Reading food labels and nutritional information for lolz

[geo]

As of 2 years ago I started reading food labels and mainly nutritional information. Its actually pretty funny. Such as tiny bags of chips and romen noodles are meant for 2 servings. Yep 1 bowl of standard romen noodles is meant for 2 people. I've found that most dinner products stick to around 200 - 300 calories per serving even if the meal can really only serve 2 people... nope serving size is like 3.5 to keep the calories down to hide just how horrible a dinner is.

Not just the serving sizes, but the actual sizes. Go to some food products that have a small, medium, large and extra large versions. Extra large must mean you save the most money right? Nope. I started comparing the actual amount it contains vs the price. Like something with 10 costs $2, but something with 25 costs $6. That's an easy example. Most of the time its 24 vs 64 and you'll save more with buying the smaller of the two at an equal amount. Maybe no one cares or maybe they'd rather have 1 big bottle instead of 2 medium sized bottles.

Things that you buy in bulk such as toothpaste has money saving double packages. Catch is, its easy to see the bulk packages just aren't as big or don't have the same size as non bulk. Go through CostCo. You'll find things.

Its fun seeing fat free is stuffed with sugar. Sugar free is stuffed with either fat or Aspermine.

'Healthy' food has so many definitions. Is it healthy because its low calories or packed with vitamins. I'm not sure anyone checks to see why healthy is healthy. I've seen healthy tagged on packaging. Yet there's nothing on the food label that indicates it has any vitamins, fiber, or anything a human actually needs. Some foods labeled 'healthy' are actually less healthy than brands with no 'healthy' packaging. Maybe its a situation where the product just can't sell so slap the word 'healthy' on it.

[GreyGhost]

geo said:

Not just the serving sizes, but the actual sizes. Go to some food products that have a small, medium, large and extra large versions. Extra large must mean you save the most money right? Nope. I started comparing the actual amount it contains vs the price.

It'd be a different story if retailers were required to provide comparative pricing information (as we have down here), so customers know what the cost per pound/pint/whatever is.

Its fun seeing fat free is stuffed with sugar. Sugar free is stuffed with either fat or Aspermine.

The same nonsense is going on here in Oz. Made my mother's day when she discovered how many teaspoons of sugar there are in a small tub of "low fat" fruit yogurt, and she's supposed to be restricting sugar in her diet.

Maybe its a situation where the product just can't sell so slap the word 'healthy' on it.

The current buzzword is "organic", and I'm sure there was a point a few years back when the supermarkets were re-packaging their less appetizing looking fruit and veg, labeling them as "organic" and charging up to three times the regular price.

[geo]

I know Katie Couric is on a crusade against sugar and probably rightfully so. The amount of sugar needed in a daily diet is about to drop in half. I saw an interview with Katie where she talked about how FDA wanted to cut it by 90%. Then the FDA was threatened to have funding pulled from 'big sugar' industries. So the amount you're supposed to take will be cut by 50% in a year or two. Sad that the FDA takes private money. She put out a documentary about it, that will explain it better than I can.

I read energy bar labels. I see sugar. A lot of sugar. Ha sugar in an energy bar. Why not candy bar then? Other than energy bars also have potassium and actual vitamins in them.

[betabox]

geo said:

... or Aspermine...

I think you mean aspartame? It's present because it's a sugar substitute. And I honestly don't see what's the problem with aspartame other than some people who have an intolerance to it. In their case, they should avoid it, but not others. Yeah, there have been claims about its adverse effects, but those studies are questionable at best.

The sugar in energy bars is meant as a quick boost of energy and is often used by people doing moderate to high intense activity. Though in general, yeah, it's not really healthy and these bars are more often eaten for inappropriate occasions.

[Quasar]

buttspit said:

I think you mean aspartame? It's present because it's a sugar substitute. And I honestly don't see what's the problem with aspartame other than some people who have an intolerance to it. In their case, they should avoid it, but not others. Yeah, there have been claims about its adverse effects, but those studies are questionable at best.

The sugar in energy bars is meant as a quick boost of energy and is often used by people doing moderate to high intense activity. Though in general, yeah, it's not really healthy and these bars are more often eaten for inappropriate occasions.

It does taste fucking terrible.

[Inkie]

geo said:

'Healthy' food has so many definitions. Is it healthy because its low calories or packed with vitamins. I'm not sure anyone checks to see why healthy is healthy. I've seen healthy tagged on packaging. Yet there's nothing on the food label that indicates it has any vitamins, fiber, or anything a human actually needs. Some foods labeled 'healthy' are actually less healthy than brands with no 'healthy' packaging. Maybe its a situation where the product just can't sell so slap the word 'healthy' on it.

What is 'All Natural'?

[geo]

Inkie said:

What is 'All Natural'?

Naked people? All natural is whatever someone says it is. Watching Kitchen Nightmares is hilarious for what a company says vs what it does. Sure that's just restaurants, but every company has their own definition.

