Lies, damn lies and the FDA

135

Replies

  • MelodyandBarbells
    MelodyandBarbells Posts: 7,724 Member
    edited December 2016
    I am saying that when someone claims not to be able to eat healthy because it's too complicated to figure out what that means, or that they are eating way over the proper calories (whether they count or not) because they are tricked by labels or some such [...] that's all willful self-delusion and excuses. If they really wanted to know the truth they could figure it out -- it's not that hard to tell good sources from bad and to dismiss most of the garbage information out there

    Yeah I just don't think the nutritional label should be part of that garbage with *kitten* information.
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    And the vast majority of people DON'T count calories, and those who do are much more likely to read labels carefully and understand that oil is high cal. If you don't, though, it does not matter if something is 0 or 10, or even 0 or 20, since you maintain or lose by adjusting what you are doing based on results.

    I think they're much more likely to read the nutrition block of a product, and that that information should be truthful and sacrosanct. I would argue that messing with that information for the sake of making a dollar actually affects non-calorie counters as well. You want to adjust your weight and think, hey, I'll just replace X with Y. It should work, but doesn't, or doesn't work as effectively because Y really wasn't the amount of calories you thought it was as per the label. I think in a country with such high obesity rates, that's just wrong.

    And we've already previously explained how 10 or 20 or 30 calories could be additive depending on frequency of use, and therefore negatively impact a person's weight reduction process.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited December 2016
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    I am saying that when someone claims not to be able to eat healthy because it's too complicated to figure out what that means, or that they are eating way over the proper calories (whether they count or not) because they are tricked by labels or some such [...] that's all willful self-delusion and excuses. If they really wanted to know the truth they could figure it out -- it's not that hard to tell good sources from bad and to dismiss most of the garbage information out there

    Yeah I just don't think the nutritional label should be part of that garbage with *kitten* information.

    Thinking OIL has no calories at all, in any amount, is garbage information. Thinking that because a fraction of a second spray has next to no calories and rounds down that half a bottle (as was suggested) would be calorie free would be such information, sure. But like I said, I don't believe anyone really thinks that if they think about it for, well, a fraction of a second or more. I'm giving them credit for being sensible enough to figure that out.
    I think they're much more likely to read the nutrition block of a product, and that that information should be truthful and sacrosanct. I would argue that messing with that information for the sake of making a dollar actually affects non-calorie counters as well. You want to adjust your weight and think, hey, I'll just replace X with Y. It should work, but doesn't, or doesn't work as effectively because Y really wasn't the amount of calories you thought it was as per the label. I think in a country with such high obesity rates, that's just wrong.

    It's NOT a lie or untruthful. It's rounding down based on a permitted serving size. I'm fine with changing the spray to 1 second or whatever, but the idea that this would make a difference in how many calories people consume (let alone the obesity rate) is what I find ridiculous. (Then the people who want to blame someone else will be whining that they thought it was 15 calories or whatever and it's unreasonable not to expect them to use a third of a can on one serving of broccoli.)
    And we've already previously explained how 10 or 20 or 30 calories could be additive depending on frequency of use, and therefore negatively impact a person's weight reduction process.

    And as I explained, I disagree with this. Someone counting calories should know better or adjust, and for someone not counting calories it would be irrelevant.

    I use a spritzer mostly and when logging I'd estimate an amount and when not logging (as I don't now) I ignore it, since it doesn't add that much and if I cut something I'd not cut that (same with coffee, which has a few calories but most don't bother logging). It's makes no difference if you think you are consuming 1610 yet you are really consuming 1550. What matters is adjusting based on results. This is more so if you aren't logging or counting, of course. The idea that spray oil being labeled 0 vs. 15 contributes to the obesity epidemic just seems ridiculous to me. I'd go along with the idea that serving sizes should be changed to 1 second, probably (although I don't much care), but when people start making ridiculous claims and blaming the companies for tricking them into obesity, that's when I feel compelled to argue back, because that's just not reasonable, and it basically (again) requires that people were willfully ignorant. Oil has calories and anyone who actually wants to know about such things knows that.
  • MelodyandBarbells
    MelodyandBarbells Posts: 7,724 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    I am saying that when someone claims not to be able to eat healthy because it's too complicated to figure out what that means, or that they are eating way over the proper calories (whether they count or not) because they are tricked by labels or some such [...] that's all willful self-delusion and excuses. If they really wanted to know the truth they could figure it out -- it's not that hard to tell good sources from bad and to dismiss most of the garbage information out there

    Yeah I just don't think the nutritional label should be part of that garbage with *kitten* information.

    Thinking OIL has no calories at all, in any amount, is garbage information. Thinking that because a fraction of a second spray has next to no calories and rounds down that half a bottle (as was suggested) would be calorie free would be such information, sure. But like I said, I don't believe anyone really thinks that if they think about it for, well, a fraction of a second or more. I'm giving them credit for being sensible enough to figure that out.

    "Thinking" is not "information" at all.
    I think they're much more likely to read the nutrition block of a product, and that that information should be truthful and sacrosanct. I would argue that messing with that information for the sake of making a dollar actually affects non-calorie counters as well. You want to adjust your weight and think, hey, I'll just replace X with Y. It should work, but doesn't, or doesn't work as effectively because Y really wasn't the amount of calories you thought it was as per the label. I think in a country with such high obesity rates, that's just wrong.

    It's NOT a lie or untruthful. It's rounding down based on a permitted serving size. I'm fine with changing the spray to 1 second or whatever, but the idea that this would make a difference in how many calories people consume (let alone the obesity rate) is what I find ridiculous. (Then the people who want to blame someone else will be whining that they thought it was 15 calories or whatever and it's unreasonable not to expect them to use a third of a can on one serving of broccoli.)

    Sure. Exploitation of current guidelines to intentionally mislead the customer and increase product sales. Lies. To-may-to To-mah-to.

    Increasing to one second "or whatever" and fixing the other "zero" calorie products - heck YES! Let's do it and when the whining happens and everyone's still fat, you can gloat. B)
    And we've already previously explained how 10 or 20 or 30 calories could be additive depending on frequency of use, and therefore negatively impact a person's weight reduction process.

    And as I explained, I disagree with this. Someone counting calories should know better or adjust, and for someone not counting calories it would be irrelevant.

    I use a spritzer mostly and when logging I'd estimate an amount and when not logging (as I don't now) I ignore it, since it doesn't add that much and if I cut something I'd not cut that (same with coffee, which has a few calories but most don't bother logging). It's makes no difference if you think you are consuming 1610 yet you are really consuming 1550. What matters is adjusting based on results. This is more so if you aren't logging or counting, of course. The idea that spray oil being labeled 0 vs. 15 contributes to the obesity epidemic just seems ridiculous to me. I'd go along with the idea that serving sizes should be changed to 1 second, probably (although I don't much care), but when people start making ridiculous claims and blaming the companies for tricking them into obesity, that's when I feel compelled to argue back, because that's just not reasonable, and it basically (again) requires that people were willfully ignorant. Oil has calories and anyone who actually wants to know about such things knows that.

    The adjustment you're talking about IMO is more common with advanced calorie counters. Adjustment could easily look more like giving up for beginners. I think it's extremely important that we don't mess with the tools that could impact success. Again, no, I wouldn't say the intentionally understated calorie products "made" anyone fat but it could certainly negatively impact their efforts to resolve this situation. And as for how instances of 15 calories thought to be zero calories could add up to anything significant, what can I say, math is hard.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    I am saying that when someone claims not to be able to eat healthy because it's too complicated to figure out what that means, or that they are eating way over the proper calories (whether they count or not) because they are tricked by labels or some such [...] that's all willful self-delusion and excuses. If they really wanted to know the truth they could figure it out -- it's not that hard to tell good sources from bad and to dismiss most of the garbage information out there

    Yeah I just don't think the nutritional label should be part of that garbage with *kitten* information.

    Thinking OIL has no calories at all, in any amount, is garbage information. Thinking that because a fraction of a second spray has next to no calories and rounds down that half a bottle (as was suggested) would be calorie free would be such information, sure. But like I said, I don't believe anyone really thinks that if they think about it for, well, a fraction of a second or more. I'm giving them credit for being sensible enough to figure that out.

    "Thinking" is not "information" at all.

    Yeah, the rant about choosing to believe garbage information was broader (beyond nutrition, even) and if anything related to the idea that if you eat "healthy" foods you can't get fat. (Although for the record I think that's more likely to relate to overuse of bottled olive oil, since canned oil is "ultraprocessed" and not going to be thought magically healthy, I'd guess, by those who claim calories are irrelevant.)
    I think they're much more likely to read the nutrition block of a product, and that that information should be truthful and sacrosanct. I would argue that messing with that information for the sake of making a dollar actually affects non-calorie counters as well. You want to adjust your weight and think, hey, I'll just replace X with Y. It should work, but doesn't, or doesn't work as effectively because Y really wasn't the amount of calories you thought it was as per the label. I think in a country with such high obesity rates, that's just wrong.

