Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / January 2004
"Carb Solutions" Bars and "Net Carbs"
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Mr. N - 13 Jan 2004 23:06 GMT Hello,
I recently bought a box of "Carb Solutions High Protein Bars", which advertise anywhere from 2-3 "net carbs" (depending on the flavor).
I understand that the concept of "net carbs" is at least somewhat dubious, but generally accepted to mean the number of "impact" carbs, i.e. Total Carbs - Fiber - Sugar alcohols = "net/impact carbs".
However, this product (Chocolate Fudge Almond flavor) contains 15G Total Carbs, 1G of fiber and (according to both the nutrition information and list of ingredients) NO sugar alcohols to subtract from the total?
Any idea how they can promote this product as having "3 Net Carbs"???
I called the manufacturer, Richardson Labs, and got the runaround. Their number is 1-888-776-5383.
-Mr. N
Jeri - 13 Jan 2004 23:47 GMT > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I called the manufacturer, Richardson Labs, and got the runaround. > Their number is 1-888-776-5383. They also subtract glycerine to come up with net carbs.
Ignoramus14640 - 14 Jan 2004 00:04 GMT > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > but generally accepted to mean the number of "impact" carbs, i.e. Total > Carbs - Fiber - Sugar alcohols = "net/impact carbs". why subtract sugar alcohols? They are carbs and they do pack calories.
> However, this product (Chocolate Fudge Almond flavor) contains 15G Total > Carbs, 1G of fiber and (according to both the nutrition information and list [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I called the manufacturer, Richardson Labs, and got the runaround. Their > number is 1-888-776-5383. Just don't buy that junk... Candy has not yet made anyone healthy and slim...
i
Roger Zoul - 14 Jan 2004 01:03 GMT :: In article <a63c2b6cb10a21a8d2df5bf16946128f@news.teranews.com>, Mr. :: N wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] :: Just don't buy that junk... Candy has not yet made anyone healthy and :: slim... No food, fake or real, has ever made anyone healthy and slim...
Mr. N - 14 Jan 2004 02:48 GMT > why subtract sugar alcohols? They are carbs and they do pack calories. My understanding is that they digest so slowly that their impact on blood sugar is negligible. It's irrelevant in this case however - as the product doesn't contain sugar alcohols. The sweetener used is sucralose.
> Just don't buy that junk... Candy has not yet made anyone healthy and > slim... It's not supposed to - it's just supposed to provide a high-protein, low-carb snack. In my own case, as a control for diabetes rather than weight loss.
 Signature -My Real Name
Ignoramus14640 - 14 Jan 2004 03:34 GMT >> In article <a63c2b6cb10a21a8d2df5bf16946128f@news.teranews.com>, Mr. N > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sugar is negligible. It's irrelevant in this case however - as the product > doesn't contain sugar alcohols. The sweetener used is sucralose. Well, slowly or not, they are still carbs with calories. And, according to at least some evidence, in at least some people they do digest quickly.
i
Roger Zoul - 14 Jan 2004 03:52 GMT :: In article <ba812ebfd30dd6d7f82827d2c9d96cec@news.teranews.com>, Mr. :: N wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] :: according to at least some evidence, in at least some people they do :: digest quickly. why in the hell are you lecturing him on SA when the product he is interested doesn't even have them? get a friggin clue.
Ignoramus32082 - 14 Jan 2004 14:45 GMT >:: In article <ba812ebfd30dd6d7f82827d2c9d96cec@news.teranews.com>, Mr. >:: N wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > why in the hell are you lecturing him on SA when the product he is > interested doesn't even have them? get a friggin clue. you get a clue, I was responding to his own comments about sugar alcohols. I did not bring them up, he did.
i
Mr. N - 15 Jan 2004 02:47 GMT > why in the hell are you lecturing him on SA when the product he is > interested doesn't even have them? get a friggin clue
> you get a clue, I was responding to his own comments about sugar > alcohols. I did not bring them up, he did. Actually the context I brought them up in was to say that this product does not contain them.
 Signature -My Real Name
Ignoramus32082 - 15 Jan 2004 04:09 GMT >> why in the hell are you lecturing him on SA when the product he is >> interested doesn't even have them? get a friggin clue [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Actually the context I brought them up in was to say that this product does > not contain them. You said:
> I understand that the concept of "net carbs" is at least somewhat > dubious, but generally accepted to mean the number of "impact" > carbs, i.e. Total Carbs - Fiber - Sugar alcohols = "net/impact > carbs". It was a statement to which I replied. You did not just mention that those candy bars did not contain sugar alcohol, you stated a formula involving SA's that I was compelled to correct.
i
jmk - 15 Jan 2004 14:19 GMT >>>why in the hell are you lecturing him on SA when the product he is >>>interested doesn't even have them? get a friggin clue [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > i The OP also said "NO sugar alcohols" in the original post.
