Product find of the week - zero carb bread

Hi,
On 26-May-2004, (LCer09) wrote:

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.

I see what you're doing now. Unfortunately, it isn't label
*checking*. It's label *justifying*. You pick whichever explanation
seems to fit the situation. To do that you're assuming that all
manufacturers do one or the other on their labels. They don't. For
the sake of consistency one ought to pick one stance or the other.
For the widest safety margin, one ought to assume that fiber calories
are not included on the label - as Michelle surmised.

Take care,
Carmen

Hi,
On 26-May-2004, "Michelle in Gander" wrote:

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.

Exactly. :-)

I think I'll stick with gross carbs, and let my body figure out the
net carbs on its own...

And *that* is the safest stance of all.

Take care,
Carmen

If you want to assume that someone's going to eat a whole loaf of bread, all
these comments might have some validity. Eat one slice and you'll be fine.

A lot of people that like to nitpick here about a carb here or a carb there
act as though they're still on induction or phase 1---or whatever you want
to call it---even though they've been posting for well over a year. Lighten
up. Live a little.

Moderation, Not Deprivation

This from someone that can't even spell his own name.

--
If the price of stupid ever goes up, I claim drilling rights to this guy's
head. -- MFW


"Thw Low-Carb Bartender" wrote in message
news:rg1tc.118256$xw3.7038973@attbi_s04...
If you want to assume that someone's going to eat a whole loaf of bread,
all
these comments might have some validity. Eat one slice and you'll be fine.

A lot of people that like to nitpick here about a carb here or a carb
there
act as though they're still on induction or phase 1---or whatever you want
to call it---even though they've been posting for well over a year.
Lighten
up. Live a little.

Moderation, Not Deprivation

I see what you're doing now. Unfortunately, it isn't label
*checking*. It's label *justifying*. You pick whichever explanation
seems to fit the situation.

No, if the numbers add up I don't freak out and assume something is wrong
because "fiber shouldn't have calories!". The majority of labels to not
subtract fiber calories. And I'm not concerned about calories all that much in
the first place.


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

"Thw Low-Carb Bartender" wrote in message news:rg1tc.118256$xw3.7038973@attbi_s04...
If you want to assume that someone's going to eat a whole loaf of bread, all
these comments might have some validity. Eat one slice and you'll be fine.

A lot of people that like to nitpick here about a carb here or a carb there
act as though they're still on induction or phase 1---or whatever you want
to call it---even though they've been posting for well over a year. Lighten
up. Live a little.


Actually, for me, the reason why I don't buy "carb-food substitutes"
is because I'm relearning how to eat - I am adopting a new WOE that is
about eating whole, real foods. If I'm continuing to eat chocolate,
chips and toast I haven't really adopted a new WOE. And I won't get
very far, and I'll still have cravings. Look what happened to all
those poor low-fatters eating their Snackwells.

On 26-May-2004, (LCer09) wrote:

I see what you're doing now. Unfortunately, it isn't label
*checking*. It's label *justifying*. You pick whichever
explanation seems to fit the situation.

No, if the numbers add up I don't freak out and assume something is
wrong because "fiber shouldn't have calories!". The majority of
labels to
not subtract fiber calories. And I'm not concerned about calories
all
that much in the first place.

Laughing Some people learn by making mistakes and garnering the
consequences. Smart people learn from the mistakes made by others.
I've been there and proffer the information. It's up to you to decide
whether or not to apply it.

Subtract "fiber calories", subtract sugar alcohol calories (why not -
if you spend the night on the commode surely you can't be absorbing
too many, right?), subtract poultry protein calories (after all, how
can you gain weight eating things that are so light they can fly,
right?) and anything else you can think up an excuse to discount.
After all, calories don't count, right?

You've decided what you want to be true, and justify it accordingly.
The consequences will be on you, so I'm not going to throw more time
into this.

NOTE: To anyone else reading this, especially newbies, calories still
count on low carb. I'm being facetious. Five and a half years low
carbing teaches you a few things, and that is one of 'em.

Take care,
Carmen

Laughing Some people learn by making mistakes and garnering the
consequences. Smart people learn from the mistakes made by others.
I've been there and proffer the information. It's up to you to decide
whether or not to apply it.

