Skip to main content
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Diabetes Care
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, abridged
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Follow ada on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Visit ada on Facebook
Diabetes Spectrum

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, Abridged
  • Browse
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • COVID-19 Article Collection
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, Abridged
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Diabetes Care
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, abridged
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Diabetes Spectrum
  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, Abridged
  • Browse
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • COVID-19 Article Collection
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, Abridged
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
Departments

“Low-Carbohydrate” Food Facts and Fallacies

  1. Janine Freeman, RD, LD, CDE and
  2. Charlotte Hayes, MMSc, MS, RD, LD, CDE
    Diabetes Spectrum 2004 Jul; 17(3): 137-140. https://doi.org/10.2337/diaspect.17.3.137
    PreviousNext
    • Article
    • Figures & Tables
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF
    Loading

    Ten years ago, weight-conscious Americans jumped on the fat-free bandwagon. Supermarket shelves were replete with products touting “reduced-fat” and “fat-free” labels, which implied that these products were healthier and lower-calorie alternatives to standard “high-fat” fare. Yet, in the same 10-year time interval, Americans have continued to struggle with ever-expanding waistlines, gaining an average of 1 lb/year.1 The prevalence of type 2 diabetes has risen simultaneously.2

    Thirty-eight percent of our population is currently attempting to lose weight.3 The latest trend in the highly lucrative, yet often fickle, diet industry is a resurgence of low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diets. Findings of a February 2004 survey by A.C. Nielsen, a leading market information company, revealed that 17.2% of households included someone on a low-carbohydrate diet. Slightly more, 19.2%, included someone who had tried a low-carb diet but had quit.4 This current diet trend directly counters the decade-old focus on low-fat diets and implicates carbohydrates as the culprit in America's obesity problem.

    In response to the low-carb resurgence, food manufacturers have rapidly revised food products and package claims to seemingly reduce the carbohydrate content of their products and increase consumer demand for them. Restaurant menus have incorporated purportedly low-carb entrees to accommodate demand for low-carb meals away from home. Aggressive marketing schemes imply that these products are healthier alternatives to standard high-carb fare and that they promote weight loss. For individuals with diabetes who are counting carbohydrates or attempting to lose weight, the current marketplace can be a source of a great deal of misinformation, cause considerable confusion, and possibly affect glycemic control.

    Confusing Labeling Terminology

    Many food manufacturers have created their own terminology for carbohydrate content that they claim has minimal effect on blood glucose. They suggest that consumers subtract carbohydrate contributed from sugar alcohols, fiber, and glycerin from the total carbohydrate value on the Nutrition Facts panel of packaged foods to determine the “net carbs,” “impact carbs,” “effective carbs,” or “net effective carbs” of these foods. While these terms sound slightly different, they are used by manufacturers to mean essentially the same thing.

    However, this calculation can substantially underestimate the actual carbohydrate value in many products and may result in insulin errors for people using carbohydrate counting to determine their insulin dosages. In addition, individuals with type 2 diabetes following a low-carb regimen for weight loss may erroneously interpret these “disappearing carbs” to mean “disappearing calories,” as well.

    Currently, there are no Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations for the use of carbohydrate claims on food package labels, as there are for claims about fat, such as “low-fat,” “reduced-fat,” and “fat-free.” Several organizations, including the Grocery Manufacturers of America, have petitioned the FDA to establish regulations for carbohydrate content claims. The FDA is working on guidelines for defining “low,” “reduced,” or “free” carbohydrates and for the use of the term “net” in relation to carbohydrate content of food, based on recent recommendations by its Obesity Working Group.

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service has implemented an interim policy that provides guidelines for the use of such labels on products within its jurisdiction, such as meat and poultry. The USDA permits manufacturers to use the terms “net carbs,” “impact carbs,” and “net effective carbs,” provided such claims are truthful, not misleading, and supported by calculations shown on the label.5

    The net effect of this labeling lingo is confusion and a host of inquiries to which health care professionals must respond.

    How Do Manufacturers Lower the Carbohydrate Content of Foods?