    It's NOT a lie or untruthful. It's rounding down based on a permitted serving size. I'm fine with changing the spray to 1 second or whatever, but the idea that this would make a difference in how many calories people consume (let alone the obesity rate) is what I find ridiculous. (Then the people who want to blame someone else will be whining that they thought it was 15 calories or whatever and it's unreasonable not to expect them to use a third of a can on one serving of broccoli.)

    Sure. Exploitation of current guidelines to intentionally mislead the customer and increase product sales. Lies. To-may-to To-mah-to. [/quote]

    You are the one assuming they are trying to mislead the customer. I don't agree with that. I think the idea that rounding down = misleading when we are talking about 5 calories or that using a third or quarter of a second spray vs. a second = misleading to be also wrong. If nothing else, you should be able to tell me how they came up with that spray amount and whose number it is if you want me to think it's intentionally misleading. And the idea that 5 or 10 vs. 0 makes a big difference in people buying the product seems unlikely to me.
    Increasing to one second "or whatever" and fixing the other "zero" calorie products - heck YES! Let's do it and when the whining happens and everyone's still fat, you can gloat. B)

    Works for me. But again, I think it's a really weird thing to get upset about and anyone who used lots of spray oil actually thinking it was calorie-free (vs. just not thinking about it) has (IMO) only themselves to blame.

    Also, as I said before, I fail to see how it's different from black coffee, which many (including me) don't log and no one claims is the cause of obesity. Although I never logged coffee, I drink a lot and know it has a few calories.
    The adjustment you're talking about IMO is more common with advanced calorie counters. Adjustment could easily look more like giving up for beginners. I think it's extremely important that we don't mess with the tools that could impact success. Again, no, I wouldn't say the intentionally understated calorie products "made" anyone fat but it could certainly negatively impact their efforts to resolve this situation. And as for how instances of 15 calories thought to be zero calories could add up to anything significant, what can I say, math is hard.

    I strongly disagree with this. I don't think beginners are going to be that accurate and spray oil is the least of it, and you really don't have to be. Probably that difference (as well as how obvious we think it is that OIL has calories and only is 0 due to tiny amounts) accounts for how we look at this issue.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited December 2016
    The serving size (.25 g) is assigned by regulation: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=101.12&SearchTerm=reference amount customarily

    Sure, I think they like being able to say 0 calories, but would they not be able to advertise 7 calories (if a second, which makes sense to me as an amount) or the like? Or round down to 5 if it's okay to do only increments of 5? This idea that people care so deeply about 0 vs. 5 vs. 7 seems unlikely to me and insisting it's an effort to DUPE you when no rational person who cares at all could be duped just sounds like "companies are evil, man." Not an argument.

    And again, given the lack of connection to obesity, the apparent anger at this is puzzling to me. I never once logged coffee and it has zero to do with my weight loss, and yet we are talking similar calories consumed in a (likely) similarly consistent way. People aren't gaining or failing to lose because they choose to use cooking spray rather than no oil/butter at all.

    Is it ridiculous that companies advertise a product that is essentially all canola or olive or coconut oil as "fat free"? Sure, idiotic. If I were in charge I wouldn't allow that, but I still think it's nonsense and ultimate shirking responsibility if someone claims to have thought oil in larger amounts was without calories or fat (and since when do we care about a little fat?).
  • MelodyandBarbells
    MelodyandBarbells Posts: 7,724 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    The serving size (.25 g) is assigned by regulation: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=101.12&SearchTerm=reference amount customarily

    I found this portion interesting:

    (5) When survey data were insufficient, FDA took various other sources of information on serving sizes of food into consideration. These other sources of information included:
    (i) Serving sizes used in dietary guidance recommendations or recommended by other authoritative systems or organizations;

    ...and I suspect for spray oil products the survey data was indeed insufficient and serving size pulled out of thin air.
    Sure, I think they like being able to say 0 calories, but would they not be able to advertise 7 calories (if a second, which makes sense to me as an amount) or the like? Or round down to 5 if it's okay to do only increments of 5? This idea that people care so deeply about 0 vs. 5 vs. 7 seems unlikely to me and insisting it's an effort to DUPE you when no rational person who cares at all could be duped just sounds like "companies are evil, man." Not an argument.

    So you don't think 0 calories Fat Free vs. 5/7/15/30 calories = millions of dollars more in revenue? One isn't just a tad bit sexier than the other?

    And based on this thread and the survey thread I created in response to your prior inquiry on the same subject, I believe you should know your statement on no rational person being duped into believing the food was actually calorie and/or fat free to be false.
    And again, given the lack of connection to obesity, the apparent anger at this is puzzling to me. I never once logged coffee and it has zero to do with my weight loss, and yet we are talking similar calories consumed in a (likely) similarly consistent way. People aren't gaining or failing to lose because they choose to use cooking spray rather than no oil/butter at all.

    Is it ridiculous that companies advertise a product that is essentially all canola or olive or coconut oil as "fat free"? Sure, idiotic. If I were in charge I wouldn't allow that, but I still think it's nonsense and ultimate shirking responsibility if someone claims to have thought oil in larger amounts was without calories or fat (and since when do we care about a little fat?).

    I think it's shirking responsibility when it appears that consumers should determine calorie information using the Nutrition Facts section along with like eight other pieces of information. They bothered to read the Nutrition Facts block already. We need to stop *kitten* with it and ensure their efforts are not in vain. I don't care about calories or fat either, little or much. Just be honest and tell me what it is using the standardized Nutrition Facts section of the product.
  • girlwithcurls2
    girlwithcurls2 Posts: 2,282 Member
    This thread is still open???
  • MelodyandBarbells
    MelodyandBarbells Posts: 7,724 Member
    girlwithcurls2 wrote: »
    This thread is still open???

    Why on God's green earth would it be closed?
  • ladyreva78
    ladyreva78 Posts: 4,080 Member
    paperpudding wrote: »
    I'd go along with the idea that serving sizes should be changed to 1 second, probably

    and would you go along with the idea that all products should be labelled per 100ml/100 g like they are everywhere else?

    Or even per oz or some other easy to compare non-metric measure if you are in imperial system?

    This just seems an infinitely better system to me - not just for sprays of cooking oil but for comparisons of all products and so people do not misled by differing serving sizes

    This.

    It's the rule here... nutrition labels per 100ml/100g. The companies can then add what ever 'serving' they want, but the per 100 is mandatory and no rounding up/down/over allowed. It makes it so much easier to compare.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    The serving size (.25 g) is assigned by regulation: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=101.12&SearchTerm=reference amount customarily

    I found this portion interesting:

    (5) When survey data were insufficient, FDA took various other sources of information on serving sizes of food into consideration. These other sources of information included:
    (i) Serving sizes used in dietary guidance recommendations or recommended by other authoritative systems or organizations;

    ...and I suspect for spray oil products the survey data was indeed insufficient and serving size pulled out of thin air.

    Yeah, I suspect this too. But eh. Surely you have all the information, given the claims being made, no?
    Sure, I think they like being able to say 0 calories, but would they not be able to advertise 7 calories (if a second, which makes sense to me as an amount) or the like? Or round down to 5 if it's okay to do only increments of 5? This idea that people care so deeply about 0 vs. 5 vs. 7 seems unlikely to me and insisting it's an effort to DUPE you when no rational person who cares at all could be duped just sounds like "companies are evil, man." Not an argument.

    So you don't think 0 calories Fat Free vs. 5/7/15/30 calories = millions of dollars more in revenue? One isn't just a tad bit sexier than the other?[/quote]

    No, I don't. First, I think one second IS a sensible length, and second, 5 or 7 calories can be advertised pretty effectively (just one calorie was, why not "just 5 calories" compared to normal oil if they had to use that number. Spray oil is convenient, after all, and it is easier to use less than with a bottle.
    And based on this thread and the survey thread I created in response to your prior inquiry on the same subject, I believe you should know your statement on no rational person being duped into believing the food was actually calorie and/or fat free to be false.

    The vast majority of people who responded agreed they knew, as I recall, and people who hadn't thought about it (which is probably most of the people saying they thought it was really no calories) weren't duped. They just didn't do the most basic consumer things, like read the label that says it's OIL. If people don't understand that oil has calories, they are fooling themselves.

    But again, whether they are being reasonable or not (I feel strongly that NOT is the correct answer), the bigger point is that this has nothing to do with why people are fat. If so, drinking black coffee made me fat, it's basically the same thing--has a few calories but I ignore it and think of it as calorie-free.
  • MsAmandaNJ
    MsAmandaNJ Posts: 1,248 Member
    zyxst wrote: »
    jessef593 wrote: »
    Why would you put that much of an artificial substance into your body per day?

    Because it tastes good? I used to eat sticks of Blue Bonnet margarine as a kid, 1-2 a week. Guess I wasn't getting enough fat from my "junk" food diet.

    It was ShopRite brand for me, and I dipped it in sugar. Such a relief to hear someone else did this.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited December 2016
    paperpudding wrote: »
    and would you go along with the idea that all products should be labelled per 100ml/100 g like they are everywhere else?

