What are net carbs? Is this just a food industry rip off?

[Alisonjane10]

Hi folks,

I've just bought some low carb bagels, which were advertised as having 2g of net carbs per 2oz bagel. They're very nice toasted with cream cheese, & are a quick, easy breakfast for me when I'm on the run. They don't spike my blood glucose either. But, after taking a closer look at the nutritional information on the label, I'm wondering if they are ok to eat on a LCHF diet. Can anyone enlighten me? Should I use the net carbs or total carbs when counting my carb intake? The info from the packaging is below. All advice gratefully received.

Ali. X

Nutritional info

• Carbs / serving: 2g
• Cals / serving: 120
• Protein / serving: 14g
• Serving Size: 1 bagel
• Servings: 6
• per 100g
• Energy: 240Kcal
• Fat: 0g
• of which saturates: 0g
• Total Carbohydrates: 32g
• of which sugars: 0g
• of which sugar alcohols: 0g
• Fibre: 28g
• Protein: 28g

 

[Indy51]

Reading the label, it seems legitimate in this case - the 28g of fibre is subtracted from total carbs to give you the net carbs. Is this a US product? That looks more like one of their labels because normally carbs on ours (UK/Australia) would just list total carbs without the fibre. Though it does seem 2g of carbs has gone missing?

 

[imelda.robson]

Hi folks,

I've just bought some low carb bagels, which were advertised as having 2g of net carbs per 2oz bagel. They're very nice toasted with cream cheese, & are a quick, easy breakfast for me when I'm on the run. They don't spike my blood glucose either. But, after taking a closer look at the nutritional information on the label, I'm wondering if they are ok to eat on a LCHF diet. Can anyone enlighten me? Should I use the net carbs or total carbs when counting my carb intake? The info from the packaging is below. All advice gratefully received.

Ali. X

Nutritional info

• Carbs / serving: 2g
• Cals / serving: 120
• Protein / serving: 14g
• Serving Size: 1 bagel
• Servings: 6
• per 100g
• Energy: 240Kcal
• Fat: 0g
• of which saturates: 0g
• Total Carbohydrates: 32g
• of which sugars: 0g
• of which sugar alcohols: 0g
• Fibre: 28g
• Protein: 28g

 

[Alisonjane10]

Reading the label, it seems legitimate in this case - the 28g of fibre is subtracted from total carbs to give you the net carbs. Is this a US product? That looks more like one of their labels because normally carbs on ours (UK/Australia) would just list total carbs without the fibre. Though it does seem 2g of carbs has gone missing?

Hi @Indy51

Thanks for the explanation. I don't want to sound dumb, but why would the fibre be subtracted from the total carbs to give net carbs? What does that actually mean? I bought the bagels from a UK company, so no idea if they were imported by them from the USA.

ALI. X

 

[imelda.robson]

Hi
I dont think the label makes sense, if each bagel is 2 oz, that is about 56 - 58g, if you look at the carbs per 100g it says 32g per 100g which would mean each bagel has 18g of carbs or more. You cannot subtract the fibre because if you look at the kcal per 100g it is 240g - 128kcal fron the 32g carbs and another 112kcal from the 28g of protein. fibre doesn't really contain kcals so the kcals tell you that you will be eating 32g of carbs per 100g.

 

[Indy51]

Ok, I didn't realise the 2g was per serving, so that explains where the other 2g went.

My understanding of "net carbs" is that it was invented (as you say, probably as a marketing tool) in the US where they include fibre with total carbs. In Australia (and I think the UK is the same), the fibre is listed separately and has already been deducted from the total carbohydrates because fibre is non-caloric and isn't digested by us, but by our gut bacteria.

@phoenix explains it here: http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/thr...most-ketogenic-foods.75704/page-5#post-841580

 

[Alisonjane10]

Hi
I dont think the label makes sense, if each bagel is 2 oz, that is about 56 - 58g, if you look at the carbs per 100g it says 32g per 100g which would mean each bagel has 18g of carbs or more. You cannot subtract the fibre because if you look at the kcal per 100g it is 240g - 128kcal fron the 32g carbs and another 112kcal from the 28g of protein. fibre doesn't really contain kcals so the kcals tell you that you will be eating 32g of carbs per 100g.

That's a concise answer @imelda.robson. Thank you for explaining that. So, in reality...it is a food industry rip off. How annoying! Guess buying certain foods for quickness just isn't worth it if you're watching your carb intake. At least the amount of fibre doesn't cause the carbs to spike my BG. Maybe best if I freeze the bagels, & just have one now and then. Oh well. We live & learn. Thanks once again.

Ali. X

 

[Alisonjane10]

Ok, I didn't realise the 2g was per serving, so that explains where the other 2g went.

