Lies, damn lies and the FDA
Replies
-
Calories are your friend without them you die!! People need to work on Discipline more so than zero calorie substitutes MY2CENTS@gotpeanutbutter...lol..3
-
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »You'd think it's all about the math, but nope. There's marketing and product sales in there, too. 0 Calories!! Fat free!!! Sure the hell look sexier than the real deal. So who cares if some poor shmo decides to consume "way too much" of those items and stall their own efforts to lose weight or whatever? We've got an obesity crisis in the USA, but screw them. If they'd only consume quantities that are "normal" for me, they wouldn't have any issues, right? RIGHT???
Don't blame the cooking spray that clearly says as ingredients "Hey, I'm oil. I only am 0 calories because you're supposed to use a fraction of a gram coming from a single spray". If you choose to use half the bottle, that's your fault for not thinking.
Or why not tell me the right calorie information in case I do choose to use half a bottle, or even a couple seconds of spray and not that ridiculous "light perfume spray" serving size? Do you really believe there aren't lobbyists aggressively putting their bottom line over providing information that promotes healthy behaviors? I admire your naïveté.
Using half the bottle is frankly dumb because the spray is more expensive than just straight up oil in a bottle.
And it's a bit funny you see this as not promoting healthy behavior when the whole point of the spray is using way less oil but you still choose to use more than that and blame the bottle.
The point to YOU may be to use less (even ridiculous quantities like a fraction of a second - wait, I think I just counted a third of a second there), but a) it's a spray or mist product that helps coat a surface more evenly than liquid, thick oil might. b ), what business is it of yours how much someone else uses? I thought it was all about CICO, why not provide accurate information if we're so interested in reducing obesity rates? To me, this kind of behavior just stinks of a willingness to make a buck, even on the backs of the people being put in early graves. Or at the very best, an unforeseen consequence of a practice that may have been thought to have other legitimate uses.
PS: "half the bottle" is your dumb exaggeration. If you hate it so much, maybe you shouldn't have come up with it. Another dumb quantity is 1/3 of a second spray. WTF. That's not a real duration and certainly not useful at all, IMO.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »yeah...i switched concentrated liquid sucralose because I discovered the bulking agent in Splenda had a few calories, and I was using quite a bit.
I'm another person who did this. I used a lot of splenda too, but I knew about the calories in it and used to log them. I like my coffee on the ridiculously sweet side and those calories were adding up. I also added it to plain yogurt. The liquid stuff from Amazon is truly calorie free.
I used to add sweetener to yogurt with some vanilla and pecans. It was really good.
As for the spray oils. I use them, I log them, but I made my own entry that included the calories because I couldn't find one. For what it's worth, I usually use a 3 second spray for my breakfast, which works out to 24 calories. Insignificant overall, however, I am also monitoring my fat intake, because it seems to rest naturally on the lower side. I guess if I switched to a pour oil, I would do better reaching that.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »You'd think it's all about the math, but nope. There's marketing and product sales in there, too. 0 Calories!! Fat free!!! Sure the hell look sexier than the real deal. So who cares if some poor shmo decides to consume "way too much" of those items and stall their own efforts to lose weight or whatever? We've got an obesity crisis in the USA, but screw them. If they'd only consume quantities that are "normal" for me, they wouldn't have any issues, right? RIGHT???
Don't blame the cooking spray that clearly says as ingredients "Hey, I'm oil. I only am 0 calories because you're supposed to use a fraction of a gram coming from a single spray". If you choose to use half the bottle, that's your fault for not thinking.
Or why not tell me the right calorie information in case I do choose to use half a bottle, or even a couple seconds of spray and not that ridiculous "light perfume spray" serving size? Do you really believe there aren't lobbyists aggressively putting their bottom line over providing information that promotes healthy behaviors? I admire your naïveté.
Using half the bottle is frankly dumb because the spray is more expensive than just straight up oil in a bottle.
And it's a bit funny you see this as not promoting healthy behavior when the whole point of the spray is using way less oil but you still choose to use more than that and blame the bottle.
The point to YOU may be to use less (even ridiculous quantities like a fraction of a second - wait, I think I just counted a third of a second there), but a) it's a spray or mist product that helps coat a surface more evenly than liquid, thick oil might. b ), what business is it of yours how much someone else uses? I thought it was all about CICO, why not provide accurate information if we're so interested in reducing obesity rates? To me, this kind of behavior just stinks of a willingness to make a buck, even on the backs of the people being put in early graves. Or at the very best, an unforeseen consequence of a practice that may have been thought to have other legitimate uses.
PS: "half the bottle" is your dumb exaggeration. If you hate it so much, maybe you shouldn't have come up with it. Another dumb quantity is 1/3 of a second spray. WTF. That's not a real duration and certainly not useful at all, IMO.
I've seen containers of PAM that state that coating a 10 inch pan with a 1-second spray is 9 calories.
They do give you the information.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »You'd think it's all about the math, but nope. There's marketing and product sales in there, too. 0 Calories!! Fat free!!! Sure the hell look sexier than the real deal. So who cares if some poor shmo decides to consume "way too much" of those items and stall their own efforts to lose weight or whatever? We've got an obesity crisis in the USA, but screw them. If they'd only consume quantities that are "normal" for me, they wouldn't have any issues, right? RIGHT???
Don't blame the cooking spray that clearly says as ingredients "Hey, I'm oil. I only am 0 calories because you're supposed to use a fraction of a gram coming from a single spray". If you choose to use half the bottle, that's your fault for not thinking.
