Nutrition labels (with fiber) misrepresenting actual calories?

sjohnson__1
sjohnson__1 Posts: 405 Member
edited November 21 in Food and Nutrition
Out of curiosity, I was wondering what my peers do in similar situations. Fiber One Honey Clusters (Cereal) nutrition label reads: h78eu2n00uwo.png

Do the math. It doesn't add up to 160 calories. Not even close, actually. I've taken the conservative approach bc I'm on a cut and record this as a "quick add" entry. Here's an example of 2 servings with 1 cup of milk from my diary:

dumtkqutwclo.png

My question isn't necessarily with regard to this specific food - but more general; do you all check to make sure nutrition labels add up? I always use the macros over the calories listed, does anyone do this differently or understand why misrepresentations like this are allowed? I understand fiber isn't digested the same as another carbohydrate - does that mean it's not a calorie? I've heard of net carbohydrates, but I've also heard it's not accurate.

This is extreme, I know. I'd just rather be accurate if I'm going to take the time to log! Figured I'd ask...

Replies

  • Iron_Feline
    Iron_Feline Posts: 10,750 Member
    Well that's fascinating - and bloody annoying.

    They have clearly only counted the non fibre carbs when making the calorie declaration. And now I want to check the foods I eat.
  • sjohnson__1
    sjohnson__1 Posts: 405 Member
    edited July 2015
    Iron_Feline wrote: »
    Well that's fascinating - and bloody annoying.

    They have clearly only counted the non fibre carbs when making the calorie declaration. And now I want to check the foods I eat.

    It's one of the more dramatic examples I could find. Whatever the case, I'm just curious to know how they get away with labeling food in this manner, or am I just being far too conservative?

  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    sjohnson__1 wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, I was wondering what my peers do in similar situations. Fiber One Honey Clusters (Cereal) nutrition label reads: h78eu2n00uwo.png

    Do the math. It doesn't add up to 160 calories. Not even close, actually. I've taken the conservative approach bc I'm on a cut and record this as a "quick add" entry. Here's an example of 2 servings with 1 cup of milk from my diary:

    dumtkqutwclo.png

    My question isn't necessarily with regard to this specific food - but more general; do you all check to make sure nutrition labels add up? I always use the macros over the calories listed, does anyone do this differently or understand why misrepresentations like this are allowed? I understand fiber isn't digested the same as another carbohydrate - does that mean it's not a calorie? I've heard of net carbohydrates, but I've also heard it's not accurate.

    This is extreme, I know. I'd just rather be accurate if I'm going to take the time to log! Figured I'd ask...

    1.5 g fat x 9 kCal + 34 g carbs without insoluble fiber x 4 kCal + 3 g protein x 4 kCal = 161.5 kCal.
  • sjohnson__1
    sjohnson__1 Posts: 405 Member
    edited July 2015
    I guess I'm confused as to why this isn't it's own nutrient, rather than counted as a carbohydrate.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    It's part of the carbohydrates that's why it's counted towards the total carbs on the top, but since you don't digest it it doesn't count towards your calorie intake.
  • sjohnson__1
    sjohnson__1 Posts: 405 Member
    stevencloser wrote: »
    It's part of the carbohydrates that's why it's counted towards the total carbs on the top, but since you don't digest it it doesn't count towards your calorie intake.

    Thanks @stevencloser
    I'll simply edit the quick-add meal to record 34 carbs, and 13 fiber. Not all food labels will include the insoluble vs. soluble fiber detail, however - at least they're not required to.
  • briandap1
    briandap1 Posts: 24 Member
    stevencloser wrote: »
    It's part of the carbohydrates that's why it's counted towards the total carbs on the top, but since you don't digest it it doesn't count towards your calorie intake.

    This is correct. You would actually subtract the Dietary Fiber from total carbohydrates and calculate.
  • sjohnson__1
    sjohnson__1 Posts: 405 Member
    edited July 2015
    briandap1 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    It's part of the carbohydrates that's why it's counted towards the total carbs on the top, but since you don't digest it it doesn't count towards your calorie intake.

    This is correct. You would actually subtract the Dietary Fiber from total carbohydrates and calculate.

    Not all of the dietary fiber - only the insoluble dietary fiber. Hence, the error in the "Net Carbs" methodology for LC dieters..

  • MomChemist
    MomChemist Posts: 19 Member
    Here's an article from a reputable source regarding how calories are determined, and it includes some links to major food databases that may be of interest: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-food-manufacturers/
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    Iron_Feline wrote: »
    Well that's fascinating - and bloody annoying.

    They have clearly only counted the non fibre carbs when making the calorie declaration. And now I want to check the foods I eat.

    Insoluble fiber does not get absorbed, which is whey they are not counting those cals. Your body does not use the energy in it, so why would you count it? adding up the remaining got me to 161.5 cals, so the 1.5 is probably due to rounding to nearest gram on other carbs and protein.
  • sjohnson__1
    sjohnson__1 Posts: 405 Member
    Update: Here's what two servings look like now (reflects the nutrition label but records carbs net of insoluble fiber, which allows me to continue to use my macros as my base).
    l841rf6jken0.png
This discussion has been closed.

Categories