If you eat "diet" ice cream, read this...

PS2CR

Oh God. I just ate a pint of arctic zero yesterday... Like I didn't have enough to worry about. 20% variance on food labels? I'm not going to be able to eat comfortably ever again... Thanks.

Sorry. :-/ Maybe switch brands? (Or switch to popsicles...) From the article:

"But the biggest gut-buster of all: the new summertime craze, Arctic Zero ice cream. It promises 150 calories for the whole pint: Sounds great. But in our test, the results were less than appetizing.

Our sample of Arctic Zero Vanilla Maple had a whopping 46 percent more calories than the label. The Chocolate Peanut Butter: an incredible 68 percent more calories.

Arctic Zero told us its calorie counts are accurate. So we asked to see their test results — and we're still waiting."

These "variances" don't mean all that much. First, just because one pint has 46% more calories, it does not mean that another won't have 46% less. Also, if the serving is supposed to be 150 calories and instead is 46% higher, so it is 219 calories. That is not really going to affect you. It's only 69 calories. Yes, maybe you didn't want to eat the 69 calories that way, but it's not as traumatic as the media wants you to believe.

Please stop with your logic, it has no place here.

I just can't help myself!

I'm too old to feel traumatic about what I weigh. The takeaway message of the article is much broader than the calorie differences between pints of 'diet' ice cream, and if that's going to *gasp* mess with your dieting goals. (And statistically speaking, it's actually pretty significant when 2 random pints of Arctic Zone are that much off the allowed FDA variance. The odds are much more in favor of the next pint also being higher than labeled.)

The issue is truth in labeling...and the fact the FDA itself admits it can't (translate *won't*) police what food companies are putting on labels. It's good to know (for those that didn't) that one can't always rely on them. (Especially in cases of allergies.) It's also good to get up in arms a bit about deception, and publicize stuff like this in a poorly regulated industry; bad publicity will rein in what bad administration can't.

shabaity

if im going to eat ice cream im going to go buy my cherry carcia from hagaan daaz and say screw my caloric intake for the day

Acg67

Oh God. I just ate a pint of arctic zero yesterday... Like I didn't have enough to worry about. 20% variance on food labels? I'm not going to be able to eat comfortably ever again... Thanks.

Sorry. :-/ Maybe switch brands? (Or switch to popsicles...) From the article:

"But the biggest gut-buster of all: the new summertime craze, Arctic Zero ice cream. It promises 150 calories for the whole pint: Sounds great. But in our test, the results were less than appetizing.

Our sample of Arctic Zero Vanilla Maple had a whopping 46 percent more calories than the label. The Chocolate Peanut Butter: an incredible 68 percent more calories.

Arctic Zero told us its calorie counts are accurate. So we asked to see their test results — and we're still waiting."

These "variances" don't mean all that much. First, just because one pint has 46% more calories, it does not mean that another won't have 46% less. Also, if the serving is supposed to be 150 calories and instead is 46% higher, so it is 219 calories. That is not really going to affect you. It's only 69 calories. Yes, maybe you didn't want to eat the 69 calories that way, but it's not as traumatic as the media wants you to believe.

Please stop with your logic, it has no place here.

I just can't help myself!

I'm too old to feel traumatic about what I weigh. The takeaway message of the article is much broader than the calorie differences between pints of 'diet' ice cream, and if that's going to *gasp* mess with your dieting goals. (And statistically speaking, it's actually pretty significant when 2 random pints of Arctic Zone are that much off the allowed FDA variance. The odds are much more in favor of the next pint also being higher than labeled.)

The issue is truth in labeling...and the fact the FDA itself admits it can't (translate *won't*) police what food companies are putting on labels. It's good to know (for those that didn't) that one can't always rely on them. (Especially in cases of allergies.) It's also good to get up in arms a bit about deception, and publicize stuff like this in a poorly regulated industry; bad publicity will rein in what bad administration can't.

What do you know about overrun and ice cream making?

Yes! More regulation, that is the key.. Pfft

lilacsun

We don't need to speculate; the article says the FDA allows for 20% variance. But Arctic Zero's chocolate peanut butter variety was off by 68%. That's illegal, and highly deceptive. Unfortunately, the FDA doesn't have enough manpower to police all these products (the article says) so they're on the "honor system."

Yeah, right...

"FDA" and "honor" do not belong in the same sentence. The FDA operates more like a cartel than a regulatory agency. Check who is on the board and where those folks used to work. Then do a search on their rules. You will quickly learn why the FDA should just go away.

Highly agree with this. Nothing like moving from a job at a major food corporation, to a job with the FDA.

Akimajuktuq

Diet ice cream? Do people read labels, I mean the ingredients... even most regular ice cream is no longer real ice cream. Processed food is junk. I eat some (mostly dairy) because of where I live, but I read every single ingredient of everything I buy.

As for the comments re: WW. Oh, I could get on a tirade... You bet it's all about profits with them; they laugh all the way to the bank while people fail and keep returning. Low fat, low fat, low fat, but fill up on rice cakes.. and toxic ingredients and artificial sweeteners are A-OK. I was paying $22 per month just to have a food and weight log and they only count Points not macros wth... until I found MFP. Free and BETTER!

PS2CR

What do you know about overrun and ice cream making?

Yes! More regulation, that is the key.. Pfft

Broadbrush much? So now you've put me in a 'more regulation' camp. Sorry, I refuse to get political about this. What's needed is not more regulation; just honest regulation.

rml_16

Diet ice cream? Do people read labels, I mean the ingredients... even most regular ice cream is no longer real ice cream. Processed food is junk. I eat some because of where I live, but I read every single ingredient of everything I buy.

As for the comments re: WW. Oh, I could get on a tirade... You bet it's all about profits with them; they laugh all the way to the bank while people fail and keep returning. Low fat, low fat, low fat, but fill up on rice cakes.. and toxic ingredients and artificial sweeteners are A-OK. I was paying $22 per month just to have a food and weight log... until I found MFP. Free and BETTER!

I did WW. I did not eat any differently than I eat now. If you were choosing to fill up on rice cakes and artificial sweeteners, that was on YOU. Good grief. Nowhere does WW tell you what to eat, just a guide on how much. And the closest it comes to telling you what to eat is the Good Health Guidelines, which do NOT push those things:

Lean protein
Limit sugar and alcohol
Whole grains
Vitamin
Water
(Minimum) 5 total servings of fruits and vegetables
Healthy fats (oils)
Exercise 30 minutes a day

There's one more I can't think of, but it's along those lines. You can certainly be successful losing weight without paying WW, but the bottom line is that if you choose to follow it and you choose to eat crap while following it, that is your fault, not Weight Watchers' fault. Take some responsibility. And if your leader pushed that kind of crap (at $22 a month, I doubt you were going to meetings, though), then you had a bad leader.