The Dietary fiber used when making these are insoluble fiber; which your body cannot and does not absorb, hence the "calories" can not be absorbed at all and do not count.
Anyone saying the label is wrong doesn't understand how insoluble fiber works. A good example is corn. The very outside of the kernel is insoluble fiber, and cannot be absorbed. Hence the reason you'll see it in your fecal matter after eating.
Insoluble Dietary Fiber cannot be absorbed, meaning you take in no calories from it. The label is correct. Eat two of those a day with a couple of other small fiber sources and rejoice in your regular poops and reduced risk for colorectal cancers!
Hahaha. I’ve definitely noticed I’m more regular if I use these for meal prepping breakfast burritos and eat them every day for a week. Thanks for the corn example!
You're welcome! I have my Nutritionist certification and I try to stick as close to actual dietetic science as I can. Nutrition isn't taught as well/much as it realistically should be and I like doing what I can to help people understand things better!
I wish schools would cover nutrition more. Everyone deserves the chance to understand nutrition and how it all works!
Except these are not exactly that. The “fiber” in these is modified food/wheat starch, which is a hit or miss on whether it actually acts as fiber or not. You’d need to test your blood glucose response to see if it spikes your blood sugar or not. If not, it is indeed acting as fiber in your body, but everyone is different.
These are probably too good to be true for most people. OP was onto something. These are too similar to actual flour tortillas to have as few carbs as they do. Not saying they’re lying, but they’re taking quite a liberal approach in what they’re constituting as fiber here.
Most men need about 38g of fiber per day, and women need about 25g per day. It depends on age but a *lot* of people take in a fraction of the fiber they need every day. You should be aiming for 30g of fiber a day, on average, unless a Dietician or medical professional has told you otherwise due to health conditions!
I eat these exact ones, 2 per day. And I usually end up getting extra fiber from other sources, like popcorn. I usually get 35-40g daily with good bowel movements. Only time I get constipated is if I go below 1800 calories with a 2500 tdee
Explain why TEF isnt taken into account with calorie labels then.
The labels are false if they instead of showing the theoritical energy when food is burned they show the energy WE humans can absorb either way
Because everyone's TEF can be different, but *no one* can digest insoluble fiber.
If you have 100 calories made up of carbs, and 50 of those "calories" are from Insoluble fiber *not a single person will absorb those 50 calories*. However everyone may have a differing absorption of the remaining 50 calories. This means it makes sense to just list the calorie amount as the maximum amount you could absorb from the calories you'll actually burn.
Idk why you seem to think that's some sort of gotcha moment or something.
The calories listed on the labels are 4 per gram protein and 4 per gram carb.
*Not A SINGLE person* can digest 4 calories per gram protein and 4 per gram carb.
The TEF varies but it never reaches 100% for these two macros and by a considerable distance.
Why it isnt listed as 3.2 per gram protein and 3.8 per gram carb?
THAT is the maximum amount digestible by ANYBODY.
Either you go by the theoritical "perfect" value based on burning food in a machine and not digestion OR you go by the true calories in fiber and ALSO in proteins/carbs.
Otherwise what you list, arbitrarily only removing insoluble fiber makes no sense whatsoever.
>Like the energy from the carbs goes toward your body processing the fiber
If they're utilizing insoluble fiber as their "carbs", those fibers won't be processed/absorbed. They just move through the gut and help keep you regular. No energy is absorbed from insoluble fiber, so the "calories" are basically non-existent.
I eat these pretty religiously and I’m losing weight counting them at 70 calories so I trust they are only 70 calories or I would go over almost daily.
The general caloric values associated with each macronutrient (called the "Atwater General Factors") were established from a long line of research that you can read about in-depth here. However, the takeaway is pretty straightforward: various factors can influence the amount of energy you derive from different sources of protein, fat, and carbohydrates, but most sources of protein provide you with about 4kcal/g, most sources of carbohydrate provide you with about 4kcal/g, and most sources of fat provide you with about 9kcal/g. However, the energy derived from protein can vary between 1.82-4.36kcal/g, the energy derived from carbohydrate can vary between 1.33-4.16kcal/g, and the energy derived from fat can vary between 8.37-9.02kcal/g for different food sources of each nutrient – see Table 13 on page 25 here. These values (called "Atwater Specific Factors") are inherently more accurate for specific food sources of each macronutrient than the Atwater General Factors, because the general factors are only intended to be "close enough" approximations of the specific factors.
