• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

carbs, fibre, net carbs - I'm confused!

jpscloud

jpscloud

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,200
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Tablets (oral)
Ok sorry for being a bit thick but - carbs... it's not as straightforward as I thought! I know to reduce sugar and fructose, dextrose, etc - but I am seriously worried I won't be able to do a proper low carb diet. I have tried in the past, and found that it triggered mood swings and binge episodes. I would like to do my best though, and keep carbs low where possible.

I can't give up bread - I can just about manage with Finn Crisp as a replacement, but I'm experimenting with rye and coconut flour now, and making some acceptable ryebreads.

So here's my confusion - coconut flour is carbs, but recommended for low carb diets and I've seen rye flour recommended too - is it to do with net carbs (a term I don't really understand yet?)

Also, fibre is a carbohydrate too but high fibre is "good", right? Is that to do with net carbs too?
 
Of the lower carb non-grain flours - almond flour is the lowest carb. 1 tsp of almond meal/flour is 0.1g of carbohydrate. That means in a 180g jar of almond flour, containing 70 tsps of flour, there is 7g of carbs. (ie not a lot at all!)

Just as a 'by the way' on low-carbing as a diabetic. One way of looking at T2 diabetes is as an expression of carbohydrate intolerance. By low-carbing you are finding out your personal tolerance for carbs in your diet before your health fails (ie blood glucose goes up so high that - well - you know the story).

I am rather 'hot' on fibre, but am mighty p.o.-ed that I got raised on the idea that we need to get fibre from grains. I get plenty of fibre from vegetables (and I portion control fruit, sadly - due to the carb content, and that 'allowance' system of carb counting azure talked about above). How do you know if you are getting enough fibre? Your body tells you! In no uncertain terms, is my experience.

A really straight forward un-confusing way to get going with low-carbing is the Atkins diet. They have a great carb counter, and I like the symbol system, matching up with carb-levels. You can get all the info you need online (I did), and I think I got 'The New Atkins Method' out from the library, but I had really got the whole thing beforehand from the internet. Yes, they use the 'net carbs system', but all you have to do to apply that outside of the US is realise that the carb content alone is what you go by from the nutritional breakdown (as the fibre has already been taken out of the count). I had the symbol thing up on the fridge for a while, and after a couple of months you pretty well know 25g of carbs, compared to 50g, compared to 75-100, no more counting. To be having 25g of carbs max you can't be eating anything other than above-ground veg and dead animals and fish, and a small amount of nuts and berries. Add in some tropical fruit and starchy veges - you're heading upwards. Then upwards fast with grains (bread, pasta etc) and of course - potatoes. Then you can join in on the different threads/forums discussing every carb-y detail of every food in the upwards (and downwards) carb-journey! (I enjoyed a thread on oats recently, at the same time as one on bread. I kid you not!)

Hope it gets less confusing quickly!
 
Thanks both! It doesn't help that the standard advice all over the place is to "eat plenty of starchy vegetables and whole grains" for diabetics! I know whole grains are better for you generally, but not all grains are equal - it seems I can eat rye bread even with a quarter strong bread flour and I'm not "spiking" (if I understand the term correctly, it means my blood sugar would go high and remain high even after 2 hours when I eat the "spiking" food).

Strangely, I haven't found any food to be spiking, yet. I even had a relapse and ate a lot of chocolate bars, sweet and salty popcorn, crisps etc. the other day, but my blood sugars stayed under 8.5 all day, and the following morning too. When I tried low carbing at diagnosis, my fasting blood sugars went high (for me... up to 10.1 on my accu check in the morning before breakfast) then came down after breakfast and was 5-7 in the afternoons - I tested a LOT!

I thought the chocolate and carby binge would send me sky high, but although it's generally slightly higher, I haven't had a spike as such... just around 8 or less all the time. I've just had my evening meal of leftover turkey, cauliflower and a good sized portion of dry-roasted parsnips, and my sugar is now down to 7.2! I've had a pretty carby day too, with Staffy oatcakes and cheese for breakfast, jumbo organic oats with pumpkin seeds and full fat greek yoghurt for lunch and a few shameful biscuits sneaked in as well.

I know my BG needs to come down to safer levels, but I'm surprised that I haven't had these spikes that people mention so much. Could that be due to the BG monitor just being a snapshot and not catching a spike even though I'm testing every couple of hours at the moment?
 
Try testing an hour after eating to see what's happening then. If you are also eating fat, it may cushion or delay possible spikes. Some people have initially tested at frequent intervals (e.g. every 15mins) after eating to determine what sort of patterns they may get with different foods.

And refer to the guidelines here regarding recommendations on what your fasting, pre and post meal levels should be. If you are able to manage the type 2 levels then you can aim for as close to normal as you're able to reach.

Robbity
http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes_care/blood-sugar-level-ranges.html
 
Thanks Robbity, yes I have done tests an hour after eating as well, there just doesn't seem to be a spike as I understand it - the highest readings are always the fasting ones, no matter what I eat. However when I smaller amounts (in total, not necessarily carbs) and do some walking, that's when I've had my lowest readings. I suppose that's telling me what I need to do really - I'm just surprised that I don't get significantly higher readings when I overeat on carbs.
 