My understanding of "net carbs" is that it was invented (as you say, probably as a marketing tool) in the US where they include fibre with total carbs. In Australia (and I think the UK is the same), the fibre is listed separately and has already been deducted from the total carbohydrates because fibre is non-caloric and isn't digested by us, but by our gut bacteria.

@phoenix explains it here: http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/thr...most-ketogenic-foods.75704/page-5#post-841580

That thread by @phoenix was interesting. I ending up reading quite a bit of the other posts too...ACCORD study & Dr Fung etc. Some controversial advice there for sure. I appreciate your advice.

 

[Indy51]

That's a concise answer @imelda.robson. Thank you for explaining that. So, in reality...it is a food industry rip off. How annoying! Guess buying certain foods for quickness just isn't worth it if you're watching your carb intake. At least the amount of fibre doesn't cause the carbs to spike my BG. Maybe best if I freeze the bagels, & just have one now and then. Oh well. We live & learn. Thanks once again.

Ali. X

I don't think you would have any issue with it - as your BG response seems to indicate. From an insulin dosing point of view, the UK system of total carbs being equal to net carbs makes much more sense than the US method.

 

[uart]

Hi
I dont think the label makes sense.

Yes that looks very suspicious. There are approximately double the number of Calories in that product than would be expected from the quoted fat, protein and net carbs.

Per bagel (50g) they quote 0g fat, 14g protein and 2g net carbs. That comes to (14+2)*4 = 64 Cal as opposed to the 120 Cal stated.

Per 100g they quote 0g fat, 28g protein and 4g net carbs. That comes to (28+4)*4 = 128 Cal as opposed to the 240 Cal stated.

It's all highly suspect in my opinion. There's definitely something in those bagel than they're not telling you. (Perhaps more carbs, perhaps more fat - who knows).

BTW. I really hate the US method of including fibre in the total carb count. I know that most food fibre is technically (in terms of the chemistry) a form of carbohydrate, but as it's not digested or absorbed by our bodies there's no point including it under carbs on the nutrition label. (What I mean is that it may be a type of carbohydrate in a strictly chemical sense, but not in a nutritional sense). So I much prefer the UK/Australian method.

It also really pisses my off when I'm looking at some food item online to find out how many carbs it contains, and then you have to try to figure out if it's listed the US way or the more sensible UK/Australian way. Sheesh it's bad enough that they put their days and months the wrong way around!

 

[Spiker]

The label is correct and is a UK compliant label. The label doesn't make the 'net carbs' claim. If some separate advertising made the net carbs claim about this product, that's misleading advertising. Where was the 'net carbs' claim made?

 

[Alisonjane10]

Hi @uart & @Spiker,

Thank you for replying to my post. @uart, you've shown me how calories are calculated in respect of the cinnamon bagels I bought. And yes, it just doesn't add up. Like you, I'm quite confused by the claims. Maybe I should get in touch with the seller & ask them to clarify the statistics.

@Spiker, I've copied below the product overview information from the website I purchased the bagels from. It's there that the 2g net carbs claim is made. The business is UK based & advertises itself as follows:

“We are a specialist retailer for Diabetics, Low Carb Dieters and anyone who wants to watch their Carbohydrate or Sugar intake...”

BAGEL OVERVIEW:

"Great tasting and only 2 net carbs per 2 oz bagel!
Please freeze after receiving!
If you're following weight watcher plus, theres only 3 weight watchers point plus per bagel!
6 Bagels per Bag
Each Bagel contains a massive 14g of Protein."

I'm now concerned that I've been misled & have been eating way more carbs than I intended. The bagels weren't cheap...but I thought they were worth it for a quick breakfast fix. Even though they don't spike my blood glucose, I won't be buying them again. And worse still, I feel a right blooming mug for falling for the hype. Oh well, you live & learn.

Ali. X

 

[Indy51]

You aren't eating more carbs than you intended if the remaining "carbs" are fibre. You don't digest fibre and as far as I know it has no effect on BG. Unless I'm missing something obvious?

Shame though that UK companies are using this ploy since all labelled carbs are already "net carbs" so all it's doing is confusing the issue for people.

 

[Baruney]

You aren't eating more carbs than you intended if the remaining "carbs" are fibre. You don't digest fibre and as far as I know it has no effect on BG. Unless I'm missing something obvious?

Shame though that UK companies are using this ploy since all labelled carbs are already "net carbs" so all it's doing is confusing the issue for people.

Yes - maybe too early in the morning but am confused now.

In the UK should I be counting total carbs or this net carb calculation eg

Broccoli 100g 1.1g total carbs.fibre n/a fibre sugars N/a. Therefore I count 1.1g carbs per 100g.
peanuts 100g 8.8 total carbs, sugars 4.8G. should I be counting 8.8 or 4.8.