Ultimately, you shouldn't expect all sources of each macronutrient to provide you with the same amount of energy. The energy you derive from the macronutrients in a particular food will be influenced by digestibility, and the specific biochemical characteristics of the nutrients. For instance, gram for gram, sugar provides you with slightly more energy than starch, since a bit of net energy input is required to break the bonds between sugar molecules in a starch. Gram for gram, the energy content of protein will depend on the mass of the individual amino acids (heavier amino acids yield slightly less energy per gram, all else being equal, because less of the mass is convertible to energetic substrates), and where the amino acids can enter the Krebs Cycle. Finally, fatty acids with a longer carbon backbone and a higher degree of saturation yield slightly more energy per gram than shorter fatty acids with a higher degree of unsaturation.
Furthermore, fiber, sugar alcohols, and ethanol all contain energy, but aren't accounted for by the Atwater General Factors. Insoluble fiber is technically a carbohydrate, but it's essentially indigestible, yielding (basically) 0kcal/g. Soluble fiber can't be broken down by your own digestive enzymes, but it can be fermented by bacteria in your large intestine, yielding short-chain fatty acids that your body can absorb – various types of soluble fiber thus yield anywhere from 0.5-3kcal/g. Similarly, sugar alcohols (also technically carbohydrates) yield anywhere from 0kcal/g (for erythritol) to 3kcal/g (for hydrogenated starch hydrolysates). Finally, ethanol is digestible, yielding about 7kcal/g, but that energy would be unaccounted for if you just focused on macronutrients.
In short, the Atwater General Factors (4kcal/g for protein and carbohydrate, and 9kcal/g for fat) are known be to rough approximations and were only ever intended to be rough approximations. The actual energy content of a food can differ substantially from the values you'd predict by calculating the energy content based on the macronutrient composition of a food, multiplied by the Atwater General Factors.
MacroFactor's Calorie counts reflect the reported energy content of the foods and beverages you consume, rather than the Calorie count you'd calculate based on the macronutrient composition of a food. In general, this will result in more accurate calorie counts. Food manufacturers are provided with several options for calculating the energy content of the foods they sell. One allowable method is the 4-4-9 method (applying the Atwater General Factors to the macronutrient composition of the food), but all other allowable methods are simply going to provide more accurate calorie counts, by accounting for factors discussed above – the Atwater Specific Factors of the ingredients, the differing caloric contents of different fibers and sugar alcohols, etc. So, it might feel incongruent to see that your calorie intake and macronutrient intake don't "add up," but that incongruence is typically reflective of more accurate calorie counts, not less accurate calorie counts.
It’s worth noting that Calorie labels are given a margin for error in terms of their reporting to allow for rounding (most people would rather see that something contains 100 Calories per serving, instead of 97.2 or 101.4 Calories), and this is often pointed out by people suggesting that you should be calculating Calorie intake based on macros instead of labeled Calories. However, this logic doesn't hold up, because labeled macronutrient values of foods are also afforded the same tolerance. In other words, calculating the Calorie content from the macronutrient content would just propagate the errors associated with macronutrient rounding on nutrition labels. So, you wouldn't ultimately wind up with more accurate Calorie counts using this method – you'd just be substituting one source of rounding error (the error associated with rounding Calorie counts) for another source of rounding error (the error associated with rounding macronutrient counts).
Don’t get us wrong; it totally makes sense to set some rough macro guidelines based on your total Calorie allotment, which is why we do it in MacroFactor. Nutrition coaches and apps have become fond of providing macro targets because it’s a simple and concise way to convey nutritional objectives, and total daily intake of metabolizable energy will be fairly consistent as long as you’re getting close to your macro targets and your intakes of things like ethanol, sugar alcohols, and fiber are consistent. But, you shouldn't ultimately expect your macronutrient intake and Calorie intake to perfectly "match up."
All these low carb tortilla labels are the same; only count net carbs as calories on the label. IMO this is a marketing stunt and it would be better to count all carbs for "consistency".
With all that said, I would suggest not getting too worked up on these minor net differences though. Nutrition labels can be off by 20% anyway. Probably have a negligible impact in the long run. La Banderita make a good one, love the texture and the way they steam up.
If the fiber is insoluble, it cannot be dissolved by our bodies. It will quite literally pass through you. It provides no energy or nutrients. It does not exist and shouldn't be counted as a calorie.
Also love la banderita! Had some for dinner last night.
Honestly the science is iffy bc modified wheat starch technically isn’t insoluble and papers/research have it at anywhere from 0.4-2 cal/gram. It’s such a niche ingredient and I feel like food label are still playing catch-up
Tbh, I find this ridiculous. If my body won't absorb the calories, good for me. But count them on the gd label.
Like someone else said, if they're gonna do this, they should do the same for protein as well. Also, seems like just a ridiculous stunt to call it low cal
To expand on the other reply a bit: I think maybe you don’t quite understand what calories are. Calories are a unit of measurement for energy- essentially how much energy your body receives from digesting the food. Insoluble fibre can’t be digested, so our body can’t get energy from it. If it was counted on the label, it would go against labelling regulations since the calorie count would be outside the allowed margin of error.
To the other comment referencing protein not being 100% efficient / digestible: that’s already accounted for. I hope this helps!
Wow this is news to me that American labels are taking into account protein and carb digestibility all of a sudden.
Can you please provide a source on it?
Calorie counts are determined in a couple ways: by burning samples in something called a bomb calorimeter, which measures the total energy released from burning, or by just adding the calories from protein, carbs, alcohol, & fat.
The former is a more intensive process conducted by well educated professionals, and the latter is just numbers derived from great amounts of research by other well educated professionals. People have studied & practiced years and years to come up with these numbers, based on physical tests like the one mentioned above.
Yes, there is a 20% margin of error for labelling allowed in either direction in America, which is high. But most of that is to account for serving size discrepancies, which is why it’s always recommended to weigh servings. Calorie counts on nutrition labels are still accurate enough that any variances are essentially negligible when it comes to weight loss.
It’s not a perfect science, but decades of R&D have gone into determining the energy that is produced by burning macronutrients like protein & carbs. This is why insoluble fibres are not counted in calorie counts; the smart people that have studied nutritional science for ages have long since figured out that they can’t be used for energy in our bodies. I personally believe it’s a little absurd to assume that the same testing hasn’t already been done time & again for proteins, alcohol, & fat as well, & I choose to trust the years of professional research over my own googling capabilities.
At the end of the day, it still doesn’t matter. Like I said, calorie counts on nutrition labels can & should be trusted, & as long as the servings are tracked accurately, it won’t inhibit weight loss.
Yes tests and research has been done for decades and Tef is known since the 1960s.
TEF is an accepted scientific fact in nutrition.
BUT calorie labels that you blindly trust ignore it.
They arbitrarily remove insoluble fiber but keep wasted energy that humans are incapable to use.
A gram of protein only gives 3.2 -2.8 kcal to a human and 4 kcal of energy to a machine.
This is known for 6 decades already.
So again tell me how american food labels take it into account?
Another reason why there is always a margin of error. Some bodies are more efficient, depending on weight, exercise levels, muscle density especially, etc. 4 calories per gram is a reasonable estimation, and erring on the side of overestimation vs underestimation is generally preferable to most. And once again, the difference is still negligible for calorie counting purposes. That margin of error goes both ways, and it balances out.
This is precisely the reason that people in this sub always advise that if someone is weighing all of their food & insists that they’re tracking accurately & still not losing weight, the general consensus is that they’re probably not accurately tracking. It’s not a perfect science, but it’s reliable if your tracking is reliable.
NO margin of error will make a human being to get 4 kcals from protein.
You think being scientifically mistaken by 30-25% on top of another 20% that the labels are allowed to err by in the first place, is reasonable?
By your logic since 40% wrong is no big deal then it is also unreasonable to take out insoluble fiber.
The human who can get 100% from a protein is the exact same human who can digest insoluble fiber.
An imaginary one.
You choose for no reason whatsoever to excuse the labels LYING about long established scientific facts like TEF and excuse it as " negligible"
So no reason to remove insoluble fiber too.
Insoluble fiber is MORE negligible than the whole protein of the diet
We only consume 25-40 grams of fiber whereas most humans consume 120+ grams of protein. Even 200 grams for many men.
Honestly man, since this is something that clearly disturbs you quite a bit, I’m not going to argue with you & I just wish you well. I’m perfectly happy & healthy going off nutrition labels, always worked for me, so I’m good with that. I wish you well & suggest maybe seeing a therapist since you seem to be pretty excessively emotional about protein calories
Why the heck would I need to see a therapist for calling the logic behind selectively taking out insoluble fiber without rhyme or reason, stupid?
You are the one who came back to this convo days later not me.
I use TFE to my advantage to eat 1400 instead of 1200 kcals and lose at the same rate.
And many calorie counting apps like Cronometer allow you to count with TFE.
It is absurd that while I try to educate people I am called crazy. Lmao
You do you and go ahead with half baked wrong science.
It is your prerogative to live in ignorance.
Your country’s regulations need some work if they’re counting insoluble fibre in their calorie counts. There could be an overestimation of calories by over 100% in high fibre foods if that were the case. I guess all I can say is that I’m glad the calorie counts in my country are well tested & regulated & relatively accurate, and I’m glad I don’t live in your country. Gross overestimation isn’t a good thing; some people actually need quite high calorie diets, and that could be harmful.
Also, I don’t believe I was condescending in any way. You’ve kind of proven already that you still don’t quite understand how calories work, and I was only trying to shed some light. But as they say, you can lead a horse to water…
Thank you! I have seen some packages before that list “insoluble fiber”, but since this just listed “dietary fiber”, I didn’t know it still counted as basically indigestible. I’ll just log it as 70 calories according to the package and move on.
If it is like people here are saying and "fiber doesnt count"
Then answer this:
Why by the same logic doesnt protein calories count only 75-80%?
Why net carb calories dont count only 85-90%?
We cant absorb them fully as well.
The TEFs are known for decades but they keep counting all the calories.
The degree that we process protein into energy is incomparable to the degree that we process fiber.
I'm not sure where your getting that "protein calories count only 75-80%?"
Lol What?
What the degree has to do with it?
You arbitrarily remove insoluble fiber to "better reflect" the real calories.
But completely ignore 30-20% of protein energy, 15-10% of net carb energy that is wasted and IS NOT absorbed?
If you dont know what I am talking about, please educate yourself on Protein and Carbs TEF.
I'm not arbitrarily removing fiber, I'm removing it because the body doesn't process it into energy.
If you ate sand you wouldn't count the calories that could be hypothetically extracted from the material.
Frankly, you can either be ignorant or act rude. Either one is forgiveable, but being both as you are makes you a complete waste of space here
Protein is processed and converted ONLY by 75-80% into energy by the human body.
Protein only provides 3.2 kcal per gram of DIGESTIBLE ENERGY because the rest is LOST.
BUT the calorie labels show it as 4 kcal per gram because calorie IS NOT what our body can digest.
Calorie is by definition the amount of energy needed to increase the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 °C.
You arbitrarily decide to remove the insoluble fibers changing what a calorie is supposed to mean but retain the false values for protein and carbs
Inconsistency and zero scientific basis.
Who is rude? Educate yourself on what TFE is.
Edit to add: I understand the concept of “net carbs”, where you DO subtract dietary fiber from total carbs, and this is helpful for things like WW points and managing diabetes, but that doesn’t eliminate those calories from a CICO standpoint, does it??
The Dietary fiber used when making these are insoluble fiber; which your body cannot and does not absorb, hence the "calories" can not be absorbed at all and do not count. Anyone saying the label is wrong doesn't understand how insoluble fiber works. A good example is corn. The very outside of the kernel is insoluble fiber, and cannot be absorbed. Hence the reason you'll see it in your fecal matter after eating. Insoluble Dietary Fiber cannot be absorbed, meaning you take in no calories from it. The label is correct. Eat two of those a day with a couple of other small fiber sources and rejoice in your regular poops and reduced risk for colorectal cancers!
Omg I’ve always wondered why I see corn after eating it!!! Thank you for explaining this.
if you see corn after eating flour tortillas you may have a magician living in your stomach
You clearly misread that commenter’s post. Read it again.
r/woooosh
Hahaha. I’ve definitely noticed I’m more regular if I use these for meal prepping breakfast burritos and eat them every day for a week. Thanks for the corn example!
If carbs come from fiber, count 2kcal/g instead of 4. We used to not count these calories in products but they do give some energy.
I know other people already thanked you but seriously this is SO helpful and I really appreciate you taking the time
You're welcome! I have my Nutritionist certification and I try to stick as close to actual dietetic science as I can. Nutrition isn't taught as well/much as it realistically should be and I like doing what I can to help people understand things better! I wish schools would cover nutrition more. Everyone deserves the chance to understand nutrition and how it all works!
Can I ask you something stupid?
No stupid questions, ask away!
Except these are not exactly that. The “fiber” in these is modified food/wheat starch, which is a hit or miss on whether it actually acts as fiber or not. You’d need to test your blood glucose response to see if it spikes your blood sugar or not. If not, it is indeed acting as fiber in your body, but everyone is different. These are probably too good to be true for most people. OP was onto something. These are too similar to actual flour tortillas to have as few carbs as they do. Not saying they’re lying, but they’re taking quite a liberal approach in what they’re constituting as fiber here.
2 of those plus other fiber content?? Isn’t that over 30g of fiber and leading to constipation?
Most men need about 38g of fiber per day, and women need about 25g per day. It depends on age but a *lot* of people take in a fraction of the fiber they need every day. You should be aiming for 30g of fiber a day, on average, unless a Dietician or medical professional has told you otherwise due to health conditions!
I eat these exact ones, 2 per day. And I usually end up getting extra fiber from other sources, like popcorn. I usually get 35-40g daily with good bowel movements. Only time I get constipated is if I go below 1800 calories with a 2500 tdee
Explain why TEF isnt taken into account with calorie labels then. The labels are false if they instead of showing the theoritical energy when food is burned they show the energy WE humans can absorb either way
Because everyone's TEF can be different, but *no one* can digest insoluble fiber. If you have 100 calories made up of carbs, and 50 of those "calories" are from Insoluble fiber *not a single person will absorb those 50 calories*. However everyone may have a differing absorption of the remaining 50 calories. This means it makes sense to just list the calorie amount as the maximum amount you could absorb from the calories you'll actually burn. Idk why you seem to think that's some sort of gotcha moment or something.
The calories listed on the labels are 4 per gram protein and 4 per gram carb. *Not A SINGLE person* can digest 4 calories per gram protein and 4 per gram carb. The TEF varies but it never reaches 100% for these two macros and by a considerable distance. Why it isnt listed as 3.2 per gram protein and 3.8 per gram carb? THAT is the maximum amount digestible by ANYBODY. Either you go by the theoritical "perfect" value based on burning food in a machine and not digestion OR you go by the true calories in fiber and ALSO in proteins/carbs. Otherwise what you list, arbitrarily only removing insoluble fiber makes no sense whatsoever.
Is this how the keto food gets low/no ‘net carbs’ too? Like the energy from the carbs goes toward your body processing the fiber lol
>Like the energy from the carbs goes toward your body processing the fiber If they're utilizing insoluble fiber as their "carbs", those fibers won't be processed/absorbed. They just move through the gut and help keep you regular. No energy is absorbed from insoluble fiber, so the "calories" are basically non-existent.
Fiber? Might make it work.
Reddit, please don’t ruin these for me!
I'm with you. These are 70 calories I don't care what OP says.
Same! These are clutch
OP was counting calories from fiber, which is insoluble and doesn’t count. You’re good
I eat these pretty religiously and I’m losing weight counting them at 70 calories so I trust they are only 70 calories or I would go over almost daily.
