CONSPIRACY THEORY: FOOD COMPANIES CONFLICTING DATA

weightlossguy01

Do you think some food companies get on sites like this and others and add entries to their foods that are much healthier than they really are to make it harder for you to find the true amounts? I double check everything I enter but I notice for example McDonalds has a wide range on certain food items entered multiple times that are wrong. Sometimes you have to really dig to find the right one and many times there are only a couple of confirms on them! Seriously, you know A LOT of people are eating those same items, so where are all the multiple confirms at? Seems like they have been MAGICALLY disappearing?? hmmm.

Powerade is another example. The powerade mountain blast that has been entered and confirmed by people to have 56grams of carbs for a 32oz container yet only 200 calories listed. If you do the math, a carb equals 4 calories, 56x4=225 calories!

I even looked at a 32oz powerade container at the store and it clearly says on it 225 calories! It's either they are now getting away with stating less calories on certain containers or are coming up with a new way to count carbs or something.

CARBS = 4 calories
PROTEIN = 9 calories
FAT = 9

You can always double check based on that.

weightlossguy01

bump

tigerlily8045

I always love too when people put in just the calories for an item but nothing else. um hello? If you are going to bother putting it in please fill out all of the info. You are not the only one that may use that item. I have edited a few things and always say what or why i did it.

Maybe for some products they have redone their menu or product and that equals less calories. However like you said some are just wrong..lol

weightlossguy01

I took a screenshot of it, 5 people confirmed it being accurate.....

Powerade Mountain Blast (ON MYFITNESSPAL)
http://imgur.com/9Ygb2

56g carb x 4 = 225 calories NOT 200. Do the math, so I don't understand that at all.

poodlelaise

I know one thing we have to watch out for is the number of servings in a package. By law, the manufacturer must provide as much weight as they state on the package as a minimum. So many put in a little extra. If the package says it contains two servings, you eat half, and believe you have eaten one serving worth of calories, it is not unusual that you may have eaten considerably more.

The only thing I have tested this on was a single serving honey bun. It weighed 30% more than the package said, so there were actually 1.3 servings in the package instead of the one it listed.

weightlossguy01

I know one thing we have to watch out for is the number of servings in a package. By law, the manufacturer must provide as much weight as they state on the package as a minimum. So many put in a little extra. If the package says it contains two servings, you eat half, and believe you have eaten one serving worth of calories, it is not unusual that you may have eaten considerably more.

The only thing I have tested this on was a single serving honey bun. It weighed 30% more than the package said, so there were actually 1.3 servings in the package instead of the one it listed.

That is actually one thing I really fear! I've read that as well. Just because it says 400 calories on it, they don't all weigh exactly the same and you might actually be getting closer to 450 or even 500!

Same goes for slices of pizza as well. You just never really know.

cls_333

Last night I had a Gianelli Hot Italian Sausage. It said a serving was one link, but it also had (3.5g) beside it. Still you imagine since the links are pre-cut, that one is a serving. Then it said one link was 190 calories. Well, I love Hoffman German franks, and I know they are like 230 calories, and they're a lot smaller. So I got suspicious & started figuring out the weight of the whole package, how many were in there, etc, and it worked out to each link being 342 cals, 5.6 oz each. I do think they purposely misstate the label. One link? Ya, the size of a breakfast sausage link, maybe! Guess we all need to get food scales. :grumble:

weightlossguy01

Last night I had a Gianelli Hot Italian Sausage. It said a serving was one link, but it also had (3.5g) beside it. Still you imagine since the links are pre-cut, that one is a serving. Then it said one link was 190 calories. Well, I love Hoffman German franks, and I know they are like 230 calories, and they're a lot smaller. So I got suspicious & started figuring out the weight of the whole package, how many were in there, etc, and it worked out to each link being 342 cals, 5.6 oz each. I do think they purposely misstate the label. One link? Ya, the size of a breakfast sausage link, maybe! Guess we all need to get food scales. :grumble:

I AGREE! One thing that suprised me recently was that Whataburger sweet tea has around 450 calories for a large and when I used to go there I'd drink 2 of those. I'd drink one there and get a refill to go, that's 900 calories!

If you look up McDonalds sweet tea, there's is supposedly 280 or so calories for a large and I know for a fact that McDonalds sweets tea is probably 2x sweeter than Whataburgers sweet tea, they really pour the sugar in it! Sometimes I have to ask them to dillute it!

So I know for a fact that there is no way on earth a McDonald's large tea is 280 calories but that's what their website claims. I think the number they turn in is different than real world preparation for it. You have to be careful, and just like you did, compare what the competition is showing as their amounts if it seems too good to be true.

