Confused about these nutrition labels? Help?
alexastoutxo
Posts: 139 Member
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
-
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.0
-
The half cup measures at 135 grams on the right, 10 grams heavier.2
-
-
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 bit0 -
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.1 -
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.2 -
Serving size is different between the two.0
-
DoubleUbea wrote: »Serving size is different between the two.
So why does the bigger serving have fewer calories but more macros?2 -
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...3 -
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.2 -
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.3 -
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..0 -
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 ..0 -
-
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.0 -
alexastoutxo 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.3 -
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. ;-)0 -
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 correctly1 -
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 :-)
1 -
alexastoutxo 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 entry1 -
strongwouldbenice wrote: »alexastoutxo 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
Even with nutrition info not making sense?0 -
It's possible they've redone the lab tests at some point and that's the reason for the change2
-
Are the tins both listed as being the same weight overall or is the one which suggests 130 grams per serve heavier?
I'd personally contact the company because nothing about those labels adds up but just log with the old one as the calorie count won't make a difference in the scheme of things.0 -
I would never use a cup as a measurement whatever, use a food scale. No point obsessing over 10 calories if you're not going to weigh accurately - I had some quite big grapes today which filled the pot I use for work in only 70g, whereas if I have smaller grapes it can fit 100g or more.2
-
It's beans. Unfortunately, the liquid is part of the serving size - so the serving size with the least calories just has more water in the can.5
-
-
Lillymoo01 wrote: »Are the tins both listed as being the same weight overall or is the one which suggests 130 grams per serve heavier?
I'd personally contact the company because nothing about those labels adds up but just log with the old one as the calorie count won't make a difference in the scheme of things.
Yeah that's what I did because I'm just curious as to why its labeled that way.0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »alexastoutxo 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.
Yeah I guess I'll just create a new sentry although the label is still confusing the heck out of me lol0 -
strongwouldbenice wrote: »alexastoutxo 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
That's what I'm doing haha0 -
23rochelle23 wrote: »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 :-)
I hope not because I go through cans of these like crazy lol0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions