"Carb Solutions" Bars and "Net Carbs"

"Ignoramus32082" wrote in message
...
In article m, Mr. N
wrote:

Actually the context I brought them up in was to say that this product
does
not contain them.


You said:

I understand that the concept of "net carbs" is at least somewhat
dubious, but generally accepted to mean the number of "impact"
carbs, i.e. Total Carbs - Fiber - Sugar alcohols = "net/impact
carbs".

That's not "context" - it's a sentence. Put in context, the product I was
talking about (Carb Solutions) bars does not contain sugar alcohols, so
there are no sugar alcohol carbs to deduct from total carbs.

It was a statement to which I replied.

No, it was a sentence you took out of context (as has been pointed out to
you).

Thanks for playing.

--
-My Real Name

"Ignoramus12172" wrote in message
...
In article , jmk wrote:

Well, yes, but he said more than that, he made a specific statement
about sugar alcohols that I felt needed refutation.

I'll refute your refutation. Sugar alcohols (as fiber) do contain calories,
but are digested so slowly that most of them pass through your digestive
system before being broken down into glucose - so have a negligible impact
on blood sugar - hence, it is legitimate (ask your neighborhood dietician)
to subtract gram for gram both sugar alcohols and fiber from total
carbohydrates for a "net carbs" count.

In the case of the Carb Solutions Bar I was originally talking about, there
are 15g total carbs; 1g fiber and 1g sugars - and NO sugar alcohols. Net
carbs for this product SHOULD be 13g - NOT 3g as the packaging states.

Does this help?

--
-My Real Name

I'm posting from Google, so someone may have already raised this, but
isn't the point that while sucralose isn't a sugar alchohol, it may be
listed in the ingredients as a carb, because carbs listed on
nutritional information aren't a food group per se (like protein and
fat) but are 'everything else'?

"Mr. N" wrote:
No.

"Lexin" wrote:
Why not?

"Mr. N" wrote:
"Carbohydrates" specifically address compounds that provide energy (i.e.
calories).

I carry no flags for the producers of frankenfoods, I really don't but
I don't think that's completely accurate. Surely fat and protein also
have calories and also provide energy? Isn't it the case that around
58% of protein is metabolised into glucose/glycogen?

I dimly recall from physics lessons many years ago that all a
"calorie" is is a measurement of the amount of energy - of heat - that
a thing produces when burned in a laboratory, and fat produces more
energy in those circumstances than most carbohydrates (AFAIR it's 9
per gram as opposed to 4). But fat is metabolised in the body quite
differently than starch. And producing energy on a testing bench
isn't quite the same thing as being a food the human body can use - if
you burn fibre in a lab it will produce energy measureable as calories
but your body can't absorb it simply because it's not made that way.

I agree that the producers of frankenfoods haven't completey
demonstrated that sugar alchohols or glycerin act in the body in the
same way as fibre, but then the opponents haven't yet demonstrated
that they don't. Until one of those things happens the frankenfood
producers can go on making the claims that they do.

--
Lexin
(300/237/182)
LC since 9 June 2003

N,

Rather than ask a dietician, why not just test the sugar alcohols with a
cheap blood sugar meter. If you are insulin resistant and experiencing
moderate blood sugar spiking after meals (which many people here are) you'll
see the blood sugar rise yourself.

I'm diabetic and the spike that Maltitol causes in my blood sugar is very
similar to that caused by regular sugar. All that is different is that it
takes another hour to show up on the meter, which means that it might have
been missed in early testing for the product.

Dieticians tend to know only what they are told by the companies that market
these products.

-- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes,
hba1c 5.2.
Cut the carbs to respond to my email address!

Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes,
strategies for dealing with diabetes and more at
http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/

Looking for help controlling your blood sugar?
Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/...0Diagnosed.htm



"Mr. N" wrote in message
s.com...

"Ignoramus12172" wrote in message
...
In article , jmk wrote:

Well, yes, but he said more than that, he made a specific statement
about sugar alcohols that I felt needed refutation.