    I think that's more confusing than not, and don't like it, for products that aren't anywhere near a 100 g serving size. However, I'd probably get used to it. When I first saw it on UK labels I found it weird and confusing, though. People used to it may like it, but the assumption that it's a better way is just preferring what you are used to too, IMO, like liking tea more than coffee (coffee is better, btw). ;-)

    But sure, I don't think it would be helpful or make a difference, but I wouldn't be against it.

    (I think it makes more sense to have serving sizes that relate to the product and are easy to convert to the size of the product (like about 8 or 4 or 2 servings per). I don't like sizes that are weird like 5.5 servings per. I don't think it would be useful to tell me that oatmeal (which is normally 40g per serving) is X for 100 g, and it might tell people that a normal serving is now 100 g. Nor do I think it makes sense to take something in a 15.5 oz/130 g container, like many canned products, and tell me what it would be for 100 g -- it's useful for someone using a scale, but not the average consumer, and I don't see the value of comparing 100 g of canned tomato to 100 g of oats. It's already simple to compare like products to like the way we do it, because sizes are largely standardized, even though often standardized by volume, not weight (oatmeal is .25 cup, but for most that ends up around 40 g, or at least for the ones I eat and have compared with each other).

    I also see no evidence that the 100 g size thing has stemmed the increase of obesity in countries that have it or that the absence of it is why the US jumped ahead before anyone was talking about this stuff (I have other theories on why we are fatter, beyond our inherent greatness, of course -- LOL).

    That said, no, I wouldn't object to the 100 g thing, I just think the assumption by others that your system would improve things for people in the US not weighing (few of us), is wrong.
    Or even per oz or some other easy to compare non-metric measure if you are in imperial system?

    We actually use grams on labels here in the US. Sometimes oz in other places, like the front of a can, but gram as the official weight.

    (Also, unlike Canada, I guess, we use grams for ice cream, and 100 g is a good weight for a serving size of ice cream vs. the usual .5 cup that gets translated into however many grams, so I'd like it for that one!)
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited December 2016
    Oh, but to be clear, if someone claimed we didn't have the 100 g thing on our current packaging because the gov't or corporations are trying to dupe us, I would object, because I think that's just not true.

    If people want to argue it's useful to add, I'm not sure if that's true or if it's worth adding vs. other things that could be added/fear of confusion, but I wouldn't personally object (so long as it's not the only information given).

    On oil specifically, which most measure in a tsp or tbsp or a spray (of however long), I don't think knowing it has a HUGE amount of calories per 100 g (which of course it does, and which I do think people should know) is all that useful. I think it would scare people about fat which I thought we were all against, but eh, I'm still not against accurate information so that wouldn't bother me.

    What might be useful on the spray can beyond giving a second spray measure is also saying how many calories per TBSP, as I that's what the bottles here have (14 g).

    However, if anyone claimed this would make any difference in the obesity rate, I'd have to laugh. Again, I just checked my coffee beans and they have no calorie information -- presumably that's the real reason Americans are fat, black coffee!
  • MelodyandBarbells
    MelodyandBarbells Posts: 7,724 Member
    edited December 2016
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    No, I don't. First, I think one second IS a sensible length, and second, 5 or 7 calories can be advertised pretty effectively (just one calorie was, why not "just 5 calories" compared to normal oil if they had to use that number. Spray oil is convenient, after all, and it is easier to use less than with a bottle.

    Let me ask the question a different way. You said the serving size was idiotic and that if you led a team responsible for coming up with it, it wouldn't have happened that way. So then, How do you think that serving size came to be? Product developers and marketing teams, lobbying personnel and/or groups, all practicing idiocy so that the serving size winds up a fraction of a second to conveniently display zeros across the board?
    And based on this thread and the survey thread I created in response to your prior inquiry on the same subject, I believe you should know your statement on no rational person being duped into believing the food was actually calorie and/or fat free to be false.

    The vast majority of people who responded agreed they knew, as I recall, and people who hadn't thought about it (which is probably most of the people saying they thought it was really no calories) weren't duped. They just didn't do the most basic consumer things, like read the label that says it's OIL. If people don't understand that oil has calories, they are fooling themselves.

    But again, whether they are being reasonable or not (I feel strongly that NOT is the correct answer), the bigger point is that this has nothing to do with why people are fat. If so, drinking black coffee made me fat, it's basically the same thing--has a few calories but I ignore it and think of it as calorie-free.

    Wow, could not find it. As I recall, it wasn't an insignificant number. In my line of work, to improve results, we don't just say well 75 or 80 percent are good so no problems, case closed. If you take steps to make the remaining 20-25% more successful, you improve results across the board. If 99% were doing just fine, on the other hand, yeah we're most likely good to go.