Or put another way - rounded up and simplified. To stay under 20 carbs per day I could have roughly 2 kilos of broccoli. But how many equivalent peanuts could I have 200 or 400G?

NB. I am not on a broccoli and peanut diet.

Many thanks.

 

[uart]

@ Indy and Spiker. It's not the net carbs vs total carbs and fibre numbers that I'm disputing on that nutritional label. Those do seem to add up (though yeah it's annoying that they're presenting it in a more confusing manner than necessary).

It's the fact that the macro nutrients just don't add up to the given number of Calories that makes me uneasy. There is something going wrong there and one (or more) of the following must be the case:

1. They're overstating the calories.

2. They're understating the protein.

3. They're understating the fat.

4. They're understating the carbs.

If any of this is deliberate then "1" is most unlikely as lower calorie is always perceived as better. Similarly "2" is quite unlikely as the stated protein is already fairly high, and higher protein is also generally perceived as better. So hence my previous conclusion that the label is not bona fide, and either the fat or the net carbs is being understated.

Now if they're understating the fat content I know that's not necessarily a bad thing (in terms of LCHF), however in practice it probably is bad, because fat in most processed foods is usually the cheapest nastiest partially hydrogenated **** vegetable oil that they can use. So yeah, I'd have a real problem with that label.

 

[Indy51]

There have been a number of reports recently about how inaccurate the calorie counts on nutrition labels are:

http://www.livescience.com/26799-calorie-counts-inaccurate.html
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/calorie-counts-arent-accurate-2013-7

Calories are the most likely to be inaccurate, I suspect.

 

[phoenix]

I wrote this yesterday but must have forgotten to click post:basically I agree that it doesn't compute and you should ask for an explanation.

For 100 g
total carb = 32 (x4) = 128 cal
Fibre = 28g (assume no calories as this is the only way it works out though ?? )
protein=28g (x4) = 112 cal
128 + 112 = 240 (which is the same as given)
Therefore in 100g there are 128 cals from carbs.
If the fibre was of the type to be given a calorie count the most that would be is 56 cals so it's still out

It gets worse when they divide it up per bagel.
1 serving is 1 bagel which is 2oz (56.699g_)

Therefore amounts in 100g multiplied by 0.56
32x0.56 = 17.92g carb (x 4 for calories )= 71.68
28x 0.56= 15.68 g of protein (x 4 for calories) = 62.72
28x).56 = 15.68g of fibre. (assume no calories but if soluble it may have some )
Total Calories: 134. 4 but 120 listed
(what they have done is multiplied by 0.5 , the rounding down resulting in the lower figure ,)

 

[phoenix]

@Baruney
If you get your figures from a UK label or source then the carb figure is what you count. Not just the sugar and you don't deduct fibre.
weight loss resources a UK site: for broccoli :
Carbohydrate 2.1
Fibre 2.4
So you count 2.1/100g , (try deducting the fibre to see what a nonsense that would be!)

Here is what they say for peanuts (salted)
Carbohydrate 7.8g
Fibre 6.2g
an that means that they have 7.8/100 g carb sugar isn't listed but you still count the total carb: (The only exception might be for polyols . You find them in things like sugar free sweets. so something like Ricola sweets have 96% carbs but most of these are polyols,just don't eat too many) http://www.londondiabetes.nhs.uk/about-diabetes/healthy-eating/sweeteners.aspx

 

[Alisonjane10]

@Baruney
If you get your figures from a UK label or source then the carb figure is what you count. Not just the sugar and you don't deduct fibre.
weight loss resources a UK site: for broccoli :
Carbohydrate 2.1
Fibre 2.4
So you count 2.1/100g , (try deducting the fibre to see what a nonsense that would be!)

Here is what they say for peanuts (salted)
Carbohydrate 7.8g
Fibre 6.2g
an that means that they have 7.8/100 g carb sugar isn't listed but you still count the total carb: (The only exception might be for polyols . You find them in things like sugar free sweets. so something like Ricola sweets have 96% carbs but most of these are polyols,just don't eat too many) http://www.londondiabetes.nhs.uk/about-diabetes/healthy-eating/sweeteners.aspx

Thanks for the explanation @phoenix. My head hurts!! Why does it all have to be so darn complicated. Basically, net carbs is a food industry ploy. At least I've learnt something here...not to be so gullible being one. It was very kind of you to give your advice. Appreciated.

Ali. X

 

[Spiker]

Ok so basically the label is a scam, and the net carb marketing is a further scam building on the label scam. Time to call trading standards.

I bet these are bog standard New York Bagels you could get in any supermarket.