Why such a HUGE difference in calories ??

Options
2»

Replies

  • LillysGranny
    LillysGranny Posts: 431
    Options
    Crazy variations is calories....always look for confirmation. In this case, I think you made the right choice.
  • dr_tina
    dr_tina Posts: 225 Member
    Options
    The second one is more accurate. Oh, also you might want to look into getting a Misto, which is a pump for oil. It allows you to use any kind of oil you want in a spray, but you don't get all the chemicals that are included in Pam. I love mine and use it many times a day
  • Lleldiranne
    Lleldiranne Posts: 5,516 Member
    Options
    If there is such a difference, I try to check the packaging. Yes, they round, but it can still give a fairly close idea of what is accurate.
  • Athijade
    Athijade Posts: 3,282 Member
    Options
    And that is why when I add foods or recipes to my personal diary, I do NOT allow it to be used by others. I don't want to confuse people based off of what I add. I mean, if I add what is MY normal breakfast as "Eggs", then I don't want people thinking it is just for eggs... but it is only for my use.
  • mcarter99
    mcarter99 Posts: 1,666 Member
    Options
    I had 2 fried eggs and 3 pre-cooked bacon strips for breakfast this morning, along with a nice hot cup of coffee....When I looked up the calories for eggs, I found 2 fried eggs cooked in Pam listed at 320 calories....i then looked up 2 large eggs (140 cal), and 1 tsp Pam cooking spray (32 cal) for a grand total of 172.....Where did that other 148 calories come from ???.....I opted for the second choice....Was I wrong ??

    This is why you should get a food scale.
    How would a food scale help in this case? Eggs are pretty standard 70 calories and you can't really weigh the cooking spray!!

    ETA:hbrittingham: Great minds :smile:

    I'm guessing the person who posted that advice was thinking of one of those digital scales with a foods database inside, so you could look up the calories in an egg in it.

    Personally, I think your best off just knowing the rough calorie amounts in basic foods so you can catch those bad database entries and avoid them. It comes with time spent logging.

    A TEASPOON of Pam? Barf. That's about 25 sprays or 5 whole seconds of spraying continuously. I don't even count Pam calories.
  • MernyMac
    MernyMac Posts: 37 Member
    Options
    Thank you all so much for your replies....I feel better about the choice I made....I will watch for what others have deemed correct for an entry, and also use labels when I have them.....I did add the Great Value pre-cooked bacon to the data base, as I did not find it in there, and others may use it....I took all the info right from the package......Thanks again, Merny :flowerforyou:
  • ElizmaKnowles
    ElizmaKnowles Posts: 54
    Options
    I am fortunate enough to have an iphone and on the app you can actually scan the bar codes of the things you eat which is what I go by. When there are no bar codes to scan I always opt for the highest just in case
  • fernandesg
    fernandesg Posts: 54 Member
    Options
    When there is a huge variation like that, I also go with adding it up myself. Here are a couple links you may find useful for nutrition information:

    http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/nutrition/fiche-nutri-data/index-eng.php Health Canada's food database
    http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ USDA's nutritent database

    I use these alot for calculating my own recipes and double-checking some of the odd entries I see in MFP

Categories