3 Fat Chicks on a Diet Weight Loss Community  

Go Back   3 Fat Chicks on a Diet Weight Loss Community > Food > Food Talk And Fabulous Finds

Food Talk And Fabulous Finds Recipes, Healthy Cooking, and General Food Topics

Incorrect nutritional info on packages!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-28-2008, 12:23 PM   #1
I wanna be a loser, too
 
cbmare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bay Area California
Posts: 3,536

Height: vertically challenged

Angry Incorrect nutritional info on packages!

Does anyone else find it irritating when you enter nutritional info from something into Fit Day and it bounces back?

I bought another bag of mixed veggies and wanted to enter the mix in. The package stated that 1 C was 30 cals, carbs 5, fiber 2 and protein 1.

It bounced it saying that there should be 15 cas. I just upped the carbs to 6 and it took it.

How irritating!
__________________
love n kisses,


Life does not happen in a vacuum. Lifestyle changes must transcend habits and routines. - thanks midwife.

Weight loss isn't linear and the body doesn't have a timetable. - thanks Glory87.




I think I can. I think I can. I think I can. I think I can.
cbmare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2008, 01:09 PM   #2
Meg
Senior Member
 
Meg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 9,160

S/C/G: 257/135/maintaining

Height: 5' 4"

Default

It happens because food manufacturers are allowed to round calories to the nearest "5" or "10" and grams of carbs, fat, and protein to the nearest whole number. All you have to do is tweak it a bit, just like you did.
__________________
Meg
Start: 257 - June 1, 2001
Goal: 135 - May 12, 2002
Size 22/size 4
Meg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2008, 01:20 PM   #3
Observer of Phenomena
 
3Beans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New Hampshire Seacoast
Posts: 362

Height: 5' 4"

Default

Seriously, isn't it so frustrating to put so much time and energy into counting calories with precision, only to find out the information we're using is inaccurate? Bah.

I've found that the number of servings per package has been incorrect with some products, too. I remember I had a can of pumpkin puree that supposedly contained 3.5 servings, but the can was nearly empty after I carefully measured measured out only two! So, did each serving have more calories than the label said, or was there less in the can than the label said? Who knows? I guess weight is always a better measure.
__________________
Long term goal:


Short term goal:
3Beans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2008, 01:24 PM   #4
Meg
Senior Member
 
Meg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 9,160

S/C/G: 257/135/maintaining

Height: 5' 4"

Default

I have that experience with cans and other containers all the time too! Like the cottage cheese container that supposedly has six half-cup servings, but there are really only five. You're right that the most accurate measure is by weight -- I use the "grams" function on my scale every day.

(and a tablespoon of PB is 16 grams )
__________________
Meg
Start: 257 - June 1, 2001
Goal: 135 - May 12, 2002
Size 22/size 4
Meg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2008, 01:25 PM   #5
Just Me
 
nelie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 15,238

S/C/G: 364/202/182

Height: 5'6"

Default

3beans - for the canned pumpkin, how did you measure it? Did you weigh it? Weighing it is the only real way to get an accurate measurement for a serving.

Using measuring cups is not extremely accurate as items tend to settle with time.

I recently finished a box of cereal and was amazed at that up to the last portion in the box, it weighed exactly the same as every previous portion. There were no partial portions since I weighed out the entire box for my portions.
__________________
You can't out-exercise poor eating habits.
nelie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2008, 02:28 PM   #6
Just keep moving ...
 
Amarie2pt0's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 647

S/C/G: 241/238/140

Height: Just short enough (aka 5'4")

Default

Yes, I find this kinda thing very annoying, too.

I, too, have learned to measure everything (grams is my fav!) and calculate from that. I don't use fit day, so I've never had the conversion problem - that would really suck.

I just find it frustrating. I was actually tempted the other day to buy a bunch of 100 calorie packs and weigh the actual contents of each to see if the companies are misleading people. Fed regs require them to list the avg minimum contents, but many times I buy foods that weigh much more than the label indicates. So very, very annoying.
__________________
Really, really loves her forum chicks, and wants them to know it!
Amarie2pt0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2008, 03:05 PM   #7
Weight Watcher
 
HiHoHiHo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midwestern USA
Posts: 48

S/C/G: 170/168/145

Height: 5'6"

Default

I know the mfr has to list a "per serving" nutrition information but I wish they would also do a "per package". Because of the rounding, they can legally say, for example, that there are zero trans fats, but if you multiple the small number by the number of servings in the package, there is a significant amount of trans fat (or whatever). And I think I would have stopped eating a whole bag of anything before starting this diet if I knew how many calories, (or fat, or salt, etc) what in a whole bag/box, vs. just a serving.

And don't get me started on "number of servings per can/package." I always compare the grams in their "1 serving" to the total grams in the can. You may be as surprised as I am that eventhough they say the can contains 2 servings, it could be 2, or 2 1/2, or 1 3/4 or something else. So if you simply multiply your calories "per serving" by the number of servings the package says it has, you often will be off!

Like Progresso soup, they say 100 calories per serving. And if you're like me, you think a can IS a serving. But the label says it's two servings. Ok, 200 calories, right? Nope! The can may be more, or may be less than 2 servings, but they round. May be a small thing, but when you're counting your calories, it's a big shocker to figure out the TRUTH.

Last edited by HiHoHiHo : 02-28-2008 at 03:21 PM. Reason: clarifying math
HiHoHiHo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2008, 03:13 PM   #8
Made of Starstuff
 
Lovely's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New England
Posts: 8,806

Default

Oh goodness... I can't think about this too much or my eye starts to twitch.

Here I am now, actually reading nutrition labels only to lately find out that they're not... exactly... correct. This must be why so many people are floating towards whole foods!

