Product find of the week - zero carb bread

Agreed, and like I said, bread doesn't work for me.
But is the math correct? Am I adding everything right or is there something
I'm not seeing? This is the reason I don't do net carbs...too complicated.
Michelle in Gander

"JC Der Koenig" wrote in message
.. .
Add this up: bread is not low carb, never has been, and never will be.

Michelle in Gander wrote:

I'm concerned about the math, though. Or maybe I don't add it up right. But
if the fiber and the carbs are cancelling each other out (for zero carbs)
then the calories are coming from protein and fat, right? But when I do the
math I see that the carb calories are still there. So (to me anyway) it
seems like there are actually 14g of carbs of which 7 are fiber and
therefore don't count.
(6*4) + (1*9) = 31 cals
60 - 31 = 29 cals
29/4 = 7. something grams of carbs

The label *does* list 7 grams of total carbs. The label also claims
that 7 of those grams are fiber. Many (most) folks deduct fiber. If
you do the arithmatic it comes out zero.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to burst your bubble. It's great that
you've found a bread that doesn't upset your blood sugar. But so far, breads
trigger some little craving switch in me and make me want to binge. Which is
odd cuz I don't crave bread.

Of course it can't actually really be zero once you've read the
directions. There has to be some rounding off to acheive that
zero. But being conservative and calling it 1 because nothing
that claims zero really is zero still makes it 1, and that 1 is
not an exaggeration.

Too bad. It has wheat in it. Seems like all of the low carb
breads have wheat. I'm wheat intollerant. No low carb bread for
me. Sigh. On the other hand my CCLL is 50 and my CCLM is 100
so if I feel like having some non-low-carb wheat-free bread, I
can have an occasional slice. None in the freezer this month,
though. The fact that I can afford the 15 grams per slice
doesn't mean I do it regularly.

I'm concerned about the math, though. Or maybe I don't add it up right. But
if the fiber and the carbs are cancelling each other out (for zero carbs)
then the calories are coming from protein and fat, right?

Fiber has calories. Labels count fiber as calories. If your body will use those
calories or not is another issue.

LCing since 12/01/03-
Me- 5'7" 265/201/140
& hubby- 6' 310/212/180

Hi,
On 25-May-2004, (LCer09) wrote:

I'm concerned about the math, though. Or maybe I don't add it up
right. But if the fiber and the carbs are cancelling each other out
(for zero carbs)
then the calories are coming from protein and fat, right?

Fiber has calories. Labels count fiber as calories. If your body
will use those calories or not is another issue.

Do tell? Some labels may include fiber calories, but unless you know
for *sure* which way the manufacturer has gone then fiber deduction is
a roll of the dice. It may or may not be accurate.
Here's an example of what I mean:

http://tinyurl.com/2rck6

Try it your way (assuming that fiber calories are on the label) and
you end up with:
1 gram fat = 9 cals
3 grams protein = 12 cals
20 grams carbohydrate (of which 13 are fiber) = 80 cals

Take (9 + 12 + 80 = 101 cals) from the total calories of 50
cals/serving and ta-da! Negative calories. Yeah! The more you eat
the more you lose!

See why you can't assume that fiber calories are listed on the label?
The upshot of the whole thing is unless you *know* that "fiber
calories" are listed on the label you can't subtract fiber. Since no
manufacturers will tell you that on products (like the one that is in
this thread) I assume that
manufacturers do not include calories that are seen as not being
bioavailable. That way, when I "do the math" I'm taking the most
conservative approach in the fiber subtraction spectrum. Your way is
rife with pitfalls and significant potential for hidden carbs.

Just an oldster's POV.

Take care,
Carmen (?)

See why you can't assume that fiber calories are listed on the label?

You also can't assume they're not. Especially considering that they're
certainly not supposed to subtract them, in the US anyway. If the basic
fat/protein/carb numbers all add up, I don't see any reason to assume something
fishy is going on. It just means the label is actually honest and 'legal'. (not
that they may not be manipulating something *else* of course, since labeling is
basically unregulated)


LCing since 12/01/03-
Me- 5'7" 265/201/140
& hubby- 6' 310/212/180

Hi,
On 25-May-2004, (LCer09) wrote:

See why you can't assume that fiber calories are listed on the
label?

You also can't assume they're not. Especially considering that
they're certainly not supposed to subtract them, in the US anyway.
If the
basic fat/protein/carb numbers all add up, I don't see any reason to
assume something fishy is going on. It just means the label is
actually honest and
'legal'. (not that they may not be manipulating something *else* of
course, since
labeling is basically unregulated)

You're right. You can't assume for sure either way. However, if you
assume that food manufacturers *do* put fiber calories on the label
and subtract the fiber on everything accordingly then you might end up
wondering why you aren't losing squat and your blood sugar levels are
higher than they ought to be (for diabetics). If you assume that all
food manufacturers *don't* put fiber calories on their labels then the
worst thing that'll happen is you'll put some foods out of contention
based on what "doing the math" says about them.

Which way makes more sense for someone trying to avoid too many carbs?


Another example (from a different manufacturer) is General Mills'
Fiber One. That's two major manufacturers who don't put "fiber
calories" on labels. There's more, but in the end people have to
decide how much trust they're willing to allot Big Business. I'll
take the conservative approach. It got me to where I wanted to be.

Take care,
Carmen (?)

Hi,
On 25-May-2004, (LCer09) wrote:

See why you can't assume that fiber calories are listed on the
label?

