asks me :sunny: