 |
 | 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 / March 2004Opinion wanted on Mission low-carb tortillas - really low carb?
I picked up a package of Mission Low Carb Tortillas, soft taco size, that claim to have 7g net carbs. Seems to good to be true considering their taste and appearance. They're very white and taste "doughy". My only previous experience with low carb tortillas are the ones from La Tortilla Factory, which are a lot browner and thinner. Here's some info from the label. Perhaps some of the experts here can tell if the 7g is on the up and up? Calories: 110 Total Fat: 2.5g Saturated Fat: 0g Cholesterol: 0g Sodium: 330mg Total Carbohydrate: 18g Dietary Fiber: 11g Sugars: 0g Protein: 5g Ingredients: Water Modified wheat starch Enriched bleached wheat flour (wheat flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamine, mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid) Wheat gluten Powder cellulose Vegetable shortening (partially hydrogenated soybean oil and/or cottonseed oil) Wheat protein isolate (wheat gluten, lactic acid, sulfite) Salt Leavening (includes corn starch) Cellulose gum Wheat starch Sucralose and more ... but I'm tired of typing! Hi, I'm new to this stuff but have been reading quite a lot. Below is my understanding. > Enriched bleached wheat flour (wheat flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamine, > mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid) Is this like white flour? If it is, white flour converts to glucose the quickest out of most foods, from my understanding. This is what is called a "bad" carb. Or one that has a high glycemic index (http://www.glycemicindex.com/). It will effect your blood sugar levels, which I've learned if not kept even, will make you hungry later, craving more. > Vegetable shortening (partially hydrogenated soybean oil and/or cottonseed > oil) The other thing I've be learning to stay away from is hydrogenated anything. Hydrogenated means they've added a molecule of hydrogen so that the oil will become solid at room temperature, I believe. I just know to stay away from them. (http://www.treelight.com/health/PartiallyHydrogenatedOils.html). > Wheat protein isolate (wheat gluten, lactic acid, sulfite) Is there really a need for sulfite and lactic acid? > Leavening (includes corn starch) Why the hell is corn starch in everything? > Cellulose gum Do we really need to be putting cellulose gum into our bodies? -- Steve in Phx >> I picked up a package of Mission Low Carb Tortillas, soft taco size, >> that claim to have 7g net carbs. Seems to good to be true [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> Sugars: 0g >> Protein: 5g http://www.lowcarb.ca/low-carb-tools/hidden_carbs.html According to the hidden carb calculator, these tortillas are 17.53 gr. of carbs each. It looks as though they've already taken the fibre out of the Total Carb Count. Sucks don't it? Monica  SignatureStarted 01/20/04 362/327.4/250 ________________________________________________________ "Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack. - Harry Emerson Fosdick >http://www.lowcarb.ca/low-carb-tools/hidden_carbs.html >According to the hidden carb calculator, these tortillas are 17.53 gr. of >carbs each. >It looks as though they've already taken the fibre out of the Total Carb >Count. Sucks don't it? LOL.... The alternative is to go on a delicious low carb diet. CM >>> I picked up a package of Mission Low Carb Tortillas, soft taco size, >>> that claim to have 7g net carbs. Seems to good to be true [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Count. Sucks don't it? >Monica I don't see the difference. It's not as if they but 7 carbs on the 'total carb' part of the nutritional label. You subtract fiber and get what you want. They can plaster whatever they like all over the front of the package, I just go by the back. Although it makes 9 'net' carbs. From what I remember, the small ones were 4 and the large ones were 9 anyway. (wheat, regular had one more) Perhaps the OP made a mistake saying 7? LCing since 12/01/03- Me- 5'7" 265/219/140 & hubby- 6' 310/238/180 >>>> I picked up a package of Mission Low Carb Tortillas, soft taco size, >>>> that claim to have 7g net carbs. Seems to good to be true [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >were 4 and the large ones were 9 anyway. (wheat, regular had one more) Perhaps >the OP made a mistake saying 7? NO, no, no. do the calorie math and you'll see that Monica is correct. You would be subtracting Fiber TWICE. 