 |
| I read labels so that I can look like this (I kid.) I could do without the 80's day-glow lime-green high-cut bikini. |
Just for yuks, I decided to let my fingers do the walking over to the FDA's web page that describes the process of acquiring a nutrition label. It didn't take long for my head to start spinning. It is very costly, time-consuming and amazingly complex. If you have nothing to do for the next 3 years, I highly recommend that you read this document. Here's just one paragraph that I had to share. I love all of the Greek letters...check it out:
, where
= the sum of squared differences between each nutrient value and the mean of the n(number of) analyses
FUN STUFF!
Of note is that manufacturers are allowed some margin of error- in some cases up to 20%. And they are allowed to round numbers up or down. For those calorie counters out there, this means you are likely underestimating your intake if you rely on packaged foods. This is also true of other macronutrients as well as micronutrients.
In my own kitchen, I have personally noticed this 'margin of error' in three ways.
- Variations in physical weight leading to underestimating of calories
- Macronutrient numbers not adding up properly leading to underestimating of calories
- Errors of unknown origin leading to underestimating of calories
Bottom line: If you rely on information on labels for your packaged foods, know that you are likely ingesting more calories than you might be led to believe. I would only recommend weighing or whipping out the calculator if it's a product that you consume on a frequent basis. Otherwise, it shouldn't make much difference to your caloric bottom line and therefore, your bottom.
And now comes the nitty-gritty for those who want to know how to read a label and see if it is being somewhat accurate. For everyone else: The End. Buh Bye. Thanks for reading.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE NITTY GRITTY:
Now, for the stat-geeks and detail-oriented nerds, I will share the results of my SmoothieGirl Kitchen "laboratory" tests of a few random products I happen to have around the house.
VARIATIONS IN WEIGHT:
This is very common, especially with cereals and bread products. A word to the wise: when a label states that it has "ABOUT 2 servings", that means that there is a 100% chance that it does not have exactly 2 servings. Simply know that you WILL be rounding the numbers up in most cases, and move on.
 |
| Why the little cloud? Because if you think this contains two servings, you are dreaming. |
Below: Ezekial 4:9 Cinnamon Raisin bread: Stated calories per slice: 80. Actual calories per slice based on weight: 93. (yes I weighed every slice, sigh)
 |
| Stated serving size: 34 g |
 | ||||||
| Actual Serving Size 44g- Oops. That's 100 calories and NOT 80 |
Above: Trader Joe's Honey Wheat Hot dog Buns: Stated calories per bun 160. Actual calories based on weight and CORRECT addition of macronutrient grams: 180
****************************************
Below: Trader Joe's Seasoned Seaweed snacks. Stated calories per pack: 60. Actual calories: 84.
 |
| A current favorite snack: Seasoned Seaweed |
 |
| Remember, you're dreaming if you think there's two servings at 30 calories each |
 |
| Turns out it's more like 84 calories, not 60 |
Also, beware of some (crumbly) cereals: the volume of serving (eg 1/2 cup) might not be equal to the weight of serving ( eg. 43g). Especially, as you get to the bottom of your cereal box, the cereal gets much denser as all of the flakes have broken into tinier pieces. So you have more cereal packed into a smaller volume of space. Capiche?
VARIATIONS IN "MATHEMATICS".
Without going all Rain-man on you, here are the basics on how to read a label:
- Each macronutrient (Carbohydrate, Protein and Fat) contain a certain number of calories per gram in weight. Carbohydrates and Protein each contain 4 calories per gram. Fat contains 9.
- When you 'do the math,' all of the macronutrient calories should add up to the total number of calories in a serving. (Example given below)
- Sometimes, manufacturers treat FIBER calories (which are carbohydrates) or SUGAR ALCOHOLS (often used in sugar-free products) as free calories as they are not absorbed or processed in the body. So they subtract those calories from the total, thus being able to demonstrate a lower calorie count. My question: are we to deduct the calories in fiber from an apple as well?
 |
| There she is again, my idol-ha . |
 | |
| WHAT!!!?? ONLY 80 Calories per serving!!?? Yeah, not so much. |
I bought this product years ago when I was being super careful with my calories. It stated that it only had 80 calories while most protein powders have about 100-130 per serving (for about 30 grams of weight.) I did the Grocery Store Happy Dance and ran home with my new acquisition. However, 'twas a very sad day when I decided to "do the math."