Here's what Wiki says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_natural

“Natural foods” and “all natural foods” are widely used terms in food labeling and marketing with a variety of definitions, most of which are vague. The term is assumed to imply foods that are minimally processed and do not contain manufactured ingredients, but the lack of standards in most jurisdictions means that the term assures nothing. The term “organic”, however, has an established legal definition in many countries, including the United States, as well as an agreed upon international standard. Therefore all natural and organic products are not the same. In some countries, the term “natural” is defined and enforced. In others, such as the United States, it has no meaning.

[betabox]

Quasar said:

It does taste fucking terrible.

I've tried a few foods/drinks with it; has an annoying aftertaste, but I don't find it too bad. Still, it's a viable option for diabetics, general hyperglycemia and just generally for people worried about sugar/calories.

I think using natural as an argument, whether legitimately so or not, is stupid. It's foolish to run with the assumption that natural automatically equates to good. Same goes with many ads where they use arguments like "with ingredients I can actually pronounce".

[geo]

Aspartame has plenty of allergy concerns that people don't realize.

Soy milk and almond milk has an aftertaste too.

[betabox]

There hasn't been any concrete instances of aspartame allergies yet. Intolerance, yes, but not actual allergies.

[Csonicgo]

geo said:

Aspartame has plenty of allergy concerns that people don't realize.

The reason that aspartame obtained prominence was the scare a few decades ago about Sodium Saccharides which was based on incorrect research. As a result, the safer sweetener was pushed into 3rd place, followed by Sucralose. Why? Who knows. There's a conspiracy theory about the sugar lobby bribing Harvey Wiley of the USDA, but there's no evidence for it.

[geo]

I'm living with an aspartame addict. I convinced her to drink water. She won't drink straight up water, so she adds water flavor. Inside the flavor? Aspartame.

Then I look back at several people who have the same issues as her and I've realized the connection: Aspartame. I have no direct evidence, other than they all only drank products with aspartame and have the same side effects.

[betabox]

That's the first I'm hearing of it. It's surprising that aspartame would be addicting, but that shouldn't be a justification for its ban, otherwise let's also consider other things like caffeine. Don't get me wrong, it's quite possible for one to get addicted to things like aspartame. But until there's actual evidence of harm (not including overdosing on it, of course) from its consumption, all it's doing is adding sweetness to her water without calories or sugar being present.

[Technician]

buttspit said:

I think you mean aspartame? It's present because it's a sugar substitute. And I honestly don't see what's the problem with aspartame other than some people who have an intolerance to it.

It arguably wears down the blood-brain barrier, as aspartame contains trace amounts of methyl alcohol.

I still drink diet Pepsi, mind you. There are better substitutes such as Splenda, but I guess aspartame is cheaper to manufacture.

[40oz]

In regards to the comment made about the ramen noodles, I think its implied that the noodles are intended to be eaten as a side with meat and vegetables and other stuff for a complete meal. My mom used to serve it with chicken and corn and other stuff and in moderate portions, two packages is plenty for a family of 4

my favorite though was these pint size bottles of egg nog wed sell at my work during the holiday season that are obviously designed for one person. ~30% of your daily recommended intake of sodium, cholesterol, and sugars. 4 servings per container!! One little sip would kill over a third of the bottle. It was ridiculous, but it really opened my eyes to how nasty egg nog is.

[betabox]

Technician said:

It arguably wears down the blood-brain barrier, as aspartame contains trace amounts of methyl alcohol.

I still drink diet Pepsi, mind you. There are better substitutes such as Splenda, but I guess aspartame is cheaper to manufacture.

Aspartame is metabolized by the body into methanol, yeah. But numbers are important. The amount of methanol produced from moderate or just normal consumption of aspartame (as in, what is found in foods/drinks and supplements) is negligible and is in fact less than that produced from a lot of other things we eat/drink, including natural food items. It's in fact less than the body itself produces during homeostatic processes.

More importantly than that, we break down and eliminate that methanol and its further breakdown products before any toxicity occurs, including a hindered blood-brain barrier. The amount of it we'd need to consume in order to produce those toxic effects, we might as well be more worried about other things.

Splenda is pretty good, too. But it has its nutritional disadvantages too (also when compared to aspartame) and its share of bullshit controversies, though much less than aspartame.

[geo]

Technician said:

It arguably wears down the blood-brain barrier, as aspartame contains trace amounts of methyl alcohol.

Sadly I'd argue this point, just from observations seen 24/7 and tests that can't figure out what's wrong. People I've seen drinking Aspartame as every liquid a few times every day of their life. I've known 5 people that get constant daily / hourly migraines that proven drugs won't help. Their common connection, excessive aspartame liquid consumption.

[Maes]

Hilarity ensues when some product with a warning against excessive consuption also contains some other nutrient which has a RDA, but in order to meet it you'll definitively need to eat it in excess.

E.g. the all too common "an excessive consumption may have laxative effects", which indicates artificial sweeteners.

So it's like, yeah, you'll meet your daily RDA of Calcium or Vitamin C if you eat 20 of those sugar-free, artificially-sweetened chewing gums, but then you'll shit yourself to oblivion (including the extra nutrients), so that's pretty moot ;-)