Do you trust food labels?

On Jan 5, 11:02*am, "Jeri" wrote:
wrote:

snip



Then there are lentils. One
package of lentils is organic but I didn't get the brand name, another
is a store brand of lentils (non-organic) for a quarter the price
(Wal- mart GV brand) They look identical in size and shape...yet one
quarter cup of one which is identified as 35g. on both packages is
listed as 150 cal per serving on the organic and 80 cal. on the
other. A third package I say with a Spanish or Italian sounding
name...Goya, I think, listed the same quarter-cup size lentils as 70
cal, although these appeared slightly larger, and since larger
varieties of anything increase the empty air space, the 70 seems to
agree with the 80 fairly closely. Something is wrong.

I buy the cheapo brand and have the label in front of me. Now here is
the interesting thing. The package also lists the grams of fat,
protein and carbs. It list 0 fat, which is probably right, although
there is obviously a small amount of fat in every food under the sun,
but it is probably half a gram or so and perhaps they rounded it off
correctly. There are also 20g. of carbs total, and 10 grams of protein
total in that 1/4 cup serving. The fiber, by the way is 11 grams. Now,
one should be able to figure the calories for themselves provided the
other info is right. For example, 35 gram serving minus the 11 grams
of fiber with no calories gives 24 calories of carbs plus protein.

snip

First of all that's not how you figure out the grams of carbs in a food. You
don't subtract the fiber from the serving size weight.
If the fiber is included in the totals at all it's counted as a carb.

20g carb - 11g fiber = 9g carb x 4 calories/g carb = 36 calories from carbs

10g protein x 4 calories/g protein = 40 calories from protein

36 + 40 = 76 total calories

It sounds like the organic brand not only didn't subtract the fiber, it
added it then calculated the calories. But without knowing what the organic
label lists for carbs and protein it's just a guess.
--
Jeri
"Change is inevitable, except from vending machines."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That makes sense, yet when I look up net carbs, I find it is almost
always the Atkins folks who are concerned with this and not people
counting calories. In fact, the 2 Adkins discussions I found made the
problem worse in a way, by saying the calories still count. Huh? If
there are no calories in fiber, it seems like you should be able to
just subtract the fiber from the carbs and use the protein and fat
grams as is, like you showed. Why don't they state this? dkw

The Queen of Cans and Jars said...

Andy q wrote:

Depending on if you can get to a website that makes the product and can
get an accurate nutrition label it can be trusted.

I don't have any problem with nutrition labels. What I'm trying to say
is that you can't know exactly, to the calorie, how your body is going
to process anything. Your body is not a precisely calibrated
calorimeter.


I understand and agree. Fluctuating metabolism being the key.

Interestingly, I had a trader joes product of flash frozen broccoli
(product of Peru) where there were listed 5 total carbs and 7 dietary
fiber. I called TJs and they said they'd get their crack nutritionist right
on it. Never heard back.

Well elsewhere on another newsgroup it was explained that it's common in
other parts of the world to not include dietary fiber as carbohydrates.
What you need to do is add the two together to get the total carbs of 12
carbs.

Andy

--
All Posts Blocked From: @yahoo|@gmail|@hotmail

On Jan 6, 5:31*am, "Andy q" q wrote:
The Queen of Cans and Jars said...

Andy q wrote:

Depending on if you can get to a website that makes the product and can
get an accurate nutrition label it can be trusted.

I don't have any problem with nutrition labels. *What I'm trying to say
is that you can't know exactly, to the calorie, how your body is going
to process anything. *Your body is not a precisely calibrated
calorimeter.

I understand and agree. Fluctuating metabolism being the key.

Interestingly, I had a trader joes product of flash frozen broccoli
(product of Peru) where there were listed 5 total carbs and 7 dietary
fiber. I called TJs and they said they'd get their crack nutritionist right
on it. Never heard back.

Well elsewhere on another newsgroup it was explained that it's common in
other parts of the world to not include dietary fiber as carbohydrates.
What you need to do is add the two together to get the total carbs of 12
carbs.