110 calories minus 4 calories per 5g protein = 90 calories left 90 calories minus 9 calories per 2.5g fat = 67.5 calories left 67.5 calories of carbohydrates at 4g per is 16.875 NET carbs. The 11g fiber is in addition to 16.875. The label for the U.S. labeling method should be something like : Total Carb: 27g Fiber 11g >LCing since 12/01/03- >Me- 5'7" 265/219/140 >& hubby- 6' 310/238/180 DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) 350/314/Mar-315/200 Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?) :: lcer09@aol.com (LCer09) wrote: :: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] :: 90 calories minus 9 calories per 2.5g fat = 67.5 calories left :: 67.5 calories of carbohydrates at 4g per is 16.875 NET carbs. If you then subtract 11 from 17 you get 6 net carbs. So, how do you know that the fiber calories weren't included in the calorie count? My understanding is that in the US the calorie count can include fiber or not. :: The 11g fiber is in addition to 16.875. The label for the U.S. :: labeling method should be something like : [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] :: Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 :: OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?) >:: lcer09@aol.com (LCer09) wrote: >:: [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >count? My understanding is that in the US the calorie count can include >fiber or not. Fiber has no calories because it is undigestible. So 6 net carb * 4 = 24 cals 2.5g fat * 9 = 23.5 cals 5g prot * 4 = 20 cals Sum them up and you get 67.5 calories. The product has 110 calories, so you are missing 53 calories of digestible content. You are subtracting fiber twice in this example. For U.S. foods, so far, 99.9% of them account for fiber within the total carbs and they are obviously supposed to. Fiber is shown as a breakdown of Total Carbs. If they aren't included they should not be listed in the carbohydrate section(indented below TOTAL CARBS). That's like someone saying Saturated Fat isn't a fat anymore and doesn't have to be included in total fat. >:: The 11g fiber is in addition to 16.875. The label for the U.S. >:: labeling method should be something like : [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >:: Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 >:: OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?) DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) 350/314/Mar-315/200 Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?) :: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: :: [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] :: so you are missing 53 calories of digestible content. You are :: subtracting fiber twice in this example. I'm not doing that...and I get the math....that's not my point. :: For U.S. foods, so far, 99.9% of them account for fiber within the :: total carbs and they are obviously supposed to. Fiber is shown as a :: breakdown of Total Carbs. If they aren't included they should not be :: listed in the carbohydrate section(indented below TOTAL CARBS). :: That's like someone saying Saturated Fat isn't a fat anymore and :: doesn't have to be included in total fat. But that's not my point...the rules say (as I understand them and as has been stated here before) they can, or cannot, as they choose, include fiber carb calories in the total calorie count. So, how can you be sure what they have done? If they claim a net carb count on the front that doesn't jive up with what is on the label info, it might be because fiber calories *are* included in the calorie count...I'm not saying that is the case, but I'm asking you how do you know for sure? For them to outright lie on the label opens them to litigation, doesn't it? This issue, in my mind, is not the same one as counting carbs from SA...that is much more debatable because of the uncertainity about SAs...and also, consider that fiber does have some digestable content, just not typically the 4 g's that you get from normal carbs and protein. ::::: The 11g fiber is in addition to 16.875. The label for the U.S. ::::: labeling method should be something like : [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] :: Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 :: OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?) I don't understand any of you. According to the hidden carb counter at: http://www.e-clipse.com/hidcarbcal.htm It says: No unlisted carb grams The package back is correct: 18g of carb per tortilla before you subtract the fiber. AND the package front is correct: 7g of net carbs per tortilla after you subtract the fiber. What's all the fuss about? Jennifer > :: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: > :: [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > :: Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 > :: OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?) > I don't understand any of you. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Jennifer Thanks everyone for your opinion. I guess I phrased my original question wrong. I'm not really questioning the total amount of 18g of carbs. I'm just suspicious that 11g of them are fiber given the apparently starchy ingredient list. :: I don't understand any of you. :: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] :: :: What's all the fuss about? (7 + 5) * 4 = 48 (kcals from carbs and protein) 2.5 * 9 = 22.5 (kcals from fat) ---------------- 86.5 total kcals. Doesn't match what is printed. So where are the missing calories? Do you see what the fuss is about now? Something is wrong...the question is, in my mind, what? :: Jennifer :: [quoted text clipped - 106 lines] ::::: Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 ::::: OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?) >> I don't understand any of you. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >> Jennifer Jen, Thanks for the new link, but I don't quite understand how it said for you No unlisted carb grams. I just punched in the numbers, and double checked that I've entered the correct numbers and it says that there is -4.5 grams of unlisted carbs. The site you listed calculates it the same way when i'm with my calculator at the grocery store, and which is the general way we do it around here. fat cals x 9, protein cals x 4, carb cals x 4. Those are rounded numbers. If you're real picky like I am, you may like this site better because it does not use the rounded numbers. http://www.lowcarb.ca/low-carb-tools/hidden_carbs.html Monica SignatureStarted 01/20/04 362/327.0/250 ________________________________________________________ "Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack. - Harry Emerson Fosdick >But that's not my point...the rules say (as I understand them and as has >been stated here before) they can, or cannot, as they choose, include fiber [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >included in the calorie count...I'm not saying that is the case, but I'm >asking you how do you know for sure? I've never read that fiber is digestible or has any calories what so ever. I'll have to research that one more. So the theory is that they could be counting ?up to 4? calories per gram of fiber even though it is largely undigestible? If that is true then you can never be sure of any label's accuracy, ever, when fiber is included. So fiber can mask calories and carbs freely. In that case the USDA/FDA has to totally overhaul the rules based upon providing accurate information. >For them to outright lie on the label >opens them to litigation, doesn't it? I guess, I'm not really sure. I've been buying Frank's Marinara at Stop-N-SHop. It says 72 calories from fat and then says only 4.5g of Fat. 4.5*9=40.5 calories. Obviously that is a lie or a typo. It keeps on selling. I imagine a lot of products get buy with inaccuracies. >This issue, in my mind, is not the >same one as counting carbs from SA...that is much more debatable because of >the uncertainity about SAs...and also, consider that fiber does have some >digestable content, just not typically the 4 g's that you get from normal >carbs and protein. DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) 350/313/Mar-315/200 Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?) :: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: :: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] :: I've never read that fiber is digestible or has any calories what so :: ever. It's been discussed here within the last couple of months... I'll have to research that one more. So the theory is that they :: could be counting ?up to 4? calories per gram of fiber even though it :: is largely undigestible? Yes, typically when fiber is including in the calories it is treated as 4 cals per gram, just like a normal carb. If that is true then you can never be sure :: of any label's accuracy, ever, when fiber is included. So fiber can :: mask calories and carbs freely. In that case the USDA/FDA has to :: totally overhaul the rules based upon providing accurate information. Do they? If they did, I hope they'd make manufactors specify cals to at least one digit behind the decimal. The thing is, though, things vary greatly. For example...supposed you eat raisin bran....with eat cup have the same nutritional value? Obviously, one can talk in terms of averages, which would balance things out. I'm not sure the USDA/FDA has to do anything they don't want to do. ::: For them to outright lie on the label ::: opens them to litigation, doesn't it? :: I guess, I'm not really sure. I've been buying Frank's Marinara at :: Stop-N-SHop. It says 72 calories from fat and then says only 4.5g of :: Fat. 4.5*9=40.5 calories. Obviously that is a lie or a typo. It keeps :: on selling. I imagine a lot of products get buy with inaccuracies. Right...and most people don't care anyway. >:: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: >:: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >Do they? If they did, I hope they'd make manufactors specify cals to at >least one digit behind the decimal. Calories I don't need to a decimal point, but everything else I would. I'm still not sure what the difference is when labels say "0 carbs", or "<1 carbs". In normal rounding 0 would be 0.0 to 0.499 carbs and 1 would be 0.500 to 1.499 carbs. SO what is the purpose of "<1 carbs"? It isn't any more informative than the rounded down 0--if you understand it is being rounded. I'd also like to see two measures. The typical serving and for the entire product/box. This way I could do the math and get more accurate numbers even if they didn't go to decimals. It would also eliminate confusing "individual size serving" products that have nutritional charts that measures 2-6 servings in that "individual size". Snacks are big on this. Six cookies in a small package and serving size is one or two cookies. Just adds to the confusion. >The thing is, though, things vary >greatly. For example...supposed you eat raisin bran....with eat cup have >the same nutritional value? Obviously, one can talk in terms of averages, >which would balance things out. I'm not sure the USDA/FDA has to do >anything they don't want to do. Actually I've wondered about the USDA process. Like do they perform 10 cup measures and take an average. Or do they measure out a half gallon then compute backwards from that for all volume measures, or measure a kilgram and then compute down to 100gram. That would be a best methods in my mind. Deal with the large volume then subdivide. >::: For them to outright lie on the label >::: opens them to litigation, doesn't it? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Right...and most people don't care anyway. DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) 350/313/Mar-315/200 Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?) >>>> "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> But that's not my point...the rules say (as I understand them and >>>>> as has been stated here before) they can, or cannot, as they >>>>> choose, include fiber carb calories in the total calorie count. >>>>> So, how can you be sure what they have done? If they claim a net >>>>> carb count on the front that doesn't jive up with what is on the >>>>> label info, it might be because fiber calories *are* included in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> I'll have to research that one more. So the theory is that they >>>> could be counting ?up to 4? calories per gram of fiber even though >>>> it is largely undigestible? >> >> Yes, typically when fiber is including in the calories it is treated >> as 4 cals per gram, just like a normal carb. >> >> If that is true then you can never be sure >>>> of any label's accuracy, ever, when fiber is included. So fiber can >>>> mask calories and carbs freely. In that case the USDA/FDA has to >>>> totally overhaul the rules based upon providing accurate [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > or "<1 carbs". In normal rounding 0 would be 0.0 to 0.499 carbs and 1 > would be 0.500 to 1.499 carbs. <1 means .500 to .999 SO what is the purpose of "<1 carbs"? > It isn't any more informative than the rounded down 0--if you > understand it is being rounded. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> The thing is, though, things vary >> greatly. For example...supposed you eat raisin bran....with eat cup >> have the same nutritional value? Obviously, one can talk in terms of >> averages, which would balance things out. I'm not sure the USDA/FDA >> has to do anything they don't want to do. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > kilgram and then compute down to 100gram. That would be a best methods > in my mind. Deal with the large volume then subdivide. They don't. The USDA does not do the measuring themselves. The food industry does, and sends the information to the USDA. -- revek The vermine is a small black and white relative of the lemming, found in the cold Hublandish regions. Its skin is rare and highly valued, especially by the vermine itself the selfish little bastard will do anything rather than let go of it. - Discworld wildlife, Terry Pratchett, Sourcery >> I'm still not sure what the difference is when labels say "0 carbs", >> or "<1 carbs". In normal rounding 0 would be 0.0 to 0.499 carbs and >> 1 would be 0.500 to 1.499 carbs. > > <1 means .500 to .999 Is that documented anywhere? I was browsing around USDA sites looking for specific references of what the labels mean and what is allowed. DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) 350/313/Mar-315/200 Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?) DigitalVinyl burbled across the ether: >>> I'm still not sure what the difference is when labels say "0 carbs", >>> or "<1 carbs". In normal rounding 0 would be 0.0 to 0.499 carbs and >>> 1 would be 0.500 to 1.499 carbs. >> >> <1 means .500 to .999 > Is that documented anywhere? I was browsing around USDA sites looking > for specific references of what the labels mean and what is allowed. Any math textbook will tell you the < sign means "less than". If you agree that anything .49 and lower is allowed to be rounded down to zero by US labeling laws, then that is the only conclusion you can reach-- and it seems to be one that the manufacturers came up with themselves --"less than 1" looks better than rounding up to one, even though that would also be logical. On the other hand, 1.499 is definitely more than 1g and would be written 1> but that's not very helpful and I imagine the USDA would frown on it, so it's either written 1.4 or, most commonly in the US, rounded up to 2. Signaturerevek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June 2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please Define the Universe and give three examples. - Anonymous revek burbled across the ether: On the other hand, 1.499 is > definitely more than 1g and would be written 1> but that's not very > helpful and I imagine the USDA would frown on it, so it's either > written > 1.4 or, most commonly in the US, rounded up to 2. Gah. I plead long day. It would not be rounded up to 2, but stay a solid 1. Signaturerevek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June 2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please "It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents--except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness." -Edward George Bulwer Lytton, _Paul Clifford_ (1830) >>:: lcer09@aol.com (LCer09) wrote: >>:: [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Fiber has no calories because it is undigestible. Sorry, That's wrong when it comes to FDA and USDA labels. Carbs are derived *by difference.