Total carbs 14
Dietary fiber 2
Total sugars 10, includes 9g added sugars
Net carbs = ??
My original thoughts are (total carbs -fiber-1/2 sugar), so
14-2-5 =7
Yes ??
Need help figuring out net carbs on this
Hextejas
(George)
#1
SomeGuy
(Joey)
#6
Also: If I understand correctly, diabetics apply different a variation on the formula than non-diabetics. I recall that’s the half-the-sugar component.
islandlight
(Laurie)
#8
I’m not familiar with how diabetics count carbs. To me, that says 14 - 2 = 12 net carbs.
amwassil
(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.)
#9
Looks like a NA label. Therefore: 12 grams net. Where did you ever get the idea you can ignore 1/2 the sugar?
OldDog
(Gregory - You can teach an old dog new tricks.)
#10
Also note the serving size…
Looks like some mixed nuts, and the serving size is not going to be very big, weight wise, at 170 calories…
Hextejas
(George)
#11
Actually, It belongs to my wife. It was setting on the counter top so I grabbed it to see if it would make an acceptable snack.
Apparently not.
Thanks for all the help.
amwassil
(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.)
#14
NO!
I’ll repeat this, because if you don’t get it, you’re going to have trouble. You do not ignore half the sugar. That’s totally daft. And different sugar alcohols affect different folks differently. So until you’ve done some experimenting best to count them as well. Don’t experiment until you’ve been in ketosis for several months. The more consistently you remain in ketosis the better.
PaulL
(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?)
#15
Diabetics, especially, should be counting their sugar intake (sucrose, glucose, fructose, galactose, lactose, dextrose, maltose, etc.) at full value. It is only the sugar alcohols (xylitol, maltitol, erythritol, etc.) that can be discounted at half their weight Fibre can be discounted completely. That is if you are counting net carbohydrate intake. If you are counting total carbohydrates, as people like Dr. Westman and Dr. Phinney recommend, then everything counts at full value, including the fibre.
The issue with labeling is not so much where a product is made, but where it is sold. Products made abroad but sold in the U.S. and Canada, and vice versa, still need nutrition labels that conform to the applicable law. The difference is that in North America, the “Carbohydrate” amount includes all carbohydrates, which makes counting total carbs easy, but if you want to count net carbs you have to subtract the fibre. Elsewhere in the world, the “Carbohydrate” number excludes the amount of fibre, so counting net is easy, but to count total carbs you have to add the fibre back in.
Note that the U.S. labeling laws have been influenced by the manufacturers to allow them to set their own serving size, and if the amount of sugar per serving is less than 0.5 g, they can state the sugar amount as 0 g per serving. If the amount of sugar per serving is less than 1.0 g, they can state “under one gram.” If I notice that there are sugars in the list of ingredients, but the nutrition label says 0 g of sugar, I assume that the amount of sugar per serving is 0.4999999999999999 g, and if it says less than 1 g, I assume that the sugar per serving is 0.9999999999999999 g. In other countries, especially Britain and Europe, the nutrition label is required to include a panel showing amounts per 100 g, in addition to the panel showing amounts per recommended serving. This cuts down on the deception.
ETA: Note that manufacturers occasionally try to disguise the sugar content of their product with such terms as “evaporated cane juice,” “agave nectar,” and the like. It’s still all sugar. Search for “names for sugar” on these forums for a list of such deceptive terms.