    A few creative chefs have replaced some naturally occurring carbohydrate with healthy lower-carbohydrate alternatives, such as making low-carbohydrate mashed “potatoes” with pureed cauliflower. But for the most part, food manufacturers are lowering the grams of carbohydrate in processed foods by altering the portion size or replacing naturally occurring carbohydrate with ingredients that are higher in protein, fat, or other types of carbohydrate. Examples include:

    1. substituting soy flour, soy protein, or wheat protein for refined flour

    2. adding fiber from wheat bran, oat bran, corn bran, inulin, or polydextrose as a bulking agent

    3. adding high-fat ingredients, such as nuts and oils

    4. replacing sugar with sugar alcohols, such as maltitol, lactitol, or sorbitol, or nonnutritive sweeteners, such as sucralose or acesulfame potassium

    Are the Terms “Net Carbs,” “Impact Carbs,” and “Net Effective Carbs” Truthful?

    Fiber and sugar alcohols (including glycerin) currently must be included in the total carbohydrate value shown in foods' Nutrition Facts panel. To appeal to the low-carb market, food manufacturers are subtracting these values from the total carbohydrate grams to yield a lower-carbohydrate value termed “net carbs,” “impact carbs,” “effective carbs,” or “net effective carbs” (Figure 1). The intent of these claims is to convince consumers that the products are beneficial to a low-carb diet because with their minimal effect on blood glucose, increases in insulin levels and consequent weight gain will not occur.

    Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Low-carb food package label.

    But is this labeling misleading? Do these alternative carbohydrate values have a minimal impact on glycemia?

    Sugar alcohols/polyols

    Sugar alcohols, or polyols, are hydrogenated carbohydrates that are used in foods primarily as sweeteners and bulking agents. Table 1 provides a list of commonly used sugar alcohols or polyols and their caloric values. Sugar alcohols provide 0.2–3.0 kcal/g, rather than the usual 4 kcal/g from completely absorbed carbohydrate, because they are incompletely absorbed in the small intestine. FDA regulations require that food manufacturers count polyols as 2 kcal/g or use the specific kcal/g value determined by the FDA for a single-sugar alcohol.6 Because of their incomplete absorption, consumption of polyols can cause flatulence or a laxative effect in varying degrees in some individuals.

    View this table:
    • View inline
    • View popup
    • Download powerpoint
    Table 1.

    Calories in Common Polyols

    Despite claims by many food manufacturers, sugar alcohols do affect the postprandial blood glucose response in individuals both with and without diabetes.7 In some studies, specific sugar alcohols elicited a lower glycemic response than glucose, fructose, and/or sucrose.7,8 In addition, a recent study showed maltitol syrup to have a significantly greater glycemic effect than other sugar alcohols.9

    The glycemic effect of sugar alcohols may vary because of the type and amount of sugar alcohol consumed or because of individual responses. The American Diabetes Association nutrition recommendations state: “There is no evidence that the amounts likely to be consumed in a meal or day will result in significant reduction in total daily energy intake or improvement in long-term glycemia.”10 The following general guidelines11–14 are frequently used for counseling individuals with diabetes in carbohydrate counting (Figure 2):

    1. Subtract half of the grams of total sugar alcohols (polyols) listed from the total carbohydrate value.

    2. Many sugar-free products that contain sugar alcohols, such as sugar-free hard candy and gum, would fall into the “free foods” category, with < 5 g of carbohydrate or < 20 kcal/serving, making it unnecessary to count the carbohydrate from the sugar alcohol.

    Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Guidelines for including dietary fiber and sugar alcohols (polyols) in carbohydrate counting.13,14

    Individuals with diabetes who adjust their insulin based on carbohydrate intake would be most likely to benefit from this information. However, many educators are finding the need to address the topic with other patients who have type 2 diabetes simply because of their interest in the carbohydrate information on food packages.

