How US labeling is decieving
Replies
-
Just saying that to an untrained eye and people who don't turn labels over to inspect them, would look at that labeling and BELIEVE that what they are buying is 90% lean mean when someone like you and I would know that it's not. On meats that are cut in store and packaged by the cutters, there is no labeling other than what kind of cut it is and weight.neanderthin wrote: »This example is talking about fat by weight and not percentage which there are no products that list fat or any macro by percentage anyway, and only g's. Basically 90% lean is saying that the fat content is 10% by weight and that portion is 85g/10% they rounded it up to 10. Again a consumer will look at the total fat content which clearly shows 10g's could someone somehow believe that portion was 19.6 calories, I guess it possible, anything is possible.
In Canada we use a different metric. We have extra lean which is 10% maximum fat by weight, lean which is 17%, medium which is 23 and regular which is 30% by weight. The total fat is what shows on the nutritional label.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1 -
Look at how this is misleading:
https://www.heb.com/product-detail/h-e-b-ground-beef-93-lean-1-lb/1265400
It's a 1lb package. Serving size listed as 4oz. Macros are listed as 8g fat, 23g protein, etc.
Oh wait, let me get my calculator out, because they've deliberately mismatched imperial and metric to obfuscate it.
The calculator tells me 4oz is 113.4g, so that 8g fat is indeed 7% of weight as fat, and 42% of calories. They shouldn't mismatch imperial and metric like that.
Same goes for their milk. It's listed as gallons, with serving size in cups, and macros per serving in grams. I never thought 1% milk meant 1% of calories were fat, I hadn't given much thought to it tbh, I just know it's lower fat than 2%, but I also never thought it was as high as 22.5% calories from fat.2 -
Queston: If it's 42% fat, should it be called lean
You didn't answer my question which was; do you think 8g's of fat is high for a portion of protein?
Niner I've never taken any descriptive of a food product seriously and only look at the nutritional labeling, otherwise I would be lead to believe quite a bit of nonsense that is prevalent in the food industry, especially the healthy labels, funny stuff really.1 -
https://www.nutritionix.com/food/90-percent-lean-ground-beef
so 1serving is 196 calories
10 grams of fat x 9 is 90 calories
Divided by 196 that's 45% fat calories out of that 196
Explain how it's 90% lean
To the average person if they were counting calories, they'd look at 196 calories in a serving an believe based on labeling that there's only 19 calories of fat in that serving because it's "90%" lean right?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
It's 90% lean by weight. I don't understand this hypothetical person looking at a label that lists the grams of fat and, instead of reading the information staring them in the face, opting to look at the calories and do math based on a claim of X% lean.2 -
Depends on the portion of protein relative the 8g of fat. I personally believe if it's over 20% in fat, it's too high.neanderthin wrote: »
You didn't answer my question which was; do you think 8g's of fat is high for a portion of protein?
Queston:neanderthin wrote: »
But we do know how much fat we're consuming, it said 8g's. For macro's a person needs to know total grams for each and not specifically that a particular food might have 42% fat by weight.Those totals are also the metrics that have always been used for counting calories. Also it's not deceptive that they don't show the percentages of fat by weight simply because they are telling us there's 8 total grams of fat in that portion, which like I said is what we use to figure out our total fat intake which then can be translated into any particular macro split we want. You've mentioned that 42% fat in that lean ground turkey is more than you thought and was quite high, so do you think that 8g's of fat in a particular protein portion is high? just curious. I really don't know what else to say, except, keep being inquisitive and wanting to increase your knowledge of nutrition, it's all good. Cheers
How much fat you consume does matter. As I mentioned before, someone new may not realize that a protein they are consuming may have more fat than advertised by saying it's "lean". Therefore it's deception. You know as well as I do that just because something labeled as fat free doesn't mean you can eat loads of it and the same with low carb. And while counting calories is the main objective to lose weight, the right splits in macros DOES make a difference is how the body reacts to usage of the energy taken in. Any athlete will tell you that eating carbs vs just doing keto will affect their performance.neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »None of this logic makes sense and it's still 6g's of fat which is simply calculated as part of total fat consumed, easy peasy. Not sure where you got the idea that a portion of food has to have 20% or less of fat.- 1/2 Avocado 80% fat
- 1 oz Cheddar 70% fat
- 100 g's salmon 75% fat
- 1 oz Chocolate 55% fat
Look at Jennie O Lean ground Turkey for example.
1 serving is 170 calories
8 grams of fat per serving
So 42% of that serving is fat
Doesn't sound that lean to me.
Point being that labeling can confuse people. Luckily we do have an app here that does count our total fat and calories. Again, I'm not disparaging against fat, just about how labeling can be deceptive to those that DON'T understand why they aren't losing weight even though they are reading labels.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yeah, I really don't know what to tell you niner. When you say lean, are you saying too much fat in a particular food item is a bad thing in general? What about the avocado with 80%, that's got to freak you out, no? especially considering there's no label to tell people the fat content so do you think nature made a mistake there, or chocolate, chocolate has a lot of fat and a lot of saturated fat, so potentially causes atherosclerosis, do you think nature made a mistake there as well. I'm just not sure what your trying to say. The losing weight part is about total fat grams in a diet, not the percentage of fat in an item to be able to calculate weight loss. cheers
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutritionIf it's 42% fat, should it be called lean?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Niner I've never taken any descriptive of a food product seriously and only look at the nutritional labeling, otherwise I would be lead to believe quite a bit of nonsense that is prevalent in the food industry, especially the healthy labels, funny stuff really.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Packages don't say 90% lean by weight. It just says, 90% lean. Now at face value, what do you think the average consumer thinks?lynn_glenmont wrote: »https://www.nutritionix.com/food/90-percent-lean-ground-beef
so 1serving is 196 calories
10 grams of fat x 9 is 90 calories
Divided by 196 that's 45% fat calories out of that 196
Explain how it's 90% lean
To the average person if they were counting calories, they'd look at 196 calories in a serving an believe based on labeling that there's only 19 calories of fat in that serving because it's "90%" lean right?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
It's 90% lean by weight. I don't understand this hypothetical person looking at a label that lists the grams of fat and, instead of reading the information staring them in the face, opting to look at the calories and do math based on a claim of X% lean.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
10% fat by weight. As ninerbuff said, the package doesn't specify the % refers to weight.lynn_glenmont wrote: »It's 90% lean by weight. I don't understand this hypothetical person looking at a label that lists the grams of fat and, instead of reading the information staring them in the face, opting to look at the calories and do math based on a claim of X% lean.
45% fat by calories, which is ultimately what matters, and it's what people track (if they are tracking their diet), and it's also what's shown on labels as "% of a daily diet".
Wouldn't it make more sense therefore to package it as "55% lean"? But that probably wouldn't sell as well, would it?0 -
Depends on the portion of protein relative the 8g of fat. I personally believe if it's over 20% in fat, it's too high.neanderthin wrote: »
You didn't answer my question which was; do you think 8g's of fat is high for a portion of protein?
