Don’t believe the label

wishingiwasfishing5037
wishingiwasfishing5037 Posts: 6 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
eyijc02guv65.jpeg
The calories don’t match the macros. When it is scanned it shows 70 calories including 14 protein 1 fat and 1 carb

Replies

  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,342 Member
    wishingiwasfishing5037 wrote: »
    eyijc02guv65.jpeg
    The calories don’t match the macros. When it is scanned it shows 70 calories including 14 protein 1 fat and 1 carb

    Which could be because they changed their recipe, assuming the serving size is the same.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 35,013 Member
    Also, the database is primarily crowd-sourced, i.e., entered by regular MFP users like you or me, except some aren't as meticulous as you or I might be. So, maybe reformulated, maybe just wrong. The bar code is attached to a food by users in nearly all cases, too. Sometimes those aren't even right, usually because the bar code was reassigned. The food database isn't a direct info pipeline to the manufacturer, whether you use the barcode scanner, or look things up by hand.

    As far as the label, in the US labels are allowed to be off by a certain percent, which others here have said is 20%. Note, too, that your ingredient list says "less than 2% sugar", but the nutrition label says zero added sugar. That sugar has a few calories, though not many. If it were actually 2% sugar by weight, it would be 1.12g of sugar, so less than roughly 4.48 calories from sugar, but presumably some.

    Fortunately, we don't need perfect estimates . . . and all of this stuff, including meticulous food logging, IS estimates. All we need are workable estimates, pretty good on average. If you wish, make your own custom food in MFP, and put in the calories you think are right-ish. Or use an entry that's there. High potential that if you search the database by typing in the product, someone will already have entered what's currently on that label. They just can't link it to the bar code.

Categories