Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Update to info on calories - many labels are WAY off page

  1. #1
    dixonge's Avatar
    dixonge is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    DFW, TX
    Posts
    13

    Update to info on calories - many labels are WAY off

    Shop Now
    It's been discussed here before, I think, but ran across an update:

    Calorie Labels Inaccurate, Experts Say | LiveScience

  2. #2
    JoanieL's Avatar
    JoanieL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    It's not the heat, it's the stupidity.
    Posts
    7,018
    Oh gawd, they're just going to make it worse. Run the crap through the calorimeter and post the result. Or use the 4 cal per gram of protein or carb, 9 cal per gram of fat, and 7 cal per gram of alcohol method.

    Once they start taking into account stuff like, "the average person..." fill in whatever blah blah bull crap they'll end that statement with, they'll just turn it into one of those things the food industry uses to make calorie counters think their product is good for them.

    I thought it was going to be an article about specific companies being off by 20-30%.

    Here's the weasley stuff from the article:

    Recent studies show that the amount of pounding, slicing, mashing and perhaps even chewing that goes into preparing and eating food affects the number of calories people get. For some foods, a proportion of the calories in them remains "locked up" during digestion, and isn't used by the body. People also expend some of the energy from food just digesting it; and even the bacteria in people's guts steal a fraction of food's calories. None of these factors are accounted for in our current system for calculating calories, which dates back more than 100 years.

    Scientists have always known that calorie counts are just estimates. And over the years, some scientists have called for changes to the system. Now, researchers are again shining a spotlight on the issue, saying an overhaul of the calorie count system is needed so consumers have a better idea of exactly how many calories they get from the food they eat.
    While this is interesting stuff, it merely explains partially why one person can eat 2000 calories a day to stay 140 pounds (for eg.) and another has to eat 1600 to maintain that.

    As to scientists - just to whom do these scientists belong or by whom are they employed? Monsanto? ConAgra?

    Get your calories in a personal data base now ladies and gentlemen (or grab your ankles) - another big screwing by BigFood is on its way.

    /Paranoid rant.
    "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

    B*tch-lite

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •