How do we feel about net carbs effecting calorie total?

Catsinsocks

Some food labels will subtract the fiber grams from the carb grams and use the lower number to calculate calories. I guess the theory is the fiber is not digestible and thus does not count towards the calorie count if the item. I go back and forth in whether to count these. I'm not currently counting macros just calories. Just looking to see what the general consensus is on this. Pic for reference, these would have about 65.5 calories if the fiber grams were not subtracted from the carb grams

littlebrittlifts

I'd say it it's 45 calories and 4g carbs.

littlebrittlifts

But I'm definitely no expert.

TavistockToad

They don't do net carbs in the UK so it's not something I have ever thought about and it's not affected my weight loss...

kommodevaran

I feel for ignoring it. Majoring in the minors just gives me headache.

30kgin2017

I was thinking the same thing today when I looked at my glucomannam supplements as it has this written on the bottle. It has given a value of calories but the has a ++ Fiber is not digested, thus has no caloric effect note added. But I've only just started actually looking at what a label says for each fat/protein/carbs and calculating it out myself. Mainly cause I was looking at a food prep company that had fat/protein/carb/vegetables in grams but no overall calorie count for a meal. I was trying to work out if the veg was included in carbs value given and what the calorie value of the meal would be. I havent had the chance to look at many labels as yet.

I noticed that calories from fat is stated as 15 although you've worked out its 13.5 to get to your 65.5

amusedmonkey

Fiber is not 100% calorie-free (provides about 1-2 calories per gram). It shouldn't matter, though. The package states the total calories so that's what you would go with.

ETA: just for reference, the FDA assumes fiber at 1.5 calories and diabetics are often instructed to subtract half the fiber from the total carb count if the food has more than 5 grams of fiber (none if it contains 5 or less per eaten serving) - not the 100% subtraction seen in low carb diets for net carb calculation purposes.

Vegplotter

It doesn't matter what you do as long as you are consistent. Fibre makes up 15-30g in our diet so whichever system you use you'll only be out by 60-120calories. It's the comparison of one day to the next, not an artificial total that is important. Fibre is digested by the gut to some extent, so it's not correct to believe that the calories are 'free' Fibre calories will effect your weight, on the other hand many of us don't eat enough. Best to eat fibre as part of wholewheat, grains and plant fibre. I'd advise throwing away any slimming aid that's an 'extract' or made in a factory. It's not food and we just don't know enough about how nutrition works to start messing with it. It's also boring to eat!

RuNaRoUnDaFiEld

All our labels in the UK are net carb so I don't even have to think about it or work it out.

Christine_72

To save the headache and stress over a few calories, I'd go with total carbs and be done with it.

Alatariel75

Christine_72 wrote: »

To save the headache and stress over a few calories, I'd go with total carbs and be done with it.

I think what OP is saying is that the label shows calories calculated on net carbs already. If you were going to count total carbs for the purpose of calories when faced with a label like this, you'd have to do all your own calculations (protein x 4)+(total carbs x 4)+(fat x 9)

jenilla1

I input total carbs, fiber and calories. I glance at all the totals at the end of the day. I can do that math at the end and see my net carbs for the whole day, but it's not that important to me. It's more just another interesting piece of data. The most important thing to me is calories, since I don't have any conditions that require me to limit or monitor carbs specifically.

Catsinsocks

Thanks for the input! I think I'll go by whatever the label says to not drive myself any crazier

inertiastrength

In Canada those have 70 calories so I guess we don't do that. I was wondering about the magic 45 cal torillas haha I'd count them in calorie count personally.

cwolfman13

I'd just go with the label. The difference is really majoring in the minors anyway...

fitmom4lifemfp

Label says 10g carbs. That's what I log. Guess I'm not familiar with the whole "net carb" thing.

Chadxx

"The human body lacks enzymes to break down fiber. Some types of insoluble fiber do not change inside the body, so the body cannot absorb it and it provides no energy (i.e., cellulose). Fermentable fiber is partially fermented, with the degree of fermentability varying with the type of fiber, and contributes some energy when broken down and absorbed by the body. Dietitians have not reached a consensus on how much energy is actually absorbed, but some approximate 8 kJ/g (1.9 kcal/g). Regardless of the type of fiber, the body absorbs less than 17 kJ/g (4.1 kcal/g), which can create inconsistencies for actual product nutrition labels. In some countries fiber is not listed on nutrition labels and is considered to provide no energy. In other countries all fiber must be listed and is simplistically considered to provide 17 kJ/g (4.1 kcal/g) (because chemically fiber is a type of carbohydrate and other carbohydrates provide that amount of energy). In the US, soluble fiber must be counted as 4 kcal/g (17 kJ/g), but insoluble fiber may be (and usually is) treated as not providing energy and not mentioned on the label."

Like most things in life, it depends.

waffle944

Agree with others here, just be consistent -- if you are used to logging calories from the label, just do that. If you are used to computing calories with total carbs, then do that. At the end of the day, calorie counting is just something you do to help you understand how much to eat to lose/maintain/gain weight, what really matters is how well it helps you do that (not necessarily the actual accuracy of the count, which is hard to ensure anyway)