Are nutrition labels really accurate?

mbcieslak87

TimothyFish wrote: »

So in other words, the inaccuracy of the labels is going to drive people who weigh their food batty, but the rest of us don't have to worry about it because we're allowing for broad inaccuracy anyway.

It's still smart to weight your food because it teaches you what portion control looks like - I think it's also OK to accept that the number on the label might not be exactly accurate down to the calorie... it's close enough though! I think the crazy with weighing comes from the people who weigh every slice of bread, etc. I use the scale of oz's of meat and grams of chips... stuff like that but a gram or two off isn't going to hurt anyone.

And, as someone above me pointed out, on the bell curve of those meals tested, they averaged out...
I'm gonna go log something delicious now.

Cheers

slucki01

They're close enough for me. If I was using packaged food as a major part of my diet I might care but I try to use as little processed food as possible. I'm pretty sure I didn't get fat because of inaccurate labels and I doubt that I won't lose weight because the labels are exact. Counting calories is not an exact process. Just tracking and recording makes me more mindful and changes my choices

wizzybeth

Just today: Can of garbanzo beans say a serving is 1/2 cup or 130 g. So because I generally prefer to weigh I put my 1/2 cup measuring cup on the food scale, hit the tare to make it zero...and the cup was full before it got to 100g. It was overflowing at 105 g. No way you could even get close to 130g. I was puzzling now...and still am...which is the accurate measure for the nutrition info given: the 1/2 cup or the 130 g?

I stuck with the 1/2 cup for today - and now wonder, did I under-eat or did I eat the 110 calories and other nutrients? LOL
- This kind of thing will drive me nuts.

earlnabby

merlewalton wrote: »

I'm glad you asked. There are laws against under-packing food there are no laws against giving you more than we tell you we will give you. So some products have to be over packed to a known percentage to make sure we don't under-pack them.

The mother of a friend growing up worked at Oscar Mayer in Madison in their bacon packaging plant. Her job was to weigh each package as it came down the line and add that extra small piece of bacon you get to make sure the package was at least a pound. Sometimes she just needed to add 1/4 strip, sometimes almost a whole strip.

lemurcat12

You can't let it drive you nuts. Just pick a method and stick with it, because all that matters are the relative numbers--you know if you reduce calories or increase them whether or not the absolute numbers are right (they aren't, they are an estimate).

I always use weight.

Similarly, I get meat from a farm and estimate about fat content and such all the time when choosing entries. I try to be as honest as possible, but if it is underestimating I may just need to have a lower goal than I otherwise would, to make up for the fact that my calories are in reality higher than I think. Doesn't really matter.

earlnabby

No matter how accurate the labels are and how accurate your scale is, you will still not be perfect. One package of strawberries may have more calories because they have less water and/or more sugar than the next package. We can't be perfect, the best we can do is minimize known variables and roll with it.

avskk

@wizzybeth You underate. The package is telling you "a serving is 130g, which in our laboratory or factory was measurable as 1/2 cup." This is exactly why we weigh -- because volume measurements are estimates at best, whereas a gram is a gram is always and forever a gram. (Here on Earth, anyway.)

cwolfman13

I never had any problems...I weigh and otherwise measured everything...I ate back most of my exercise calorie burn (fueling your fitness is kind of important when you're on a bike for 50 miles) and I fully understood there were variances and that product X didn't necessarily have exactly Y calories...but it all was close enough.

People get so wrapped up in minutia and, "OMG, there might be 10 more calories in this thing than I thought."...silly.

cwolfman13

TimothyFish wrote: »

So in other words, the inaccuracy of the labels is going to drive people who weigh their food batty, but the rest of us don't have to worry about it because we're allowing for broad inaccuracy anyway.

Ummm...no. By weighing foods and understanding that there is some inaccuracies I'm being more accurate than you arbitrarily assigning some "broad" and arbitrary value to that inaccuracy.

NikonPal

LAMCDylan wrote: »

Before I even saw this video I was thinking how dieters are so dependent on food labels. You only hope they are accurate. This is why I always never eat back my exercise calories in addition to leaving 100 extra calories as a buffer in case I measured calories incorrectly. Or in this case, labels are inaccurate. Anyway, I thought people here would find this video interesting...

Thanks for sharing. It was interesting...like you, I have always kept a "buffer" (reminds me of the Godfather movie) and never eat back all my exercise calories.

As someone else noted: "10 meals tested, 3 were under, 4 were close and only 3 were over";

“According to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010, men ages 19 and older reported consuming an average of 2,640 calories…actual calorie consumption…may be higher than reports show due to underreporting of energy intake, especially in overweight and obese populations.”

I don’t think in most cases, a few extra calories in some pre-packaged meals to be the real culprit. Those of us that have been “obese” know the problem. IMHO.

I am NOT saying labels and nutritional knowledge (as well as common sense) are not required. For example: the entire bottle of I Can't Believe It's Not Butter (zero-calorie) spray contains around 900 calories and 90 grams of fat.

TomZot

This.

honkytonks85 wrote: »

Calorie counting is not an exact precise science regardless of what you eat. Neither is estimating calories burned in a day.

callsitlikeiseeit

all the more reason to eat real food and not stuff that comes from a box.....

If you weigh your food, there should be very little variance or miscalculations.

lemurcat12

But of course there is--fruit is riper or less ripe, meat has more or less fat, a scoop of stew has more or less potatoes, etc.

Doesn't mean we have to be neurotic about it!

LAMCDylan

wizzybeth wrote: »

Just today: Can of garbanzo beans say a serving is 1/2 cup or 130 g. So because I generally prefer to weigh I put my 1/2 cup measuring cup on the food scale, hit the tare to make it zero...and the cup was full before it got to 100g. It was overflowing at 105 g. No way you could even get close to 130g. I was puzzling now...and still am...which is the accurate measure for the nutrition info given: the 1/2 cup or the 130 g?

I stuck with the 1/2 cup for today - and now wonder, did I under-eat or did I eat the 110 calories and other nutrients? LOL
- This kind of thing will drive me nuts.

I believe they count the liquid too. I always drain my liquid with canned beans. It says on the label there is 3.5 servings and a serving is 130 g. Once drained and weighed out, I am getting roughly 2.5 servings. Also, don't use measuring cups for beans they should strictly be for liquids. Some foods are more dense than others and will weigh more. Just use a scale.

Elise4270

Not sure if its been mentioned, but legally labels can be off 20%. But on the up side only 85% of calories from nuts are absorbed. Freebeee!