If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Do you trust food labels?
Generally, they are fairly consistent. One brands green beans for the
same size serving might say 20 cal and another 30. I suppose this could just be a rounding-off phenomenon. Then there are lentils. One package of lentils is organic but I didn't get the brand name, another is a store brand of lentils (non-organic) for a quarter the price (Wal- mart GV brand) They look identical in size and shape...yet one quarter cup of one which is identified as 35g. on both packages is listed as 150 cal per serving on the organic and 80 cal. on the other. A third package I say with a Spanish or Italian sounding name...Goya, I think, listed the same quarter-cup size lentils as 70 cal, although these appeared slightly larger, and since larger varieties of anything increase the empty air space, the 70 seems to agree with the 80 fairly closely. Something is wrong. I buy the cheapo brand and have the label in front of me. Now here is the interesting thing. The package also lists the grams of fat, protein and carbs. It list 0 fat, which is probably right, although there is obviously a small amount of fat in every food under the sun, but it is probably half a gram or so and perhaps they rounded it off correctly. There are also 20g. of carbs total, and 10 grams of protein total in that 1/4 cup serving. The fiber, by the way is 11 grams. Now, one should be able to figure the calories for themselves provided the other info is right. For example, 35 gram serving minus the 11 grams of fiber with no calories gives 24 calories of carbs plus protein. In this case, since carbs and protein both have 4 cal. per gram (fat has 9 cal per gram by the way), we should be able to just multiply 24 X 4. We get 96 calories. Well, heck this is not 70 calories. Another way to figure calories, provided the info is correct once again is to just total the listed carbs plus the listed protein first. In this case it is 20 + 10 which is 30, but 30 X 4 = 120. Something is way off on the labels. dkw |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Do you trust food labels?
" wrote:
Generally, they are fairly consistent. One brands green beans for the same size serving might say 20 cal and another 30. I suppose this could just be a rounding-off phenomenon. "The man with one watch knows what time it is. The man with several watches is never sure." When it comes down to it counts of calories, carbs and so on are approximations. The labels differ within the range of uncertainty. What the exercise teaches is that the numbers are uncertain within a range. Think back to elementary science classes and the error bars. Try to get down to the exact calorie count and the number you arrrive at isn't going to be as accurate as the labels and additions suggest. Even if you use the scale yourself. The same issue happens when counting carbs - Deduction of fiber adds error. Insoluble fiber is absorded a a zero rate. Soluble fiber is absorbed at an unknown rate depending on the exact events in your intestines where the intestinal bacteria do digest it. But even with those errors counting carbs or calories work. Because accuracy isn't needed at the level labels appear to give but actually don't. "Measure with a micrometer. Mark with chalk. Cut with an axe." It's a cliche in the engineering field that teaches the actual accuracy of measurements and the actual need for accuracy. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Do you trust food labels?
On Jan 4, 2:05*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote:
" wrote: Generally, they are fairly consistent. One brands green beans for the same size serving might say 20 cal and another 30. I suppose this could just be a rounding-off phenomenon. "The man with one watch knows what time it is. *The man with several watches is never sure." When it comes down to it counts of calories, carbs and so on are approximations. *The labels differ within the range of uncertainty. *What the exercise teaches is that the numbers are uncertain within a range. *Think back to elementary science classes and the error bars. Try to get down to the exact calorie count and the number you arrrive at isn't going to be as accurate as the labels and additions suggest. *Even if you use the scale yourself. The same issue happens when counting carbs - Deduction of fiber adds error. *Insoluble fiber is absorded a a zero rate. Soluble fiber is absorbed at an unknown rate depending on the exact events in your intestines where the intestinal bacteria do digest it. But even with those errors counting carbs or calories work. Because accuracy isn't needed at the level labels appear to give but actually don't. "Measure with a micrometer. *Mark with chalk. *Cut with an axe." *It's a cliche in the engineering field that teaches the actual accuracy of measurements and the actual need for accuracy. True enough, but this is a major labeling error somewhere. If the calorie count can be off by more than 100%, we don't even need no stinking labels. Remember one pkg said 70 cal and another said 150 cal. The way it might not matter is if after a period of time you found you maintained your weight using whatever info you use, even if that info is completly wrong. Let me put it this way. Would it matter if you ate 2500 cal, then suddenly started eating 70/150=2500/X, X= 5357 calories per day? dkw |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Do you trust food labels?
