Are we being lied to??
ItalianChick90
Posts: 34 Member
I recently heard that labeling laws allow a 20% margin of error on the nutrition facts of foods. Is this true? How will we be able to track calories properly?
0
Replies
-
Yes, in the US the FDA labeling regs allow for up to a 20% error margin in the nutrition facts. Since most food is an agricultural product, or derived from agricultural products, there are always going to be variations in the ingredients used. The error margin allows for that fact, and the testing of ingredients is often done several times across batches to have a reasonable average profile for the label.
Even though that is a relatively large error, you have to consider that those errors fall both ways: some high, some low. Unless you're eating the same exact product, meal after meal, the errors balance out closer to what you track.
In the end, the point of using a scale to weigh your portions is to minimize the errors you can control so that you don't compound the inherent errors in labelling.0 -
I've been told that it's very difficult to get 100% accuracy and that's the reason that things can be off. They just can't promise that the numbers are exact.
I've never personally spoken to anyone who does the measuring, though. I got it from someone who talked to a weight loss expert who had talked to people who do it and seen this stuff done.
I'd love to ask them myself. Or see how they do it. Or both.
I don't think they're lying. They just can't be all that sure.0 -
As long as it's a margin of error as in plus and minus then it should even out over the course of a day shouldn't it.
500 cal plus 11% plus 500 cal minus 9% ends up being pretty close to 1000 calories.
Or is it just industries rounding down? Like do say potato chips that are actually 200 cal get listed as 165 cal so they appear healthier and remain in the 20% margin of error?0 -
I figure in 20% if I am eating packaged food or food I can't weigh. It works pretty well.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
I watched a show the other night where they had a bunch of different foods. Some were 10% over while others were 10% under.
There is no such thing as 100% accurate in this game, not exercise calories or food calories etc etc even the TDEE calculators aren't spot on.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »I watched a show the other night where they had a bunch of different foods. Some were 10% over while others were 10% under.
There is no such thing as 100% accurate in this game, not exercise calories or food calories etc etc even the TDEE calculators aren't spot on.
Was it random or did some foods tend to go over or under more often?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
You can't track accurately. Do the best you can and don't sweat the tiny details. It's the big picture and the trend that matters, not whether you consume 1423 calories or 1647 calories on average. If you're not losing, just eat less. It's very simple. The numbers don't really matter at all.0
-
It's not so much lies as random (and quite normal) variation in both the testing/measuring of the calories AND variation in the inputs (one apple may have, say, 12% more sugar than another ... grown on the same tree) AND in the mass production process of most packaged foods.0
-
Most foods are over what the label says in weight or volume.
Exact weights would just cost too much to measure and verify. It's cheaper to just insure that most aren't underweight, while not going over too much which cuts into profits.
Underweighing consistently can get a company in trouble for "truth in advertising" all the way up to fraud depending on how extreme they go under and how many purchases were affected. Because of that, the weight or volume on the package is a minimum in most cases with a smidgen more added to what the label says. Even when packaging varies a little over and under, the average tends to still be just a bit over.
Being 5-10% off on your calorie count for some items really shouldn't be a big deal, though, since you'd still be pretty close to your calorie deficit anyway. For a 1500 calorie target, you're only talking about maybe 100 calories for the whole day.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »I watched a show the other night where they had a bunch of different foods. Some were 10% over while others were 10% under.
There is no such thing as 100% accurate in this game, not exercise calories or food calories etc etc even the TDEE calculators aren't spot on.
Was it random or did some foods tend to go over or under more often?
They were more over than under unfortunately. And it was totally random. No rhyme or reason.
They showed a food factory where they make the frozen meals. The lady adding the pasta simply picked up a handful of and tossed it in every packet. No weighing.
It was "the truth about calories " show.
0 -
ItalianChick90 wrote: »I recently heard that labeling laws allow a 20% margin of error on the nutrition facts of foods. Is this true? How will we be able to track calories properly?
If you think that's bad, don't look behind the curtain at restaurants...0 -
As long as it's a margin of error as in plus and minus then it should even out over the course of a day shouldn't it.
There are penalties for putting less in a package than is claimed on the package. There aren't penalties for giving the consumer more than claimed.