Andy

--
All Posts Blocked From: @yahoo|@gmail|@hotmail

I prefer not including fiber as carbs. I understand that chemically
fiber is classified as a carb, but dietarily speaking, since it has no
nutritional value, the inclusion becomes confusing. Actually, I would
prefer a label that explains exactly what the total and net carbs and
calories are, to eliminate any confusion. dkw

" of http://groups.google.com wrote:
Then there are lentils. One
package of lentils is organic but I didn't get the brand name, another
is a store brand of lentils (non-organic) for a quarter the price (Wal-
mart GV brand) They look identical in size and shape...yet one quarter
cup of one which is identified as 35g. on both packages is listed as
150 cal per serving on the organic and 80 cal. on the other. A third
package I say with a Spanish or Italian sounding name...Goya, I think,
listed the same quarter-cup size lentils as 70 cal, although these
appeared slightly larger, and since larger varieties of anything
increase the empty air space, the 70 seems to agree with the 80 fairly
closely. Something is wrong.

Are some of these labels counting dry uncooked weight and some weight after
cooking? Lentils absorb water during cooking so the same lentils will weigh
more when they have been cooked. Also I'm distrustful of cup measures - too
open to variation. UK food labelling regulations require calories per 100
grams of product, which enables easy comparison.
--
Those who are mentally and emotionally healthy are those who have learned
when to say yes, when to say no and when to say whoopee. W.S. Krabill
Steph Peters delete invalid from lid
Tatting, lace & stitching page http://www.sandbenders.demon.co.uk/index.htm

On Jan 6, 10:26*am, Steph Peters
wrote:
" ofhttp://groups.google.comwrote:

Then there are lentils. One
package of lentils is organic but I didn't get the brand name, another
is a store brand of lentils (non-organic) for a quarter the price (Wal-
mart GV brand) They look identical in size and shape...yet one quarter
cup of one which is identified as 35g. on both packages is listed as
150 cal per serving on the organic and 80 cal. on the other. A third
package I say with a Spanish or Italian sounding name...Goya, I think,
listed the same quarter-cup size lentils as 70 cal, although these
appeared slightly larger, and since larger varieties of anything
increase the empty air space, the 70 seems to agree with the 80 fairly
closely. Something is wrong.

Are some of these labels counting dry uncooked weight and some weight after
cooking? *Lentils absorb water during cooking so the same lentils will weigh
more when they have been cooked. *Also I'm distrustful of cup measures - too
open to variation. *UK food labelling regulations require calories per 100
grams of product, which enables easy comparison.
--
Those who are mentally and emotionally healthy are those who have learned
when to say yes, when to say no and when to say whoopee. W.S. Krabill
Steph Peters delete invalid from
Tatting, lace & stitching page http://www.sandbenders.demon.co.uk/index.htm

No, they were all dry weights. Apparently the fiber content is the big
factor. Since posting this and getting responses, I have looked into
it further and what I've found is that labels sometimes include the
fiber as caloric since it is a carb, thus adding 4 cal. per gram of
fiber, even though fiber alone does not have calories. The foods that
seem to use the fiber content to try and advertise low-carb, or low-
fiber tend to subtract the fiber content from the calories...and carbs
of course. Foods like lite bread for example, with 40 cal per serving
and double fiber (Nature's Own Light) lists the fiber as a carb, which
they have to do since it is a nonnutritive fiber, then subtract the 4
cal. per gram for fiber when they list the calories and carb content.
This is called "net carbs" for carbs, and nothing different for the
calories, which is a problem. Thankfully, since the total carbs are
listed along with the fiber content, you can then subtract the fiber
grams from the total carb grams, multiply this net carb no. by 4, add
the fat cal which is also listed in grams, add the protein grams at 4
cal. per gram and compare the result. If it matches the stated carbs
and more iportantly for me the calories, the fiber was accounted for
nutritionally. If not, they are mistakenly apparently saying fiber has
calories and nutritional carbs. To continue the confusion, the govt.
does not use the net carb designation leaving people a little
confused. There are also some Atkins followers who claim you still
have to count the fiber as carb. I am not a proponent of carb
restriction so that argument holds no interest to me, but it does seem
to clarify the discrepancy in labeling. Now watch...someone will find
out that not all fiber is equal and some does add calories! dkw

" of http://groups.google.com wrote:
No, they were all dry weights. Apparently the fiber content is the big
factor.
snip huge explanation re carbs and fibre
Good heavens that was complicated. I'm not doing low carb so I really don't
care about the carb content of food. And although I am aiming to restrict
my calorie intake, I'm not actually counting the calories I eat either. I
shall continue to eat lentils because I know that they are fairly low
calorie, a good source of protein in my vegetarian diet, and I like them.
--
Those who are mentally and emotionally healthy are those who have learned
when to say yes, when to say no and when to say whoopee. W.S. Krabill
Steph Peters delete invalid from lid
Tatting, lace & stitching page http://www.sandbenders.demon.co.uk/index.htm

