I'm glad you mention this buddy, because I was confused about it
So what he's saying is that when something has x amount of carbs, that includes the amount of fiber it has too? Therefore it actually has less (usable) carbs than stated?
Somewhat. My example of cellulose is incorrect, but the principle is where carbs are bound up in forms the body cannot do much with (in this context, cellulose is a good example) before they are excreted. Poly and oligo saccharides are generally withinthe classification of complex carbs, but maltodextrin is a polysaccharide and makes blood glucose go nuts because of its structure. So whilst cellulose is a good example of a monstrously complex carbohydrate that cannot be processed by the humana digestive system, and illustrates how a carbohydrate can be complex, I think (but am not sure) that is may be classed under dietary fibre.
On the other side, carbs in brocolli (Keifers favourite example) are carbohydates that are too difficult for the body to do anything with, and so do not count. In nuts, the carbs in these wil be carbs, sure, but they will not cause the same disruption as glucose, sucrose or some other similar mono or disaccharide.
rip gains.
