Deliberately accidental miss-statement of Calories?

Options
PAV8888
PAV8888 Posts: 13,739 Member
edited October 2018 in Food and Nutrition
I see generics that state slightly higher Calories then name brand.

I see some brands of sausages that seem to have substantially fewer Calories than similar products made by other brands.

Then again I know of a small food manufacturer where staff just log an MFP recipe and then use the values for their labels (and they don't double check the entries they're using).

Some big chains seem to have good sized discrepancies too.

I'm the first to say that Wendy's small chili and McDonald's cones are good deals. But I have a hard time believing the 180 and 230 Cal posted as their Caloric values and wonder about the US cone's 160 value as compared to the official Canadian 230. (Based on a couple of weight-ins and eyeballs I tend to log the chili at around 220 and the cones anywhere from 250 to 300)

Which makes me wonder whether marketing departments cross the line sometimes in terms of optimistic labeling...

Replies

  • quiksylver296
    quiksylver296 Posts: 28,442 Member
    Options
    +/- 20%, right?!?
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    Options
    The chili calories feel right to me, just judging from satiety and my own personal chili making.

    I don't get the McDonalds cones so I'm not familiar with the texture/creaminess. I am always shocked every time I log a Wendy's Frosty (it just doesn't seem creamy enough for all those calories), so the McD's cones calories have always sounded to good to be true to me!
  • VeryKatie
    VeryKatie Posts: 5,949 Member
    Options
    quiksylver296 wrote: »
    +/- 20%, right?!?

    +20% you mean lol.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,739 Member
    edited October 2018
    Options
    quiksylver296 wrote: »
    +/- 20%, right?!?

    +/- 20%, I thought, was supposed to be because the BASE ingredients have a variance based on time of year, harvest, etc... not because you choose 20% lower values than you 5% lowest sample ;-)
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,739 Member
    Options
    kimny72 wrote: »
    The chili calories feel right to me, just judging from satiety and my own personal chili making.

    I don't get the McDonalds cones so I'm not familiar with the texture/creaminess. I am always shocked every time I log a Wendy's Frosty (it just doesn't seem creamy enough for all those calories), so the McD's cones calories have always sounded to good to be true to me!

    At 180 for the chilli or 230? And then I compare the the Tim Horton's chilli and I am wondering why Tim's is so many more calories. Probably more fat because the Wendy's hamburger meat is supposed to be "dry" since it is left-overs :lol: But they have much more meat in there than Tim Horton's do!

    The vanilla cones in Canada are not too much creamier than a frosty. Definitely the quantity is less. And burger kind cones do tend to be less creamy. So I can see why they would be a few less calories. But I am confused as to why the us cone value is so much lower. it's not like a Canadian cone is humongous so I am wondering how tiny the cones are supposed to be in New York... that sizing wouldn't jive with local pizza slices!

Categories