Or why not tell me the right calorie information in case I do choose to use half a bottle, or even a couple seconds of spray and not that ridiculous "light perfume spray" serving size? Do you really believe there aren't lobbyists aggressively putting their bottom line over providing information that promotes healthy behaviors? I admire your naïveté.
Using half the bottle is frankly dumb because the spray is more expensive than just straight up oil in a bottle.
And it's a bit funny you see this as not promoting healthy behavior when the whole point of the spray is using way less oil but you still choose to use more than that and blame the bottle.
The point to YOU may be to use less (even ridiculous quantities like a fraction of a second - wait, I think I just counted a third of a second there), but a) it's a spray or mist product that helps coat a surface more evenly than liquid, thick oil might. b ), what business is it of yours how much someone else uses? I thought it was all about CICO, why not provide accurate information if we're so interested in reducing obesity rates? To me, this kind of behavior just stinks of a willingness to make a buck, even on the backs of the people being put in early graves. Or at the very best, an unforeseen consequence of a practice that may have been thought to have other legitimate uses.
PS: "half the bottle" is your dumb exaggeration. If you hate it so much, maybe you shouldn't have come up with it. Another dumb quantity is 1/3 of a second spray. WTF. That's not a real duration and certainly not useful at all, IMO.
while i certainly agree they need to get rid of the ridiculous serving sizes, i disagree wholeheartedly about the obesity epidemic.
I'm sorry, but the people who are currently obese aren't obese from consuming too many very low calorie products, they are obese from consuming significantly more calories than they need over long periods of time. The extra 20 or even 30 calories they're getting pales in comparison to the rest of their diets.
And on the other hand, those of us who are losing weight or eating in a calorie deficit rarely fail because of these small miscalculations. As stated earlier, products can have an acceptable error rate of + or - 20% on the listed calories per gram AND products can be mislabeled + or - 20% on the weight of the package.
I could go on, but essentially my point is that the US should just do away with the "serving size" s$%t altogether and list the calories per 100g as every other country on the planet does. Edit: This seems to be where most of the misinformation, misleading, etc. comes from IMO8 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »yeah...i switched concentrated liquid sucralose because I discovered the bulking agent in Splenda had a few calories, and I was using quite a bit.
I'm another person who did this. I used a lot of splenda too, but I knew about the calories in it and used to log them. I like my coffee on the ridiculously sweet side and those calories were adding up. I also added it to plain yogurt. The liquid stuff from Amazon is truly calorie free.
I used to add sweetener to yogurt with some vanilla and pecans. It was really good.
As for the spray oils. I use them, I log them, but I made my own entry that included the calories because I couldn't find one. For what it's worth, I usually use a 3 second spray for my breakfast, which works out to 24 calories. Insignificant overall, however, I am also monitoring my fat intake, because it seems to rest naturally on the lower side. I guess if I switched to a pour oil, I would do better reaching that.
I created my own entry too. I use spray for air-popped popcorn.
I tend to use poured oil for all cooking, though. I just swish it around the pain with my silicone spatula. It does a fine job.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »You'd think it's all about the math, but nope. There's marketing and product sales in there, too. 0 Calories!! Fat free!!! Sure the hell look sexier than the real deal. So who cares if some poor shmo decides to consume "way too much" of those items and stall their own efforts to lose weight or whatever? We've got an obesity crisis in the USA, but screw them. If they'd only consume quantities that are "normal" for me, they wouldn't have any issues, right? RIGHT???
Don't blame the cooking spray that clearly says as ingredients "Hey, I'm oil. I only am 0 calories because you're supposed to use a fraction of a gram coming from a single spray". If you choose to use half the bottle, that's your fault for not thinking.
Or why not tell me the right calorie information in case I do choose to use half a bottle, or even a couple seconds of spray and not that ridiculous "light perfume spray" serving size? Do you really believe there aren't lobbyists aggressively putting their bottom line over providing information that promotes healthy behaviors? I admire your naïveté.
Using half the bottle is frankly dumb because the spray is more expensive than just straight up oil in a bottle.
And it's a bit funny you see this as not promoting healthy behavior when the whole point of the spray is using way less oil but you still choose to use more than that and blame the bottle.
The point to YOU may be to use less (even ridiculous quantities like a fraction of a second - wait, I think I just counted a third of a second there), but a) it's a spray or mist product that helps coat a surface more evenly than liquid, thick oil might. b ), what business is it of yours how much someone else uses? I thought it was all about CICO, why not provide accurate information if we're so interested in reducing obesity rates? To me, this kind of behavior just stinks of a willingness to make a buck, even on the backs of the people being put in early graves. Or at the very best, an unforeseen consequence of a practice that may have been thought to have other legitimate uses.
PS: "half the bottle" is your dumb exaggeration. If you hate it so much, maybe you shouldn't have come up with it. Another dumb quantity is 1/3 of a second spray. WTF. That's not a real duration and certainly not useful at all, IMO.
I've seen containers of PAM that state that coating a 10 inch pan with a 1-second spray is 9 calories.
They do give you the information.
How do you coat a 10" pan in 1 second?
That spray for .33333 of a second is why I stick with canola oil and/or margarine. 10 mL/10 g and done.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »You'd think it's all about the math, but nope. There's marketing and product sales in there, too. 0 Calories!! Fat free!!! Sure the hell look sexier than the real deal. So who cares if some poor shmo decides to consume "way too much" of those items and stall their own efforts to lose weight or whatever? We've got an obesity crisis in the USA, but screw them. If they'd only consume quantities that are "normal" for me, they wouldn't have any issues, right? RIGHT???
Don't blame the cooking spray that clearly says as ingredients "Hey, I'm oil. I only am 0 calories because you're supposed to use a fraction of a gram coming from a single spray". If you choose to use half the bottle, that's your fault for not thinking.
Or why not tell me the right calorie information in case I do choose to use half a bottle, or even a couple seconds of spray and not that ridiculous "light perfume spray" serving size? Do you really believe there aren't lobbyists aggressively putting their bottom line over providing information that promotes healthy behaviors? I admire your naïveté.
Using half the bottle is frankly dumb because the spray is more expensive than just straight up oil in a bottle.
And it's a bit funny you see this as not promoting healthy behavior when the whole point of the spray is using way less oil but you still choose to use more than that and blame the bottle.
Yep. Telling you to use just a quick fraction-of-a-second spray IS telling someone to use healthy behaviors.
Now, I don't think using more oil is bad (although I wouldn't get a teaspoon or tablespoon of oil from a can rather than a bottle, seems weird--I even like a spritzer over a can personally). But anyone who thinks a product that is OIL can become no calorie in any amount just because sprayed from the bottle is willfully fooling themselves and more information can't prevent that kind of thing.
Bigger point, I don't believe for a second (or even the fraction of a second that is the serving size of a spray oil) that anyone who is obese is obese primarily (or significantly in any way) because of overuse of spray oil. I they are ALSO eating lots of other sources of calories in excess OR simply not paying much attention to overall calories at all. The current labeling may be imperfect (although there are legitimate debates over the best way to do it, as I don't think normalizing ridiculous serving sizes on the big end is a good idea and don't think the 100 g=X method would be all that useful to most who have no idea what 100 g is (in the US) but it is perfectly adequate for anyone who actually cares enough to make an effort. (Same with labeling at chain restaurants. I think it's a good idea and will help those who care and probably make restaurants have more low cal options, but the truth is even where this information has been available, like where I live, most users ignore it.)
It may not have been "why they got fat" - funny again how we're willing to split hairs, here. I mean, which one food "makes" people fat, anyway? But this labeling behavior could certainly negatively impact people's efforts to correct the problem, such as the examples detailed in the OP.
Reminds me of when I was working on paying off all my debt a year or so after college and was calling around to gather up information on all my interest rates. This one lady was like, "it's just a lot of debt!!, what does it matter what the interest rate is!" I just had to insist. This is my plan, my process, get me all the information I need so that I can execute it properly without having to worry about inaccurate inputs. Garbage in, garbage out and all that. No, the 9% interest rate or whatever wasn't "why" I was in debt to begin with, but knowledge of that number for me was critical to my being able to get out of debt successfully using the methods I'd planned.
If we're serious about fixing this problem, it just seems it's important to steer away from practices that could frustrate people's efforts, or make them think that calorie counting, or even diet aids such as the ones discussed in this topic do not work. They're working on being more aware. This is the location for nutritional information. Why couldn't it just be accurate?3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »yeah...i switched concentrated liquid sucralose because I discovered the bulking agent in Splenda had a few calories, and I was using quite a bit.
I'm another person who did this. I used a lot of splenda too, but I knew about the calories in it and used to log them. I like my coffee on the ridiculously sweet side and those calories were adding up. I also added it to plain yogurt. The liquid stuff from Amazon is truly calorie free.
I used to add sweetener to yogurt with some vanilla and pecans. It was really good.
As for the spray oils. I use them, I log them, but I made my own entry that included the calories because I couldn't find one. For what it's worth, I usually use a 3 second spray for my breakfast, which works out to 24 calories. Insignificant overall, however, I am also monitoring my fat intake, because it seems to rest naturally on the lower side. I guess if I switched to a pour oil, I would do better reaching that.
I created my own entry too. I use spray for air-popped popcorn.
I tend to use poured oil for all cooking, though. I just swish it around the pain with my silicone spatula. It does a fine job.
I used to do that, but then switched to sprays for even coating and fewer calories. I should reevaluate where I'm getting my fats and see what I can do to bump them up a bit. If nothing else this thread has me contemplating my fat consumption.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »You'd think it's all about the math, but nope. There's marketing and product sales in there, too. 0 Calories!! Fat free!!! Sure the hell look sexier than the real deal. So who cares if some poor shmo decides to consume "way too much" of those items and stall their own efforts to lose weight or whatever? We've got an obesity crisis in the USA, but screw them. If they'd only consume quantities that are "normal" for me, they wouldn't have any issues, right? RIGHT???
Don't blame the cooking spray that clearly says as ingredients "Hey, I'm oil. I only am 0 calories because you're supposed to use a fraction of a gram coming from a single spray". If you choose to use half the bottle, that's your fault for not thinking.
Or why not tell me the right calorie information in case I do choose to use half a bottle, or even a couple seconds of spray and not that ridiculous "light perfume spray" serving size? Do you really believe there aren't lobbyists aggressively putting their bottom line over providing information that promotes healthy behaviors? I admire your naïveté.
Using half the bottle is frankly dumb because the spray is more expensive than just straight up oil in a bottle.
And it's a bit funny you see this as not promoting healthy behavior when the whole point of the spray is using way less oil but you still choose to use more than that and blame the bottle.
