Have you tried GLP1 medications and found it didn't work for you? We'd like to hear about your experiences, what you tried, why it didn't work and how you're doing now. Click here to tell us your story

Nevermind -

MagBird1103
MagBird1103 Posts: 12 Member
edited August 2016 in Food and Nutrition
I was wrong thankfully, sorry for the rant!

Replies

  • haviegirl
    haviegirl Posts: 230 Member
    I just looked it up online, and it's very confusing, that's for sure. Are you going to contact Dannon?
  • PaulaWallaDingDong
    PaulaWallaDingDong Posts: 4,641 Member
    Wow. Almost double the calorie content by eating it as packaged. That's definitely a rip.
  • kateowp
    kateowp Posts: 103 Member
    Their website has the same information (*below). They are trying to say their product (everything in the container including the chocolate on top) is less calories than some unnamed alternative yogurt with toppings. Not very clear/specific, but the nutritional info on the label is correct. You were not misled.

    website says:
    * Not a low calorie food.
    45% FEWER CALORIES THAN YOGURT WITH TOPPINGS
    Light & Fit Chocolate On Top: 100 Calories, 1.5g Fat;
    Yogurt with Toppings:190 Calories, 6g Fat per 5 oz.

  • selina884
    selina884 Posts: 826 Member
    You might not get anywhere with this if all is labeled
  • PaulaWallaDingDong
    PaulaWallaDingDong Posts: 4,641 Member
    kateowp wrote: »
    Their website has the same information (*below). They are trying to say their product (everything in the container including the chocolate on top) is less calories than some unnamed alternative yogurt with toppings. Not very clear/specific, but the nutritional info on the label is correct. You were not misled.

    website says:
    * Not a low calorie food.
    45% FEWER CALORIES THAN YOGURT WITH TOPPINGS
    Light & Fit Chocolate On Top: 100 Calories, 1.5g Fat;
    Yogurt with Toppings:190 Calories, 6g Fat per 5 oz.

    So, "yogurt with toppings" is the mystery yogurt they're comparing it to?
  • goldthistime
    goldthistime Posts: 3,214 Member
    kateowp wrote: »
    Their website has the same information (*below). They are trying to say their product (everything in the container including the chocolate on top) is less calories than some unnamed alternative yogurt with toppings. Not very clear/specific, but the nutritional info on the label is correct. You were not misled.

    website says:
    * Not a low calorie food.
    45% FEWER CALORIES THAN YOGURT WITH TOPPINGS
    Light & Fit Chocolate On Top: 100 Calories, 1.5g Fat;
    Yogurt with Toppings:190 Calories, 6g Fat per 5 oz.

    Thanks! I was up in arms with the OP! Restored my faith in Dannon and humanity.

  • kateowp
    kateowp Posts: 103 Member
    So, "yogurt with toppings" is the mystery yogurt they're comparing it to?

    That's how I read it, but it is certainly not clear. I'd call Dannon for confirmation if concerned.

  • MagBird1103
    MagBird1103 Posts: 12 Member
    kateowp wrote: »
    Their website has the same information (*below). They are trying to say their product (everything in the container including the chocolate on top) is less calories than some unnamed alternative yogurt with toppings. Not very clear/specific, but the nutritional info on the label is correct. You were not misled.

    website says:
    * Not a low calorie food.
    45% FEWER CALORIES THAN YOGURT WITH TOPPINGS
    Light & Fit Chocolate On Top: 100 Calories, 1.5g Fat;
    Yogurt with Toppings:190 Calories, 6g Fat per 5 oz.

    Unfotunately I WAS mislead. I am referencing the actual nutritional information located on the package. Am I expected to visit the product website and research prior to eating? Serving size = 1 container. Calories = 100. The yogurt and toppings are both inside the CONTAINER. Check out the image....2nz5ejos37j1.jpg
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    kateowp wrote: »
    Their website has the same information (*below). They are trying to say their product (everything in the container including the chocolate on top) is less calories than some unnamed alternative yogurt with toppings. Not very clear/specific, but the nutritional info on the label is correct. You were not misled.

    website says:
    * Not a low calorie food.
    45% FEWER CALORIES THAN YOGURT WITH TOPPINGS
    Light & Fit Chocolate On Top: 100 Calories, 1.5g Fat;
    Yogurt with Toppings:190 Calories, 6g Fat per 5 oz.

