Just because it says low carb on the label doesn’t mean it will be any less fattening, says Amanda Ursell

We warned you that low-carbohydrate foods were on their way from America to capture the hearts and minds of the desperate UK slimmer — and July sees the arrival of low-carb versions of Rolo and Kit Kat. Which means you still have time to digest some of the less-than-appetising facts about these and other low-carb products, such as the Coca-Cola C2 and a “miracle” low-carb spud. If they sell well in America, it is only a matter of time before they hit the shelves over here. So are they a healthy choice for slimmers or not?

Let’s start with the chocolate. Most of the carbohydrate in confectionery comes from sugar — and if you remove the sugar, you have to add something else to replace the lost bulk. In the case of low-carb Rolos and Kit Kats, one substitute ingredient is fat. So, while the “ordinary” sugar in standard Rolos falls from 34.3g per 57g tube to 3.4g in the low-carb version, the total fat content rises from 11.9g to 15.2g. Bad news for the low-fat dieter. And there’s more. Of those 15.2g, a whopping 8.9g is saturated, cholesterol-raising fat (as opposed to 6.2g in the normal pack).

Unsurprisingly, this is not something the maker, Nestlé, flags up on the label. What it does highlight is the “net carb” value — a new term that the average intelligent person would probably take to mean the total carbohydrate content.

This is not quite true. While some of this lost sugar bulk is made up by fat, the rest comes from “sugar alcohols”. These are still carbohydrates, but unlike “ordinary” sugars, they do not raise sugar levels in the blood, which will make them popular with high-protein, low-GI (glycaemic index) diet devotees — and explains why manufacturers have decided that such sugars should not be counted towards the net-carb figure on the label. The low-carb Kit Kat, for instance, has a virtuous-sounding net-carb value of just 4g, while a standard two-finger bar has 13g. The trouble is, nobody seems to be concerned about the calorie content. The extra fat needed to bulk up low-carb confectionery virtually negates removing the “ordinary” sugars. With the Kit Kat, you save just 14 calories.

Unlike confectionery, low-carb drinks don’t require any bulking out. The ordinary sugar is replaced with high-fructose corn syrup and artificial sweeteners, all of which are so intense that only half the amount (and so half the calories) is needed. The new Coca-Cola C2, for instance, has 45 calories per 224ml, compared to 100 calories in a regular version. So far, so good. But high-fructose corn syrup still raises blood sugar levels, a no-no for the Atkins and GI brigades.

They won’t be queuing up for the new Spud-U-Lite either. Despite the fact that scientists have reduced the carb value from 20g per 100g in a standard potato to about 14g, potatoes — whatever their carb value — raise blood glucose levels quite rapidly. The only benefit for other slimmers is that they contain fewer calories.

All of which adds up to the fact that low-carb foods are not the answer to the tidal wave of obesity engulfing our country. We have been down this road before. Low-fat cakes and biscuits did not make us slim and neither will this new wave of products promising low-carb nirvana. The only way to lose weight for good is to eat fewer calories, get off the sofa and get active.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspa...1133961,00.html





Whatever I may think of Ms Ursell (and her anti- low carb stance in the UK), I actually agree with this statement - eating these low carb frankenfoods are not the way to go - low carbing IMO should be about eating natural foods, and not using these processed foods as an alternative.

It's very difficult to give up familiar foods. It's so easy to say, "Oh, hey, look at this great low carb version of my favorite food! I don't have to give it up after all!" It was the same with all the low fat foods. Many people didn't bother to pay attention to ingredients or portion control. If people do the same with the low carb versions of these foods, nothing will change.

Labels are one of the most important dieting tools available to the general public, and often one of the most under-used as well. Take the time to read the labels. Study the ingredients. Learn which ingredients are good and which are bad.

I know I can usually be satisfied with the recommended portion sizes, but some people aren't. Understand portion sizes and change the numbers to reflect how much will actually be eaten. Know that if the portion is doubled, that calories, fat, protein, and carbohydrates double as well.

Some of the foods marketed for low carbers may not be bad at all, and some may be worse than eating the original counterpart. It all comes down to reading labels and making choices. We can choose to be healthy or we can choose to eat partially hydrogenated oils and high fructose corn syrup.

Someday, companies may learn that we want to be healthy, that we don't want to pollute our bodies with their processed flours, refined sugars, and chemically altered fats. This will only happen if we show them that's what we want. If we continue to purchase foods with trans-fatty acids and HCFS, etc., they'll keep making them. Let's show them what we really want!