Re: What does 200 calories look like?

[Guest guest]

I'm confused.I'm new to this group so forgive me if I'm asking a naive question.  The site referenced below claims that 50 g of Splenda = 200 calories.How can that be?  Splenda claims to be a no-calorie sweetener.  Right there in the nutrition information it states that a 0.5 g serving has 0 calories.  However, if this site is correct, a 0.5 g serving of Splenda would have to contain 20 calories.  Zero and 20 are two very different numbers. Either the site is incorrect or Splenda is falsely advertised as a no-calorie sweetener.  Which is true?-RobinOn Jan 4, 2007, at 1:58 AM, nosirreeb wrote:I searched the archives and couldn't find any reference to thiswebsite and thought the group might find it interesting and maybeinstructive. It's slow to load, so give it time.http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-200-calories-look-like.htm

[Guest guest]

Oops.  I just realized I'm a decimal off.  According to the site, a 0.5 g serving of Splenda would have to contain 2, not 20, calories.Still, 0 and 2 are not the same.  How can Splenda be called a no-calories sweetener if it actually contains calories?Is the same true of other sweeteners such as Stevia?On Jan 4, 2007, at 1:58 AM, nosirreeb wrote:I searched the archives and couldn't find any reference to thiswebsite and thought the group might find it interesting and maybeinstructive. It's slow to load, so give it time.http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-200-calories-look-like.htm"Some foods have significantly more calories than others but what doesthe difference actually look like. Each of the photographs belowrepresents 200 calories of the particular type of food; the images aresorted from low to high calorie density.When you consider that an entire plate of broccoli contains the samenumber of calories as a small spoonful of peanut butter, you mightthink twice the next time you decide what to eat. According to theU.S. Department of Agriculture, the average adult needs to consumeabout 2000 - 2500 calories to maintain their weight. In other words,you have a fixed amount of calories to "spend" each day; based on thefollowing pictures, which would you eat?"

[Guest guest]

Splenda is not pure sucralose but mixed with other filler/sweeteners that have calories. The 0 per serving is a little label "slight of hand" to confuse consumers. Be alert for similar label lies wrt fat content, trans fats, etc.JROn Jan 4, 2007, at 7:39 AM, Robin Orwant wrote:I'm confused.I'm new to this group so forgive me if I'm asking a naive question.  The site referenced below claims that 50 g of Splenda = 200 calories.How can that be?  Splenda claims to be a no-calorie sweetener.  Right there in the nutrition information it states that a 0.5 g serving has 0 calories.  However, if this site is correct, a 0.5 g serving of Splenda would have to contain 20 calories.  Zero and 20 are two very different numbers. Either the site is incorrect or Splenda is falsely advertised as a no-calorie sweetener.  Which is true?-RobinOn Jan 4, 2007, at 1:58 AM, nosirreeb wrote:I searched the archives and couldn't find any reference to thiswebsite and thought the group might find it interesting and maybeinstructive. It's slow to load, so give it time.http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-200-calories-look-like.htm

[Guest guest]

Well that explains why it tastes better than Nutrasweet. ;-)

Thanks for pointing this out, I hadnt realized it. I " m looking at one of

their little yellow paper packets now. Its a 0.035oz/1 gr size, and I

often use several to balance the bitterness of my green tea. So if 50

grams has ~200 calories, my little packet has 4 calories. (I think the

previous calculation below was off by a factor of 10).

According to the packet, the other " fillers " are dextrose and

maltodextrin. The packet has >1 gram of total carbs which makes its 0

according to FDA labeling requirements. That is the sleight of hand

is referring to.....

Tricky stuff, huh? ;-)

-W

> Splenda is not pure sucralose but mixed with other filler/sweeteners

> that have calories. The 0 per serving is a little label " slight of

> hand " to confuse consumers. Be alert for similar label lies wrt fat

> content, trans fats, etc.

>

> JR

>

>

> On Jan 4, 2007, at 7:39 AM, Robin Orwant wrote:

>

> > I'm confused.

> >

> > I'm new to this group so forgive me if I'm asking a naive

> > question. The site referenced below claims that 50 g of Splenda > 200

> calories.

> > How can that be? Splenda claims to be a no-calorie sweetener.

> > Right there in the nutrition information it states that a 0.5 g

> > serving has 0 calories.

> > However, if this site is correct, a 0.5 g serving of Splenda would

> > have to contain 20 calories. Zero and 20 are two very different

> > numbers. Either the site is incorrect or Splenda is falsely

> > advertised as a no-calorie sweetener. Which is true?

> >

> > -Robin

> >

> > On Jan 4, 2007, at 1:58 AM, nosirreeb wrote:

> >

> >> I searched the archives and couldn't find any reference to this

> >> website and thought the group might find it interesting and maybe

> >> instructive. It's slow to load, so give it time.

> >>

> >> http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-200-calories-look-like.htm

> >>

> >>

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

Jewell, Ph.D.