Queston:neanderthin wrote: »
But we do know how much fat we're consuming, it said 8g's. For macro's a person needs to know total grams for each and not specifically that a particular food might have 42% fat by weight.Those totals are also the metrics that have always been used for counting calories. Also it's not deceptive that they don't show the percentages of fat by weight simply because they are telling us there's 8 total grams of fat in that portion, which like I said is what we use to figure out our total fat intake which then can be translated into any particular macro split we want. You've mentioned that 42% fat in that lean ground turkey is more than you thought and was quite high, so do you think that 8g's of fat in a particular protein portion is high? just curious. I really don't know what else to say, except, keep being inquisitive and wanting to increase your knowledge of nutrition, it's all good. Cheers
How much fat you consume does matter. As I mentioned before, someone new may not realize that a protein they are consuming may have more fat than advertised by saying it's "lean". Therefore it's deception. You know as well as I do that just because something labeled as fat free doesn't mean you can eat loads of it and the same with low carb. And while counting calories is the main objective to lose weight, the right splits in macros DOES make a difference is how the body reacts to usage of the energy taken in. Any athlete will tell you that eating carbs vs just doing keto will affect their performance.neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »None of this logic makes sense and it's still 6g's of fat which is simply calculated as part of total fat consumed, easy peasy. Not sure where you got the idea that a portion of food has to have 20% or less of fat.- 1/2 Avocado 80% fat
- 1 oz Cheddar 70% fat
- 100 g's salmon 75% fat
- 1 oz Chocolate 55% fat
Look at Jennie O Lean ground Turkey for example.
1 serving is 170 calories
8 grams of fat per serving
So 42% of that serving is fat
Doesn't sound that lean to me.
Point being that labeling can confuse people. Luckily we do have an app here that does count our total fat and calories. Again, I'm not disparaging against fat, just about how labeling can be deceptive to those that DON'T understand why they aren't losing weight even though they are reading labels.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yeah, I really don't know what to tell you niner. When you say lean, are you saying too much fat in a particular food item is a bad thing in general? What about the avocado with 80%, that's got to freak you out, no? especially considering there's no label to tell people the fat content so do you think nature made a mistake there, or chocolate, chocolate has a lot of fat and a lot of saturated fat, so potentially causes atherosclerosis, do you think nature made a mistake there as well. I'm just not sure what your trying to say. The losing weight part is about total fat grams in a diet, not the percentage of fat in an item to be able to calculate weight loss. cheers
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutritionIf it's 42% fat, should it be called lean?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Niner I've never taken any descriptive of a food product seriously and only look at the nutritional labeling, otherwise I would be lead to believe quite a bit of nonsense that is prevalent in the food industry, especially the healthy labels, funny stuff really.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Well, that leaves out eggs and unless it's fat free, no dairy as well, so that leaves vegan, with limitations. Are you vegan?1 -
Like others who've posted - if I'm reading between their lines accurately - I don't understand why you're as excited about this as you seem to be.
Lucky Charms aren't actually lucky. How would the average consumer know that? That's an exaggeration, but IMO you're getting close to that level of argument here.
Packages don't say 90% lean by weight. It just says, 90% lean. Now at face value, what do you think the average consumer thinks?lynn_glenmont wrote: »https://www.nutritionix.com/food/90-percent-lean-ground-beef
so 1serving is 196 calories
10 grams of fat x 9 is 90 calories
Divided by 196 that's 45% fat calories out of that 196
Explain how it's 90% lean
To the average person if they were counting calories, they'd look at 196 calories in a serving an believe based on labeling that there's only 19 calories of fat in that serving because it's "90%" lean right?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
It's 90% lean by weight. I don't understand this hypothetical person looking at a label that lists the grams of fat and, instead of reading the information staring them in the face, opting to look at the calories and do math based on a claim of X% lean.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I think the average consumer doesn't give a rat's patootie. People who are serious about weight management or nutrition tend to study those subjects, and can readily get the information they need from most labels.
Yes, sometimes it requires a little arithmetic . . . whoohoo. Yes, many people are bad at math, but that worries me more (at the population level) in other realms, like retirement savings, mortgage selection, etc.
In world where all kinds of blogosphere nonsense is telling the average consumer pure counterproductive mythology, I don't think the things you're saying about labels are the biggest practical barrier to weight management or nutrition improvement for anyone.
People who don't make a study of this stuff, but have common sense, know that marketers aren't to be trusted, and aren't consciously making decisions based on the "lean" in "lean ground turkey", any more than they believe the "lucky" in "Lucky Charms".
Depends on the portion of protein relative the 8g of fat. I personally believe if it's over 20% in fat, it's too high.neanderthin wrote: »
You didn't answer my question which was; do you think 8g's of fat is high for a portion of protein?
Queston:neanderthin wrote: »
But we do know how much fat we're consuming, it said 8g's. For macro's a person needs to know total grams for each and not specifically that a particular food might have 42% fat by weight.Those totals are also the metrics that have always been used for counting calories. Also it's not deceptive that they don't show the percentages of fat by weight simply because they are telling us there's 8 total grams of fat in that portion, which like I said is what we use to figure out our total fat intake which then can be translated into any particular macro split we want. You've mentioned that 42% fat in that lean ground turkey is more than you thought and was quite high, so do you think that 8g's of fat in a particular protein portion is high? just curious. I really don't know what else to say, except, keep being inquisitive and wanting to increase your knowledge of nutrition, it's all good. Cheers
How much fat you consume does matter. As I mentioned before, someone new may not realize that a protein they are consuming may have more fat than advertised by saying it's "lean". Therefore it's deception. You know as well as I do that just because something labeled as fat free doesn't mean you can eat loads of it and the same with low carb. And while counting calories is the main objective to lose weight, the right splits in macros DOES make a difference is how the body reacts to usage of the energy taken in. Any athlete will tell you that eating carbs vs just doing keto will affect their performance.neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »None of this logic makes sense and it's still 6g's of fat which is simply calculated as part of total fat consumed, easy peasy. Not sure where you got the idea that a portion of food has to have 20% or less of fat.- 1/2 Avocado 80% fat
- 1 oz Cheddar 70% fat
- 100 g's salmon 75% fat
- 1 oz Chocolate 55% fat
Look at Jennie O Lean ground Turkey for example.
1 serving is 170 calories
8 grams of fat per serving
So 42% of that serving is fat
Doesn't sound that lean to me.
Point being that labeling can confuse people. Luckily we do have an app here that does count our total fat and calories. Again, I'm not disparaging against fat, just about how labeling can be deceptive to those that DON'T understand why they aren't losing weight even though they are reading labels.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yeah, I really don't know what to tell you niner. When you say lean, are you saying too much fat in a particular food item is a bad thing in general? What about the avocado with 80%, that's got to freak you out, no? especially considering there's no label to tell people the fat content so do you think nature made a mistake there, or chocolate, chocolate has a lot of fat and a lot of saturated fat, so potentially causes atherosclerosis, do you think nature made a mistake there as well. I'm just not sure what your trying to say. The losing weight part is about total fat grams in a diet, not the percentage of fat in an item to be able to calculate weight loss. cheers
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutritionIf it's 42% fat, should it be called lean?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Niner I've never taken any descriptive of a food product seriously and only look at the nutritional labeling, otherwise I would be lead to believe quite a bit of nonsense that is prevalent in the food industry, especially the healthy labels, funny stuff really.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Why 20%? MFP's default fat goal is 30%.
(Note to those inclined to argue with that last statement: I'm just poking at the style of argumentation in this thread, basically joking.)
