0g carb chili con carne tinned
 

Hi does anyone know where I can get Nalley Jalapeno Hot Chili Con Carne w/Beans
This is made from birds eye and boasts a nice 20g carbs 21g of fibre leaving net carbs 0g ( I have checked to see if the fibre was already subtracted)
but I have only seen it advertised in america

Hi there,

I hate to burst your ballon, but the fibre will definitely have been subtracted. ;)
First of all, there is no such thing as a negative carb count, and secondly beans will always have some carbs.

Sorry.

How about making your own recipe where you can control the exact amount of beans, if any?

Rosebud:rose:

Hi Rosebud
Did I read this wrong then or has someone writen it wrong please check as I got the info off the carb counter off this website
if you enter "NALLEY Chili Con Carne with Beans, canned entree" could you please take a look so I know where I went wrong

Dear FATMAN2,

Th eproblem is this. In the UK they already subtract the carbs when they put it on the tin. In the USA they don't. There is asticky about this on the top of the column.

Sorry but if it says 20g of carbs that's what it's got - plus 21g of fibre.

I don't think this is regulated by law in the States. It's just usual practice. Maybe they are following the Uk Model! Anyway, a sRosebud says, if it's got beans it's got carbs.

You could make your own chilli con carni using soya beans if you can find them?

PS I just looked at the UK heinz site - can't find them.

Hi Fletch
I understand what every body is saying but did you check out the carb counter on this site it defintley says ecc (carbs - fiber) 0.00g I am not saying rosebud is wrong what I am now asking is the carb counter on this site wrong ??

Hi there,

The UK has the same regulations as Australia. I know it can seem confusing, but when the manufacturer says "total" carbs, they really mean "net" carbs, ie the fibre has already been subtracted.
The carb counter on this site is for North American and other countries where manufacturers are not required to subract the fibre first. Just to confuse everybody, some manufacturers there do indeed subtract the fibre - leading to mass confusion as you can imagine.

But the bottom line is - your can of chilli definitely has an ECC of 20.

If you read the sticky by Little Anne at the top of this forum, she has explained this for you. :)

Rosebud:rose:

Fatman2 is right
 

Sorry, but I think you guys are missing the point.

What Fatman2 is saying is that THERE IS A MISTAKE in the site's carb counter.

NALLEY Chili Con Carne with Beans, canned entree is INDEED being listed as a ZERO ECC product

You can confirm this, by visiting the site's carb counter, and putting NALLEY in the search field and pressing GO (as I just did). You will see the above product listed at zero ECC.

Those with sufficient authority may want to correct this.

Ah, now I understand. Yes, there seems to be an error in the Carb Counter in this particular case. I have let our webmaster know.

Rosebud:rose:

That's not our tool, that's the USDA database, SR 17. Just checked their site, and it's identical to ours. They have a few items where fiber is greater than carbs. Not saying it's correct, but that's the entry in their database.

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/nut_search.pl

Wa'il

In the USA, manufacturers are permitted to pre-subtract fiber before calculating the caloric energy value of the food; this is often (but not always) done with high fiber foods.

From the USDA nutrient database FAQ's:
In the case of the Nalley Chili w. beans, the fiber content is very high so it has been pre-subtracted. If the fiber grams were not subtracted, the total carbs would show 41g.

hth,

Doreen

I understand the text, and agree that IN CALCULATING CALORIES fiber should be subtracted (always or at least for high-fiber food).

But whether fiber is subtracted or not in CALORIE CALCULATION, and how it is listed in the table are independent things.

It seems that their general policy is to include fiber in the CH total. It is perfectly possible for them to subtract the fiber in calculating calories, and still list the fiber as part of the CH content, for the sake of consistency and preventing confusion.

They should be CONSISTENT in the way they LIST the fiber (either always include it in the CH total or never include it).

In other words, they simply have a bug in their database.

I'd bet if someone emailed them, they'd fix it. (Not the calorie count, which is fine, but the way they list the fiber).

Thanx Sucraphobe
Just wanted to know whether I was reading things right as I was searching for lc foods

I'll see if we can have the tool figure out which entries in the USDA-SR17 database have already subtracted the fiber and which ones didn't.

Some results may come out as undecided, if the counts are too close to call, and in this case, we can show the ECC as the carbs by difference, and add a question mark next to it, with a link, to explain to the reader what's the deal with that item.

For the record, the USDA-SR17 database has 4 items with a fiber count greater than the carbs. However, the ones with fiber already subtracted can be much more spread.

I'll post some numbers soon, for those curious about it :)

Wa'il