There's no way some foods are zero calories right?
Replies
-
paperpudding wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Is this the case for all American foods? I have packets of truvia here, and on the label it states 0.4 calories per pack. If this was American would it say 0 calories?
Yeah, not sure if it is just the United States or other countries as well but basically the rule is if it is less than 5 calories it is zero calories.
.
I can't speak for all other countries - but here in Australia this is not the case.
All foods/ drinks have nutritional information per 100ml or 100 g regardless of size of container.
They can optionally also show information for the container or for a serving but they must show the kilojoules per 100g or 100 ml
As Christine said above, her truvia was 0.4 calories.
And I know diet soda drink cans are about 3 calories per can
And their ads here cannot describe them as zero calories. Diet soft drinks here are marketed as zero sugar because that is true, not zero calories ( well, kilojoules in our metric system) because that is not true.
I really love the calories per 100g requirement and wish it was a requirement in the US. It makes it a snap to compare information on foods with different serving sizes, like a serving of corn flakes vs a serving of granola, where the calories per serving may be similar but the serving size of one may be 3/4 c and the other 1/4 c.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Is this the case for all American foods? I have packets of truvia here, and on the label it states 0.4 calories per pack. If this was American would it say 0 calories?
Yeah, not sure if it is just the United States or other countries as well but basically the rule is if it is less than 5 calories it is zero calories.
I mean if you really REALLY abused that rule I think you'd get called out on it.
For example if a 8 oz bag of potato chips claimed to have zero calories because it had 200 servings and each of those 200 servings was less than 5 calories I don't think that would fly.
But I mean diet soda's have some number of calories as well, probably like 2 or 3. They get away with "zero" calories because whatever it is its less than 5 in a serving.
I am pretty anal when I am calorie counting but that policy of rounding down to zero never really bothered me. I mean seriously if there are less than 5 calories in serving you are going to be very hard pressed to derail your diet on the basis of consuming those items.
I remember a thread where someone was ranting that the cooking Spray can was lying cause it was 0 calories per serving even though it was pure oil.
Hah yeah actually I can see that being abused. I looked it up thinking what brand I could think of and PAM cooking spray has a "serving" of 1/3 second of spray (so basically just a spritz). Looking up online a "serving" is 2 calories which means that technically they could call that zero calories. But yeah if you hold that sucker down and soak your pan it'll be more than that.
I guess you have to think now and again. Dang.
That said good luck getting fat on pickles.
A few months ago we had a poster who wasn't losing weight. After a while it turned out they were going through a can of PAM spray every couple of days thinking it was zero calories. Needless to say, it was wiping out their deficit completely.4 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Is this the case for all American foods? I have packets of truvia here, and on the label it states 0.4 calories per pack. If this was American would it say 0 calories?
Yeah, not sure if it is just the United States or other countries as well but basically the rule is if it is less than 5 calories it is zero calories.
I mean if you really REALLY abused that rule I think you'd get called out on it.
For example if a 8 oz bag of potato chips claimed to have zero calories because it had 200 servings and each of those 200 servings was less than 5 calories I don't think that would fly.
But I mean diet soda's have some number of calories as well, probably like 2 or 3. They get away with "zero" calories because whatever it is its less than 5 in a serving.
I am pretty anal when I am calorie counting but that policy of rounding down to zero never really bothered me. I mean seriously if there are less than 5 calories in serving you are going to be very hard pressed to derail your diet on the basis of consuming those items.
I remember a thread where someone was ranting that the cooking Spray can was lying cause it was 0 calories per serving even though it was pure oil.
Hah yeah actually I can see that being abused. I looked it up thinking what brand I could think of and PAM cooking spray has a "serving" of 1/3 second of spray (so basically just a spritz). Looking up online a "serving" is 2 calories which means that technically they could call that zero calories. But yeah if you hold that sucker down and soak your pan it'll be more than that.
I guess you have to think now and again. Dang.
That said good luck getting fat on pickles.
A few months ago we had a poster who wasn't losing weight. After a while it turned out they were going through a can of PAM spray every couple of days thinking it was zero calories. Needless to say, it was wiping out their deficit completely.
Ew. Were they cracking the can open and drinking it? Spaying the entire can into a bowl and dipping their food in it? How the hell do you use that much cooking spray??1 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Is this the case for all American foods? I have packets of truvia here, and on the label it states 0.4 calories per pack. If this was American would it say 0 calories?
Yeah, not sure if it is just the United States or other countries as well but basically the rule is if it is less than 5 calories it is zero calories.
I mean if you really REALLY abused that rule I think you'd get called out on it.
For example if a 8 oz bag of potato chips claimed to have zero calories because it had 200 servings and each of those 200 servings was less than 5 calories I don't think that would fly.
But I mean diet soda's have some number of calories as well, probably like 2 or 3. They get away with "zero" calories because whatever it is its less than 5 in a serving.
I am pretty anal when I am calorie counting but that policy of rounding down to zero never really bothered me. I mean seriously if there are less than 5 calories in serving you are going to be very hard pressed to derail your diet on the basis of consuming those items.
I remember a thread where someone was ranting that the cooking Spray can was lying cause it was 0 calories per serving even though it was pure oil.
Hah yeah actually I can see that being abused. I looked it up thinking what brand I could think of and PAM cooking spray has a "serving" of 1/3 second of spray (so basically just a spritz). Looking up online a "serving" is 2 calories which means that technically they could call that zero calories. But yeah if you hold that sucker down and soak your pan it'll be more than that.
I guess you have to think now and again. Dang.
That said good luck getting fat on pickles.
A few months ago we had a poster who wasn't losing weight. After a while it turned out they were going through a can of PAM spray every couple of days thinking it was zero calories. Needless to say, it was wiping out their deficit completely.
Ew. Were they cracking the can open and drinking it? Spaying the entire can into a bowl and dipping their food in it? How the hell do you use that much cooking spray??
IIRC, it was butter flavor, and she was spraying it liberally on top of her veggies to make them tasty.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Is this the case for all American foods? I have packets of truvia here, and on the label it states 0.4 calories per pack. If this was American would it say 0 calories?
Yeah, not sure if it is just the United States or other countries as well but basically the rule is if it is less than 5 calories it is zero calories.
I mean if you really REALLY abused that rule I think you'd get called out on it.
For example if a 8 oz bag of potato chips claimed to have zero calories because it had 200 servings and each of those 200 servings was less than 5 calories I don't think that would fly.
But I mean diet soda's have some number of calories as well, probably like 2 or 3. They get away with "zero" calories because whatever it is its less than 5 in a serving.
I am pretty anal when I am calorie counting but that policy of rounding down to zero never really bothered me. I mean seriously if there are less than 5 calories in serving you are going to be very hard pressed to derail your diet on the basis of consuming those items.
I remember a thread where someone was ranting that the cooking Spray can was lying cause it was 0 calories per serving even though it was pure oil.
Hah yeah actually I can see that being abused. I looked it up thinking what brand I could think of and PAM cooking spray has a "serving" of 1/3 second of spray (so basically just a spritz). Looking up online a "serving" is 2 calories which means that technically they could call that zero calories. But yeah if you hold that sucker down and soak your pan it'll be more than that.
I guess you have to think now and again. Dang.
That said good luck getting fat on pickles.
A few months ago we had a poster who wasn't losing weight. After a while it turned out they were going through a can of PAM spray every couple of days thinking it was zero calories. Needless to say, it was wiping out their deficit completely.
Ew. Were they cracking the can open and drinking it? Spaying the entire can into a bowl and dipping their food in it? How the hell do you use that much cooking spray??
IIRC, it was butter flavor, and she was spraying it liberally on top of her veggies to make them tasty.
Well it is certainly helping my diet in that I have now lost my appetite.7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Is this the case for all American foods? I have packets of truvia here, and on the label it states 0.4 calories per pack. If this was American would it say 0 calories?
Yeah, not sure if it is just the United States or other countries as well but basically the rule is if it is less than 5 calories it is zero calories.
I mean if you really REALLY abused that rule I think you'd get called out on it.
For example if a 8 oz bag of potato chips claimed to have zero calories because it had 200 servings and each of those 200 servings was less than 5 calories I don't think that would fly.
But I mean diet soda's have some number of calories as well, probably like 2 or 3. They get away with "zero" calories because whatever it is its less than 5 in a serving.
I am pretty anal when I am calorie counting but that policy of rounding down to zero never really bothered me. I mean seriously if there are less than 5 calories in serving you are going to be very hard pressed to derail your diet on the basis of consuming those items.
I remember a thread where someone was ranting that the cooking Spray can was lying cause it was 0 calories per serving even though it was pure oil.
Hah yeah actually I can see that being abused. I looked it up thinking what brand I could think of and PAM cooking spray has a "serving" of 1/3 second of spray (so basically just a spritz). Looking up online a "serving" is 2 calories which means that technically they could call that zero calories. But yeah if you hold that sucker down and soak your pan it'll be more than that.
I guess you have to think now and again. Dang.
That said good luck getting fat on pickles.
A few months ago we had a poster who wasn't losing weight. After a while it turned out they were going through a can of PAM spray every couple of days thinking it was zero calories. Needless to say, it was wiping out their deficit completely.
Ew. Were they cracking the can open and drinking it? Spaying the entire can into a bowl and dipping their food in it? How the hell do you use that much cooking spray??
IIRC, it was butter flavor, and she was spraying it liberally on top of her veggies to make them tasty.
I can't even...1 -
paperpudding wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Is this the case for all American foods? I have packets of truvia here, and on the label it states 0.4 calories per pack. If this was American would it say 0 calories?
Yeah, not sure if it is just the United States or other countries as well but basically the rule is if it is less than 5 calories it is zero calories.
.
I can't speak for all other countries - but here in Australia this is not the case.
All foods/ drinks have nutritional information per 100ml or 100 g regardless of size of container.
They can optionally also show information for the container or for a serving but they must show the kilojoules per 100g or 100 ml
As Christine said above, her truvia was 0.4 calories.
And I know diet soda drink cans are about 3 calories per can
And their ads here cannot describe them as zero calories. Diet soft drinks here are marketed as zero sugar because that is true, not zero calories ( well, kilojoules in our metric system) because that is not true.
I really love the calories per 100g requirement and wish it was a requirement in the US. It makes it a snap to compare information on foods with different serving sizes, like a serving of corn flakes vs a serving of granola, where the calories per serving may be similar but the serving size of one may be 3/4 c and the other 1/4 c.
It does make life so much easier. When comparing calories in foods i just automatically go to the 100g listing on the back of the pack, much easier/quicker than trying to compare different grams in serving sizes.2 -
This content has been removed.
-
zoekravitz wrote: »If something is labeled zero calories, most times its because it takes more energy to digest it than the energy provided by the food itself.
No. It means it has less than 5 calories per serving. There are no foods that take more energy to digest than they contain.
eta: But wouldn't that be awesome!
Actually there are, such as apples, apricots, celery etc. But I guess in this case, since it is pickle chips, your pov is probably valid in this case 14 -
zoekravitz wrote: »zoekravitz wrote: »If something is labeled zero calories, most times its because it takes more energy to digest it than the energy provided by the food itself.
No. It means it has less than 5 calories per serving. There are no foods that take more energy to digest than they contain.
eta: But wouldn't that be awesome!
Actually there are, such as apples, apricots, celery etc. But I guess in this case, since it is pickle chips, your pov is probably valid in this case
<blink> You're saying apples, apricots and celery take more calories to digest than they contain? Have you really thought this through?
eta: So a person eating at maintenance could add 300 calories of apples and apricots a day and not gain weight?2 -
zoekravitz wrote: »zoekravitz wrote: »If something is labeled zero calories, most times its because it takes more energy to digest it than the energy provided by the food itself.
No. It means it has less than 5 calories per serving. There are no foods that take more energy to digest than they contain.
eta: But wouldn't that be awesome!
Actually there are, such as apples, apricots, celery etc. But I guess in this case, since it is pickle chips, your pov is probably valid in this case
Only on Weight Watchers do apples, apricots, and celery, give you the impression of not having calories.... in real life, newsflash, they do, as do most zero calorie foods in sufficient quantity 2 -
zoekravitz wrote: »zoekravitz wrote: »If something is labeled zero calories, most times its because it takes more energy to digest it than the energy provided by the food itself.
No. It means it has less than 5 calories per serving. There are no foods that take more energy to digest than they contain.
eta: But wouldn't that be awesome!
Actually there are, such as apples, apricots, celery etc. But I guess in this case, since it is pickle chips, your pov is probably valid in this case
Apples and apricots contain a lot of sugar and definately provide you more calories than they require to digest. Celery has hardly any calories in it but also does not require more calories to digest it.
Here is the thing. There are plenty of things that our body can't digest, dietary fiber for one. Celery has a lot of undigestible fiber and a lot of water and not much else. But here is the thing with undigestable stuff....your body doesn't absorb it. It just goes right through you. You don't spend any energy on it at all.
Your digestive system from the opening of your mouth to the opening of your *kitten* is just one long continous tube that can be easily thought of as being not inside of you....it is like a hole that runs through your body. Things we can digest get broken down and absorbed through your intestinal lining and into your body to be digested at which point energy is expended to get more energy out. Things that cannot be digested just go right through you, having never actually entered you at all.3 -
zoekravitz wrote: »zoekravitz wrote: »If something is labeled zero calories, most times its because it takes more energy to digest it than the energy provided by the food itself.
No. It means it has less than 5 calories per serving. There are no foods that take more energy to digest than they contain.
eta: But wouldn't that be awesome!
Actually there are, such as apples, apricots, celery etc. But I guess in this case, since it is pickle chips, your pov is probably valid in this casezoekravitz wrote: »zoekravitz wrote: »If something is labeled zero calories, most times its because it takes more energy to digest it than the energy provided by the food itself.
No. It means it has less than 5 calories per serving. There are no foods that take more energy to digest than they contain.
eta: But wouldn't that be awesome!
Actually there are, such as apples, apricots, celery etc. But I guess in this case, since it is pickle chips, your pov is probably valid in this case
You do realise that if this were true, which it is not, logically someone would starve to death faster eating apples all day than eating nothing at all? And the more apples they ate, the faster they'd starve?
I know what you're talking about and it's been completely debunked. There is no such thing as a food that you burn more calories digesting than you gain from eating it. If there were, it would actually be dangerous to humans.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Is this the case for all American foods? I have packets of truvia here, and on the label it states 0.4 calories per pack. If this was American would it say 0 calories?
Yeah, not sure if it is just the United States or other countries as well but basically the rule is if it is less than 5 calories it is zero calories.
I mean if you really REALLY abused that rule I think you'd get called out on it.
For example if a 8 oz bag of potato chips claimed to have zero calories because it had 200 servings and each of those 200 servings was less than 5 calories I don't think that would fly.
But I mean diet soda's have some number of calories as well, probably like 2 or 3. They get away with "zero" calories because whatever it is its less than 5 in a serving.
I am pretty anal when I am calorie counting but that policy of rounding down to zero never really bothered me. I mean seriously if there are less than 5 calories in serving you are going to be very hard pressed to derail your diet on the basis of consuming those items.
I remember a thread where someone was ranting that the cooking Spray can was lying cause it was 0 calories per serving even though it was pure oil.
Hah yeah actually I can see that being abused. I looked it up thinking what brand I could think of and PAM cooking spray has a "serving" of 1/3 second of spray (so basically just a spritz). Looking up online a "serving" is 2 calories which means that technically they could call that zero calories. But yeah if you hold that sucker down and soak your pan it'll be more than that.
I guess you have to think now and again. Dang.
That said good luck getting fat on pickles.
A few months ago we had a poster who wasn't losing weight. After a while it turned out they were going through a can of PAM spray every couple of days thinking it was zero calories. Needless to say, it was wiping out their deficit completely.
Ew. Were they cracking the can open and drinking it? Spaying the entire can into a bowl and dipping their food in it? How the hell do you use that much cooking spray??
IIRC, it was butter flavor, and she was spraying it liberally on top of her veggies to make them tasty.
I have a co-worker who unscrew the cap and pours it over her food...because ya know...0 calories
0 -
spiffychick85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Is this the case for all American foods? I have packets of truvia here, and on the label it states 0.4 calories per pack. If this was American would it say 0 calories?
Yeah, not sure if it is just the United States or other countries as well but basically the rule is if it is less than 5 calories it is zero calories.
I mean if you really REALLY abused that rule I think you'd get called out on it.
For example if a 8 oz bag of potato chips claimed to have zero calories because it had 200 servings and each of those 200 servings was less than 5 calories I don't think that would fly.
But I mean diet soda's have some number of calories as well, probably like 2 or 3. They get away with "zero" calories because whatever it is its less than 5 in a serving.
I am pretty anal when I am calorie counting but that policy of rounding down to zero never really bothered me. I mean seriously if there are less than 5 calories in serving you are going to be very hard pressed to derail your diet on the basis of consuming those items.
I remember a thread where someone was ranting that the cooking Spray can was lying cause it was 0 calories per serving even though it was pure oil.
Hah yeah actually I can see that being abused. I looked it up thinking what brand I could think of and PAM cooking spray has a "serving" of 1/3 second of spray (so basically just a spritz). Looking up online a "serving" is 2 calories which means that technically they could call that zero calories. But yeah if you hold that sucker down and soak your pan it'll be more than that.
I guess you have to think now and again. Dang.
That said good luck getting fat on pickles.
A few months ago we had a poster who wasn't losing weight. After a while it turned out they were going through a can of PAM spray every couple of days thinking it was zero calories. Needless to say, it was wiping out their deficit completely.
Ew. Were they cracking the can open and drinking it? Spaying the entire can into a bowl and dipping their food in it? How the hell do you use that much cooking spray??
IIRC, it was butter flavor, and she was spraying it liberally on top of her veggies to make them tasty.
I have a co-worker who unscrew the cap and pours it over her food...because ya know...0 calories
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
zoekravitz wrote: »zoekravitz wrote: »If something is labeled zero calories, most times its because it takes more energy to digest it than the energy provided by the food itself.
No. It means it has less than 5 calories per serving. There are no foods that take more energy to digest than they contain.
eta: But wouldn't that be awesome!
Actually there are, such as apples, apricots, celery etc. But I guess in this case, since it is pickle chips, your pov is probably valid in this case
So let me get this straight. You think if you were eating only apples, you'd die of starvation faster than if you were eating nothing at all?1 -
This content has been removed.
-
stevencloser wrote: »zoekravitz wrote: »zoekravitz wrote: »If something is labeled zero calories, most times its because it takes more energy to digest it than the energy provided by the food itself.
No. It means it has less than 5 calories per serving. There are no foods that take more energy to digest than they contain.
eta: But wouldn't that be awesome!
Actually there are, such as apples, apricots, celery etc. But I guess in this case, since it is pickle chips, your pov is probably valid in this case
So let me get this straight. You think if you were eating only apples, you'd die of starvation faster than if you were eating nothing at all?
Can you imagine? You have a growing kid, and give them apples as a snack - all of a sudden they need more calories that day than if you didn't give them a snack at all. Give them an apple and an apricot for play lunch and wonder why they're not growing at the expected rate...0
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