This is more of an FYI for people based in the UK who are using American tools to track their diets.
It will certainly be of interest for anyone on a low carb diet.

Something I've discovered since tracking my calories is a discrepancy between how carbs and fibre (or fiber for any Americans reading this ;)) grams are recorded.

It seems that the standard in the US is to record the total carbs (including fibre)
You then subtract the amount of fibre to get your net carbs, these are the calories that you actually burn.

E.g. In Fitday roasted almonds have the following macronutrients.

100g provides:
607 calories
55g fat
18g carbs
11g fibre
21g protein

Tesco Almonds bought in the UK have the following stats.

100g provides:
614 calories
56g fat
7g carbs
7.5g fibre
21g protein

For the US one the amount of digestible carbs is 18-11 = 7g
55*9 + 7*4 + 21*4 = 607
Whereas the UK one only shows net carbs.

56*9 7*4 + 21*4 = 616

Just thought I'd point this out in case any UK people are subtracting fibre from total carbs to get net carbs.
If you're using food labelled in the UK this approach generally won't work.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean but I always take fibre as an individual entity by which I mean I ignore it except for the total I consume a day.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean but I always take fibre as an individual entity by which I mean I ignore it except for the total I consume a day.
It's also relevant in calculating your calorie counts. I might be wrong, but this is how I understand it:

Fibre passes right through the body; ie. it is not digestible, and does not actually provide any energy.

The UK labels take this into account and do not count the fibre weight as something completely different from the carbohydrate weight. However, in the US, the carbohydrate weight includes the weight of fibre, and therefore must actually be subtracted out.

If you do the calculations for the US labelled almonds, just ignoring the impact of the fibre:
55g fat 495 calories
18g carbs 72 calories
11g fibre
21g protein 84 calories

total 651 calories. You're 44 calories out. The 11 grams of fibre each have 0 calories, not 4, as you might think.

I don't understand why the labels are like that. :confused:

Inulin is another one that confuses things. In Canada, it was not recognized as a fibre (I think it might be now, however), so the identical food products in Canada and the US had very different nutrition labels.

One more reason why I don't make a habit out of counting my calories. :p

Exactly, Guava has it spot on.

Basically if you're in the UK and are on a low carb diet measurig net carbs then you shouldn't subtract the fibre.
The figure given for your food is the net carb amount.

This differs from how things are measured in the US so be careful.

If you're using a tool like FitDay it can mess up your macronutrient percentages as well because of the different ways of meauring.

Fibre passes right through the body; ie. it is not digestible, and does not actually provide any energy.

Interesting - I didn't know that :tucool:

This is interesting and has answered a question I had. It also explains how I've had some products here in the UK that had more fibre than carbs, which I had been led to be believe was impossible.

Thanks for pointing this out. :tucool:

Sorry for pulling up an old topic - but I see in most UK labels, they say something like:

Carbohydrate = XXg
(of which sugars) = YYg

Therefore, is the actual carbs that those on low carb diets consider is YYg. Fibre is therefore XX minus YY?

Sorry for pulling up an old topic - but I see in most UK labels, they say something like:

Carbohydrate = XXg
(of which sugars) = YYg

Therefore, is the actual carbs that those on low carb diets consider is YYg. Fibre is therefore XX minus YY?Carbs are sugar, starch, sugar alcohols, and fiber. People on low carb diets are often told not to count fibre nor to count sugar alcohols, but I'm pretty sure they count starches.