The point to YOU may be to use less (even ridiculous quantities like a fraction of a second - wait, I think I just counted a third of a second there), but a) it's a spray or mist product that helps coat a surface more evenly than liquid, thick oil might. b ), what business is it of yours how much someone else uses? I thought it was all about CICO, why not provide accurate information if we're so interested in reducing obesity rates? To me, this kind of behavior just stinks of a willingness to make a buck, even on the backs of the people being put in early graves. Or at the very best, an unforeseen consequence of a practice that may have been thought to have other legitimate uses.
PS: "half the bottle" is your dumb exaggeration. If you hate it so much, maybe you shouldn't have come up with it. Another dumb quantity is 1/3 of a second spray. WTF. That's not a real duration and certainly not useful at all, IMO.
while i certainly agree they need to get rid of the ridiculous serving sizes, i disagree wholeheartedly about the obesity epidemic.
I'm sorry, but the people who are currently obese aren't obese from consuming too many very low calorie products, they are obese from consuming significantly more calories than they need over long periods of time. The extra 20 or even 30 calories they're getting pales in comparison to the rest of their diets.
And on the other hand, those of us who are losing weight or eating in a calorie deficit rarely fail because of these small miscalculations. As stated earlier, products can have an acceptable error rate of + or - 20% on the listed calories per gram AND products can be mislabeled + or - 20% on the weight of the package.
I could go on, but essentially my point is that the US should just do away with the "serving size" s$%t altogether and list the calories per 100g as every other country on the planet does. Edit: This seems to be where most of the misinformation, misleading, etc. comes from IMO
I gave my take on some of these comments in a later post.
Also, The 20 to 30 calories or more calories could be that, in one instance. Maybe they make eggs in the morning. Then use oil spray to prepare veggies or a salad for lunch or dinner. Maybe there's some other "no calorie" item or items they're using as they work hard to lose weight. I think it all adds up and could explain why some people might otherwise get prematurely discouraged. The effect on a smaller person would be greater - could this be someone who became obese because their efforts to lose weight when "just" a bit overweight didn't pan out? And therefore they concluded that "nothing works"?
1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »You'd think it's all about the math, but nope. There's marketing and product sales in there, too. 0 Calories!! Fat free!!! Sure the hell look sexier than the real deal. So who cares if some poor shmo decides to consume "way too much" of those items and stall their own efforts to lose weight or whatever? We've got an obesity crisis in the USA, but screw them. If they'd only consume quantities that are "normal" for me, they wouldn't have any issues, right? RIGHT???
Don't blame the cooking spray that clearly says as ingredients "Hey, I'm oil. I only am 0 calories because you're supposed to use a fraction of a gram coming from a single spray". If you choose to use half the bottle, that's your fault for not thinking.
Or why not tell me the right calorie information in case I do choose to use half a bottle, or even a couple seconds of spray and not that ridiculous "light perfume spray" serving size? Do you really believe there aren't lobbyists aggressively putting their bottom line over providing information that promotes healthy behaviors? I admire your naïveté.
Using half the bottle is frankly dumb because the spray is more expensive than just straight up oil in a bottle.
And it's a bit funny you see this as not promoting healthy behavior when the whole point of the spray is using way less oil but you still choose to use more than that and blame the bottle.
The point to YOU may be to use less (even ridiculous quantities like a fraction of a second - wait, I think I just counted a third of a second there), but a) it's a spray or mist product that helps coat a surface more evenly than liquid, thick oil might. b ), what business is it of yours how much someone else uses? I thought it was all about CICO, why not provide accurate information if we're so interested in reducing obesity rates? To me, this kind of behavior just stinks of a willingness to make a buck, even on the backs of the people being put in early graves. Or at the very best, an unforeseen consequence of a practice that may have been thought to have other legitimate uses.
PS: "half the bottle" is your dumb exaggeration. If you hate it so much, maybe you shouldn't have come up with it. Another dumb quantity is 1/3 of a second spray. WTF. That's not a real duration and certainly not useful at all, IMO.
I've seen containers of PAM that state that coating a 10 inch pan with a 1-second spray is 9 calories.
They do give you the information.
Ah! The fine print gotcha, placed in a location other than the primary nutrition info block.
. I'd say the actual nutrition block would tend to scream volumes over this location that many might not look. Thank you for sharing this, though. 3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »You'd think it's all about the math, but nope. There's marketing and product sales in there, too. 0 Calories!! Fat free!!! Sure the hell look sexier than the real deal. So who cares if some poor shmo decides to consume "way too much" of those items and stall their own efforts to lose weight or whatever? We've got an obesity crisis in the USA, but screw them. If they'd only consume quantities that are "normal" for me, they wouldn't have any issues, right? RIGHT???
Don't blame the cooking spray that clearly says as ingredients "Hey, I'm oil. I only am 0 calories because you're supposed to use a fraction of a gram coming from a single spray". If you choose to use half the bottle, that's your fault for not thinking.
Or why not tell me the right calorie information in case I do choose to use half a bottle, or even a couple seconds of spray and not that ridiculous "light perfume spray" serving size? Do you really believe there aren't lobbyists aggressively putting their bottom line over providing information that promotes healthy behaviors? I admire your naïveté.
Using half the bottle is frankly dumb because the spray is more expensive than just straight up oil in a bottle.