Lots of things can affect your BG - not just food! For me socialising is really good for my BGs (I'm an extravert), and heavy traffic is really bad for my BGs. Travel, illness - they can all have an affect. (It's stress basically - on the body or on you personally.)

But, I think how diabetic you are would be interesting here - ie what is your HBA1c?

And - about the advice to eat grains and starchy veg. That's because they are giving you the same nutritional advice they give to everyone - which has been heavy on carbs for the last 40 or so years. But as a diabetic you have proven to be carbohydrate intolerant - to what degree right now your HBA1c will tell you! And continuing to eat and meter as you are doing. (Isn't it lovely that the advice to eat 1/4 of your plate of carbs three times a day would send a portion of folk into a chronic disease? And they ain't stopping the advice? We live in interesting times, sadly for us.)
 
Thanks Aloe, I understand inflammation sends blood sugar high too, having a cold, etc. Not sure how it all works at the moment but learning fast! I tried overnight oats this morning, they did seem to send my blood sugar up a bit but only by a couple of points, still under 10.

My HBA1c in November was 53 (7.3) and my average on my BG monitor is now 7.8 (after a very out of control few days) and I am carrying a lot of extra weight especially round the middle. I'm not confident I can go truly low carb but any day I go without hitting the junk food, crisps and chocolate is a major victory and weight loss is my first goal. I'm making some substitutions now such as coconut/almond flours and milk.
 
azure said:
@jpscloud In the UK it's total carbs you should be looking at. Net carbs is a US thing. So, just as an example, if you're aiming for 50g of carbs a day and you eat a slice of bread that has 15g carbs that leaves you with 35g carbs left in your 'allowance'.

With your Finn Crisps, the total carbs per slice is 3.7g:

http://www.finncrisp.com/crispbreads/thin-crisps/finn-crisp-original/
Click to expand...
That's interesting. The UK food labels I've seen include sugar alcohols in the total carbohydrate count, but I can't remember if fiber was included/excluded as well.

Our bodies cannot convert fiber into glucose which is why you would exclude fiber in your carb counting.
Our bodies also cannot convert sugar alcohols into glucose (although some claim it affects their blood glucose levels).

"Net carbs" is a term that excludes carbohydrates that cannot be digested. I wasn't aware it was a term isolated only to the US.
 
TorqPenderloin said:
That's interesting. The UK food labels I've seen include sugar alcohols in the total carbohydrate count, but I can't remember if fiber was included/excluded as well.

Our bodies cannot convert fiber into glucose which is why you would exclude fiber in your carb counting.
Our bodies also cannot convert sugar alcohols into glucose (although some claim it affects their blood glucose levels).

"Net carbs" is a term that excludes carbohydrates that cannot be digested. I wasn't aware it was a term isolated only to the US.
Click to expand...


Ah thanks Torq, this is what's been confusing me a bit. Rye flour is supposedly much "better" than wheat flours, but the total carbohydrate per 100g is the same.

I haven't noticed any UK labels giving a net carb figure, and you have to go to the eye-wateringly small print to check the fibre content in a lot of things too.
 
TorqPenderloin said:
That's interesting. The UK food labels I've seen include sugar alcohols in the total carbohydrate count, but I can't remember if fiber was included/excluded as well.

Our bodies cannot convert fiber into glucose which is why you would exclude fiber in your carb counting.
Our bodies also cannot convert sugar alcohols into glucose (although some claim it affects their blood glucose levels).

"Net carbs" is a term that excludes carbohydrates that cannot be digested. I wasn't aware it was a term isolated only to the US.
Click to expand...

It may be used in other countries too - I confess ignorance as to that. I've only ever seen it used in the US but it could be used elsewhere too.

In the UK, fibre is listed separately so the carb counting value is simply 'Carbohydrate'. Of sugars are listed under that, and fibre is listed as a separate value.

There's an example label part way down this page:

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/food-labelling.aspx
 
jpscloud said:
Ah thanks Torq, this is what's been confusing me a bit. Rye flour is supposedly much "better" than wheat flours, but the total carbohydrate per 100g is the same.

I haven't noticed any UK labels giving a net carb figure, and you have to go to the eye-wateringly small print to check the fibre content in a lot of things too.
Click to expand...
You've brought up another great topic of discussion: glycemic index and glycemic load.

The concept behind the glycemic index is that some carbohydrates are "better" than others. Foods that are low on the glycemic index (generally) convert into glucose slower. Foods that are high on the glycemic index convert into glucose much quicker.

Glycemic Load is particularly important for us as diabetics because it measures the blood glucose spike associated with eating that particular food.

In layman's terms, a sweet potato and a piece of candy may both have 30g of carbohydrates. However, that piece of candy is converted into glucose very quickly while the sweet potato is converted much slower. Eating the candy results in a much quicker and sharper blood glucose spike which generally means it also turns into fat much quicker.
 
TorqPenderloin said:
You've brought up another great topic of discussion: glycemic index and glycemic load.

The concept behind the glycemic index is that some carbohydrates are "better" than others. Foods that are low on the glycemic index (generally) convert into glucose slower. Foods that are high on the glycemic index convert into glucose much quicker.

