Opinion wanted on Mission low-carb tortillas - really low carb? [Archive]

steve

March 22nd, 2004, 06:53 AM

"brushfire" > wrote in message
...

Hi, I'm new to this stuff but have been reading quite a lot. Below is my
understanding.

> Enriched bleached wheat flour (wheat flour, niacin, reduced iron,
thiamine,
> mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid)

Is this like white flour? If it is, white flour converts to glucose the
quickest out of most foods, from my understanding. This is what is called a
"bad" carb. Or one that has a high glycemic index
(http://www.glycemicindex.com/). It will effect your blood sugar levels,
which I've learned if not kept even, will make you hungry later, craving
more.

> Vegetable shortening (partially hydrogenated soybean oil and/or cottonseed
> oil)

The other thing I've be learning to stay away from is hydrogenated anything.
Hydrogenated means they've added a molecule of hydrogen so that the oil will
become solid at room temperature, I believe. I just know to stay away from
them. (http://www.treelight.com/health/PartiallyHydrogenatedOils.html).

> Wheat protein isolate (wheat gluten, lactic acid, sulfite)

Is there really a need for sulfite and lactic acid?

> Leavening (includes corn starch)

Why the hell is corn starch in everything?

> Cellulose gum

Do we really need to be putting cellulose gum into our bodies?

--
Steve in Phx

TavliGal

March 22nd, 2004, 07:34 AM

brushfire wrote:
>> I picked up a package of Mission Low Carb Tortillas, soft taco size,
>> that claim to have 7g net carbs. Seems to good to be true
>> considering their taste and appearance. They're very white and
>> taste "doughy". My only previous experience with low carb tortillas
>> are the ones from La Tortilla Factory, which are a lot browner and
>> thinner.
>>
>> Here's some info from the label. Perhaps some of the experts here
>> can tell if the 7g is on the up and up?
>>
>> Calories: 110
>> Total Fat: 2.5g
>> Saturated Fat: 0g
>> Cholesterol: 0g
>> Sodium: 330mg
>> Total Carbohydrate: 18g
>> Dietary Fiber: 11g
>> Sugars: 0g
>> Protein: 5g
>>

http://www.lowcarb.ca/low-carb-tools/hidden_carbs.html
According to the hidden carb calculator, these tortillas are 17.53 gr. of
carbs each.
It looks as though they've already taken the fibre out of the Total Carb
Count. Sucks don't it?
Monica
--
Started 01/20/04
362/327.4/250
__________________________________________________ ______
"Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover
what they lack. - Harry Emerson Fosdick

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 3/15/04

Crafting Mom

March 22nd, 2004, 01:17 PM

TavliGal > wrote:
>http://www.lowcarb.ca/low-carb-tools/hidden_carbs.html
>According to the hidden carb calculator, these tortillas are 17.53 gr. of
>carbs each.
>It looks as though they've already taken the fibre out of the Total Carb
>Count. Sucks don't it?

LOL.... The alternative is to go on a delicious low carb diet.
CM

LCer09

March 22nd, 2004, 02:51 PM

>
>
>brushfire wrote:
>>> I picked up a package of Mission Low Carb Tortillas, soft taco size,
>>> that claim to have 7g net carbs. Seems to good to be true
>>> considering their taste and appearance. They're very white and
>>> taste "doughy". My only previous experience with low carb tortillas
>>> are the ones from La Tortilla Factory, which are a lot browner and
>>> thinner.
>>>
>>> Here's some info from the label. Perhaps some of the experts here
>>> can tell if the 7g is on the up and up?
>>>
>>> Calories: 110
>>> Total Fat: 2.5g
>>> Saturated Fat: 0g
>>> Cholesterol: 0g
>>> Sodium: 330mg
>>> Total Carbohydrate: 18g
>>> Dietary Fiber: 11g
>>> Sugars: 0g
>>> Protein: 5g
>>>
>
>http://www.lowcarb.ca/low-carb-tools/hidden_carbs.html
>According to the hidden carb calculator, these tortillas are 17.53 gr. of
>carbs each.
>It looks as though they've already taken the fibre out of the Total Carb
>Count. Sucks don't it?
>Monica

I don't see the difference. It's not as if they but 7 carbs on the 'total carb'
part of the nutritional label. You subtract fiber and get what you want. They
can plaster whatever they like all over the front of the package, I just go by
the back. Although it makes 9 'net' carbs. From what I remember, the small ones
were 4 and the large ones were 9 anyway. (wheat, regular had one more) Perhaps
the OP made a mistake saying 7?

LCing since 12/01/03-
Me- 5'7" 265/219/140
& hubby- 6' 310/238/180

DigitalVinyl

March 22nd, 2004, 03:06 PM

(LCer09) wrote:

>>
>>
>>brushfire wrote:
>>>> I picked up a package of Mission Low Carb Tortillas, soft taco size,
>>>> that claim to have 7g net carbs. Seems to good to be true
>>>> considering their taste and appearance. They're very white and
>>>> taste "doughy". My only previous experience with low carb tortillas
>>>> are the ones from La Tortilla Factory, which are a lot browner and
>>>> thinner.
>>>>
>>>> Here's some info from the label. Perhaps some of the experts here
>>>> can tell if the 7g is on the up and up?
>>>>
>>>> Calories: 110
>>>> Total Fat: 2.5g
>>>> Saturated Fat: 0g
>>>> Cholesterol: 0g
>>>> Sodium: 330mg
>>>> Total Carbohydrate: 18g
>>>> Dietary Fiber: 11g
>>>> Sugars: 0g
>>>> Protein: 5g
>>>>
>>
>>http://www.lowcarb.ca/low-carb-tools/hidden_carbs.html
>>According to the hidden carb calculator, these tortillas are 17.53 gr. of
>>carbs each.
>>It looks as though they've already taken the fibre out of the Total Carb
>>Count. Sucks don't it?
>>Monica
>
>I don't see the difference. It's not as if they but 7 carbs on the 'total carb'
>part of the nutritional label. You subtract fiber and get what you want. They
>can plaster whatever they like all over the front of the package, I just go by
>the back. Although it makes 9 'net' carbs. From what I remember, the small ones
>were 4 and the large ones were 9 anyway. (wheat, regular had one more) Perhaps
>the OP made a mistake saying 7?

NO, no, no. do the calorie math and you'll see that Monica is correct.
You would be subtracting Fiber TWICE.

110 calories minus 4 calories per 5g protein = 90 calories left
90 calories minus 9 calories per 2.5g fat = 67.5 calories left
67.5 calories of carbohydrates at 4g per is 16.875 NET carbs.
The 11g fiber is in addition to 16.875. The label for the U.S.
labeling method should be something like :
Total Carb: 27g
Fiber 11g

>LCing since 12/01/03-
>Me- 5'7" 265/219/140
>& hubby- 6' 310/238/180

DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
350/314/Mar-315/200
Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?)