If you ask me, it's the overall nutrition of a total diet, averaged over a day or few, that counts. I admit I rough-evaluate new potential vegetarian protein source foods based on protein gram/calorie ratio as one factor. But as long as I get a reasonable fat minimum most of the time, I don't see why the fat to protein ratio of a single food matters. (Maybe that's because I don't eat meat?)4 -
Wrong target audience in this discussion, IMHO. People posting here in MFP are dedicated to improving their diet, whether to lose weight or to gain muscle. We are far more inclined to actually do the math, inspect the claims, see how a given food item correlates into our desired diet.
The average person is likely to be less informed, less curious, or less caring. They certainly won't be pulling out a calculator to determine the truth of an item's nutritional value. If they care at all, they will simply look at two packages of an item and be inclined to take the one which sounds like it promises to be "better." One package claims "90% lean" and the other says "55% calories protein". We've established above they are mathematically the same. But the average consumer is going to grab the first package.
And let's be honest, given the obesity pandemic at large, "average" consumers far outnumber people who take the time/effort to do the math people in this thread keep saying is "easy."4 -
Back to sprays, I just caught my husband spraying Parkay all over a baguette til it was coated in the stuff.
What are you doing?
Making us garlic toast! This stuff is zero calorie!
Not in that quantity. The bread is yellow. It would have been fewer calories to use real Parkay.
Nope! Label says zero calories.
This is an otherwise intelligent man with umpteen degrees under his belt, who specialized - you’ll love this- in market research, including consumer response to various packaging.
14 -
I find all the arguments well intentioned..
I may be the outlier here, but I don't see any of this labeling as deceptive.
Everything on the labels are outlined..if the label says 2 servings for a cookie...and you eat the whole thing, double the calories. (I have a bar of my fav chocolate at home- it says 3 servings, I would love to eat the whole thing.. but at 150 calories per serving.. I don't always have room for a total 450 calories.. so I eat 1/3rd unless I have room and its a smorgasbord.)
If I buy meat and its gives me the "lean" percentage.. I know the rest is fat.
It sounds like the issue is more that we are thinking people of the world are not educated enough to do math or comprehend labeling. I don't think that many people are illiterate.. I think they just don't care.
But - trying to raise a flag about nutrition details -- is a worthwhile conversation.
6 -
SafariGalNYC wrote: »I have a bar of my fav chocolate at home- it says 3 servings, I would love to eat the whole thing.. but at 150 calories per serving.. I don't always have room for a total 450 calories.. so I eat 1/3rd...
I cannot imagine stopping myself at only 1/3 of my favorite candy bar...that's a level of self control to admire!2 -
So if on the front of the package it says "90 Lean", you believe that the rest is only 10% fat?SafariGalNYC wrote: »I find all the arguments well intentioned..
I may be the outlier here, but I don't see any of this labeling as deceptive.
Everything on the labels are outlined..if the label says 2 servings for a cookie...and you eat the whole thing, double the calories. (I have a bar of my fav chocolate at home- it says 3 servings, I would love to eat the whole thing.. but at 150 calories per serving.. I don't always have room for a total 450 calories.. so I eat 1/3rd unless I have room and its a smorgasbord.)
If I buy meat and its gives me the "lean" percentage.. I know the rest is fat.
You'd be surprised.It sounds like the issue is more that we are thinking people of the world are not educated enough to do math or comprehend labeling. I don't think that many people are illiterate.. I think they just don't care.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
When it comes to ground meat, I have always thought the % Lean figure on the packaging and the Fats figure on the nutritional label were talking about 2 different things. The % Lean refers to the fat tissue added to the muscle tissue (which also has dietary fats), then ground up and packaged. The nutritional label refers to the amount of dietary fat in all the different tissue that make up the product. Some of that fat added, as well as fats in lean tissue, are melted out as the meat cooks:
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Nutrient Database and Iowa State University’s research published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association.
0 -
When it comes to ground meat, I have always thought the % Lean figure on the packaging and the Fats figure on the nutritional label were talking about 2 different things. The % Lean refers to the fat tissue added to the muscle tissue (which also has dietary fats), then ground up and packaged. The nutritional label refers to the amount of dietary fat in all the different tissue that make up the product. Some of that fat added, as well as fats in lean tissue, are melted out as the meat cooks:
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Nutrient Database and Iowa State University’s research published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association.
Washing ground beef was the norm at the height of fat is bad era, which I thought was a little excessive. Didn't know that the USDA actually had that as an option, a little weird I must say.0 -
I can't reason out how the 80% Gr Beef came out with less calories than the 90% when both are cooked crumbled, then blotted. The 80%, with 1 more gram of dietary fat, should be at least 9 calories more than the 90%? The 80-85% Gr Beef taste better and cost less. I always thought it was worth the little bit of extra calories and fat. Now I'm not going to think about it.0
-
I can't reason out how the 80% Gr Beef came out with less calories than the 90% when both are cooked crumbled, then blotted. The 80%, with 1 more gram of dietary fat, should be at least 9 calories more than the 90%? The 80-85% Gr Beef taste better and cost less. I always thought it was worth the little bit of extra calories and fat. Now I'm not going to think about it.
The 80% beef has less beef than the 90% and they are cooked to a minimum of 165 degrees, which will render most of the fat in the beef, so therefore in the end the 80% will have a less weighable portion, basically the more fat and the more it's cooked the more it will "shrink" and therefore a less weighable portion, hope that makes sense. Medium rare results would be different of course and probably depending on doneness those numbers would flip.2 -
neanderthin wrote: »When it comes to ground meat, I have always thought the % Lean figure on the packaging and the Fats figure on the nutritional label were talking about 2 different things. The % Lean refers to the fat tissue added to the muscle tissue (which also has dietary fats), then ground up and packaged. The nutritional label refers to the amount of dietary fat in all the different tissue that make up the product. Some of that fat added, as well as fats in lean tissue, are melted out as the meat cooks:
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Nutrient Database and Iowa State University’s research published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association.
Washing ground beef was the norm at the height of fat is bad era, which I thought was a little excessive. Didn't know that the USDA actually had that as an option, a little weird I must say.
My family always rinsed our hamburger, never thought there was another way until I read these boards and was informed I have an eating disorder! I still haven’t tried it straight out of the pan—can’t quite get around what the texture would be like.
1 -
neanderthin wrote: »When it comes to ground meat, I have always thought the % Lean figure on the packaging and the Fats figure on the nutritional label were talking about 2 different things. The % Lean refers to the fat tissue added to the muscle tissue (which also has dietary fats), then ground up and packaged. The nutritional label refers to the amount of dietary fat in all the different tissue that make up the product. Some of that fat added, as well as fats in lean tissue, are melted out as the meat cooks:
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Nutrient Database and Iowa State University’s research published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association.
Washing ground beef was the norm at the height of fat is bad era, which I thought was a little excessive. Didn't know that the USDA actually had that as an option, a little weird I must say.
My family always rinsed our hamburger, never thought there was another way until I read these boards and was informed I have an eating disorder! I still haven’t tried it straight out of the pan—can’t quite get around what the texture would be like.
I don't know if eating disorder is appropriate, it was popular at the time. It's basically the result of the reductionist method in western medicine that basically looks to fix the symptom as opposed to addressing the cause. In this case fat, especially animal fat is bad so lets wash the beef, and we're good to go, even the USDA thought that was a good
idea otherwise it could be postulated that the USDA promotes eating disorders, ignorance is a better explanation imo.1 -
Like others who've posted - if I'm reading between their lines accurately - I don't understand why you're as excited about this as you seem to be.
Lucky Charms aren't actually lucky. How would the average consumer know that? That's an exaggeration, but IMO you're getting close to that level of argument here.
Packages don't say 90% lean by weight. It just says, 90% lean. Now at face value, what do you think the average consumer thinks?lynn_glenmont wrote: »https://www.nutritionix.com/food/90-percent-lean-ground-beef
so 1serving is 196 calories
10 grams of fat x 9 is 90 calories
Divided by 196 that's 45% fat calories out of that 196
Explain how it's 90% lean
To the average person if they were counting calories, they'd look at 196 calories in a serving an believe based on labeling that there's only 19 calories of fat in that serving because it's "90%" lean right?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
It's 90% lean by weight. I don't understand this hypothetical person looking at a label that lists the grams of fat and, instead of reading the information staring them in the face, opting to look at the calories and do math based on a claim of X% lean.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I think the average consumer doesn't give a rat's patootie. People who are serious about weight management or nutrition tend to study those subjects, and can readily get the information they need from most labels.
Yes, sometimes it requires a little arithmetic . . . whoohoo. Yes, many people are bad at math, but that worries me more (at the population level) in other realms, like retirement savings, mortgage selection, etc.
In world where all kinds of blogosphere nonsense is telling the average consumer pure counterproductive mythology, I don't think the things you're saying about labels are the biggest practical barrier to weight management or nutrition improvement for anyone.
People who don't make a study of this stuff, but have common sense, know that marketers aren't to be trusted, and aren't consciously making decisions based on the "lean" in "lean ground turkey", any more than they believe the "lucky" in "Lucky Charms".
Depends on the portion of protein relative the 8g of fat. I personally believe if it's over 20% in fat, it's too high.neanderthin wrote: »
You didn't answer my question which was; do you think 8g's of fat is high for a portion of protein?
Queston:neanderthin wrote: »
But we do know how much fat we're consuming, it said 8g's. For macro's a person needs to know total grams for each and not specifically that a particular food might have 42% fat by weight.Those totals are also the metrics that have always been used for counting calories. Also it's not deceptive that they don't show the percentages of fat by weight simply because they are telling us there's 8 total grams of fat in that portion, which like I said is what we use to figure out our total fat intake which then can be translated into any particular macro split we want. You've mentioned that 42% fat in that lean ground turkey is more than you thought and was quite high, so do you think that 8g's of fat in a particular protein portion is high? just curious. I really don't know what else to say, except, keep being inquisitive and wanting to increase your knowledge of nutrition, it's all good. Cheers
How much fat you consume does matter. As I mentioned before, someone new may not realize that a protein they are consuming may have more fat than advertised by saying it's "lean". Therefore it's deception. You know as well as I do that just because something labeled as fat free doesn't mean you can eat loads of it and the same with low carb. And while counting calories is the main objective to lose weight, the right splits in macros DOES make a difference is how the body reacts to usage of the energy taken in. Any athlete will tell you that eating carbs vs just doing keto will affect their performance.neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »None of this logic makes sense and it's still 6g's of fat which is simply calculated as part of total fat consumed, easy peasy. Not sure where you got the idea that a portion of food has to have 20% or less of fat.- 1/2 Avocado 80% fat
- 1 oz Cheddar 70% fat
- 100 g's salmon 75% fat
- 1 oz Chocolate 55% fat
Look at Jennie O Lean ground Turkey for example.
1 serving is 170 calories
8 grams of fat per serving
So 42% of that serving is fat
Doesn't sound that lean to me.
Point being that labeling can confuse people. Luckily we do have an app here that does count our total fat and calories. Again, I'm not disparaging against fat, just about how labeling can be deceptive to those that DON'T understand why they aren't losing weight even though they are reading labels.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yeah, I really don't know what to tell you niner. When you say lean, are you saying too much fat in a particular food item is a bad thing in general? What about the avocado with 80%, that's got to freak you out, no? especially considering there's no label to tell people the fat content so do you think nature made a mistake there, or chocolate, chocolate has a lot of fat and a lot of saturated fat, so potentially causes atherosclerosis, do you think nature made a mistake there as well. I'm just not sure what your trying to say. The losing weight part is about total fat grams in a diet, not the percentage of fat in an item to be able to calculate weight loss. cheers
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutritionIf it's 42% fat, should it be called lean?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Niner I've never taken any descriptive of a food product seriously and only look at the nutritional labeling, otherwise I would be lead to believe quite a bit of nonsense that is prevalent in the food industry, especially the healthy labels, funny stuff really.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Why 20%? MFP's default fat goal is 30%.
(Note to those inclined to argue with that last statement: I'm just poking at the style of argumentation in this thread, basically joking.)
If you ask me, it's the overall nutrition of a total diet, averaged over a day or few, that counts. I admit I rough-evaluate new potential vegetarian protein source foods based on protein gram/calorie ratio as one factor. But as long as I get a reasonable fat minimum most of the time, I don't see why the fat to protein ratio of a single food matters. (Maybe that's because I don't eat meat?)
The 30% represents total fat of the diet as it relates to the other macronutrients. Niner is saying any item with more 20% fat in it shouldn't be eaten, like the avocado example.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »When it comes to ground meat, I have always thought the % Lean figure on the packaging and the Fats figure on the nutritional label were talking about 2 different things. The % Lean refers to the fat tissue added to the muscle tissue (which also has dietary fats), then ground up and packaged. The nutritional label refers to the amount of dietary fat in all the different tissue that make up the product. Some of that fat added, as well as fats in lean tissue, are melted out as the meat cooks:
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Nutrient Database and Iowa State University’s research published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association.
Washing ground beef was the norm at the height of fat is bad era, which I thought was a little excessive. Didn't know that the USDA actually had that as an option, a little weird I must say.
My family always rinsed our hamburger, never thought there was another way until I read these boards and was informed I have an eating disorder! I still haven’t tried it straight out of the pan—can’t quite get around what the texture would be like.
I don't know if eating disorder is appropriate, it was popular at the time. It's basically the result of the reductionist method in western medicine that basically looks to fix the symptom as opposed to addressing the cause. In this case fat, especially animal fat is bad so lets wash the beef, and we're good to go, even the USDA thought that was a good
idea otherwise it could be postulated that the USDA promotes eating disorders, ignorance is a better explanation imo.
Oh no, I was straight up told that it was pathetic and neurotic and I must have an eating disorder because I don't eat slimy meat, lol. Apparently the 3 generations I learned this from were also pathetic and neurotic and lucky to survive their eating disorders long enough to reproduce...0 -
Actually you asked me about fat in a PROTEIN consumed item. And I said I don't think it should be over 20%. I'm well aware that certain foods are all fat like an avocado and I eat them. I'm NOT against good fats at all since they are essential. Of course, if I eat an avocado, I still would have to look at overall fat intake for the day.neanderthin wrote: »Like others who've posted - if I'm reading between their lines accurately - I don't understand why you're as excited about this as you seem to be.
Lucky Charms aren't actually lucky. How would the average consumer know that? That's an exaggeration, but IMO you're getting close to that level of argument here.
