Which is better for tracking

cnbbnc
cnbbnc Posts: 1,267 Member
in Food and Nutrition
I ran into this while weighing/dividing up a pack of chicken tenderloins.

When I scanned the barcode it came up as
Serving size: 120g
Calories: 189
Protein: 37.5

But the nutritional info on the back of the package says
Serving size: 112g
Calories: 130
Protein: 26g

How am I supposed to ensure accuracy with stuff like this??? Which is best to go by?

Replies

  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    I would weigh it on your scale :)
  • cnbbnc
    cnbbnc Posts: 1,267 Member
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    I would weigh it on your scale :)

    I did weigh. I'm just confused as to which set of info I should be following. Why are the barcode and label different?!?!?! :s
  • barryplumber
    barryplumber Posts: 401 Member
    Good question for the store where you bought them
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    cnbbnc wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    I would weigh it on your scale :)

    I did weigh. I'm just confused as to which set of info I should be following. Why are the barcode and label different?!?!?! :s

    I would go with the higher amount then. Better to be over than under.
  • lorrpb
    lorrpb Posts: 11,463 Member
    barryplumber wrote: »
    Good question for the store where you bought them

    No, the store would have no idea. They didn't create the label of bar code info. I would guess that the label is more likely to be accurate.
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    lorrpb wrote: »
    barryplumber wrote: »
    Good question for the store where you bought them

    No, the store would have no idea. They didn't create the label of bar code info. I would guess that the label is more likely to be accurate.

    The label can be off as much 20%
  • SimoneBee12
    SimoneBee12 Posts: 268 Member
    When you say chicken tenderloins, you mean just plain raw chicken, correct? If there is a coating, they might have changed the ingredients since the 'barcode' entry was entered.

    I would also go with the higher entry, just in case. Or maybe check the USDA website. I couldn't find tenderloins, but 'Chicken, roasting, meat only, raw' says that it should be 133 calories per 120grams.
  • OsricTheKnight
    OsricTheKnight Posts: 340 Member
    Always overestimate your tracking if your goal is loss, and under if your goal is gain.

    Osric
  • seska422
    seska422 Posts: 3,217 Member
    Aren't barcode values initially entered by members, just like most other database entries? That makes them suspect.

    If it's in a container that has nutritional information, I go with the nutritional info stated on the container.
  • AJ_G
    AJ_G Posts: 4,158 Member
    Use the nutrition label on the package. If the barcode comes up different it's because someone enter the barcode info wrong. Trust the label
  • natboosh69
    natboosh69 Posts: 277 Member

    I did weigh. I'm just confused as to which set of info I should be following. Why are the barcode and label different?!?!?! :s

    If you weighed it then go off the actual weight :)
  • linaj1988
    linaj1988 Posts: 33 Member
    Are they really that different ? It seems all relative to me. The smaller serving size has slightly less calories and protein. I think they're saying the same thing.
  • gagnon9691
    gagnon9691 Posts: 75 Member
    Go by the info on the package, that will be the most accurate. Even though you scanned the item, someone could have made changes or the packaging/info could have changed recently.
  • andrikosDE
    andrikosDE Posts: 383 Member
    My guess is that the lower kcal sticker is later as they injected the tenderloins with brine to increase the market weight and therefore their profit margins.

    Either way, I wouldn't buy them again.

Categories