Bran flake calories not accurate??

Candy_monster

Hey guys,

So someone told me the other day that eating All bran or bran flakes for breakfast and as snacks is better than eating other cereals because a lot of the energy content is never absorbed, just because it's all fibre??

I guess the calories stated on the box take this into account? surely they wouldn't state calories that are never gonna get absorbed anyway? hmmm, i'm very confused :S

Is there any nutritionists (or anyone else who might know) that can help? ta!

Candy_monster

Ok I think I may have found the answer, but i'm still not sure how true this is..


http://www.wisegeek.com/do-fiber-calories-count.htm

does anybody have any thoughts on this?

yarwell

Fibre is given a calorific value that reflects its reduced absorption in the gut. the value used may be different in different jurisdictions. It would be fair to say this is a "controversial" area, as indeed is the definition of "fibre" in the first place. These things change from time to time as we learn more and the argument evolves.

So if you trust panels of experts you'll believe the number on the packet.

http://www.bakeryandsnacks.com/Formulation/Prepare-for-higher-calorie-count-for-fibre-say-scientists

Candy_monster

Ah so the fact it's not really absorbed is already accounted for? Makes sense I guess Thanks!