So, no, I don't expect these things even out, I expect the distribution of errors skews towards under-estimating.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I watched a show the other night where they had a bunch of different foods. Some were 10% over while others were 10% under.
There is no such thing as 100% accurate in this game, not exercise calories or food calories etc etc even the TDEE calculators aren't spot on.
Was it random or did some foods tend to go over or under more often?
They were more over than under unfortunately. And it was totally random. No rhyme or reason.
They showed a food factory where they make the frozen meals. The lady adding the pasta simply picked up a handful of and tossed it in every packet. No weighing.
It was "the truth about calories " show.
Haha, oh man, MFP nightmares, all around
Ok yeah, that makes sense. (I thought that meat products might tend to go over more often for some reason, but ok.)
Will check out that show!0 -
Actually it's amazing they're even close to a 20% margin of error if it's that bad!0
-
I fell asleep sorry guys and I'm just concerned is all. Yeah it may make only 100 calorie difference per day for example but in a whole year that would add up to 36,500 calories (or 10 pounds) which does make a difference in terms of weight and fitness. I also didn't know if MFP is technically off with calculations because of this or if it rounds it by 20% percent (just a thought). And sometimes I'll see people on this website posting stuff like "I have 50 more calories left for the day. What can/should I eat?" That's an example that there are people who do like to be as precise as they can.0
-
There are tons of things about logging that will be inexact, starting with what your maintenance calories actually are, but what that means is that the worry about 10 extra lbs/year is not realistic.
For example, say you decide that you will maintain on 2000 (based on the calculators) and lose 1 lb / week on 1500. Even assuming you are exactly right (and you probably are not), assume the food is 100 calories more than what you are logging/day so you are really eating 1600 calories. You find after a couple of months that you are averaging a loss of .8 lb/week and not 1 lb/week, so you can decrease your calories to 1400 (although it's really 1500 now, because of the extra calories) and then you start losing a bit more.
The point is that you can't assume that there's some correct number given to you from outside, but have to monitor your own results and adjust. That corrects for the various inaccuracies, if done right.0 -
That has nothing to do with the nutritional content per serving. It only affects how much is in the package.As long as it's a margin of error as in plus and minus then it should even out over the course of a day shouldn't it.
There are penalties for putting less in a package than is claimed on the package. There aren't penalties for giving the consumer more than claimed.
So, no, I don't expect these things even out, I expect the distribution of errors skews towards under-estimating.
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I watched a show the other night where they had a bunch of different foods. Some were 10% over while others were 10% under.
There is no such thing as 100% accurate in this game, not exercise calories or food calories etc etc even the TDEE calculators aren't spot on.
Was it random or did some foods tend to go over or under more often?
They were more over than under unfortunately. And it was totally random. No rhyme or reason.
They showed a food factory where they make the frozen meals. The lady adding the pasta simply picked up a handful of and tossed it in every packet. No weighing.
It was "the truth about calories " show.
Haha, oh man, MFP nightmares, all around
Ok yeah, that makes sense. (I thought that meat products might tend to go over more often for some reason, but ok.)
Will check out that show!
There was actually something in the news awhile ago about how calories tend to be overstated for foods that are higher in protein and fiber. I found it interesting because a lot of people who go low carb tend to up their protein. When they start to lose weight more quickly they assume it is the lower carbs. The increased weight loss may be due, at least in part, to eating at a lower calorie level without knowing it. Here's an article about it:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/on-food-labels-calorie-miscounts/?_r=00 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
That has nothing to do with the nutritional content per serving. It only affects how much is in the package.As long as it's a margin of error as in plus and minus then it should even out over the course of a day shouldn't it.
There are penalties for putting less in a package than is claimed on the package. There aren't penalties for giving the consumer more than claimed.
So, no, I don't expect these things even out, I expect the distribution of errors skews towards under-estimating.
It does in the real world, where a package is one or two servings and people just divide up the contents accordingly.
0 -
People who weigh their portions don't do that, though, and that's the advice given here.DeguelloTex wrote: »
That has nothing to do with the nutritional content per serving. It only affects how much is in the package.As long as it's a margin of error as in plus and minus then it should even out over the course of a day shouldn't it.
