Supermarkets having different nutritional carb values?

[EmilyMay1]

Been looking at making lower carb version of mash potato for my meal prepping. Was thinking Swede mash since I like swede, anyway.
100g Swede-

Tesco - 2.3g
Asda - 3.9g
Sainsburys - 4.8g
Morrisons 4.3g
Google - 9g

So what value to take when supermarkets carbs are so different? It’s Swede/vegetables surely carbs can’t differ by supermarkets?? In what case what values to take?
(Not just Swede, veg and fruit and meat in general)

Thank you.

 

[Antje77]

Tesco - 2.3g
Asda - 3.9g
Sainsburys - 4.8g
Morrisons 4.3g

The difference between those is not that big, it all says swede is a very low carb vegetable.

Google - 9g

This is the outlier, and I expect Google also says their source is the USDA.
In the US, fiber is included in the carb count, so you have to deduct it from total carbs.
In the UK and Europe, fibre is listed separately from the carbs, so the carbs on the package/webside are what you get.

Flags to spot the difference are spelling: fiber/fibre, mention of 'net carbs' or 'total carbs' (UK simply says carbs, no need to differentiate between total and net because the fibre wasn't in the count anyway), and of course the name of the website you find your information: If it ends in .uk it'll tell you carbs without the fibre.

 

[In Response]

When there are so many things that affect our blood sugars and our insulin sensitivity, the difference between 4.8g and 2.3g per 100g swede is irrelevant. Plus, there can be a difference between different varieties of the same veg or different parts of the same vegetable or different levels of “ripeness”.
Approximations are fine.

(I agree with @Antje77 that the google level is likely to be from the USA and include fiber.)

 

[JenniferM55]

There's also a difference between cooked and raw state of swede, Cronometer says 100g raw swede has 6.3g of carbs, while cooked swede (presumably steamed) has 4.8g carbs.

 

[Antje77]

There's also a difference between cooked and raw state of swede, Cronometer says 100g raw swede has 6.3g of carbs, while cooked swede (presumably steamed) has 4.8g carbs.

So where did the carbs go? I don't think this is possible.

 

[jaywak]

I've read several articles that cooking and freezing foods destroys many nutrients so maybe it can possibly destroy the carbs as well !

 

[ianf0ster]

So where did the carbs go? I don't think this is possible.

Water added by cooking thus 'diluting' the carbs? That is measuring 100gms uncooked and then the same uncooked amount after having been cooked.
With things that hold a lot of water when cooked, like rice, it's important to distinguish if it's just dry weight that's being measured before and after cooking.

 

[JenniferM55]

So where did the carbs go? I don't think this is possible.

I'm assuming some of the starch in swede is changed into resistant starch and passes through the stomach as fibre does?

Not all carbs are created equal. From sugars to starches to fiber, different carbs have different effects on your health.

Resistant starch is a carb that is also considered a type of fiber (1).

Increasing your intake of resistant starch can be beneficial for the bacteria in your intestines as well as for your cells (2Trusted Source, 3Trusted Source).

Interestingly, research has shown that the way you prepare common foods like potatoes, rice and pasta may change their resistant starch content.

This article will tell you how you can increase the amount of resistant starch in your diet without even changing what you eat.

Cooling Some Foods After Cooking Increases Their Resistant Starch

Resistant starch is a carb with several health benefits. Interestingly, cooling foods like potatoes, rice and pasta may increase their resistant starch content.

www.healthline.com

 

[Antje77]

I'm assuming some of the starch in swede is changed into resistant starch and passes through the stomach as fibre does?

I did some experimenting with cooling and reheating foods a wile back to see if it would make a difference.
No difference for me, I needed exactly the same amount of insulin the first day as the second day, after it had spent a night in the fridge.

 

[JenniferM55]

I did some experimenting with cooling and reheating foods a wile back to see if it would make a difference.
No difference for me, I needed exactly the same amount of insulin the first day as the second day, after it had spent a night in the fridge.

Scary how hit and miss it seems regarding counting carbs. All the more reasons to have that glucose meter to hand.

 

[KennyA]

There's also a difference between cooked and raw state of swede, Cronometer says 100g raw swede has 6.3g of carbs, while cooked swede (presumably steamed) has 4.8g carbs.

I think it's more likely that there's a lot of variance and error in the measurements. Given that veg are organic, and organic things have a tendency to variation, both figures might be "correct" - ie, a correct calculation for that batch of swede tested at that particular time. They're just different figures.

This is why I've started saying that I eat "around 20g" carb/day. I don't measure or weigh and even if I did I couldn't possibly be accurate enough to guarantee that a day's intake was 20g and not 15 or 30. It seems to be working: I don't eat anything at all of the heavy carb items like potatoes, rice, pasta, or bread, and the smallish amounts of carb from swede or green veg aren't an issue.

 

[HairySmurf]

Water added by cooking thus 'diluting' the carbs? That is measuring 100gms uncooked and then the same uncooked amount after having been cooked.
With things that hold a lot of water when cooked, like rice, it's important to distinguish if it's just dry weight that's being measured before and after cooking.

This. If you're looking at a 'carbs per 100g, as sold' value, boiling, steaming etc. will add water weight, so there's less of the raw vegetable per 100g. Roasting will have the opposite effect. Cooked values make things harder to quantify.

I discovered with a shock when I first started full tilt at weight loss that Tesco brand pasta uses 'when cooked according to instructions' for their per 100g nutritional values. The dry weight values were nowhere to be found. Are we supposed to cook the pasta for 'exactly' 10 to 12 minutes and then weigh it before eating it?

As regards the different values from different supermarkets for exactly the same item, I'd say average them, ignoring US-based values, and that will be as close to accurate as you can reasonably get.