I'll refute your refutation. Sugar alcohols (as fiber) do contain
calories,
but are digested so slowly that most of them pass through your digestive
system before being broken down into glucose - so have a negligible impact
on blood sugar - hence, it is legitimate (ask your neighborhood dietician)
to subtract gram for gram both sugar alcohols and fiber from total
carbohydrates for a "net carbs" count.

In the case of the Carb Solutions Bar I was originally talking about,
there
are 15g total carbs; 1g fiber and 1g sugars - and NO sugar alcohols. Net
carbs for this product SHOULD be 13g - NOT 3g as the packaging states.

Does this help?

--
-My Real Name

"Jenny" wrote in message
...
N,

Rather than ask a dietician, why not just test the sugar alcohols with a
cheap blood sugar meter.

THIS PRODUCT HAS NO SUGAR ALCOHOLS IN IT!!!!!

The issue raised (what is the matter with you people?) is whether they can
accurately claim that the Carb Solutions bar has "3 net carbs" when the
packaging doesn't reflect any such thing.

SHEESH.

--
-My Real Name

In s.com,
Mr. N coded for transmition to space:
"Jenny" wrote in message
...
N,

Rather than ask a dietician, why not just test the sugar alcohols
with a cheap blood sugar meter.

THIS PRODUCT HAS NO SUGAR ALCOHOLS IN IT!!!!!

The issue raised (what is the matter with you people?) is whether
they can accurately claim that the Carb Solutions bar has "3 net
carbs" when the packaging doesn't reflect any such thing.

SHEESH.

Some people in this thread respond to certain key words in a Pavlovian
manner without engaging in any actual thought.

Glycerine is one of those types of carbohydrate that, like fiber and
sugar alcohols, are absorbed in a low glycemic manner (for most people
most of the time)-- i.e. they increase blood sugar slowly enough to
avoid an insulin dump which is what lowcarbers who are not diabetic
look for, because an insulin dump will scrub your blood clean of the
energy it needs to run and store it as fat before you can burn any of
it, thereby making you hungry again and ultimately making you eat too
many calories to lose weight.

Diabetic lowcarbers approach lowcarbing for the exact opposite reason,
to control blood sugar, because their own insulin response is
impaired, so products that have lots of carbohydrates in them,
including sugar alcohols and glycerine, will raise blood sugar too
high if they eat too much.

Also, glycerine, like starch, is not broken out separately on the
nutritional label, whereas sugar and fiber, and sometimes sugar
alcohols are.

The nutritional label is the black and white box. The rest of the
product label is not required to conform to nutritonal label
standards, and can include advertising gimmicks, like drawing your
attention to the concept of 'net carbs'-- an idea not recognized by
the FDA by the way.

The product is not a medicinal food, therefore it is not required to
conform to medicinal label rules which are much more stringent (no
medical claims that are not proven true, etc). Until and unless it is
re-classified as a medicinal food (and therefore probably only
available by prescription at an even more exhorbant price), any
claims outside the black and white box should be examined thoroughly
(rather than relied on blindly) and you should use your own judgement
about whether it meets your needs or not.

If you are diabetic, you should be aware that 'lowcarb' foods are not
diatetic foods and not formulated with your needs in mind. The best
advice is still to eat to your meter. (If you are not diabetic,
testing with a meter won't work, so you should watch for
unusual ---and repeatable-- cravings/hunger after eating anything with
a 'suspicious' substance in it-- an indication that you've released
more insulin than usual, or more quickly than usual).

--
revek
It startled him even more when just after he was awarded the Galactic
Institute's Prize for Extreme Cleverness he got lynched by a rampaging
mob of respectable physicists who had finally realized that the one
thing they really couldn't stand was a smart ass. - The Hitchiker's
Guide to the Galaxy

Mr. N wrote:


(head in hands, shaking in frustration)




Wait, isn't that the way everybody reads this ng?



Barb

revek wrote:




Some people in this thread respond to certain key words in a Pavlovian
manner without engaging in any actual thought.


Do not! Right now I have to go get a napkin to wipe a little drool off.
Then I'll be back and sound really smart.


Barb

(Just don't ring any bells, please.)