Packages don't say 90% lean by weight. It just says, 90% lean. Now at face value, what do you think the average consumer thinks?lynn_glenmont wrote: »https://www.nutritionix.com/food/90-percent-lean-ground-beef
so 1serving is 196 calories
10 grams of fat x 9 is 90 calories
Divided by 196 that's 45% fat calories out of that 196
Explain how it's 90% lean
To the average person if they were counting calories, they'd look at 196 calories in a serving an believe based on labeling that there's only 19 calories of fat in that serving because it's "90%" lean right?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
It's 90% lean by weight. I don't understand this hypothetical person looking at a label that lists the grams of fat and, instead of reading the information staring them in the face, opting to look at the calories and do math based on a claim of X% lean.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I think the average consumer doesn't give a rat's patootie. People who are serious about weight management or nutrition tend to study those subjects, and can readily get the information they need from most labels.
Yes, sometimes it requires a little arithmetic . . . whoohoo. Yes, many people are bad at math, but that worries me more (at the population level) in other realms, like retirement savings, mortgage selection, etc.
In world where all kinds of blogosphere nonsense is telling the average consumer pure counterproductive mythology, I don't think the things you're saying about labels are the biggest practical barrier to weight management or nutrition improvement for anyone.
People who don't make a study of this stuff, but have common sense, know that marketers aren't to be trusted, and aren't consciously making decisions based on the "lean" in "lean ground turkey", any more than they believe the "lucky" in "Lucky Charms".
Depends on the portion of protein relative the 8g of fat. I personally believe if it's over 20% in fat, it's too high.neanderthin wrote: »
You didn't answer my question which was; do you think 8g's of fat is high for a portion of protein?
Queston:neanderthin wrote: »
But we do know how much fat we're consuming, it said 8g's. For macro's a person needs to know total grams for each and not specifically that a particular food might have 42% fat by weight.Those totals are also the metrics that have always been used for counting calories. Also it's not deceptive that they don't show the percentages of fat by weight simply because they are telling us there's 8 total grams of fat in that portion, which like I said is what we use to figure out our total fat intake which then can be translated into any particular macro split we want. You've mentioned that 42% fat in that lean ground turkey is more than you thought and was quite high, so do you think that 8g's of fat in a particular protein portion is high? just curious. I really don't know what else to say, except, keep being inquisitive and wanting to increase your knowledge of nutrition, it's all good. Cheers
How much fat you consume does matter. As I mentioned before, someone new may not realize that a protein they are consuming may have more fat than advertised by saying it's "lean". Therefore it's deception. You know as well as I do that just because something labeled as fat free doesn't mean you can eat loads of it and the same with low carb. And while counting calories is the main objective to lose weight, the right splits in macros DOES make a difference is how the body reacts to usage of the energy taken in. Any athlete will tell you that eating carbs vs just doing keto will affect their performance.neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »None of this logic makes sense and it's still 6g's of fat which is simply calculated as part of total fat consumed, easy peasy. Not sure where you got the idea that a portion of food has to have 20% or less of fat.- 1/2 Avocado 80% fat
- 1 oz Cheddar 70% fat
- 100 g's salmon 75% fat
- 1 oz Chocolate 55% fat
Look at Jennie O Lean ground Turkey for example.
1 serving is 170 calories
8 grams of fat per serving
So 42% of that serving is fat
Doesn't sound that lean to me.
Point being that labeling can confuse people. Luckily we do have an app here that does count our total fat and calories. Again, I'm not disparaging against fat, just about how labeling can be deceptive to those that DON'T understand why they aren't losing weight even though they are reading labels.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yeah, I really don't know what to tell you niner. When you say lean, are you saying too much fat in a particular food item is a bad thing in general? What about the avocado with 80%, that's got to freak you out, no? especially considering there's no label to tell people the fat content so do you think nature made a mistake there, or chocolate, chocolate has a lot of fat and a lot of saturated fat, so potentially causes atherosclerosis, do you think nature made a mistake there as well. I'm just not sure what your trying to say. The losing weight part is about total fat grams in a diet, not the percentage of fat in an item to be able to calculate weight loss. cheers
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutritionIf it's 42% fat, should it be called lean?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Niner I've never taken any descriptive of a food product seriously and only look at the nutritional labeling, otherwise I would be lead to believe quite a bit of nonsense that is prevalent in the food industry, especially the healthy labels, funny stuff really.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Why 20%? MFP's default fat goal is 30%.
(Note to those inclined to argue with that last statement: I'm just poking at the style of argumentation in this thread, basically joking.)
If you ask me, it's the overall nutrition of a total diet, averaged over a day or few, that counts. I admit I rough-evaluate new potential vegetarian protein source foods based on protein gram/calorie ratio as one factor. But as long as I get a reasonable fat minimum most of the time, I don't see why the fat to protein ratio of a single food matters. (Maybe that's because I don't eat meat?)
The 30% represents total fat of the diet as it relates to the other macronutrients. Niner is saying any item with more 20% fat in it shouldn't be eaten, like the avocado example.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Actually you asked me about fat in a PROTEIN consumed item. And I said I don't think it should be over 20%. I'm well aware that certain foods are all fat like an avocado and I eat them. I'm NOT against good fats at all since they are essential. Of course, if I eat an avocado, I still would have to look at overall fat intake for the day.neanderthin wrote: »Like others who've posted - if I'm reading between their lines accurately - I don't understand why you're as excited about this as you seem to be.
Lucky Charms aren't actually lucky. How would the average consumer know that? That's an exaggeration, but IMO you're getting close to that level of argument here.
Packages don't say 90% lean by weight. It just says, 90% lean. Now at face value, what do you think the average consumer thinks?lynn_glenmont wrote: »https://www.nutritionix.com/food/90-percent-lean-ground-beef
so 1serving is 196 calories
10 grams of fat x 9 is 90 calories
Divided by 196 that's 45% fat calories out of that 196
Explain how it's 90% lean
To the average person if they were counting calories, they'd look at 196 calories in a serving an believe based on labeling that there's only 19 calories of fat in that serving because it's "90%" lean right?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
It's 90% lean by weight. I don't understand this hypothetical person looking at a label that lists the grams of fat and, instead of reading the information staring them in the face, opting to look at the calories and do math based on a claim of X% lean.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I think the average consumer doesn't give a rat's patootie. People who are serious about weight management or nutrition tend to study those subjects, and can readily get the information they need from most labels.
Yes, sometimes it requires a little arithmetic . . . whoohoo. Yes, many people are bad at math, but that worries me more (at the population level) in other realms, like retirement savings, mortgage selection, etc.
In world where all kinds of blogosphere nonsense is telling the average consumer pure counterproductive mythology, I don't think the things you're saying about labels are the biggest practical barrier to weight management or nutrition improvement for anyone.
People who don't make a study of this stuff, but have common sense, know that marketers aren't to be trusted, and aren't consciously making decisions based on the "lean" in "lean ground turkey", any more than they believe the "lucky" in "Lucky Charms".
Depends on the portion of protein relative the 8g of fat. I personally believe if it's over 20% in fat, it's too high.neanderthin wrote: »
You didn't answer my question which was; do you think 8g's of fat is high for a portion of protein?
Queston:neanderthin wrote: »
But we do know how much fat we're consuming, it said 8g's. For macro's a person needs to know total grams for each and not specifically that a particular food might have 42% fat by weight.Those totals are also the metrics that have always been used for counting calories. Also it's not deceptive that they don't show the percentages of fat by weight simply because they are telling us there's 8 total grams of fat in that portion, which like I said is what we use to figure out our total fat intake which then can be translated into any particular macro split we want. You've mentioned that 42% fat in that lean ground turkey is more than you thought and was quite high, so do you think that 8g's of fat in a particular protein portion is high? just curious. I really don't know what else to say, except, keep being inquisitive and wanting to increase your knowledge of nutrition, it's all good. Cheers
How much fat you consume does matter. As I mentioned before, someone new may not realize that a protein they are consuming may have more fat than advertised by saying it's "lean". Therefore it's deception. You know as well as I do that just because something labeled as fat free doesn't mean you can eat loads of it and the same with low carb. And while counting calories is the main objective to lose weight, the right splits in macros DOES make a difference is how the body reacts to usage of the energy taken in. Any athlete will tell you that eating carbs vs just doing keto will affect their performance.neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »None of this logic makes sense and it's still 6g's of fat which is simply calculated as part of total fat consumed, easy peasy. Not sure where you got the idea that a portion of food has to have 20% or less of fat.- 1/2 Avocado 80% fat
- 1 oz Cheddar 70% fat
- 100 g's salmon 75% fat
- 1 oz Chocolate 55% fat
Look at Jennie O Lean ground Turkey for example.
1 serving is 170 calories
8 grams of fat per serving
So 42% of that serving is fat
Doesn't sound that lean to me.
Point being that labeling can confuse people. Luckily we do have an app here that does count our total fat and calories. Again, I'm not disparaging against fat, just about how labeling can be deceptive to those that DON'T understand why they aren't losing weight even though they are reading labels.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yeah, I really don't know what to tell you niner. When you say lean, are you saying too much fat in a particular food item is a bad thing in general? What about the avocado with 80%, that's got to freak you out, no? especially considering there's no label to tell people the fat content so do you think nature made a mistake there, or chocolate, chocolate has a lot of fat and a lot of saturated fat, so potentially causes atherosclerosis, do you think nature made a mistake there as well. I'm just not sure what your trying to say. The losing weight part is about total fat grams in a diet, not the percentage of fat in an item to be able to calculate weight loss. cheers
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutritionIf it's 42% fat, should it be called lean?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Niner I've never taken any descriptive of a food product seriously and only look at the nutritional labeling, otherwise I would be lead to believe quite a bit of nonsense that is prevalent in the food industry, especially the healthy labels, funny stuff really.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Why 20%? MFP's default fat goal is 30%.
(Note to those inclined to argue with that last statement: I'm just poking at the style of argumentation in this thread, basically joking.)
If you ask me, it's the overall nutrition of a total diet, averaged over a day or few, that counts. I admit I rough-evaluate new potential vegetarian protein source foods based on protein gram/calorie ratio as one factor. But as long as I get a reasonable fat minimum most of the time, I don't see why the fat to protein ratio of a single food matters. (Maybe that's because I don't eat meat?)
The 30% represents total fat of the diet as it relates to the other macronutrients. Niner is saying any item with more 20% fat in it shouldn't be eaten, like the avocado example.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
So you would eat an avocado with 80% fat but salmon at 55% or lean ground turkey at 42% is too high. I guess you believe that all animal food including dairy products like yogurt and most cheeses as inappropriate because they will all be over 20%. I suspect nuts and seeds are ok because in the good and bad columns of nutrition they're good fats. Do you eat any animal products or are you a vegan? Also, there's no essential fat (omega3) in avocado but plenty found in animal products.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »Like others who've posted - if I'm reading between their lines accurately - I don't understand why you're as excited about this as you seem to be.
Lucky Charms aren't actually lucky. How would the average consumer know that? That's an exaggeration, but IMO you're getting close to that level of argument here.
Packages don't say 90% lean by weight. It just says, 90% lean. Now at face value, what do you think the average consumer thinks?lynn_glenmont wrote: »https://www.nutritionix.com/food/90-percent-lean-ground-beef
so 1serving is 196 calories
10 grams of fat x 9 is 90 calories
Divided by 196 that's 45% fat calories out of that 196
Explain how it's 90% lean
To the average person if they were counting calories, they'd look at 196 calories in a serving an believe based on labeling that there's only 19 calories of fat in that serving because it's "90%" lean right?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
It's 90% lean by weight. I don't understand this hypothetical person looking at a label that lists the grams of fat and, instead of reading the information staring them in the face, opting to look at the calories and do math based on a claim of X% lean.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I think the average consumer doesn't give a rat's patootie. People who are serious about weight management or nutrition tend to study those subjects, and can readily get the information they need from most labels.
Yes, sometimes it requires a little arithmetic . . . whoohoo. Yes, many people are bad at math, but that worries me more (at the population level) in other realms, like retirement savings, mortgage selection, etc.
In world where all kinds of blogosphere nonsense is telling the average consumer pure counterproductive mythology, I don't think the things you're saying about labels are the biggest practical barrier to weight management or nutrition improvement for anyone.
People who don't make a study of this stuff, but have common sense, know that marketers aren't to be trusted, and aren't consciously making decisions based on the "lean" in "lean ground turkey", any more than they believe the "lucky" in "Lucky Charms".
Depends on the portion of protein relative the 8g of fat. I personally believe if it's over 20% in fat, it's too high.neanderthin wrote: »
You didn't answer my question which was; do you think 8g's of fat is high for a portion of protein?
Queston:neanderthin wrote: »
But we do know how much fat we're consuming, it said 8g's. For macro's a person needs to know total grams for each and not specifically that a particular food might have 42% fat by weight.Those totals are also the metrics that have always been used for counting calories. Also it's not deceptive that they don't show the percentages of fat by weight simply because they are telling us there's 8 total grams of fat in that portion, which like I said is what we use to figure out our total fat intake which then can be translated into any particular macro split we want. You've mentioned that 42% fat in that lean ground turkey is more than you thought and was quite high, so do you think that 8g's of fat in a particular protein portion is high? just curious. I really don't know what else to say, except, keep being inquisitive and wanting to increase your knowledge of nutrition, it's all good. Cheers
How much fat you consume does matter. As I mentioned before, someone new may not realize that a protein they are consuming may have more fat than advertised by saying it's "lean". Therefore it's deception. You know as well as I do that just because something labeled as fat free doesn't mean you can eat loads of it and the same with low carb. And while counting calories is the main objective to lose weight, the right splits in macros DOES make a difference is how the body reacts to usage of the energy taken in. Any athlete will tell you that eating carbs vs just doing keto will affect their performance.neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »None of this logic makes sense and it's still 6g's of fat which is simply calculated as part of total fat consumed, easy peasy. Not sure where you got the idea that a portion of food has to have 20% or less of fat.- 1/2 Avocado 80% fat
- 1 oz Cheddar 70% fat
- 100 g's salmon 75% fat
- 1 oz Chocolate 55% fat
Look at Jennie O Lean ground Turkey for example.
1 serving is 170 calories
8 grams of fat per serving
So 42% of that serving is fat
Doesn't sound that lean to me.
Point being that labeling can confuse people. Luckily we do have an app here that does count our total fat and calories. Again, I'm not disparaging against fat, just about how labeling can be deceptive to those that DON'T understand why they aren't losing weight even though they are reading labels.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yeah, I really don't know what to tell you niner. When you say lean, are you saying too much fat in a particular food item is a bad thing in general? What about the avocado with 80%, that's got to freak you out, no? especially considering there's no label to tell people the fat content so do you think nature made a mistake there, or chocolate, chocolate has a lot of fat and a lot of saturated fat, so potentially causes atherosclerosis, do you think nature made a mistake there as well. I'm just not sure what your trying to say. The losing weight part is about total fat grams in a diet, not the percentage of fat in an item to be able to calculate weight loss. cheers
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutritionIf it's 42% fat, should it be called lean?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Niner I've never taken any descriptive of a food product seriously and only look at the nutritional labeling, otherwise I would be lead to believe quite a bit of nonsense that is prevalent in the food industry, especially the healthy labels, funny stuff really.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Why 20%? MFP's default fat goal is 30%.
