 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / January 2004CarbSense Granola is NonSense!
Can someone check me on this....I think this product's labeling is screwed up....I've written to Carbsense for clarification... On the box, it claims 4g net carbs per serving. This is a no Sugar Alcohols food. The label info reports this: Serving size: about 1/2 cup (55 g) Calories: 285 Total fat: 15g Sat fat: 2g Chol: 0mg Sod: 20 mg Total Carbs: 29g Dietary Fiber: 25g (I thought this was a lot in the store, but i bought it anyway) Sugars: 1g Protein: 9g However, when entering this into fitday, the numbers don't add up, with fitday saying the calories should be about 183. Also, dietary fiber and sugars are indented under total carbs (I'm in the US). So, not being a happy camper because I just ate 1/2 cup of this stuff, I went to the website and found this: http://www.carbsense.com/pdf/nutrition_facts_minicarb_granola.htm I don't know if CarbSense has some other non-lowcarb product (I sure hope so)... But the numbers given are for 100 grams. So, if you multiply every entry by 0.55 you should get the nutritional info listed on the box for a serving. Doing this, one gets that the fiber content is 11g rather than 25 g, making the net carbs a friggin 18 g per serving. Holy smack-me-on-the-a.s, Batman! I must've made a mistake somewhere. Looking at the ingredients I don't see where all of these carbs are coming from: soybeans, almonds, oat fiber, polydextrose (fiber), soybean oil, cinnamom, natural flavors, sucralose. Finally, on that page linked above there is a handwritten comment about Plydextrose (fiber) = 25.5. So, if we multiply that number by 0.55 we get 14. If this is added to 11g of fiber from above, we arrive at 25g, which is the number listed on the box. So, does this mean the calories per serving listed on the box is wrong? Perhaps the correct calorie number should be about 183 per serving (15*9 + 4*4 + 8*4)? What's up with this? > Finally, on that page linked above there is a handwritten comment about > Plydextrose (fiber) = 25.5. > So, if we multiply that number by 0.55 we get 14. If this is added to 11g > of fiber from above, we arrive at 25g, which is the number listed on the > box. This quote from Atkins.com (http://atkins.com/shop/products/Bake_Mix.html) "...Bake Mix uses protein-rich soy flour and polydextrose, a unique carbohydrate which is minimally absorbed so it has no impact on blood sugar."  SignatureJim Marnott 231/194/194 (Hit goal on 22 Nov '03 -- exactly 6 months later) Atkins since 22 May '03 Gym since 1 sept '03 :: Roger Zoul wrote: :: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] :: carbohydrate which is minimally absorbed so it has no impact on blood :: sugar." Thanks, Jim. > Can someone check me on this....I think this product's labeling is screwed > up....I've written to Carbsense for clarification... [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Perhaps the correct calorie number should be about 183 per serving (15*9 + > 4*4 + 8*4)? What's up with this? > Can someone check me on this....I think this product's labeling is screwed > up....I've written to Carbsense for clarification... [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Perhaps the correct calorie number should be about 183 per serving (15*9 + > 4*4 + 8*4)? What's up with this? Hi Roger, You need to use the full carb count, including fiber, when determining the number of calories. You need to change the 4*4 to 29*4, so basically 100 more calories (25g fiber * 4) than you had come up with It seems the label is reasonably accurate if you allow for rounding. Oh, and sorry about the double post. I accidently hit send before somehow. SignaturePhil Sansotta 250/242/201.2/170 Highest (2-2003)/Back on LC (6-2003)/Current/Goal Jan Challenge Goal: 193.2 ::: Can someone check me on this....I think this product's labeling is ::: screwed up....I've written to Carbsense for clarification... [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] :: Oh, and sorry about the double post. I accidently hit send before :: somehow. Really? But that makes no sense because those fiber carbs are not digestable....hence, their impact is nil. Also, I entered the label info into fitday and it reports 183 kcals per serving. Fitday asks for total carbs and fiber, as well as protein and fat. I appreciate your response, but I don't think that can be correct. I think CarbSense as made a mistake somewhere (maybe the same one you made :) ). Roger, It is possible that Polydextrose is another one of those engineered foods where the manufacturer makes claims that they aren't digested but where the food actually does metabolise and contributes calories which the FDA now makes them report.. I tried some Keto-something pancake mix full of polydextrose several years ago and it gave me intense hunger cravings. There were no sugar alcohols in the product and nothing else listed in the ingredients that should have had that effect. The name, which translates into "many glucose" in medical Greek makes you wonder. Along the same lines, yesterday I saw a whole rack of "Zero Calorie" sauces filled with cream, tomato paste and who knows what else. My Sweetie speculated that perhaps the food molecules had been infused with plastic, the way they treat stabilzed exotic woods to make them more durable. <g>. -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes, hba1c 5.2. Cut the carbs to respond to my email address! Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes and more at http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Looking for help controlling your blood sugar? Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm > ::: Can someone check me on this....I think this product's labeling is > ::: screwed up....I've written to Carbsense for clarification... [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > but I don't think that can be correct. I think CarbSense as made a mistake > somewhere (maybe the same one you made :) ). :: Roger, :: :: It is possible that Polydextrose is another one of those engineered :: foods where the manufacturer makes claims that they aren't digested :: but where the food actually does metabolise and contributes calories :: which the FDA now makes them report.. Right...except they don't seem to be reporting its caloric value correctly. I think Carmen as supplied the details. :: I tried some Keto-something pancake mix full of polydextrose several :: years ago and it gave me intense hunger cravings. There were no :: sugar alcohols in the product and nothing else listed in the :: ingredients that should have had that effect. Luckly, I only ate a serving and it didn't bother me in the least. :: The name, which translates into "many glucose" in medical Greek :: makes you wonder. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: with plastic, the way they treat stabilzed exotic woods to make :: them more durable. <g>. Ews.... http://www.aaccnet.org/FuncFood/pdfs/0427-03F.pdf Thanks. > :: You need to use the full carb count, including fiber, when > :: determining the number of calories. You need to change the 4*4 to > :: 29*4, so basically 100 more calories (25g fiber * 4) than you had > :: come up with It seems the label is reasonably accurate if you allow > :: for rounding. > Really? But that makes no sense because those fiber carbs are not > digestable....hence, their impact is nil. Also, I entered the label info > into fitday and it reports 183 kcals per serving. Fitday asks for total > carbs and fiber, as well as protein and fat. I appreciate your response, > but I don't think that can be correct. I think CarbSense as made a mistake > somewhere (maybe the same one you made :) ). No, believe it or not, Phil was right! It's those weird FDA labeling regulations again. When calculating total calories in a product, a manufacturer has several options. One is to use the 4/4/9 rule straight across the board, counting total carbohydrates (including all fiber) as having 4 calories per gram. Another option is to deduct the insoluble fiber carbohydrates before applying the 4/4/9 rule. (So, having this flexibility, a product could properly have two totally different calorie counts.) But *soluble* fiber can *not* be omitted from the 4/4/9 rule (even though minimal calories are absorbed from all soluble fiber sources). Soluble fiber, according to regulations, must *always* be counted as having 4 calories per gram. So, since your cereal has a high polydextrose content (soluble), all of that fiber was (correctly) counted in the calories. Fitday is incorrect to assume all fiber carbohydrates should be subtracted when applying the 4/4/9 rule. See http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/04nov20031500/edocket.access.gpo.gov /cfr_2001/aprqtr/21cfr101.9.htm Beginning on page 24 - "Caloric content may be calculated by the following methods. ...Using the general factors of 4, 4, and 9 calories per gram for protein, total carbohydrate, and total fat, respectively...Using the general factors of 4, 4, and 9 calories per gram for protein, total carbohydrate less the amount of insoluble dietary fiber, and total fat, respectively..." I know, it's weird and doesn't make sense, and makes getting a true calorie count difficult (if not impossible) when figuring how many calories your body is actually able to access, but that's what the FDA has given us for now. The really insidious thing about this ambiguity in fiber/calorie labeling is that it makes finding hidden carbs more difficult, especially when the fiber content is not broken down into soluble and insoluble (which is not required). Not knowing whether or not fiber "calories" have been deducted from the stated calorie total makes it impossible to tell if the numbers are really