Roger Zoul

March 22nd, 2004, 06:15 PM

DigitalVinyl wrote:
:: (LCer09) wrote:
::
::::
::::
:::: brushfire wrote:
:::::: I picked up a package of Mission Low Carb Tortillas, soft taco
:::::: size, that claim to have 7g net carbs. Seems to good to be true
:::::: considering their taste and appearance. They're very white and
:::::: taste "doughy". My only previous experience with low carb
:::::: tortillas are the ones from La Tortilla Factory, which are a lot
:::::: browner and thinner.
::::::
:::::: Here's some info from the label. Perhaps some of the experts
:::::: here can tell if the 7g is on the up and up?
::::::
:::::: Calories: 110
:::::: Total Fat: 2.5g
:::::: Saturated Fat: 0g
:::::: Cholesterol: 0g
:::::: Sodium: 330mg
:::::: Total Carbohydrate: 18g
:::::: Dietary Fiber: 11g
:::::: Sugars: 0g
:::::: Protein: 5g
::::::
::::
:::: http://www.lowcarb.ca/low-carb-tools/hidden_carbs.html
:::: According to the hidden carb calculator, these tortillas are 17.53
:::: gr. of carbs each.
:::: It looks as though they've already taken the fibre out of the
:::: Total Carb Count. Sucks don't it?
:::: Monica
:::
::: I don't see the difference. It's not as if they but 7 carbs on the
::: 'total carb' part of the nutritional label. You subtract fiber and
::: get what you want. They can plaster whatever they like all over the
::: front of the package, I just go by the back. Although it makes 9
::: 'net' carbs. From what I remember, the small ones were 4 and the
::: large ones were 9 anyway. (wheat, regular had one more) Perhaps the
::: OP made a mistake saying 7?
::
:: NO, no, no. do the calorie math and you'll see that Monica is
:: correct. You would be subtracting Fiber TWICE.
::
:: 110 calories minus 4 calories per 5g protein = 90 calories left
:: 90 calories minus 9 calories per 2.5g fat = 67.5 calories left
:: 67.5 calories of carbohydrates at 4g per is 16.875 NET carbs.

If you then subtract 11 from 17 you get 6 net carbs.

So, how do you know that the fiber calories weren't included in the calorie
count? My understanding is that in the US the calorie count can include
fiber or not.

:: The 11g fiber is in addition to 16.875. The label for the U.S.
:: labeling method should be something like :
:: Total Carb: 27g
:: Fiber 11g
::
::: LCing since 12/01/03-
::: Me- 5'7" 265/219/140
::: & hubby- 6' 310/238/180
::
:: DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
:: 350/314/Mar-315/200
:: Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
:: OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?)

DigitalVinyl

March 22nd, 2004, 06:48 PM

"Roger Zoul" > wrote:

>DigitalVinyl wrote:
>:: (LCer09) wrote:
>::
>::::
>::::
>:::: brushfire wrote:
>:::::: I picked up a package of Mission Low Carb Tortillas, soft taco
>:::::: size, that claim to have 7g net carbs. Seems to good to be true
>:::::: considering their taste and appearance. They're very white and
>:::::: taste "doughy". My only previous experience with low carb
>:::::: tortillas are the ones from La Tortilla Factory, which are a lot
>:::::: browner and thinner.
>::::::
>:::::: Here's some info from the label. Perhaps some of the experts
>:::::: here can tell if the 7g is on the up and up?
>::::::
>:::::: Calories: 110
>:::::: Total Fat: 2.5g
>:::::: Saturated Fat: 0g
>:::::: Cholesterol: 0g
>:::::: Sodium: 330mg
>:::::: Total Carbohydrate: 18g
>:::::: Dietary Fiber: 11g
>:::::: Sugars: 0g
>:::::: Protein: 5g
>::::::
>::::
>:::: http://www.lowcarb.ca/low-carb-tools/hidden_carbs.html
>:::: According to the hidden carb calculator, these tortillas are 17.53
>:::: gr. of carbs each.
>:::: It looks as though they've already taken the fibre out of the
>:::: Total Carb Count. Sucks don't it?
>:::: Monica
>:::
>::: I don't see the difference. It's not as if they but 7 carbs on the
>::: 'total carb' part of the nutritional label. You subtract fiber and
>::: get what you want. They can plaster whatever they like all over the
>::: front of the package, I just go by the back. Although it makes 9
>::: 'net' carbs. From what I remember, the small ones were 4 and the
>::: large ones were 9 anyway. (wheat, regular had one more) Perhaps the
>::: OP made a mistake saying 7?
>::
>:: NO, no, no. do the calorie math and you'll see that Monica is
>:: correct. You would be subtracting Fiber TWICE.
>::
>:: 110 calories minus 4 calories per 5g protein = 90 calories left
>:: 90 calories minus 9 calories per 2.5g fat = 67.5 calories left
>:: 67.5 calories of carbohydrates at 4g per is 16.875 NET carbs.
>
>
>If you then subtract 11 from 17 you get 6 net carbs.
>
>So, how do you know that the fiber calories weren't included in the calorie
>count? My understanding is that in the US the calorie count can include
>fiber or not.

Fiber has no calories because it is undigestible.
So

6 net carb * 4 = 24 cals
2.5g fat * 9 = 23.5 cals
5g prot * 4 = 20 cals
Sum them up and you get 67.5 calories. The product has 110 calories,
so you are missing 53 calories of digestible content. You are
subtracting fiber twice in this example.

For U.S. foods, so far, 99.9% of them account for fiber within the
total carbs and they are obviously supposed to. Fiber is shown as a
breakdown of Total Carbs. If they aren't included they should not be
listed in the carbohydrate section(indented below TOTAL CARBS). That's
like someone saying Saturated Fat isn't a fat anymore and doesn't have
to be included in total fat.

>:: The 11g fiber is in addition to 16.875. The label for the U.S.
>:: labeling method should be something like :
>:: Total Carb: 27g
>:: Fiber 11g
>::
>::: LCing since 12/01/03-
>::: Me- 5'7" 265/219/140
>::: & hubby- 6' 310/238/180
>::
>:: DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
>:: 350/314/Mar-315/200
>:: Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
>:: OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?)
>

DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
350/314/Mar-315/200
Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?)

