Cooking spray is NOT zero calories...I can prove it...start counting it in your calorie count!
Options
Replies
-
Correlation, not causation.
It's wealth and availability that account for the obesity rates we see today. The people of history that were fat were the people who could afford it. North America, Europe and other wealthy areas of the world today can afford their fat. The US was just the first to reach that level of wealth and availability, others are following the same path.
Just like this guy did prior to the advent of today's processed foods:
4 -
diannethegeek wrote: »pebble4321 you are absolutely correct. Even Loopholes aside, a lot of companies do just blatantly lie in their marketing about products that absolutely do not do what they're marketed to. Just garbage that doesn't work at all. I generally don't make purchases these days (not food, just in general) unless I've read reviews, and even those can be bought nowadays.
It's oil in a spray can with a couple of ingredients added to make the spray can idea work. If you don't like it, don't use it.
There is also the option to use a refillable sprayer, with the oil of your choice.1 -
Didn't someone sue a "non calorie" butter spray because it actually DID have calories?0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »NewMEEE2016 wrote: »Tweaking_Time wrote: »For this example I am using Pam Olive Oil cooking spray and reading right off the (misleading) nutrition label.
Pam states that there are 5 oz. per can
Olive oil is 238 calories/ounce - so there is a total of 1,190 calories in a can of Pam
Serving size is 1/4 second spray
So...1,190 cal. /473 servings = 2.5158562367864693446088794926004
calories per serving
so...a one second spray is
4 x 2.516 = 10.06 calories/one second spray - lets just round that down to 10 calories/1-second spray
Don't believe it??? - the main ingredient is the list of ingredients is extra virgin olive oil.
OK - so this is not a huge number - but every little bit counts. I figure the cooking sprays use a 1/4 second spray serving (2.51 cal) and then figure that is split among 6 servings of food (0.42 cal.) - getting it down to their (misleading) zero calories.
This is just one example of LYING LABELS- and yes, of course it is deliberately misleading.
Years ago I was (quite stupidly, I'll admit) on a no fat diet. I found a salad dressing that was YUMMY and had "zero" fat! However, when I looked at the label, it contained OIL. I called the company- and after a lot of persistence, they finally let me speak with a "food chemist" (a contradiction in terms if ever I heard one) Guess what? *That bottle was 40% oil* FORTY PERCENT- and they are allowed to say "zero fat" because they purposely make their portion size SO small (something like 1 tsp if I remember correctly). Show me a person on the planet who uses 1 tsp of salad dressing.
In my opinion, lying labels, processed foods that do not divulge all of their ingredients (and which contain substances produced in a lab that the body doesn't know what to do with) are major contributors to the obesity epidemic in the USA that we have experienced in the last 50 years.
Yes- you can still lose weight if you eat garbage-and congratulations to all those who have reached their goals. But it's certainly not going to speed your progress or make you healthier. Personally I prefer to eat FOOD.
It's not lying in the slightest. You can go blame a spray where you would have to try and paint your kitchen with it to get a significant amount of calories for failing to lose weight or you could own up and realize you've got to do some work yourself that includes using normal serving sizes.
Can one get to too many calories for example drinking diet coke? Sure. Is it likely that anyone is drinking the 25 liters necessary to get to even 100 calories? Not bloody likely.
Serving size = a quarter of a second of spray? Really? Who does that, and why not just list the 2 or 3 seconds most people would? Exactly because they couldn't then call it zero calorie spray. Calorie reduction definitely works but some of the information out there is not helping matters for a huge part of the population that's not interested in dissecting every single thing they put into their mouths.
I would, because the whole point of the spray is to have a light coating and not a puddle of oil in the pan.
Cool
I think a lot of us might've thought of the cooking spray as an oil replacement ingredient and tried to get similar quantities or coating levels
I'm skeptical about this, even if you didn't bother reading about the length of the expected spray on the bottle. It's OIL. Even the same oils people use in other forms, like olive oil, coconut oil, canola oil. It's the same thing I do when getting olive oil and putting it in a spritzer. The whole point to me (and everyone I've ever discussed it with) is that spraying makes it easier to use very little.
