How US labeling is decieving

13567

Replies

  • nossmf
    nossmf Posts: 8,956 Member
    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!
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,494 Member
    edited July 2023
    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.
    So if on the front of the package it says "90 Lean", you believe that the rest is only 10% 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.
    You'd be surprised.


    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

    9285851.png

  • DFW_Tom
    DFW_Tom Posts: 218 Member
    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:

    ground-beef-chart.jpg
    Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Nutrient Database and Iowa State University’s research published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,882 Member
    edited July 2023
    DFW_Tom 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:

    ground-beef-chart.jpg
    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.
  • DFW_Tom
    DFW_Tom Posts: 218 Member
    edited July 2023
    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.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,882 Member
    edited July 2023
    DFW_Tom 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.
  • COGypsy
    COGypsy Posts: 1,160 Member
    DFW_Tom 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:

    ground-beef-chart.jpg
    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.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,882 Member
    COGypsy wrote: »
    DFW_Tom 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:

    ground-beef-chart.jpg
    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.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,882 Member
    edited July 2023
    AnnPT77 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.
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    ninerbuff 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

    9285851.png

    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.
    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?

    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

    9285851.png

    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".
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    ninerbuff 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

    9285851.png

    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
    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.

    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

    9285851.png


    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
    Queston:
    If 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

    9285851.png
    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.
    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.

    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

    9285851.png

    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.
  • COGypsy
    COGypsy Posts: 1,160 Member
    COGypsy wrote: »
    DFW_Tom 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:

    ground-beef-chart.jpg
    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...
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,494 Member
    AnnPT77 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.
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    ninerbuff 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

    9285851.png

    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.
    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?

    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

    9285851.png

    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".
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    ninerbuff 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

    9285851.png

    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
    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.

    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

    9285851.png


    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
    Queston:
    If 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

    9285851.png
    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.
    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.

    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

    9285851.png

    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.
    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.


    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

    9285851.png
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,882 Member
    edited July 2023
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    AnnPT77 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.
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    ninerbuff 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

    9285851.png

    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.
    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?

    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

    9285851.png

    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".
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    ninerbuff 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

    9285851.png

    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
    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.

    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

    9285851.png


    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
    Queston:
    If 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

    9285851.png
    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.
    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.

    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

    9285851.png

    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.
    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.


    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

    9285851.png

    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.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,012 Member
    edited July 2023
    AnnPT77 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.
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    ninerbuff 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

    9285851.png

    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.
    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?

    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

    9285851.png

    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".
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    ninerbuff 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

    9285851.png

    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
    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.

    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

    9285851.png


    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
    Queston:
    If 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

    9285851.png
    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.
    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.

    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

    9285851.png

    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.

    😆
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,882 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 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.
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    ninerbuff 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

    9285851.png

    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.
    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?

    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

    9285851.png

    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".
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    ninerbuff 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

    9285851.png

    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
    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.

    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

    9285851.png


    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
    Queston:
    If 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

    9285851.png
    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.
    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.

    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

    9285851.png

    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. Cheers
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,494 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    AnnPT77 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.
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    ninerbuff 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

    9285851.png

    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.
    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?

    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

    9285851.png

    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".
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    ninerbuff 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

    9285851.png

    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
    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.

    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

    9285851.png


    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
    Queston:
    If 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

    9285851.png
    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.
    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.

    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

    9285851.png

    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.
    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.


    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

    9285851.png

    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.
    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.

    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

    9285851.png

  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,893 Member
    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...
    nossmf wrote: »
    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.
  • DFW_Tom
    DFW_Tom Posts: 218 Member
    DFW_Tom 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.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,882 Member
    edited July 2023
    DFW_Tom wrote: »
    DFW_Tom 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. Cheers