A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » General Discussion
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Do you trust food labels?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 4th, 2008, 10:49 PM posted to alt.support.diet
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 663
Default 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  
Old January 4th, 2008, 11:05 PM posted to alt.support.diet
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default 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  
Old January 5th, 2008, 03:10 AM posted to alt.support.diet
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 663
Default 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  
Old January 5th, 2008, 04:10 AM posted to alt.support.diet
The Queen of Cans and Jars
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 399
Default 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  
Old January 5th, 2008, 05:02 AM posted to alt.support.diet
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default 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  
Old January 5th, 2008, 10:47 AM posted to alt.support.diet
Andy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 113
Default 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  
Old January 5th, 2008, 01:21 PM posted to alt.support.diet
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 663
Default 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  
Old January 5th, 2008, 08:53 PM posted to alt.support.diet
The Queen of Cans and Jars
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 399
Default 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  
Old January 5th, 2008, 08:53 PM posted to alt.support.diet
The Queen of Cans and Jars
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 399
Default 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  
Old January 5th, 2008, 09:54 PM posted to alt.support.diet
Cubit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 653
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.