I happen to log 10 calories when I use it (or the spritzer), but that's really meaningless, like logging black coffee (which I don't do). I would honestly be shocked to hear that anyone sprayed enough to be a whole teaspoon and didn't realize it should be logged. Again, it's oil. It's not "oil substitute."
How long have you been here?
Clearly this thread is proof that some people would do that.
This is why pillows have warning labels.4 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »NewMEEE2016 wrote: »Tweaking_Time wrote: »For this example I am using Pam Olive Oil cooking spray and reading right off the (misleading) nutrition label.
Pam states that there are 5 oz. per can
Olive oil is 238 calories/ounce - so there is a total of 1,190 calories in a can of Pam
Serving size is 1/4 second spray
So...1,190 cal. /473 servings = 2.5158562367864693446088794926004 calories per serving
so...a one second spray is
4 x 2.516 = 10.06 calories/one second spray - lets just round that down to 10 calories/1-second spray
Don't believe it??? - the main ingredient is the list of ingredients is extra virgin olive oil.
OK - so this is not a huge number - but every little bit counts. I figure the cooking sprays use a 1/4 second spray serving (2.51 cal) and then figure that is split among 6 servings of food (0.42 cal.) - getting it down to their (misleading) zero calories.
This is just one example of LYING LABELS- and yes, of course it is deliberately misleading.
Years ago I was (quite stupidly, I'll admit) on a no fat diet. I found a salad dressing that was YUMMY and had "zero" fat! However, when I looked at the label, it contained OIL. I called the company- and after a lot of persistence, they finally let me speak with a "food chemist" (a contradiction in terms if ever I heard one) Guess what? *That bottle was 40% oil* FORTY PERCENT- and they are allowed to say "zero fat" because they purposely make their portion size SO small (something like 1 tsp if I remember correctly). Show me a person on the planet who uses 1 tsp of salad dressing.
In my opinion, lying labels, processed foods that do not divulge all of their ingredients (and which contain substances produced in a lab that the body doesn't know what to do with) are major contributors to the obesity epidemic in the USA that we have experienced in the last 50 years.
Yes- you can still lose weight if you eat garbage-and congratulations to all those who have reached their goals. But it's certainly not going to speed your progress or make you healthier. Personally I prefer to eat FOOD.
It's not lying in the slightest. You can go blame a spray where you would have to try and paint your kitchen with it to get a significant amount of calories for failing to lose weight or you could own up and realize you've got to do some work yourself that includes using normal serving sizes.
Can one get to too many calories for example drinking diet coke? Sure. Is it likely that anyone is drinking the 25 liters necessary to get to even 100 calories? Not bloody likely.
Serving size = a quarter of a second of spray? Really? Who does that, and why not just list the 2 or 3 seconds most people would? Exactly because they couldn't then call it zero calorie spray. Calorie reduction definitely works but some of the information out there is not helping matters for a huge part of the population that's not interested in dissecting every single thing they put into their mouths.
I would, because the whole point of the spray is to have a light coating and not a puddle of oil in the pan.
Cool
I think a lot of us might've thought of the cooking spray as an oil replacement ingredient and tried to get similar quantities or coating levels
I'm skeptical about this, even if you didn't bother reading about the length of the expected spray on the bottle. It's OIL. Even the same oils people use in other forms, like olive oil, coconut oil, canola oil. It's the same thing I do when getting olive oil and putting it in a spritzer. The whole point to me (and everyone I've ever discussed it with) is that spraying makes it easier to use very little.
I happen to log 10 calories when I use it (or the spritzer), but that's really meaningless, like logging black coffee (which I don't do). I would honestly be shocked to hear that anyone sprayed enough to be a whole teaspoon and didn't realize it should be logged. Again, it's oil. It's not "oil substitute."
How long have you been here?
Clearly this thread is proof that some people would do that.
This is why pillows have warning labels.
Your ridicule aside, a lot of people do struggle with losing weight because they over estimate their calories for any number of reasons. I would say the entire forums are proof of that!0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »NewMEEE2016 wrote: »Tweaking_Time wrote: »For this example I am using Pam Olive Oil cooking spray and reading right off the (misleading) nutrition label.