GasMasterFlash

pixiechick8321

Food scale + overestimate = almost safe

I agree though that this drives me nuts, especially when I KNOW the website for the restaurant has a higher/different number than what people say on here.

I wish there was a way to delete all inaccurate data...

CaWaterBug8

I feel like that hat needs to be more pointy.

BrettPGH

Know that nothing can ever be 100% accurate. That doesn't mean anyone is out to get you. That's just life. An extra 30 calories you didn't account for does not ruin your day, it's hardly a blip.

Stop looking for things/people to blame and do the work.

GasMasterFlash

I feel like that hat needs to be more pointy.

Common misconception. Having points only helps the gov't and aliens to read your thoughts.

becoming_a_new_me

cheesy_blasters

Ugh, I never bothered to compare like that. I don't eat a lot of packaged stuff but I never really thought to check.

I usually over estimate how much i eat or weigh it exactly and there's always some extra room in my calorie macro so I'm probably fine but still. It's nice to be accurate!

That being said I don't believe that multi-national corps are trolling every freaking weight loss site trying to spread false info about a few calories. I think some people put in the wrong info/don't know how/get lazy/etc.

Stop eating packaged stuff if you're so worried.

roachhaley

you think a multi billion dollar chain restaurant needs to get on a website and trick a few people into eating there more than once? ok.

_tiifyjo_

I know one thing we have to watch out for is the number of servings in a package. By law, the manufacturer must provide as much weight as they state on the package as a minimum. So many put in a little extra. If the package says it contains two servings, you eat half, and believe you have eaten one serving worth of calories, it is not unusual that you may have eaten considerably more.

The only thing I have tested this on was a single serving honey bun. It weighed 30% more than the package said, so there were actually 1.3 servings in the package instead of the one it listed.

For years I thought one serving of Ramen noodles was the whole package. When I started MFP and really started reading labels I realized I was very wrong lol same with energy drinks, I thought one can was one serving but many of them are multiple servings.

MelMena

So then why aren't you entering all of your own info and not relying on what has already been done? If you have the info in front of you then put it in and use it. Pretty sure there is no conspiracy theory.

UsedToBeHusky

Why do people agonize over accurate calorie counts?

I mean, I can understand where you are coming from if it is sabotage (though to me that seems a bit paranoid). But... in reality, MFP can't accurately predict your TDEE, and therefore, is only projecting a potential calorie count to create a deficit. If we are already estimating in the first place, then why do we need to weigh out every morsel we put into our mouths?

Again, the kind of corporate espionage that you have described is jacked up, but I seriously doubt they are too worried about MFP users choosing something other than McDonald's when MFP users only make up the tiniest fraction of their total market share.

I just don't understand obsessing about calorie counts when we are already estimating in the first place.

Rhea30

I know one thing we have to watch out for is the number of servings in a package. By law, the manufacturer must provide as much weight as they state on the package as a minimum. So many put in a little extra. If the package says it contains two servings, you eat half, and believe you have eaten one serving worth of calories, it is not unusual that you may have eaten considerably more.

The only thing I have tested this on was a single serving honey bun. It weighed 30% more than the package said, so there were actually 1.3 servings in the package instead of the one it listed.

Many food items say "about" with how many servings they are, that's probably why they do for you had stated. I never really thought about it or paid much attention to that until reading this. Like "Servings Per Container about 35" that's on my peanut butter jar. Its probably good to measure out or weight the item or whatever then, I'm guessing.

Rhea30

I know one thing we have to watch out for is the number of servings in a package. By law, the manufacturer must provide as much weight as they state on the package as a minimum. So many put in a little extra. If the package says it contains two servings, you eat half, and believe you have eaten one serving worth of calories, it is not unusual that you may have eaten considerably more.

The only thing I have tested this on was a single serving honey bun. It weighed 30% more than the package said, so there were actually 1.3 servings in the package instead of the one it listed.

For years I thought one serving of Ramen noodles was the whole package. When I started MFP and really started reading labels I realized I was very wrong lol same with energy drinks, I thought one can was one serving but many of them are multiple servings.

I haven't checked Ramen noodles but I thought they were one serving LOL. I have to go look now!

UsedToBeHusky

Last night I had a Gianelli Hot Italian Sausage. It said a serving was one link, but it also had (3.5g) beside it. Still you imagine since the links are pre-cut, that one is a serving. Then it said one link was 190 calories. Well, I love Hoffman German franks, and I know they are like 230 calories, and they're a lot smaller. So I got suspicious & started figuring out the weight of the whole package, how many were in there, etc, and it worked out to each link being 342 cals, 5.6 oz each. I do think they purposely misstate the label. One link? Ya, the size of a breakfast sausage link, maybe! Guess we all need to get food scales. :grumble:

I AGREE! One thing that suprised me recently was that Whataburger sweet tea has around 450 calories for a large and when I used to go there I'd drink 2 of those. I'd drink one there and get a refill to go, that's 900 calories!

