Atkins Labels Will Drop Term 'Net Carbs'

[nobimbo]

Atkins labels will drop term 'net carbs'

Sarah Ellison
Wall Street Journal
Oct. 6, 2004 10:53 AM

The company that invented "net carbs," Atkins Nutritionals Inc., says it will drop the widely used term from its food labels, calling it "imprecise."

The move comes just months before the Food and Drug Administration is expected to issue new food-labeling guidelines for carbohydrate content. Atkins coined the phrase "net carbs" back in 2001 to sidestep the FDA's existing guidelines. Atkins says next year it will replace the words "net carbs" and the seal now found on its packages with a new phrase, "net Atkins count," and a new seal. Atkins says the new term reflects a more-precise method of measuring the carbohydrates in its foods.

The FDA's new guidelines are expected to tighten current rules. The FDA has a broad definition for carbohydrates: It doesn't distinguish among carbohydrate types, simply defining them as what is left after subtracting fat, protein, water and ash from food. The FDA hasn't endorsed the use of the term "net carbs" on food labels, but it hasn't prevented companies from using it, either. advertisement


"The labeling laws for carbohydrates are not very clear," says Dale Schoeller, professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. "There are a lot of loopholes that companies have found to get around the science."

The FDA declined to comment on the content of the new guidelines or on Atkins's anticipated changes. Atkins says it presented the "net Atkins count" method to the FDA late last month and expects to use the new term and measurement method on labels. It says it will adjust to comply with new FDA guidelines if necessary.

Executives at the Ronkonkoma, N.Y., company call the old measurement a "compass" and the new one a "global positioning system." But the change includes a dose of marketing gamesmanship, as well, as Atkins strives to set itself apart from a tidal wave of competing products. As recently as three years ago, Atkins was the only major marketer of low-carb packaged foods. In the past year, Kraft Foods Inc., Unilever and others have introduced low-carb product lines. In the first six months of 2004 alone, major food companies launched 1,865 reduced-carb foods and beverages, according to Marketing Intelligence Service of Naples, N.Y.

As low-carb products have proliferated, the food industry has faced increasing skepticism about their nutrient content and labeling. For example, many companies, including Atkins at one time, calculate a product's "net carbs" by subtracting grams of fiber and sugar alcohols from the total carbohydrate grams. That calculation allows food makers to cook up starchy, sweet products like brownies, pastries and candy, and call them "low carb." But one thing the calculation doesn't take into account is that sugar alcohols raise blood-sugar levels, just as "net carbs" do.

Atkins says its new labeling terminology is an effort to clear up confusion. "It's important for us to differentiate the new method from what's been done before," says Matthew Wiant, Atkins's chief marketing officer. "One of the reasons we've said we need a new method is just to get consumer confidence back."

Atkins derives the "net Atkins count" for a product by testing blood-sugar levels of people who have just eaten it. The technique borrows heavily from the glycemic index widely used in Australia and some other places outside the U.S. that attempts to express carbohydrate content in terms of its effect on blood sugar. Atkins worked with Thomas Wolever, a Canadian nutritionist who helped to develop the glycemic index, to come up with the "net Atkins count" method.

Atkins says "net Atkins count" is more accurate than "net carbs" and has applied for a patent for the new method. Some restaurants and food companies currently license the Atkins name for low-carb products.

Robert Atkins's low-carb diet books have sold more than 18 million copies since 1972. When the regimen gained fresh traction with dieters in the late 1990s, Dr. Atkins launched a line of diet bars and shakes. Growth really took off after his death in 2003, and last year, Atkins Nutritionals's sales more than doubled to more than $200 million.

Atkins's new designation may still leave some dieters shaking their heads. Indeed, as the low-carb craze appears to be leveling off, many nutritionists are reminding dieters that the most important factor in weight loss remains limiting calories.

"Calories still count," says the University of Wisconsin's Dr. Schoeller. The FDA has resisted endorsing any low-carb diet and is trying to focus attention on calories.

In a few cases, Atkins is dropping products or reformulating them in connection with its new method of calculating carbohydrates. The company says because it actually has been using the new method in developing new products for almost three years, the "net carb" counts currently found on most of its products won't require recalculation after the change to "net Atkins count."

Under the old method, the Atkins Endulge chocolate almond bar had two grams of "net carbs," according to the label. Under the "net Atkins count" method, the candy bar would come out with more than twice that amount. Atkins says it is discontinuing the product.

