Confusion in carb content of pulses, beans etc

[shaneo]

Hi I'm relatively new to this business of carb counting, and its not been that much of a hassle so far, 'til now that is, re carb counting beans, lentils and pulses. I know we should aim to go moderately on these, so i've tried to select the lowest possible carb content, highest fibre, low/no sodium etc. There seems to be a huge discrepancy between brands, that, or maybe I'm completely ignorant of some other factor..

I have a can of organic chickpeas here, that reads:

Nutritional Information: Typical Values Per 100g
Energy 303kJ
72kcal
Fat 1.3g
Of which saturates 0.1g Carbohydrates 8.6g
Of which sugars 0g Fibre 4.5g
Protein 4.3g
Salt 0.5g

Yet, when I search other sources for chickpeas' nutritional information, for example USDA food database, I get widely varying figures, even when matching for cooking/boiling, dried weight, maturity etc, and some say about 22/100g all the way up to 45g/100g carbs!
This trends happens when I compare all these canned foodstuffs, red kidney beans, cannellini beans, lentil you name it!

Can anyone explain this to me?

Thanks so much!

 

[himtoo]

there is a common factor to them all -- the dried is the carb value before cooking and if you think about it they swell up and absorb liquid as they cook.

for chick peas i have the following values from the collins gem carb & calorie counter book

dried = 49.6 carb per 100gr
canned = 16.1 carb per 100gr

 

[phil1966]

In the USA, the carb figure includes the fibre so you have to remove the amount of fibre to get a nett carb amount (I.e the amount of carbs that the body can digest). In the UK, the carb figure excludes the amount of fibre so it is already shown as nett carbs and fibre is only shown for information