OK I lied. I'm going to go all Rain Man on you after all... but it's all for demonstrative purposes. You can thank me later.
Skinny Mini states that a serving has 80 calories, BUT remembering our macronutrient calories from earlier in the
- 1 gram of fat... 1 X 9 = 9 cals
- 17 grams of carbs...17 X 4 = 68 cals
- 9 grams of protein... 9 X 4 = 36 cals
- TOTAL = 9 + 68 + 36 = 113 cals (not 80 as stated)
OTHER ERRORS:
When the fabulous Allie, the queen Pimp of Protein, came to visit, we had to hit up the Asian market.
 |
| Allie at the Asian Market wondering why I'm taking her photo. |
We found these:
 |
| This is a big bag of big bad-boy sumo-wrestler gauge seaweed. |
Love love love love love. We were both in love. Both with the flavor and the stats.
 |
| In teeny tiny writing (and also in Japanese) it hails 70 calories per serving!! 140 calories per bag?! For thick, crunchy, oil-kissed bliss? Not so much. Try closer to 300 calories. Truth be known, I'd rather have had Cheetos. Just being honest. |
It turns out that I also procured a very similar product (unphotographed as it was demolished and the evidence tossed) that quoted the calories as being double: DOUBLE at 150 per serving! Due to the horrific discrepancy, I decided to investigate. It turns out that the actual WEIGHT did not add up correctly for the 70-calorie seaweed. So what I believed to be a 140-calorie packed was now approaching 300. No bueno!
 |
| Just for comparison, the TJs seaweed on the left and the Sumo Seaweed on the right |
 |
| The TJs version, while higher in calories than stated, has no oil and is wafer thin. The Sumo-Wrestler version on the right is big, fat, chewy-yet-crunchy, oily and DELICIOUS. In other words...Too good to be true. |
Bottom line: If it tastes THAT GOOD, it probably has more calories than you think.
My final thoughts:
If you are a non-calorie tracker and you've made it this far, you are now officially my BFF. You deserve a medal. Send me your deets so that I can Friend you on Facebook and Follow you on Twitter.
If you do track calories but you're thinking: "What's the big deal? 20 calories here 30 calories there, who cares?"
Well, let's hypothesize that you consumed one Ezekial sandwich 5 days a week for 50 weeks (not Christmas week and not Thanksgiving week...that would just be wrong), you would consume a sneaky extra 6500 calories in a year WITHOUT KNOWING IT! And that's just for ONE product. Think about all of the packaged goods that you consume on a regular basis! I can think of a lot of things I'd rather do with those calories rather than gaining nearly 2 pounds of fat, thanks all the same.
Q: Do you eat many packaged food items? Do you read labels? Do you care about variances? Do you track calories? Do you put products back on the shelf after seeing statistics that you don't like?
38 comments:
oh man i get so mad when I find some labels with the wrong "math." There are actually quite a few out there. Don't they know how to multiply? haha.
you already know my 2 cents! but i love this, numbers and all, i am obsessed with adding and dividing and all that jazz. it is shocking to see the reality of the servings. when it said "about 2" i always thought it meant LESS than 2!
JB- it can be lower (I've seen it with soups) but usually it's higher than "about 2" :-)
Lindsay- I hear ya but they are allowed a lot of "wiggle room"
I know this is crazy but I dont count calories or weigh food. I have a food scale that i got to weigh raw ingredients in raw unbaking since dates and nuts are hard to precisely measure in a cup but I never use it. I never use the scale for food either. I eye ball calorie stats on something, i.e. 15 mary's crackers is about 150 calories. Or maybe 130. Or maybe it's 13 crackers. Or 140 cals. Point being, I roughly know what things are, i.e. 10 cals a piece in the cracker, but since I eat like 3 crackers once a week, I really dont care much :) I know this is probably annoying for a counter like you, but i dont count!
On wayyyy more fun matters, I got a brazilian blowout and just posted about it!!!! LOVE IT!!!!
