Confused about these nutrition labels? Help?

Options
alexastoutxo
alexastoutxo Posts: 139 Member
edited September 2018 in Food and Nutrition
So I'm very confused with these two nutrition labels for beans. So the one on the right is the one I've originally been eating for a long time (100 calories) and the one on the left is the new version of this can of beans so 10 calories more (110). What I dont understand is how the new version has 10 calories more when they hve almost the same nutrition facts even with the newer version have less carbs and protein. Shouldn't the new version be even less calories ir the exact same? The math doesnt work out when I calculate the protein and carbs
«1

Replies

  • Millicent3015
    Millicent3015 Posts: 374 Member
    Options
    Not necessarily. If the ingredients have been changed or quantities adjusted, the new calorie amount could be a reflection of that. But a ten calorie difference isn't much unless you happen to eat multiple cans of these beans on a regular basis.
  • tecat810
    tecat810 Posts: 4,535 Member
    Options
    The half cup measures at 135 grams on the right, 10 grams heavier.
  • alexastoutxo
    alexastoutxo Posts: 139 Member
    Options
    tecat73 wrote: »
    The half cup measures at 135 grams on the right, 10 grams heavier.

    Well then shouldn't that can of beans be more calories then the can on the left?
  • alexastoutxo
    alexastoutxo Posts: 139 Member
    Options
    Millicent3015 wrote: »
    Not necessarily. If the ingredients have been changed or quantities adjusted, the new calorie amount could be a reflection of that. But a ten calorie difference isn't much unless you happen to eat multiple cans of these beans on a regular basis.

    Well they have the exact same ingredients and have them in the same order as well? So I guess it just confuses me a bit
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    edited September 2018
    Options
    alexastoutxo wrote: »
    Millicent3015 wrote: »
    Not necessarily. If the ingredients have been changed or quantities adjusted, the new calorie amount could be a reflection of that. But a ten calorie difference isn't much unless you happen to eat multiple cans of these beans on a regular basis.

    Well they have the exact same ingredients and have them in the same order as well? So I guess it just confuses me a bit

    They could have changed some of the quantities though. What doesn't make sense is that the one with higher protein and carbs has lower calories. The math doesn't work out. Maybe contact the manufacturer. Send them an email with those pics and ask for clarification.
  • pinuplove
    pinuplove Posts: 12,874 Member
    Options
    Adding up macros for the 110 calorie one I get 96, and for the 100 calorie one I got 104 (p*4 + c*4). There could be <.5g of fat in there not reported, but that still doesn't cover the 14 calorie difference.

    Overall, not enough to worry about, but the numbers geek in me would probably obsess over it, too.
  • DoubleUbea
    DoubleUbea Posts: 1,115 Member
    Options
    Serving size is different between the two.
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    Options
    DoubleUbea wrote: »
    Serving size is different between the two.

    So why does the bigger serving have fewer calories but more macros?
  • 2baninja
    2baninja Posts: 511 Member
    Options
    I'm amused by the fact that they are both 1/2 cup, but 1 is 130 gm, 1 is 125 gm, the 130 gm - is less cal, while the 125 gm - is more cal...
    I think someone was asleep when they made that label...
  • earlnabby
    earlnabby Posts: 8,171 Member
    edited September 2018
    Options
    alexastoutxo wrote: »
    So I'm very confused with these two nutrition labels for beans. So the one on the right is the one I've originally been eating for a long time (100 calories) and the one on the left is the new version of this can of beans so 10 calories more (110). What I dont understand is how the new version has 10 calories more when they hve almost the same nutrition facts even with the newer version have less carbs and protein. Shouldn't the new version be even less calories ir the exact same? The math doesnt work out when I calculate the protein and carbs

    Foods are periodically tested for nutrients and the labels change to reflect the current testing results.
  • estherdragonbat
    estherdragonbat Posts: 5,283 Member
    Options
    2baninja wrote: »
    I'm amused by the fact that they are both 1/2 cup, but 1 is 130 gm, 1 is 125 gm, the 130 gm - is less cal, while the 125 gm - is more cal...
    I think someone was asleep when they made that label...

    It's normal variance IMO. Every day for breakfast, I have 1 cup of grapes with Greek yogurt and a granola bar. I fill my one-cup measure with grapes and toss it on the scale. And it can be anywhere from, say 160 to 185 grams. (Sometimes it can even be a bit over or under that). Depends on the size of the grapes, the amount of space between the grapes in the cup, whether they come out over the rim, etc. I imagine it'd be the same for the beans, too.
  • alexastoutxo
    alexastoutxo Posts: 139 Member
    Options
    earlnabby wrote: »
    alexastoutxo wrote: »
    So I'm very confused with these two nutrition labels for beans. So the one on the right is the one I've originally been eating for a long time (100 calories) and the one on the left is the new version of this can of beans so 10 calories more (110). What I dont understand is how the new version has 10 calories more when they hve almost the same nutrition facts even with the newer version have less carbs and protein. Shouldn't the new version be even less calories ir the exact same? The math doesnt work out when I calculate the protein and carbs

    Foods are periodically tested for nutrients and the labels change to reflect the current testing results.

    Well the testing results must have been wrong or something because the labels are inaccurate and very confusing..
  • alexastoutxo
    alexastoutxo Posts: 139 Member
    Options
    pinuplove wrote: »
    Adding up macros for the 110 calorie one I get 96, and for the 100 calorie one I got 104 (p*4 + c*4). There could be <.5g of fat in there not reported, but that still doesn't cover the 14 calorie difference.

    Overall, not enough to worry about, but the numbers geek in me would probably obsess over it, too.

    Haha right? It doesnt add up but I'm only worrying about it because it's not in the mfp database at all, only the old version is in the database and now I'm not sure how to calculate the amount of beans I want since this new version isnt in the database. But again the label doesnt make sense soo..ugh I dont know ..
  • alexastoutxo
    alexastoutxo Posts: 139 Member
    Options
    2baninja wrote: »
    I'm amused by the fact that they are both 1/2 cup, but 1 is 130 gm, 1 is 125 gm, the 130 gm - is less cal, while the 125 gm - is more cal...
    I think someone was asleep when they made that label...

    That's what I'm thinking..
  • alexastoutxo
    alexastoutxo Posts: 139 Member
    Options
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    DoubleUbea wrote: »
    Serving size is different between the two.

    So why does the bigger serving have fewer calories but more macros?

    Currently wondering the same.
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    Options
    alexastoutxo wrote: »
    pinuplove wrote: »
    Adding up macros for the 110 calorie one I get 96, and for the 100 calorie one I got 104 (p*4 + c*4). There could be <.5g of fat in there not reported, but that still doesn't cover the 14 calorie difference.

    Overall, not enough to worry about, but the numbers geek in me would probably obsess over it, too.

    Haha right? It doesnt add up but I'm only worrying about it because it's not in the mfp database at all, only the old version is in the database and now I'm not sure how to calculate the amount of beans I want since this new version isnt in the database. But again the label doesnt make sense soo..ugh I dont know ..

    You can always change the database entry or create a new one.
  • pogiguy05
    pogiguy05 Posts: 1,583 Member
    Options
    Correct me if i am wrong, but companies figure these things out by sending a SERVING into a lab for testing. the lab then tells them the information they came up with during testing.

    I would not beat myself up over 10 calories i would just log it and move on. Lifes to short to be focused on a label. ;-)
  • alexastoutxo
    alexastoutxo Posts: 139 Member
    edited September 2018
    Options
    pogiguy05 wrote: »
    Correct me if i am wrong, but companies figure these things out by sending a SERVING into a lab for testing. the lab then tells them the information they came up with during testing.

    I would not beat myself up over 10 calories i would just log it and move on. Lifes to short to be focused on a label. ;-)

    Problem is this new version isnt in the database at all. Only for the old version so I cant log it correctly
  • 23rochelle23
    23rochelle23 Posts: 269 Member
    edited September 2018
    Options
    I’d just put it under the old one, or create a new one from the new label with the information provided. 10cal won’t make or break your diet :-)

  • strongwouldbenice
    strongwouldbenice Posts: 153 Member
    Options
    alexastoutxo wrote: »
    pogiguy05 wrote: »
    Correct me if i am wrong, but companies figure these things out by sending a SERVING into a lab for testing. the lab then tells them the information they came up with during testing.

    I would not beat myself up over 10 calories i would just log it and move on. Lifes to short to be focused on a label. ;-)

    Problem is this new version isnt in the database at all. Only for the old version so I cant log it correctly

    Just create a new entry

Categories