    Glycerin(e)/glycerol

    Glycerin (sometimes spelled glycerine), or glycerol, is a sweet, syrupy liquid that is about 75% as sweet as sucrose. It is chemically categorized as a polyol with 4.32 kcal/g. The FDA classifies glycerin as a Generally Recognized as Safe food additive. As a food additive, glycerin is used in a variety of products, including nutrition or energy bars, because of its ability to retain moisture, and reduced-fat frozen desserts, to prevent formation of ice crystals. Many nutrition bars have > 9 g of glycerin in a single-serving bar.

    According to the FDA, synthetic glycerin is produced by the hydrogenolysis of carbohydrates15 and must be included in the grams of total carbohydrate listed in the Nutrition Facts panel. If the label has a statement regarding sugars, the FDA requires the glycerin content per serving to be declared as sugar alcohol.16 Some food manufacturers disagree with the classification of glycerin as a carbohydrate and have been omitting it from their calculations.

    The metabolic fate of glycerin has yet to be determined, but it is believed to be converted into glucose primarily via gluconeogenesis.17 The effect of glycerin on blood glucose levels in individuals with diabetes is unknown.

    Dietary fiber

    The term dietary fiber includes a wide variety of food components, each having different physiological effects. Dietary fiber is not digested and absorbed in the small intestine like glucose. Fiber is fermented in the large intestine to produce fatty acids, which are then absorbed and used as energy. Foods rich in hemicelluloses and pectins (generally known as soluble fiber), such as fruits and vegetables, are more completely fermentable than foods rich in celluloses (insoluble fiber), such as cereals.18 Although the energy derived from fermented fiber varies among individuals, the estimated energy yield from fiber is between 1.5 and 2.5 kcal/g.18 Although fiber does contribute to calories, its effect on blood glucose is likely minimal. For individuals with diabetes who desire this level of detail, practitioners may suggest subtracting the total grams of dietary fiber from the grams of total carbohydrate on the Nutrition Facts panel. The effect is probably insignificant if the amount of dietary fiber is < 5 g.13,14

    Do Products Billed as “Low-Carb” Support a Healthy Weight Loss Regimen?

    Food products, whether manufactured or naturally occurring, must be evaluated within the context of the dietary goals they are intended to support. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate products advertised as “low-carb” with regard to the contribution they make to weight loss or maintenance and overall health.

    Table 2 compares a purportedly low-carb meal to a more traditional meal advocated by many professional organizations that promote health. Neither menu was devised with the intent to restrict calories, because caloric restriction is not a point of focus for many popular low-carb diets. Controlled-carb processed products were added to the low-carb meal as allowable deviations. When comparing the two meals, the following legitimate reasons for concern about the low-carb claim become apparent:

    1. The low-carb meal contains less food volume and potentially less satiety value than the traditional meal.

    2. The low-carb meal provides ∼ 520 more calories and ∼ 51 more grams of fat than the traditional meal.

    3. Total carbohydrate contained in the low-carb meal is 52 g compared with 83 g in the traditional meal—a difference of 31 g.

    4. Of the 52 g of total carbohydrate in the low-carb meal, 17 g are claimed to be “net carbs.” The other 35 g (27 of which are from the controlled-carb products) seem to be negated.

    View this table:
    • View inline
    • View popup
    • Download powerpoint
    Table 2.

    Comparison of a Low-Carb Dinner to a Traditional Dinner

    Individuals with diabetes should be advised that use of low-carb products does not necessarily lead to weight loss or improvements in metabolic measures.

    Implications of the Low-Carb Diet Trend

    History tells us that popular diets, like fashion trends, tend to cycle. The currently fashionable low-carbohydrate diet trend has experienced periods of more and less popularity during the past 40 years. Unfortunately, this diet trend promotes misconceptions about carbohydrates and can cause people to restrict health-promoting nutrients while guiding them to consume liberal amount of nutrients, especially saturated fat and cholesterol, that can negatively affect health.

    Perhaps the greatest risk of this diet trend is the impact it may have on eating behaviors of those individuals who have been unable to establish sensible relationships with food. Manipulations in food manufacturing and terminology that seemingly allow undesirable nutrients and, by association, their calories to magically disappear are psychologically appealing to dieters who are rationalizing how to eat more without having it count.