What mistake have I made? If a label has one gram of fat, one gram of protein,
one gram of crab, and says it has 17 calories, I should freak out and assume
somebody is messing with the numbers because there is also a gram of fiber
there? When it all adds up as it should? The FDA doesn't give a damn if those 4
carb calories aren't actually used by the body. They aren't fat or protein, so
they are classified as a carb. This is how the labels SHOULD be, and the way
95% of them ARE.


Subtract "fiber calories", subtract sugar alcohol calories (why not -
if you spend the night on the commode surely you can't be absorbing
too many, right?), subtract poultry protein calories (after all, how
can you gain weight eating things that are so light they can fly,
right?) and anything else you can think up an excuse to discount.
After all, calories don't count, right?

Now you're making up absurdities. Perhaps this is how you read labels, but do
NOT put words in my mouth.



You've decided what you want to be true, and justify it accordingly.
The consequences will be on you, so I'm not going to throw more time
into this.

I know what IS true. You're the one looking for the conspiracy behind every
label. Some are wrong. Like the cereal you posted. It was painfully obvious
that the fiber hadn't been counted towards the calorie total, by using quick
and simple arithmetic. It was hardly hidden, or covert in any way. And it had
nothing to do with how many non-fiber carbs were in it.




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

On 26-May-2004, (LCer09) wrote:

Laughing Some people learn by making mistakes and garnering the
consequences. Smart people learn from the mistakes made by others.
I've been there and proffer the information. It's up to you to
decide whether or not to apply it.

What mistake have I made? If a label has one gram of fat, one gram
of protein, one gram of crab, and says it has 17 calories, I should
freak out
and assume somebody is messing with the numbers because there is
also a gram of
fiber there? When it all adds up as it should? The FDA doesn't give
a damn
if those 4 carb calories aren't actually used by the body. They
aren't fat or
protein, so they are classified as a carb. This is how the labels
SHOULD be, and
the way 95% of them ARE.

Therein lies your mistake. That one assumption.

You've decided what you want to be true, and justify it
accordingly. The consequences will be on you, so I'm not going to
throw more
time into this.

I know what IS true. You're the one looking for the conspiracy
behind every label. Some are wrong. Like the cereal you posted. It
was painfully
obvious that the fiber hadn't been counted towards the calorie
total, by
using quick and simple arithmetic. It was hardly hidden, or covert
in any way.
And it had nothing to do with how many non-fiber carbs were in it.

I'm getting exasperated, and Howard is on an inpatient cycle again so
my time is somewhat limited. You *are* capable of understanding this,
so last shot:
It was clear-cut proof, using an example not easily muddied by
"rounding error" due to the significant fiber content, that your
assumption (meaning: most manufacturers put "fiber calories"on the
label) is a false one. I used a major manufacturer to better
illustrate the point, and backed that up by another exemplar (the
Fiber One cereal from General Mills) for you to research as followup.
You seemed fully capable of reaching the obvious conclusions yourself
given the evidence.
Your sig says you've been doing this for almost six months now.
That's not very long. Benefitting from the experience of those who
have been doing low carb for years, and who have learned things the
hard way, would be a smart move. It won't be long now when you hit
the point where counting calories will probably become an issue. The
honeymoon period of fast weight loss with minimal attention paid to
carbs and calories that obese people get doesn't last forever. For me
the ride from 248 to 190 was easy. Then I started learning things in
earnest. I had to. When you're ready to listen to answers you get
I'll still be here.

Carmen

It was clear-cut proof, using an example not easily muddied by
"rounding error" due to the significant fiber content, that your
assumption (meaning: most manufacturers put "fiber calories"on the
label) is a false one. I used a major manufacturer to better
illustrate the point, and backed that up by another exemplar (the
Fiber One cereal from General Mills) for you to research as followup.
You seemed fully capable of reaching the obvious conclusions yourself
given the evidence.

I said it was obvious. _Painfully_ obvious. Anybody with half a functioning
brain could see that the fiber calories weren't counted. The fiber CARBS were
however, and MOST labels aren't like that. Again, if a label adds up, why
should I be suspicious? You haven't answered that at ALL, just gone on and on
about how stupid I must be. Nice.

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