Roger Zoul

March 22nd, 2004, 07:16 PM

DigitalVinyl wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" > wrote:
::
::: DigitalVinyl wrote:
::::: (LCer09) wrote:
:::::
:::::::
:::::::
::::::: brushfire wrote:
::::::::: I picked up a package of Mission Low Carb Tortillas, soft taco
::::::::: size, that claim to have 7g net carbs. Seems to good to be
::::::::: true considering their taste and appearance. They're very
::::::::: white and taste "doughy". My only previous experience with
::::::::: low carb tortillas are the ones from La Tortilla Factory,
::::::::: which are a lot browner and thinner.
:::::::::
::::::::: Here's some info from the label. Perhaps some of the experts
::::::::: here can tell if the 7g is on the up and up?
:::::::::
::::::::: Calories: 110
::::::::: Total Fat: 2.5g
::::::::: Saturated Fat: 0g
::::::::: Cholesterol: 0g
::::::::: Sodium: 330mg
::::::::: Total Carbohydrate: 18g
::::::::: Dietary Fiber: 11g
::::::::: Sugars: 0g
::::::::: Protein: 5g
:::::::::
:::::::
::::::: http://www.lowcarb.ca/low-carb-tools/hidden_carbs.html
::::::: According to the hidden carb calculator, these tortillas are
::::::: 17.53 gr. of carbs each.
::::::: It looks as though they've already taken the fibre out of the
::::::: Total Carb Count. Sucks don't it?
::::::: Monica
::::::
:::::: I don't see the difference. It's not as if they but 7 carbs on
:::::: the 'total carb' part of the nutritional label. You subtract
:::::: fiber and get what you want. They can plaster whatever they like
:::::: all over the front of the package, I just go by the back.
:::::: Although it makes 9 'net' carbs. From what I remember, the small
:::::: ones were 4 and the large ones were 9 anyway. (wheat, regular
:::::: had one more) Perhaps the OP made a mistake saying 7?
:::::
::::: NO, no, no. do the calorie math and you'll see that Monica is
::::: correct. You would be subtracting Fiber TWICE.
:::::
::::: 110 calories minus 4 calories per 5g protein = 90 calories left
::::: 90 calories minus 9 calories per 2.5g fat = 67.5 calories left
::::: 67.5 calories of carbohydrates at 4g per is 16.875 NET carbs.
:::
:::
::: If you then subtract 11 from 17 you get 6 net carbs.
:::
::: So, how do you know that the fiber calories weren't included in the
::: calorie count? My understanding is that in the US the calorie
::: count can include fiber or not.
::
:: Fiber has no calories because it is undigestible.
:: So
::
:: 6 net carb * 4 = 24 cals
:: 2.5g fat * 9 = 23.5 cals
:: 5g prot * 4 = 20 cals
:: Sum them up and you get 67.5 calories. The product has 110 calories,
:: so you are missing 53 calories of digestible content. You are
:: subtracting fiber twice in this example.

I'm not doing that...and I get the math....that's not my point.

::
:: For U.S. foods, so far, 99.9% of them account for fiber within the
:: total carbs and they are obviously supposed to. Fiber is shown as a
:: breakdown of Total Carbs. If they aren't included they should not be
:: listed in the carbohydrate section(indented below TOTAL CARBS).
:: That's like someone saying Saturated Fat isn't a fat anymore and
:: doesn't have to be included in total fat.

But that's not my point...the rules say (as I understand them and as has
been stated here before) they can, or cannot, as they choose, include fiber
carb calories in the total calorie count. So, how can you be sure what they
have done? If they claim a net carb count on the front that doesn't jive up
with what is on the label info, it might be because fiber calories *are*
included in the calorie count...I'm not saying that is the case, but I'm
asking you how do you know for sure? For them to outright lie on the label
opens them to litigation, doesn't it? This issue, in my mind, is not the
same one as counting carbs from SA...that is much more debatable because of
the uncertainity about SAs...and also, consider that fiber does have some
digestable content, just not typically the 4 g's that you get from normal
carbs and protein.

::
::
::::: The 11g fiber is in addition to 16.875. The label for the U.S.
::::: labeling method should be something like :
::::: Total Carb: 27g
::::: Fiber 11g
:::::
:::::: LCing since 12/01/03-
:::::: Me- 5'7" 265/219/140
:::::: & hubby- 6' 310/238/180
:::::
::::: DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
::::: 350/314/Mar-315/200
::::: Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
::::: OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?)
:::
::
:: DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
:: 350/314/Mar-315/200
:: Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
:: OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?)

Jennifer

March 22nd, 2004, 07:30 PM

I don't understand any of you.

According to the hidden carb counter at:
http://www.e-clipse.com/hidcarbcal.htm

It says: No unlisted carb grams

The package back is correct: 18g of carb per tortilla before you
subtract the fiber.

AND the package front is correct: 7g of net carbs per tortilla after
you subtract the fiber.

What's all the fuss about?

Jennifer

Roger Zoul wrote:
> DigitalVinyl wrote:
> :: "Roger Zoul" > wrote:
> ::
> ::: DigitalVinyl wrote:
> ::::: (LCer09) wrote:
> :::::
> :::::::
> :::::::
> ::::::: brushfire wrote:
> ::::::::: I picked up a package of Mission Low Carb Tortillas, soft taco
> ::::::::: size, that claim to have 7g net carbs. Seems to good to be
> ::::::::: true considering their taste and appearance. They're very
> ::::::::: white and taste "doughy". My only previous experience with
> ::::::::: low carb tortillas are the ones from La Tortilla Factory,
> ::::::::: which are a lot browner and thinner.
> :::::::::
> ::::::::: Here's some info from the label. Perhaps some of the experts
> ::::::::: here can tell if the 7g is on the up and up?
> :::::::::
> ::::::::: Calories: 110
> ::::::::: Total Fat: 2.5g
> ::::::::: Saturated Fat: 0g
> ::::::::: Cholesterol: 0g
> ::::::::: Sodium: 330mg
> ::::::::: Total Carbohydrate: 18g
> ::::::::: Dietary Fiber: 11g
> ::::::::: Sugars: 0g
> ::::::::: Protein: 5g
> :::::::::
> :::::::
> ::::::: http://www.lowcarb.ca/low-carb-tools/hidden_carbs.html
> ::::::: According to the hidden carb calculator, these tortillas are
> ::::::: 17.53 gr. of carbs each.
> ::::::: It looks as though they've already taken the fibre out of the
> ::::::: Total Carb Count. Sucks don't it?
> ::::::: Monica
> ::::::
> :::::: I don't see the difference. It's not as if they but 7 carbs on
> :::::: the 'total carb' part of the nutritional label. You subtract
> :::::: fiber and get what you want. They can plaster whatever they like
> :::::: all over the front of the package, I just go by the back.
> :::::: Although it makes 9 'net' carbs. From what I remember, the small
> :::::: ones were 4 and the large ones were 9 anyway. (wheat, regular
> :::::: had one more) Perhaps the OP made a mistake saying 7?
> :::::
> ::::: NO, no, no. do the calorie math and you'll see that Monica is
> ::::: correct. You would be subtracting Fiber TWICE.
> :::::
> ::::: 110 calories minus 4 calories per 5g protein = 90 calories left
> ::::: 90 calories minus 9 calories per 2.5g fat = 67.5 calories left
> ::::: 67.5 calories of carbohydrates at 4g per is 16.875 NET carbs.
> :::
> :::
> ::: If you then subtract 11 from 17 you get 6 net carbs.
> :::
> ::: So, how do you know that the fiber calories weren't included in the
> ::: calorie count? My understanding is that in the US the calorie
> ::: count can include fiber or not.
> ::
> :: Fiber has no calories because it is undigestible.
> :: So
> ::
> :: 6 net carb * 4 = 24 cals
> :: 2.5g fat * 9 = 23.5 cals
> :: 5g prot * 4 = 20 cals
> :: Sum them up and you get 67.5 calories. The product has 110 calories,
> :: so you are missing 53 calories of digestible content. You are
> :: subtracting fiber twice in this example.
>
> I'm not doing that...and I get the math....that's not my point.
>
> ::
> :: For U.S. foods, so far, 99.9% of them account for fiber within the
> :: total carbs and they are obviously supposed to. Fiber is shown as a
> :: breakdown of Total Carbs. If they aren't included they should not be
> :: listed in the carbohydrate section(indented below TOTAL CARBS).
> :: That's like someone saying Saturated Fat isn't a fat anymore and
> :: doesn't have to be included in total fat.
>
> But that's not my point...the rules say (as I understand them and as has
> been stated here before) they can, or cannot, as they choose, include fiber
> carb calories in the total calorie count. So, how can you be sure what they
> have done? If they claim a net carb count on the front that doesn't jive up
> with what is on the label info, it might be because fiber calories *are*
> included in the calorie count...I'm not saying that is the case, but I'm
> asking you how do you know for sure? For them to outright lie on the label
> opens them to litigation, doesn't it? This issue, in my mind, is not the
> same one as counting carbs from SA...that is much more debatable because of
> the uncertainity about SAs...and also, consider that fiber does have some
> digestable content, just not typically the 4 g's that you get from normal
> carbs and protein.
>
> ::
> ::
> ::::: The 11g fiber is in addition to 16.875. The label for the U.S.
> ::::: labeling method should be something like :
> ::::: Total Carb: 27g
> ::::: Fiber 11g
> :::::
> :::::: LCing since 12/01/03-
> :::::: Me- 5'7" 265/219/140
> :::::: & hubby- 6' 310/238/180
> :::::
> ::::: DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
> ::::: 350/314/Mar-315/200
> ::::: Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
> ::::: OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?)
> :::
> ::
> :: DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
> :: 350/314/Mar-315/200
> :: Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
> :: OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?)
>
>

