Net carbs

[Gary Walker]

Hi folks,

I’m new here and found this forum whilst Googling for low carb bread.

I lost a lot of weight starting around five years ago, but in the last couple of years some has crept back, after letting carbs back into my life.

I first read Robert Atkins’ book many years ago and the method of calculating “net carbs” has remained imprinted in my mind - subtract the fibre from the carbs and there you have your net carbs. However, on discovering this site, I read that one should be wary of products that are labelled as having “net carbs” as these claims can often be misleading. I buy low carb bread online and the carbs per 100g is given as 7.5g and the fibre 14g - negative net carbs. I won’t name the brand, as being a newby, I will assume that’s a no-no until otherwise instructed. The brand’s own website doesn’t claim the net carbs for this bread, although for some of its other products it does. Where the net carbs are claimed though, they appear not to be using the old convention of subtracting the fibre. One product’s nutritional information net carb figure appears to have been arrived at by subtracting the polyols from the carbs, although that may just be an assumption on my behalf.

What is the general view here on net carbs?

Thanks in advance


Gary

 

[Goonergal]

Hi and welcome to the forum.

If you’re in the UK and the nutrition label is from the UK then the concept of ‘net carbs’ does not apply. Net carbs apply to the US (and some other countries) where the carbohydrate contents of food listed on labels includes fibre. Net carbs = carbs minus fibre. In the UK the fibre is shown separately so no need to deduct from the carb total.

Polyols are a whole different issue - the argument is that sugar alcohols have negligible impact on blood sugars so products containing them often state ‘x grams of impact carbs’. The total carbs are the total carbs in this case, and while for some people it will be true that there is negligible impact, for others it will not - the only solution is to test and see.

Editing to say that while advertising is not allowed on the forum, posting a link to a product in which you have no commercial interest, or mentioning the brand so you can get feedback from others is allowed.

 

[JoKalsbeek]

Hi folks,

I’m new here and found this forum whilst Googling for low carb bread.

I lost a lot of weight starting around five years ago, but in the last couple of years some has crept back, after letting carbs back into my life.

I first read Robert Atkins’ book many years ago and the method of calculating “net carbs” has remained imprinted in my mind - subtract the fibre from the carbs and there you have your net carbs. However, on discovering this site, I read that one should be wary of products that are labelled as having “net carbs” as these claims can often be misleading. I buy low carb bread online and the carbs per 100g is given as 7.5g and the fibre 14g - negative net carbs. I won’t name the brand, as being a newby, I will assume that’s a no-no until otherwise instructed. The brand’s own website doesn’t claim the net carbs for this bread, although for some of its other products it does. Where the net carbs are claimed though, they appear not to be using the old convention of subtracting the fibre. One product’s nutritional information net carb figure appears to have been arrived at by subtracting the polyols from the carbs, although that may just be an assumption on my behalf.

What is the general view here on net carbs?

Thanks in advance


Gary

Goonergal's explained it better than I could, but just wanted to add that if there was such a thing as negative carb count, I'd be jumping for joy. But yeah, that's American counting, UK/Europe's already subtracted the fibre... Alas. What we look at is total carbs, ignoring the "of which sugars" bit as practically all carbs mentioned there turn to glucose once ingested. Mind you, sugar alcohols/polyols don't penetrate the bowel wall, so while they can add up in a carb count, they don't actually hit the blood stream... That's why a lot of Atkins type products mention an alternative carb count of the kind that'll actually hit your system.

 

[Gary Walker]

Hi and welcome to the forum.

If you’re in the UK and the nutrition label is from the UK then the concept of ‘net carbs’ does not apply. Net carbs apply to the US (and some other countries) where the carbohydrate contents of food listed on labels includes fibre. Net carbs = carbs minus fibre. In the UK the fibre is shown separately so no need to deduct from the carb total.

Polyols are a whole different issue - the argument is that sugar alcohols have negligible impact on blood sugars so products containing them often state ‘x grams of impact carbs’. The total carbs are the total carbs in this case, and while for some people it will be true that there is negligible impact, for others it will not - the only solution is to test and see.

Editing to say that while advertising is not allowed on the forum, posting a link to a product in which you have no commercial interest, or mentioning the brand so you can get feedback from others is allowed.

Hi Goonergal,

Thanks for your quick and informative reply!

The brand is “Carbzone” and I have tried their bread, pasta and Belgian chocolate spread. The pasta is OK-ish, rather like the darker coloured normal pasta. The bread is like German rye bread and although some people are not keen on that, I love it so it’s a really good weapon in my arsenal. The chocolate spread is great a bit like Nutella, although at £5 for a jar, it’s dear. But well into negative carbs. They are a Swedish company who source from other countries.