Pam states that there are 5 oz. per can
Olive oil is 238 calories/ounce - so there is a total of 1,190 calories in a can of Pam
Serving size is 1/4 second spray
So...1,190 cal. /473 servings = 2.5158562367864693446088794926004 calories per serving
so...a one second spray is
4 x 2.516 = 10.06 calories/one second spray - lets just round that down to 10 calories/1-second spray
Don't believe it??? - the main ingredient is the list of ingredients is extra virgin olive oil.
OK - so this is not a huge number - but every little bit counts. I figure the cooking sprays use a 1/4 second spray serving (2.51 cal) and then figure that is split among 6 servings of food (0.42 cal.) - getting it down to their (misleading) zero calories.
This is just one example of LYING LABELS- and yes, of course it is deliberately misleading.
Years ago I was (quite stupidly, I'll admit) on a no fat diet. I found a salad dressing that was YUMMY and had "zero" fat! However, when I looked at the label, it contained OIL. I called the company- and after a lot of persistence, they finally let me speak with a "food chemist" (a contradiction in terms if ever I heard one) Guess what? *That bottle was 40% oil* FORTY PERCENT- and they are allowed to say "zero fat" because they purposely make their portion size SO small (something like 1 tsp if I remember correctly). Show me a person on the planet who uses 1 tsp of salad dressing.
In my opinion, lying labels, processed foods that do not divulge all of their ingredients (and which contain substances produced in a lab that the body doesn't know what to do with) are major contributors to the obesity epidemic in the USA that we have experienced in the last 50 years.
Yes- you can still lose weight if you eat garbage-and congratulations to all those who have reached their goals. But it's certainly not going to speed your progress or make you healthier. Personally I prefer to eat FOOD.
It's not lying in the slightest. You can go blame a spray where you would have to try and paint your kitchen with it to get a significant amount of calories for failing to lose weight or you could own up and realize you've got to do some work yourself that includes using normal serving sizes.
Can one get to too many calories for example drinking diet coke? Sure. Is it likely that anyone is drinking the 25 liters necessary to get to even 100 calories? Not bloody likely.
Serving size = a quarter of a second of spray? Really? Who does that, and why not just list the 2 or 3 seconds most people would? Exactly because they couldn't then call it zero calorie spray. Calorie reduction definitely works but some of the information out there is not helping matters for a huge part of the population that's not interested in dissecting every single thing they put into their mouths.
I would, because the whole point of the spray is to have a light coating and not a puddle of oil in the pan.
Cool
I think a lot of us might've thought of the cooking spray as an oil replacement ingredient and tried to get similar quantities or coating levels
I'm skeptical about this, even if you didn't bother reading about the length of the expected spray on the bottle. It's OIL. Even the same oils people use in other forms, like olive oil, coconut oil, canola oil. It's the same thing I do when getting olive oil and putting it in a spritzer. The whole point to me (and everyone I've ever discussed it with) is that spraying makes it easier to use very little.
I happen to log 10 calories when I use it (or the spritzer), but that's really meaningless, like logging black coffee (which I don't do). I would honestly be shocked to hear that anyone sprayed enough to be a whole teaspoon and didn't realize it should be logged. Again, it's oil. It's not "oil substitute."
How long have you been here?
Clearly this thread is proof that some people would do that.
This is why pillows have warning labels.
Heh, granted. ;-)
Oh, I'm shocked by stuff like that I read on MFP all the time (or suspect it's trolling sometimes). I still must hang on to my belief that most people are basically competent and sensible and thus maintain my sense of shock, in order to go on. It does get harder and harder, and not only bc of MFP. Food stuff is at least less disturbing than some other areas.
(Yes, I'm mostly joking/being overly dramatic.)
I think MFP sometimes caters to the pretend to be helpless/more ignorant than you are to avoid taking responsibility and this is never more the case than when it comes to claims to have been misled about food choices when it seems to me the labels we have are quite informative for anyone who cares and the main thing is that most people don't care/don't want to know.