(Note to those inclined to argue with that last statement: I'm just poking at the style of argumentation in this thread, basically joking.)
If you ask me, it's the overall nutrition of a total diet, averaged over a day or few, that counts. I admit I rough-evaluate new potential vegetarian protein source foods based on protein gram/calorie ratio as one factor. But as long as I get a reasonable fat minimum most of the time, I don't see why the fat to protein ratio of a single food matters. (Maybe that's because I don't eat meat?)
The 30% represents total fat of the diet as it relates to the other macronutrients. Niner is saying any item with more 20% fat in it shouldn't be eaten, like the avocado example.
As I predicted, someone would argue with my explicitly joking remark, as if I needed someone to explain the meaning of the post I quoted.
😆1 -
neanderthin wrote: »Like others who've posted - if I'm reading between their lines accurately - I don't understand why you're as excited about this as you seem to be.
Lucky Charms aren't actually lucky. How would the average consumer know that? That's an exaggeration, but IMO you're getting close to that level of argument here.
Packages don't say 90% lean by weight. It just says, 90% lean. Now at face value, what do you think the average consumer thinks?lynn_glenmont wrote: »https://www.nutritionix.com/food/90-percent-lean-ground-beef
so 1serving is 196 calories
10 grams of fat x 9 is 90 calories
Divided by 196 that's 45% fat calories out of that 196
Explain how it's 90% lean
To the average person if they were counting calories, they'd look at 196 calories in a serving an believe based on labeling that there's only 19 calories of fat in that serving because it's "90%" lean right?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
It's 90% lean by weight. I don't understand this hypothetical person looking at a label that lists the grams of fat and, instead of reading the information staring them in the face, opting to look at the calories and do math based on a claim of X% lean.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I think the average consumer doesn't give a rat's patootie. People who are serious about weight management or nutrition tend to study those subjects, and can readily get the information they need from most labels.
Yes, sometimes it requires a little arithmetic . . . whoohoo. Yes, many people are bad at math, but that worries me more (at the population level) in other realms, like retirement savings, mortgage selection, etc.
In world where all kinds of blogosphere nonsense is telling the average consumer pure counterproductive mythology, I don't think the things you're saying about labels are the biggest practical barrier to weight management or nutrition improvement for anyone.
People who don't make a study of this stuff, but have common sense, know that marketers aren't to be trusted, and aren't consciously making decisions based on the "lean" in "lean ground turkey", any more than they believe the "lucky" in "Lucky Charms".
Depends on the portion of protein relative the 8g of fat. I personally believe if it's over 20% in fat, it's too high.neanderthin wrote: »
You didn't answer my question which was; do you think 8g's of fat is high for a portion of protein?
Queston:neanderthin wrote: »
But we do know how much fat we're consuming, it said 8g's. For macro's a person needs to know total grams for each and not specifically that a particular food might have 42% fat by weight.Those totals are also the metrics that have always been used for counting calories. Also it's not deceptive that they don't show the percentages of fat by weight simply because they are telling us there's 8 total grams of fat in that portion, which like I said is what we use to figure out our total fat intake which then can be translated into any particular macro split we want. You've mentioned that 42% fat in that lean ground turkey is more than you thought and was quite high, so do you think that 8g's of fat in a particular protein portion is high? just curious. I really don't know what else to say, except, keep being inquisitive and wanting to increase your knowledge of nutrition, it's all good. Cheers
How much fat you consume does matter. As I mentioned before, someone new may not realize that a protein they are consuming may have more fat than advertised by saying it's "lean". Therefore it's deception. You know as well as I do that just because something labeled as fat free doesn't mean you can eat loads of it and the same with low carb. And while counting calories is the main objective to lose weight, the right splits in macros DOES make a difference is how the body reacts to usage of the energy taken in. Any athlete will tell you that eating carbs vs just doing keto will affect their performance.neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »None of this logic makes sense and it's still 6g's of fat which is simply calculated as part of total fat consumed, easy peasy. Not sure where you got the idea that a portion of food has to have 20% or less of fat.- 1/2 Avocado 80% fat
- 1 oz Cheddar 70% fat
- 100 g's salmon 75% fat
- 1 oz Chocolate 55% fat
Look at Jennie O Lean ground Turkey for example.
1 serving is 170 calories
8 grams of fat per serving
So 42% of that serving is fat
Doesn't sound that lean to me.
Point being that labeling can confuse people. Luckily we do have an app here that does count our total fat and calories. Again, I'm not disparaging against fat, just about how labeling can be deceptive to those that DON'T understand why they aren't losing weight even though they are reading labels.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yeah, I really don't know what to tell you niner. When you say lean, are you saying too much fat in a particular food item is a bad thing in general? What about the avocado with 80%, that's got to freak you out, no? especially considering there's no label to tell people the fat content so do you think nature made a mistake there, or chocolate, chocolate has a lot of fat and a lot of saturated fat, so potentially causes atherosclerosis, do you think nature made a mistake there as well. I'm just not sure what your trying to say. The losing weight part is about total fat grams in a diet, not the percentage of fat in an item to be able to calculate weight loss. cheers
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutritionIf it's 42% fat, should it be called lean?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Niner I've never taken any descriptive of a food product seriously and only look at the nutritional labeling, otherwise I would be lead to believe quite a bit of nonsense that is prevalent in the food industry, especially the healthy labels, funny stuff really.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Why 20%? MFP's default fat goal is 30%.
(Note to those inclined to argue with that last statement: I'm just poking at the style of argumentation in this thread, basically joking.)
If you ask me, it's the overall nutrition of a total diet, averaged over a day or few, that counts. I admit I rough-evaluate new potential vegetarian protein source foods based on protein gram/calorie ratio as one factor. But as long as I get a reasonable fat minimum most of the time, I don't see why the fat to protein ratio of a single food matters. (Maybe that's because I don't eat meat?)
The 30% represents total fat of the diet as it relates to the other macronutrients. Niner is saying any item with more 20% fat in it shouldn't be eaten, like the avocado example.
As I predicted, someone would argue with my explicitly joking remark, as if I needed someone to explain the meaning of the post I quoted.
😆
Must have been the lucky charms that threw me off. Cheers2 -
I eat meat and chicken regularly. I don't do lean ground turkey at all, and when eating fish it's usually tuna, flounder, cod. I don't eat yogurt and don't use dairy as a fulfillment for protein needs. As for Omega 3, I take a supplement for it daily.neanderthin wrote: »
Actually you asked me about fat in a PROTEIN consumed item. And I said I don't think it should be over 20%. I'm well aware that certain foods are all fat like an avocado and I eat them. I'm NOT against good fats at all since they are essential. Of course, if I eat an avocado, I still would have to look at overall fat intake for the day.neanderthin wrote: »Like others who've posted - if I'm reading between their lines accurately - I don't understand why you're as excited about this as you seem to be.
Lucky Charms aren't actually lucky. How would the average consumer know that? That's an exaggeration, but IMO you're getting close to that level of argument here.
Packages don't say 90% lean by weight. It just says, 90% lean. Now at face value, what do you think the average consumer thinks?lynn_glenmont wrote: »https://www.nutritionix.com/food/90-percent-lean-ground-beef
so 1serving is 196 calories
10 grams of fat x 9 is 90 calories
Divided by 196 that's 45% fat calories out of that 196
Explain how it's 90% lean
To the average person if they were counting calories, they'd look at 196 calories in a serving an believe based on labeling that there's only 19 calories of fat in that serving because it's "90%" lean right?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
It's 90% lean by weight. I don't understand this hypothetical person looking at a label that lists the grams of fat and, instead of reading the information staring them in the face, opting to look at the calories and do math based on a claim of X% lean.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I think the average consumer doesn't give a rat's patootie. People who are serious about weight management or nutrition tend to study those subjects, and can readily get the information they need from most labels.
Yes, sometimes it requires a little arithmetic . . . whoohoo. Yes, many people are bad at math, but that worries me more (at the population level) in other realms, like retirement savings, mortgage selection, etc.
In world where all kinds of blogosphere nonsense is telling the average consumer pure counterproductive mythology, I don't think the things you're saying about labels are the biggest practical barrier to weight management or nutrition improvement for anyone.
People who don't make a study of this stuff, but have common sense, know that marketers aren't to be trusted, and aren't consciously making decisions based on the "lean" in "lean ground turkey", any more than they believe the "lucky" in "Lucky Charms".
Depends on the portion of protein relative the 8g of fat. I personally believe if it's over 20% in fat, it's too high.neanderthin wrote: »
You didn't answer my question which was; do you think 8g's of fat is high for a portion of protein?
Queston:neanderthin wrote: »
But we do know how much fat we're consuming, it said 8g's. For macro's a person needs to know total grams for each and not specifically that a particular food might have 42% fat by weight.Those totals are also the metrics that have always been used for counting calories. Also it's not deceptive that they don't show the percentages of fat by weight simply because they are telling us there's 8 total grams of fat in that portion, which like I said is what we use to figure out our total fat intake which then can be translated into any particular macro split we want. You've mentioned that 42% fat in that lean ground turkey is more than you thought and was quite high, so do you think that 8g's of fat in a particular protein portion is high? just curious. I really don't know what else to say, except, keep being inquisitive and wanting to increase your knowledge of nutrition, it's all good. Cheers
How much fat you consume does matter. As I mentioned before, someone new may not realize that a protein they are consuming may have more fat than advertised by saying it's "lean". Therefore it's deception. You know as well as I do that just because something labeled as fat free doesn't mean you can eat loads of it and the same with low carb. And while counting calories is the main objective to lose weight, the right splits in macros DOES make a difference is how the body reacts to usage of the energy taken in. Any athlete will tell you that eating carbs vs just doing keto will affect their performance.neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »None of this logic makes sense and it's still 6g's of fat which is simply calculated as part of total fat consumed, easy peasy. Not sure where you got the idea that a portion of food has to have 20% or less of fat.- 1/2 Avocado 80% fat
- 1 oz Cheddar 70% fat
- 100 g's salmon 75% fat
- 1 oz Chocolate 55% fat
Look at Jennie O Lean ground Turkey for example.
1 serving is 170 calories
8 grams of fat per serving
So 42% of that serving is fat
Doesn't sound that lean to me.
Point being that labeling can confuse people. Luckily we do have an app here that does count our total fat and calories. Again, I'm not disparaging against fat, just about how labeling can be deceptive to those that DON'T understand why they aren't losing weight even though they are reading labels.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yeah, I really don't know what to tell you niner. When you say lean, are you saying too much fat in a particular food item is a bad thing in general? What about the avocado with 80%, that's got to freak you out, no? especially considering there's no label to tell people the fat content so do you think nature made a mistake there, or chocolate, chocolate has a lot of fat and a lot of saturated fat, so potentially causes atherosclerosis, do you think nature made a mistake there as well. I'm just not sure what your trying to say. The losing weight part is about total fat grams in a diet, not the percentage of fat in an item to be able to calculate weight loss. cheers
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutritionIf it's 42% fat, should it be called lean?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Niner I've never taken any descriptive of a food product seriously and only look at the nutritional labeling, otherwise I would be lead to believe quite a bit of nonsense that is prevalent in the food industry, especially the healthy labels, funny stuff really.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Why 20%? MFP's default fat goal is 30%.
(Note to those inclined to argue with that last statement: I'm just poking at the style of argumentation in this thread, basically joking.)
If you ask me, it's the overall nutrition of a total diet, averaged over a day or few, that counts. I admit I rough-evaluate new potential vegetarian protein source foods based on protein gram/calorie ratio as one factor. But as long as I get a reasonable fat minimum most of the time, I don't see why the fat to protein ratio of a single food matters. (Maybe that's because I don't eat meat?)
The 30% represents total fat of the diet as it relates to the other macronutrients. Niner is saying any item with more 20% fat in it shouldn't be eaten, like the avocado example.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
So you would eat an avocado with 80% fat but salmon at 55% or lean ground turkey at 42% is too high. I guess you believe that all animal food including dairy products like yogurt and most cheeses as inappropriate because they will all be over 20%. I suspect nuts and seeds are ok because in the good and bad columns of nutrition they're good fats. Do you eat any animal products or are you a vegan? Also, there's no essential fat (omega3) in avocado but plenty found in animal products.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
SafariGalNYC wrote: »I have a bar of my fav chocolate at home- it says 3 servings, I would love to eat the whole thing.. but at 150 calories per serving.. I don't always have room for a total 450 calories.. so I eat 1/3rd...I cannot imagine stopping myself at only 1/3 of my favorite candy bar...that's a level of self control to admire!
Yeah, for some reason I can portion out chocolate chips and stop, but portioning out from a candy bar and stopping just isn't happening for me.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »I can't reason out how the 80% Gr Beef came out with less calories than the 90% when both are cooked crumbled, then blotted. The 80%, with 1 more gram of dietary fat, should be at least 9 calories more than the 90%? The 80-85% Gr Beef taste better and cost less. I always thought it was worth the little bit of extra calories and fat. Now I'm not going to think about it.
The 80% beef has less beef than the 90% and they are cooked to a minimum of 165 degrees, which will render most of the fat in the beef, so therefore in the end the 80% will have a less weighable portion, basically the more fat and the more it's cooked the more it will "shrink" and therefore a less weighable portion, hope that makes sense. Medium rare results would be different of course and probably depending on doneness those numbers would flip.
^^^ This makes all the sense in the world. Should have seen it for myself.
Thanks.1 -
neanderthin wrote: »I can't reason out how the 80% Gr Beef came out with less calories than the 90% when both are cooked crumbled, then blotted. The 80%, with 1 more gram of dietary fat, should be at least 9 calories more than the 90%? The 80-85% Gr Beef taste better and cost less. I always thought it was worth the little bit of extra calories and fat. Now I'm not going to think about it.
The 80% beef has less beef than the 90% and they are cooked to a minimum of 165 degrees, which will render most of the fat in the beef, so therefore in the end the 80% will have a less weighable portion, basically the more fat and the more it's cooked the more it will "shrink" and therefore a less weighable portion, hope that makes sense. Medium rare results would be different of course and probably depending on doneness those numbers would flip.
^^^ This makes all the sense in the world. Should have seen it for myself.
Thanks.
No problem, my pleasure. Hey, that's not easily spotted. Are you an engineer, just curious. Cheers0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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