Mystery Carbohydrates??

[studiot]

11 hours ago, CharonY said:

Oh I think I know where the issue is. You are referring to the ingredient list, which actually has its own set of rules. I was referring to the nutritional labelling indicated by OP, which follows other rules and is mostly an indicator of nutrients. That part (i.e. the quantitative elements) are very superficial nutrient information in the outlined format above. 

Yes that is a point I have been trying to make.
 

There are two different set of labelling laws in play in the UK.

Thank you for putting it more clearly. +1

10 hours ago, tim.tdj said:

Can anyone here confirm to me that there do not exist any edible carbohydrates other than Sugars, Fibers, Starches and Polyols?

 

Tim, when it comes to biochemistry CharonY is way ahead of me so well worth listening to.

A little bit of history is in order however.

The 'list of ingredients' required information has been in force in the UK longer than the EU has been in existence, let alone since we joined and left.

I call it "The cast in order of appearance", borrowed from the theatre, although the fit is not quite exact it demonstrates the meaning.

When these UK regulations were first drafted, fibres were not considered digestible or of nutritional value.
In fact the official term was "inedible waste"  (in the first edition of the manual of nutrition)!

Subsequently it was discoverd that some fibres are digestible and some are not and later editions of 'the manual' reflect this.

In relation to your question, there are two principle vegetable polysaccarides cellulose and lignin.
Neither are digestible but either are edible in that they can be eaten and will not harm you.
Generally it is other minor chemicals in plants that are harmful.

Going back to the carbohydrate general formula (C.H₂O)_n , these are open or non cyclic or  chain molecules.
There are also cyclic molecules with the same formula.
I do not know if any of these are harmful, but I would not be suprised if that were the case.

Perhaps CharonY , Sensei or Chenbeier has more information here ?

[tim.tdj]

20 minutes ago, studiot said:

In relation to your question, there are two principle vegetable polysaccarides cellulose and lignin.

Hi Studiot

Thank you very much for your reply.

So, am I correct that cellulose and lignin are outside of the four categories that I mentioned (Sugars, Fibers, Starches and Polyols)? Or do they perhaps count as fibers?

Is it possible that coconut flour contains any cellulose or lignin?

Thank you very much

Kind regards

Tim

[studiot]

Please note my interest in Chemistry is and always has been Physical Chemistry. Obviously I need to have some knowledge of the rest of Chemistry for this but I rely on other experts for detailed matters.

 

Here is a study on the composition of coconut flour from such experts.

https://www.pgia.ac.lk/files/Annual_congress/journel/v18/12.pdf

[CharonY]

So if we talk about the ingredient list, they are pretty much harmonized across Europe (as well as the Americas). I.e. you should indicate the stuff you add in a particular product in descending weight. Technically if nothing else is added beside coconut flour, the ingredient label could simply read coconut flour. It does not necessary to indicate byproducts due to processing, for example. 

Coconut flour definitely contains cellulose and hemicellulose, both of which are chemically carbohydrates. However, in the EU (and UK) carbohydrates seems only to refer to (human) bioavailable carbohydrates (i.e. digestible carbs) and therefore those would or should fall under fibers. It also contains certain polyols, such as sorbitol, which according to labelling requirements would not need to be listed, but would be part of the total carbohydrate count.

So there is quite a bit of a difference between chemical and food labelling nomenclature, with the latter focusing on simplicity rather than scientific accuracy. So I am wondering based on these definitions how resistant starch are labelled, for example. As they are poorly digested, they can be classified as fiber, but then there is also the starch category...

 

[studiot]

I was wondering about the significant amount of 'ash' reported in the SriLankan coconut flour in the article I linked to.

I am not sure what this is or where it comes from.

[John Cuthber]

12 hours ago, studiot said:

I was wondering about the significant amount of 'ash' reported in the SriLankan coconut flour in the article I linked to.

I am not sure what this is or where it comes from.

If you burn the stuff, you get ash.

They weigh the ash from a known amount of flour.

 

[tim.tdj]

17 hours ago, CharonY said:

So if we talk about the ingredient list, they are pretty much harmonized across Europe (as well as the Americas). I.e. you should indicate the stuff you add in a particular product in descending weight. Technically if nothing else is added beside coconut flour, the ingredient label could simply read coconut flour. It does not necessary to indicate byproducts due to processing, for example. 

Coconut flour definitely contains cellulose and hemicellulose, both of which are chemically carbohydrates. However, in the EU (and UK) carbohydrates seems only to refer to (human) bioavailable carbohydrates (i.e. digestible carbs) and therefore those would or should fall under fibers. It also contains certain polyols, such as sorbitol, which according to labelling requirements would not need to be listed, but would be part of the total carbohydrate count.

So there is quite a bit of a difference between chemical and food labelling nomenclature, with the latter focusing on simplicity rather than scientific accuracy. So I am wondering based on these definitions how resistant starch are labelled, for example. As they are poorly digested, they can be classified as fiber, but then there is also the starch category...

 

Hi CharonY

Thank you very much for this information.

Kind regards

Tim

 

Hi Everyone

I have just seen something which doesn't make sense to me. According to the following article, coconut flour has a Glycemic Index of 50:

https://www.upgrademyfood.com/which-flour-is-best-for-a-diabetic/

However, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, there are only 27.2g of digestible carbohydrates in the coconut flour I purchased. Have the authors of the above article made a mistake? How can the  Glycemic Index be higher than the amount in grams of digestible carbohydrates in 100g of the coconut flour?

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

Edited January 6, 2021 by tim.tdj

[studiot]

6 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

If you burn the stuff, you get ash.

They weigh the ash from a known amount of flour.

 

 

I can't find anywhere in the procedures in the article that anything was burned.

I know that the English is not good and there appears to be a mistake in the Abstract list of % since polysaccarides referred to in a later list is missing, but both lists state explicitly that the ash is present in the flour ie before burning of any sort.

[John Cuthber]

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

I can't find anywhere in the procedures in the article that anything was burned.

It clearly says they were analysed  (among other things) for ash by AOAC 942.05

There's a copy of that method here.

https://academic.oup.com/jaoac/article/95/5/1392/5655282

It's not saying that there is x% of ash in the flour. It is saying that if you burn the flour, you get x% ash.