    Individuals with diabetes should be offered sound guidance about how to interpret truths and mistruths of any diet trend. This is crucial within the context of the low-carb trend because claims about the glycemic effects of carbohydrate foods and their contribution to insulin resistance/hyperinsulinemia and weight gain tend to be a central philosophical feature. Confusing labeling lingo that has been contrived and printed on packages of manufactured foods can create unique challenges for individuals with diabetes who must accurately count grams of carbohydrate to achieve glycemic control, particularly individuals on intensive insulin therapy.

    In truth, the rise in prevalence of overweight and obesity can largely be attributed to energy imbalance resulting from an increase in energy intake and decrease in energy expenditure—not to the excessive intake of any single nutrient.19 Diets that support severely restricting or omitting any single nutrient without offering psychosocial support and monitoring of metabolic parameters should be considered suspect. Severely restricting or omitting carbohydrates can have potential negative long-term health consequences, especially if healthful carbohydrate sources, such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and dairy foods, are severely restricted.

    Thus, not only amounts, but also sources of carbohydrate should be a focus of any discussion about meal planning.7 Highly processed grains, cereals, and sugars should be replaced with minimally processed whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and dairy foods for optimal nutritional benefits. Sweets and sugars should be used with moderation, especially for those who need to lose weight. When these sensible, but not headline news–making, guidelines are applied, use of highly processed and manufactured foods that manipulate carbohydrates becomes unnecessary.

    Footnotes

    • Janine Freeman, RD,LD,CDE, is a nutrition specialist at the University of Georgia Extension and a diabetes/nutrition consultant in Atlanta, Ga. Charlotte Hayes, MMSc, MS, RD, LD, CDE, is a nutrition and exercise consultant in Atlanta, Ga.

    • American Diabetes Association

    References

    1. ↵
      U.S. assistant surgeon general discusses obesity problem. Harvard Public Health Now, March 19, 2004. Available online at www.hsph.harvard.edu/now. Accessed 3/30/04
    2. ↵
      Mokdad AH, Bowman BA, Ford ES, Vinicor F, Marks JS, Koplan JP: The continuing epidemics of obesity and diabetes in the United States. JAMA286 : 1195–1200,2001
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    3. ↵
      Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Prevalence data. http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss
    4. ↵
      A.C. Nielsen quantifies impact of low carb diets. www.acneilsen.com. Accessed 4/1/04
    5. ↵
      Labeling and consumer protection: FSIS (Food Safety Information Service) statement of interim policy on carbohydrate labeling statements. www.fsis.usda.gov. Accessed 4/21/04
    6. ↵
      The evaluation of the energy of certain sugar alcohols used as food ingredients. Bethesda, Md., Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, Life Sciences Office, 1994
    7. ↵
      American Diabetes Association: Evidence-based nutrition principles and recommendations for the treatment and prevention of diabetes and related complications (Technical Review). Diabetes Care 25:148 –179, 2002
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    8. ↵
      Wheeler ML, Fineberg SE, Gibson R, Fineberg N: Metabolic response to oral challenge of hydrogenated starch hydrolysates versus glucose in diabetes. Diabetes Care 13:733 –740, 1990
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    9. ↵
      Livesey G: Health potential of polyols as sugar replacers, with emphasis on low glycaemic properties. Nutr Res Rev 16:163 –191, 2002
      OpenUrl
    10. ↵
      American Diabetes Association: Nutrition principles and recommendations in diabetes (Position Statement). Diabetes Care 27 (Suppl. 1):S36 –S46, 2004
    11. ↵
      Warshaw HS, Power MA: A search for answers about foods with polyols (sugar alcohols). Diabetes Educ 25:307 –321, 1999
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    12. Warshaw H: FAQs about polyols. Today's Dietitian. April2004 , p. 37–44
    13. ↵
      Warshaw HS, Bolderman KM: American Diabetes Association Practical Carbohydrate Counting: A How-to-Teach Guide for Health Professionals. Alexandria, Va., American Diabetes Association, 2001
    14. ↵
      Powers MA: American Dietetic Association Guide to Eating Right When You Have Diabetes. Hoboken, N.J., Wiley and Sons,2003
    15. ↵
      Code of Federal Regulations. www.access.gpo.gov/nara/CFR-retreive.html#page_1
    16. ↵
      Institute of Food Technologists Food Laws and Regulations Division Newsletter, Vol. 9, No. 1, Winter/Spring 1999. Available online at www.ift.org/divisions/food_law/nl_v9n1.htm#glycerint
    17. ↵
      Burelle Y, Massicotte D, Lussier M, LaVoie C, Hillaire-Marcel C, Peronnet F: Oxidation of [13 C] glycerol ingested along with glucose during prolonged exercise. J Appl Physiol 90:1685 –1690, 2001
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    18. ↵
      Institute of Medicine's Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrates, Fiber, Fat, Protein and Amino Acids. Washington, D.C., National Academy of Sciences, 2002
    19. ↵
      Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Trends in intake of energy and macronutrients—United States, 1971–2000. MMWR 53:80 –82, 2004
      OpenUrlPubMed
    View Abstract
    PreviousNext
    Back to top

