Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / March 2004
Garcia Lo's tortilla chips
|
|
Thread rating:  |
A. Brown - 11 Mar 2004 02:51 GMT A review....
Yesterday I was at Big Lots (discount/closeout store) and saw bags of chips called "Garcia Lo's" - "Lo Carb Tortilla Chips".
(And yes, I know, tortilla chips are not a low carb food.)
Anyway, I usually don't eat chips, and I also normally don't buy "low carb" versions of non-low carb foods, since they're usually filled with stuff I don't care to eat - I'd rather have smaller amounts of "real food". But these caught my eye because of the "Organic" label on the front, so I picked it up to take a closer look.
Back of the package says "40% Fewer Carbohydrates Than Most Tortilla Chips", and shows Total Carbs as 14g, minus 5g fiber, for net carbs of 9g.
I checked out the ingredients which are:
Organic yellow corn, organic soy grits, organic brown flax seed, corn oil or sunflower oil, sea salt, water, trace of lime.
So okay, I figured the ingredients sounded alright. I try to avoid soy other than soy sauce and occasional tofu, but I figure it's okay once in a while. And while I don't usually eat chips, sometimes I'm in the mood for them, or I have a party and need some sort of snack food. So I decided to grab a bag and try them.
My impressions:
Pretty good! I actually thought they tasted a bit more like popcorn than like normal tortilla chips or Fritos. The flaxseed gives them a unique "spotted" look, and a bit of a nutty flavor. The texture is nice and crunchy, and they don't taste greasy.
Now, obviously at 9g per oz, they're not going to fit into everyone's diet, but if you're going to have chips anyway, I guess they're a pretty decent alternative.
Here's the nutritional information:
Serving size: 1 oz servings per container: 10 Calories: 140 Calories from fat: 70 Total fat: 8g Saturated fat: 1g Mono Saturated fat: 3.5g Poly Unsaturated fat: 3.5g Trans Fat 0g Total Carbs 14g Dietary Fiber 5g Sugars 0 Protein 6g
 Signature A. Brown remove the junk to email
TavliGal - 11 Mar 2004 04:09 GMT >> A review.... >> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >> A. Brown >> remove the junk to email Hi there, I'm sorry to tell you but it seems there is an actual count of 13g. This is according to the hidden carb calculator at: http://www.lowcarb.ca/low-carb-tools/hidden_carbs.html When a product seems to good to be true, it usually is. I have no idea how many carbs you allow yourself a day, so maybe they're still viable. HTH, Monica
 Signature ______________________________________ Started 01/20/04 362/333.4/250 ______________________________________ "First do no harm." - Hippocrates
A. Brown - 11 Mar 2004 05:44 GMT >>> A review.... >>> [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > idea how many carbs you allow yourself a day, so maybe they're still > viable. HTH, Monica Ummmm... what do you think I said? I noted above that the label says 14g of carbs (9g net if you subtract the fiber).
By the way, I used that carb counter you mentioned, as well as a different one, (http://www.geocities.com/msweathe/fiber-calc.html) and both came up with an "actual carb count" of 11g, which is lower than what's indicated on the package.
Personally, I don't trust the nutritional labels anyway, especially for any product that is marketed as a "diet" food - whether it's sugar-free, low-fat, or low-carb. Plenty of tests have shown that a lot of manufacturers print flat-out lies.
 Signature A. Brown remove the junk to email
TavliGal - 11 Mar 2004 07:40 GMT >> "TavliGal" <TavliGalNoSpAm@SPAMLESSshaw.ca> wrote in >> news:FDR3c.765202$X%5.425173@pd7tw2no: [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] >> Ummmm... what do you think I said? I noted above that the label says >> 14g of carbs (9g net if you subtract the fiber). From what I understand, that 13grams or 11grams whatever you want to use, IS the net carb. Not 9g. Ummmm...thats all I was trying to tell you. Monica
>> By the way, I used that carb counter you mentioned, as well as a >> different one, (http://www.geocities.com/msweathe/fiber-calc.html) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> A. Brown >> remove the junk to email
 Signature ______________________________________ Started 01/20/04 362/332/250 ______________________________________ "First do no harm." - Hippocrates
A. Brown - 11 Mar 2004 16:26 GMT >>> "TavliGal" <TavliGalNoSpAm@SPAMLESSshaw.ca> wrote in >>> news:FDR3c.765202$X%5.425173@pd7tw2no: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > use, IS the net carb. Not 9g. Ummmm...thats all I was trying to > tell you. Monica Sorry, I don't personally use the calculators since I didn't hear about them until after I reached my goal weight, and I don't eat enough processed foods to worry about it... when people talk about the calculators and "actual" carbs, I made the apparently poor assumption that they were referring to total carbs, not net carbs. MHO.
 Signature A. Brown remove the junk to email
Peter Schrader - 11 Mar 2004 16:34 GMT The problem with doing these calculations (besides a manufacturer's flat-out lying) is that when food contains fiber, manufacturers are allowed to exclude calories from insoluble fiber, but soluble fiber must be included as 4 calories per gram. And jsut because they are allowed to do, you still don't know if they did it or not. And if the fiber is a mix of insoluble and soluble?...well, it just gets more and more confusing...I'll just stick to pork rinds for now.
> >> "TavliGal" <TavliGalNoSpAm@SPAMLESSshaw.ca> wrote in > >> news:FDR3c.765202$X%5.425173@pd7tw2no: [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > >> A. Brown > >> remove the junk to email rosie - 11 Mar 2004 16:34 GMT if you use this calculator, you can tell what has been subtracted and what hasn't: http://www.geocities.com/msweathe/fiber-calc.html
it was given to us by mary, on old regular around ASD-LC.
 Signature read and post daily, it works! rosie
http://www.marthastewart.com/ subscribe to her magazine, she was screwed!
> The problem with doing these calculations (besides a manufacturer's flat-out > lying) is that when food contains fiber, manufacturers are allowed to [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] > > >> A. Brown > > >> remove the junk to email Peter Schrader - 11 Mar 2004 17:03 GMT These calculators are helpful, but they really don't give you the whole picture. As I said, manufacturers are allowed to exclude calories from insoluble fiber, but you don't know for sure if they did or they didn't...if the fiber is a mix of both soluble and insoluable fiber , well, did they count 4 calories for each gram of fiber, or 0 calories for each gram of fiber, 4 for some and 0 for others? I mean, you don't really know if ANYof the info on the label is accurate.
> if you use this calculator, you can tell what has been subtracted > and what hasn't: [quoted text clipped - 139 lines] > > > >> A. Brown > > > >> remove the junk to email jamie - 11 Mar 2004 22:50 GMT > These calculators are helpful, but they really don't give you the whole > picture. As I said, manufacturers are allowed to exclude calories from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > fiber, 4 for some and 0 for others? I mean, you don't really know if ANYof > the info on the label is accurate. Also, several plant proteins and carbs are well lower than 4 calories per gram. The 4-4-9 equation for carbs, protein and fats is only a rough estimate. Because of this, and that grams on labels are rounded, and calories rounded to multiples of 5, Mary's calculator can come up with incorrect results on labels that are accurate. See http://www.nutribase.com/atwater.shtml
>> if you use this calculator, you can tell what has been subtracted >> and what hasn't: [quoted text clipped - 139 lines] >> > > >> A. Brown >> > > >> remove the junk to email
 Signature jamie (jamiemck@newsguy.com)
"There's a seeker born every minute."
FOB - 11 Mar 2004 18:55 GMT Another problem that no one has mentioned is the question of whether the calorie count itself is accurate. If that is off all your calculations are futile. It seems to me that even if they are actually testing every food there could well be variations in the accuracy of the test equipment.
In news:ey04c.22686$vi5.2221@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com, Peter Schrader <peter.schrader@snet.net> stated
| The problem with doing these calculations (besides a manufacturer's | flat-out lying) is that when food contains fiber, manufacturers are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | the fiber is a mix of insoluble and soluble?...well, it just gets | more and more confusing...I'll just stick to pork rinds for now. L Du Bois - 11 Mar 2004 20:23 GMT Nice find thanks for sharing it....but I know I'd be in trouble cause even if the net carb is 9 knowing me and chips 1 oz (5 chips?) would not be worth it. Linda
> The problem with doing these calculations (besides a manufacturer's flat-out > lying) is that when food contains fiber, manufacturers are allowed to [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] >>>>A. Brown >>>>remove the junk to email A. Brown - 11 Mar 2004 21:00 GMT > Nice find thanks for sharing it....but I know I'd be in trouble cause > even if the net carb is 9 knowing me and chips 1 oz (5 chips?) would > not be worth it. Linda
I just weighed them... got 8 to an ounce, for anyone who's interested.
Gee... I didn't mean to start a big controversy. I just thought I'd give my review of the product in case anyone was interested - I did say that they're not really "low carb", and that they'd still be too high in carbs for a lot of people.
As I said originally, I normally wouldn't even buy (or eat) something like this - I got them more for my boyfriend than for me, since he won't give up chips and crackers (but at least he tries to eat whole grain ones). I _do_ eat whole-grain crackers, but no more than a couple of times a week at most.
But... I bought them, I tried them, I found them pretty decent-tasting, and I commented on them. Would I buy them again? Not for myself, but if BF likes them, then maybe. He'll get his chance to try them tonight.
|
|
|