Confused about these nutrition labels? Help?

Options
2»

Replies

  • alexastoutxo
    alexastoutxo Posts: 139 Member
    Options
    strongwouldbenice wrote: »
    alexastoutxo wrote: »
    pogiguy05 wrote: »
    Correct me if i am wrong, but companies figure these things out by sending a SERVING into a lab for testing. the lab then tells them the information they came up with during testing.

    I would not beat myself up over 10 calories i would just log it and move on. Lifes to short to be focused on a label. ;-)

    Problem is this new version isnt in the database at all. Only for the old version so I cant log it correctly

    Just create a new entry

    Even with nutrition info not making sense?
  • SarahLascelles1
    SarahLascelles1 Posts: 95 Member
    Options
    It's possible they've redone the lab tests at some point and that's the reason for the change
  • Lillymoo01
    Lillymoo01 Posts: 2,865 Member
    Options
    Are the tins both listed as being the same weight overall or is the one which suggests 130 grams per serve heavier?

    I'd personally contact the company because nothing about those labels adds up but just log with the old one as the calorie count won't make a difference in the scheme of things.
  • mazdauk
    mazdauk Posts: 1,380 Member
    Options
    I would never use a cup as a measurement whatever, use a food scale. No point obsessing over 10 calories if you're not going to weigh accurately - I had some quite big grapes today which filled the pot I use for work in only 70g, whereas if I have smaller grapes it can fit 100g or more.
  • alexastoutxo
    alexastoutxo Posts: 139 Member
    Options
    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?
  • alexastoutxo
    alexastoutxo Posts: 139 Member
    Options
    Lillymoo01 wrote: »
    Are the tins both listed as being the same weight overall or is the one which suggests 130 grams per serve heavier?

    I'd personally contact the company because nothing about those labels adds up but just log with the old one as the calorie count won't make a difference in the scheme of things.

    Yeah that's what I did because I'm just curious as to why its labeled that way.
  • alexastoutxo
    alexastoutxo Posts: 139 Member
    Options
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    alexastoutxo wrote: »
    pinuplove wrote: »
    Adding up macros for the 110 calorie one I get 96, and for the 100 calorie one I got 104 (p*4 + c*4). There could be <.5g of fat in there not reported, but that still doesn't cover the 14 calorie difference.

    Overall, not enough to worry about, but the numbers geek in me would probably obsess over it, too.

    Haha right? It doesnt add up but I'm only worrying about it because it's not in the mfp database at all, only the old version is in the database and now I'm not sure how to calculate the amount of beans I want since this new version isnt in the database. But again the label doesnt make sense soo..ugh I dont know ..

    You can always change the database entry or create a new one.

    Yeah I guess I'll just create a new sentry although the label is still confusing the heck out of me lol
  • alexastoutxo
    alexastoutxo Posts: 139 Member
    Options
    strongwouldbenice wrote: »
    alexastoutxo wrote: »
    pogiguy05 wrote: »
    Correct me if i am wrong, but companies figure these things out by sending a SERVING into a lab for testing. the lab then tells them the information they came up with during testing.

    I would not beat myself up over 10 calories i would just log it and move on. Lifes to short to be focused on a label. ;-)

    Problem is this new version isnt in the database at all. Only for the old version so I cant log it correctly

    Just create a new entry

    That's what I'm doing haha
  • alexastoutxo
    alexastoutxo Posts: 139 Member
    Options
    23rochelle23 wrote: »
    I’d just put it under the old one, or create a new one from the new label with the information provided. 10cal won’t make or break your diet :-)

    I hope not because I go through cans of these like crazy lol
  • cerise_noir
    cerise_noir Posts: 5,468 Member
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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