Incorrect nutrition facts NEW ZEALAND BONELESS LAMB LEG

Options
rima933
rima933 Posts: 151 Member
edited January 2023 in Food and Nutrition
Hi, my lamb pack says it has 120 calories per 100 grams for a New Zealand Spring boneless lamb leg. Online the calories average 260. Could this be wrong?

Replies

  • Lietchi
    Lietchi Posts: 6,279 Member
    Options
    MFP's food database is mostly crowdsourced, so you can't use the entries blindly, there are many entries that are wrong, incomplete or simply outdated it for different countries/brand.
    Also, some entries are for tax, others for cooked (and the name of the food doesn't always clearly indicate it).
    In your case, believe what it says on the label and find a corresponding entry in the database (or create one if you can't find one).
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,735 Member
    Options
    Yes. The database is crowd-sourced, i.e., entered by regular everyday users like you and me.

    Some of us are meticulous about accuracy. Some aren't. Some products change formulation over time, and the old entries are still out there. (That's probably not true for lamb). Some products differ from one country to the next, even under the same product name, and MFP is multi-national. (Also unlikely for lamb.)

    On top of that, some entries are for cooked versions of the item, others for raw. Since things can gain or lose water or fat during cooking (depending on cooking method), that can make a big difference in calories per unit weight/volume. Some entries indicate cooking method or cooked/raw state, others don't.

    For best results, invest a little time at first in finding accurate database entries for the foods you commonly eat. If you can't find one - most are there somewhere IME - add your own. After you log a particular food, MFP will keep it in your recent/frequent foods list so it comes up first when you search, as long as you keep eating it regularly.

    It's a pain that this takes a little extra effort at first, but as a plus the database is huge and extensive, o it's rarely necessary (IME) to enter foods that are commercially available.

    Best wishes!
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,017 Member
    edited January 2023
    Options
    The package the lamb leg came in is definitely wrong and I suspect that the 260 is actually closer to reality.

    Lamb tenderloin which is pretty small on a lamb will have around 120 cals per 100g's similar to other protein of the same description simply because there's virtually no fat on these cuts as opposed to the leg, which generally are much much fattier. cheers
  • claireychn074
    claireychn074 Posts: 1,429 Member
    Options
    I’m also going to throw another spanner in the works and say that calories (and fat and protein) can only ever be estimated or averaged for food. For instance, no two lambs are the same. They could have had slightly different diets, be killed at different times of the year, come from different climates - and believe it or not, that can all affect the fat content. I always find free range chickens to have lower body fat than barn-reared (purely based on how much fat is released during cooking). So it can never be fully accurate. But yes, labels and user-entered macros can all be wrong!
  • sollyn23l2
    sollyn23l2 Posts: 1,670 Member
    Options
    claireychn074 wrote: »
    I’m also going to throw another spanner in the works and say that calories (and fat and protein) can only ever be estimated or averaged for food. For instance, no two lambs are the same. They could have had slightly different diets, be killed at different times of the year, come from different climates - and believe it or not, that can all affect the fat content. I always find free range chickens to have lower body fat than barn-reared (purely based on how much fat is released during cooking). So it can never be fully accurate. But yes, labels and user-entered macros can all be wrong!

    Exactly!!!! This is why I consider calorie counting to be more of an estimate and a guide rather than being "exact". We will never get an exact calorie count.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,512 Member
    Options
    Lamb leg contains quite a bit of fat, so I'd guess that 120 calories per 100gr are wrong. Is there some small print stating that this is if cooked 60 minutes on a spit?
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,868 Member
    Options
    rima933 wrote: »
    Hi, my lamb pack says it has 120 calories per 100 grams for a New Zealand Spring boneless lamb leg. Online the calories average 260. Could this be wrong?

    Did you get a sirloin half only? That is the leanest and around what your packaging is saying per the USDA. An actual leg of lamb roast which is likely what you're pulling up in the database is around 260 calories per 100 grams roasted...note that those would be calories averaged across the entire roast and wouldn't take into account eating only leaner parts or trimming all of the fat off of what you're eating (but why would you want to do that). There is quite a bit of fat in a lamb roast...about 21g of fat per 100g of lamb...that's why it's so tasty.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,988 Member
    Options
    Peeps - do you think the value on the package is for raw lamb and 260 cal / 100 g is for cooked lamb? The USDA database doesn't seem to be working right these days :disappointed:

    Regardless, 120 cal/100 g still seems low to me...
  • Lietchi
    Lietchi Posts: 6,279 Member
    Options
    While 120 kcal may seem low, I did find a Tesco leg of lamb for 170 calories per 100, so there is a bit of a range.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,017 Member
    edited January 2023
    Options
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    Peeps - do you think the value on the package is for raw lamb and 260 cal / 100 g is for cooked lamb? The USDA database doesn't seem to be working right these days :disappointed:

    Regardless, 120 cal/100 g still seems low to me...

    No, like I said lamb leg is around that 260 for 100 grams raw. Very lean animal proteins that have very little fat and from any animal, will be in and around 120 cals for 100g's and like I said above lamb tenderloin is around that 120 cals for 100 q's. This is pretty well known within the cooking community (chefs).
  • mtaratoot
    mtaratoot Posts: 13,540 Member
    Options
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    Peeps - do you think the value on the package is for raw lamb and 260 cal / 100 g is for cooked lamb? The USDA database doesn't seem to be working right these days :disappointed:

    Regardless, 120 cal/100 g still seems low to me...

    USDA Food Central is working; you have to look at "SR Legacy Foods." I found 16 entries for "Lamb, new Zealand, shank" and four for a similar search narrowed to "hind-shank" (leg)

    Raw, 186 calories per 100 grams
    Cooked, 247 calories per 100 grams

    Unfortunately, this matches neither of OP's numbers.




  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,512 Member
    Options
    Another weird idea: Maybe they defined the calories as still containing the bone. Without the leg might be 400gr, with the bone 600 or so. I know the leg is without bone, but you never know....
  • rima933
    rima933 Posts: 151 Member
    Options
    Thank you for all of your answers and your input. I decided to just eat 70 grams cooked and track it as 100 grams =120 calories like the package says. I don't eat lamb often so it's not a big deal if i was off for 1 day. Thanks again!

Categories