    In this Issue

    July 2004, 17(3)
    • Table of Contents
    • Index by Author
    Sign up to receive current issue alerts
    View Selected Citations (0)
    Print
    Download PDF
    Article Alerts
    Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
    Email Article

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Diabetes Spectrum.

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    “Low-Carbohydrate” Food Facts and Fallacies
    (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Diabetes Spectrum
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Diabetes Spectrum web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Citation Tools
    “Low-Carbohydrate” Food Facts and Fallacies
    Janine Freeman, Charlotte Hayes
    Diabetes Spectrum Jul 2004, 17 (3) 137-140; DOI: 10.2337/diaspect.17.3.137

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
    Add to Selected Citations
    Share

    “Low-Carbohydrate” Food Facts and Fallacies
    Janine Freeman, Charlotte Hayes
    Diabetes Spectrum Jul 2004, 17 (3) 137-140; DOI: 10.2337/diaspect.17.3.137
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Google Plus One

    Jump to section

    • Article
      • Confusing Labeling Terminology
      • How Do Manufacturers Lower the Carbohydrate Content of Foods?
      • Are the Terms “Net Carbs,” “Impact Carbs,” and “Net Effective Carbs” Truthful?
      • Sugar alcohols/polyols
      • Glycerin(e)/glycerol
      • Dietary fiber
      • Do Products Billed as “Low-Carb” Support a Healthy Weight Loss Regimen?
      • Implications of the Low-Carb Diet Trend
      • Footnotes
      • References
    • Figures & Tables
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF

    Related Articles

    Cited By...

    More in this TOC Section

    Departments

    • Smart Connected Insulin Pens, Caps, and Attachments: A Review of the Future of Diabetes Technology
    • Brief Literature Review: The Potential of Diabetes Technology to Improve Sleep in Youth With Type 1 Diabetes and Their Parents: An Unanticipated Benefit of Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery Systems
    • Mental Health and Behavioral Screening in Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes
    Show more Departments

    Nutrition FYI

    • Chrononutrition Applied to Diabetes Management: A Paradigm Shift Long Delayed
    • The Gluten-Free Diet: Fad or Necessity?
    • Nutrition Considerations for Microbiota Health in Diabetes
    Show more Nutrition FYI

    Similar Articles

    Navigate

    • Current Issue
    • Papers in Press
    • Archives
    • Submit
    • Subscribe
    • Email Alerts
    • RSS Feeds

    More Information

    • About the Journal
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Journal Policies
    • Reprints and Permissions
    • Advertising
    • Privacy Policy: ADA Journals
    • Copyright Notice/Public Access Policy
    • Contact Us

    Other ADA Resources

    • Diabetes
    • Diabetes Care
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
    • BMJ Open - Diabetes Research & Care
    • Professional Books
    • Diabetes Forecast

     

    • DiabetesJournals.org
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • ADA's DiabetesPro
    • ADA Member Directory
    • Diabetes.org

    © 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Spectrum Print ISSN: 1040-9165, Online ISSN: 1944-7353.