You also can't assume they're not. Especially considering that
they're certainly not supposed to subtract them, in the US anyway.
If the
basic fat/protein/carb numbers all add up, I don't see any reason to
assume something fishy is going on. It just means the label is
actually honest and
'legal'. (not that they may not be manipulating something *else* of
course, since
labeling is basically unregulated)

You're right. You can't assume for sure either way. However, if you
assume that food manufacturers *do* put fiber calories on the label
and subtract the fiber on everything accordingly then you might end up
wondering why you aren't losing squat and your blood sugar levels are
higher than they ought to be (for diabetics). If you assume that all
food manufacturers *don't* put fiber calories on their labels then the
worst thing that'll happen is you'll put some foods out of contention
based on what "doing the math" says about them.

Which way makes more sense for someone trying to avoid too many carbs?

A quick check makes it pretty obvious. Are the 4 cal per carb gram there? Yes
or no? Besides which, the carbs are listed, the fiber is listed, what do the
calories have to do with avoiding carbs? I honestly never even do more than
glance at the calories, to make sure they're not horrifically high. Unless
you're talking about fiber being subtracted from the *carb* count, which is
another issue entirely.

LCing since 12/01/03-
Me- 5'7" 265/201/140
& hubby- 6' 310/212/180

Hi,
On 25-May-2004, (LCer09) wrote:

You're right. You can't assume for sure either way. However, if
you assume that food manufacturers *do* put fiber calories on the
label
and subtract the fiber on everything accordingly then you might end
up wondering why you aren't losing squat and your blood sugar
levels
are higher than they ought to be (for diabetics). If you assume
that
all food manufacturers *don't* put fiber calories on their labels
then
the worst thing that'll happen is you'll put some foods out of
contention based on what "doing the math" says about them.

Which way makes more sense for someone trying to avoid too many
carbs?

A quick check makes it pretty obvious. Are the 4 cal per carb gram
there? Yes or no? Besides which, the carbs are listed, the fiber is
listed,
what do the calories have to do with avoiding carbs? I honestly
never even do
more than glance at the calories, to make sure they're not
horrifically high.
Unless you're talking about fiber being subtracted from the *carb*
count,
which is another issue entirely.

Um, that's exactly what I've been discussing the entire time. Using
the total calories given to check to see whether or not "fiber
calories" have been included in the total calories given. That's what
the entire premise of "doing the math" has always been based on. If
one assumes that the total calories figure includes "fiber calories"
then one loses the basis for "doing the math". Remember when I showed
you the label for Kellogg's All-Bran with Extra Fiber? That's why I
did that, to show you that if one assumes that the total calories
given includes "fiber calories" the label becomes ridiculous.
Kellogg's clearly *doesn't* include "fiber calories" on their label,
and thus "doing the math" works.

I hope I've made my position clear, but if not let me know. I'll try
again.

Take clear,
Carmen

So then the numbers do add up? I'm still confused. To err on the side of
caution, I should assume that the fiber calories are NOT included in the
counts, right? So if the carbs, fats, and proteins add up to the calories,
then the fiber, while important, has already been pre-subtracted and I can't
subtract it once again.
I think I'll stick with gross carbs, and let my body figure out the net
carbs on its own...
Michelle in Gander

"Carmen" wrote in message
Um, that's exactly what I've been discussing the entire time. Using
the total calories given to check to see whether or not "fiber
calories" have been included in the total calories given. That's what
the entire premise of "doing the math" has always been based on. If
one assumes that the total calories figure includes "fiber calories"
then one loses the basis for "doing the math". Remember when I showed
you the label for Kellogg's All-Bran with Extra Fiber? That's why I
did that, to show you that if one assumes that the total calories
given includes "fiber calories" the label becomes ridiculous.
Kellogg's clearly *doesn't* include "fiber calories" on their label,
and thus "doing the math" works.

I hope I've made my position clear, but if not let me know. I'll try
again.

Take clear,
Carmen

Hi,
On 25-May-2004, (LCer09) wrote:

You're right. You can't assume for sure either way. However, if
you assume that food manufacturers *do* put fiber calories on the
label
and subtract the fiber on everything accordingly then you might end
up wondering why you aren't losing squat and your blood sugar
levels
are higher than they ought to be (for diabetics). If you assume
that
all food manufacturers *don't* put fiber calories on their labels
then
the worst thing that'll happen is you'll put some foods out of
contention based on what "doing the math" says about them.

Which way makes more sense for someone trying to avoid too many
carbs?

A quick check makes it pretty obvious. Are the 4 cal per carb gram
there? Yes or no? Besides which, the carbs are listed, the fiber is
listed,
what do the calories have to do with avoiding carbs? I honestly
never even do
more than glance at the calories, to make sure they're not
horrifically high.
Unless you're talking about fiber being subtracted from the *carb*
count,
which is another issue entirely.

Um, that's exactly what I've been discussing the entire time. Using
the total calories given to check to see whether or not "fiber
calories" have been included in the total calories given. That's what
the entire premise of "doing the math" has always been based on. If
one assumes that the total calories figure includes "fiber calories"
then one loses the basis for "doing the math". Remember when I showed
you the label for Kellogg's All-Bran with Extra Fiber? That's why I
did that, to show you that if one assumes that the total calories
given includes "fiber calories" the label becomes ridiculous.
Kellogg's clearly *doesn't* include "fiber calories" on their label,
and thus "doing the math" works.

I hope I've made my position clear, but if not let me know. I'll try
again.

If an item has 10 carb grams, and five are fiber grams, yet they are only
counting five towards the calorie count, then they have subtracted the fiber
from the calorie count. If that SAME item claims to only have 5 *carb* grams,
and 5 fiber grams, they have subtracted the fiber from the carbs (as is done in
Europe) and this is a completely different issue IMHO.

LCing since 12/01/03-
Me- 5'7" 265/201/140
& hubby- 6' 310/212/180