There are penalties for putting less in a package than is claimed on the package. There aren't penalties for giving the consumer more than claimed.
So, no, I don't expect these things even out, I expect the distribution of errors skews towards under-estimating.
It does in the real world, where a package is one or two servings and people just divide up the contents accordingly.
0 -
Well, here in MFP-Land, we weigh our food on a digital scale!DeguelloTex wrote: »
That has nothing to do with the nutritional content per serving. It only affects how much is in the package.As long as it's a margin of error as in plus and minus then it should even out over the course of a day shouldn't it.
There are penalties for putting less in a package than is claimed on the package. There aren't penalties for giving the consumer more than claimed.
So, no, I don't expect these things even out, I expect the distribution of errors skews towards under-estimating.
It does in the real world, where a package is one or two servings and people just divide up the contents accordingly.
0 -
Well, here in MFP-Land, we weigh our food on a digital scale!DeguelloTex wrote: »
That has nothing to do with the nutritional content per serving. It only affects how much is in the package.As long as it's a margin of error as in plus and minus then it should even out over the course of a day shouldn't it.
There are penalties for putting less in a package than is claimed on the package. There aren't penalties for giving the consumer more than claimed.
So, no, I don't expect these things even out, I expect the distribution of errors skews towards under-estimating.
It does in the real world, where a package is one or two servings and people just divide up the contents accordingly.
Of course. Everybody on MFP who picks up a single-serving bag of Skittles actually weights them out and ditches the extra.
Yeah.
That happens.
0 -
Well, look at it this way: your BMR, TDEE and exercise expenditure calculations aren't entirely accurate either. Nor is your bathroom scale. But it usually balances out in the end.0
-
C'mon, man, just admit you mistakenly applied the motivation not to underweight a package which causes erroneous results to skew in one direction to concluding that nutritional information per serving would also skew in that same direction, and move on. Stop digging.
Well, here in MFP-Land, we weigh our food on a digital scale!DeguelloTex wrote: »
That has nothing to do with the nutritional content per serving. It only affects how much is in the package.As long as it's a margin of error as in plus and minus then it should even out over the course of a day shouldn't it.
There are penalties for putting less in a package than is claimed on the package. There aren't penalties for giving the consumer more than claimed.
So, no, I don't expect these things even out, I expect the distribution of errors skews towards under-estimating.
It does in the real world, where a package is one or two servings and people just divide up the contents accordingly.
Of course. Everybody on MFP who picks up a single-serving bag of Skittles actually weights them out and ditches the extra.
Yeah.
That happens.
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I watched a show the other night where they had a bunch of different foods. Some were 10% over while others were 10% under.
There is no such thing as 100% accurate in this game, not exercise calories or food calories etc etc even the TDEE calculators aren't spot on.
Was it random or did some foods tend to go over or under more often?
They were more over than under unfortunately. And it was totally random. No rhyme or reason.
They showed a food factory where they make the frozen meals. The lady adding the pasta simply picked up a handful of and tossed it in every packet. No weighing.
It was "the truth about calories " show.
Haha, oh man, MFP nightmares, all around
Ok yeah, that makes sense. (I thought that meat products might tend to go over more often for some reason, but ok.)
Will check out that show!
There was actually something in the news awhile ago about how calories tend to be overstated for foods that are higher in protein and fiber. I found it interesting because a lot of people who go low carb tend to up their protein. When they start to lose weight more quickly they assume it is the lower carbs. The increased weight loss may be due, at least in part, to eating at a lower calorie level without knowing it. Here's an article about it:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/on-food-labels-calorie-miscounts/?_r=0
Thank you for the link, that's neat. I think I've seen this idea, that we may not be getting all the calories in the fibrous foods we're eating, because the fiber may be less available for digestion. I do agree with some of the cited experts that we should probably act as if that's not the case, though
Interesting argument, seems like it could have some validity to it, for sure.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
C'mon, man, just admit you mistakenly applied the motivation not to underweight a package which causes erroneous results to skew in one direction to concluding that nutritional information per serving would also skew in that same direction, and move on.DeguelloTex wrote: »
That has nothing to do with the nutritional content per serving. It only affects how much is in the package.As long as it's a margin of error as in plus and minus then it should even out over the course of a day shouldn't it.