These things weren’t readily available even only five years ago, unless you were prepared to pay a lot of money. So, I guess the low carb market is gaining pace!


Best regards


Gary

 

[Gary Walker]

Goonergal's explained it better than I could, but just wanted to add that if there was such a thing as negative carb count, I'd be jumping for joy. But yeah, that's American counting, UK/Europe's already subtracted the fibre... Alas. What we look at is total carbs, ignoring the "of which sugars" bit as practically all carbs mentioned there turn to glucose once ingested. Mind you, sugar alcohols/polyols don't penetrate the bowel wall, so while they can add up in a carb count, they don't actually hit the blood stream... That's why a lot of Atkins type products mention an alternative carb count of the kind that'll actually hit your system.

Thanks Jo,

So, if I understand this correctly, if the nutritional label on my bread (made in Germany) reads Carbs: 7g, Fibre: 14g.....then carbs are actually 21g, but shown as 7g, because the fibre’s been deducted?

Kind regards

Gary

 

[JoKalsbeek]

Thanks Jo,

So, if I understand this correctly, if the nutritional label on my bread (made in Germany) reads Carbs: 7g, Fibre: 14g.....then carbs are actually 21g, but shown as 7g, because the fibre’s been deducted?

Kind regards

Gary

Yes. And that's okay because fibres don't enter the blood stream... So the only carbs relevant are the 7 grams. No need to calculate back to 21 as they don't actually matter, they don't impact your blood sugars.

 

[JoKalsbeek]

Hi Goonergal,

Thanks for your quick and informative reply!

The brand is “Carbzone” and I have tried their bread, pasta and Belgian chocolate spread. The pasta is OK-ish, rather like the darker coloured normal pasta. The bread is like German rye bread and although some people are not keen on that, I love it so it’s a really good weapon in my arsenal. The chocolate spread is great a bit like Nutella, although at £5 for a jar, it’s dear. But well into negative carbs. They are a Swedish company who source from other countries.

These things weren’t readily available even only five years ago, unless you were prepared to pay a lot of money. So, I guess the low carb market is gaining pace!


Best regards


Gary

As stated before, there's no such thing as negative carbs. This is the chocolate spread: Nutritional values per 100g: Energy 496kcal, fat 45g, sat. fat 9g, carbohydrates 13g, of which sugars 3.6g, of which polyols 5g, net carbs 8g, fiber 33g, protein 5g, salt <0.1g.

For you, that means that there's 13 grams of carbs in there. But as they mention polyols, you can subtract 5 grams of the 13 grams per 100, so that'd make 8 grams. (Which is also mentioned as net carbs).

 

[Struma]

I wonder if this graphic might be of use:

 

[Gary Walker]

As stated before, there's no such thing as negative carbs. This is the chocolate spread: Nutritional values per 100g: Energy 496kcal, fat 45g, sat. fat 9g, carbohydrates 13g, of which sugars 3.6g, of which polyols 5g, net carbs 8g, fiber 33g, protein 5g, salt <0.1g.

For you, that means that there's 13 grams of carbs in there. But as they mention polyols, you can subtract 5 grams of the 13 grams per 100, so that'd make 8 grams. (Which is also mentioned as net carbs).

Many thanks Jo!

This means I was eating more carbs than I thought!

 

[JoKalsbeek]

Many thanks Jo!

This means I was eating more carbs than I thought!

It's a trap I fell into myself almost 4 years ago. Kind of came with reading American books and applying them to Dutch nutritional info. I knew I was bad with maths, but I was pretty sure negative carbs weren't a thing. Turned out I was right.

 

[Gary Walker]

I wonder if this graphic might be of use:

View attachment 41921

Thanks Struma!

 

[LaoDan]

Yes. And that's okay because fibres don't enter the blood stream... So the only carbs relevant are the 7 grams. No need to calculate back to 21 as they don't actually matter, they don't impact your blood sugars.

But this isn’t always true right? I.e. not all fibers are the same, also, don’t some sly companies add fiber back after processing?

 

[JoKalsbeek]

But this isn’t always true right? I.e. not all fibers are the same, also, don’t some sly companies add fiber back after processing?

Adding fiber back after processing? I don't quite get you.

There's soluble and insoluble fibres. One ends up as a gel in the gut, the other moves straight through as-is, but neither causes spikes of any kind. (Just slows down the uptake of carbs). Sorry if I'm missing something here. But I'm not quite at-home with food processing. (Most of what i eat isn't overly processed....)