An article here from Verywell Fit, last updated on June 28, 2018, contains a list of vegetables whose fiber content exceeds its “useable carbohydrates.” For example, it says that fiber from 10 oz. of frozen spinach has 8g of fiber to 3g of useable carbs, or 5g more fiber than carbs. This really confuses me. I thought that a fiber content greater than carbs is impossible, because the carbs content includes the fiber. I’ve looked all over the internet trying to make sense of this, and mostly what I see is a definition of “net carbs,” (as opposed to “useable carbs”) as being total carbs less the fiber, which is what I always understood. When I looked for the term “useable carbs,” instead of “net carbs,” many webpages are using the terms interchangeably. What’s going on here? Ideas?
This article claims these food have more fiber than "useable" carbs. Is that even possible?
I think either you’re misunderstanding or it’s written very poorly, or it’s complete crap. No, you can’t have negative carbs as fiber IS a carb.
I would have to assume that the example above means 8g total carbs, 5 of which are fiber, leaving 3g net carbs. It’s the only way that works out. And spinach definately has some net carbs.
Perhaps whoever wrote it is very confused and is trying to do the math backwards.
It’s mostly veggies and the few berries that many if us keto types eat anyway with the exception of “cereals”.
Honestly, I pay no attention to fiber other than subtracting it from the total carb number. I don’t have a daily goal for fiber intake. I just eat real food.
Okay, I see what they mean. They are talking about the ratio of fiber to net carbs. So if the example it’s true that spinach has more fiber grams than net carbs, but it’s still not a negative as the fiber would count towards total grams.
The articles focus is on fiber, so they are pointing out that you can get very high fiber and stay low carb (net wise) with these foods.
Thank you! Anniegirl9. That’s what I thought too. I read the article carefully several times. I’m an attorney so I know how to make sense of written words, and the piece literally says that the fiber in those foods listed exceeds those foods’ “useable” carbs, which I took to mean “net” carbs, which of course is nonsense, but I thought maybe there is a difference between “useable” and “net.” So I was flummoxed. And I couldn’t find anything online to corroborate it. And get this: The article says it was “reviewed,” by one Richard N. Fogoros, M.D. Usually when an MD is willing to put his name to a public article like that, it is mostly accurate, at least that’s what experience has told me. Not this time, apparently.
No, they are not talking about ratios. Here’s a quote from it: “The following foods have more fiber than usable carbohydrate.” That’s not a ratio. That’s a raw number. They don’t say frozen spinach is 2:1 fiber, which incidentally would still be saying that the raw fiber number exceeds the raw net carbs number. The article it literally wrong.
But no. It specifically says “useable” carbs, not total carbs. Your last theory, that “it’s crap,” is I think right. And reviewed by an M.D. Geesh.
It reads to me that the author means usable carbs as akin to glucose and fiber as a moderator of carbs reacting as glucose.
Therefore a good fiber filled diet is possible while maintaining low, or usable, carb
to glucose in the body.
Used by the body in way of glucose.
I think what they’re trying to say is: “Spinach has 5 grams of fiber, and 3 grams of usable carb. 5 is larger than 3.”
This is unarguably true! It’s also completely irrelevant! …it just doesn’t matter, there is no useful point being made here.
Perhaps the author is misunderstanding “usable carb” and thinking the total carb count is therefore -2, which is obviously wrong.
They don’t call it a ratio, but that’s what they are talking about. What they are saying is these foods have more fiber than usable carbs. They are correct. If a food has 8 total carbs, and 5 of them are fiber, the net (or usable carbs) is 3. 5 is more than 3.
Whereas if a food had 8 total carbs, and 3 of them were fiber, the net (or usable carbs) is 5. In this case this food would NOT have more fiber than usable carbs as 3 is not more than 5.
They don’t spell it out very well, but technically what they are saying is correct. They are not trying to claim that these foods have a negative carb content with fiber taken out.
Yes, this is what I was trying to say.
I think all around it’s a very awkward way of looking at it, therefor it’s hard to explain.
In the Keto world, the bottom line is the net carbs. However the article is focused on fiber, so it’s trying to highlight the fiber content in certain foods.
It’s kind of like saying “you need fiber. Sure, these foods have carbs, but carb watchers shouldn’t worry because their fiber content is worth the net carbs as it outweighs themin health value.” At least that’s my reading between the lines. Not that it negates the carbs and creates a negative carb value.
Of course, some will debate whether it’s even true we need the fiber.
I’m guessing that it is a US site?
So the fibre is not “usable” by the body
Ergo (nicely legal?)
The spinach contains 11g of carbs total of which 8g are fibre and so only the remianing 3g are digestible by the body?
Yes, I think this is right. The thing that really doesn’t make sense is that the author really does make a point of somehow comparing fiber and usable carb. The ratio doesn’t make any difference, if you believe you need fiber you could drink a tablespoon of psyllium and eat a cheese omelet. From a carb & fiber perspective that’s no different than a cup of spinach, it only matters if you’re counting calories or hiding from animal products.
They’re not saying anything has more fiber than carbs, they’re saying more “useable” carbs meaning energy. If you eat something with 10g carbs, but 7 of it is from fiber, than only 3g will be an energy source to you meaning it’s “usable”. You forget that the way WE view things is not how everybody else does, including “normal” low carb-ers. That breakdown is common in “normal” low carb write ups.
They are using the term “usable” interchangeably for net. Fiber doesn’t count towards net because it isn’t absorb and goes right through the body, ergo it isn’t used by the body for energy. Once you deduct fiber (the unusable part) you get net carbs. Or usable carbs as the author is calling it.
Sorry to hear that. My deepest condolences. 
You’re learning! Welcome to the wild and wacky world of food and nutrition information. 