What is "low carb" ?
 

What makes a low carb plan "low carb"?

When we undertake a LC plan there are many different books available to us to choose from; have a look through the link "Which LC Plan is Right for Me?" on the right hand margin of every page for an idea.

What makes these plans LC? The restriction they place on carbohydrates? Can it be that simple? If it is, why are there so many variations. If tomorrow I stopped eating rice, corn and flour but changed no other dietary habits, would I have invented the "Nat LC Plan"?

Perhaps the question should be "What is LC". Is low carb simply eating less carbs? Is it just about diet?

What do you think the answer is?

Nat

Hi! :wave:

I think that it must be "lower than normal carb intake." The normal carb intake of most people in our society (especially here in NS) is way higher than any of the "low-carb" plans allow. The purpose of the plans (as I see it) is to find the carb level that allows one to lose weight and then to maintain it. I think that this is a very individual thing. Some people lose and maintain at 50g or higher, others at 20g.

Low-carb seems to be a restriction on carbs. If simply cutting out corn, flour and rice works for a person, then that seems to me to be a low-carb alternative for that person. Some people's diets may consist of mainly corn, flour and rice and that may be their problem area. Others may suffer from refined sugar addiction and simply cutting out corn, flour and rice may not be enough.

We are all individuals and all have our own eating styles and habits. I guess different plans were developed for different types of people...not to mention for making lots of money from selling the books! :p

I guess this is how I see it? Interesting question.

KC :daze:

I was really thinking about this for a while. What is high-carb? The traditional "healthy" diet is 70%C/15%P/15%F. Is low-carb anything lower than that?

Or a balanced diet, what's that? One third of each: Protein, Carbs and Fat? Above 33% is high, below 33% is low?

The percentage method is skewed depending on the caloric intake too. So is it by the grams count?

It seems like an impossible task, but who knows? Take a shot at your own definition.

Wa'il

I consider it to be anything below 50g for weight loss and 100g/day for maintenance, only low-glycemic index carbs. I also think of it as any plan that doesn't require you to ever go below ~1500 cals/day so that the BMR isn't lowered.

Re: What is "low carb" ?
 

What makes these plans LC? The restriction they place on carbohydrates? Yes

Can it be that simple? Yes

If it is, why are there so many variations. Money. The diet industry is a multi billion dollar industry. Copycats appear anytime there is a place to make money. And it's not necessarily driven only by the authors and inventors and producers - but the publishers and investors as well. George Carlin once said "Nail 2 things together that have never been nailed together before, and some schmuck will buy it from you."

If tomorrow I stopped eating rice, corn and flour but changed no other dietary habits, would I have invented the "Nat LC Plan"? Yes, you could have and you still can. You can't copyright a recipe or any food combinations. You can only copyright what you invent. None of the low carb authors have invented a new food. Butter is not new. ;)

Perhaps the question should be "What is LC". Is low carb simply eating less carbs? Is it just about diet? Low carb as a phrase, to me means only about diet. I eat low carb style. The program I followed was called "Atkins". I have incorporated low carb style eating into my lifestyle which I think of as simply "healthy" and well adjusted. No fanatical obsessions, lots of variety and good choices in exercise, spirituality, introspection, social activities, a good dose of elbow grease applied against anything worthy of my attention, and a bit of slap and tickle every once in a while. I can say that when I started out and well into my weight loss plan I focussed very much on being "a low carber" and using that phrase to represent the whole me. But since at goal, my focus has shifted to simply living life to its fullest just for me. I don't compete with anyone.

Good topic Nat. Are you taking up philosophy by chance? :)

Re: Re: What is "low carb" ?
 

I'm thinking more "religion" ;)

N

What is LC?
 

Well, It is not low fat for sure. The problem is that we have three variables in our diet to play with; Protein, Carbohydrate and Fat. The majority of the processed foods available contain all three. High and low are all relative terms to what? Higher than each other or higher than an absolute value. Low carb could be the same as high protein or high fat.

For most LC plans LC is lower than an absolute value normally 20-40 carbs. But a personal carbohydrate level could be even higher and still within the low carb framework.

So for me Low carb is defined by what it isn't. It is not low calorie. It is not low fat. It is not low protein.

The fat is higher than the protein which is higher than the carbohydrate. So there is a hierachy as well.

There are no proprietary rights to the truth. The truth is in the carbohydrate/sugar/insulin/weight gain equation. I wish I could make some money by repackaging everything in a new bestseller.

The New Sugar Zone Power Flush for Life.

Re: What is LC?
 

Well said, rustpot. As usual.

How about the Hierachical Plan?