At least my apple doesn't lie to me. (Would you, apple?)
__________________
~Made of star stuff~
Lovely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2008, 06:14 PM   #9
I wanna be a loser, too
 
cbmare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bay Area California
Posts: 3,536

Height: vertically challenged

Default

I'm glad to know I'm not the only one. When I first started this journey, which by the way has come to a screeching halt for over 2 months, I was reading every label out there. I picked up one of boobalah's beers to read it. Hmmm. The calories didn't seem that bad until I looked at the top and found it was 2 servings in a 12 oz can. He thinks that is just plain wrong because he drinks the entire can, not half.

Thanks, ladies. I've been wanting a new scale in the kitchen. Mine is only in oz. I think I'll look at Bed and Bath and get one that has the display off to the side.
__________________
love n kisses,


Life does not happen in a vacuum. Lifestyle changes must transcend habits and routines. - thanks midwife.

Weight loss isn't linear and the body doesn't have a timetable. - thanks Glory87.




I think I can. I think I can. I think I can. I think I can.
cbmare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2008, 03:34 AM   #10
Member
 
Zepher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southern CA, USA.
Posts: 73

S/C/G: 106/106-107/103-100

Height: 5' 1.5''

Default

Also sometimes I read the labels and the carb. calories don't add up. The fiber seems to be included in the count, which it shouldn't. Is this because the "total carb" grams is actually "total digestible carb" grams, with fiber already excluded?
Zepher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2008, 05:37 AM   #11
Eating for two!
 
jillybean720's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 6,018

S/C/G: 324 highest known/on hold/150

Height: 5' 5"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zepher View Post
Also sometimes I read the labels and the carb. calories don't add up. The fiber seems to be included in the count, which it shouldn't. Is this because the "total carb" grams is actually "total digestible carb" grams, with fiber already excluded?
Yup, some manufacturers already do the math and take out the number of calories from fiber grams. I believe they do this on Fiber One cereal, for example. Fiber is a type of carb, so it has 4 calories per gram. Let's check the Fiber One (original) nutritional info:
per cup:
60 calories
1g fat
25g carbs (14g fiber)
2g protein
Doing the math, this serving should actually have nealry double that amount--117 calories to be exact.
9 (1g fat at 9 cals per g) + 100 (25g carbs at 4 cals per g) + 8 (2g protein at 4 cals per g) = 117

The reason it only says 60 calories is that they have deducted the fiber already.
117 calories - 56 calories (14g fiber at 4 cals per g) = 61 calories

I understand why they do this, but I think it's VERY misleading. People think eating all this extra fiber is going to help negate some of the calories, but, come to find out, the manufacturers have already taken out the fiber, so every single one of those calories counts!

I wish there was some consistency in this matter--either ALL manufacturers include it or deduct it, but I think they are allowed to do it either way.
__________________
*Jill*
Highest known weight: 324
Weight on morning of DS surgery: 308.5
Got down to about 185 before pregnancy;
Benjamin David born March 24, 2012, 7 pounds 11 ounces
Post-pregnancy: 206.5
jillybean720 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2008, 10:10 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
friendlykat4u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: RI
Posts: 429

Height: 5'8"

Default

Faerie: LOL, do you have that apple sitting under a bright light?

My scale doesn't do grams, so I convert everything into ounces. I divide the grams by 28.35 to get ounces. I want to get a scale with grams, but right now my budget doesn't allow it. :P

I'm a scale freak!
__________________
friendlykat4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2008, 12:50 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: The Hill Country
Posts: 2,579

S/C/G: 218/175/155

Height: 5'6"

Default

I agree that it's frustrating that the labels aren't exact and, in some cases, way off.

As far as servings are concerned, most of the products in my pantry say "about 4 servings" (or however many are in there.) So they really are just giving an approx idea of how many servings. Very few items in my pantry give exact servings. Maybe thats just due to the types of food I buy?
__________________
Time to lose the baby weight!
zenor77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 05:11 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
peachcake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Silverton, OR
Posts: 561

S/C/G: 217/tick/160

Height: 5'5

Default

I go with what the package says. If "about" 14 shrimp are 120 cals then I count our 14 shrimp and write it down as 120 cals. I do this because even though I'm sure LOTS of those are wrong I assume they will balance each other out eventually. It's one less thing to worry about. I do my best but I just don't have the time or patience to WEIGH everything. Just pulling out a measuring cup works for me.
__________________
LONG TERM GOAL: 160
peachcake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2008, 04:02 PM   #15
Constant Vigilance
 
BlueToBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Fremont, CA
Posts: 2,818

S/C/G: 150/132/<130

Height: just under 5'4"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Faerie View Post
At least my apple doesn't lie to me. (Would you, apple?)
Well, actually, your apple could very well be lying to you. There are literally hundreds of varieties of apples and the sugar content in them can vary quite a bit. Compare a Granny Smith (very tart) to a Fuji (very sweet). The Fuji clearly has more sugar, and thus, probably more calories. The calorie info you have for an apple is probably an average of several different varieties (which may or may not include the variety you are eating), so it probably isn't completely accurate for the apple you are eating. Also, was the apple picked at optimal ripeness, when it was overripe, or when it was underripe? That will impact the sugar content and calories as well. Then there's also the matter of the soil the apple was grown in, the chemicals and fertilizer used on it, and the amount of water the tree received. All of that impacts the nutritional content and calories of the apple as well.

Calorie counting is a best guess--it's impossible to be 100% accurate.
__________________
- Barbara

My Before and After Pics

"Decide what you want; decide what you're willing to exchange for it; establish your priorities, and go to work." --H.L. Hunt

"Life has hills. Set the treadmill at an incline."
BlueToBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Posts by members, moderators and admins are not considered medical advice
and no guarantee is made against accuracy.


Thread Tools

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 On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:23 PM.






Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.3.2