Doug Freyburger wrote:
" wrote: Generally, they are fairly consistent. One brands green beans for the same size serving might say 20 cal and another 30. I suppose this could just be a rounding-off phenomenon. "The man with one watch knows what time it is. The man with several watches is never sure." When it comes down to it counts of calories, carbs and so on are approximations. The labels differ within the range of uncertainty. What the exercise teaches is that the numbers are uncertain within a range. Think back to elementary science classes and the error bars. Try to get down to the exact calorie count and the number you arrrive at isn't going to be as accurate as the labels and additions suggest. Even if you use the scale yourself. The same issue happens when counting carbs - Deduction of fiber adds error. Insoluble fiber is absorded a a zero rate. Soluble fiber is absorbed at an unknown rate depending on the exact events in your intestines where the intestinal bacteria do digest it. But even with those errors counting carbs or calories work. Because accuracy isn't needed at the level labels appear to give but actually don't. "Measure with a micrometer. Mark with chalk. Cut with an axe." It's a cliche in the engineering field that teaches the actual accuracy of measurements and the actual need for accuracy. In addition to that, it's impossible to know to the calorie how much you're burning. Everything's approximate. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Do you trust food labels?
(The Queen of Cans and Jars) wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote: When it comes down to it counts of calories, carbs and so on are approximations. *The labels differ within the range of uncertainty. *What the exercise teaches is that the numbers are uncertain within a range. *Think back to elementary science classes and the error bars. ... But even with those errors counting carbs or calories work. Because accuracy isn't needed at the level labels appear to give but actually don't. ... In addition to that, it's impossible to know to the calorie how much you're burning. * And far too many spout "calories in = calories out" as if it implied that calorie out is a fixed number. Everything's approximate. But it works anyways. Even counting carbs in terms of cup servings of vegitable per day instead of by gram. As long as you are reasonably systematic and ready to cut portions if you are neither hungry nor losing, it all just plain works. Approximate is good enough as long as you're within plan. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Do you trust food labels?
The Queen of Cans and Jars said...
Doug Freyburger wrote: " wrote: Generally, they are fairly consistent. One brands green beans for the same size serving might say 20 cal and another 30. I suppose this could just be a rounding-off phenomenon. "The man with one watch knows what time it is. The man with several watches is never sure." When it comes down to it counts of calories, carbs and so on are approximations. The labels differ within the range of uncertainty. What the exercise teaches is that the numbers are uncertain within a range. Think back to elementary science classes and the error bars. Try to get down to the exact calorie count and the number you arrrive at isn't going to be as accurate as the labels and additions suggest. Even if you use the scale yourself. The same issue happens when counting carbs - Deduction of fiber adds error. Insoluble fiber is absorded a a zero rate. Soluble fiber is absorbed at an unknown rate depending on the exact events in your intestines where the intestinal bacteria do digest it. But even with those errors counting carbs or calories work. Because accuracy isn't needed at the level labels appear to give but actually don't. "Measure with a micrometer. Mark with chalk. Cut with an axe." It's a cliche in the engineering field that teaches the actual accuracy of measurements and the actual need for accuracy. In addition to that, it's impossible to know to the calorie how much you're burning. Everything's approximate. Depending on if you can get to a website that makes the product and can get an accurate nutrition label it can be trusted. I've seen nutrition labels change over periods of time. Usually additions of ingredients. Even though products like flash frozen veggies can be tastier and more nutritious, they can still be over-processed as far as excess ingredients go. Andy -- All Posts Blocked From: @yahoo|@gmail|@hotmail |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Do you trust food labels?
On Jan 4, 7:10*pm, (The Queen of Cans and Jars)
wrote: Doug Freyburger wrote: " wrote: Generally, they are fairly consistent. One brands green beans for the same size serving might say 20 cal and another 30. I suppose this could just be a rounding-off phenomenon. "The man with one watch knows what time it is. *The man with several watches is never sure." When it comes down to it counts of calories, carbs and so on are approximations. *The labels differ within the range of uncertainty. *What the exercise teaches is that the numbers are uncertain within a range. *Think back to elementary science classes and the error bars. Try to get down to the exact calorie count and the number you arrrive at isn't going to be as accurate as the labels and additions suggest. *Even if you use the scale yourself. The same issue happens when counting carbs - Deduction of fiber adds error. *Insoluble fiber is absorded a a zero rate. Soluble fiber is absorbed at an unknown rate depending on the exact events in your intestines where the intestinal bacteria do digest it. But even with those errors counting carbs or calories work. Because accuracy isn't needed at the level labels appear to give but actually don't. "Measure with a micrometer. *Mark with chalk. *Cut with an axe." *It's a cliche in the engineering field that teaches the actual accuracy of measurements and the actual need for accuracy. In addition to that, it's impossible to know to the calorie how much you're burning. * Everything's approximate. *- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That's true, except your experience even if it is anecdotal, gives you a sense of relative relationship between your daily activities and calories burned. If you are maintaining your weight and yet your estimates of calories burned are way off, that doesn't matter, but if you add exercise to that routine, you will burn more calories...less exercise and you burn fewer. Introducing a food that is off by 100% will make a difference..a huge difference if you eat a lot of that particular item and use the wrong caloric count whether one has any concept of calories burned. dkw |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Do you trust food labels?
Doug Freyburger wrote:
But it works anyways. Even counting carbs in terms of cup servings of vegitable per day instead of by gram. As long as you are reasonably systematic and ready to cut portions if you are neither hungry nor losing, it all just plain works. Approximate is good enough as long as you're within plan. Oh, of course it works - I agree with that. Consistency is almost always the best way to succeed. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Do you trust food labels?
Andy q wrote:
Depending on if you can get to a website that makes the product and can get an accurate nutrition label it can be trusted. I don't have any problem with nutrition labels. What I'm trying to say is that you can't know exactly, to the calorie, how your body is going to process anything. Your body is not a precisely calibrated calorimeter. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Do you trust food labels?
wrote in message ... Generally, they are fairly consistent. One brands green beans for the same size serving might say 20 cal and another 30. I suppose this could just be a rounding-off phenomenon. Then there are lentils. One package of lentils is organic but I didn't get the brand name, another is a store brand of lentils (non-organic) for a quarter the price (Wal- mart GV brand) They look identical in size and shape...yet one quarter cup of one which is identified as 35g. on both packages is listed as 150 cal per serving on the organic and 80 cal. on the other. A third package I say with a Spanish or Italian sounding name...Goya, I think, listed the same quarter-cup size lentils as 70 cal, although these appeared slightly larger, and since larger varieties of anything increase the empty air space, the 70 seems to agree with the 80 fairly closely. Something is wrong. I buy the cheapo brand and have the label in front of me. Now here is the interesting thing. The package also lists the grams of fat, protein and carbs. It list 0 fat, which is probably right, although there is obviously a small amount of fat in every food under the sun, but it is probably half a gram or so and perhaps they rounded it off correctly. There are also 20g. of carbs total, and 10 grams of protein total in that 1/4 cup serving. The fiber, by the way is 11 grams. Now, one should be able to figure the calories for themselves provided the other info is right. For example, 35 gram serving minus the 11 grams of fiber with no calories gives 24 calories of carbs plus protein. In this case, since carbs and protein both have 4 cal. per gram (fat has 9 cal per gram by the way), we should be able to just multiply 24 X 4. We get 96 calories. Well, heck this is not 70 calories. Another way to figure calories, provided the info is correct once again is to just total the listed carbs plus the listed protein first. In this case it is 20 + 10 which is 30, but 30 X 4 = 120. Something is way off on the labels. dkw If you keep in mind the rules that allow certain lies on nutrition labels, I expect that major brands are accurate. I have heard of a case where a local bakery distributed pastries with bogus nutritional data. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
McDonald's will put nutrtion labels on their food | [email protected] | General Discussion | 0 | October 26th, 2005 03:15 PM |
Net carbs and food labels | Jody Scott | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 5 | January 23rd, 2005 01:34 PM |
Total Carbs, Fiber and USA Food Labels | TAD | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 5 | April 16th, 2004 10:03 PM |
Good news for canadians and food labels. | Steven C \(Doktersteve\) | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 1 | December 23rd, 2003 04:04 PM |