brushfire

March 22nd, 2004, 08:23 PM

"Jennifer" > wrote in message
...
> I don't understand any of you.
>
> According to the hidden carb counter at:
> http://www.e-clipse.com/hidcarbcal.htm
>
> It says: No unlisted carb grams
>
> The package back is correct: 18g of carb per tortilla before you
> subtract the fiber.
>
> AND the package front is correct: 7g of net carbs per tortilla after
> you subtract the fiber.
>
> What's all the fuss about?
>
> Jennifer
>

Thanks everyone for your opinion. I guess I phrased my original question
wrong. I'm not really questioning the total amount of 18g of carbs. I'm
just suspicious that 11g of them are fiber given the apparently starchy
ingredient list.

Roger Zoul

March 22nd, 2004, 09:07 PM

Jennifer wrote:
:: I don't understand any of you.
::
:: According to the hidden carb counter at:
:: http://www.e-clipse.com/hidcarbcal.htm
::
:: It says: No unlisted carb grams
::
:: The package back is correct: 18g of carb per tortilla before you
:: subtract the fiber.
::
:: AND the package front is correct: 7g of net carbs per tortilla after
:: you subtract the fiber.
::
:: What's all the fuss about?
::

(7 + 5) * 4 = 48 (kcals from carbs and protein)
2.5 * 9 = 22.5 (kcals from fat)
----------------
86.5 total kcals.

Doesn't match what is printed. So where are the missing calories?

Do you see what the fuss is about now? Something is wrong...the question
is, in my mind, what?

:: Jennifer
::
::
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: DigitalVinyl wrote:
::::: "Roger Zoul" > wrote:
:::::
:::::: DigitalVinyl wrote:
:::::::: (LCer09) wrote:
::::::::
::::::::::
::::::::::
:::::::::: brushfire wrote:
:::::::::::: I picked up a package of Mission Low Carb Tortillas, soft
:::::::::::: taco size, that claim to have 7g net carbs. Seems to good
:::::::::::: to be true considering their taste and appearance.
:::::::::::: They're very white and taste "doughy". My only previous
:::::::::::: experience with low carb tortillas are the ones from La
:::::::::::: Tortilla Factory, which are a lot browner and thinner.
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: Here's some info from the label. Perhaps some of the
:::::::::::: experts here can tell if the 7g is on the up and up?
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: Calories: 110
:::::::::::: Total Fat: 2.5g
:::::::::::: Saturated Fat: 0g
:::::::::::: Cholesterol: 0g
:::::::::::: Sodium: 330mg
:::::::::::: Total Carbohydrate: 18g
:::::::::::: Dietary Fiber: 11g
:::::::::::: Sugars: 0g
:::::::::::: Protein: 5g
::::::::::::
::::::::::
:::::::::: http://www.lowcarb.ca/low-carb-tools/hidden_carbs.html
:::::::::: According to the hidden carb calculator, these tortillas are
:::::::::: 17.53 gr. of carbs each.
:::::::::: It looks as though they've already taken the fibre out of the
:::::::::: Total Carb Count. Sucks don't it?
:::::::::: Monica
:::::::::
::::::::: I don't see the difference. It's not as if they but 7 carbs on
::::::::: the 'total carb' part of the nutritional label. You subtract
::::::::: fiber and get what you want. They can plaster whatever they
::::::::: like all over the front of the package, I just go by the back.
::::::::: Although it makes 9 'net' carbs. From what I remember, the
::::::::: small ones were 4 and the large ones were 9 anyway. (wheat,
::::::::: regular had one more) Perhaps the OP made a mistake saying 7?
::::::::
:::::::: NO, no, no. do the calorie math and you'll see that Monica is
:::::::: correct. You would be subtracting Fiber TWICE.
::::::::
:::::::: 110 calories minus 4 calories per 5g protein = 90 calories
:::::::: left 90 calories minus 9 calories per 2.5g fat = 67.5
:::::::: calories left
:::::::: 67.5 calories of carbohydrates at 4g per is 16.875 NET carbs.
::::::
::::::
:::::: If you then subtract 11 from 17 you get 6 net carbs.
::::::
:::::: So, how do you know that the fiber calories weren't included in
:::::: the calorie count? My understanding is that in the US the
:::::: calorie count can include fiber or not.
:::::
::::: Fiber has no calories because it is undigestible.
::::: So
:::::
::::: 6 net carb * 4 = 24 cals
::::: 2.5g fat * 9 = 23.5 cals
::::: 5g prot * 4 = 20 cals
::::: Sum them up and you get 67.5 calories. The product has 110
::::: calories, so you are missing 53 calories of digestible content.
::::: You are subtracting fiber twice in this example.
:::
::: I'm not doing that...and I get the math....that's not my point.
:::
:::::
::::: For U.S. foods, so far, 99.9% of them account for fiber within the
::::: total carbs and they are obviously supposed to. Fiber is shown as
::::: a breakdown of Total Carbs. If they aren't included they should
::::: not be listed in the carbohydrate section(indented below TOTAL
::::: CARBS). That's like someone saying Saturated Fat isn't a fat
::::: anymore and doesn't have to be included in total fat.
:::
::: But that's not my point...the rules say (as I understand them and
::: as has been stated here before) they can, or cannot, as they
::: choose, include fiber carb calories in the total calorie count.
::: So, how can you be sure what they have done? If they claim a net
::: carb count on the front that doesn't jive up with what is on the
::: label info, it might be because fiber calories *are* included in
::: the calorie count...I'm not saying that is the case, but I'm asking
::: you how do you know for sure? For them to outright lie on the
::: label opens them to litigation, doesn't it? This issue, in my mind,
::: is not the same one as counting carbs from SA...that is much more
::: debatable because of the uncertainity about SAs...and also,
::: consider that fiber does have some digestable content, just not
::: typically the 4 g's that you get from normal carbs and protein.
:::
:::::
:::::
:::::::: The 11g fiber is in addition to 16.875. The label for the U.S.
:::::::: labeling method should be something like :
:::::::: Total Carb: 27g
:::::::: Fiber 11g
::::::::
::::::::: LCing since 12/01/03-
::::::::: Me- 5'7" 265/219/140
::::::::: & hubby- 6' 310/238/180
::::::::
:::::::: DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
:::::::: 350/314/Mar-315/200
:::::::: Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
:::::::: OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?)
::::::
:::::
::::: DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
::::: 350/314/Mar-315/200
::::: Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
::::: OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?)