I try not to eat to many packaged foods but sometimes its necessary, I don't count calories though. I probably should! x x
I go back and forth between counting calories and or not. Just depends on my goals (whatever they may be) at the time. It doesn't matter much to be if counts are exact as I use counting more as a means to be consistent with portion sizes. In other, words if I'm counting it's easier to eat a handful (about 1/4 cup) of nuts as opposed to a bagful. I suppose another way of saying it would be that counting helps me to focus on consistency rather than perfection.
Very interesting post!
I really liked this post, I had NO idea that companies were allowed to be 20% off in their calculations!
That is absurd!
Thanks for going undercover and finding all this out ;)
haha they don't call it sumo seaweed for nuttin i guess? hahaha that comparison is hilarious.
this was a great post! i've never owned a food scale but when i look at calories for the most part i'm pretty conscious that its all a lie or most of it for the most part. companies suck like that.
Holy cow, girl! That's a lot of math!!
I used to be a calorie counter back in college, but it eventually drove me CRAZY!! I think I would have really lost it after finding out how "off" the labels can really be! Yikes!
For the most part, I now try to stay away from anything with a label on it, which makes life way easier. ;)
I admit to being a total stat nerd and I found this absolutely fascinating. I've been reading labels for years and I diligently record my calories, but it never occurred to me to do the math with the macronutrients.
I generally don't eat vey much processed food, so I'm not too worried, but now I'm tempted to take some time to do the math for the ones I do eat.
Yeah... I used to do the same rain-man calculations with my food. (Sometimes I still do - can't help it!) I'm so not surprised that companies do this and get away with it. Still ticks me off though.
Have you read Good Calories Bad Calories? Gary Taubes has an interesting take on the whole 30 calories here, 50 calories there leads to weight gain theory...
Wow this post is one of the most fascinating posts I have read in a while. As a math major, you had me hooked at the equations.
Thank-you for enlightening me, I knew calories were not exact but I had no idea the dramatic difference.
Thanks for your e-mail; I meant to respond a thousand times but was always interrupted... So I'm just going to comment while I'm here... I'm glad you re-posted this as I loved reading everyone's comments! :-)
The discrepancies that you present are interesting, and I do think that it's important to be conscious of calorie intake in general (ie know if a cereal has 100 or 300 calories per serving, roughly) I also see your logic about the extra calories in Ezekiel bread adding up over time. But how do you know what your calorie expenditure really is? You could roughly estimate it, but I don't think it's possible to really know how many calories you burn in a day, just like you can't really know how many calories you eat. One day you may have climbed stairs a lot more often, burning more calories. Your resting metabolism may be faster one day. Or any other number of activities could account for calorie expenditure discrepancy. I think it's near impossible to know the exact number of calories you burn in a day, and it's near impossible to know the number of calories you eat. The best you can do is rough estimates and I think your body can help clue you in on what it needs (if you learn to listen carefully!) It seems to me that, just like the food manufacturers, you can allow yourself some wiggle room, too.
I definitely agree with everything you said - it's crazy how far off actual and listed calorie counts can be! Although, food for thought, my food production professor was recently telling us that if you have a product high in fiber, it's going to affect the calorie count (i.e. it'll be closer to the lower labeled calorie count than it will the calorie count you calculate based on macronutrient calorie values). Just wanted to share! :)
Have a fabulous day!
wow. i dont count calories but i happen to hate the FDA for many other reasons...like calling a product whole wheat if it has 51% whole wheat and the rest is sh!t. sigh. anyways, janetha just linked to this and i happened to read the whole thing just because it was interesting how effed our government is at regulating food things...you can find me on twitter now, haha. :)
The only thing I still measure is peanut butter. Because my eyes always seem too big with that stuff when I'm not careful ;)
Well, you know how I feel about this! I used to be aaallll about the counting. Actually, I looked my best when I counted and tracked religiously. Now I'm 5-10 lbs heavier, eating more, and really just don't care about any of it. Maybe I'll get back into it some day. But at this point in my life, putting that much mental energy into numbers and my appearance isn't that high on my priority list. The only thing that will probably keep my from gaining my weight back is knowing that I need to keep looking fit to get clients :\
Wow, what a great post! I def am a bit skeptical on nutritional labels, and have definitely suspected certain labels to be wrong. At whole foods a few months ago they had this DELICIOUS cheesy kale chips for only 150 cals! so it said...but i was a bit suspicious because they were TOO delicious, and the other brands had more like 300...well what do you know i checked out the label recently and its 300 now!!! peeps are crazy. I do think it's important for labels to be more accurate but really it is up to us to be cautious. I DO count calories, in some way shape or form, and will not eat many things due to their caloric/macronutrient content..unless we're talking about a binge but I guess that's not what we're talking about hehe...thanks so much for your detailed investigation ad explanation. awesome!! you're reading my mind, chica. but actually writing it and in a way more eloquent and cool way than me ;) heart ~K
Wow, what a great post! I def am a bit skeptical on nutritional labels, and have definitely suspected certain labels to be wrong. At whole foods a few months ago they had this DELICIOUS cheesy kale chips for only 150 cals! so it said...but i was a bit suspicious because they were TOO delicious, and the other brands had more like 300...well what do you know i checked out the label recently and its 300 now!!! peeps are crazy. I do think it's important for labels to be more accurate but really it is up to us to be cautious. I DO count calories, in some way shape or form, and will not eat many things due to their caloric/macronutrient content....thanks so much for your detailed investigation ad explanation. awesome!! you're reading my mind, chica. but actually writing it and in a way more eloquent and cool way than me ;) heart ~K
I am convinced you are my twin! I do this and have been doing this for the past 8 years! Seriously, my poor grocery shopping friends always brace themselves as I decimate product labels. It drives me insane! Everyone is into TJ's Peanut Flour, and it IS low cal, but it is NOT 112cal or whatever it claims. It's more like 136 (no big deal). The fiber thing frustrates me; in Canada you have to label certain things, while in the US you don't (cereal varies A LOT- always higher in Canada). My favorite GG Scandinavian Bran Crispbread (which I have a pack-entire pack- every night) is listed as 12cal/slice*10=120cal a pack. No so! 7grams carbs, 1 gram of protein and atleast 0.4g of fat are more between 32-36 cal per cracker/cookie. There for the back is more around 360. I changed the counts in my Fitday counter. I don't mind when the weight varies (I weigh each pack daily out of curiousity) between 98g to 121g. So frustating!
Barbara
Ps- thanks for the great post! I constantly write about this and try to explain it to clients.
Wow Barbara! Thanks for the comment and the enlightening info! Crap I didn't know about the peanut flour but it doesn't surprise me...TJs is the WORST when it comes to fudging the numbers. The WORST! And I totally know those crackers you mean. That is a huge difference. I guess I'm not meticulous about weighing and measuring everything...I suppose I do it when I suspect 'foul play' haha! But I suppose the take-home lesson (for me anyway) is to weigh/measure/calculate for items that you eat frequently. The rest can slide.
Thanks a lot for the comment!
While in general I agree that better accountability could be had from food makers, in their defense, if the calories appear to be reasonably close to the estimated total, I would be more inclined to take the package number. It is overly simplistic to believe that All fats are EXACTLY 9 calories per gram, and all proteins and carbs are EXACTLY 4 calories per gram. In the case of the above, the obvious rounding to get the numbers for carbs and proteins could reasonably be off by as much as 13% ( and possibly as high as 25%since we don't even know in what way these numbers were rounded)! Real science NEVER works out as even numbers unless we base the units of the measurement directly on what we're measuring (which is not the case here). In short, if it's reasonably close (+/- 15%), I think you're better off going with the package (they probably aren't trying to cheat you). Still, this is a great post, and I think this is a great estimating tool to keep them honest, and help out when they are not!
Anonymous- THank you for your long and thoughtful comment! I had been told what you say about not all carbs being 4 cals per gram etc. And when I tooled around the internet, I simply couldn't find anything to back that up. I'm sure I wasn't looking in the right place though. I wish I had a reference as it was totally fascinating to me!
I will say though about believing the label over the calculations: it is in the companies' interests to state a lower calorie/carb etc and therefore sell more product. I have bought the lower calorie labeled package of something identical (even up to the weight in grams) just to have the lower calorie 'label'...this was before I started checking up on the stats. So there are dollars at stake here.