Products most likely to flunk Atkins's new carb-testing method are those containing a lot of sugar alcohols, such as candies and other sweets. Products with high fiber levels would be less likely to show such a discrepancy, Atkins says.

http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/1006atkins-diet06-ON.html

[nobimbo]

Press Release Source: Atkins Nutritionals, Inc.


Breakthrough Science Advances Atkins Net Carb Labeling Claims on Food Products
Wednesday October 6, 12:56 pm ET
Patent-pending clinical method actually measures glycemic impact of specific products; Replaces standard subtraction method and introduces the Net Atkins Count(TM)


NEW YORK, Oct. 6 /PRNewswire/ -- Thomas Wolever, Ph.D., M.D., one of the world's leading clinical nutritionists, has helped develop a unique scientific method that substantiates the low glycemic impact of Atkins products to confirm the accuracy of Atkins net carbohydrate labeling claims. Net carbs are those carbohydrates that have a significant impact on blood sugar levels, and limiting net carbs is the most critical factor for consumers who wish to successfully follow the Atkins Nutritional Approach(TM). To help consumers who want to control their carbs, Atkins is introducing the Net Atkins Count(TM), a scientifically tested measure of how carbohydrates in foods impact an individual's blood sugar response.
ADVERTISEMENT


Through a three year collaborative effort between Dr. Wolever and Atkins' scientists, this new patent-pending method employs more accurate clinical testing rather than just relying on the low-carb industry standard subtraction calculation method to determine net carbs. Atkins will use the term Net Atkins Count to express this clinically validated number and to distinguish it from terms previously used, such as net carbs.

To date, food manufacturers have relied on simple subtraction methods to approximate net carbs, subtracting carbs that have a negligible impact on blood sugar like fiber, glycerine and sugar alcohols from total carbs. In many cases this has proven to be accurate but in some cases, due to a combination of ingredients and manufacturing processes, the subtraction calculation is less precise than the result determined by this new scientific method.

"We saw an opportunity to develop a better tool to help consumers have success doing Atkins," explains Matt Spolar, vice president of product technology at Atkins Nutritionals, Inc. "Now that we have it, we are obviously delighted to say that the new Atkins testing method has confirmed that the vast majority of Atkins products will carry the same carb count information as before. The few products that tested outside of the acceptable range, either higher or lower versus the current net carb count, will be relabeled, reformulated or discontinued. With this new technology, we believe there is no question that the Net Atkins Count provides the most accurate number to utilize when following a controlled-carbohydrate lifestyle." The few Atkins products that tested higher than the acceptable range are products that have never been recommended for the Induction phase of Atkins. There is certainly no health risk associated with consuming any Atkins products and these few products remain appropriate for the maintenance phase of Atkins. See http://www.atkins.com for information on each product's Atkins Net Count using this new system.

"Today many food labels are confusing," says Matt Wiant, senior vice president and chief marketing officer of Atkins Nutritionals, Inc. "The terms 'low-carb' and 'net carb' have no standardized definition, but they have already become buzzwords used by many other food manufacturers who may know little about formulating products that work on the Atkins Nutritional Approach(TM)."

How Does It Work?

In order to evaluate the real-life effects of foods on blood sugar levels, Wolever conducted clinical trials. The new Atkins method to determine Net Atkins Count evaluates baseline blood sugar levels and then tracks the body's response to foods eaten by the subject. Data is gathered through tests, which report actual measured increases in blood sugar, and then obtains an average blood sugar response across a group of people. "This data should end speculation about the validity and importance of net carbs and the concept that not all carbs affect blood sugar the same way," says Spolar.

The researcher, Dr. Thomas Wolever, is no stranger to low-carbohydrate nutrition and research. Acting chair of the department for nutritional sciences at the University of Toronto, Dr. Wolever is an internationally renowned expert in glucose metabolism and dietary carbohydrates. One of the pioneers in the development of the glycemic index, Dr. Wolever also heads up a glycemic index testing organization. "Historically, carbohydrate information on a product has been an analytical description using general rules," said Dr. Wolever. "What was missing was how the ingredients actually work together in an individual food product to impact blood sugar levels."

Currently, the US government's food labeling regulations provide consumers with a total carbohydrate number as part of the nutrition facts panel but do not provide for a distinction as to whether or not certain carbohydrates are high glycemic and therefore spike blood sugar or low-glycemic and therefore have little impact on blood sugar. However, since controlling blood sugar is a primary goal of the Atkins Nutritional Approach(TM), Atkins began using the term net carbs to describe the carbohydrates in food products which spiked blood sugar. To obtain net carb levels, Atkins used the low-carb industry standard formula that subtracted the low-glycemic carbs (fiber, sugar alcohols and glycerine) from the total carbs to arrive at a number that Atkins consumers could count when following the Atkins Nutritional Approach(TM). New science has shown that this old method provided accurate results in most, but not all, cases. In addition, many other manufacturers started using similar net carb terminology while using different calculations and formulations with different types of carbohydrates, and failed to validate their numbers which led to speculation about the validity of net carbs.

"Our goal is to help people succeed with controlling their carbs and eliminate any questions about the effectiveness of Atkins products," explained Colette Heimowitz, M.Sc., vice president of research and education at Atkins Health & Medical Information Services. "At Atkins, we are dedicated to our mission to provide information to help people enjoy healthier lives. We are proud to have helped develop this new technique and excited to incorporate it into the ongoing development of Atkins products."

About Atkins Nutritionals, Inc.

Atkins Nutritionals, based in Ronkonkoma, New York, was founded by Dr. Robert C. Atkins in 1989. Today, Atkins Nutritionals is an international enterprise providing a broad range of convenience foods, supplements, baked goods, snacks, condiments and information products designed to serve the millions of consumers who have adopted the controlled carbohydrate lifestyle. The company's products are sold in the natural, nutritional, food, mass and drug retail channels as well as direct through their catalog and Web site. For more information, please visit http://www.atkins.com.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041006/nyw141_1.html

[tortoise]

So is "net Atkins count" REALLY going to be less confusing than "net carbs"? I mean, I agree about the sugar alcohols, but this just seems like one more marketing ploy.

[Kristine]

Hmph. I don't like this "just trust us" kind of labelling. It's like Dreamfields pasta. Or Weight Watchers points.

In addition, many other manufacturers started using similar net carb terminology while using different calculations and formulations with different types of carbohydrates, and failed to validate their numbers which led to speculation about the validity of net carbs.

IMHO, the fact that they subtract all sugar alcohols causes speculation about the validity of net carbs! It's been demonstrated that they are partially absorbed, so why do they subtract all SA grams?

[ItsTheWooo]

I for one am glad they're ditching net carbs.

The net carbs label assumed that stuff like glycerin and maltitol had a, quote, "minimal effect on blood sugar" when this is totally untrue. A gram of maltitol is the equivalent in caloric density and glycemic index of roughly 75% that of a gram of sucrose. Is that really minimal? Hardly, considering how restrictive the Atkins plan is with food that affects blood sugar.

My theory is that they will reformulate the candy to use erythritol, thus greatly lowering the amount of sugar in the products, and then the new correct ANCC will turn out to be roughly the same or slightly higher than the old, artificially low counts were.

Personally I've stopped eating the candy. I went and bought several boxes when it was on sale, and you know what I still have the stuff sitting in my cabinet. Now that I know I can have it whenever I want, it isn't so tempting. My desire for that stuff was mostly in response to a psychological perception of deprivation. Now that I allow myself to have small servings of whatever I really want I don't really want it.

[Futurist]

I really hope you are right about the erythritol switch as I love erythritol, inulin, polydextrose, and vegetable gums and I have written at least two emails to the company to say they should make this switch. It would make me and a vast number of other people very pleased if this occurred and at least the Atkins company still generally stays away from the tranfats, unlike many others.

[Samuel]

Under the old method, the Atkins Endulge chocolate almond bar had two grams of "net carbs," according to the label. Under the "net Atkins count" method, the candy bar would come out with more than twice that amount. Atkins says it is discontinuing the product.
Well, they have finally discovered what we have discovered long ago! Here is one of my old posts dated 8/16/2003:

Click here

This new measure is great for us since it will force them to make true low carb products for the first time!

[Samuel]

I really hope you are right about the erythritol switch as I love erythritol, inulin, polydextrose, and vegetable gums and I have written at least two emails to the company to say they should make this switch. It would make me and a vast number of other people very pleased if this occurred and at least the Atkins company still generally stays away from the tranfats, unlike many others.
Here is one more problem: Calling Inulin a fiber which should not be counted is also a lie. Inulin is partially digested and each gram of it should be counted as 0.4 carbs.

A bar of Z-Carb contains 8 grams of Erythritol and 9 grams of Inulin. Its total carb count should be:

0.5 grams (from Erythritol) + 3.6 grams (from Inulin) = 4.1 grams

This seems to be much higher than the claimed Zero carbs, however it's still
better than most others.