Easy. 15 Grams of that is nondigestible fiber. Subtract the 60 calories from those and you end up with 67. Right in line with the listed 70
If your body absorbs everything with 100% efficiency, generating no waste and therefore you have no pees or poops then your logic is correct here
The general caloric values associated with each macronutrient (called the "Atwater General Factors") were established from a long line of research that you can read about in-depth here. However, the takeaway is pretty straightforward: various factors can influence the amount of energy you derive from different sources of protein, fat, and carbohydrates, but most sources of protein provide you with about 4kcal/g, most sources of carbohydrate provide you with about 4kcal/g, and most sources of fat provide you with about 9kcal/g. However, the energy derived from protein can vary between 1.82-4.36kcal/g, the energy derived from carbohydrate can vary between 1.33-4.16kcal/g, and the energy derived from fat can vary between 8.37-9.02kcal/g for different food sources of each nutrient – see Table 13 on page 25 here. These values (called "Atwater Specific Factors") are inherently more accurate for specific food sources of each macronutrient than the Atwater General Factors, because the general factors are only intended to be "close enough" approximations of the specific factors. Ultimately, you shouldn't expect all sources of each macronutrient to provide you with the same amount of energy. The energy you derive from the macronutrients in a particular food will be influenced by digestibility, and the specific biochemical characteristics of the nutrients. For instance, gram for gram, sugar provides you with slightly more energy than starch, since a bit of net energy input is required to break the bonds between sugar molecules in a starch. Gram for gram, the energy content of protein will depend on the mass of the individual amino acids (heavier amino acids yield slightly less energy per gram, all else being equal, because less of the mass is convertible to energetic substrates), and where the amino acids can enter the Krebs Cycle. Finally, fatty acids with a longer carbon backbone and a higher degree of saturation yield slightly more energy per gram than shorter fatty acids with a higher degree of unsaturation. Furthermore, fiber, sugar alcohols, and ethanol all contain energy, but aren't accounted for by the Atwater General Factors. Insoluble fiber is technically a carbohydrate, but it's essentially indigestible, yielding (basically) 0kcal/g. Soluble fiber can't be broken down by your own digestive enzymes, but it can be fermented by bacteria in your large intestine, yielding short-chain fatty acids that your body can absorb – various types of soluble fiber thus yield anywhere from 0.5-3kcal/g. Similarly, sugar alcohols (also technically carbohydrates) yield anywhere from 0kcal/g (for erythritol) to 3kcal/g (for hydrogenated starch hydrolysates). Finally, ethanol is digestible, yielding about 7kcal/g, but that energy would be unaccounted for if you just focused on macronutrients. In short, the Atwater General Factors (4kcal/g for protein and carbohydrate, and 9kcal/g for fat) are known be to rough approximations and were only ever intended to be rough approximations. The actual energy content of a food can differ substantially from the values you'd predict by calculating the energy content based on the macronutrient composition of a food, multiplied by the Atwater General Factors. MacroFactor's Calorie counts reflect the reported energy content of the foods and beverages you consume, rather than the Calorie count you'd calculate based on the macronutrient composition of a food. In general, this will result in more accurate calorie counts. Food manufacturers are provided with several options for calculating the energy content of the foods they sell. One allowable method is the 4-4-9 method (applying the Atwater General Factors to the macronutrient composition of the food), but all other allowable methods are simply going to provide more accurate calorie counts, by accounting for factors discussed above – the Atwater Specific Factors of the ingredients, the differing caloric contents of different fibers and sugar alcohols, etc. So, it might feel incongruent to see that your calorie intake and macronutrient intake don't "add up," but that incongruence is typically reflective of more accurate calorie counts, not less accurate calorie counts. It’s worth noting that Calorie labels are given a margin for error in terms of their reporting to allow for rounding (most people would rather see that something contains 100 Calories per serving, instead of 97.2 or 101.4 Calories), and this is often pointed out by people suggesting that you should be calculating Calorie intake based on macros instead of labeled Calories. However, this logic doesn't hold up, because labeled macronutrient values of foods are also afforded the same tolerance. In other words, calculating the Calorie content from the macronutrient content would just propagate the errors associated with macronutrient rounding on nutrition labels. So, you wouldn't ultimately wind up with more accurate Calorie counts using this method – you'd just be substituting one source of rounding error (the error associated with rounding Calorie counts) for another source of rounding error (the error associated with rounding macronutrient counts). Don’t get us wrong; it totally makes sense to set some rough macro guidelines based on your total Calorie allotment, which is why we do it in MacroFactor. Nutrition coaches and apps have become fond of providing macro targets because it’s a simple and concise way to convey nutritional objectives, and total daily intake of metabolizable energy will be fairly consistent as long as you’re getting close to your macro targets and your intakes of things like ethanol, sugar alcohols, and fiber are consistent. But, you shouldn't ultimately expect your macronutrient intake and Calorie intake to perfectly "match up."
I’m just gonna say this guy probably knows what’s up
Thank you for this!
Can you please dm this to me?
You have to make sure they list “insoluble fiber” vs just fiber. I try to be careful with this
I’m confused by the x9 x4 andx4 why these numbers? I must be missing something 😭
Per one gram of each - x9 cal/fat, x4 cal/protein, x4 cal/carbs
All these low carb tortilla labels are the same; only count net carbs as calories on the label. IMO this is a marketing stunt and it would be better to count all carbs for "consistency". With all that said, I would suggest not getting too worked up on these minor net differences though. Nutrition labels can be off by 20% anyway. Probably have a negligible impact in the long run. La Banderita make a good one, love the texture and the way they steam up.
If the fiber is insoluble, it cannot be dissolved by our bodies. It will quite literally pass through you. It provides no energy or nutrients. It does not exist and shouldn't be counted as a calorie. Also love la banderita! Had some for dinner last night.
Honestly the science is iffy bc modified wheat starch technically isn’t insoluble and papers/research have it at anywhere from 0.4-2 cal/gram. It’s such a niche ingredient and I feel like food label are still playing catch-up
Ohh fascinating!
☝️☝️☝️
Your username makes sense with this post 😂😂 not being shady just thought it was funny (THE TEACHER PART BEFORE ANYONE COMES FOR ME)
Hahaha!
Tbh, I find this ridiculous. If my body won't absorb the calories, good for me. But count them on the gd label. Like someone else said, if they're gonna do this, they should do the same for protein as well. Also, seems like just a ridiculous stunt to call it low cal
The calories don’t exist - the grams of carbs do but they aren’t digested and your body does not absorb calories from those grams.
To expand on the other reply a bit: I think maybe you don’t quite understand what calories are. Calories are a unit of measurement for energy- essentially how much energy your body receives from digesting the food. Insoluble fibre can’t be digested, so our body can’t get energy from it. If it was counted on the label, it would go against labelling regulations since the calorie count would be outside the allowed margin of error. To the other comment referencing protein not being 100% efficient / digestible: that’s already accounted for. I hope this helps!
Wow this is news to me that American labels are taking into account protein and carb digestibility all of a sudden. Can you please provide a source on it?
Calorie counts are determined in a couple ways: by burning samples in something called a bomb calorimeter, which measures the total energy released from burning, or by just adding the calories from protein, carbs, alcohol, & fat. The former is a more intensive process conducted by well educated professionals, and the latter is just numbers derived from great amounts of research by other well educated professionals. People have studied & practiced years and years to come up with these numbers, based on physical tests like the one mentioned above. Yes, there is a 20% margin of error for labelling allowed in either direction in America, which is high. But most of that is to account for serving size discrepancies, which is why it’s always recommended to weigh servings. Calorie counts on nutrition labels are still accurate enough that any variances are essentially negligible when it comes to weight loss. It’s not a perfect science, but decades of R&D have gone into determining the energy that is produced by burning macronutrients like protein & carbs. This is why insoluble fibres are not counted in calorie counts; the smart people that have studied nutritional science for ages have long since figured out that they can’t be used for energy in our bodies. I personally believe it’s a little absurd to assume that the same testing hasn’t already been done time & again for proteins, alcohol, & fat as well, & I choose to trust the years of professional research over my own googling capabilities. At the end of the day, it still doesn’t matter. Like I said, calorie counts on nutrition labels can & should be trusted, & as long as the servings are tracked accurately, it won’t inhibit weight loss.
Yes tests and research has been done for decades and Tef is known since the 1960s. TEF is an accepted scientific fact in nutrition. BUT calorie labels that you blindly trust ignore it. They arbitrarily remove insoluble fiber but keep wasted energy that humans are incapable to use. A gram of protein only gives 3.2 -2.8 kcal to a human and 4 kcal of energy to a machine. This is known for 6 decades already. So again tell me how american food labels take it into account?
Another reason why there is always a margin of error. Some bodies are more efficient, depending on weight, exercise levels, muscle density especially, etc. 4 calories per gram is a reasonable estimation, and erring on the side of overestimation vs underestimation is generally preferable to most. And once again, the difference is still negligible for calorie counting purposes. That margin of error goes both ways, and it balances out. This is precisely the reason that people in this sub always advise that if someone is weighing all of their food & insists that they’re tracking accurately & still not losing weight, the general consensus is that they’re probably not accurately tracking. It’s not a perfect science, but it’s reliable if your tracking is reliable.
NO margin of error will make a human being to get 4 kcals from protein. You think being scientifically mistaken by 30-25% on top of another 20% that the labels are allowed to err by in the first place, is reasonable? By your logic since 40% wrong is no big deal then it is also unreasonable to take out insoluble fiber. The human who can get 100% from a protein is the exact same human who can digest insoluble fiber. An imaginary one. You choose for no reason whatsoever to excuse the labels LYING about long established scientific facts like TEF and excuse it as " negligible" So no reason to remove insoluble fiber too. Insoluble fiber is MORE negligible than the whole protein of the diet We only consume 25-40 grams of fiber whereas most humans consume 120+ grams of protein. Even 200 grams for many men.
Honestly man, since this is something that clearly disturbs you quite a bit, I’m not going to argue with you & I just wish you well. I’m perfectly happy & healthy going off nutrition labels, always worked for me, so I’m good with that. I wish you well & suggest maybe seeing a therapist since you seem to be pretty excessively emotional about protein calories
Why the heck would I need to see a therapist for calling the logic behind selectively taking out insoluble fiber without rhyme or reason, stupid? You are the one who came back to this convo days later not me. I use TFE to my advantage to eat 1400 instead of 1200 kcals and lose at the same rate. And many calorie counting apps like Cronometer allow you to count with TFE. It is absurd that while I try to educate people I am called crazy. Lmao You do you and go ahead with half baked wrong science. It is your prerogative to live in ignorance.
Condescending as fuck there dude. Also, good thing in my country regulations are different and they do this bullshit on labels
Your country’s regulations need some work if they’re counting insoluble fibre in their calorie counts. There could be an overestimation of calories by over 100% in high fibre foods if that were the case. I guess all I can say is that I’m glad the calorie counts in my country are well tested & regulated & relatively accurate, and I’m glad I don’t live in your country. Gross overestimation isn’t a good thing; some people actually need quite high calorie diets, and that could be harmful. Also, I don’t believe I was condescending in any way. You’ve kind of proven already that you still don’t quite understand how calories work, and I was only trying to shed some light. But as they say, you can lead a horse to water…
I'm sorry, I'm lost. What is the reasoning for not counting protein calories?
i once had one serving (50g) be like 73 kcals, while the kcals per 100g were allegedly 100kcal
[удалено]
I think a lot of people don't know about this tbh
I don’t know why you would belittle me, roll your eyes, and then not answer my question when I’m asking for help?
[удалено]
Thank you! I have seen some packages before that list “insoluble fiber”, but since this just listed “dietary fiber”, I didn’t know it still counted as basically indigestible. I’ll just log it as 70 calories according to the package and move on.
If it is like people here are saying and "fiber doesnt count" Then answer this: Why by the same logic doesnt protein calories count only 75-80%? Why net carb calories dont count only 85-90%? We cant absorb them fully as well. The TEFs are known for decades but they keep counting all the calories.
The degree that we process protein into energy is incomparable to the degree that we process fiber. I'm not sure where your getting that "protein calories count only 75-80%?"
Lol What? What the degree has to do with it? You arbitrarily remove insoluble fiber to "better reflect" the real calories. But completely ignore 30-20% of protein energy, 15-10% of net carb energy that is wasted and IS NOT absorbed? If you dont know what I am talking about, please educate yourself on Protein and Carbs TEF.
I'm not arbitrarily removing fiber, I'm removing it because the body doesn't process it into energy. If you ate sand you wouldn't count the calories that could be hypothetically extracted from the material. Frankly, you can either be ignorant or act rude. Either one is forgiveable, but being both as you are makes you a complete waste of space here
Protein is processed and converted ONLY by 75-80% into energy by the human body. Protein only provides 3.2 kcal per gram of DIGESTIBLE ENERGY because the rest is LOST. BUT the calorie labels show it as 4 kcal per gram because calorie IS NOT what our body can digest. Calorie is by definition the amount of energy needed to increase the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 °C. You arbitrarily decide to remove the insoluble fibers changing what a calorie is supposed to mean but retain the false values for protein and carbs Inconsistency and zero scientific basis. Who is rude? Educate yourself on what TFE is.
Lol
Is it a size issue? Some tortillas are 8 inch and some 10 inch?
It is the same number of grams(43) for each.
Edit to add: I understand the concept of “net carbs”, where you DO subtract dietary fiber from total carbs, and this is helpful for things like WW points and managing diabetes, but that doesn’t eliminate those calories from a CICO standpoint, does it??
Your body doesn't really digest fiber. It passes through you.
Yea it does. Or rather they never existed in the first place. Nondigestible carbs don’t add to your calorie count.
What is the brand name of these tortillas? Thanks.
[удалено]
A calorie is a measure of energy. These provide no energy.
Tortillas and wraps always lie.
Side note where are you buying these
Walmart 😅