Thread: Carbquick - Bisquick Sub

http://www.tovaindustries.com/Carbalose/page1.html

Their web-pages causes me temporary blindness but this stuff is a really good sub for bisquick. I ordered a free sample and when I tried it I ordered 12 boxes. This stuff is good.

The reason I ordered so much is that the shipping was so high for one box that I changed it to 12 boxes and it only went up $2.00.

The boxes are 1 pound each so 12 pounds should last me a very long time. I store it in the freezer to make sure it stays fresh.

My family who doesn't do low carb likes it, so I can use it to make my family meals. I try to cut as many carbs from their diet as I can even though they're not dieting. I don't think eating a lot of carbs is healthy for them.

Their web-site says Carbquik is currently available now at Kroger locations in Southern Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia and Tennessee. I'm hoping that by the time I get close to running out my Kroger will have it.

Hmmm, something's funny with the numbers on this stuff, too. The label says 60 calories per serving, but then goes on to list 3.5g fat, 10g carbs, and 4g protein, which adds up to 87 calories per serving, not 60. Even if they are subtracting the 8 grams of fiber (32 cals) from the total calories, it doesn't come out right. This stuff may be less evil than regular old Bisquick, but I'd still be careful with it.

Sky
Atkins since 8/02
196/144/under 150

Hmmm, something's funny with the numbers on this stuff, too. The label says 60 calories per serving, but then goes on to list 3.5g fat, 10g carbs, and 4g protein, which adds up to 87 calories per serving, not 60. Even if they are subtracting the 8 grams of fiber (32 cals) from the total calories, it doesn't come out right. This stuff may be less evil than regular old Bisquick, but I'd still be careful with it.

Insoluble Fiber does not figure into calorie counts, since it's not digested by the body. And you get 55 instead of 60 calories when you don't figure the fiber. With rounding in all the numbers, that's within range of where it needs to be.

And the "enzyme" thing isn't like carb blockers or even like the Dreamfields products. In those products, the carbs are there but the companies claim that they aren't digested (which is questionable). In this product, the enzymes are used to remove the carbs from the product entirely. From their website:

Does Carbquik? contain trans fatty acids?
No. Carbquik is made using partially hydrogenated soy oil, which does contain trans fats. This is used in small amounts in Carbquik and does not contribute nutritionally. According to FDA guidelines, Carbquik? does not contain nutritionally significant trans fats.


What is enzyme modified wheat?

Enzyme modified wheat is one of the innovations that make Carbalose? and Carbquik? so unique. Through a proprietary process, we combine wheat products with enzymes to create a flour-like product with minimal carbohydrates. This creates a product with the taste and properties of wheat flour without the carbs.

orenO ~

I understand that insoluble fiber is not absorbed and can therefore be substracted from the CARBOHYDRATE count to give a reduced number for "effective" or "net carbs". But I was not aware that fiber was subtracted from the total CALORIES in nutrition labeling. I can't recall seeing that on any other products - just perused my fridge, and there is nothing in there where the fiber is deducted from the total calories on the label.

I admit am suspicious of and don't buy any highly processed stuff labeled "low carb", so maybe this is something unique to those products, or something I just plain missed along the way. I actually would agree that undigestible fiber could rightly be deducted from the calorie count on the nutrition labels, but I don't think it usually is.

Sky

And I have to add that in response to the question "Does Carbquick contain transfatty acids?", it seems a bit disingenuous to answer "no" and then go on to explain well yes, actually it does, but not that much, not enough to worry about. I also have issues with the credibility of "proprietary" secret processes in general.

I guess I just wouldn't make a good advocate for this product.

Sky

I am taking up for this product but I would like to point out a possible explanation for the calorie count. Not all fats are 9 calories and not all carbs are four calories. Those numbers are approximations used generally and should not be used specifically. The final calorie count cannot be determined by simple addition of component ingredients.

A carb is a measure of heat.

So the enzyme modified carb or just the natural carb itself might not generate 4 calories of heat. As an example glycerin is listed loosely as a carb but it contains 4.32 calories.
It is just something to think about. Perhaps instead of grousing someone should call Tova and find out the strait scoop.

Here is a huge discussion on this product on a board that I used to frequent:
http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/sh...hreadid=255923

I tend to have some of the same misgivings that some people on here are voicing. Trans fats and sugar - those are no no's on my diet.