    I disagree with the bigger point. As I've explained, this labeling could negatively affect their results once they start working on losing fat. I suppose one relevant piece of information would be to understand usage patterns of a sample of people. Ya know, like the FDA should have done, and is probably documented somewhere if they did.

    I also think spray oil could be different than coffee or diet pop, for example, in certain respects. If you did a one for one replacement of regular with diet pop, your calorie reduction would be clear and significant. Yeah, you could start to drink more because low calories, but I'd think there's a natural limiting that occurs, and that most would likely stick to their initial drinking patterns. With coffee it might look more like maybe switching from whatever to black. Those reductions would also translate directly. With spray oil, it's a different product entirely with claims we've beaten to death already and I think that could actually create usage patterns that could lead to higher comparative levels of calorie consumption vs the product being replaced.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited December 2016
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    No, I don't. First, I think one second IS a sensible length, and second, 5 or 7 calories can be advertised pretty effectively (just one calorie was, why not "just 5 calories" compared to normal oil if they had to use that number. Spray oil is convenient, after all, and it is easier to use less than with a bottle.

    Let me ask the question a different way. You said the serving size was idiotic and that if you led a team responsible for coming up with it, it wouldn't have happened that way. So then, How do you think that serving size came to be? Product developers and marketing teams, lobbying personnel and/or groups, all practicing idiocy so that the serving size winds up a fraction of a second to conveniently display zeros across the board?

    I don't know how it happened. That's why I don't make claims about how it happened. I think doing so -- especially assertions about people being lied to (which is not true, the ingredients are clearly on the package) and DUPED and such -- is irresponsible and unethical.

    I'd be interested in the facts being laid out and then we can debate whether what happened was actually nefarious or not.

    Still wouldn't change the fact that one has to be stupid or intentionally deluding yourself to think that oil has no calories or else simply not caring enough to pay attention at all (which for most people is perfectly sensible since if you use the product correctly there aren't going to be enough calories for it to matter).

    Again, if you want to argue that it would be a good idea to change the serving size, sure, I'll go along with you. If you want to make claims that deny responsibility and assert (without good evidence) that spray oil plays a part in people being obese, then no, I won't agree.
    Wow, could not find it. As I recall, it wasn't an insignificant number. In my line of work, to improve results, we don't just say well 75 or 80 percent are good so no problems, case closed. If you take steps to make the remaining 20-25% more successful, you improve results across the board. If 99% were doing just fine, on the other hand, yeah we're most likely good to go.

    I just saw something this morning that a majority of Republicans think that Trump won the popular vote (which is of course not true, although that has nothing to do with who the President will be according to the US system, of course). Does the fact that many Republicans apparently believe something that is not true mean that the correct information is not out there and that anyone genuinely interested in knowing the truth can't easily find it out? No, it means that many people prefer to ignore reality and latch on to whatever claim makes them feel better, what they want to believe.

    This is how I see the fact that some claim to have thought OIL was calorie-free in any amount just because it comes from a spray bottle. We all know, I think, that people are willing to believe (or pretend they believe) any number of crazy things, but this doesn't mean they have good reason to or that they SHOULD, that the correct information isn't out there and available to anyone interested in it and who cares to know the truth. It means humans are human.
    I disagree with the bigger point. As I've explained, this labeling could negatively affect their results once they start working on losing fat.

    How?

    Most people don't log, but let's say they do. Like me with coffee (let's say it's 10 calories per cup and I drink about 5 cups), let's say they consume about 10 calories per spray 5 times per day. So they think they are consuming 1300 calories but they are really consuming 1350 with the oil. If they are logging right, they are losing. If they have other errors (much more likely), they may or may not be losing, who knows. Most when they start out don't log very well -- I myself not only ignored coffee, but used bad entries and estimated everything. I lost. If I hadn't, I would have tightened logging or cut calories. I don't believe anyone isn't losing due to oil (again, how is it different from coffee), but the bigger point is that the vast majority of people who are obese or even trying to lose weight aren't logging in the weigh and log and count everything MFP sense.

    And if you go to the common sense kind of advise for people who claim that logging is too tough, it's either stuff like "clean eating" or low carb or portions where spray oil won't be an issue OR you get warned that spray oil has calories and shouldn't be abused OR (for many of the clean eating type things and low carb, presumably) they tell you bottled oil or butter is better, depending.
    With coffee it might look more like maybe switching from whatever to black.

    Many people have always consumed black, like me. I didn't count coffee (weirdly enough, I do count spray oil when I use it since I count it from a spritzer and it seems the same to me). The coffee calories are the same roughly as the spray oil calories you are saying aren't counted.