DigitalVinyl

March 22nd, 2004, 09:30 PM

"Roger Zoul" > wrote:

>But that's not my point...the rules say (as I understand them and as has
>been stated here before) they can, or cannot, as they choose, include fiber
>carb calories in the total calorie count. So, how can you be sure what they
>have done? If they claim a net carb count on the front that doesn't jive up
>with what is on the label info, it might be because fiber calories *are*
>included in the calorie count...I'm not saying that is the case, but I'm
>asking you how do you know for sure?

I've never read that fiber is digestible or has any calories what so
ever. I'll have to research that one more. So the theory is that they
could be counting ?up to 4? calories per gram of fiber even though it
is largely undigestible? If that is true then you can never be sure of
any label's accuracy, ever, when fiber is included. So fiber can mask
calories and carbs freely. In that case the USDA/FDA has to totally
overhaul the rules based upon providing accurate information.

>For them to outright lie on the label
>opens them to litigation, doesn't it?
I guess, I'm not really sure. I've been buying Frank's Marinara at
Stop-N-SHop. It says 72 calories from fat and then says only 4.5g of
Fat. 4.5*9=40.5 calories. Obviously that is a lie or a typo. It keeps
on selling. I imagine a lot of products get buy with inaccuracies.

>This issue, in my mind, is not the
>same one as counting carbs from SA...that is much more debatable because of
>the uncertainity about SAs...and also, consider that fiber does have some
>digestable content, just not typically the 4 g's that you get from normal
>carbs and protein.

DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
350/313/Mar-315/200
Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?)

Bob (this one)

March 22nd, 2004, 09:33 PM

DigitalVinyl wrote:

> "Roger Zoul" > wrote:
>
>
>>DigitalVinyl wrote:
>>:: (LCer09) wrote:
>>::
>>::::
>>::::
>>:::: brushfire wrote:
>>:::::: I picked up a package of Mission Low Carb Tortillas, soft taco
>>:::::: size, that claim to have 7g net carbs. Seems to good to be true
>>:::::: considering their taste and appearance. They're very white and
>>:::::: taste "doughy". My only previous experience with low carb
>>:::::: tortillas are the ones from La Tortilla Factory, which are a lot
>>:::::: browner and thinner.
>>::::::
>>:::::: Here's some info from the label. Perhaps some of the experts
>>:::::: here can tell if the 7g is on the up and up?
>>::::::
>>:::::: Calories: 110
>>:::::: Total Fat: 2.5g
>>:::::: Saturated Fat: 0g
>>:::::: Cholesterol: 0g
>>:::::: Sodium: 330mg
>>:::::: Total Carbohydrate: 18g
>>:::::: Dietary Fiber: 11g
>>:::::: Sugars: 0g
>>:::::: Protein: 5g
>>::::::
>>::::
>>:::: http://www.lowcarb.ca/low-carb-tools/hidden_carbs.html
>>:::: According to the hidden carb calculator, these tortillas are 17.53
>>:::: gr. of carbs each.
>>:::: It looks as though they've already taken the fibre out of the
>>:::: Total Carb Count. Sucks don't it?
>>:::: Monica
>>:::
>>::: I don't see the difference. It's not as if they but 7 carbs on the
>>::: 'total carb' part of the nutritional label. You subtract fiber and
>>::: get what you want. They can plaster whatever they like all over the
>>::: front of the package, I just go by the back. Although it makes 9
>>::: 'net' carbs. From what I remember, the small ones were 4 and the
>>::: large ones were 9 anyway. (wheat, regular had one more) Perhaps the
>>::: OP made a mistake saying 7?
>>::
>>:: NO, no, no. do the calorie math and you'll see that Monica is
>>:: correct. You would be subtracting Fiber TWICE.
>>::
>>:: 110 calories minus 4 calories per 5g protein = 90 calories left
>>:: 90 calories minus 9 calories per 2.5g fat = 67.5 calories left
>>:: 67.5 calories of carbohydrates at 4g per is 16.875 NET carbs.
>>
>>
>>If you then subtract 11 from 17 you get 6 net carbs.
>>
>>So, how do you know that the fiber calories weren't included in the calorie
>>count? My understanding is that in the US the calorie count can include
>>fiber or not.
>
> Fiber has no calories because it is undigestible.

Sorry, That's wrong when it comes to FDA and USDA labels. Carbs are
derived *by difference.* That means that they don't actually measure
carbs, they're calculated after actually measuring fats and protein.
Fiber is considered a carb by the USDA and they include the 4 calories
per gram figure to include the fiber as a carb. If the food is burned
in a bomb calorimeter, the fiber shows as a carb. That's how the
"official" figures are arrived at.

Pastorio

> So
>
> 6 net carb * 4 = 24 cals
> 2.5g fat * 9 = 23.5 cals
> 5g prot * 4 = 20 cals
> Sum them up and you get 67.5 calories. The product has 110 calories,
> so you are missing 53 calories of digestible content. You are
> subtracting fiber twice in this example.
>
> For U.S. foods, so far, 99.9% of them account for fiber within the
> total carbs and they are obviously supposed to. Fiber is shown as a
> breakdown of Total Carbs. If they aren't included they should not be
> listed in the carbohydrate section(indented below TOTAL CARBS). That's
> like someone saying Saturated Fat isn't a fat anymore and doesn't have
> to be included in total fat.
>
>
>
>>:: The 11g fiber is in addition to 16.875. The label for the U.S.
>>:: labeling method should be something like :
>>:: Total Carb: 27g
>>:: Fiber 11g
>>::
>>::: LCing since 12/01/03-
>>::: Me- 5'7" 265/219/140
>>::: & hubby- 6' 310/238/180
>>::
>>:: DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
>>:: 350/314/Mar-315/200
>>:: Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
>>:: OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?)
>>
>
>
> DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
> 350/314/Mar-315/200
> Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
> OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?)

Roger Zoul

March 22nd, 2004, 09:45 PM

DigitalVinyl wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" > wrote:
::
::
::: But that's not my point...the rules say (as I understand them and
::: as has been stated here before) they can, or cannot, as they
::: choose, include fiber carb calories in the total calorie count.
::: So, how can you be sure what they have done? If they claim a net
::: carb count on the front that doesn't jive up with what is on the
::: label info, it might be because fiber calories *are* included in
::: the calorie count...I'm not saying that is the case, but I'm asking
::: you how do you know for sure?
::
:: I've never read that fiber is digestible or has any calories what so
:: ever.

It's been discussed here within the last couple of months...

I'll have to research that one more. So the theory is that they
:: could be counting ?up to 4? calories per gram of fiber even though it
:: is largely undigestible?

Yes, typically when fiber is including in the calories it is treated as 4
cals per gram, just like a normal carb.

If that is true then you can never be sure
:: of any label's accuracy, ever, when fiber is included. So fiber can
:: mask calories and carbs freely. In that case the USDA/FDA has to
:: totally overhaul the rules based upon providing accurate information.

Do they? If they did, I hope they'd make manufactors specify cals to at
least one digit behind the decimal. The thing is, though, things vary
greatly. For example...supposed you eat raisin bran....with eat cup have
the same nutritional value? Obviously, one can talk in terms of averages,
which would balance things out. I'm not sure the USDA/FDA has to do
anything they don't want to do.

::
::: For them to outright lie on the label
::: opens them to litigation, doesn't it?
:: I guess, I'm not really sure. I've been buying Frank's Marinara at
:: Stop-N-SHop. It says 72 calories from fat and then says only 4.5g of
:: Fat. 4.5*9=40.5 calories. Obviously that is a lie or a typo. It keeps
:: on selling. I imagine a lot of products get buy with inaccuracies.

Right...and most people don't care anyway.

DigitalVinyl

March 22nd, 2004, 11:18 PM

"Roger Zoul" > wrote:

>DigitalVinyl wrote:
>:: "Roger Zoul" > wrote:
>::
>::
>::: But that's not my point...the rules say (as I understand them and
>::: as has been stated here before) they can, or cannot, as they
>::: choose, include fiber carb calories in the total calorie count.
>::: So, how can you be sure what they have done? If they claim a net
>::: carb count on the front that doesn't jive up with what is on the
>::: label info, it might be because fiber calories *are* included in
>::: the calorie count...I'm not saying that is the case, but I'm asking
>::: you how do you know for sure?
>::
>:: I've never read that fiber is digestible or has any calories what so
>:: ever.
>
>It's been discussed here within the last couple of months...
>
>I'll have to research that one more. So the theory is that they
>:: could be counting ?up to 4? calories per gram of fiber even though it
>:: is largely undigestible?
>
>Yes, typically when fiber is including in the calories it is treated as 4
>cals per gram, just like a normal carb.
>
> If that is true then you can never be sure
>:: of any label's accuracy, ever, when fiber is included. So fiber can
>:: mask calories and carbs freely. In that case the USDA/FDA has to
>:: totally overhaul the rules based upon providing accurate information.
>
>Do they? If they did, I hope they'd make manufactors specify cals to at
>least one digit behind the decimal.
Calories I don't need to a decimal point, but everything else I would.

I'm still not sure what the difference is when labels say "0 carbs",
or "<1 carbs". In normal rounding 0 would be 0.0 to 0.499 carbs and 1
would be 0.500 to 1.499 carbs. SO what is the purpose of "<1 carbs"?
It isn't any more informative than the rounded down 0--if you
understand it is being rounded.

I'd also like to see two measures. The typical serving and for the
entire product/box. This way I could do the math and get more accurate
numbers even if they didn't go to decimals. It would also eliminate
confusing "individual size serving" products that have nutritional
charts that measures 2-6 servings in that "individual size". Snacks
are big on this. Six cookies in a small package and serving size is
one or two cookies. Just adds to the confusion.

>The thing is, though, things vary
>greatly. For example...supposed you eat raisin bran....with eat cup have
>the same nutritional value? Obviously, one can talk in terms of averages,
>which would balance things out. I'm not sure the USDA/FDA has to do
>anything they don't want to do.

Actually I've wondered about the USDA process. Like do they perform 10
cup measures and take an average. Or do they measure out a half gallon
then compute backwards from that for all volume measures, or measure a
kilgram and then compute down to 100gram. That would be a best methods
in my mind. Deal with the large volume then subdivide.

>::: For them to outright lie on the label
>::: opens them to litigation, doesn't it?
>:: I guess, I'm not really sure. I've been buying Frank's Marinara at
>:: Stop-N-SHop. It says 72 calories from fat and then says only 4.5g of
>:: Fat. 4.5*9=40.5 calories. Obviously that is a lie or a typo. It keeps
>:: on selling. I imagine a lot of products get buy with inaccuracies.
>
>Right...and most people don't care anyway.
>

DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
350/313/Mar-315/200
Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?)

revek

March 22nd, 2004, 11:24 PM

In ,
DigitalVinyl > coded for transmition to space:
> "Roger Zoul" > wrote:
>
>> DigitalVinyl wrote:
>>>> "Roger Zoul" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But that's not my point...the rules say (as I understand them
and
>>>>> as has been stated here before) they can, or cannot, as they
>>>>> choose, include fiber carb calories in the total calorie count.
>>>>> So, how can you be sure what they have done? If they claim a
net
>>>>> carb count on the front that doesn't jive up with what is on the
>>>>> label info, it might be because fiber calories *are* included in
>>>>> the calorie count...I'm not saying that is the case, but I'm
>>>>> asking you how do you know for sure?
>>>>
>>>> I've never read that fiber is digestible or has any calories what
>>>> so ever.
>>
>> It's been discussed here within the last couple of months...
>>
>> I'll have to research that one more. So the theory is that they
>>>> could be counting ?up to 4? calories per gram of fiber even
though
>>>> it is largely undigestible?
>>
>> Yes, typically when fiber is including in the calories it is
treated
>> as 4 cals per gram, just like a normal carb.
>>
>> If that is true then you can never be sure
>>>> of any label's accuracy, ever, when fiber is included. So fiber
can
>>>> mask calories and carbs freely. In that case the USDA/FDA has to
>>>> totally overhaul the rules based upon providing accurate
>>>> information.
>>
>> Do they? If they did, I hope they'd make manufactors specify cals
>> to at least one digit behind the decimal.
> Calories I don't need to a decimal point, but everything else I
would.
>
> I'm still not sure what the difference is when labels say "0 carbs",
> or "<1 carbs". In normal rounding 0 would be 0.0 to 0.499 carbs and
1
> would be 0.500 to 1.499 carbs.

<1 means .500 to .999

SO what is the purpose of "<1 carbs"?
> It isn't any more informative than the rounded down 0--if you
> understand it is being rounded.
>
> I'd also like to see two measures. The typical serving and for the
> entire product/box. This way I could do the math and get more
accurate
> numbers even if they didn't go to decimals. It would also eliminate
> confusing "individual size serving" products that have nutritional
> charts that measures 2-6 servings in that "individual size". Snacks
> are big on this. Six cookies in a small package and serving size is
> one or two cookies. Just adds to the confusion.
>
>> The thing is, though, things vary
>> greatly. For example...supposed you eat raisin bran....with eat
cup
>> have the same nutritional value? Obviously, one can talk in terms
of
>> averages, which would balance things out. I'm not sure the
USDA/FDA
>> has to do anything they don't want to do.
>
> Actually I've wondered about the USDA process. Like do they perform
10
> cup measures and take an average. Or do they measure out a half
gallon
> then compute backwards from that for all volume measures, or measure
a
> kilgram and then compute down to 100gram. That would be a best
methods
> in my mind. Deal with the large volume then subdivide.

They don't. The USDA does not do the measuring themselves. The food
industry does, and sends the information to the USDA.

--
revek
The vermine is a small black and white relative of the lemming, found
in the cold Hublandish regions. Its skin is rare and highly valued,
especially by the vermine itself the selfish little ******* will do
anything rather than let go of it. - Discworld wildlife, Terry
Pratchett, Sourcery

DigitalVinyl

March 22nd, 2004, 11:41 PM

"Bob (this one)" > wrote:

>DigitalVinyl wrote:
>
>> Fiber has no calories because it is undigestible.
>
>Sorry, That's wrong when it comes to FDA and USDA labels. Carbs are
>derived *by difference.* That means that they don't actually measure
>carbs, they're calculated after actually measuring fats and protein.
>Fiber is considered a carb by the USDA and they include the 4 calories
>per gram figure to include the fiber as a carb. If the food is burned
>in a bomb calorimeter, the fiber shows as a carb. That's how the
>"official" figures are arrived at.
>
>Pastorio
That would make many of my labels wrong.

At different sites I found they state that the USDA label
may,optionally, subtract the CALORIES of FIBER from the CALORIE count.
However the fiber count must show under carbs. ALcohol calories are
always included, but alcohol content is not required in the nutrient
section. That is what I see most of the time. Total carbs are just
that TOTAL CARBS, including fiber. Total calories don't include
calories from fiber. It has really only been on LC food that the math
suddenly gets confusing.

So I guess, we have to have separate detective methods for to figure
out if a produt with fiber is counting fiber calories and another for
products with SA's. ANd if they have both--well you may be a little
screwed.

>>>:: The 11g fiber is in addition to 16.875. The label for the U.S.
>>>:: labeling method should be something like :
>>>:: Total Carb: 27g
>>>:: Fiber 11g
>>>::
>>>::: LCing since 12/01/03-
>>>::: Me- 5'7" 265/219/140
>>>::: & hubby- 6' 310/238/180
>>>::
>>>:: DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
>>>:: 350/314/Mar-315/200
>>>:: Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
>>>:: OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?)
>>>
>>
>>
>> DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
>> 350/314/Mar-315/200
>> Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
>> OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?)

DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
350/313/Mar-315/200
Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?)

DigitalVinyl

March 22nd, 2004, 11:50 PM

"revek" > wrote:

>In ,
>DigitalVinyl > coded for transmition to space:
>> I'm still not sure what the difference is when labels say "0 carbs",
>> or "<1 carbs". In normal rounding 0 would be 0.0 to 0.499 carbs and
>> 1 would be 0.500 to 1.499 carbs.
>
> <1 means .500 to .999

Is that documented anywhere? I was browsing around USDA sites looking
for specific references of what the labels mean and what is allowed.

DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
350/313/Mar-315/200
Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?)

ADC

March 23rd, 2004, 02:45 AM

WOW--i thought you had abaondoned this NG. Good to see you .
"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
> DigitalVinyl wrote:
>
> > "Roger Zoul" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>DigitalVinyl wrote:
> >>:: (LCer09) wrote:
> >>::
> >>::::
> >>::::
> >>:::: brushfire wrote:
> >>:::::: I picked up a package of Mission Low Carb Tortillas, soft taco
> >>:::::: size, that claim to have 7g net carbs. Seems to good to be true
> >>:::::: considering their taste and appearance. They're very white and
> >>:::::: taste "doughy". My only previous experience with low carb
> >>:::::: tortillas are the ones from La Tortilla Factory, which are a lot
> >>:::::: browner and thinner.
> >>::::::
> >>:::::: Here's some info from the label. Perhaps some of the experts
> >>:::::: here can tell if the 7g is on the up and up?
> >>::::::
> >>:::::: Calories: 110
> >>:::::: Total Fat: 2.5g
> >>:::::: Saturated Fat: 0g
> >>:::::: Cholesterol: 0g
> >>:::::: Sodium: 330mg
> >>:::::: Total Carbohydrate: 18g
> >>:::::: Dietary Fiber: 11g
> >>:::::: Sugars: 0g
> >>:::::: Protein: 5g
> >>::::::
> >>::::
> >>:::: http://www.lowcarb.ca/low-carb-tools/hidden_carbs.html
> >>:::: According to the hidden carb calculator, these tortillas are 17.53
> >>:::: gr. of carbs each.
> >>:::: It looks as though they've already taken the fibre out of the
> >>:::: Total Carb Count. Sucks don't it?
> >>:::: Monica
> >>:::
> >>::: I don't see the difference. It's not as if they but 7 carbs on the
> >>::: 'total carb' part of the nutritional label. You subtract fiber and
> >>::: get what you want. They can plaster whatever they like all over the
> >>::: front of the package, I just go by the back. Although it makes 9
> >>::: 'net' carbs. From what I remember, the small ones were 4 and the
> >>::: large ones were 9 anyway. (wheat, regular had one more) Perhaps the
> >>::: OP made a mistake saying 7?
> >>::
> >>:: NO, no, no. do the calorie math and you'll see that Monica is
> >>:: correct. You would be subtracting Fiber TWICE.
> >>::
> >>:: 110 calories minus 4 calories per 5g protein = 90 calories left
> >>:: 90 calories minus 9 calories per 2.5g fat = 67.5 calories left
> >>:: 67.5 calories of carbohydrates at 4g per is 16.875 NET carbs.
> >>
> >>
> >>If you then subtract 11 from 17 you get 6 net carbs.
> >>
> >>So, how do you know that the fiber calories weren't included in the
calorie
> >>count? My understanding is that in the US the calorie count can include
> >>fiber or not.
> >
> > Fiber has no calories because it is undigestible.
>
> Sorry, That's wrong when it comes to FDA and USDA labels. Carbs are
> derived *by difference.* That means that they don't actually measure
> carbs, they're calculated after actually measuring fats and protein.
> Fiber is considered a carb by the USDA and they include the 4 calories
> per gram figure to include the fiber as a carb. If the food is burned
> in a bomb calorimeter, the fiber shows as a carb. That's how the
> "official" figures are arrived at.
>
> Pastorio
>
>
>
> > So
> >
> > 6 net carb * 4 = 24 cals
> > 2.5g fat * 9 = 23.5 cals
> > 5g prot * 4 = 20 cals
> > Sum them up and you get 67.5 calories. The product has 110 calories,
> > so you are missing 53 calories of digestible content. You are
> > subtracting fiber twice in this example.
> >
> > For U.S. foods, so far, 99.9% of them account for fiber within the
> > total carbs and they are obviously supposed to. Fiber is shown as a
> > breakdown of Total Carbs. If they aren't included they should not be
> > listed in the carbohydrate section(indented below TOTAL CARBS). That's
> > like someone saying Saturated Fat isn't a fat anymore and doesn't have
> > to be included in total fat.
> >
> >
> >
> >>:: The 11g fiber is in addition to 16.875. The label for the U.S.
> >>:: labeling method should be something like :
> >>:: Total Carb: 27g
> >>:: Fiber 11g
> >>::
> >>::: LCing since 12/01/03-
> >>::: Me- 5'7" 265/219/140
> >>::: & hubby- 6' 310/238/180
> >>::
> >>:: DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
> >>:: 350/314/Mar-315/200
> >>:: Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
> >>:: OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?)
> >>
> >
> >
> > DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
> > 350/314/Mar-315/200
> > Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
> > OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?)
>

revek

March 23rd, 2004, 02:58 AM

DigitalVinyl burbled across the ether:
> "revek" > wrote:
>
>> In ,
>> DigitalVinyl > coded for transmition to space:
>>> I'm still not sure what the difference is when labels say "0 carbs",
>>> or "<1 carbs". In normal rounding 0 would be 0.0 to 0.499 carbs and
>>> 1 would be 0.500 to 1.499 carbs.
>>
>> <1 means .500 to .999

> Is that documented anywhere? I was browsing around USDA sites looking
> for specific references of what the labels mean and what is allowed.

Any math textbook will tell you the < sign means "less than". If you
agree that anything .49 and lower is allowed to be rounded down to zero
by US labeling laws, then that is the only conclusion you can reach--
and it seems to be one that the manufacturers came up with
themselves --"less than 1" looks better than rounding up to one, even
though that would also be logical. On the other hand, 1.499 is
definitely more than 1g and would be written 1> but that's not very
helpful and I imagine the USDA would frown on it, so it's either written
1.4 or, most commonly in the US, rounded up to 2.

--
revek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June
2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please
Define the Universe and give three examples. - Anonymous

revek

March 23rd, 2004, 03:24 AM

revek burbled across the ether:
On the other hand, 1.499 is
> definitely more than 1g and would be written 1> but that's not very
> helpful and I imagine the USDA would frown on it, so it's either
> written
> 1.4 or, most commonly in the US, rounded up to 2.

Gah. I plead long day. It would not be rounded up to 2, but stay a
solid 1.

--
revek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June
2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please
"It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents--except at
occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind
which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies),
rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame
of the lamps that struggled against the darkness." -Edward George
Bulwer Lytton, _Paul Clifford_ (1830)

Bob (this one)

March 23rd, 2004, 03:57 AM

DigitalVinyl wrote:

> "Bob (this one)" > wrote:
>
>>DigitalVinyl wrote:
>>
>>>Fiber has no calories because it is undigestible.
>>
>>Sorry, That's wrong when it comes to FDA and USDA labels. Carbs are
>>derived *by difference.* That means that they don't actually measure
>>carbs, they're calculated after actually measuring fats and protein.
>>Fiber is considered a carb by the USDA and they include the 4 calories
>>per gram figure to include the fiber as a carb. If the food is burned
>>in a bomb calorimeter, the fiber shows as a carb. That's how the
>>"official" figures are arrived at.
>>
>>Pastorio
>
> That would make many of my labels wrong.
>
> At different sites I found they state that the USDA label
> may,optionally, subtract the CALORIES of FIBER from the CALORIE count.

It's FDA labeling that requires the breakdown of nutrients and they
specifically don't permit messing with the math. The details of how
labels are to be stated are rather clear. Here's the FDA page that
explains it all in detail: <http://tinyurl.com/7qz>

> However the fiber count must show under carbs.

That's a default condition. Most fiber is, chemically, a carb or
carb-like compound. But it's a backward definition because they say
they're definitely not fats or proteins, so they're carbs by
elimination. It's a weak definition, but one that is universally
recognized and accepted.

> ALcohol calories are
> always included, but alcohol content is not required in the nutrient
> section. That is what I see most of the time.

"In the US, alcoholic products don't need to be labeled with the full
nutritional ingredient information. That's because the FDA only covers
*foods*, not alcohol. Alcohol is regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and firearms, or BATF.
"In fact, the FDA's nutritional label requirements are only for
*prepared* foods. They do not cover foods served in their natural
form." <http://wine.about.com/library/weekly/aa062303.htm>

If the *foods* contain alcohol, it has to be listed.

> Total carbs are just
> that TOTAL CARBS, including fiber. Total calories don't include
> calories from fiber.

Yes, they do. They just don't list them separately. The total carb
count (if the label is done properly) includes whatever may be counted
as fiber calories at 4 per gram.

> It has really only been on LC food that the math
> suddenly gets confusing.

It's marketing games rather than nutritional information. They're
trying to cast their products in the best light rather than in the
true situation. That's why Atkins and others have had to redo their
labels. They tried to get away with subtracting fiber in the nutrition
panel and were smacked by FDA.

> So I guess, we have to have separate detective methods for to figure
> out if a product with fiber is counting fiber calories and another for
> products with SA's. ANd if they have both--well you may be a little
> screwed.

I think you're getting a bit overexcited about this. The math is easy
enough. Count the macronutrients, multiply by their respective caloric
contents and see if it all jibes with the big number at the top of the
panel. If not, there are some easy assumptions to make about it. If
so, life is good. Fiber and Sugar alcohols have to be counted in the
caloric count at the top of the panel.

But if we're to be worrying about each solitary calorie and each
solitary gram of anything, we're likely splitting the hairs a bit too
fine.

If there's some product that looks a bit shady, don't buy it. If you
want it anyway and have doubts, call the manufacturer and ask for an
explanation. If you don't like what you hear either forget it or call
the FDA and tell them about it.

>>>>:: The 11g fiber is in addition to 16.875. The label for the U.S.
>>>>:: labeling method should be something like :
>>>>:: Total Carb: 27g
>>>>:: Fiber 11g

Right.

Pastorio

TavliGal

March 23rd, 2004, 05:39 AM

Jennifer wrote:
>> I don't understand any of you.
>>
>> According to the hidden carb counter at:
>> http://www.e-clipse.com/hidcarbcal.htm
>>
>> It says: No unlisted carb grams
>>
>> The package back is correct: 18g of carb per tortilla before you
>> subtract the fiber.
>>
>> AND the package front is correct: 7g of net carbs per tortilla after
>> you subtract the fiber.
>>
>> What's all the fuss about?
>>
>> Jennifer
>>
Jen,
Thanks for the new link, but I don't quite understand how it said for you
No unlisted carb grams. I just punched in the numbers, and double checked
that I've entered the correct numbers and it says that there is -4.5 grams
of unlisted carbs. The site you listed calculates it the same way when i'm
with my calculator at the grocery store, and which is the general way we do
it around here. fat cals x 9, protein cals x 4, carb cals x 4. Those are
rounded numbers. If you're real picky like I am, you may like this site
better because it does not use the rounded numbers.
http://www.lowcarb.ca/low-carb-tools/hidden_carbs.html
Monica
--
Started 01/20/04
362/327.0/250
__________________________________________________ ______
"Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover
what they lack. - Harry Emerson Fosdick

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 3/15/04