Bogus Serving Sizes

YES YES. I'm always tempted to comment on FB that even normal cheesecake or pecan pie can have less than 300 calories a serving if you cut it small enough...

crazyravr wrote: »

Reason why I stopped buying pre-packaged foods. I saw a documentary on CBC where they took few of these into a lab and got them tested for the ingredients and macros. Well it turns out that the labels dont have to be exact at all. Some are way under and some are way over. Goes to show you that unless you make it yourself you have no idea what you are eating.

We have a calorimeter at my work and I am always tempted to do my own investigation. I am particularly skeptical of restaurants that post their calorie counts, yet do nothing to demonstrate that their portion sizes are controlled. Sure, Chipotle, there are only 600 calories in that burrito bowl I just ate. It amazes me what people will accept as truth when they want to believe it.

crazyravr wrote: »

Reason why I stopped buying pre-packaged foods. I saw a documentary on CBC where they took few of these into a lab and got them tested for the ingredients and macros. Well it turns out that the labels dont have to be exact at all. Some are way under and some are way over. Goes to show you that unless you make it yourself you have no idea what you are eating.

Probably has to do with the way the processing mixes the ingredients or perhaps a change in ingredients and/or processing from the time that the company did their lab testing and when CBC did theirs. There is always some measurement errors as well so there will always be differences but they should be within a reasonable range. Companies have to have their foods tested by independent labs so they aren't actually lying on the labels but I was doing some research for a friend for a product she was looking at producing and when you understand how many of these foods are processed it's not as exact as you would think. There are a lot of variances due to how foods are mixed and how the machines are calibrated etc. It's not as exact as you might think.

Francl27 wrote: »

Wheelhouse15 wrote: »

heatherkmcc wrote: »

Is anyone else frustrated with the many recipies posted here under titles like "cozy casseroles for under 350 calories", only to find that the 300 cal serving size is just half a cup? In many cases, it actually makes it a whopping calorie load if you eat full meal serving, and is also too calorie-heavy to be considered a 'healthy' side dish.
It seems like it's just going to either trick people into eating too much, or leave them snacking later because they tried to fill up on half a cup of casserole. I've posted questions about this on a couple of recipies but I never get a response from the authors. Thoughts? Does anyone (other than those who have had gastric bypass surgery) eat just half a cup of food for dinner?

Yes, they are quite small but how do you expect to get a casserole for under 350 and not be a small serving unless it's mostly non-starchy vegetables? Also, the term "healthy" isn't really very helpful so you might as well disregard it anyways. If it's truly a side dish then 1/2 a cup might be fine for some people but you'll have to make that call yourself. Being aware of the true caloric values of your food is a major step forward in weight management so don't be discourage, just understand what is really on your plate.

I think OP is mostly annoyed at the claim that it's low calorie when it really isn't.

Also, most of those recipes are way off on the calorie count too... so it could really be 400 a serving or more anyway.

For what it's worth, I made shepherd's pie last night and my portion was 245 calories (and it wasn't too small either). So it's definitely possible to make lower calorie casseroles.

What kills me is that 12 tomatoes page on FB. Always claiming how 'you wouldn't believe that this dish is healthy' just because it has veggies as the main ingredient even though it's smothered in cheese. SMH.

Low/high calorie is certainly relative to serving size e.g. two table spoons of oil is about 240 calories and might be considered low calorie IF you only have two table spoons of it and nothing else, but I'm guessing most people wouldn't find that satisfying in the least. I'm just advising her to understand that if you have low calorie dishes that are normally higher in calories than you need to understand that it's going to be relative to serving size. It's not exactly deceptive or bogus but it is playing a little fast and loose with the calorie count.

nutmegoreo wrote: »

I always tinker with recipes to increase volume/lower calories. If there is veggies of any type, I will nearly double that, and sometimes even reduce the higher calorie ingredients.

I've learned that you can usually substitute butter or margarine with apple sauce to lower the calories by a substantial amount.

Wheelhouse15 wrote: »

nutmegoreo wrote: »

I always tinker with recipes to increase volume/lower calories. If there is veggies of any type, I will nearly double that, and sometimes even reduce the higher calorie ingredients.

I've learned that you can usually substitute butter or margarine with apple sauce to lower the calories by a substantial amount.

Love applesauce as a sweetener (on oatmeal for example). I haven't tried it as a butter substitute though.

TavistockToad wrote: »

a serving of cereal is 30g usually... who can eat that little and not be starving after half an hour!!!!

a serving of cereal for me is 55-60g!

The only way cereal is consumed in my world, is by the box.

Alatariel75 wrote: »

I see this with a lot of "healthy" brownie/cookie/bake recipes. "Under 100 calories a serve!!!"*







* One 9"x9" pan = 48 serves

Lol exactly. Who eats such a tiny brownie?