[nowonder]

Well, the positive is that they will hopefully reflect the danger of some sugar alcohols by assigning them some value higher than zero.

The bad is that we can no longer just do simple subtraction of the label and get the value. So we have two different systems depending if the food comes from Atkins or not. Also, this is sounding more like a complex point system from other plans... While Atkins original Net Carb forumla might not be perfect, at least it's easy.

--nw

[Glendora]

Here's what's probably a stupid question...when it says "carbs" (for instance, 11 grams) and then "net carbs" (maybe 2) underneath...the "carbs" up on top is the TOTAL carbs, right? Just asking b/c I was wondering about this in the supermarket today.

[ceberezin]

Currently, the US government's food labeling regulations provide consumers with a total carbohydrate number as part of the nutrition facts panel but do not provide for a distinction as to whether or not certain carbohydrates are high glycemic and therefore spike blood sugar or low-glycemic and therefore have little impact on blood sugar.

There is much confusion here between low glycemic carbs and effective carbs. It is incorrect to say that low glycemic carbs have little impact on blood sugar. The glycemic index simply measures the speed with which a particular carbohydrate converts to glucose. Fifty grams of carbohydrate from navy beans will stimulate the same amount of insulin as fifty grams of carbohydrate from white bread. They will just do so more slowly. The amount of insulin is the major issue, not the speed at which it leaves the pancreas. You can go 60 mph in a Kia, or you can go 60 mph in a Porsche. The Porsche will get you to 60 mph faster. The question is should you be going 60 mph at all. The glycemic index is not a useful measure for people trying to control absolute insulin levels.

I also dislike Atkins branding this new index. The issue is effective carbs, not net carbs. Let's keep it simple.

[cc48510]

Here is one more problem: Calling Inulin a fiber which should not be counted is also a lie. Inulin is partially digested and each gram of it should be counted as 0.4 carbs.

A bar of Z-Carb contains 8 grams of Erythritol and 9 grams of Inulin. Its total carb count should be:

0.5 grams (from Erythritol) + 3.6 grams (from Inulin) = 4.1 grams

This seems to be much higher than the claimed Zero carbs, however it's still
better than most others.

Inulin and Erythritol have a very small amount of Calories. At least with Erythritol these are the result of Bacteria in the Large Intestine fermeneting a portion of the Erythritol to produce Lactic Acid, Methane, Hydrogen, and Short Chain Saturated Fatty Acids, such as Acetate and Butyrate. I wonder if those Calories they create do anything more than feed the Bacteria themselves, hence are they even available to your system for metabolizing ??? This quote seems to suggest that they are used to feed the Bacteria.

http://www.fiberandhealth.com/book/5.htm

During fermentation, the anaerobic intestinal flora present in the colon use dietary fiber and resistant starch for their own nutrition and growth. This increases the bacterial mass very considerably; so, with an adequate substrate, bacteria can account for up to one third of the weight of the stools. This is one of the mechanisms that make fiber increase the volume of faeces considerably.

This quote seems to suggest to the contrary:

As already pointed out, the SCFA are rapidly absorbed in the colon and only a small part, approximately 18-50 mmol/day, is eliminated in the stools, which would be the equivalent of about 60-170 mmol/l7. These SCFA absorbed in the colon become an important source of energy for the organism since they can contribute up to 540 kcal/day depending on the quantity of dietary fiber ingested, which can mean, according to some authors, up to 30 % of a healthy person's energy needs9 . This would explain why, in populations that eat vegetable products that are very rich in fiber and of scant nutritional value, in which you would expect important deficiencies, these deficiencies do not present themselves or they do so to a much lesser extent than would be expected.

Of course, since Bacteria only get 2 kcal/g Fiber/Resistant Starch, you'd have to eat 270g/day of Fiber and/or Resistant Starch, or for that matter any Carb not absorbed in the Small Intestine (can you say Starch Blockers) to reach that maximum 540 kcal/day limit. Maybe if you ate an entire box of Dreamfields ???

The SCFA that are formed with fermentation are volatile fatty acids, and 85 % of them are composed of: acetate, propionate and butyrate, in a proportion of 60:25:14, respectively.

Of the other SCFA, both acetate and propionate are used by the organism as an energy substrate, but while propionate is used mainly by the liver in gluconeogenesis12, acetate is used in lipogenesis13 and is the only one that gets to the peripheral tissues, mainly the muscles, where it is metabolised14. The use of acetate in lipogenesis is why products like lactulose and lactitol, which, in fermentation, produce a large quantity of acetate, when taken chronically, can increase the levels of cholesterol and LDL in the blood15,16

Glucogenesis is the production of Glucose. But, Propionate is only 25% of 85% (21%). Acetate is 60% of 85% (51%) and appears is metabolized as Fat (Lipogenesis.)

The metabolism of the SCFA by the colonocyte produces, among other things, acetone bodies, CO2 and water, which are very important for the proper functioning of the colon mucosa, since they intervene in mechanisms like the production of mucus, the absorption of ions, the forming of bicarbonate and, as already indicated, the production of energy19. The effect that the SCFA exert on the motility of the colon is also important, since it has been shown that they stimulate its contractility20

Does "Acetone Bodies" mean Ketone Bodies, namely AcetoAcetic Acid ???

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about anything that gets fermented in the Large Intestine. Half of it is potential calories are lost as gases from the start. It appears that 75% of what's left gets metabolized to Fat. It would appear if I read this correctly that only 1/8th of the Carbs that actually get fermented in the Large Intestine even pose the possibility of becoming Glucose.

For Erythritol, where <10% is fermented, it would appear that it would take >80g of Erythritol to make even 1g of Glucose. Inulin has about 0.5-1 kcal/g if I remember correctly, which would indicate 25-50% is fermented. So, that should mean it would take 16-32g to even possibly make 1g of Glucose. Hope I'm doing the calculations right. I will continue to count Eryhtritol and Inulin as 0 NET Carbs. They have a 0 GI if I remember correctly, and the amount of Glucose you actually get from them is so minimal, its not even worth the effort to count it.

[cc48510]

There is much confusion here between low glycemic carbs and effective carbs. It is incorrect to say that low glycemic carbs have little impact on blood sugar. The glycemic index simply measures the speed with which a particular carbohydrate converts to glucose. Fifty grams of carbohydrate from navy beans will stimulate the same amount of insulin as fifty grams of carbohydrate from white bread. They will just do so more slowly. The amount of insulin is the major issue, not the speed at which it leaves the pancreas. You can go 60 mph in a Kia, or you can go 60 mph in a Porsche. The Porsche will get you to 60 mph faster. The question is should you be going 60 mph at all. The glycemic index is not a useful measure for people trying to control absolute insulin levels.

I also dislike Atkins branding this new index. The issue is effective carbs, not net carbs. Let's keep it simple.

I think the idea is to keep Blood Sugar levels more stable. If your BS rises over a longer period of time, your going to be satisfied for longer than if it rose rapidly and then dropped. The difference is really whether the guy in Car A peels off, accelrates as fast as he can to 60 mph, resulting in a crash...or does he accelrate slowly and steadily to that 60 mph, and avoid if possible or at least minimize the possibility of a serious crash.

Elecvated BS doesn't make you hungry, and at least in Non-Diabetics, it shouldn't be too dangerous as long as its not kept constantly elevated and isn't made to rise too high too fast. Insulin illicits hunger, but Glucose supresses it. The real problem is when Blood Sugar rises really fast and Insulin is released causing it to drop too rapidly. Your Glucose drops too low [because it gets stored as fat,] and there is too much Insulin. That is when you get really hungry and you go on a Carb Binge.

[cc48510]

BTW, I'm also glad they're dropping the term Net Carbs. I've always believed that if they used something that suggested a points type system, it'd be easier to get the idiots who keep railing about how the term Net Carbs is too confusing for us lowly [dumb] unwashed masses to understand [that we somehow would think Net Carbs and Total Carbs are the same think and would become bewildered and fatter,] and thus shouldn't be allowed. If it were a points system (Points = Total CHO - Fiber - Glycerine...) we could respond that WW does the exact same thing and noone questions when someone lists WW Points on a food.

I personally think its all symantecs (sp?) Some of these people [not including those who just plain hate LC] seem to have a problem with the term Net to describe a Macronutrient, because they don't believe that the type of Carb is really relevant [as they subscribe to the idea that you should eat 300g/day, in which case the amount of Fiber would make little difference.] But, if we called them Points or something similar, at least some of these people have to lay off on that subject. They could still argue that we shouldn't deduct Fiber from our Points [though WW does it to a limited degree.] But, they wouldn't be able to claim that the wording confuses people in regards to how many Total Carbs it has.

[Samuel]

Inulin and Erythritol have a very small amount of Calories......Thanks for the information. I understand that Erythritol has only 0.2 Calories/gram which is very small, but Inulin has 1.59 Calories/gram, Here is the source:

https://epi.aecom.yu.edu/studies/CCA/Newsletters/Sugar%20Alcohol%20Sweeteners%20And%20The%20Low%20Carb%20Lifestyle.htm

[VickySail]

I'm in a skeptical wait-and-see kind of mode.

If it's accurate, I don't care what they call it. It's all marketing hype and nonsense. Made-up words abound in advertising, and always have.

The proof is in the count. What it does to my body is the real issue here, and nothing else really matters.

I do like the tone of the first article, the second one is obviously more Atkins marketing spin in order to convince us of their sincerity. Sigh...

Quote: To date, food manufacturers have relied on simple subtraction methods to approximate net carbs, subtracting carbs that have a negligible impact on blood sugar like fiber, glycerine and sugar alcohols from total carbs. In many cases this has proven to be accurate but in some cases, due to a combination of ingredients and manufacturing processes, the subtraction calculation is less precise than the result determined by this new scientific method.

Right. Methinks they got the some and the many in the wrong spots.

Vicky

[dekdahl]

Have to admit it has been a quick and easy reference for me with Atkins products. But, recently bought "another" brand lc ice cream because I saw LC and net carbs 2. Turned out it was 3 - (2 from sugar) and the big Splenda ad on carton was secondary to the Mannitol in the ingredients list. Seemed like cheating to me. Yeah, I should have read it "all" before buying it, but am used to "seeing is believing" with the Atkins products. Also, those sweeteners like glycerin and splenda react way different in my system than sugar alcohols do.

[cc48510]

Thanks for the information. I understand that Erythritol has only 0.2 Calories/gram which is very small, but Inulin has 1.59 Calories/gram, Here is the source:

https://epi.aecom.yu.edu/studies/CCA/Newsletters/Sugar%20Alcohol%20Sweeteners%20And%20The%20Low%20Carb%20Lifestyle.htm

I thought it was 1 kcal, but I may be mistaken. Based on that maybe 1g in 10g would become Glucose based on what I took from that article I posted. So, maybe you could count 1g of Carbs for the Inulin in a Candy Bar.

BTW, despite what the label would have you believe there's no way a Z-CARB Bar has 0g NET CHO or the 0.007g NET CHO they come up with by subtracting using rounded numbers. Chocolate Liquor contains some carbs, though not alot. So, there's probably 1-2g of NET Carbs to begin with. They just get it to 0.007g by rounding the Total Carbs Down, Fiber Up, and Erythritol to 3 decimal places. Then, they subtract the latter 2 from the first. The figure they come up with is incorrect because 2 of the items in the equation were rounded off to whole numbers. For example, you could round 14.4 Total CHO to 14g, round 7.5g Fiber to 8g, and then subtract them to get 6g Net, when in fact its really 6.9g Net. The more components you subtract, the greater the difference could get. For example, if it also had 1.5g (rounded to 2g) of Glycerine and lets say 3.6g (rounded to 4g) of Maltitol, you'd come up with a ZERO Net Carb Count, when in fact it has 1.8g Net CHO. The error is due to rounding.

[Angeline]

This is a clever move. It will get around any system from the FDA or Canada that aims at banning the term "low-carb" on labels. Net "Atkins" count doesn't mean anything. You can't ban a company from using its own name on its own products. And if it takes off, they will be able to license Net "Atkins" count to all sort of products, thus making even more money.

Yup this is a clever and potentially lucrative move for the investors.

[DebPenny]

There is much confusion here between low glycemic carbs and effective carbs. It is incorrect to say that low glycemic carbs have little impact on blood sugar. The glycemic index simply measures the speed with which a particular carbohydrate converts to glucose. Fifty grams of carbohydrate from navy beans will stimulate the same amount of insulin as fifty grams of carbohydrate from white bread. They will just do so more slowly. The amount of insulin is the major issue, not the speed at which it leaves the pancreas. You can go 60 mph in a Kia, or you can go 60 mph in a Porsche. The Porsche will get you to 60 mph faster. The question is should you be going 60 mph at all. The glycemic index is not a useful measure for people trying to control absolute insulin levels.

I also dislike Atkins branding this new index. The issue is effective carbs, not net carbs. Let's keep it simple.
You know what worries me? High fructose corn syrup has a low impact on insulin.