 Signature jmk in NC
Ignoramus12172 - 15 Jan 2004 14:27 GMT >>>>why in the hell are you lecturing him on SA when the product he is >>>>interested doesn't even have them? get a friggin clue [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > The OP also said "NO sugar alcohols" in the original post. Well, yes, but he said more than that, he made a specific statement about sugar alcohols that I felt needed refutation.
i
Mr. N - 16 Jan 2004 02:25 GMT > Well, yes, but he said more than that, he made a specific statement > about sugar alcohols that I felt needed refutation. I'll refute your refutation. Sugar alcohols (as fiber) do contain calories, but are digested so slowly that most of them pass through your digestive system before being broken down into glucose - so have a negligible impact on blood sugar - hence, it is legitimate (ask your neighborhood dietician) to subtract gram for gram both sugar alcohols and fiber from total carbohydrates for a "net carbs" count.
In the case of the Carb Solutions Bar I was originally talking about, there are 15g total carbs; 1g fiber and 1g sugars - and NO sugar alcohols. Net carbs for this product SHOULD be 13g - NOT 3g as the packaging states.
Does this help?
 Signature -My Real Name
Jenny - 16 Jan 2004 14:36 GMT N,
Rather than ask a dietician, why not just test the sugar alcohols with a cheap blood sugar meter. If you are insulin resistant and experiencing moderate blood sugar spiking after meals (which many people here are) you'll see the blood sugar rise yourself.
I'm diabetic and the spike that Maltitol causes in my blood sugar is very similar to that caused by regular sugar. All that is different is that it takes another hour to show up on the meter, which means that it might have been missed in early testing for the product.
Dieticians tend to know only what they are told by the companies that market these products.
-- 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, strategies for dealing with diabetes 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
> > Well, yes, but he said more than that, he made a specific statement > > about sugar alcohols that I felt needed refutation. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > -- > -My Real Name Mr. N - 16 Jan 2004 16:22 GMT > N, > > Rather than ask a dietician, why not just test the sugar alcohols with a > cheap blood sugar meter. THIS PRODUCT HAS NO SUGAR ALCOHOLS IN IT!!!!!
The issue raised (what is the matter with you people?) is whether they can accurately claim that the Carb Solutions bar has "3 net carbs" when the packaging doesn't reflect any such thing.
SHEESH.
 Signature -My Real Name
revek - 16 Jan 2004 20:34 GMT >> N, >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > SHEESH. Some people in this thread respond to certain key words in a Pavlovian manner without engaging in any actual thought.
Glycerine is one of those types of carbohydrate that, like fiber and sugar alcohols, are absorbed in a low glycemic manner (for most people most of the time)-- i.e. they increase blood sugar slowly enough to avoid an insulin dump which is what lowcarbers who are not diabetic look for, because an insulin dump will scrub your blood clean of the energy it needs to run and store it as fat before you can burn any of it, thereby making you hungry again and ultimately making you eat too many calories to lose weight.
Diabetic lowcarbers approach lowcarbing for the exact opposite reason, to control blood sugar, because their own insulin response is impaired, so products that have lots of carbohydrates in them, including sugar alcohols and glycerine, will raise blood sugar too high if they eat too much.
Also, glycerine, like starch, is not broken out separately on the nutritional label, whereas sugar and fiber, and sometimes sugar alcohols are.
The nutritional label is the black and white box. The rest of the product label is not required to conform to nutritonal label standards, and can include advertising gimmicks, like drawing your attention to the concept of 'net carbs'-- an idea not recognized by the FDA by the way.
The product is not a medicinal food, therefore it is not required to conform to medicinal label rules which are much more stringent (no medical claims that are not proven true, etc). Until and unless it is re-classified as a medicinal food (and therefore probably only available by prescription at an even more exhorbant price), any claims outside the black and white box should be examined thoroughly (rather than relied on blindly) and you should use your own judgement about whether it meets your needs or not.
If you are diabetic, you should be aware that 'lowcarb' foods are not diatetic foods and not formulated with your needs in mind. The best advice is still to eat to your meter. (If you are not diabetic, testing with a meter won't work, so you should watch for unusual ---and repeatable-- cravings/hunger after eating anything with a 'suspicious' substance in it-- an indication that you've released more insulin than usual, or more quickly than usual).
-- revek It startled him even more when just after he was awarded the Galactic Institute's Prize for Extreme Cleverness he got lynched by a rampaging mob of respectable physicists who had finally realized that the one thing they really couldn't stand was a smart a.s. - The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Barb2 - 17 Jan 2004 16:39 GMT > Some people in this thread respond to certain key words in a Pavlovian > manner without engaging in any actual thought. Do not! Right now I have to go get a napkin to wipe a little drool off. Then I'll be back and sound really smart.
Barb
(Just don't ring any bells, please.)
Mr. N - 16 Jan 2004 02:22 GMT > > Actually the context I brought them up in was to say that this product does > > not contain them. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > carbs, i.e. Total Carbs - Fiber - Sugar alcohols = "net/impact > > carbs". That's not "context" - it's a sentence. Put in context, the product I was talking about (Carb Solutions) bars does not contain sugar alcohols, so there are no sugar alcohol carbs to deduct from total carbs.
> It was a statement to which I replied. No, it was a sentence you took out of context (as has been pointed out to you).
Thanks for playing.
 Signature -My Real Name
Sue G. - 14 Jan 2004 05:02 GMT > the product > doesn't contain sugar alcohols. The sweetener used is sucralose. Splenda is made of sucralose....from their website: splenda.com
Sucralose, or SPLENDA? Brand Sweetener, the no calorie sweetening ingredient in SPLENDA? No Calorie Sweetener, is not a carbohydrate and has been shown in studies to have no effect on blood glucose control or insulin levels. a.. Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar b.. No calories c.. Suitable for people with diabetes d.. Can be used in any food and beverage e.. SPLENDA? Granular measures and pours like sugar f.. Stays sweet during cooking and baking
Mr. N - 14 Jan 2004 07:51 GMT > > doesn't contain sugar alcohols. The sweetener used is sucralose. > > Splenda is made of sucralose....from their website: splenda.com (head in hands, shaking in frustration)
I KNOW.
The bars I'm talking about contain sucralose/Splenda -- NOT sugar alcohols (maltitol, etc.).
 Signature -My Real Name
Lexin - 14 Jan 2004 10:48 GMT > > > doesn't contain sugar alcohols. The sweetener used is sucralose.
> "Sue G." wrote:> > > Splenda is made of sucralose....from their website: splenda.com
> I KNOW. > The bars I'm talking about contain sucralose/Splenda -- NOT sugar alcohols > (maltitol, etc.). I'm posting from Google, so someone may have already raised this, but isn't the point that while sucralose isn't a sugar alchohol, it may be listed in the ingredients as a carb, because carbs listed on nutritional information aren't a food group per se (like protein and fat) but are 'everything else'? Meaning they are everything which *isn't* either a protein or a fat. On the face of it this appears slightly absurd, but they list fibre as a carb, even though the body can't absorb it. So sucralose can be listed as a carb on nutritional labels, and discounted in the way that sugar alcohols are. It also strikes me that the culprit is more likely to be the filler they sometimes use which as far as I can remember is dextrose, but I could be wrong on that one. (Yes, I do remember that according to Jenny and others perhaps SA's shouldn't be discounted.)
The difference, as I understand it (and my understanding may be dim), between sucralose and sugar alchohols is that while the jury is out on some SA's, there have been proper tests on sucralose and it really *doesn't* affect blood sugar. That is excepting a placebo effect which I do recall some people have.
This hasn't helped much, has it?
-- Lexin (300/237/182) LC since 9 June 2003
Mr. N - 15 Jan 2004 02:44 GMT > I'm posting from Google, so someone may have already raised this, but > isn't the point that while sucralose isn't a sugar alchohol, it may be > listed in the ingredients as a carb, because carbs listed on > nutritional information aren't a food group per se (like protein and > fat) but are 'everything else'? No.
 Signature -My Real Name
Lexin - 15 Jan 2004 09:05 GMT "Lexin" wrote:
> > I'm posting from Google, so someone may have already raised this, but > > isn't the point that while sucralose isn't a sugar alchohol, it may be > > listed in the ingredients as a carb, because carbs listed on > > nutritional information aren't a food group per se (like protein and > > fat) but are 'everything else'?
> No. Why not?
-- Lexin
Sue G. - 15 Jan 2004 15:58 GMT > > > carbs listed on > > > nutritional information aren't a food group per se (like protein and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Why not? You are right Lexin, carbs are all the calories left over after the fat and protein calories are taken out:
"According to Jack M. Goldberg, Ph.D., and Dr. Karen O'Mara....... The discrepancy can be attributed to the method by which the government requires manufacturers to measure carbohydrates. The "difference" method means manufacturers measure all the different components of a food and anything left is counted as carbohydrates." http://members.tripod.com/~himolocarb/the_diet/Himolocarb_diet.htm
Mr. N - 16 Jan 2004 02:14 GMT > > > I'm posting from Google, so someone may have already raised this, but > > > isn't the point that while sucralose isn't a sugar alchohol, it may be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Why not? It simply isn't true that 'carbohydrates' on food labels represent everything that is neither a protein or fat.