On Jan 7, 4:09*pm, Steph Peters
wrote:
" ofhttp://groups.google.comwrote:No, they were all dry weights. Apparently the fiber content is the big
factor.

snip huge explanation re carbs and fibre
Good heavens that was complicated. *I'm not doing low carb so I really don't
care about the carb content of food. *And although I am aiming to restrict
my calorie intake, I'm not actually counting the calories I eat either. *I
shall continue to eat lentils because I know that they are fairly low
calorie, a good source of protein in my vegetarian diet, and I like them.
--
Those who are mentally and emotionally healthy are those who have learned
when to say yes, when to say no and when to say whoopee. W.S. Krabill
Steph Peters delete invalid from
Tatting, lace & stitching page http://www.sandbenders.demon.co.uk/index.htm

It shouldn"t be complicated because by definition fiber contains no
calories, but fiber is categorized as a carb and so is included in the
total carbohydrate line on the food label. Some low-carbers count it
as a carb and some don't. Those who don't look for the net carbs which
is total carbs minus fiber carbs. When the label lists the calories
and includes the fiber as 4 calories per gram they are counting fiber
as if it were a regular nutritive carb, so they would be giving the
wrong caloric count...it would be way off for a food like lentils
which is very high fiber. Since labeling is not consistent in this
regard, you have to just do the quick math to determine if the label
is accurate with regard to calories. No need to even count calories if
you aren't overweight or can indirectly determine when to stop eating
at the correct time. I absolutely need to count religiously, because I
could and would eat way over my allotted calories otherwise. That is
why I was so concerned about the calories in lentils. Let's take
another example of a fairly high-fiber food...blueberries. The label
on mine says in a 1 cup serving size there are 5 cal. from fat, 4
grams of fiber, protein is essentially 0, and total carbs is17 grams.
In your head, you can multiply 17X4=68, plus 5 cal. from the fat which
= 73 calories. They list the calories as 70 so they have rounded
down..but wait. The 4 grams of fiber have no calories, so that should
be subtracted from the 17 to give you 13X4=52+5fat calories=57
calories, not 70, so in this case, they did not take into account the
fiber and are assigning calories to it. The lentil package, made by
the very same company as the blueberries (WalMart's generic Great
Value brand) shows a 1/4 cup dry serving of lentils to contain 0 cal.
from fat, 10 g. protein, 11 g. fiber and total carbs as 20 grams.
20X4=80+(10X4)=120 calories, but the label lists the calories as 80
cal, so in this case they DID subtract the fiber calories, since
11X4=44 and 120-44=76 rounded to 80. If you don't do the math you
can't tell. Seems strange labels wouldn't be consistent in this
regard, but they aren't. dkw

" wrote:

It shouldn"t be complicated because by definition fiber contains no
calories,

False in two different ways.

1) Calorie is defined as the energy content independent of
digestion issues. All types of fiber are made from carbs and
have energy at 4 Calories per gram. Thus fiber Calories are
included in the "Total Calories" count on labels.

2) There are two types of fiber soluble and insoluble. The
insoluble type is not digested at all (except if there are any
termites reading this). The soluble type is digested by
enzymes from human intestinal bacteria so an unknown
portion is absorbed into our systems. If you know the grams
of the soluble type it's most accurate to count them at 50%
not at 0% whether you're counting carb grams or calories.

but fiber is categorized as a carb and so is included in the
total carbohydrate line on the food label.

On some labels not others. It is not consistant.

Some low-carbers count it
as a carb and some don't. Those who don't look for the net carbs which
is total carbs minus fiber carbs.

Because labels sometimes deduct fiber for you and sometimes
don't it's necessary to do the arithmatic to find out. This is
true for folks who count calories as well in fact.

Here's why net carb counts work anyways even though they don't
reflect the actual absorbed carb content of foods - None of these
calorie or carb counts are anywhere near as accurate as folks
hope. What counts is consistancy. Any biasing error in the
numbers doesn't matter if you're consistant, eat reasonable portions
and adjust your portions based on results.

On Jan 8, 9:20*am, Doug Freyburger wrote:
" wrote:

It shouldn"t be complicated because by definition fiber contains no
calories,

False in two different ways.

1) Calorie is defined as the energy content independent of
digestion issues. *All types of fiber are made from carbs and
have energy at 4 Calories per gram. *Thus fiber Calories are
included in the "Total Calories" count on labels.

