Comments on: “Mystery Carbs” Question of the Day

By: AJ

AJ — Wed, 07 May 2008 20:09:39 +0000

Reading your site always makes me dread the day my ratios change. I’m a fairly new PWD, and I’m 1:20 or 1:30 depending on time of day. Makes counting much easier.

I can definitely see where the frustration would come in if it were 1:10 or something like that.

I’d be curious to hear everyone else’s ratios, actually. If you’re willing to post them.

By: Anne

Anne — Mon, 05 May 2008 19:31:00 +0000

On a related note, one might want to check the ingredients for trans fats, since if it is below a certain amount (not sure what that is, perhaps .5 g per serving?) it does not have to be listed under the “fats” category. Anything “partially hydrogenated” = trans fats. I have eliminated trans fats from my diet since it became more widely published how harmful they are. And also if you are eating more than one serving, that 0.5 could start to add up.

By: mollyjade

mollyjade — Sat, 03 May 2008 06:34:34 +0000

And this doesn’t even get into sugar alcohols or glycerin which are carbs that are only partially digested. It’s amazing that we can estimate carbs as well as we do.

By: Lauren

Lauren — Sat, 03 May 2008 03:15:03 +0000

I would lose my mind if I ever tried to count carbs. I guesstimate everything. My strategies are plenty of exercise and selective low-glycemic eating (I’ve just discovered vegan omelettes). The two longtime type 1s in my family thought I was crazy when I asked them about carb counting. They have been diabetic so long they go by past experience, and have eliminated certain troublesome foods from their diets (such as popcorn). I’m also learning that there are certain things I just can’t eat if I want good post-prandial sugars.

By: Sam

Sam — Sat, 03 May 2008 01:20:49 +0000

Great information on carbs. Sam http://www.acaiberry.name http://www.acai.vg

By: George S Alarcon

George S Alarcon — Sat, 03 May 2008 01:18:51 +0000

The mystery of the carbs gets solved at last! Thanks for clearing up the web of confusion.

By: AmyT

AmyT — Fri, 02 May 2008 20:29:36 +0000

Eric,
My experience seems to show that the “total carbohydrate” count is often not particularly accurate either. The whole practice of “rounding” (which I call sneaky) makes me very distrustful of all the label data.

Certainly there are MANY factors complicating our BG reaction to different foods, but this apparent practice of “fudging the labels” sure ain’t making it any easier.

By: Eric Jensen

Eric Jensen — Fri, 02 May 2008 19:01:54 +0000

OK, I have to differ with the overall message of this post and with many of the comments here. The original question was why the total carbohydrates figure doesn’t always add up to the sum of the individual carbohydrate figures, and the answer was clearly stated – some kinds of carbs are not required to be specified *individually*. But note – they *are still included* in the total carb figure. So if you dose on the total carb figure, you’re still using what is, by and large, an accurate number. It’s not clear to me why this is “sneaky” or should lead to mistakes. Granted, you might like to know how those carbs are broken down if you’re very precise about scaling doses for different kinds of carbs (but note, fiber usually *is* specified separately). But overall, there’s nothing in that statement that indicates you’ll go far wrong using the “Total carbohydrates” figure.

Regarding the rounding issue, rounding means that each individual number is off by 1 gram at most, and again the total number will be off by 1 gram at most.

Regarding elizabeth’s comment about allowed variance in filling packages, the specification varies by package weight, and is at most 10% for packages under 36 g (note: then you’re only off by 3.6g of carbs for a food that 100% carbs) and scales down to 2% for larger packages: http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/upload/All-H133-05-Z-2.pdf (Table 2-5 in Appendix A).

While we might like to blame these small effects, I think our bigger challenge is just that our bodies are complicated – uncertainties in glucose testing, variations in insulin delivery, how your body reacts day to day based on illness or stress. All of these are bigger factors than food labeling, I think. We just all have to press on and do our best.

One final thought – eating less packaged food avoids many of these issues with food labeling (and in general is likely to give you a healthier diet). Yes, I eat packaged things, too – but it’s a goal to shoot for.

Thanks for listening,

Eric

By: elizabeth joy

elizabeth joy — Fri, 02 May 2008 15:46:01 +0000

Okay, you think that’s bad? You ever dose based on a packaged carb count and find your sugar running way low or way high for no discernable reason? Get this.

The FDA allows up to a 20% increase in the listed amounts on nutrition labels. Take a small bag of Doritos, they are 54g, which means a 20% increase would be nearly 65g. If you have an 11/1 carb ratio, you are a full unit short on that meal bolus. But given the individual bag, the actual amount could be anywhere between 54g and 65g.

I think the only solution for us is to never eat again…

By: tmana

tmana — Fri, 02 May 2008 15:37:12 +0000

The USDA Nutrient Data Laboratory’s “National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference — Release 20″, MS Access database (downloadable from http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/site_main.htm?modecode=12354500 ), notes in its NUTR_DEF table that carbohydrates are measured “by difference”. The table even provides for breakdown by several specific mono- and disaccharides, but this information is not available for more than 80% of the foods in the 7500-food database. (approximately 7500 foods and I can rarely find the one I’m looking for — that database is by no means complete!)
Draw from that (1) confirmation of what Brendan “heard”, and (2) that the government either does not have, or refuses to publish, complete nutritional data on even the small number of foods in its database.
You may also draw from that the ability to manipulate what information *is* provided by our tax dollars to your personal advantage.