    Unfotunately I WAS mislead. I am referencing the actual nutritional information located on the package. Am I expected to visit the product website and research prior to eating? Serving size = 1 container. Calories = 100. The yogurt and toppings are both inside the CONTAINER. Check out the image....2nz5ejos37j1.jpg
    Okay, yeah if that's the case, it's *kitten* on their part.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    kateowp wrote: »
    Their website has the same information (*below). They are trying to say their product (everything in the container including the chocolate on top) is less calories than some unnamed alternative yogurt with toppings. Not very clear/specific, but the nutritional info on the label is correct. You were not misled.

    website says:
    * Not a low calorie food.
    45% FEWER CALORIES THAN YOGURT WITH TOPPINGS
    Light & Fit Chocolate On Top: 100 Calories, 1.5g Fat;
    Yogurt with Toppings:190 Calories, 6g Fat per 5 oz.

    Unfotunately I WAS mislead. I am referencing the actual nutritional information located on the package. Am I expected to visit the product website and research prior to eating? Serving size = 1 container. Calories = 100. The yogurt and toppings are both inside the CONTAINER. Check out the image....2nz5ejos37j1.jpg

    This says the whole container is 100 calories.
  • goldthistime
    goldthistime Posts: 3,214 Member
    edited August 2016
    I agree with @kateowp that there IS only 100 calories in a container, including the chocolate. You weren't misled. The 190 calories is just a confusing comparison with another product.

    Btw, the Canadian version is only 80 calories (I didn't check but I'm guessing it's a smaller container size).
  • kommodevaran
    kommodevaran Posts: 17,890 Member
    edited August 2016
    There is nothing plain about this vanilla and chocolate sauce combination. So chocolaty good you won't believe it's 100 calories!

    Because it isn't, without the chocolate!
    :s

    ETA: I don't know - the information on the webpage is confusing.
  • kateowp
    kateowp Posts: 103 Member
    You may want to call and confirm, but I read the *information as their product (including the chocolate on top) is 100 calories- the same as their nutrition label. The "Yogurt with Toppings" is some other unnamed generic product described for comparison to show you that their product (including the chocolate) is less calories and less fat than other products. I do not believe that the *information means their product is 190 calories.

    * Not a low calorie food.
    45% FEWER CALORIES THAN YOGURT WITH TOPPINGS
    Light & Fit Chocolate On Top: 100 Calories, 1.5g Fat;
    Yogurt with Toppings:190 Calories, 6g Fat per 5 oz.
  • MagBird1103
    MagBird1103 Posts: 12 Member
    I agree with @kateowp that there IS only 100 calories in a container, including the chocolate. You weren't misled. The 190 calories is just a confusing comparison with another product.

    Took me a minute to get what her point was....OK if that is the case I feel a LOT better!! I emailed Dannon for clarification.
  • davis978
    davis978 Posts: 103 Member
    kateowp wrote: »
    Their website has the same information (*below). They are trying to say their product (everything in the container including the chocolate on top) is less calories than some unnamed alternative yogurt with toppings. Not very clear/specific, but the nutritional info on the label is correct. You were not misled.

    website says:
    * Not a low calorie food.
    45% FEWER CALORIES THAN YOGURT WITH TOPPINGS
    Light & Fit Chocolate On Top: 100 Calories, 1.5g Fat;
    Yogurt with Toppings:190 Calories, 6g Fat per 5 oz.

    Unfotunately I WAS mislead. I am referencing the actual nutritional information located on the package. Am I expected to visit the product website and research prior to eating? Serving size = 1 container. Calories = 100. The yogurt and toppings are both inside the CONTAINER. Check out the image....2nz5ejos37j1.jpg

    I think the yogurt you ate WAS 100 calories. That's how I am reading it from the nutrition information on the package and the information on the website. As I read it, they are comparing their product, which is 100 calories, with a generic "yogurt with toppings" that is 190 calories, and coming up with the 45% less claim.

    If you scanned the bar code and it came up with a reading of 190 calories, was that a verified by myfitnesspal entry? Remember that those entries come from users, and users can make mistakes. I once scanned some chocolate I was eating, and then got a message saying I had met my fiber goal for the day. I was kind of surprised and looked at the entry and saw someone had entered 33 grams of fiber instead of 3.

    So good news - you didn't go over your calories!
  • extra_medium
    extra_medium Posts: 1,525 Member
    edited August 2016
    I was going to say, that artificially sweetened chocolate sauce they slap on those is definitely not worth an additional 90 calories
  • cblairnh
    cblairnh Posts: 25 Member
    I think the packaging and the website are unclear, but I think the yogurt with chocolate only has 100 calories. If you look at the website and click on a Greek crunch variety, it clearly breaks down the yogurt and topping on the label -- the yogurt and crunch topping together add up to the 190 cal and 6 g of fat. I believe they're comparing the chocolate on top yogurt to their crunch yogurt, not saying that the chocolate has extra calories.

    The ingredient label for chocolate on top doesn't list ingredients that would add that many calories to the yogurt. The sweetener is sucralose.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    edited August 2016
    Ok nm!