Asda Reduced Fat Bacon Medallions

deanonumber10
deanonumber10 Posts: 10 Member
in Food and Nutrition
https://groceries.asda.com/product/bacon/asda-butchers-selection-10-reduced-fat-unsmoked-bacon-medallions/1000250547497

I've just bought these and don't know if its just me being thick but the nutritional information on the front and back doesn't match up? Not great for calorie tracking etc.

Am I reading it wrong?Wanting to cook half a pack which is 150g or 5 rashers but working it out from front and back of the pack/wbsite info the calories are vastly different. Same for the Smoked version.

Am I missing something obvious for anyone that has had these?

Thanks

Replies

  • Lietchi
    Lietchi Posts: 6,846 Member
    I'm having trouble viewing the picture of the front of the package. But it says 64 calories per 2 grilled pieces and 184 calories for 100gr of grilled bacon.
    That tells me they expect 2 pieces of grilled bacon, weighing 60gr raw, to weigh just under 35 grams grilled.
    Not sure how realistic that is (I eat very little bacon :mrgreen:). But doesn't seem problematic to me, if you count the pieces (64kcal times 2.5) which seems more reliable to me than weighing the grilled meat (weight will vary according to cooking heat etc).

    The thing throwing you off is perhaps the fact that the nutritional values are for grilled, not raw, which changes the weight?
  • deanonumber10
    deanonumber10 Posts: 10 Member
    Thanks I think thats what it is. So I'm best going off the 64 calories per 2 slices which means that half a pack 150g or 5 rashers is 160 calories.

    Going of the per 100g of cokked/grilled that means that 150g though is 276 calories.

    Bit of a difference which is why I found it confusing but think I get it now. Thanks just thought it was better to double check.

  • Lietchi
    Lietchi Posts: 6,846 Member
    Your 150gr raw meat will be lighter once it's cooked, so yeah, using the raw weight when the nutritional info is for cooked will definitely throw things off 🙂
  • scarlett_k
    scarlett_k Posts: 812 Member
    deanonumber10 wrote: »
    Thanks I think thats what it is. So I'm best going off the 64 calories per 2 slices which means that half a pack 150g or 5 rashers is 160 calories.

    Going of the per 100g of cokked/grilled that means that 150g though is 276 calories.

    Bit of a difference which is why I found it confusing but think I get it now. Thanks just thought it was better to double check.

    You need to weigh it when it's cooked if the nutritional information is for cooked weight. It'll lose moisture so it'll weigh less when it's cooked.
  • Lietchi
    Lietchi Posts: 6,846 Member
    scarlett_k wrote: »
    deanonumber10 wrote: »
    Thanks I think thats what it is. So I'm best going off the 64 calories per 2 slices which means that half a pack 150g or 5 rashers is 160 calories.

    Going of the per 100g of cokked/grilled that means that 150g though is 276 calories.

    Bit of a difference which is why I found it confusing but think I get it now. Thanks just thought it was better to double check.

    You need to weigh it when it's cooked if the nutritional information is for cooked weight. It'll lose moisture so it'll weigh less when it's cooked.

    Actually, I think counting the pieces might be more accurate in this case (and perhaps checking that each raw piece is indeed 30gr), considering it's hard to know how long to cook it to arrive at the 'correct' cooked weight. Some people like their bacon crisper/drier, others might grill it for a shorter period.
    But the difference will probably not be enormous.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,260 Member
    edited June 2021
    But you're not eating part of the fat are you?

    Bacon is one of the very difficult to evaluate items because if you render the fat and you don't eat it, there go most of the calories that were there when it was raw

    Assuming I'm doing a half decent job at the crispiness department bacon is one of the items I go by cooked weight since I usually have way more than a 50% reduction.
  • Lietchi
    Lietchi Posts: 6,846 Member
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    But you're not eating part of the fat are you?

    Bacon is one of the very difficult to evaluate items because if you render the fat and you don't eat it, there go most of the calories that were there when it was raw

    Assuming I'm doing a half decent job at the crispiness department bacon is one of the items I go by cooked weight since I usually have way more than a 50% reduction.

    Both the calories per 2 pieces and per 100g are cooked values though, so both don't contain the fat rendered out. (that being said, it's already very low fat bacon judging from the picture, and UK style bacon also being a totally different thing than US style bacon.)
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,260 Member
    Sorry, can't see pics from device :blush:
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    Fun fact - the typical pig is now leaner than the people eating the bacon.

    Bacon medallions have very little fat to render.
  • scarlett_k
    scarlett_k Posts: 812 Member
    Lietchi wrote: »
    scarlett_k wrote: »
    deanonumber10 wrote: »
    Thanks I think thats what it is. So I'm best going off the 64 calories per 2 slices which means that half a pack 150g or 5 rashers is 160 calories.

    Going of the per 100g of cokked/grilled that means that 150g though is 276 calories.

    Bit of a difference which is why I found it confusing but think I get it now. Thanks just thought it was better to double check.

    You need to weigh it when it's cooked if the nutritional information is for cooked weight. It'll lose moisture so it'll weigh less when it's cooked.

    Actually, I think counting the pieces might be more accurate in this case (and perhaps checking that each raw piece is indeed 30gr), considering it's hard to know how long to cook it to arrive at the 'correct' cooked weight. Some people like their bacon crisper/drier, others might grill it for a shorter period.
    But the difference will probably not be enormous.

    Yes I agree but I was just trying to explain why they were confused.
  • OnceAndFutureAthlete
    OnceAndFutureAthlete Posts: 192 Member
    Slightly off topic, but isn't "reduced fat bacon" just...ham?
  • Lietchi
    Lietchi Posts: 6,846 Member
    OnceAndFutureAthlete wrote: »
    Slightly off topic, but isn't "reduced fat bacon" just...ham?

    😆 that's exactly what I thought when I had 'bacon' for breakfast in the UK for the first time, that it was just a thick slice of grilled ham. I was expecting 'real' (streaky) bacon!
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    OnceAndFutureAthlete wrote: »
    Slightly off topic, but isn't "reduced fat bacon" just...ham?

    No it's bacon with most of the fat cut off. In the UK bacon is a different cut to what is more typical in the US.

    In the UK our bacon rashers typically look like this.
    uvluq2qrudmd.png

    Bacon medallions have simply been trimmed to reduce the fat.
    a0d75bf733lg.png

    We would call this streaky bacon.
    ljm1cpdcxy9m.png

    And now of course I want a bacon sandwich for breakfast!
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,260 Member
    edited June 2021
    How are bacon medallions different from Canadian back bacon?!?
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    How are bacon medallions different from Canadian back bacon?!?

    Different country - different terminology. OP lives in England.

    The butchery cut looks the same.

  • BarbaraHelen2013
    BarbaraHelen2013 Posts: 1,940 Member
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    How are bacon medallions different from Canadian back bacon?!?

    ‘Bacon Medallions’ are essentially just the loin (the bit along the back of the pig, either side of the spine). ‘Back Bacon’ rashers typically also have a bit of the belly flesh attached too, which is much fattier. Sijomial’s photos above illustrate the difference perfectly.

    Canadian Back Bacon is essentially the same as our UK Back Bacon in that it has both loin and belly flesh.

Categories