Campus Mass Spectrometry Facilities

UC

cmsf.ucdavis.edu

[Guest guest]

Splenda has around 4 calories per packet... which being under 5 they get to

round down to 0. The calories come from the 1 gram of " carb " fillers which

yield about 4 caloreis per gram. So 50 grams would equal 200 calories

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Ok.  Not only are "no-calorie" sweeteners not actually calorie-free, but someone just informed me off-list that items claiming to be trans-fat free aren't necessarily so.  To get that label a serving only has to contain less than 0.5 g of the stuff.  That is *so* evil!  How can people make healthy choices if the claims on the labels are just bald-faced lies?!  Am I crazy to think "0 calories" should actually mean 0 calories and "no trans fats" should mean there are zero grams of trans fats in the food?On Jan 4, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Jewell wrote:Well that explains why it tastes better than Nutrasweet. ;-)Thanks for pointing this out, I hadnt realized it. I"m looking at one oftheir little yellow paper packets now. Its a 0.035oz/1 gr size, and Ioften use several to balance the bitterness of my green tea. So if 50grams has ~200 calories, my little packet has 4 calories. (I think theprevious calculation below was off by a factor of 10).According to the packet, the other "fillers" are dextrose andmaltodextrin. The packet has >1 gram of total carbs which makes its 0according to FDA labeling requirements. That is the sleight of hand is referring to.....Tricky stuff, huh? ;-)-W> Splenda is not pure sucralose but mixed with other filler/sweeteners > that have calories. The 0 per serving is a little label "slight of > hand" to confuse consumers. Be alert for similar label lies wrt fat > content, trans fats, etc.> > JR> > > On Jan 4, 2007, at 7:39 AM, Robin Orwant wrote:> > > I'm confused.> >> > I'm new to this group so forgive me if I'm asking a naive > > question. The site referenced below claims that 50 g of Splenda > 200> calories.> > How can that be? Splenda claims to be a no-calorie sweetener. > > Right there in the nutrition information it states that a 0.5 g > > serving has 0 calories.> > However, if this site is correct, a 0.5 g serving of Splenda would > > have to contain 20 calories. Zero and 20 are two very different > > numbers. Either the site is incorrect or Splenda is falsely > > advertised as a no-calorie sweetener. Which is true?> >> > -Robin> >> > On Jan 4, 2007, at 1:58 AM, nosirreeb wrote:> >> >> I searched the archives and couldn't find any reference to this> >> website and thought the group might find it interesting and maybe> >> instructive. It's slow to load, so give it time.> >>> >> http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-200-calories-look-like.htm> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > Jewell, Ph.D.Campus Mass Spectrometry FacilitiesUC cmsf.ucdavis.edu

[Guest guest]

it actually gets worse..

The listing of percent fat on most products is by

weight and not by calories.. so, products promoted as

low fat or 99% fat can be as high as 70% fat. 1% milk

is over 20% fat and 2% milk is over 30% fat

Mono and Di glycerides can be added for " texture " and

not counted as fat or calories nor do they have to

list if they are hydrogenated or not

Servings sizes less than .5 grams can be rounded down

to 0, so even if its pure calories, it gets listed as

0..

And on and on..

There are literally dozens of legal loopholes

Jeff

[Guest guest]

At 12:19 PM 1/4/2007, you wrote:

>Ok. Not only are " no-calorie " sweeteners not actually calorie-free, but

>someone just informed me off-list that items claiming to be trans-fat free

>aren't necessarily so. To get that label a serving only has to contain

>less than 0.5 g of the stuff.

>That is *so* evil! How can people make healthy choices if the claims on

>the labels are just bald-faced lies?! Am I crazy to think " 0 calories "

>should actually mean 0 calories and " no trans fats " should mean there are

>zero grams of trans fats in the food?

Dunno. Irritating, certainly, but my Splenda calories get lost in the

noise, as I think they likely are for most people. One packet is actually a

decent dose of sweetener; I use only two with a big mug of coffee in the

morning. We need good attention to detail, but not necessarily obsessive

attention to minutiae to stay sane with this course.

Maco

[Guest guest]

On Jan 4, 2007, at 3:01 PM, Maco wrote:Dunno. Irritating, certainly, but my Splenda calories get lost in the noise, as I think they likely are for most people. One packet is actually a decent dose of sweetener; I use only two with a big mug of coffee in the morning. We need good attention to detail, but not necessarily obsessive attention to minutiae to stay sane with this course.Maco_,___Agreed.. In the context of sweeteners, a few calories of carbohydrate are innocuous for all but diabetics micro managing their blood sugar, but the "fat free" and "trans-fat" free labels are often undeserved when manipulating portion size for desired result. I recall one "fat-free" spray butter substitute I used to consume on my popcorn back in my adlib but trying to be health conscious days... Neither fat free or very wholesome ingredients inside (truth free).In some cases the portion sizes needed to get the component they want to disappear low enough are laughable, and when adopting zero tolerance as I do these days for trans-fats I am not very trusting of any processed food.While exaggeration to make a point I imagine less than 0.5 G of plutonium per serving might have some health consequences despite rounding down to zero. I see no benefit to consumers from allowing such loopholes while pretending to accurately report contents. Either report it factually or don't bother, misleading information is IMO worse than no information. JR

[Guest guest]

Hi Robin:

It seems to apply to most foods. All but one of the 'fat-free'

(indicated in prominent lettering all over the container) sour creams

around here have ~18% of the calories from fat [0.4g fat in a 20

calorie 'serving']. No doubt their 'out' is supplied by using such a

small ' ' 'serving size ' ' ' that its fat content in grams sneaks in

just below the critical level.

Of course it is ridiculous, just as anything else specified

by 'serving size' seems to be also. It can be readily manipulated up

or down depending on whether the seller wants to emphasize the high

or low content of the product in some particular component. But it

is just another issue one has to be aware of. And of course all this

requires we make the assumption that the data provided on the side of

the packaging are in fact accurate in the first place. Some data I

have seen are patently impossible.

Rodney.

> > > >

> > > >> I searched the archives and couldn't find any reference to

this

> > > >> website and thought the group might find it interesting and

maybe

> > > >> instructive. It's slow to load, so give it time.

> > > >>

> > > >> http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-200-calories-look-like.htm

> > > >>

> > > >>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Jewell, Ph.D.

> > Campus Mass Spectrometry Facilities

> > UC

> > cmsf.ucdavis.edu

> >

> >

>