Resistant Starches (Again)

[retroworx]

[COLOR="Red"](edited: OOPS, SORRY, SEE THIRD MESSAGE FOR LABEL)[/COLOR]

Here I go again, trying to figure these labels out. This one claims zero cals, but has 10 net carbs from SOMETHING, right?

Is the deal that they can claim even the NET carbs on this as non-digestible, non-caloric because the starch is "resistant" to digestion? But how do they know how much is resisted?? Wouldn't that be particular to each individual? And why does Resistant Wheat Starch still list calories then, when this resistant starch does not?

I know I keep going round and round on these, and Jude has tried to explain this to me before -- she'll probably chime in here and thump me on the head. Maybe I should go back and review that excellent explanation of nutrition labels on the Expert Foods site -- it's been a while.

Heavy sigh.

[KlingonBabe]

Looks like a frankenfood to me.

[retroworx]

Here I go again, trying to figure these labels out. This one claims zero cals, but has 10 net carbs from SOMETHING, right?

Is the deal that they can claim even the NET carbs on this as non-digestible, non-caloric because the starch is "resistant" to digestion? But how do they know how much is resisted?? Wouldn't that be particular to each individual? And why does Resistant Wheat Starch still list calories then, when this resistant starch does not?

I know I keep going round and round on these, and Jude has tried to explain this to me before -- she'll probably chime in here and thump me on the head. Maybe I should go back and review that excellent explanation of nutrition labels on the Expert Foods site -- it's been a while.

Heavy sigh.

[retroworx]

Originally Posted by KlingonBabe

Looks like a frankenfood to me.

No doubt! But still, they have to work with the existing label parameters, yes?

[KlingonBabe]

Originally Posted by retroworx

No doubt! But still, they have to work with the existing label parameters, yes?

Well, since I don't consider it food, its nutritional attributes are a moot point to me.

[retroworx]

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is whether I really have to count this as 10 net carbs or whether it reacts in the body as zero carbs, since it's zero calories (indicating to me that it is really 100% non-digestible, kind of like oat fiber).

And yeah, KlingonBabe, I have to admit I am the Queen of Frankenfoods or at the very least, the Princess of Faux Fiber.

[retroworx]

Originally Posted by KlingonBabe

Well, since I don't consider it food, its nutritional attributes are a moot point to me.

Your objections are duly noted.

[Charski]

I think it's a mistake - I'd give ol' Honeyville a call and see - they're nice folks!

[Kevinpa]

Not that this has anything to do about your question but, the label you are showing is resistant corn starch. Honeyville does not now, nor has it ever carried resistant wheat starch.

[retroworx]

Originally Posted by Charski

I think it's a mistake - I'd give ol' Honeyville a call and see - they're nice folks!

Good suggestion, Charski. I just called them and no one on the phone had an answer but I did leave a message for their "Quality Control" person.

I just saw the same product on the King Arthur site, btw, and they report calories, so the Honeyville may very well be an error or one of the areas where there is flexibility allowed in the fiber vs calories reporting.

From King Arthur:

[gharkness]

Originally Posted by retroworx

And yeah, KlingonBabe, I have to admit I am the Queen of Frankenfoods or at the very least, the Princess of Faux Fiber.

Unhuhhhhhhh - I'll fight ya for that title any day

OK, well maybe I'll be the Duchess, since you have queen and princess sewed up.....

[retroworx]

Originally Posted by gharkness

Unhuhhhhhhh - I'll fight ya for that title any day

OK, well maybe I'll be the Duchess, since you have queen and princess sewed up.....

Hey, there!

If I had known you were around I would definitely not have dared to claim the title. Thought I could get way with one.

[Soobee]

Retroworx, I have used this product in my bread recipes in the past. I've been counting it as 0, since the calories were 0. I have to say it had no negative impact on my hunger levels, weight loss, or any other telltale signs of hidden carbs.

[retroworx]

Originally Posted by Soobee

Retroworx, I have used this product in my bread recipes in the past. I've been counting it as 0, since the calories were 0. I have to say it had no negative impact on my hunger levels, weight loss, or any other telltale signs of hidden carbs.

Good to hear from you, Soobee.

Can you tell me what properties this added to your bread or other baked goods? Were you simply trying to increase the fiber or stretch the volume for a lower overall calorie/carb count? Any suggestions for me if I decide to try some -- add more liquid, bake for less time or temp, etc? Any thoughts on how this might compare to, say, oat fiber or resistant wheat starch?

Thanks!

[retroworx]

Originally Posted by Kevinpa

Not that this has anything to do about your question but, the label you are showing is resistant corn starch. Honeyville does not now, nor has it ever carried resistant wheat starch.

Hi Kevin:

Just now seeing your reply

Yes, I know that the label above is for Honeyville's resistant corn starch. I was just wondering how dif manufacturers/distributors of all the resistant starches reported stats, whether there was some sort of consistent approach to the resistant starches.

Please check out my post below which will show the stats sheet Honeyville was kind enough to provide -- can you help me out there?

Thanks!

[retroworx]

Originally Posted by Soobee

Retroworx, I have used this product in my bread recipes in the past. I've been counting it as 0, since the calories were 0. I have to say it had no negative impact on my hunger levels, weight loss, or any other telltale signs of hidden carbs.

I followed Charski's advice and contacted Honeyville. They were kind enough to email me some stat sheets which I have finally converted to jpg format so that I could post them here and get some help interpreting them.

Soobee -- looks like the sheets are reporting calories?

Can someone break this down for me? Essentially what I am trying to decipher is carb/calorie/fat/protein count PER TABLESPOON.

Help!

[Kisal]

It has 1.4 cal/g. There are about 28g in an ounce, which is about 2 T, so it would have pretty close to 20 cals/T.

It is 89% Total carbs, so I would say that's about 3g/T.

Fiber, at a minimum of 54%, would run about 2g, maybe 2.5g.

It isn't specific about protein and fat, but based on the calories and carbs, I estimate about 1g protein and (very roughly) .6g fat per T.

That's about the best I can do for you with the information on the sheet.

[retroworx]

Originally Posted by Kisal

It has 1.4 cal/g. There are about 28g in an ounce, which is about 2 T, so it would have pretty close to 20 cals/T.

It is 89% Total carbs, so I would say that's about 3g/T.

Fiber, at a minimum of 54%, would run about 2g, maybe 2.5g.

It isn't specific about protein and fat, but based on the calories and carbs, I estimate about 1g protein and (very roughly) .6g fat per T.

That's about the best I can do for you with the information on the sheet.

Kisal:

Thank you so much for helping me with this!

So we've determined that this info contradicts the nutrition stats reported on the Honeyville nutrition label which is shown in post #3 of this thread, yes? Looks like these sheets you have interpreted for me here put the stats closer to what King Arthur is reporting on their Hi-Maize label. (post #10)

Knew it was too good to be true. Heavy sigh.

P.S. I just emailed my contact at Honeyville to see if they can explain the discrepancy or whether they think the nutrition label is indeed in error. Wanted to add that they have been very nice and responsive so far.

[theislandgirl]

No thumping required, honey, it's definitely a typo (as you have found out by checking the Specification Sheets as provided by Honeyville) on the NF label on their retail packages. I would have told you sooner, but I've been hiding out, professionally procrastinating.

One of those (commercial/wholesale) spec sheets says 1.4cals/g and one says 1.6 ... not much, except when you scale up. Neither of them says how many grams in a given volume measure such as a Tablespoon but the original NF label says a Serving is 28g or approximately 1 ounce in weight. Note that 1 fluid ounce (a volume measure) WATER is approximately equal to 2 Tbsp or 15mL

I'm not at home and can't check my MasterCook to confirm (and Kevin probably knows this or has published this somewhere, too) as to whether 1 ounce/28g in weight of this product scopes out as 2 Tablespoons in volume, but I'd guestimate the weight/volume ratio is probably the same as regular corn starch, which should be easy to find on an NF or in a foods database, like the FDA's, i.e., how many grams to the Tsp or Tbsp.

Howzat for Ya?

[Kevinpa]

Originally Posted by theislandgirl

I'm not at home and can't check my MasterCook to confirm (and Kevin probably knows this or has published this somewhere, too) as to whether 1 ounce/28g in weight of this product scopes out as 2 Tablespoons in volume, but I'd guestimate the weight/volume ratio is probably the same as regular corn starch, which should be easy to find on an NF or in a foods database, like the FDA's, i.e., how many grams to the Tsp or Tbsp.

Howzat for Ya?