And it's a bit funny you see this as not promoting healthy behavior when the whole point of the spray is using way less oil but you still choose to use more than that and blame the bottle.
The point to YOU may be to use less (even ridiculous quantities like a fraction of a second - wait, I think I just counted a third of a second there), but a) it's a spray or mist product that helps coat a surface more evenly than liquid, thick oil might. b ), what business is it of yours how much someone else uses? I thought it was all about CICO, why not provide accurate information if we're so interested in reducing obesity rates? To me, this kind of behavior just stinks of a willingness to make a buck, even on the backs of the people being put in early graves. Or at the very best, an unforeseen consequence of a practice that may have been thought to have other legitimate uses.
PS: "half the bottle" is your dumb exaggeration. If you hate it so much, maybe you shouldn't have come up with it. Another dumb quantity is 1/3 of a second spray. WTF. That's not a real duration and certainly not useful at all, IMO.
I've seen containers of PAM that state that coating a 10 inch pan with a 1-second spray is 9 calories.
They do give you the information.
Ah! The fine print gotcha, placed in a location other than the primary nutrition info block.. I'd say the actual nutrition block would tend to scream volumes over this location that many might not look. Thank you for sharing this, though.
In addition to that, the front of the can saying "Fat Free" in enlarged letters and the back of the can saying that the pure fat main ingredient that is listed first because it makes up most of what's in the can "adds a trivial amount of fat" leads people who aren't nutrition-savvy to conclude that using as much Pam as they want won't add enough calories or fat to even bother about. Stealth calories like that can really add up when multiple manufacturers do it.
3 -
Hands up everyone who uses enough pam spray so that it could add up to anything significant enough that it isn't negated by the extra burn you are getting from freaking out over it.8
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »You'd think it's all about the math, but nope. There's marketing and product sales in there, too. 0 Calories!! Fat free!!! Sure the hell look sexier than the real deal. So who cares if some poor shmo decides to consume "way too much" of those items and stall their own efforts to lose weight or whatever? We've got an obesity crisis in the USA, but screw them. If they'd only consume quantities that are "normal" for me, they wouldn't have any issues, right? RIGHT???
Don't blame the cooking spray that clearly says as ingredients "Hey, I'm oil. I only am 0 calories because you're supposed to use a fraction of a gram coming from a single spray". If you choose to use half the bottle, that's your fault for not thinking.
Or why not tell me the right calorie information in case I do choose to use half a bottle, or even a couple seconds of spray and not that ridiculous "light perfume spray" serving size? Do you really believe there aren't lobbyists aggressively putting their bottom line over providing information that promotes healthy behaviors? I admire your naïveté.
Using half the bottle is frankly dumb because the spray is more expensive than just straight up oil in a bottle.
And it's a bit funny you see this as not promoting healthy behavior when the whole point of the spray is using way less oil but you still choose to use more than that and blame the bottle.
The point to YOU may be to use less (even ridiculous quantities like a fraction of a second - wait, I think I just counted a third of a second there), but a) it's a spray or mist product that helps coat a surface more evenly than liquid, thick oil might. b ), what business is it of yours how much someone else uses? I thought it was all about CICO, why not provide accurate information if we're so interested in reducing obesity rates? To me, this kind of behavior just stinks of a willingness to make a buck, even on the backs of the people being put in early graves. Or at the very best, an unforeseen consequence of a practice that may have been thought to have other legitimate uses.
PS: "half the bottle" is your dumb exaggeration. If you hate it so much, maybe you shouldn't have come up with it. Another dumb quantity is 1/3 of a second spray. WTF. That's not a real duration and certainly not useful at all, IMO.
I've seen containers of PAM that state that coating a 10 inch pan with a 1-second spray is 9 calories.
They do give you the information.
How do you coat a 10" pan in 1 second?
That spray for .33333 of a second is why I stick with canola oil and/or margarine. 10 mL/10 g and done.
Like that from a sufficient distance.9 -
I use about 2-3 seconds for a frying pan. When I used to bake cakes, I'd use maybe 8-10 seconds for the baking pan.stevencloser wrote: »Hands up everyone who uses enough pam spray so that it could add up to anything significant enough that it isn't negated by the extra burn you are getting from freaking out over it.
I've seen people use 4-5 second sprays for pans. I've seen people liberally baste turkeys with Pam.
Do that multiple times a day and it will add up over time.1 -
I didn't know these things had calories prior to MFP. I just assumed "fat free" sprays were a chemical concoction frankenfood -- not fat in a can with propellants. Does it matter in the grand scheme of things? No, but it's deliberately deceptive. 1/3 second spray and 702 serving per can? Give me a break.
How anyone can fault a consumer for believing nutrition information - that's required by law to be there - is truthful and accurate is beyond me.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »You'd think it's all about the math, but nope. There's marketing and product sales in there, too. 0 Calories!! Fat free!!! Sure the hell look sexier than the real deal. So who cares if some poor shmo decides to consume "way too much" of those items and stall their own efforts to lose weight or whatever? We've got an obesity crisis in the USA, but screw them. If they'd only consume quantities that are "normal" for me, they wouldn't have any issues, right? RIGHT???
Don't blame the cooking spray that clearly says as ingredients "Hey, I'm oil. I only am 0 calories because you're supposed to use a fraction of a gram coming from a single spray". If you choose to use half the bottle, that's your fault for not thinking.