Also, I find bizarre the idea that a few extra calories daily from olive oil in a bottle plays any meaningful role in the US obesity rate. Personally, I managed to gain weight when using olive oil from a bottle and fully understanding that olive oil had lots of calories. I would have been insulted if someone had suggested that I might not know that oil has lots of calories.1 -
Uh, you know you can just use parchment paper, right? no calories and parchment paper doesn't stick to the pan or the food....1
-
My brain hurts just reading this. I used Frylight which is one calorie per spray- really don't feel the need to count it. People who count vitamin calories and herbal teas are bonkers!1
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »NewMEEE2016 wrote: »Tweaking_Time wrote: »For this example I am using Pam Olive Oil cooking spray and reading right off the (misleading) nutrition label.
Pam states that there are 5 oz. per can
Olive oil is 238 calories/ounce - so there is a total of 1,190 calories in a can of Pam
Serving size is 1/4 second spray
So...1,190 cal. /473 servings = 2.5158562367864693446088794926004 calories per serving
so...a one second spray is
4 x 2.516 = 10.06 calories/one second spray - lets just round that down to 10 calories/1-second spray
Don't believe it??? - the main ingredient is the list of ingredients is extra virgin olive oil.
OK - so this is not a huge number - but every little bit counts. I figure the cooking sprays use a 1/4 second spray serving (2.51 cal) and then figure that is split among 6 servings of food (0.42 cal.) - getting it down to their (misleading) zero calories.
This is just one example of LYING LABELS- and yes, of course it is deliberately misleading.
Years ago I was (quite stupidly, I'll admit) on a no fat diet. I found a salad dressing that was YUMMY and had "zero" fat! However, when I looked at the label, it contained OIL. I called the company- and after a lot of persistence, they finally let me speak with a "food chemist" (a contradiction in terms if ever I heard one) Guess what? *That bottle was 40% oil* FORTY PERCENT- and they are allowed to say "zero fat" because they purposely make their portion size SO small (something like 1 tsp if I remember correctly). Show me a person on the planet who uses 1 tsp of salad dressing.
In my opinion, lying labels, processed foods that do not divulge all of their ingredients (and which contain substances produced in a lab that the body doesn't know what to do with) are major contributors to the obesity epidemic in the USA that we have experienced in the last 50 years.
Yes- you can still lose weight if you eat garbage-and congratulations to all those who have reached their goals. But it's certainly not going to speed your progress or make you healthier. Personally I prefer to eat FOOD.
It's not lying in the slightest. You can go blame a spray where you would have to try and paint your kitchen with it to get a significant amount of calories for failing to lose weight or you could own up and realize you've got to do some work yourself that includes using normal serving sizes.
Can one get to too many calories for example drinking diet coke? Sure. Is it likely that anyone is drinking the 25 liters necessary to get to even 100 calories? Not bloody likely.
Serving size = a quarter of a second of spray? Really? Who does that, and why not just list the 2 or 3 seconds most people would? Exactly because they couldn't then call it zero calorie spray. Calorie reduction definitely works but some of the information out there is not helping matters for a huge part of the population that's not interested in dissecting every single thing they put into their mouths.
I would, because the whole point of the spray is to have a light coating and not a puddle of oil in the pan.
Cool
I think a lot of us might've thought of the cooking spray as an oil replacement ingredient and tried to get similar quantities or coating levels
I'm skeptical about this, even if you didn't bother reading about the length of the expected spray on the bottle. It's OIL. Even the same oils people use in other forms, like olive oil, coconut oil, canola oil. It's the same thing I do when getting olive oil and putting it in a spritzer. The whole point to me (and everyone I've ever discussed it with) is that spraying makes it easier to use very little.
I happen to log 10 calories when I use it (or the spritzer), but that's really meaningless, like logging black coffee (which I don't do). I would honestly be shocked to hear that anyone sprayed enough to be a whole teaspoon and didn't realize it should be logged. Again, it's oil. It's not "oil substitute."
How long have you been here?
Clearly this thread is proof that some people would do that.
This is why pillows have warning labels.