Nat

Wellllll, I don't know! Moderate calorie, higher-fat, adequate protein, and carbs no higher than ?X? (120, which is a typical Zone number?) hmm. SP doesn't count LC veggies...so it's possible to eat 80 grams on her plan in a day even if you're only moderately active. well heck, but paleo doesn't limit carbs at all! you can have 14 bananas in a day on that (which would likely result in some darned odd digestive results, but would not result in our eliminating that plan from the board listings) Both the Zone and Dr. Berstein's Diabetic Solution have pretty low calorie levels.

Is insulin control the main object? That would allow CAD, the Zone, and probably paleo to fall under the definition, but barely. CAD allows really HC foods--chocolate cake and milk are fine on that plan. Not all plans are ketogenic, so that can't work.

Is the permanent way of eating a requirement? It seems that most of the programs end up in about the same place in maintenance phase (some retain permanent food restrictions, tho, in particular, the elimination of sugar in all forms)
Do healthy fats matter? Dr A seems to care not a bit about that. Neanderthin, SP and PPLP care a whole lot. (and doesn't the specific carb diet?)

I'm trying to figure it out a bit backwards, Nat. Looking at the programs we accept here as "LC," what are the commonalities...can that help us reach a definition?

I dont think the amount of protein or fat needs to change in ones diet for them to be eating LC.
If I was eating lets say 200 g carb daily, which would be considered 'normal' and lowered that to 50ecc g (which is what I had yesterday) that would be lowering my carbs to way below the general populous so therefore labelled LC.
If I am eating the right amount of protein recomended for my weight and lifestle and enough fat to provide the essentials needed, there is no need to change anything further.
I am not on a high/low fat diet or a high/low protein diet both I think should be adequate but for one to say they are eating LC that means in a nut shell they have cut the carbs back to considerably enough to be different than the norm. For health and satisfaction reasons we then also hopefully be sensible and choose our carbs from the most unrefined/natural and low glycemic factor as possible.
A person could though eat NO carbs all day and then have a spoon of sugar in hot chocolate at bedtime and still be LCing.
Just not a way I would recomend though. CAD is LC but i couldnt do it. The reward meal drove me to distraction.
I suppose it depends on how carb addicted you are and what your trigger foods are.
I get frustrated with the way some people ask me what i doing to lose weight and when i say Im LCing or on Atkins, they immediately start callingit a high protein diet. I didnt say that, I am not eating high protein (yesterday I had 78g) I am eating LC.
I eat between 10 and 12 x my lean body mass in calories a day. This is lower then many of you but I am happy with what I eat but minding the calories are not whats enabling me to be sucessful, its cutting out ALL the refined carbs and LCing so thats where I lay all the credit :D

Just had to comment on how well chosen your siggie is, fits in with your statement to a T :cool:

I would not call CAD a low carb diet. It is about insulin control, but it is not low carb, IMO. Most LCers would cringe at the idea of eating what people on CAD can scarf down during their reward meal (or whatever they're calling it now). Many carbs can be consumed in that hour!

I think that the limits TeriDoodle proposed are about right. I'm not sure that I completely agree that the carbs have to be low GI. They *should* be, of course, but <100 g of carbs seems LC to me, regardless of their composition.

Low carb is about reducing your carb intake. If you were to remove candy bars, ice cream, doughnuts etc from your diet, you will lose weight, if this is your primary source of carbs. However, you must have carbohydrates but not so many of them. Therefore look to nutritious, lc, vegetables and low carb fruits for your carb intake. There are many of them. You can reduce your carb intake by removing or reducing white flour, rice, potatoes if this is your primary source of carbohydrates. I have found that over-dosing on carbohydrates is the fat culprit not carbs themselves. If we learned to limit these things in our youth there would not have been the carbohydrate/obesity/diabetic problems that we see today.

I've never been crazy about the term Low Carb. I would, at the least prefer Dr Atkins term of "controlled carbs".
As we can see from this thread and by the many books out there each individual interprets LC slightly differently.
I guess the really question is "what are the commonalities amoungst these various interpretations?".
The first thing for me is "get rid of any refined sugars"
The second is "get rid of processed high glycemic index foods"

I believe if these two things didn't exist then the current epidemic of overweight people would not exist.
Of course now we need LC plans that go to more extreme lengths like reducing daily carbs to below 20 in order to get the weight we've gained off. Once it is off and for most of those who have it off following these two rules will likely keep it off.

I was just thinking that even if one went as low as 100 grams of carbs per day that would be low carb. Considering 4 slices of some breads=100 grams of carbs.
To me if a diet addresses the carbohydrate issue with boldness and accuracy, it is low carb. Removing sweets and chips from my diet would make it low carb. I think I ate more Snicker Bars than potatoes or rice. As a matter of fact, cookies, chips and candy ends up going bad in our house now. Does that mean that I was the only one eating those things? Low carb is actually normal carb when we eat right.