Despite what it may seem, I don't get too hung up on 'erroneous' labels unless it's something I eat all the time. Having said that, once I've found that a label doesn't jive with the math I've done, I'll often stop buying that product.
Thank you for commenting- you obviously have a lot of science knowledge! :-)
I found you through Fitnessista and just luckily saw this post. I hope you still see comments on here. For fiber carbohydrates we can't process fiber for fuel in our bodies and so my understanding is that there aren't calories in fiber grams, the same for sugar alcohol grams. Is that not correct?
hi Amara! yes, I've heard the same thing about fiber and sugar alcohols, but i'm one of those annoying people who feels that if it's seems to good to be true, it probably is! :-) So I just tend to count all the calories, even if it's a fiber or sugar alcohol calorie. I'm especially wary of the sugar alcohol calories, b/c they are quite delicious! Thanks for the comment!
I found this post that you have written very interesting but say for instance you have been consuming 40 more calories in a day than you think you are everyday, wouldn't your body have gotten used to that amount by now? Also the only way that you can actually know the real amount of calories you are eating is to use a calorimeter every time before you eat something which would be ridiculous :P . The labels are accurate enough, I guess, I mean some of them are accurate and even the ones that are not are not too far off, and like I said before, your body would have gotten used to amount. When people gain weight it is either because of a health issue they have or they are simply taking in more calories then what their own body is personally used to. So say for example, if someone is maintaining their weight just fine and then they continuosly start eating more than usual, they are likely to gain, which you probably already know all of this :P .
By the way I am, however, skeptical when it comes to things like "only 2 servings per container," as those do tend to be a bit fishy.
I also have a habit of putting things back on the shelf when I don't like their nutrition stats :P .
Hi Anon- I'm not really sure if the body would 'get used to' 40 extra cals per day, or if weight would creep on slowly, so i guess I'm not willing to try it and find out. :-)
You are right about it being ridiculous if not impossible to be hooked up to a calorimeter all day (although it sounds fun to me!) And really, the only way that inaccurate stats would affect anyone's bottom line- or bottom- would be if they repeatedly ate the questionable foods. That's why I measure and weigh what I eat regularly. Thanks for the comments!
where can i purchase the scale you used to measure the food with?
Anon- I think I got mine at Target. If not, Bed Bath & Beyond would have several options.
Your body would get used to the little amount of unknown calories per day if you were having the same thing everyday. Weight would not start to creep on just because you are consuming a little more calories than you think you are. What about those people who don't even count calories and have managed to succesfuly maintain their weight? My main point is that not knowing those extra few calories will not harm you because your body has known that was the amount it has been getting all along even if your mind didn't.
Doesn't measuring and weighing everything you eat get a bit in the way of life? :P
Hi anon- good point about the body doing what it wants despite what the mind believes that it knows! :-) Thanks for the comment!
Wow! This is shocking. I just grabbed my Vitatop and quickly calculated the calories according to your calculations above...it states 100 cals at 1.5g fat, 24g carbs, 5g of Protein....which would equal 130 calories right?! A third more than I thought I was consuming. Big difference.
Ashley- I'm sure that what they are doing is subtracting the fiber calories, which many people feel go undigested and therefor should not contribute to the 'bottom line' - as I said that is very very common. But as I also said in my post- are we able to 'subtract' the calories from the fiber in an apple? Food for thought (pun intended).
omg, i loved this post. thank you so much for investigating.
Anon #2 above- sorry your comment got stuck in moderation for about half a year- oops. Yes weighing and measuring everything does get in the way of life, which is why I've stepped back from it quite a bit. I still weigh/measure food occasionally just to make sure I'm not helping myself to huge portions, but right now I'm in a calorie uncounting experiment and I'll admit that it's very liberating for me now. There were other times in my life where the calorie counting served a purpose. Right now it's better for me to let it go.
Great read! I am not shocked, but I was surprised to learn that there was such a discrepancy across the board. I guess it goes to show that in the end it is best to cook your own meals & snacks and avoid packaged foods as much as you can.
Post a Comment