Low-Carb Foods: Less Than Meets the
Eye
A few years ago the cry was "low-fat" or "nonfat," as
new food products came on the market positioned to appeal to the
weight-conscious and health-conscious. You could avoid most fat
but still eat your ice cream and cookies. In some ways the trend
to low-fat and fat-free foods was beneficial; in other ways it
was not. Nonfat milk is a good thing, but nonfat junk food is still
junk food, of course. Many consumers failed to notice that a low-fat
cookie often has as many calories as the regular kind, and many
assumed it was okay to eat the whole box.
Now the craze is for low-carbohydrate
foods. If you’ve been to the grocery store lately, or even
to McDonald’s or Blimpie, you’ve seen promotions for "low-carb" foods.
Many breads, sandwiches, muffins, pasta, cereals, tortillas, pizza
crusts, beer, cakes, cookies, and other foods now bear "low-carb" labels.
While the health claims are seldom spelled out, the implications
are clear.
If you’re following a low-carb
diet (such as Atkins) that forbids or severely limits bread, pasta,
and other starchy foods, especially those made with white flour,
you might think, well, here’s a way to eat some bread and
still stay on the diet. Indeed, many low-carb products are sold
under the Atkins brand name. Or perhaps you’re not on any
diet but are just calorie-conscious. You may conclude, logically
enough, that a food lower in carbs is also lower in calories. Or
you may buy the new stuff because you’re attracted to new
products, and you think that there’s a law against false
claims on food labels, so you conclude that low-carb claims must
be (a) true and (b) meaningful.
In fact, "low-carb" is not
what it seems. And any benefits these foods might offer for weight
loss or nutrition are debatable, at best. If you replace carbohydrates
with protein (that’s the main change), you still have just
as many calories. Furthermore, the labels are, essentially, meaningless.
The FDA has no definition of "low-carbohydrate" and has
never approved any low-carb labels. Any food can be so labeled.
Bringing down the carbs
Here’s how manufacturers reduce
the carbs in various foods:
n They replace refined wheat flour with soy flour (higher in protein), soy
protein, or wheat protein.
• They
add extra fiber, such as wheat bran, oat bran, or other fiber
(this is not a bad thing, but read on).
• They
add high-fat ingredients such as nuts (again, not so terrible:
nuts are good food, containing healthy fats).
• They
replace sugar with sugar alcohols (maltitol, lactitol, or sorbitol)
or artificial sweeteners. This has been going on a long time—ever
hear of sugarless or "dietetic" candy?
• For
beers, they use certain chemicals in the brewing process to reduce
carbohydrates in the brew. But the result is not very different
from "lite" beers, long a market staple.
Is the difference real, though?
None of these changes are unhealthy.
But these products end up having nearly as many calories as their
regular counterparts, and cutting calories is still the key to
weight control. Protein has as many calories as carbs do, and fat
has more than twice as many calories.
The products often have nearly as many
carbs, too, but the labels disguise this fact with several tricks.
Most often they subtract certain carbs, and provide a separate
section listing a lower number, which designates the remaining
ones "effective carbs" or "net impact carbs." The
idea is that since fiber, for instance, doesn’t affect blood
sugar the way other carbs do, it doesn’t count. So if a food
has 10 grams of carbs, but 6 grams are fiber, the manufacturer
simply subtracts the 6 and claims only 4 "net impact" carbs.
(Sometimes the results are clearly impossible. Some low-carb bread
labels, for example, claim that nearly all the carbs are fiber,
yet the first ingredient is always some sort of flour—a source
of "regular" carbohydrates.) The calories in sugar alcohols,
too, can be subtracted, according to this logic, because they don’t
have the same effect on blood sugar as regular sugar. None of this
is allowed by the FDA.
This sleight-of-hand can distract you
from an accurate comparison between low-carb foods and conventional
ones. Here are just three examples:
• A
slice of "low-carb" Atkins bread, for instance, has
60 calories and 8 grams of total carbs, though it claims to have
only 3 "net impact" carbs. A slice of a conventional "diet" bread
typically has 50 calories and 10 grams of carbs. That isn’t
a significant difference.
• A
1-ounce low-carb chocolate bar has 155 calories and 12 grams
of fat, but no sugar; it claims to have only 1 "net impact" carb.
A regular bar has 150 calories and 10 grams of fat. (Some choice!)
Low-carb candies are actually pretty much the same as the sugar-free
candies that have been on the market for years.
• A
12-ounce can of Michelob Ultra ("low-carb") has 95
calories and 2.6 grams of carbs. Miller Lite has 96 calories
and 3.2 grams of carbs. Coors Lite has 102 calories and 5 grams
of carbs. The differences are tiny. In effect, what’s new
is the label, not the product.
No way to tell
Another problem: there is no legal definition
of a low-carb food. The FDA has defined "low-fat," for
instance, but any food, even Wonder Bread, can be labeled "low-carbohydrate." Moreover,
fiber is supposed to be listed as part of the carbohydrates—not
subtracted from it. The FDA does not define nutrients according
to the effects they have on blood sugar, and for good reason. As
we explained last month in our article about the glycemic index,
these effects vary widely, depending on what’s in your entire
meal. There simply isn’t any accurate way to calculate it
for a food label. In any case, there is little or no evidence for
the claim that some types of carbs are more likely to cause weight
gain than others just because they affect blood sugar faster.
One good idea buried in the low-carb
craze: It is better to choose high-fiber products over those made
of refined wheat (white) flour. But that’s hardly a new idea.
If you want more fiber in your bread, there are lots of good conventional
choices, made of whole wheat or other whole grains, on the shelves.
Less costs more, and tastes worse
And then there’s the question
of price. Low-carb almost always means high price. Low-carb beers
cost more than lite. One low-carb breakfast cereal costs nearly
four times as much per serving as regular cereals. Atkins breads
cost twice as much as most regular breads. And most low-carb foods
sacrifice a lot in taste and texture. (Not the candies, apparently,
where chocolate flavors mask a lot.) Maybe this is a good thing—people
will eat less of these foods, and the fad won’t last.
In the meantime, our advice: Don’t
be fooled by low-carb foods. There’s no evidence that they’ll
help you lose weight. They are not significantly more nutritious
or less caloric than many regular foods. And they eat up food dollars
better spent on plain good healthy foods such as fresh fruits and
vegetables.
UC Berkeley Wellness Letter, January
2004
|