I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I'm confused about the labeling on corn bran. Here are the "facts."

Nutrition Information : Corn bran (crude)

Water (g/100g) 4.71
Food Energy (Calories) (kcal/100g) 224
Protein (g/100g) 8.36
Total Lipid (fat)(g/100g) 0.92
Ash (g/100g) 0.36
Carbohydrate (g/100g) 85.64
Total Dietary Fibre (g/100g) 85.5
Total Sugars (g/100g) 0

Okay, now that you've sifted through that, here's my question: if all of the carbs in corn bran are coming from fiber, and fat and protein make up only about 40 of the 224 calories/100g, where are the other calories coming from? I thought fiber was indigestible, and therefore essentially calorie-free. Am I missing something?

Any thoughts are greatly appreciated!

If you do the rough calculation, the totals should add up to the calories stated on the label

Carbohydrates: .14 x 3.9 = .546
Fat: .92 x 8.3 = 7.363
Protein: 8.36 x 3.5 = 29.26

But they don't. They only add up to 37.16 cals. There's 186.84 cals missing. If you divide that by the carbohydrate factor (3.9) you find 48 missing carbohydrate grams.

Those same wacky numbers are on the USDA Data base too. There is something about the nutritional statement that is quite wrong.

Karen

Thanks, Karen! So should I count the unaccounted calories then? (The calorie count is probably accurate, right?) It's still not especially high carb, but not the wonder food it seems to have claimed to be.

And here I thought it would be a great addition to my diet...if only I hadn't looked more closely at the label.

remember, most foods in the USDA database calc CHO "by difference" - that is, after the water, the protein and the fat - the remainder is CHO. and that gets counted in calorie totals at 4 kcal/gm.
The fact that we "know" fiber is undigested doesn't allow them to remove it from the gross CHO measurements nor from the calorie count.

Hi Lisa,

I have always been under the impression, based on information which may no longer be correct, that calorie counts were determined in a separate test in laboratory conditions. That's why I just assumed the calorie count would probably be more correct than the fiber count. At least, this is the way I've used on this WOL, finding hidden carbs and such based on the calorie counts.

Maybe the methods have changed, though. Anyone know for sure?

but calorie counts are external burning (AFAIK, IIRC) not metabolizing in a human. So calories are probably correct but inclusive of fiber as CHO. But I could be wrong - it has been awhile since I took nutrition at university and the methods could have changed, as you say.