Heh, granted. ;-)
Oh, I'm shocked by stuff like that I read on MFP all the time (or suspect it's trolling sometimes). I still must hang on to my belief that most people are basically competent and sensible and thus maintain my sense of shock, in order to go on. It does get harder and harder, and not only bc of MFP. Food stuff is at least less disturbing than some other areas.
(Yes, I'm mostly joking/being overly dramatic.)
There's a whole entire world of people who do not think the same way you do. We just see and process the same information differently than you might. For those who embrace this, it can actually be valueable for teams where you don't have to have the same stale information and ideas being recycled over and over again1 -
Stale is me! I don't use sprays, I use teaspoons of olive oil right out of the bottle, from trees grown just over the hills from here.2
-
pam is 0.25 calories per 0.2 grams happy ?0
-
Colorscheme wrote: »Uh, you know you can just use parchment paper, right? no calories and parchment paper doesn't stick to the pan or the food....
Wait... pan?? You can use it in a pan? Like for eggs?1 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Uh, you know you can just use parchment paper, right? no calories and parchment paper doesn't stick to the pan or the food....
Wait... pan?? You can use it in a pan? Like for eggs?
No, for stuff in the oven only. You do need to use spray for eggs unless you get a non-stick pan or for coating food like making roasted veggies and want to make seasoning stick. But if I am making something that requires spray, I'd rather just use a tiny bit of olive oil instead. Although, I did find a video of someone making eggs in a pan with parchment paper...http://www.littlethings.com/cook-eggs-parchment-paper/
But for making things in the oven/baking, you can just parchment paper. Like if you're making bread from scratch, making cakes, etc.0 -
Colorscheme wrote: »Uh, you know you can just use parchment paper, right? no calories and parchment paper doesn't stick to the pan or the food....
Olive oil or coconut oil adds to the taste of the vegetables and is good for you. That's actually why I tend to use a bit more than you'd get from the spray bottle -- either from my spritzer (same idea, but I tend to spray more from that kind of bottle) or by limiting it to a tsp or even .5 tsp, which IME is all that's necessary. I'm not interested in oil-free cooking/eating, I just personally don't want extra calories that won't add to the taste/satiety, which is my problem with how I used to use oil.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »NewMEEE2016 wrote: »Tweaking_Time wrote: »For this example I am using Pam Olive Oil cooking spray and reading right off the (misleading) nutrition label.
Pam states that there are 5 oz. per can
Olive oil is 238 calories/ounce - so there is a total of 1,190 calories in a can of Pam
Serving size is 1/4 second spray
So...1,190 cal. /473 servings = 2.5158562367864693446088794926004 calories per serving
so...a one second spray is
4 x 2.516 = 10.06 calories/one second spray - lets just round that down to 10 calories/1-second spray
Don't believe it??? - the main ingredient is the list of ingredients is extra virgin olive oil.
OK - so this is not a huge number - but every little bit counts. I figure the cooking sprays use a 1/4 second spray serving (2.51 cal) and then figure that is split among 6 servings of food (0.42 cal.) - getting it down to their (misleading) zero calories.
This is just one example of LYING LABELS- and yes, of course it is deliberately misleading.
Years ago I was (quite stupidly, I'll admit) on a no fat diet. I found a salad dressing that was YUMMY and had "zero" fat! However, when I looked at the label, it contained OIL. I called the company- and after a lot of persistence, they finally let me speak with a "food chemist" (a contradiction in terms if ever I heard one) Guess what? *That bottle was 40% oil* FORTY PERCENT- and they are allowed to say "zero fat" because they purposely make their portion size SO small (something like 1 tsp if I remember correctly). Show me a person on the planet who uses 1 tsp of salad dressing.
In my opinion, lying labels, processed foods that do not divulge all of their ingredients (and which contain substances produced in a lab that the body doesn't know what to do with) are major contributors to the obesity epidemic in the USA that we have experienced in the last 50 years.
Yes- you can still lose weight if you eat garbage-and congratulations to all those who have reached their goals. But it's certainly not going to speed your progress or make you healthier. Personally I prefer to eat FOOD.