Glycemic Load is particularly important for us as diabetics because it measures the blood glucose spike associated with eating that particular food.

In layman's terms, a sweet potato and a piece of candy may both have 30g of carbohydrates. However, that piece of candy is converted into glucose very quickly while the sweet potato is converted much slower. Eating the candy results in a much quicker and sharper blood glucose spike which generally means it also turns into fat much quicker.
Click to expand...

You have to understand for some T2s and some blood glucose disorders, any carbs that have an influence on blood glucose levels.
Higher or low GI, are all the same, once you have reached, the stage where your glucose levels are causing problems with the patients health.
That is why, the health industry has come into so much criticism of giving information to eat carbs at every meal!
If you keep topping up your levels then your levels of insulin resistance increase because of dietary and visceral fat!
When you have wheat or grain intolerance or an allergy to certain types of foods, you don't keep eating them no matter how slowly or quickly they digest!
 
nosher8355 said:
You have to understand for some T2s and some blood glucose disorders, any carbs that have an influence on blood glucose levels.
Higher or low GI, are all the same, once you have reached, the stage where your glucose levels are causing problems with the patients health.
That is why, the health industry has come into so much criticism of giving information to eat carbs at every meal!
If you keep topping up your levels then your levels of insulin resistance increase because of dietary and visceral fat!
When you have wheat or grain intolerance or an allergy to certain types of foods, you don't keep eating them no matter how slowly or quickly they digest!
Click to expand...
Once again, you’re taking my posts out of context and reading only what you want to hear to further your own agenda.

I never once suggested low GI foods did not have an influence on blood glucose levels. In fact, the very point of my post was to explain how they influence our blood glucose levels.

Furthermore, it’s irrelevant whether you have type 1, type 2, RH, or if you’re not a diabetic at all. That has nothing to do with how your body converts a simple or complex carbohydrate into glucose…..only after that glucose enters your blood stream does your disease (or lack thereof) affect how your body puts that energy into use.

The health industry has come into so much criticism because they offer a “One size fits all” approach. Ironically, that’s EXACTLY what you’re doing. There are plenty of people with type 2 diabetes or reactive hypoglycaemia that can eat carbohydrates (in moderation) without their disease progressing.


If you want to have a respectful discussion, I welcome the thought. However, in order to do that, you’re going to have to read my posts in full and actually respond to the words I’ve written (rather than what you’ve made up in your head).
 
TorqPenderloin said:
You've brought up another great topic of discussion: glycemic index and glycemic load.

The concept behind the glycemic index is that some carbohydrates are "better" than others. Foods that are low on the glycemic index (generally) convert into glucose slower. Foods that are high on the glycemic index convert into glucose much quicker.

Glycemic Load is particularly important for us as diabetics because it measures the blood glucose spike associated with eating that particular food.

In layman's terms, a sweet potato and a piece of candy may both have 30g of carbohydrates. However, that piece of candy is converted into glucose very quickly while the sweet potato is converted much slower. Eating the candy results in a much quicker and sharper blood glucose spike which generally means it also turns into fat much quicker.
Click to expand...

With the carbs converting slower, it means my own insulin and any activity I do has a chance to deal with the sugar before it reaches high levels in my blood, right? This is making sense now. Thank you!
 
jpscloud said:
With the carbs converting slower, it means my own insulin and any activity I do has a chance to deal with the sugar before it reaches high levels in my blood, right? This is making sense now. Thank you!
Click to expand...
In theory yes. Unfortunately, it's not always that simple (which was what Nosher was attempting to say).

People with severe insulin resistance or severe delayed insulin responses don't have the luxury of being able to manage those spikes even if they're very gradual. Without insulin or medication it can take days (not a typo) to recover from even modest spikes.

Long story short, every situation is different and you'll need to discover what you can and cannot deal with.
 
Thanks Torq. It is quite overwhelming but I will keep testing and seeing what I can eat.
 
Torq is correct in many ways, no matter how anyone wants to put it, you need to find out what foods affect you, that can only be done by experimenting with every type of food, combinations of food, how much you eat at every meal, how many carbs, or sugars your body can cope with and how much control you want to take.

Simply by reducing your carbs, sugars, meal size and increasing your activity, you will be surprised at how your blood levels respond!

I was recommended to eat below 10g of carbs per meal per day at first, but because I eat quite a few small meals, I have had to reduce this, but I think a newbie should start around 100g of carbs per day. Read the low carb forum, there is some really good suggestions and low carb recipes that you will enjoy and you will lose weight.
 
Thanks nosher, I will have a look at the low carb forum. I did surprise myself today, I've managed a fairly low carb day with some exercise and my levels are down 3 points on yesterday when I ate a lot of junk food and carbs.
 
The key to it all is not to be confused on how you are going to get your blood glucose levels down and lose weight.
If it means just cutting out the junk food and high sugar drinks, you will find your levels reducing and you will get weight loss, but, if you want to get great control and lose weight, then doing a low carb lifestyle is so much better for you in the long run! It works!

Best of luck with it all!
 
Back
Top