I did post this somewhere way back when.....it could have even been another forum but rather than taking hours to find it I re-weighed it now.

1 tablespoon is on the heavy side of 10g so 1 ounce is on the short side of 3 tablespoons.

[retroworx]

Originally Posted by theislandgirl

Howzat for Ya?

Very satisfying!

[retroworx]

Originally Posted by Kevinpa

I did post this somewhere way back when.....it could have even been another forum but rather than taking hours to find it I re-weighed it now.

1 tablespoon is on the heavy side of 10g so 1 ounce is on the short side of 3 tablespoons.

Many thanks, Kevin.

[Soobee]

I am confused. How many carbs in an ounce? Are you saying it is 1.6 x 28=44.8 carbs? Because I have baked with it and eaten it with NO negative effects. I believe I would have had a raging problem with 45 carbs per ounce.

[Kevinpa]

Originally Posted by Soobee

I am confused. How many carbs in an ounce? Are you saying it is 1.6 x 28=44.8 carbs? Because I have baked with it and eaten it with NO negative effects. I believe I would have had a raging problem with 45 carbs per ounce.

I wouldn't sweat it soobee. Retro is just mixing apples and oranges(cal/carbs) again trying to count beans and catch the manufacturer tricking us........

[retroworx]

Originally Posted by Kevinpa

I wouldn't sweat it soobee. Retro is just mixing apples and oranges(cal/carbs) again trying to count beans and catch the manufacturer tricking us........

Ooh, I wish you hadn't said this, Kevin, since I asked Honeyville to come over to this thread and see what might be up with their label. Might be why I haven't heard from them since.

I don't think they are being tricky at all; I think they may have made an honest mistake. (I don't always extend this benefit of the doubt, it's true. )

What I am REALLY trying to do is get "permission" to eat this. Gotta count those beans and see if they really fit into my plan.

[retroworx]

Originally Posted by Soobee

I am confused. How many carbs in an ounce? Are you saying it is 1.6 x 28=44.8 carbs? Because I have baked with it and eaten it with NO negative effects. I believe I would have had a raging problem with 45 carbs per ounce.

Soobee:

I think based on Kisal's calculations above (from the spec sheet, not the nutrition label) it is approx 2-3 net carbs per ounce?

[Kisal]

Originally Posted by retroworx

Soobee:

I think based on Kisal's calculations above (from the spec sheet, not the nutrition label) it is approx 2-3 net carbs per ounce?

I redid my calculations based on Kevinpa's measured weight of approximately 3 T/oz. Here are more accurate numbers. These numbers are very slightly greater than in actuality, due to 1 oz of the starch being slightly less than 3 T. For ease of calculation, I just rounded up to 3 T/oz.:

13 to 13.1 cals/T

1.63g Total Carbs/T

.71g Fiber

That totals 9.36 Calories/T.

The remaining 3.74 calories would be divided between the protein and fat. Since no information beyond "less than 1g" is given, you can assign any percentage you like. Just off the cuff, I would guess about .2g fat and .5g protein, but those really are just numbers I pulled out of thin air. It could easily be the other way around.

[retroworx]

Originally Posted by Kisal

I redid my calculations based on Kevinpa's measured weight of approximately 3 T/oz. Here are more accurate numbers. These numbers are very slightly greater than in actuality, due to 1 oz of the starch being slightly less than 3 T. For ease of calculation, I just rounded up to 3 T/oz.:

13 to 13.1 cals/T

1.63g Total Carbs/T

.71g Fiber

That totals 9.36 Calories/T.

The remaining 3.74 calories would be divided between the protein and fat. Since no information beyond "less than 1g" is given, you can assign any percentage you like. Just off the cuff, I would guess about .2g fat and .5g protein, but those really are just numbers I pulled out of thin air. It could easily be the other way around.

So the calories in your calculations are close to the King Arthur label at least, but the carbs are less. 'Course, the KA label lists 1.5 TBSP as 10 grams, so they are measuring more volume than we are, right?

See, this is why I come to you guys. This is MATH!, not cooking.

[Kisal]

Originally Posted by retroworx

See, this is why I come to you guys. This is MATH!,

I've been a math geek all my life! I work math problems for fun and entertainment, when things get a little slow around my house. I think it's better than TV!

[crazywoman-n-wy]

I'm with you on the math Retroworx. All this is one reason I never could count calories! Never could, still can't/don't.