Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / January 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

"Carb Solutions" Bars and "Net Carbs"

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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
 
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.