It's not lying in the slightest. You can go blame a spray where you would have to try and paint your kitchen with it to get a significant amount of calories for failing to lose weight or you could own up and realize you've got to do some work yourself that includes using normal serving sizes.
Can one get to too many calories for example drinking diet coke? Sure. Is it likely that anyone is drinking the 25 liters necessary to get to even 100 calories? Not bloody likely.
Serving size = a quarter of a second of spray? Really? Who does that, and why not just list the 2 or 3 seconds most people would? Exactly because they couldn't then call it zero calorie spray. Calorie reduction definitely works but some of the information out there is not helping matters for a huge part of the population that's not interested in dissecting every single thing they put into their mouths.
I would, because the whole point of the spray is to have a light coating and not a puddle of oil in the pan.
Cool
I think a lot of us might've thought of the cooking spray as an oil replacement ingredient and tried to get similar quantities or coating levels
I'm skeptical about this, even if you didn't bother reading about the length of the expected spray on the bottle. It's OIL. Even the same oils people use in other forms, like olive oil, coconut oil, canola oil. It's the same thing I do when getting olive oil and putting it in a spritzer. The whole point to me (and everyone I've ever discussed it with) is that spraying makes it easier to use very little.
I happen to log 10 calories when I use it (or the spritzer), but that's really meaningless, like logging black coffee (which I don't do). I would honestly be shocked to hear that anyone sprayed enough to be a whole teaspoon and didn't realize it should be logged. Again, it's oil. It's not "oil substitute."
How long have you been here?
Clearly this thread is proof that some people would do that.
This is why pillows have warning labels.
Heh, granted. ;-)
Oh, I'm shocked by stuff like that I read on MFP all the time (or suspect it's trolling sometimes). I still must hang on to my belief that most people are basically competent and sensible and thus maintain my sense of shock, in order to go on. It does get harder and harder, and not only bc of MFP. Food stuff is at least less disturbing than some other areas.
(Yes, I'm mostly joking/being overly dramatic.)
There's a whole entire world of people who do not think the same way you do. We just see and process the same information differently than you might. For those who embrace this, it can actually be valueable for teams where you don't have to have the same stale information and ideas being recycled over and over again
We aren't talking about different ways of thinking. We are talking about either knowing basic information like that oil has calories -- my reaction to the OP's post was that it was rather insulting OP seemed to think others did not know this, it's like telling us the world is not flat or something -- or being able to read and understand information on a label/ingredients list.
Obviously many people don't care about that enough to spend 30 seconds reading it, but let's admit that's what's going on, not that the information is not available.1 -
Food labeling laws are in the process of being revamped in the U.S., and one of the proposed changes revolves around the idea of appropriate/reasonable serving sizes. I hope these changes take effect! I would love to see a 'total calories per container' label, such that I could account for all the calories in foods that are difficult to measure or have very small calorie counts. Cooking spray is a great example where 'total calories per container' would be helpful.
As someone mentioned, when the label says 0 calories and 463 servings, it absolutely implies 0 calories for the entire contents, even if that implication is a lie. I always believed it was zero calories, because I'm very literal in my thinking and I believed that labels were truthful and that they were truthful in part because nutrition labels are regulated. I didn't think further about the contents or ingredients, because then I would be questioning the label.
When I started calorie counting, nutrition labels were my bible. Of course I took the information literally. It was enough to be cooking three separate meals for my family while weighing, measuring, and counting the calories in my own meal. When I grabbed the can of Pam to cook my eggs, I scan the label and voilà, zero calories and off I go to scan the barcode of my eggs, hot sauce, and bread. That's what calorie counting looks like in my life. There isn't the time nor inclination to read every ingredient I'm using, because calorie counting and taking control of my eating was a victory in and of itself. And again, as an average Jane Doe consumer, I thought the information provided on labels was accurate. You can call my naïveté ignorance, stupidity, or a failure in common sense, but I sincerely feel I was doing the best I could.
I have since learned far more about labeling laws, but that took the purposeful seeking out of information. Nutrition labels are readily available to everyone and we shouldn't have to be well informed on the minutiae of labeling laws in order to get accurate information on said labels.4 -
Per the US Government hereTweaking_Time wrote: »For this example I am using Pam Olive Oil cooking spray and reading right off the (misleading) nutrition label.
Pam states that there are 5 oz. per can
Olive oil is 238 calories/ounce - so there is a total of 1,190 calories in a can of Pam
Serving size is 1/4 second spray
So...1,190 cal. /473 servings = 2.5158562367864693446088794926004 calories per serving
so...a one second spray is
4 x 2.516 = 10.06 calories/one second spray - lets just round that down to 10 calories/1-second spray
Don't believe it??? - the main ingredient is the list of ingredients is extra virgin olive oil.
OK - so this is not a huge number - but every little bit counts. I figure the cooking sprays use a 1/4 second spray serving (2.51 cal) and then figure that is split among 6 servings of food (0.42 cal.) - getting it down to their (misleading) zero calories.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=101.60
(b) Calorie content claims. (1) The terms "calorie free," "free of calories," "no calories," "zero calories," "without calories," "trivial source of calories," "negligible source of calories," or "dietarily insignificant source of calories" may be used on the label or in the labeling of foods, provided that:
(i) The food contains less than 5 calories per reference amount customarily consumed and per labeled serving.
(ii) As required in 101.13(e)(2), if the food meets this condition without the benefit of special processing, alteration, formulation, or reformulation to lower the caloric content, it is labeled to disclose that calories are not usually present in the food (e.g., "cider vinegar, a calorie free food").
(2) The terms "low calorie," "few calories," "contains a small amount of calories," "low source of calories," or "low in calories" may be used on the label or in labeling of foods, except meal products as defined in 101.13(l) and main dish products as defined in 101.13(m), provided that:
0 -
IdLikeToLoseItLoseIt wrote: »Food labeling laws are in the process of being revamped in the U.S., and one of the proposed changes revolves around the idea of appropriate/reasonable serving sizes. I hope these changes take effect! I would love to see a 'total calories per container' label, such that I could account for all the calories in foods that are difficult to measure or have very small calorie counts. Cooking spray is a great example where 'total calories per container' would be helpful.
From the spray bottle of olive oil I posted yesterday, it's about 1230. Would that really be helpful?
A 500 ml bottle (not spray, but a regular bottle) has about 4102 calories.
One question is what a reasonable spray time would be -- the bottle I posted about had a 3.5 calorie count for the (ridiculous) estimated spray. What might be helpful (although I continue to be skeptical that this matters one whit for weight issues) is adding as a second column the calorie count for 1 tsp.0 -
Colorscheme wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Uh, you know you can just use parchment paper, right? no calories and parchment paper doesn't stick to the pan or the food....
Wait... pan?? You can use it in a pan? Like for eggs?
No, for stuff in the oven only. You do need to use spray for eggs unless you get a non-stick pan or for coating food like making roasted veggies and want to make seasoning stick. But if I am making something that requires spray, I'd rather just use a tiny bit of olive oil instead. Although, I did find a video of someone making eggs in a pan with parchment paper...http://www.littlethings.com/cook-eggs-parchment-paper/
But for making things in the oven/baking, you can just parchment paper. Like if you're making bread from scratch, making cakes, etc.
It looks like it can be used in a frying pan on the stovetop. I have never considered using it that way. http://www.paperchef.com/en/pages/parchment101
I have used it plenty in the oven.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Uh, you know you can just use parchment paper, right? no calories and parchment paper doesn't stick to the pan or the food....
Olive oil or coconut oil adds to the taste of the vegetables and is good for you. That's actually why I tend to use a bit more than you'd get from the spray bottle -- either from my spritzer (same idea, but I tend to spray more from that kind of bottle) or by limiting it to a tsp or even .5 tsp, which IME is all that's necessary. I'm not interested in oil-free cooking/eating, I just personally don't want extra calories that won't add to the taste/satiety, which is my problem with how I used to use oil.
I was talking about using spray as an anti-stick agent only. I agree that coconut and olive oil is good for you.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions