Low Carb? Highly Doubtful

by Liz Neporent (Subscribe to Liz Neporent's posts)
May 15th 2009 1:00PM

Liz Neporent is a diet and fitness expert and author of 12 fitness bestsellers. She regularly appears on national TV programs and is the president of Wellness 360, a New-York based wellness provider.

Of all the relics of the low-carb craze, the one that bothers me the most is "net carbs." It's a phrase that still appears on food packaging, and I still get questions about it.

What does "net carbs" mean? Actually, it's a classic misdirect cooked up by marketers who want to divert your attention from the unhealthier aspects of their products, sort of like how car dealers now refer to used cars as "pre-owned." This fabricated term arbitrarily subtracts fiber and sugar alcohols from a food's total carb count. These are considered "zero impact carbs" that don't spike blood sugar or add calories to the diet. But of course, this isn't always the case.

A popular energy bar that boasts "2 grams of impact carbs" is a perfect example. Closer inspection of the label shows that it contains 30 total grams of total carbohydrates plus a gut expanding 200 calories. (Not exactly a low-carb dieter's dream -- or any other dieter's dream for that matter.) The sugar alcohol malitol is listed as one of the main ingredients. Malitol has been used in miniscule amounts in chewing gums for decades but not much is known about the effects of consuming large amounts over the long term. Studies (and anecdotal evidence) show it has a laxative effect and can raise both blood sugar and insulin levels.

The very idea of net carbs is particularly irritating to me because it further muddies the waters of nutritional information, waters already so murky most of us need sonar to navigate through the weeds of information, conflicting information, misinformation and outright lies. Saying a food is low in net carbs implies that a food is somehow healthier or low in calories when often, nothing could be further from the truth. The fact that the phrase appears on the labels of candy bars, coffee cake, meat and even alcohol should be a red flag that something is amiss.

Other nutritional buzz words that are beginning to make me cranky due to their increasingly gratuitous and ambiguous usage include green, eco-friendly, organic, 0 trans fats and s/c value.

Have you noticed this trend too? Do you worship carbs that claim to have zero impact? Have you ever been fooled into eating an organic doughnut or environmentally friendly bologna? Share please.

Comments (3)

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

wheindl 5-15-2009 @ 2:58PM

I would agree that the "0g trans fat" has gotten out of hand. The fact of the matter is that most foods don't (and needn't) have any trans fats. I see items labeled as "0g trans fat" that you wouldn't expect to have any trans fat anyway; and usually this seems to be a cover for a high amount of other fat, especially saturated fat.

(And, while on the subject of food buzz words, where I come from, "organic" simply means "carbon-based." :) )

C 5-16-2009 @ 6:48PM

I get what you are trying to say but there is a very serious problem with the category "Carbohydrate" on a standard food label. The confusion lies in the following...under FDA Guidelines a Protein is defined as a Protein, a Fat is defined as a Fat. That seems like common sense, right? BUT a carbohydrate is defined by what it isn't. If it's NOT a protein or a fat, then it MUST be a carbohydrate is the way a food label is determined. here is the flaw....a gram of protein has approximately 4 calories, a gram of carbohydrate has 4 calories and a gram of fat approximately 9 calories. BUT unlike the other 2 categories, all carbohydrates are not created equal. The best example of this is fiber. There are 2 primary types of fiber, soluble and insoluble. Soluble fiber can be digested and have an impact upon your blood sugar. Insoluble fiber is the equivalent of eating cardboard. yes, it is a carbohydrate, yes it has calories because it burns, BUT your body can not break it down or use it in any way so it exits your body the same way it came into it unchanged. In other words, the insoluble carbohydrate has no impact on your body. That is NOT misleading, it is a simple fact. The carbohydrate category should be broken down or Fiber should have it's own and be removed from the Carbohydrate category to provide a more accurate picture of what the food really is.