Would you trust this nutritional label?

kommodevaran wrote: »

The calories from fat, carbs and protein add up to 92.5.

could be net carbs minus fiber from the carbs, then you get 84

Not sure I would completely trust this label. The information seems to be missing and possibly incorrect- no sodium whatsoever? In tortilla chips?! I dunno... I could see there being *less* sodium but there has to be some degree of it. I could be wrong though. I tend to stay away from chips altogether these days.

Flopoe22 wrote: »

pinuplove wrote: »

Honestly, and in the absence of more information, no I don't think I would. 87g is just over 3 ounces. Most chips are ~140 cal per ounce. What are the ingredients?

Only four ingredients: corn, lime, oil and sea salt

salt but no sodium? and oil but like no fat? Must be a TINY portion, or wrong XD

I wouldn't trust it, personally. I have a few things I don't (like bread that's less than a calorie per gram). My country doesn't tightly regulate the label so I always have to use common sense. The grams of nutrients add up to less than half the grams for the serving. If it's more than 50% water, it isn't chips. If a corn tortilla with moisture intact before being fried or dehydrated is about twice the calories listed here per gram. I would personally pick a label for a similar product and use that instead.

VUA21 wrote: »

Kimmotion5783 wrote: »

Not sure I would completely trust this label. The information seems to be missing and possibly incorrect- no sodium whatsoever? In tortilla chips?! I dunno... I could see there being *less* sodium but there has to be some degree of it. I could be wrong though. I tend to stay away from chips altogether these days.

A lot of Mexican tortilla chips don't add salt to them. I know the ones at two different local stores (I live right on the US/Mexico boarder) that simply bake the corn tortillas to crisp, and bag them. The whole deep fried and highly salted thing is more American. So the label is most likely correct.

See above: how can baked corn tortillas result in fewer calories than a regular corn tortilla before baking?

VUA21 wrote: »

amusedmonkey wrote: »

VUA21 wrote: »

Kimmotion5783 wrote: »

Not sure I would completely trust this label. The information seems to be missing and possibly incorrect- no sodium whatsoever? In tortilla chips?! I dunno... I could see there being *less* sodium but there has to be some degree of it. I could be wrong though. I tend to stay away from chips altogether these days.

A lot of Mexican tortilla chips don't add salt to them. I know the ones at two different local stores (I live right on the US/Mexico boarder) that simply bake the corn tortillas to crisp, and bag them. The whole deep fried and highly salted thing is more American. So the label is most likely correct.

See above: how can baked corn tortillas result in fewer calories than a regular corn tortilla before baking?

It's in reference to tortilla chips, which in the US are generally made by frying corn tortillas and then covering them with salt. Plain corn tortillas can have little to no salt, a vary widley on calories, depending on how they are made. All corn tortillas are not made the same.

True, they vary, but not a single tortilla I've come across had less than 1 calorie per gram like this label states, let alone after baking (since weight is reduced by a lot with baking).

VUA21 wrote: »

Kimmotion5783 wrote: »

Not sure I would completely trust this label. The information seems to be missing and possibly incorrect- no sodium whatsoever? In tortilla chips?! I dunno... I could see there being *less* sodium but there has to be some degree of it. I could be wrong though. I tend to stay away from chips altogether these days.

A lot of Mexican tortilla chips don't add salt to them. I know the ones at two different local stores (I live right on the US/Mexico boarder) that simply bake the corn tortillas to crisp, and bag them. The whole deep fried and highly salted thing is more American. So the label is most likely correct.

For the amount of salt to make a significant difference in the energy in the product (by displacing ingredients that provide energy), you would have to be adding so much salt that the product would be inedible by any human being used to the normal range of salt in food. Even the "highly salted ... American" chips have only about a gram of salt in the 87 g serving size described on the OP's label (and that's assuming all the sodium in such chips is in the form of sodium chloride).

The label only accounts for 26.5 g of solids in 87 g of product, and that's assuming that total carbs includes neither fiber nor sugar. Let's be wildly generous and assume another 3.5 g of minerals and vitamins that aren't accounted for on the label (that is, micronutrients that are generally present in a serving of food in micrograms and milligrams, not amounts typically measured in full grams). Now you have 30 grams of solids, leaving 57 g of water in the finished (baked or fried) product, or about 2/3 water by weight. A product that is 2/3 water would not be a chip. A "dough" made from a ground corn product (with whatever range of salt and lard or other fat you want to include) that was 2/3 water by weight could not be formed into anything that would hold its shape in your tortilla press or on your comal, griddle, or skillet, much less in an oven or a deep fryer. It would be more the consistency of pancake or crepe batter.

Basically the same ingredients as Fritos aside from the lime. Do they taste like Fritos?