Quick grammatical note: you'll notice my use of the word "fibre" over "fiber". My preference is simply for the King's English. Please bear with me.
In my day job as a Manager of Program Quality, I deal with data. I know that if you feed bad data into a system, you get bad results. In the tech world, we call it "Garbage In, Garbage Out."
In the world of keto, there is a piece of data that is corrupted, compressed, and often completely misleading. It’s the number bolded on the front of every protein bar and low-carb snack: "Net Carbs."
The formula seems simple: Total Carbs minus Fibre minus Sugar Alcohols = Net Carbs.
It’s a great algorithm. The logic is sound: fibre is indigestible, so it doesn't count as fuel. It passes through the system without "uploading" glucose to your bloodstream.
But just like a fibre optic cable, the quality of the signal matters. And I’ve learned that when it comes to food labels, not all fibre is creating a clear connection. Some of it is just noise designed to hack the algorithm.
Here is how I troubleshoot the "Net Carb" scam.
Part 1: The "Clean Signal" (Whole Food Fibre)
When I eat a cup of broccoli, it has roughly 6g of Total Carbs and 2g of Fibre. That leaves 4g of Net Carbs.
This is high-fidelity data.
The Source: The fibre is the structural cell walls of the plant.
The Function: It physically slows down digestion. It acts as a "time-release" mechanism for the nutrients. It feeds my gut microbiome (my "Second Brain")
. The Result: A flat, stable blood sugar line.
When fibre comes from a whole food—avocado, spinach, nuts, seeds—the "Net Carb" math works perfectly. You can trust the signal.
Part 2: The "Hacked Signal" (Industrial Fibre)
Now, look at a "Keto Friendly" cookie. It claims to have 20g of Total Carbs and 18g of Fibre, resulting in a miraculous "2g Net Carbs."
Wait a minute. That cookie has more fibre than three bowls of oatmeal. How?
It’s using Industrial Fibre. These are isolated, processed powders injected into the food to manipulate the math.
Common culprits include:
Soluble Corn Fibre
Tapioca Fibre (IMO - Isomaltooligosaccharide)
Resistant Wheat Starch
Chicory Root Fibre (Inulin)
This is corrupted data.
The "Trojan Horse": Some of these fibres (especially IMO and some resistant starches) aren't as "indigestible" as they claim. Your body can partially break them down into glucose.
The Result: You eat the "2g Net Carb" cookie, but your blood sugar spikes as if you ate 10g of sugar. The label says you're safe; your glucometer says you're out of ketosis.
The "Denial of Service" Attack: Remember the gut health post?
These concentrated, processed fibres are often high-FODMAP (Fermentable Oligosaccharides, Disaccharides, Monosaccharides And Polyols) bombs. Eating 18g of industrial fibre in 30 seconds can trigger massive bloating and distress. It overloads the system.
Part 3: My "Firewall" Rules
So, how do I filter the good data from the bad? I have a simple firewall rule for my diet.
Rule 1: If it grew in the dirt, trust the math. If the fibre comes from a vegetable, a nut, or a seed, I subtract it. 10g of carbs from avocado is safe.
Rule 2: If it came from a lab, audit the source. If I see "Modified Starch," "Corn Fibre," or "Syrup" on the ingredient list, I treat the "Net Carb" number with extreme suspicion.
The "Half-Count" Heuristic: For processed keto snacks (which I try to avoid anyway), I often count half the fibre as carbs just to be safe. If a bar says "10g Fibre," I assume 5g of that might actually impact my blood sugar. It’s a buffer against bad data.
The Takeaway
"Net Carbs" is not a magic pass to eat processed junk. It is a calculation that only works when the inputs are honest.
The food industry knows that "Fibre" is a magic word that lets them erase carbohydrates from the label. They are hacking the algorithm to sell you candy bars.
Don't just look at the number. Look at the source. Keep your signal clean, and your engine will run exactly the way it's supposed to.
Comments
Post a Comment