    But sure, let's use your substitution theory, which I think is common for someone losing without logging -- common advice would be switch pop with diet, black coffee (or coffee with just a bit of sugar or non calorie sweetener or skim milk vs. high cal Starbucks drinks), and spray oil or non stick pans for lots of oil or butter. All of those things will save calories.
    With spray oil, it's a different product entirely

    No, it's not. That you think coke and diet coke or black coffee and Starbucks frappe are the same product and yet oil from a bottle and oil from a spray can are different makes no sense to me. If you read "clean eating" and "natural" type sites (which granted might be more my former weakness), what gets "debunked" is the assumed belief that spray oil and oil are the same (which they basically are), since spray oil allegedly has bad stuff in it. But not that it's not oil, since of course it is.

    I mean, look at the bottle (not all apparently have this 0 calorie thing, but all say they are oil) -- this is the one I occasionally buy, btw, which is why I'm using it (I rarely buy it because even though I think those natural sites are mostly bunk I share some of their preferences and anyway am an oil snob and like to buy fancy-smancy olive oils--and yeah, I will mock this about myself, don't worry):

    dld1k1r6yvac.jpg
  • MelodyandBarbells
    MelodyandBarbells Posts: 7,724 Member
    I don't know how it happened. That's why I don't make claims about how it happened. I think doing so -- especially assertions about people being lied to (which is not true, the ingredients are clearly on the package) and DUPED and such -- is irresponsible and unethical.

    We're clearly down to opinions here, but for once I agree with you on this willful ignorance thing you keep digging in your heels about.

    As for the difference between the products. Look at the liquid goopy oil and pour it out of the bottle. Now put your finger on a spray trigger and press. It's a different deployment mechanism; different product. One which users could certainly fall into operator error pitfalls if they were to leave their finger on too long if they believed what they were told was the calorie and fat content of the product. It would be like replacing regular pop with spritzing pop on your burger, squirting some under your tongue or snorting it up your nose.

    Seems like you're grasping at straws to maintain your notion that if people exist that believed the product Nutrition Facts, the earth must have fallen off its axis, or something. Hey, whatever helps you explain it away and restore your comfort level is good with me :)
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited December 2016
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    I don't know how it happened. That's why I don't make claims about how it happened. I think doing so -- especially assertions about people being lied to (which is not true, the ingredients are clearly on the package) and DUPED and such -- is irresponsible and unethical.

    We're clearly down to opinions here, but for once I agree with you on this willful ignorance thing you keep digging in your heels about.

    If you know the details, provide them and we can discuss it. It may be that I will agree with the reasoning for the fraction of a second or I might not.
    As for the difference between the products. Look at the liquid goopy oil and pour it out of the bottle. Now put your finger on a spray trigger and press. It's a different deployment mechanism; different product.

    This makes no sense to me. Spray it on your hand, put oil on your hand -- same thing.

    Do what I do and put oil in a spritzer -- different deployment, same product.

    I think you used to think it had no calories (probably because you didn't really think about it) and now feel like you have to defend that as a reasonable belief, but the fact is even if you find it embarrassing to have believed something that many of us find silly, it has no effect on obesity. You didn't respond to that bit at all.
    if people exist that believed the product Nutrition Facts, the earth must have fallen off its axis, or something.

    Here are the nutrition facts -- if you have a .33 of a second spray (.25 g) it's less than 5 and rounds down to 0. That's true. If it was really 0, why specify fraction of a second spray and .25 g? Or are you claiming nutrition facts don't include looking at the serving size? (Serving size for a bottle of oil is 1 TBSP or 28 g, as I mentioned above.)

    Also, you are normally spraying it on the pan -- how much is really going into the food?

    More significantly, the ingredients -- and the front of the bottle, just look at the one I posted -- say it's oil. So how could you believe that in a larger amount it wouldn't have calories? The only way is wishful thinking or self delusion or you somehow ignored that it's oil.

    I think the more likely thing is that lots of people think "oh, olive oil is healthy (even "vegetable oil" sometimes or "fat" in this age of fat good, carbs bad), so it can't make me fat" since lots of people buy into the "calories don't matter" thing (which I also consider a form of self-delusion, btw). But that's going to be the case whether you use a spray bottle or dump on lots of oil from a bottle.
  • snickerscharlie
    snickerscharlie Posts: 8,578 Member
    edited December 2016
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    I don't know how it happened. That's why I don't make claims about how it happened. I think doing so -- especially assertions about people being lied to (which is not true, the ingredients are clearly on the package) and DUPED and such -- is irresponsible and unethical.

    We're clearly down to opinions here, but for once I agree with you on this willful ignorance thing you keep digging in your heels about.

    As for the difference between the products. Look at the liquid goopy oil and pour it out of the bottle. Now put your finger on a spray trigger and press. It's a different deployment mechanism; different product. One which users could certainly fall into operator error pitfalls if they were to leave their finger on too long if they believed what they were told was the calorie and fat content of the product. It would be like replacing regular pop with spritzing pop on your burger, squirting some under your tongue or snorting it up your nose.

    Seems like you're grasping at straws to maintain your notion that if people exist that believed the product Nutrition Facts, the earth must have fallen off its axis, or something. Hey, whatever helps you explain it away and restore your comfort level is good with me :)
    Holy first world problem, Batman!
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Heh.

    (I am going to shut up about it now, though. Really.)
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    pebble4321 wrote: »
    The point of showing cals per 100g is not because 100g is the serving size, most products will show cals per serving as well.
    But having cals per 100g makes it very easy to pick up two products and hold them side by side to see which one has more or less cals, sugar, protein etc.

    I take the point that if you haven't seen that before it could be confusing initially, but once you know there is a consistent block of info across products, it's very handy. For things advertised as "0 calories", I think it's particularly useful because it makes it very clear that there are still calories in that product, just not in their stated serving size.

    Exactly my experience. The other day I looked at two packages of biscuits, one advertised as diet-friendly. The serving size they chose is 1 cookie, to make the calories look prettier. The other package was just regular biscuits. The difference in calories per 100 grams? 15 calories...
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    pebble4321 wrote: »
    The point of showing cals per 100g is not because 100g is the serving size, most products will show cals per serving as well.
    But having cals per 100g makes it very easy to pick up two products and hold them side by side to see which one has more or less cals, sugar, protein etc.

    I take the point that if you haven't seen that before it could be confusing initially, but once you know there is a consistent block of info across products, it's very handy. For things advertised as "0 calories", I think it's particularly useful because it makes it very clear that there are still calories in that product, just not in their stated serving size.

    It is frustrating when trying to compare two products when the serving sizes are different. Particularly if they aren't easily converted, such as 1/3 cup and 1/4 cup.
  • rainbowbow
    rainbowbow Posts: 7,490 Member
    pebble4321 wrote: »
    The point of showing cals per 100g is not because 100g is the serving size, most products will show cals per serving as well.
    But having cals per 100g makes it very easy to pick up two products and hold them side by side to see which one has more or less cals, sugar, protein etc.

    I take the point that if you haven't seen that before it could be confusing initially, but once you know there is a consistent block of info across products, it's very handy. For things advertised as "0 calories", I think it's particularly useful because it makes it very clear that there are still calories in that product, just not in their stated serving size.

    This was exactly my point. When I said it should say per 100 g of packaging I meant lets do away with the serving size estimations (not based on weight) commonly used in the US.

    I'm sorry, but "about 13 chips" or "1/2 package" or "3 servings per container" just makes *kitten* more confusing.

    I always thought these were necessary for the average individual who didn't have a scale, but having lived in another country where there is ONLY per 100g i can say that it is SO SO SO much better.

    I can pick up two products and see which has more calories. I can easily compare products. No trickery or intentionally deceitful "serving sizes". No guessing. And it is actually waaay easier to estimate how much you're eating!

    Package contains 250g of chips? Thank goodness it's take literally no effort to see how many are in the whole bag.

    In the US with the "33g serving size" or "about 13 chips" it was so much harder.


    This is all anecdotal of course, but damn if I'm not a convert now.
  • rainbowbow
    rainbowbow Posts: 7,490 Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    pebble4321 wrote: »
    The point of showing cals per 100g is not because 100g is the serving size, most products will show cals per serving as well.
    But having cals per 100g makes it very easy to pick up two products and hold them side by side to see which one has more or less cals, sugar, protein etc.

    I take the point that if you haven't seen that before it could be confusing initially, but once you know there is a consistent block of info across products, it's very handy. For things advertised as "0 calories", I think it's particularly useful because it makes it very clear that there are still calories in that product, just not in their stated serving size.

    It is frustrating when trying to compare two products when the serving sizes are different. Particularly if they aren't easily converted, such as 1/3 cup and 1/4 cup.

    Absolutely, it's also frustrating when just shopping in general. Something says "140 cals" on the front, but you get home and that's for 1/4 of the container and the serving size is half a cookie.


    Or it says "50 calories" on the front of the can of Arizona green tea. But wait, there's three servings in the whole can?

    This *kitten* is purposely deceptive and we see it all the time people shocked or confused about "serving sizes".
This discussion has been closed.

Categories