There are penalties for putting less in a package than is claimed on the package. There aren't penalties for giving the consumer more than claimed.
So, no, I don't expect these things even out, I expect the distribution of errors skews towards under-estimating.
It does in the real world, where a package is one or two servings and people just divide up the contents accordingly.
Well, here in MFP-Land, we weigh our food on a digital scale!
Of course. Everybody on MFP who picks up a single-serving bag of Skittles actually weights them out and ditches the extra.
Yeah.
That happens.
Dude, I'm an MFP 1%er when it comes to logging diligence and even I wouldn't weight that.Stop digging.
And there goes the irony meter again...
0 -
Even if no one weighs Skittles, that doesn't affect the nutritional value per serving. Right? Because that was your claim.DeguelloTex wrote: »
C'mon, man, just admit you mistakenly applied the motivation not to underweight a package which causes erroneous results to skew in one direction to concluding that nutritional information per serving would also skew in that same direction, and move on.DeguelloTex wrote: »
That has nothing to do with the nutritional content per serving. It only affects how much is in the package.As long as it's a margin of error as in plus and minus then it should even out over the course of a day shouldn't it.
There are penalties for putting less in a package than is claimed on the package. There aren't penalties for giving the consumer more than claimed.
So, no, I don't expect these things even out, I expect the distribution of errors skews towards under-estimating.
It does in the real world, where a package is one or two servings and people just divide up the contents accordingly.
Well, here in MFP-Land, we weigh our food on a digital scale!
Of course. Everybody on MFP who picks up a single-serving bag of Skittles actually weights them out and ditches the extra.
Yeah.
That happens.
Dude, I'm an MFP 1%er when it comes to logging diligence and even I wouldn't weight that.Stop digging.
And there goes the irony meter again...
The motivation for a manufacturer to overfill rather than underfill a package simply doesn't force the nutritional value per serving to be systematically higher as well. Right?
0 -
I've been told that it's very difficult to get 100% accuracy and that's the reason that things can be off. They just can't promise that the numbers are exact.
I've never personally spoken to anyone who does the measuring, though. I got it from someone who talked to a weight loss expert who had talked to people who do it and seen this stuff done.
I'd love to ask them myself. Or see how they do it. Or both.
I don't think they're lying. They just can't be all that sure.
If you actually want to read about the technical side of food data collection, analysis, sampling, and error margins, I have a link at the bottom to the actual guidelines. Interestingly, the error margin regulation is uni-directional, as the confidence intervals required are one sided, with the side determined by the type of nutrient.
Class I nutrients (added nutrients) must be present at 100% or more of stated values
Class II nutrients (naturally occurring), like protein, fibre and most micronutrients, must be present at 80% or more of the stated values
Third group nutrients like calories, fat, sodium and sugars must be present at 120% or less of the stated values.
I believe small businesses can use 3rd party "recipe" databases which calculate nutritional information based on the previously established nutritional information of each of the ingredients.
Here are the actual calculations used:
Nutrients Equations
Class I (added) predicted value = (mean - t (0.95;df) composite size/k + 1/n)1/2 (s))
Class II (naturally occurring) predicted value = (mean - t (0.95;df) (composite size/k + 1/n)1/2 (s))(5/4)
Third Group predicted value = (mean + t (0.95;df) (composite size/k + 1/n)1/2 (s)) (5/6)
where mean = the sample mean
t (0.95;df) = the one-tailed 95th percentile of the t-distribution with
df = the degrees of freedom, which is usually defined as n - 1
n = the number of samples analyzed
k = the number of future samples to be analyzed for the future mean (12 is recommended)
composite size = the number of units making up each composite in the data base used to compute the mean and s (12 is recommended)
The ratio of the composite size to k (composite size / k) reduces to 1 with 12 / 12
s = the standard deviation
The factors 5/4 or 5/6 represent, from the compliance viewpoint, the 20% margin of allowance in labeled values for class II nutrients or for the third group of nutrients, respectively.
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm063113.htm0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions