Total Carbs, Fiber and USA Food Labels

I need to clarify how USA food labels treat carbohydrates and fiber.
I have done a search and read through numerous threads, and there is
still some confusion in my mind. Detailed below is a label from a
Controlled Carb Pizza Crust from Whole Foods:

Calories (1 Slice): 60
Total Fat: 0.5g
Total Carbohydrate: 8g
Fiber 5g
Sugars 0g
Protein: 6g

As you can see from calculating calories from the individual
components (60.5 calories), the Total Carbohydrate value of 8 must be
used in order to get the correct number of calories. In other words,
Fiber was not subtracted to calculate calories. This leads to
confusion, since the label gives the impression that the Fiber count
of 5 is a component of the total Fiber count of 8 (impact carbs of 3).
The indenting of the Fiber value on the label clearly suggests this.

I can think of three possible conclusions to explain this:

1) The makers of the label simply calculate calories using all
Carbohydrates, regardless of Fiber. They ignore the idea that Fiber
does not contain calories, and just treat all carbs as the same. It's
a simple approach, albeit not entirely accurate. This explanation
makes the most sense to me. It's somewhat lazy on their part but it
makes labeling straightforward and simple. If the carbs are 8,
calories are 8x4=32 regardless of Fiber, end of story.

2) The second explanation is that Fiber is already subtracted from the
Total Carbohydrates. Another way to look at it is that the real Total
Carbohydrates is 13, less the Fiber of 5. This idea makes absolutely
no sense at all. First of all, the phrase "Total Carbohydrates"
suggests that all carbs are included; secondly, the indentation
definitely suggests that the Fiber is a subset, or component, of Total
Carbohydrate. I can't believe this explanation is true, it makes no
sense at all.

3) The third explanation I have seen here is that the 5g of Fiber is
all soluble Fiber, and therefore has a caloric value and should be
counted. I have read that in another thread. This scenario is
logical, but I don't know if the idea that soluble Fiber has a caloric
impact is true.

I'm interested in any comments folks may have, particularly in regard
to regulations for USA food labels. In my view, option #2 can be
thrown out, and option #1 makes the most sense.

One more thought, as a test I grabbed 6 products out of my pantry and
calculated the calories. Three of them used Total Carbohydrates to
calculate calories, and three of them subtracted the Fiber. So there
seems to be no clear standard. Thanks.

1) The makers of the label simply calculate calories using all
Carbohydrates, regardless of Fiber. They ignore the idea that Fiber
does not contain calories, and just treat all carbs as the same.

As far as I know fiber does contain calories. Just not calories that we can
use. They still exist. Something like grass has calories and keeps cows alive,
we just can't break it down and use the calories in our bodies. That does not
mean grass has no calories, right?


LCing since 12/01/03-
Me- 5'7" 265/212/140
& hubby- 6' 310/230/180

As far as I know fiber does contain calories. Just not calories that we can
use. They still exist. Something like grass has calories and keeps cows alive,
we just can't break it down and use the calories in our bodies. That does not
mean grass has no calories, right?


OK, I hadn't heard it put quite that way, but it makes sense.

Given what you know about this product, would you count a single
serving as 3g net carbs?

As far as I know fiber does contain calories. Just not calories that we can
use. They still exist. Something like grass has calories and keeps cows
alive,
we just can't break it down and use the calories in our bodies. That does
not
mean grass has no calories, right?


OK, I hadn't heard it put quite that way, but it makes sense.

Given what you know about this product, would you count a single
serving as 3g net carbs?

To be honest, I don't even remember what product you're talking about.

LCing since 12/01/03-
Me- 5'7" 265/212/140
& hubby- 6' 310/230/180

TAD burbled across the ether:
As far as I know fiber does contain calories. Just not calories that
we can use. They still exist. Something like grass has calories and
keeps cows alive, we just can't break it down and use the calories
in our bodies. That does not mean grass has no calories, right?


OK, I hadn't heard it put quite that way, but it makes sense.

Given what you know about this product, would you count a single
serving as 3g net carbs?

Depends on how tough and chewy the crust is-- the more tender, the more
carbs it has in my experience. If it is rather fiberous, with a rough
texture (like the La Tortilla Factory lowcarb tortillas), then yes, I
would count it at three grams. If it seems like regular bread, count
the full eight.

--
revek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June
2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please
"Feel free to provide authoritative references; in the meantime, you
won't mind if we conclude that you're simply making this up." -- Ian
York

TAD wrote:

I need to clarify how USA food labels treat carbohydrates and fiber.

Labels in the US are NOT consistant.

I have done a search and read through numerous threads, and there is
still some confusion in my mind. Detailed below is a label from a
Controlled Carb Pizza Crust from Whole Foods:

Calories (1 Slice): 60
Total Fat: 0.5g
Total Carbohydrate: 8g
Fiber 5g
Sugars 0g
Protein: 6g

As you can see from calculating calories from the individual
components (60.5 calories), the Total Carbohydrate value of 8 must be
used in order to get the correct number of calories. In other words,
Fiber was not subtracted to calculate calories. This leads to
confusion, since the label gives the impression that the Fiber count
of 5 is a component of the total Fiber count of 8 (impact carbs of 3).
The indenting of the Fiber value on the label clearly suggests this.

That's correct and that's the most common way. Use the "hidden carb
formula" to work from calories to grams of fat/protein/carb and if
your number for carbs matches their total then their total does not
subtract fiber and their label matches the not common US label style.

1) The makers of the label simply calculate calories using all
Carbohydrates, regardless of Fiber. They ignore the idea that Fiber
does not contain calories, and just treat all carbs as the same. It's
a simple approach, albeit not entirely accurate. This explanation
makes the most sense to me. It's somewhat lazy on their part but it
makes labeling straightforward and simple. If the carbs are 8,
calories are 8x4=32 regardless of Fiber, end of story.

Right. Most US labels do it this way.

2) The second explanation is that Fiber is already subtracted from the
Total Carbohydrates. Another way to look at it is that the real Total
Carbohydrates is 13, less the Fiber of 5. This idea makes absolutely
no sense at all. First of all, the phrase "Total Carbohydrates"
suggests that all carbs are included; secondly, the indentation
definitely suggests that the Fiber is a subset, or component, of Total
Carbohydrate. I can't believe this explanation is true, it makes no
sense at all.

Actually that's the European style. Total carbs have the fiber
prededucted on most European labels.

3) The third explanation I have seen here is that the 5g of Fiber is
all soluble Fiber, and therefore has a caloric value and should be
counted. I have read that in another thread. This scenario is
logical, but I don't know if the idea that soluble Fiber has a caloric
impact is true.

Nope, all fiber has calories.

US usual but not always - Total carbs includes fiber, you can deduct
the fiber count for your net.

European usual but not always - Total carbs prededucts fiber, so you
can't deduct.

And then there's the joker card - Some labels just plain lie and who
knows which ones they are.

The best you can do is figure it in your head in the store. Total
calories. Fat times 9 and subtract. Protein times 4 and subtract.
What is left is carb calories so divid by 4. See if your number
matches the total, the total plus the fiber, or if it doesn't match
at all and the numbers of the label are garbage.

Here's a trick that makes all of this less stressfull - The best
foods HAVE no labels like this. Veggies, meat, eggs, fruit. If you
only have foods-with-labels as a small fraction of your daily intake,
you won't be all that far off anyways.