Glycemic Load Diet -- Book Report

[HFWR]

Ok, I picked two items from the pantry: "natural" peanut butter, and "old-fashioned" oats...

Peanut butter:

• One serving = 2 tbsp = 200 cal (or kcal, for the anal...)
• Label states that 160 cal are from fat
• Total fat = 18g
  • 160 cal / 9 cal/g = 17.8 g
  • 18g * 9 cal/g = 162 cal
• Total protein = 7g
  • 7g * 4 cal/g = 28 cal
• Total carbs = 6 g
  • 6g * 4 cal/gm = 24 cal
  • 6g - 2g (fiber) = 4 g "active" carbs
  • 4g - 1g (sugar) = 3 g complex? carbs
• 160 + 28 + 24 = 212 cal, or
• 162 + 28 + 24 = 214 cal

Oats:

• One serving = 0.5 c = 150 cal
• Label states that 25 cal are from fat
• Total fat = 3g
  • 25 cal / 9 cal/g = 2.8g
  • 3g * 9 cal/g = 27 cal
• Total protein = 5g
  • 5g * 4 cal/g = 20 cal
• Total carbs = 27g
  • 27g * 4 cal/g = 108 cal
  • 27g - 4g (fiber) = 23g active carbs
  • 23g - 1g (sugar) = 22g complex carbs
• 25 + 20 + 108 = 153 cal
• 27 + 20 + 108 = 155 cal

So, in this small sample size, it appears the deviation is from rounding.

 

[haha]

Ok, I picked two items from the pantry: "natural" peanut butter, and "old-fashioned" oats...



Peanut butter:

• One serving = 2 tbsp = 200 cal (or kcal, for the anal...)
• Label states that 160 cal are from fat
• Total fat = 18g
  • 160 cal / 9 cal/g = 17.8 g
  • 18g * 9 cal/g = 162 cal
• Total protein = 7g
  • 7g * 4 cal/g = 28 cal
• Total carbs = 6 g
  • 6g * 4 cal/gm = 24 cal
  • 6g - 2g (fiber) = 4 g "active" carbs
  • 4g - 1g (sugar) = 3 g complex? carbs
• 160 + 28 + 24 = 212 cal, or
• 162 + 28 + 24 = 214 cal

Oats:

• One serving = 0.5 c = 150 cal
• Label states that 25 cal are from fat
• Total fat = 3g
  • 25 cal / 9 cal/g = 2.8g
  • 3g * 9 cal/g = 27 cal
• Total protein = 5g
  • 5g * 4 cal/g = 20 cal
• Total carbs = 27g
  • 27g * 4 cal/g = 108 cal
  • 27g - 4g (fiber) = 23g active carbs
  • 23g - 1g (sugar) = 22g complex carbs
• 25 + 20 + 108 = 153 cal
• 27 + 20 + 108 = 155 cal

So, in this small sample size, it appears the deviation is from rounding.

Thanks for posting this HFWR. These do balance. I'm trying to finish my income taxes today but I will do some of my labels tomorrow or the next day. One thing I get from your analysis is that all carbs are active and the idea of subtracting fiber grams from total carb grams is flawed, unless of course they are getting their kcal count from burning the food. I guess we need a "what is a calorie" FAQ according to the practice of food labelers. It seems that if the carbs are contributing calories to the body, they are ipso facto "active".

Ha

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

Rich, that is what I am trying to do. But it's like a balance sheet that doesn't balance. Either the total calories are wrong, or the carb grams are wrong or my algebra is wrong on most of the food nutrition labels. So I cannot be sure how many "active carbs" I am getting from a serving of a given food.

To avoid confusing labels and nutritional reported regulations, just look at total carbs and subtract fiber. Nothing else matters nearly as much as just that.

In a reduced-carb diet, for that small amount of total carbs, just avoid starches and refined sugar - that's the big thing. Glycemic index is less important because your total carb intake is low to begin with.

For those who choose larger amts of carbs, glycemic index may be more important simply because carbs are a larger part of their dietary intake. But in a 70g carb diet glycemic index is less crucial since it only reflects a small fraction of your diet (compared to typical American diet).

Count and plan your carbs, then eat whatever you want within that limit; use common sense to choose your foods but don't let yourself get hungry (low carb snacks like nuts, cheese, etc.). Throw in a little extra exercise, drink lots of fluid. Don't bother counting calories. That about sums it up.

P.S. There are a few medical conditions that are affected by this, like renal insufficiency, but a quick call to your doc can determine if you are safe to go.

 

[HFWR]

Thanks for posting this HFWR. These do balance. I'm trying to finish my income taxes today but I will do some of my labels tomorrow or the next day. One thing I get from your analysis is that all carbs are active and the idea of subtracting fiber grams from total carb grams is flawed, unless of course they are getting their kcal count from burning the food. I guess we need a "what is a calorie" FAQ according to the practice of food labelers. It seems that if the carbs are contributing calories to the body, they are ipso facto "active".

Ha

Hmmm, let's explore that...

Peanut butter:

• One serving = 2 tbsp = 200 cal (or kcal, for the anal...)
• Label states that 160 cal are from fat
• Total fat = 18g
  • 160 cal / 9 cal/g = 17.8 g
  • 18g * 9 cal/g = 162 cal
• Total protein = 7g
  • 7g * 4 cal/g = 28 cal
• Total carbs = 6 g
  • 6g - 2g (fiber) = 4 g "active" carbs
  • 4g * 4 cal/gm = 16 cal
• 160 + 28 + 16 = 204 cal

Oats:

• One serving = 0.5 c = 150 cal
• Label states that 25 cal are from fat
• Total fat = 3g
  • 25 cal / 9 cal/g = 2.8g
  • 3g * 9 cal/g = 27 cal
• Total protein = 5g
  • 5g * 4 cal/g = 20 cal
• Total carbs = 27g
  • 27g - 4g (fiber) = 23g active carbs
  • 23g * 4 cal/g = 92 cal
• 25 + 20 + 92 = 137 cal
• If we add back the 2g soluble fiber, the calorie total is 145...

Not sure that proved anything...

 

[haha]

Hmmm, let's explore that...



Peanut butter:

• One serving = 2 tbsp = 200 cal (or kcal, for the anal...)
• Label states that 160 cal are from fat
• Total fat = 18g
  • 160 cal / 9 cal/g = 17.8 g
  • 18g * 9 cal/g = 162 cal
• Total protein = 7g
  • 7g * 4 cal/g = 28 cal
• Total carbs = 6 g
  • 6g - 2g (fiber) = 4 g "active" carbs
  • 4g * 4 cal/gm = 16 cal
• 160 + 28 + 16 = 204 cal

Oats:

• One serving = 0.5 c = 150 cal
• Label states that 25 cal are from fat
• Total fat = 3g
  • 25 cal / 9 cal/g = 2.8g
  • 3g * 9 cal/g = 27 cal
• Total protein = 5g
  • 5g * 4 cal/g = 20 cal
• Total carbs = 27g
  • 27g - 4g (fiber) = 23g active carbs
  • 23g * 4 cal/g = 92 cal
• 25 + 20 + 92 = 137 cal
• If we add back the 2g soluble fiber, the calorie total is 145...

Not sure that proved anything...

It seems to show that the method is not consistently applied by the manufacturers-ie. whether or not to subtract out the grams of fiber carbs.

BTW- I think I got my taxes finished. I was struggling over getting TTax to properly handle sales of MLPs

Ha

 

[TromboneAl]

Another way to do it is to forget about all that label info, and look up the glycemic load. After all, that's what you're interested in: how much the food will raise your blood sugar, and that's what glycemic load measures.

 

[haha]

Another way to do it is to forget about all that label info, and look up the glycemic load. After all, that's what you're interested in: how much the food will raise your blood sugar, and that's what glycemic load measures.

Perhaps true, but when I read some of the papers about establishing "glycemic load" data it was clear that there are huge individual differences in how a given food affects a given person's BG response. This is made much more true if there is any deviation from normal glucose tolerance.

My goal is to predict how a given carb dose in a given food will affect my BG, and to make that easier I need accurate carb counts.

Ha