Confused about these nutrition labels? Help?

2»

Replies

  • cerise_noir
    cerise_noir Posts: 5,468 Member
    I guess they changed the recipe. It has 1 extra gram of protein and 1 extra gram of carbs. Perhaps they just rounded up? 🤷‍♀️ It is just 10 extra calories. I agree with those who suggest creating your own entry.
  • alexastoutxo
    alexastoutxo Posts: 139 Member
    cerise_noir wrote: »
    I guess they changed the recipe. It has 1 extra gram of protein and 1 extra gram of carbs. Perhaps they just rounded up? 🤷‍♀️ It is just 10 extra calories. I agree with those who suggest creating your own entry.

    Actually it has one gram less of protein and one gram less of carbs which, if you do the math adds up to 96 calories so that's a stretch from 110 calories so not sure how they would round it up that far apart lol. I created a new entry but would've liked for it to have made sense
  • alexastoutxo
    alexastoutxo Posts: 139 Member
    HappyCampr1 wrote: »
    alexastoutxo wrote: »
    Francl27 wrote: »
    It's beans. Unfortunately, the liquid is part of the serving size - so the serving size with the least calories just has more water in the can.

    I guess so but the label still doesnt make much sense to me?
    This is the answer, IMO. The serving size of the canned beans always includes the liquid, even though most people drain them (canned green beans are the same). So if the beans are packed with more water, chances are that when you have a serving, a larger portion of what ends up in your bowl will be water. The water adds weight, but not macros. It’s a messed up system, I agree. But, it’s the way they figure the serving sizes of things...as packaged. Unfortunately, in this case, “as packaged” includes water weight which messes up the label.

    But the macros dont add up and so if the company rounded it up it should have been 100 calories because its technically 96 calories altogether. Haha I just hate when labels confuse you and I'm one curious person let me tell you lol

Categories