2) There are two types of fiber soluble and insoluble. *The
insoluble type is not digested at all (except if there are any
termites reading this). *The soluble type is digested by
enzymes from human intestinal bacteria so an unknown
portion is absorbed into our systems. *If you know the grams
of the soluble type it's most accurate to count them at 50%
not at 0% whether you're counting carb grams or calories.

but fiber is categorized as a carb and so is included in the
total carbohydrate line on the food label.

On some labels not others. *It is not consistant.

Some low-carbers count it
as a carb and some don't. Those who don't look for the net carbs which
is total carbs minus fiber carbs.

Because labels sometimes deduct fiber for you and sometimes
don't it's necessary to do the arithmatic to find out. *This is
true for folks who count calories as well in fact.

Here's why net carb counts work anyways even though they don't
reflect the actual absorbed carb content of foods - None of these
calorie or carb counts are anywhere near as accurate as folks
hope. *What counts is consistancy. *Any biasing error in the
numbers doesn't matter if you're consistant, eat reasonable portions
and adjust your portions based on results.

Right, but the working definition of calories is that you can USE the
energy. We don't incinerate the frigin food candidate the way they do
to measure energy output and far as I know humans can't digest fiber,
so although you are technically right, this is about nutrition.

I'm not convinced that because bacteria in the gut can digest the
fiber that that energy is then absorbed and used as food. Your point
could be accurate though, but the definition I like to use for fiber
and that I think is in general use, is that fiber cannot be used as
energy by humans. If this is shown to not be accurate, then a change
in the definion of fiber is in order, I would think. My gut instinct
(pun intended) tells me not to count fiber in any manner as far as
calories are concerned. dkw

" wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

1) Calorie is defined as the energy content independent of
digestion issues. *All types of fiber are made from carbs and
have energy at 4 Calories per gram. *Thus fiber Calories are
included in the "Total Calories" count on labels.

The comment about labels is important here.

2) There are two types of fiber soluble and insoluble. *The
insoluble type is not digested at all (except if there are any
termites reading this). *The soluble type is digested by
enzymes from human intestinal bacteria so an unknown
portion is absorbed into our systems. *If you know the grams
of the soluble type it's most accurate to count them at 50%
not at 0% whether you're counting carb grams or calories.

Here's why net carb counts work anyways even though they don't
reflect the actual absorbed carb content of foods - None of these
calorie or carb counts are anywhere near as accurate as folks
hope. *What counts is consistancy. *Any biasing error in the
numbers doesn't matter if you're consistant, eat reasonable portions
and adjust your portions based on results.

Right, but the working definition of calories is that you can USE the
energy.

Not for labels. That's your wokring definition not the one used for
labels.

We don't incinerate the frigin food candidate the way they do
to measure energy output

That's exactly how the calories are measured for labels.

and far as I know humans can't digest fiber,

As far as you know, check. You haven't spent much effort
studying carbs over the years.

so although you are technically right, this is about nutrition.

And it being about nutrition is why I did not cut my paragraph about
why dieting works in spite of poor accuracy. Errors in bias don't
matter when people are willing to adjust their portions based on
results.

I'm not convinced that because bacteria in the gut can digest the
fiber that that energy is then absorbed and used as food.

That's because you haven't performed the experiement on yourself
to demonstrate it. I have. Knowing my Atkins CCLL means I'm
able to control my own ketonuria. I ate a carb count to put me close
to it. I ate enough legumes (stewed pintos have mostly soluble
fiber) that if I absorbed none of the fiber I would remain in
ketonuria
but if I absorbed carbs from fiber I would be out of ketonuria. I
fell
out of ketonuria. Bingo, my body had absorbed glucose from soluble
fiber.

I also did the same experiment with sugar alcohols with the same
effect. No matter their claims they don't count as carbs my body
absorbs glucose from them so I don't accept the claims.

Your point
could be accurate though, but the definition I like to use for fiber
and that I think is in general use, is that fiber cannot be used as
energy by humans.

It shows how little accuracy is needed in dieting.

If this is shown to not be accurate, then a change
in the definion of fiber is in order, I would think.

Deducting fiber leads people to eat more veggies. Therefore it is
the right thing to do. Accuracy a necessary part of it. More
veggies is all the justification needed.

My gut instinct
(pun intended) tells me not to count fiber in any manner as far as
calories are concerned.