* That means that they don't actually measure carbs, they're calculated after actually measuring fats and protein. Fiber is considered a carb by the USDA and they include the 4 calories per gram figure to include the fiber as a carb. If the food is burned in a bomb calorimeter, the fiber shows as a carb. That's how the "official" figures are arrived at. Pastorio > So > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 > OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?) >> Fiber has no calories because it is undigestible. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Pastorio That would make many of my labels wrong. At different sites I found they state that the USDA label may,optionally, subtract the CALORIES of FIBER from the CALORIE count. However the fiber count must show under carbs. ALcohol calories are always included, but alcohol content is not required in the nutrient section. That is what I see most of the time. Total carbs are just that TOTAL CARBS, including fiber. Total calories don't include calories from fiber. It has really only been on LC food that the math suddenly gets confusing. So I guess, we have to have separate detective methods for to figure out if a produt with fiber is counting fiber calories and another for products with SA's. ANd if they have both--well you may be a little screwed. >>>:: The 11g fiber is in addition to 16.875. The label for the U.S. >>>:: labeling method should be something like : [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 >> OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?) DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) 350/313/Mar-315/200 Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?) >>>Fiber has no calories because it is undigestible. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > At different sites I found they state that the USDA label > may,optionally, subtract the CALORIES of FIBER from the CALORIE count. It's FDA labeling that requires the breakdown of nutrients and they specifically don't permit messing with the math. The details of how labels are to be stated are rather clear. Here's the FDA page that explains it all in detail: <http://tinyurl.com/7qz> > However the fiber count must show under carbs. That's a default condition. Most fiber is, chemically, a carb or carb-like compound. But it's a backward definition because they say they're definitely not fats or proteins, so they're carbs by elimination. It's a weak definition, but one that is universally recognized and accepted. > ALcohol calories are > always included, but alcohol content is not required in the nutrient > section. That is what I see most of the time. "In the US, alcoholic products don't need to be labeled with the full nutritional ingredient information. That's because the FDA only covers *foods*, not alcohol. Alcohol is regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and firearms, or BATF. "In fact, the FDA's nutritional label requirements are only for *prepared* foods. They do not cover foods served in their natural form." <http://wine.about.com/library/weekly/aa062303.htm> If the *foods* contain alcohol, it has to be listed. > Total carbs are just > that TOTAL CARBS, including fiber. Total calories don't include > calories from fiber. Yes, they do. They just don't list them separately. The total carb count (if the label is done properly) includes whatever may be counted as fiber calories at 4 per gram. > It has really only been on LC food that the math > suddenly gets confusing. It's marketing games rather than nutritional information. They're trying to cast their products in the best light rather than in the true situation. That's why Atkins and others have had to redo their labels. They tried to get away with subtracting fiber in the nutrition panel and were smacked by FDA. > So I guess, we have to have separate detective methods for to figure > out if a product with fiber is counting fiber calories and another for > products with SA's. ANd if they have both--well you may be a little > screwed. I think you're getting a bit overexcited about this. The math is easy enough. Count the macronutrients, multiply by their respective caloric contents and see if it all jibes with the big number at the top of the panel. If not, there are some easy assumptions to make about it. If so, life is good. Fiber and Sugar alcohols have to be counted in the caloric count at the top of the panel. But if we're to be worrying about each solitary calorie and each solitary gram of anything, we're likely splitting the hairs a bit too fine. If there's some product that looks a bit shady, don't buy it. If you want it anyway and have doubts, call the manufacturer and ask for an explanation. If you don't like what you hear either forget it or call the FDA and tell them about it. >>>>:: The 11g fiber is in addition to 16.875. The label for the U.S. >>>>:: labeling method should be something like : >>>>:: Total Carb: 27g >>>>:: Fiber 11g Right. Pastorio WOW--i thought you had abaondoned this NG. Good to see you . > >>:: lcer09@aol.com (LCer09) wrote: > >>:: [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > > Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 > > OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?) |
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.