adding up. Reb ::: Phil S. wrote: ::::: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] :: :: See http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/04nov20031500/edocket.access.gpo.gov :: /cfr_2001/aprqtr/21cfr101.9.htm :: Beginning on page 24 - [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] :: :: Reb Thanks for this, Reb. I think I'm gonna wait for my next carb up and finish the stuff off. Then, I won't buy it again. It's just too much hassle for someone like me who likes to account for everything to deal with issues like this. I only have so much patience. The sad thing is when I bought it I read the label info and thought "Hey, that's a lot of fiber" but I really need a calculator to make sure the number make sense. I guess I can count a serving as 183 IMPACT calories :) Geez! > It's just too much hassle for someone like me who likes to account for > everything to deal with issues like this. I only have so much patience. > The sad thing is when I bought it I read the label info and thought "Hey, > that's a lot of fiber" but I really need a calculator to make sure the > number make sense. Yeah, that's really a shame, because a high fiber food is a great thing to be able to include in your diet, but when it's a processed food, it's also one of the most likely to be mislabled items you can get. There is just such an unbelievable amount of wiggling room in the labeling requirements. The government considers carbs to be a *good* thing, so they currently only have rules that state by how much the carbohydrates can be *overreported*. For labeling a product as having fewer carbs than it really does, they just have the nebulous requirement that carbs not be underrported by more than a "reasonable" amount. > I guess I can count a serving as 183 IMPACT calories :) Ha-ha...yeah, weird, huh? Fortunately (or, unfortunately, actually) most people don't eat enough fiber for it to make that big of a difference in their daily calorie totals if they don't guess correctly if the fiber calories have been subtracted or not. But it's downright scary how much it can throw off your carb calculations if the manufacturer is being dishonest (as them seem to be a LOT these days). Really lends extra support to the argument for eating just natural, unprocessed foods. Reb Hi roger, > Thanks for this, Reb. I think I'm gonna wait for my next carb up and finish > the stuff off. Then, I won't buy it again. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I guess I can count a serving as 183 IMPACT calories :) All Bran with Extra Fiber's label is honest. Made up as a hot cereal it tatstes good to me. BTW, in light of Reb's interpretation of the guidance take another look at your flax meal. Later...<cue evil laughter> Take care, Carmen Hi Roger, > Can someone check me on this....I think this product's labeling is screwed > up....I've written to Carbsense for clarification... [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Perhaps the correct calorie number should be about 183 per serving (15*9 + > 4*4 + 8*4)? What's up with this? Polydextrose has 1 cal/gram. Assuming *all* of the fiber grams are polydextrose you'd come up with 25 cals for the fiber. Add the fat (15 * 9 = 135) and the regular carbs (4 * 4 = 16) and the protein (9 * 4 = 36) and you get a total of 212 cals. The figure of 285 is what one comes up with if some dweeb ascribed 4 cals/gram for the Total Carbs figure, ignoring the fact that polydextrose is 1 cal/gram. I've tasted one of the granolas - Gram's Gourmet, and it was lovely. I won't be buying it again any time soon though. The numbers on a lot of the stuff that's come out in a tidal wave lately are suspect, and that one's a bit twitchy as well (just a bit)- plus it's hideously calorific. None of the CarbSense stuff has ever made it into my basket. Those numbers appear to have been picked out of a hat. Take care, Carmen :: Hi Roger, ::: Can someone check me on this....I think this product's labeling is [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] :: into my basket. Those numbers appear to have been picked out of a :: hat. Carmen, Thanks...until I hear back from CarbSense (assuming I do) I'm going with your explanation. The way I see this, there really are 10.25 g (4 + 25/4 = 10.25) of impact carbs per serving in this stuff, since the polydextrose as caloric impact. Also, I made a mistake in listing the protein per serving, it is 8g instead of 9, bringing the calories per serving to 208. This is just flat out misleading, if you ask me. Here's an article I found on polydextrose: http://www.aaccnet.org/FuncFood/pdfs/0427-03F.pdf Hi Roger, > Thanks...until I hear back from CarbSense (assuming I do) I'm going > with your explanation. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > http://www.aaccnet.org/FuncFood/pdfs/0427-03F.pdf Holy crap! Did you see the dosage at which 50% of a study's subjects got a laxative effect? *90g*! That's a buttload of fiber. ;-) The "laxation threshold" (defined as the level "...at which the most sensitive individual experienced laxative symptoms.") was 50 g. As for Carbsense, they screwed up something. I'll stick to my All Bran with Extra Fiber and that Atkins cereal I bought for my fiber. Their labels make sense (or is that Sense?) <G> Take care, Carmen :: Hi Roger, :: Roger Zoul wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] :: The "laxation threshold" (defined as the level "...at which the most :: sensitive individual experienced laxative symptoms.") was 50 g. Yep....I also saw that other statement which indicates that in the US there must be a laxation statement on the label if the food contains more than 15g of polydextrose per serving. Based on the statement on the website link this stuff has 25.5 g of polydextrose in 100g, so a serving would be 14, which is mighty close to the limit. On something like cereal, it would be very easy to consume more than a single serving, but getting up to 50 g of it would be quite hard, based on how the stuff tastes :) :: As for Carbsense, they screwed up something. I'll stick to my All :: Bran with Extra Fiber and that Atkins cereal I bought for my fiber. :: Their labels make sense (or is that Sense?) <G> I'll just go back to the Flax sources I was using before. I can roll my own cereal...I just thought I'd try the stuff since, at Wal-mart, it's fairly cheap and premixed. The tastes is not quite as good as some other stuff I've tried, either. I despise having to deal with labeling uncertainty....since I track everything I eat. Hi Roger, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:btf6v9$6i807$1@ID-166706.news.uni-berlin> > :: As for Carbsense, they screwed up something. I'll stick to my All > :: Bran with Extra Fiber and that Atkins cereal I bought for my fiber. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I've tried, either. I despise having to deal with labeling > uncertainty....since I track everything I eat. I don't trust Carb sense anyway. All of the labels I looked at are wonky, and since the primary low-carb products I use are tortillas and cereal (cold) they don't have much to offer me. When I make my own hot cereal I find that the addition of some nice wheat bran gives the flax meal some "tooth" and mitigates the slime factor. A half scoop of protein powder finishes it off nicely. :-) Take care, Carmen :: Hi Roger, :: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] :: wheat bran gives the flax meal some "tooth" and mitigates the slime :: factor. A half scoop of protein powder finishes it off nicely. :-) I've heard people mention the "slime" factor. I must've miss that, somehow. However, i use a full scoop of protein power and will try the wheat bran just to have a different mix. Tx. Hi Roger, > :: When I make my own hot cereal I find that the addition of some nice > :: wheat bran gives the flax meal some "tooth" and mitigates the slime [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > However, i use a full scoop of protein power and will try the wheat bran > just to have a different mix. Tx. Welcome. :-) Take care, Carmen Obviously, carbsense candy bars should be avoided because they are candy bars. Having said that, I believe that it is much more dangerous or difficult for manufacturers to lie about calorie content, than it is to lie about carb content. So they lie about carb content while truthfully disclosing calories. Of course, calories and carbs do not add up, as you correctly noted (I redid your calculations). But people who recheck such calculations are not suckers and these bars are designed for suckers. i > Can someone check me on this....I think this product's labeling is screwed > up....I've written to Carbsense for clarification... [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Perhaps the correct calorie number should be about 183 per serving (15*9 + > 4*4 + 8*4)? What's up with this? Actually, manufacturers lie about calorie counts all the time. Back in the 1980s, the Hartford Courant newspaper sent a bunch of ice creams to a lab for analysis and found that the actual calorie counts in the ice creams were much, much higher than the stated label claims. It turned out that the companies were using the nutritional count for generic ice cream, rather than the actual product and ignoring all the mix ins, especially nuts and fudge. If you look at ice cream labels for different flavors from the same company now, you'll see that most of them are still very generic looking. -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes, hba1c 5.2. Cut the carbs to respond to my email address! Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes and more at http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Looking for help controlling your blood sugar? Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm > Obviously, carbsense candy bars should be avoided because they are > candy bars. [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > Perhaps the correct calorie number should be about 183 per serving (15*9 + > > 4*4 + 8*4)? What's up with this? these aren't bars, ig...it's breakfast cereal. It's not candy...and it's also not a tomato... :: Obviously, carbsense candy bars should be avoided because they are :: candy bars. [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] ::: wrong? Perhaps the correct calorie number should be about 183 per ::: serving (15*9 + 4*4 + 8*4)? What's up with this? >these aren't bars, ig...it's breakfast cereal. It's not candy...and it's >also not a tomato... If it helps your calculations any, fiber isn't completely calorie free, according to a Lyle post I once read. Something like 1.5-2.0 in cals per gram, IIRC. Susan Sorry, I thought that it was a cereal bar. I was wrong, it is cereal. Still junk food though... i > these aren't bars, ig...it's breakfast cereal. It's not candy...and it's > also not a tomato... [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] >::: wrong? Perhaps the correct calorie number should be about 183 per >::: serving (15*9 + 4*4 + 8*4)? What's up with this? > Sorry, I thought that it was a cereal bar. > > I was wrong, it is cereal. I know that, Ignormaus... > Still junk food though... According to you, oh purveyor of truth, knowledge, and wisdom..... > i > [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] >>>>> wrong? Perhaps the correct calorie number should be about 183 per >>>>> serving (15*9 + 4*4 + 8*4)? What's up with this? > these aren't bars, ig...it's breakfast cereal. It's not candy...and it's > also not a tomato... IMO, there's very little difference between most breakfast cereals and candy or small cookies, and granola *IS* candy. Signaturejamie (jamiemck@newsguy.com) "There's a seeker born every minute." >> these aren't bars, ig...it's breakfast cereal. It's not candy...and it's >> also not a tomato... > > IMO, there's very little difference between most breakfast cereals and > candy or small cookies, and granola *IS* candy. Um, thanks, I have to agree that it is similar to candy, as far as I am concerned. Sweet, overprocessed stuff. Press it together, and it becomes candy. But it was not exactly candy, and I misread the original article. i :: Roger Zoul <rogerzoul@hotmail.com> wrote: ::: these aren't bars, ig...it's breakfast cereal. It's not ::: candy...and it's also not a tomato... :: :: IMO, there's very little difference between most breakfast cereals :: and candy or small cookies, and granola *IS* candy. This stuff has no sugar..., or SAs, and is not overly sweet. It is NOT candy. :: -- :: jamie (jamiemck@newsguy.com) :: :: "There's a seeker born every minute." > This stuff has no sugar..., or SAs, and is not overly sweet. It is NOT > candy. Sugarfree junk food is still junk food. Signaturejamie (jamiemck@newsguy.com) "There's a seeker born every minute." :: Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: ::: ::: This stuff has no sugar..., or SAs, and is not overly sweet. It is ::: NOT candy. :: :: Sugarfree junk food is still junk food. Okay...what is your definition of junk food? >:: Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: >::: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Okay...what is your definition of junk food? For me, roughly, it is anything sweetened, anything that looks like it could be sold in a vending machine, or anything that is way overprocessed (a fuzzy term, but it is a fuzzy concept). Like you say, YMMV. But generally, they rarely need to sweeten good foods. It's the junk that gets sweetened. Sweetening is a good indication that the food is junky. Same is with excessive salt added. They usually add too much salt to hide bad taste, the only exception being foods that need salt to be preserved (think lard&bacon). A few months ago, I ate Kraft franks and they were absolutely foul tasting and also oversalted. I realised that I noticed the foul taste because I ate good food for a while prior (due to dieting), otherwise it would not be noticeable due to salt. I do eat franks made by Bobak, a company with roots in the Polish community. Poles are really good at knowing what is good food, and Bobak caters to them. So I am not a purist who says that all franks are bad. Just the Kraft ones. Kraft adds too much salt to hide bad taste, likely due to cheap components. So, to recap, sugar&sweeteners and excessive salt are frequently added to hide poor quality of food. I am sorry that I cannot provide you with an exacting definition of junk food. But it does not make junk food an invalid concept. Just because I am not sure exactly where the boundary lies, I know that pringles and oreos are junk food. i |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.