Or why not tell me the right calorie information in case I do choose to use half a bottle, or even a couple seconds of spray and not that ridiculous "light perfume spray" serving size? Do you really believe there aren't lobbyists aggressively putting their bottom line over providing information that promotes healthy behaviors? I admire your naïveté.
Using half the bottle is frankly dumb because the spray is more expensive than just straight up oil in a bottle.
And it's a bit funny you see this as not promoting healthy behavior when the whole point of the spray is using way less oil but you still choose to use more than that and blame the bottle.
The point to YOU may be to use less (even ridiculous quantities like a fraction of a second - wait, I think I just counted a third of a second there), but a) it's a spray or mist product that helps coat a surface more evenly than liquid, thick oil might. b ), what business is it of yours how much someone else uses? I thought it was all about CICO, why not provide accurate information if we're so interested in reducing obesity rates? To me, this kind of behavior just stinks of a willingness to make a buck, even on the backs of the people being put in early graves. Or at the very best, an unforeseen consequence of a practice that may have been thought to have other legitimate uses.
PS: "half the bottle" is your dumb exaggeration. If you hate it so much, maybe you shouldn't have come up with it. Another dumb quantity is 1/3 of a second spray. WTF. That's not a real duration and certainly not useful at all, IMO.
I've seen containers of PAM that state that coating a 10 inch pan with a 1-second spray is 9 calories.
They do give you the information.
How do you coat a 10" pan in 1 second?
That spray for .33333 of a second is why I stick with canola oil and/or margarine. 10 mL/10 g and done.
Like that from a sufficient distance.
That's the way you are supposed to do it. Do you think that everyone actually does that in real-world cooking?
I sometimes have to mop the floor after certain people cook because the kitchen floor is so slippery with Pam overspray.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »You'd think it's all about the math, but nope. There's marketing and product sales in there, too. 0 Calories!! Fat free!!! Sure the hell look sexier than the real deal. So who cares if some poor shmo decides to consume "way too much" of those items and stall their own efforts to lose weight or whatever? We've got an obesity crisis in the USA, but screw them. If they'd only consume quantities that are "normal" for me, they wouldn't have any issues, right? RIGHT???
Don't blame the cooking spray that clearly says as ingredients "Hey, I'm oil. I only am 0 calories because you're supposed to use a fraction of a gram coming from a single spray". If you choose to use half the bottle, that's your fault for not thinking.
Or why not tell me the right calorie information in case I do choose to use half a bottle, or even a couple seconds of spray and not that ridiculous "light perfume spray" serving size? Do you really believe there aren't lobbyists aggressively putting their bottom line over providing information that promotes healthy behaviors? I admire your naïveté.
Using half the bottle is frankly dumb because the spray is more expensive than just straight up oil in a bottle.
And it's a bit funny you see this as not promoting healthy behavior when the whole point of the spray is using way less oil but you still choose to use more than that and blame the bottle.
The point to YOU may be to use less (even ridiculous quantities like a fraction of a second - wait, I think I just counted a third of a second there), but a) it's a spray or mist product that helps coat a surface more evenly than liquid, thick oil might. b ), what business is it of yours how much someone else uses? I thought it was all about CICO, why not provide accurate information if we're so interested in reducing obesity rates? To me, this kind of behavior just stinks of a willingness to make a buck, even on the backs of the people being put in early graves. Or at the very best, an unforeseen consequence of a practice that may have been thought to have other legitimate uses.
PS: "half the bottle" is your dumb exaggeration. If you hate it so much, maybe you shouldn't have come up with it. Another dumb quantity is 1/3 of a second spray. WTF. That's not a real duration and certainly not useful at all, IMO.
I've seen containers of PAM that state that coating a 10 inch pan with a 1-second spray is 9 calories.
They do give you the information.
How do you coat a 10" pan in 1 second?
That spray for .33333 of a second is why I stick with canola oil and/or margarine. 10 mL/10 g and done.
Like that from a sufficient distance.
Interesting, but I like to not have my food stick to the pan. For me, that line would be exactly where the PAM goes and no where else.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »You'd think it's all about the math, but nope. There's marketing and product sales in there, too. 0 Calories!! Fat free!!! Sure the hell look sexier than the real deal. So who cares if some poor shmo decides to consume "way too much" of those items and stall their own efforts to lose weight or whatever? We've got an obesity crisis in the USA, but screw them. If they'd only consume quantities that are "normal" for me, they wouldn't have any issues, right? RIGHT???
Don't blame the cooking spray that clearly says as ingredients "Hey, I'm oil. I only am 0 calories because you're supposed to use a fraction of a gram coming from a single spray". If you choose to use half the bottle, that's your fault for not thinking.
Or why not tell me the right calorie information in case I do choose to use half a bottle, or even a couple seconds of spray and not that ridiculous "light perfume spray" serving size? Do you really believe there aren't lobbyists aggressively putting their bottom line over providing information that promotes healthy behaviors? I admire your naïveté.
Using half the bottle is frankly dumb because the spray is more expensive than just straight up oil in a bottle.
And it's a bit funny you see this as not promoting healthy behavior when the whole point of the spray is using way less oil but you still choose to use more than that and blame the bottle.
The point to YOU may be to use less (even ridiculous quantities like a fraction of a second - wait, I think I just counted a third of a second there), but a) it's a spray or mist product that helps coat a surface more evenly than liquid, thick oil might. b ), what business is it of yours how much someone else uses? I thought it was all about CICO, why not provide accurate information if we're so interested in reducing obesity rates? To me, this kind of behavior just stinks of a willingness to make a buck, even on the backs of the people being put in early graves. Or at the very best, an unforeseen consequence of a practice that may have been thought to have other legitimate uses.
