Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Daily Low-Carb Support > General Low-Carb
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Wed, May-06-20, 13:28
bkloots's Avatar
bkloots bkloots is offline
Posts: 9,797
 
Plan: Atkins/LCHF/Keto
Stats: 195/158/150 Female 63in
BF:
Progress: 82%
Location: Kansas City, MO
Default Keep reading those labels

I don't buy many foods that come with packaging, let alone labels of ingredients. However, I got a craving for dill pickles and picked up a big jar of Kosher dill spears with a famous brand from the Costco refrigerator.

When I fished up one for lunch, it tasted incredibly sweet. Immediately I thought, They don't put sugar in dill pickles...do they?? Check label.

No, they didn't put sugar in these dill pickles, thank goodness.

However, I got to reading the Nutrition Facts, and discovered one of those weaselly things packers do to make you think you're getting a nutritional bargain of some kind. The facts listed Carbs at less than 1gm per serving. Great!

But what is a "serving" according to this label? One Half of one spear of dill pickle. Who eats one half of a dill pickle spear???

I can handle one carb of pickle. But I didn't appreciate the fudged numbers, if not the deception, of that nutrition label. It's a kind of sticker shock I'll mostly avoid in the future.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Wed, May-06-20, 20:07
s93uv3h's Avatar
s93uv3h s93uv3h is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,538
 
Plan: Atkins & IF / TRE
Stats: 000/014.5/015 Male 5' 10"
BF:
Progress: 97%
Default

iirc they are allowed to put 0 (zero) content if it's .5 g or less. So they get to sneak in any number of items under our noses. Manipulating the serving size adjusts the grams per serving content.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Wed, May-06-20, 21:02
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 3,423
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Neat trick reducing the serving size to get away with a lower carb count per serving. It's how many get around the US ingredients requirements.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Thu, May-07-20, 06:37
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,423
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by s93uv3h
iirc they are allowed to put 0 (zero) content if it's .5 g or less. So they get to sneak in any number of items under our noses. Manipulating the serving size adjusts the grams per serving content.



Yep, they've been allowed to round the nutrition stats for years - and since then, they've manipulating the size of the serving so that the nutrition stats are more attractive to their target customer.



It started with fat content - make the serving size very small, then brag on the front of the package that it's low fat or fat free to attract the fat phobic consumer.



If they're now intentionally targeting the actual sugar content/carb content for manipulation (by reporting it on the front of the label), it means that LC and keto are becoming more mainstream. But it also means we need to be even more vigilant than ever about reading ingredients and noting the serving size.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Thu, May-07-20, 06:59
thud123's Avatar
thud123 thud123 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,180
 
Plan: M-W-F ADF (2020 Q2)
Stats: 342.2/191/000 Male 182cm
BF:
Progress: 44%
Default

Back in the day when I charted out net carbs for vegetables I figured 3NC for 100g cucumber https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.ht...68409/nutrients

After knowing that, I know what 100g of pickles looks like

I could eat pickles all day, probably not cucumber. Likely the salt for me.

Keep Reading Those Labels for sure!
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Thu, May-07-20, 11:37
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 13,780
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/214/153 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Yup, son and I enjoyed dill pickles a couple weeks ago....serving size 3/4 of a pickle. And the slices varied a lot. The largest almost twice the smallest.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Thu, May-07-20, 13:15
Meme#1's Avatar
Meme#1 Meme#1 is online now
Posts: 12,317
 
Plan: Atkins DANDR
Stats: 210/188/160 Female 5'4"
BF:
Progress: 44%
Location: Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms Arielle
Yup, son and I enjoyed dill pickles a couple weeks ago....serving size 3/4 of a pickle. And the slices varied a lot. The largest almost twice the smallest.


Yes, it should have been listed at Per Ounce so you could weigh it instead of estimating.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Thu, May-07-20, 16:10
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 13,780
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/214/153 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

or per pound, lol.....
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Thu, May-07-20, 20:15
Verbena Verbena is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,020
 
Plan: My own
Stats: 186/155/150 Female 5'4"
BF:
Progress: 86%
Location: SW PNW
Default

Or per 100 grams. Makes it easy to compare from brand to brand, as with ounces & pounds, but also a gram is a smaller measurement, so can be more precise. WHY hasn't the US gone metric???
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Fri, May-08-20, 00:55
Grav Grav is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,252
 
Plan: Banting
Stats: 302/187/187 Male 175cm
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: New Zealand
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Verbena
Or per 100 grams. Makes it easy to compare from brand to brand, as with ounces & pounds, but also a gram is a smaller measurement, so can be more precise. WHY hasn't the US gone metric???

Well strictly speaking, it doesn't have to be grams. But some sort of consistent, objective measure that can be applied across all products would surely be beneficial for the consumer.

We have a column per 100g on our food labels in New Zealand. Same with Australia, South Africa and the UK. It made things so much easier for me when I started low carbing.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Fri, May-08-20, 06:25
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 13,780
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/214/153 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Grams are too small. With the rounding system allowed if the carb count is less than .5 it can be rounded to zero.

Can make too many foods seem like zero carbs and free to eat ad lib.

Better to list carbs for a higher amount of the product.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Fri, May-08-20, 07:04
Verbena Verbena is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,020
 
Plan: My own
Stats: 186/155/150 Female 5'4"
BF:
Progress: 86%
Location: SW PNW
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms Arielle
Grams are too small. With the rounding system allowed if the carb count is less than .5 it can be rounded to zero.

Can make too many foods seem like zero carbs and free to eat ad lib.

Better to list carbs for a higher amount of the product.


Like Grav stated, above, having a standard measure on every label of 100g is/would be extremely helpful. One gram is indeed too small, but 100 grams, across the board, makes a lot of sense to me.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Fri, May-08-20, 07:47
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 13,780
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/214/153 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Definitely, 100 grams far more useful than a small amount that can list carbs as zero when in reality it is not.

My point was that the companies play games with the "portion" size to list carbs in a deceptive manner. And all within legaleze.

In animal nutrition, the listings are consistant across all feed stuffs, and true to science, listed to minute amounts.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Fri, May-08-20, 10:48
thud123's Avatar
thud123 thud123 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,180
 
Plan: M-W-F ADF (2020 Q2)
Stats: 342.2/191/000 Male 182cm
BF:
Progress: 44%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grav
...We have a column per 100g on our food labels in New Zealand. Same with Australia, South Africa and the UK. It made things so much easier for me when I started low carbing.


We do as well. Not sure why why people don't use it. I'm a 100g guy. I recently did a little protein sheet using the same idea i did with vegetables a long time ago from this source:

https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/

Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Fri, May-08-20, 11:17
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 12,829
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/123/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 139%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thud123
Not sure why why people don't use it.


I did some internet wandering one night and wound up fascinated by the reviews of Nutra-System, which is a dehydrated food delivery service that figures out the portions and the calories. It's also pricey. Dehydrated hamburgers?!?

I was also baffled because anyone with a phone calculator could browse their way down the frozen food aisle and assemble the same thing; only cheaper and tastier.

Except they won't. Somehow, this simple task is beyond them. They will just cry online about how much they loved it and will do it again as soon as they have the money.

The psychology here suggests they think there's something magic about Nutra-System; or having spent so much money they won't cheat; or they are making excuses for falling off the wagon and aren't ready for the ONLY wagon they want to ride on.

Just to suggest that people sure need a lot more nudging to take action than they have gotten previously. There is no easy way to change the way you eat.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 23:45.


Copyright © 2000-2020 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.