"Carbohydrates" specifically address compounds that provide energy (i.e. calories). The idea that "carbs = everything else" is a myth that the rising number of "low-carb" food manufacturers want you to swallow so that they can claim a lower level of "net carbs" in order to get you to buy their products.
 Signature -My Real Name
Lexin - 16 Jan 2004 09:04 GMT > > > > I'm posting from Google, so someone may have already raised this, but > > > > isn't the point that while sucralose isn't a sugar alchohol, it may be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > > No.
> > Why not?
> "Carbohydrates" specifically address compounds that provide energy (i.e. > calories). I carry no flags for the producers of frankenfoods, I really don't but I don't think that's completely accurate. Surely fat and protein also have calories and also provide energy? Isn't it the case that around 58% of protein is metabolised into glucose/glycogen?
I dimly recall from physics lessons many years ago that all a "calorie" is is a measurement of the amount of energy - of heat - that a thing produces when burned in a laboratory, and fat produces more energy in those circumstances than most carbohydrates (AFAIR it's 9 per gram as opposed to 4). But fat is metabolised in the body quite differently than starch. And producing energy on a testing bench isn't quite the same thing as being a food the human body can use - if you burn fibre in a lab it will produce energy measureable as calories but your body can't absorb it simply because it's not made that way.
I agree that the producers of frankenfoods haven't completey demonstrated that sugar alchohols or glycerin act in the body in the same way as fibre, but then the opponents haven't yet demonstrated that they don't. Until one of those things happens the frankenfood producers can go on making the claims that they do.
-- Lexin (300/237/182) LC since 9 June 2003
Jenny - 14 Jan 2004 14:38 GMT Is there glycerine/glycerol in these bars? It will not be listed as a sugar alcohol. It will be included in the carb count, and it does raise the blood sugar of many people with diabetes--especially if you are on a low carb diet because the liver processes glycerine differently depending on whether it is full of glycogen or not.
Bottom line: use your meter to verify that the bars don't raise your blood sugar no matter what the label says (and check at 2 hours since some of these lab-created food products are slower acting than you expect but cause a delayed spike.)
-- 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, strategies for dealing with diabetes 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
> > > doesn't contain sugar alcohols. The sweetener used is sucralose. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > -- > -My Real Name Mr. N - 15 Jan 2004 02:46 GMT > Is there glycerine/glycerol in these bars? Yes.
> It will not be listed as a sugar alcohol. It will be included in the carb count, and it does raise the blood
> sugar of many people with diabetes--especially if you are on a low carb diet > because the liver processes glycerine differently depending on whether it is > full of glycogen or not. So how can the manufacturer legitimately deduct grams of glycerine from the total carb count to arrive at "net carbs"?
 Signature -My Real Name
jmk - 15 Jan 2004 14:21 GMT > So how can the manufacturer legitimately deduct grams of glycerine from the > total carb count to arrive at "net carbs"? According to the FDA, they cannot. I mean, the FDA has said that glycerine is a carbohydrate and should be counted. In fact, I think that they have sent warning letters to manufacturers that are not listing it as such.
 Signature jmk in NC
Mr. N - 16 Jan 2004 02:18 GMT > > So how can the manufacturer legitimately deduct grams of glycerine from the > > total carb count to arrive at "net carbs"? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that they have sent warning letters to manufacturers that are not > listing it as such. This might explain the runaround I got when I called Richardson Labs, whom I've since discovered is also the (former) manufacturer of Metab-o-Lite, a Metabolife knockoff high in ephedra.
It looks like this company has (since my call) removed all information about the Carb Solutions product from it's web site at www.carbsolutions.com and will soon be marketing a product marketed as having "0 Sugar Carbs", whatever that means.
 Signature -My Real Name
Rebeq - 15 Jan 2004 23:56 GMT Jenny -- thanks for all the info on blood sugar and sugar alchols. Your website is very helpful. I've noticed eating the Atkins chocolate bars with malitol that I still get a "sugar rush" -- if not as pronounced -- and seem to retain some water, so I think my body is still recognizing the stuff as carbs.
-rebeq
Mr. N - 16 Jan 2004 02:20 GMT > Jenny -- thanks for all the info on blood sugar and sugar alchols. > Your website is very helpful. I've noticed eating the Atkins chocolate > bars with malitol that I still get a "sugar rush" -- if not as > pronounced -- and seem to retain some water, so I think my body is > still recognizing the stuff as carbs. My experience with Maltitol and other sugar alcohols has NOT been good. Even a small amount causes me painful (and noisy) gas attacks. My sense is that Maltitol will be gradually replaced by sucralose as the sweetener of choice as the price of Splenda comes down.
 Signature -My Real Name
Barb2 - 17 Jan 2004 16:35 GMT > (head in hands, shaking in frustration) Wait, isn't that the way everybody reads this ng? :)
Barb
|
|
|