If you look up McDonalds sweet tea, there's is supposedly 280 or so calories for a large and I know for a fact that McDonalds sweets tea is probably 2x sweeter than Whataburgers sweet tea, they really pour the sugar in it! Sometimes I have to ask them to dillute it!

So I know for a fact that there is no way on earth a McDonald's large tea is 280 calories but that's what their website claims. I think the number they turn in is different than real world preparation for it. You have to be careful, and just like you did, compare what the competition is showing as their amounts if it seems too good to be true.

Well there is always human error, but these restaurant chains have a general protocol for making sweet tea. That doesn't necessarily mean that the employees will follow it. If you want to be more confident in the calorie content of tea, then drink unsweetened and make your sweet tea at home.

cheesy_blasters

you think a multi billion dollar chain restaurant needs to get on a website and trick a few people into eating there more than once? ok.

I feel sorry for whatever person ended up with that job. I'm guessing it's some unpaid student intern who they kill once the internship is over so they would never be able to reveal the GIANT SECRET that would rock the free weight loss site industry.

gogojodee

Do you think some food companies get on sites like this and others and add entries to their foods that are much healthier than they really are to make it harder for you to find the true amounts? I double check everything I enter but I notice for example McDonalds has a wide range on certain food items entered multiple times that are wrong. Sometimes you have to really dig to find the right one and many times there are only a couple of confirms on them! Seriously, you know A LOT of people are eating those same items, so where are all the multiple confirms at? Seems like they have been MAGICALLY disappearing?? hmmm.

Powerade is another example. The powerade mountain blast that has been entered and confirmed by people to have 56grams of carbs for a 32oz container yet only 200 calories listed. If you do the math, a carb equals 4 calories, 56x4=225 calories!

I even looked at a 32oz powerade container at the store and it clearly says on it 225 calories! It's either they are now getting away with stating less calories on certain containers or are coming up with a new way to count carbs or something.

CARBS = 4 calories
PROTEIN = 9 calories
FAT = 9

You can always double check based on that.

Bump. And agreed!

Dawners98

Well, I don't know about a conspiracy theory, but it's always difficult to say for certainty how many calories are in something you didn't prepare yourself. Even if it's standard procedure to make something a certain way, it's always possible that it will vary from person to person during preparation. I do the best I can to account for what I eat when I eat out, but I know it's not foolproof and I just accept it.

Although that tidbit about the sausage links I find particularly interesting and will be double checking if I eat any sausage in the future!

kutterba

I don't think there's a conspiracy, but have you noticed on TV that the food companies are advertising that they now put all the information in BIG numbers and on the front? I think in some cases the calorie count has changed - some up and some down. What I do is go through the list and try to find the entry that matches. There is usually one. I have more time than good sense since I'm retired, so I do that. What I mean is, I have trouble adding new foods - the site won't let me add the portions listed.
Anyway, no on the conspiracy, yes on the changing calories from "then" and "now." IMHO.
Oh, in a few cases I've corrected the counts- you can do that instead of creating a whole new entry.
Good luck and good counting! Don't get all OC about it. :laugh:

ChelseaM18

Yeah , I got burned pretty bad by the pop-tart trickaroonie.
But I dunno, it's just clever marketing I guess, but they often put down the '100g' info when it's only 90gs or whatever so it would make you wonder the whole purpose of it.

But putting the exact quantity and info would be pretty useful

BigenFluffy

Some foods that are named the same have different ingredients in different countries, which would account for some of the inaccuracies.

Just a thought. Not a conspiracy.

BigenFluffy

I don't think there's a conspiracy, but have you noticed on TV that the food companies are advertising that they now put all the information in BIG numbers and on the front? I think in some cases the calorie count has changed - some up and some down. What I do is go through the list and try to find the entry that matches. There is usually one. I have more time than good sense since I'm retired, so I do that. What I mean is, I have trouble adding new foods - the site won't let me add the portions listed.
Anyway, no on the conspiracy, yes on the changing calories from "then" and "now." IMHO.
Oh, in a few cases I've corrected the counts- you can do that instead of creating a whole new entry.
Good luck and good counting! Don't get all OC about it. :laugh:

The big numbers on the front sure save me a lot of time when I pick out cereal!

Ercha7

4 cals in a protein.

How do you add items? I have noticed some are wrong as well.

onedayillbeamilf

Enjoying your crusade?