PS: "half the bottle" is your dumb exaggeration. If you hate it so much, maybe you shouldn't have come up with it. Another dumb quantity is 1/3 of a second spray. WTF. That's not a real duration and certainly not useful at all, IMO.
I've seen containers of PAM that state that coating a 10 inch pan with a 1-second spray is 9 calories.
They do give you the information.
How do you coat a 10" pan in 1 second?
That spray for .33333 of a second is why I stick with canola oil and/or margarine. 10 mL/10 g and done.
Like that from a sufficient distance.
I think I know the owner of this pan!2 -
stevencloser wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »You'd think it's all about the math, but nope. There's marketing and product sales in there, too. 0 Calories!! Fat free!!! Sure the hell look sexier than the real deal. So who cares if some poor shmo decides to consume "way too much" of those items and stall their own efforts to lose weight or whatever? We've got an obesity crisis in the USA, but screw them. If they'd only consume quantities that are "normal" for me, they wouldn't have any issues, right? RIGHT???
Don't blame the cooking spray that clearly says as ingredients "Hey, I'm oil. I only am 0 calories because you're supposed to use a fraction of a gram coming from a single spray". If you choose to use half the bottle, that's your fault for not thinking.
Or why not tell me the right calorie information in case I do choose to use half a bottle, or even a couple seconds of spray and not that ridiculous "light perfume spray" serving size? Do you really believe there aren't lobbyists aggressively putting their bottom line over providing information that promotes healthy behaviors? I admire your naïveté.
Using half the bottle is frankly dumb because the spray is more expensive than just straight up oil in a bottle.
And it's a bit funny you see this as not promoting healthy behavior when the whole point of the spray is using way less oil but you still choose to use more than that and blame the bottle.
The point to YOU may be to use less (even ridiculous quantities like a fraction of a second - wait, I think I just counted a third of a second there), but a) it's a spray or mist product that helps coat a surface more evenly than liquid, thick oil might. b ), what business is it of yours how much someone else uses? I thought it was all about CICO, why not provide accurate information if we're so interested in reducing obesity rates? To me, this kind of behavior just stinks of a willingness to make a buck, even on the backs of the people being put in early graves. Or at the very best, an unforeseen consequence of a practice that may have been thought to have other legitimate uses.
PS: "half the bottle" is your dumb exaggeration. If you hate it so much, maybe you shouldn't have come up with it. Another dumb quantity is 1/3 of a second spray. WTF. That's not a real duration and certainly not useful at all, IMO.
I've seen containers of PAM that state that coating a 10 inch pan with a 1-second spray is 9 calories.
They do give you the information.
How do you coat a 10" pan in 1 second?
That spray for .33333 of a second is why I stick with canola oil and/or margarine. 10 mL/10 g and done.
Like that from a sufficient distance.
Interesting, but I like to not have my food stick to the pan. For me, that line would be exactly where the PAM goes and no where else.
A spray comes out conical, if the coverage isn't broad enough for your liking you need to increase the distance, thus widening the spray cone.3 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »I didn't know these things had calories prior to MFP. I just assumed "fat free" sprays were a chemical concoction frankenfood -- not fat in a can with propellants. Does it matter in the grand scheme of things? No, but it's deliberately deceptive. 1/3 second spray and 702 serving per can? Give me a break.
How anyone can fault a consumer for believing nutrition information - that's required by law to be there - is truthful and accurate is beyond me.
The ingredient list is also required by law to be there, and it says it's oil.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »Am I the only one here not shocked when i found out this information?
I had just assumed everyone knew it. I mean, it's oil, so it has calories.4 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »You'd think it's all about the math, but nope. There's marketing and product sales in there, too. 0 Calories!! Fat free!!! Sure the hell look sexier than the real deal. So who cares if some poor shmo decides to consume "way too much" of those items and stall their own efforts to lose weight or whatever? We've got an obesity crisis in the USA, but screw them. If they'd only consume quantities that are "normal" for me, they wouldn't have any issues, right? RIGHT???
Don't blame the cooking spray that clearly says as ingredients "Hey, I'm oil. I only am 0 calories because you're supposed to use a fraction of a gram coming from a single spray". If you choose to use half the bottle, that's your fault for not thinking.
Or why not tell me the right calorie information in case I do choose to use half a bottle, or even a couple seconds of spray and not that ridiculous "light perfume spray" serving size? Do you really believe there aren't lobbyists aggressively putting their bottom line over providing information that promotes healthy behaviors? I admire your naïveté.
Using half the bottle is frankly dumb because the spray is more expensive than just straight up oil in a bottle.
And it's a bit funny you see this as not promoting healthy behavior when the whole point of the spray is using way less oil but you still choose to use more than that and blame the bottle.
The point to YOU may be to use less (even ridiculous quantities like a fraction of a second - wait, I think I just counted a third of a second there), but a) it's a spray or mist product that helps coat a surface more evenly than liquid, thick oil might. b ), what business is it of yours how much someone else uses? I thought it was all about CICO, why not provide accurate information if we're so interested in reducing obesity rates? To me, this kind of behavior just stinks of a willingness to make a buck, even on the backs of the people being put in early graves. Or at the very best, an unforeseen consequence of a practice that may have been thought to have other legitimate uses.
PS: "half the bottle" is your dumb exaggeration. If you hate it so much, maybe you shouldn't have come up with it. Another dumb quantity is 1/3 of a second spray. WTF. That's not a real duration and certainly not useful at all, IMO.
I've seen containers of PAM that state that coating a 10 inch pan with a 1-second spray is 9 calories.
They do give you the information.
How do you coat a 10" pan in 1 second?
That spray for .33333 of a second is why I stick with canola oil and/or margarine. 10 mL/10 g and done.
Like that from a sufficient distance.
Interesting, but I like to not have my food stick to the pan. For me, that line would be exactly where the PAM goes and no where else.
A spray comes out conical, if the coverage isn't broad enough for your liking you need to increase the distance, thus widening the spray cone.
My arms can only reach so far. My lot for not eating bread crusts as a kid.
7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »Am I the only one here not shocked when i found out this information?
I had just assumed everyone knew it. I mean, it's oil, so it has calories.
After watching My 600 Pound Life and similar shows, I don't assume that anyone knows anything about nutrition related issues anymore.8 -
In this day and age not knowing certain things (or claiming not to know them) seems like willful ignorance to me, so that they'd manage to claim ignorance no matter what.2
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »In this day and age not knowing certain things (or claiming not to know them) seems like willful ignorance to me, so that they'd manage to claim ignorance no matter what.
It's less of a willful ignorance and more of a case of diluted information. The influx of misinformation often drowns out what's real. We could argue ideal situations and what should happen all we want, but reality is what it is. I have often heard "it's okay to use a lot of olive oil, it won't make you fat because it's healthy", "granola won't make you fat because it's healthy", "potatoes make you fat because carbs", "coconut oil will make you lose weight" or what we experience here almost every day where people question something as basic as calories. People genuinely don't associate oil=high calories=need to be careful and genuinely think they are informed.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »In this day and age not knowing certain things (or claiming not to know them) seems like willful ignorance to me, so that they'd manage to claim ignorance no matter what.
If I'm being perfectly honest, I'm astounded at this constant claim of yours that everyone just knows certain things. IMO You're participating on a forum that defies that line of reasoning every single day. Billions of people on the planet and everyone just knows what you think they should? We all experience and process information the exact same way? How does that work, exactly?
For example, here's some detail on my interaction with a product like this. I don't have any food allergies or any ingredients I try to avoid, so my idea of product evaluation usually involves cost and the product's capabilities. The idea of reading ingredients to recalculate or reconstitute nutrition information might as well be howling at the moon each time I pick up a product. It's that foreign. What's the point? The only conclusion I'm interested in is printed conveniently in a nationally standardized box. Everything else is likely noise or marketing, and if I'm running low on reading material, that is generally not my choice. I do review ingredients sometimes, but that mostly has to do with cost and verifying if a generic or other brand offers the same product type as the higher cost version I'm used to. Now even if I read it say oil, this is an aerosolized product. Could the manufacturers have managed that process to significantly reduce the ratio of oil in that mix to the extent that calories are indeed negligible? Who cares about the geeky details, they said they got it down to zero. And that's just one perspective on one issue.
We're presented with identical information but likely observe, interact with, and use it all differently.4 -
I really did not mean to launch this thread off on a tangent of this being an excuse for obesity. First, I cannot speak for anyone else, but the reason I used to weigh 562.3 pounds 13 years ago was because I ate 1,000's of calories per day of really unhealthy fast food in unholy amounts and exercised not at all. Period.
The way I lost 350 plus pounds, kept it off for 7 years, and was picked one of Houston's Ultimate Workout Partners was because I got help, got my head straight, made good food choices, ate in the correct portions, and started being active and exercising.
The only reason I gained a lot, but not all thank God of that weight back - I stopped looking for help, I let my head get in the wrong place, I started eating for a lot of reasons other than being hungry, I slowly stopped being active and exercising, I started again eating way more calories than my body needed to stay a healthy weight. Period.
I in no way intended to make any "excuse" that the evil food companies made me fat, nor did I advocate such a position. My only point in making the post is that we really do live in toxic food environment. It is much easier to eat unhealthy than it is to eat healthy. Let me be clear here, it is not by any means impossible to eat healthy, it just takes more effort and attention. It is easy to make mistakes when you are trying to count calories - not to use that as an excuse, but to educate and better arm people with knowledge. It was the reason, I put Caveat emptor in my original post. Buyer Beware. I make no excuses for my weight and lack of fitness. I am responsible for my life and how I live it.
Thanks and I do wish everyone all the best. I hope everyone reaches their health and fitness goals.
Charles
15 -
@CharlesScott78 , WOW!, at those pictures! That was a heck of an accomplishment and I know you can do it again. I wish you the best in meeting your goals, too.5
-
CharlesScott78 wrote: »I in no way intended to make any "excuse" that the evil food companies made me fat, nor did I advocate such a position. My only point in making the post is that we really do live in toxic food environment. It is much easier to eat unhealthy than it is to eat healthy. Let me be clear here, it is not by any means impossible to eat healthy, it just takes more effort and attention. It is easy to make mistakes when you are trying to count calories - not to use that as an excuse, but to educate and better arm people with knowledge. It was the reason, I put Caveat emptor in my original post. Buyer Beware. I make no excuses for my weight and lack of fitness. I am responsible for my life and how I live it.
Cool, and I couldn't agree more.
Great and amazing job with the weight-loss. You are inspirational.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions