Cooking spray is NOT zero calories...I can prove it...start counting it in your calorie count!
Options
Replies
-
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
By differently you mean wrong, right? Thinking that oil is calorie free is different from knowing that it does have calories but that different thinking is incorrect. This isn't some puzzle that can be correctly solved many different ways.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
By differently you mean wrong, right? Thinking that oil is calorie free is different from knowing that it does have calories but that different thinking is incorrect. This isn't some puzzle that can be correctly solved many different ways.
Yes. I'm explaining how different people might arrive at different conclusions given the same information. The "zero calorie spray" on the front and zero zero zero on the nutrition label is what did. "This is spray product is oil in a bottle" (****details on consist pending***) never really registered for me until someone else said something3 -
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
By differently you mean wrong, right? Thinking that oil is calorie free is different from knowing that it does have calories but that different thinking is incorrect. This isn't some puzzle that can be correctly solved many different ways.
Yes. I'm explaining how different people might arrive at different conclusions given the same information. The "zero calorie spray" on the front and zero zero zero on the nutrition label is what did. "This is spray product is oil in a bottle" (****details on consist pending***) never really registered for me until someone else said something
To be fair, if something contains 5 calories or less, the FDA labels it as zero. The FDA allows a twenty percent discrepancy per serving on foods.1 -
I stopped fretting about spray oil when I attempted to see how long I'd have to spray to fill a measuring spoon. It took so long and so much direct close-contact spraying just to get a small fraction of the spoon filled. I eventually gave up on trying to fill it since I don't spray anything with oil for so long; the idea that I could unwittingly be getting loads of calories from spray oil was no longer something I felt I should continue to be concerned about - and I don't log it.1
-
Unless I was gonna drink the Pam (ick), I don't bother with it. Logging anything under 25 calories that I use like once a week is too much effort for me.1
-
Gee...oil has calories? DUH.
0 -
@fitmom4lifemfp I read that as GHEE has calories...lol. I'm punny today1
-
myheartsabattleground wrote: »Didn't someone sue a "non calorie" butter spray because it actually DID have calories?
I would LOVE to see that. There was actually a class action lawsuit against companies that produce farm raised salmon b/c they failed to disclose that they add artificial colorant.1 -
NewMEEE2016 wrote: »myheartsabattleground wrote: »Didn't someone sue a "non calorie" butter spray because it actually DID have calories?
I would LOVE to see that. There was actually a class action lawsuit against companies that produce farm raised salmon b/c they failed to disclose that they add artificial colorant.
This might be it: http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Regulation/Unusual-lawsuit-challenging-zero-fat-claims-on-ConAgra-s-Parkay-Spray-unlikely-to-succeed-predict-experts0 -
myheartsabattleground wrote: »Didn't someone sue a "non calorie" butter spray because it actually DID have calories?
That part was dismissed as preempted by the federal regulations (which were not violated).
The court left in (for now, anyway) a claim that because the label said 0 g fat the ingredients that contained fat (like soybean oil) should have had an asterisk explaining that they contained oil.
There's something wrong with the world if people aren't too embarrassed to claim ignorance about whether oil is a fat.1 -
Colorscheme wrote: »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
By differently you mean wrong, right? Thinking that oil is calorie free is different from knowing that it does have calories but that different thinking is incorrect. This isn't some puzzle that can be correctly solved many different ways.
Yes. I'm explaining how different people might arrive at different conclusions given the same information. The "zero calorie spray" on the front and zero zero zero on the nutrition label is what did. "This is spray product is oil in a bottle" (****details on consist pending***) never really registered for me until someone else said something
To be fair, if something contains 5 calories or less, the FDA labels it as zero. The FDA allows a twenty percent discrepancy per serving on foods.
Agreed. But it seems to me that all they did to meet that requirement was creating a serving size that was so little, possibly to the point of being unrealistic.Lourdesong wrote: »I stopped fretting about spray oil when I attempted to see how long I'd have to spray to fill a measuring spoon. It took so long and so much direct close-contact spraying just to get a small fraction of the spoon filled. I eventually gave up on trying to fill it since I don't spray anything with oil for so long; the idea that I could unwittingly be getting loads of calories from spray oil was no longer something I felt I should continue to be concerned about - and I don't log it.
I wonder if this had more to do with spraying over such a small surface area that the sprayed content could not be collected in a teaspoon.0 -
DarthSamson wrote: »odd read the can again how big is the serving ?
if there are .4 calories a serving then 1>.4> O
So question is how many servings in the can ? and what percentage of the contents are olive oil
if most of the can contents is pressured air they do not list pressurized air on the ingredients list
ok I just went and looked
Serving Size about 1/4 second spray (.2g) thats 0.2 grams
what do you think the calories are in 1 gram of Haagen Dazs Ice cream ?
340 in half a cup
there are about 237 mLs in one American cup
237/2 = 118 g 340 calories in 118g of Haagen Daz
so 2.8 calories a Gram of hagendaus
but this is 1/5 of a gram
2.8 /5 hagandas has less than 1/2 calorie per .20g
you thought your cooking spray held more ????
Servings Per Container about 476
- See more at: http://www.pamcookingspray.com/non-stick-spray-products/olive-oil-spray/#sthash.Ai1C1C6k.dpuf
This step is wrong. Grams only equal milliliters for water. Ice cream is less dense than water. You can't convert milliliters of ice cream to grams of ice cream on a one-to-one basis; you need to know the specific gravity of the ice cream you're measuring if you want to convert from mass to volume.1 -
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....
Parchment paper for sauteing?
I think I've only bought one can of spray oil in my life, because it made nasty brown stains on my bakeware that were incredibly difficult to get off without scratching up the pan--I guess because it was hard to control where it went, so some of the aerosolized droplets were falling on the edges and rims where there was no food. I find it much easier to control the placement of bottled oil, butter, the modern non-hydrogenated shortening, etc., or, as you say, parchment paper or wax paper or aluminum foil, depending on what I'm cooking.
Cooking for one in a nonstick pan, I get good results most of the time with 1/2 teaspoon to 1 tsp of bottled olive oil, which I mostly purchase from places that let you taste the oil before you buy. We all need some fat in our diet, and I'm happy to allot some of my fat grams to good quality olive oil, tasty butter, etc.
I have a mister, but I use it for water to spray the oven when I'm baking bread.
But if spray-can oil works for someone, go for it.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.
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.
I don't t think total calories per container is all that helpful - so many items one never has the whole container - ie mayo, sauce, jam, oil, ice cream,peanut butter, milk etc etc.
Far more beneficial to have a standardised amount - eg per 100ml or 100g ( or your non metric equivalents)
Much easier for product comparison.
1 -
The oil spray I've used for years has always had nutritional info on it.
Didn't take photo but it also says Ingredients: Olive Oil (65%), Butane, Propane.
No way of measuring how much I use but I tend to overestimate rather than underestimate calories, so I am not fussed.
1 -
-
paperpudding wrote: »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.
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.
I don't t think total calories per container is all that helpful - so many items one never has the whole container - ie mayo, sauce, jam, oil, ice cream,peanut butter, milk etc etc.
Far more beneficial to have a standardised amount - eg per 100ml or 100g ( or your non metric equivalents)
Much easier for product comparison.
Agreed. With total per container though (even though that does vary), you can use the net weight listed on the package to calculate the same per 100g info. Per 100g is definitely a faster means of presenting the same info though.0 -
@irenehb , @Gianfranco_R , love the posts and pictures! One second is indeed a more realistic, measureable serving size to me0
-
lynn_glenmont 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....
Parchment paper for sauteing?
I think I've only bought one can of spray oil in my life, because it made nasty brown stains on my bakeware that were incredibly difficult to get off without scratching up the pan--I guess because it was hard to control where it went, so some of the aerosolized droplets were falling on the edges and rims where there was no food. I find it much easier to control the placement of bottled oil, butter, the modern non-hydrogenated shortening, etc., or, as you say, parchment paper or wax paper or aluminum foil, depending on what I'm cooking.
Cooking for one in a nonstick pan, I get good results most of the time with 1/2 teaspoon to 1 tsp of bottled olive oil, which I mostly purchase from places that let you taste the oil before you buy. We all need some fat in our diet, and I'm happy to allot some of my fat grams to good quality olive oil, tasty butter, etc.
I have a mister, but I use it for water to spray the oven when I'm baking bread.
But if spray-can oil works for someone, go for it.
Apparently you can sautee with parchment paper.
https://forums.egullet.org/topic/151990-parchment-paper-for-a-saute/0 -
Lourdesong wrote: »I stopped fretting about spray oil when I attempted to see how long I'd have to spray to fill a measuring spoon. It took so long and so much direct close-contact spraying just to get a small fraction of the spoon filled. I eventually gave up on trying to fill it since I don't spray anything with oil for so long; the idea that I could unwittingly be getting loads of calories from spray oil was no longer something I felt I should continue to be concerned about - and I don't log it.
I wonder if this had more to do with spraying over such a small surface area that the sprayed content could not be collected in a teaspoon.
I didn't have a problem getting all that was sprayed to collect in the spoon (I do believe it was a Tbsp tho); you could always try it yourself if you're curious.
As an aside, I did this because I wanted to use butter flavored spray for air-popped popcorn for flavor and so seasoning would stick, and that requires a more liberal spraying than a quick spritz to coat a pan. I had it in my head that being more liberal with the spray could easily dispense hundreds of calories of oil. The spoon test was just to see how long I'd have to spray to get a concerning amount of oil. Turned out, a long time, much longer than the length of spraying I needed to lightly coat my popcorn.
Around the same time I also weighed my popcorn before and after spraying and my scale barely registered a difference of 1gram. So yeah, even with a somewhat liberal hand to coat popcorn I'm just not too concerned about spray oil anymore.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 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
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions