General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Nutritional labels - why don't the numbers add up? Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
2008-06-20 11:55 PM

Extreme Veteran
428
10010010010025
Subject: Nutritional labels - why don't the numbers add up?

Here in NZ nutritional information on products needs to be displayed per serve and per 100g. However I notice the numbers never add up to 100g. Take this example of weetbix http://www.weetbix.com.au/weetbixfamily/weetbix-original.aspx

the minor numbers , the main sources of energy are 

Protein 12.4g

Fats 1.4g

Carbohydrate 67g

Then it adds up to 80.8g - not 100g. Does this mean the remainder of the weight is water?

The reason I ask is that dry foods like weetbix appear to have a high amount of carb in them, whereas more "wet" foods (e.g. tinned chickpeas) would have much lower numbers.

So if I'm right that the balance is mainly water then it's not so much the weight of the carb, protein, and fat thats important, but more of the relativity between them to see where the energy comes from.

Does that make sense?

Gerrard 

 

 

 




2008-06-21 12:02 PM
in reply to: #1479756

User image

Champion
23360
5000500050005000200010001001001002525
Taser-World
Subject: RE: Nutritional labels - why don't the numbers add up?
I'm not from NZ, so I'm not sure about why the numbers don't add to 100 g total.

However, in terms of energy (Calories):

1 gram of protein provides 4 Calories.
1 gram of carbohydrate provides 4 Calories.
1 gram of fat provides 9 Calories.

So, if you take the listed amounts:
Protein 12.4g x 4 Cals/g = 49.6 Calories
Fats 1.4g x 9 Cals/g = 12.6 Calories
Carbohydrate 67g x 4 Cals/g = 268 Calories

That comes out to a total of 330.2 Calories.

The label on the website lists the value as 356 Calories.

Hm, when I do it (in the US), my numbers usually come out closer than that.... I've never heard of Wheet-Bix, so I'm thinking this isn't a US product.

Do you have nutritional info for something like the Chickpeas? (I can get that info for a US label, but I'm curious to see if the NZ label has similar info.) Here are the US values (from the USDA nutrient database):

Chickpeas - 100 grams, canned:
Water: 69.69 g
Protein: 4.95 g
Fat: 1.14 g
Carbs: 22.61 g
Fiber: 4.4 g

So if I figure it out using the Caloric values above:
(4.95 x 4) + (1.14 x 9) + (22.61 x 4) = 120.5 Calories

And the USDA database lists the value as 119 Calories/100 grams. So that's pretty close to my calculated value.

If you want to play around with the USDA database, here's a link:
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/


2008-06-21 1:54 PM
in reply to: #1479982

Extreme Veteran
428
10010010010025
Subject: RE: Nutritional labels - why don't the numbers add up?

D001 - 2008-06-22 5:02 Here are the US values (from the USDA nutrient database): Chickpeas - 100 grams, canned: Water: 69.69 g Protein: 4.95 g Fat: 1.14 g Carbs: 22.61 g Fiber: 4.4 g

Ah ha - so water is what makes up the rest of the weight. So although canned chickpeas only contain 22.61g carb they would be considered a high carb food since there is so much water in there, and relatively much less protein, fat, and fibre?

And when I look up on that database a low fat yogurt it comes up with:

Carb 4.66g

Protein 3.47g

Fat 3.25g

Fibre 0g

So this would be considered a much more all round food (not so heavy in one area of another).

Thanks, I think that's helped me figure out how to make better use of nutritional labels.

Gerrard 

 

2008-06-21 8:49 PM
in reply to: #1480084

User image

Champion
23360
5000500050005000200010001001001002525
Taser-World
Subject: RE: Nutritional labels - why don't the numbers add up?
The amount of water doesn't affect it being a "high carb" or "low carb" food.

Chickpeas would be a high carb food simply because there are 22.6 grams of carbs per serving. And that's a high percentage. (22.6%)

Consider something like a hamburger. It has 61 g of water in it per 100 grams, which is similar to the amount of water in those chickpeas... But hamburger has ZERO grams of carbs in it. (0%) In other words, it's a LOW carb food.

The amount of water doesn't determine any other value (carb or fat or protein). When those values are given, they are direct measurements of the amount of carbs. Or fat. Or protein.

In the case of milk and dairy products, the carbohydrates probably are due to the presence of sugars such as lactose.

Carbohydrates are also known as "sugars" and "saccharides." So if you have a product with lots of sugar in it, it will probably also be a "high carb" food.

Chickpeas has a lot of carbohydrate, in the form of "plant starch." (Starch is a sugar/polysaccharide/carbohydrate.)

Hamburger, on the other hand, has no sugars in it.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Biochemistry.


Edited by D001 2008-06-21 8:53 PM
2008-06-24 11:44 AM
in reply to: #1479982

User image

Expert
1027
100025
Zürich, Switzerland
Subject: RE: Nutritional labels - why don't the numbers add up?

D001 - 2008-06-20 7:02 PM I'm not from NZ, so I'm not sure about why the numbers don't add to 100 g total. However, in terms of energy (Calories): 1 gram of protein provides 4 Calories. 1 gram of carbohydrate provides 4 Calories. 1 gram of fat provides 9 Calories. So, if you take the listed amounts: Protein 12.4g x 4 Cals/g = 49.6 Calories Fats 1.4g x 9 Cals/g = 12.6 Calories Carbohydrate 67g x 4 Cals/g = 268 Calories That comes out to a total of 330.2 Calories. The label on the website lists the value as 356 Calories. Hm, when I do it (in the US), my numbers usually come out closer than that.... I've never heard of Wheet-Bix, so I'm thinking this isn't a US product. Do you have nutritional info for something like the Chickpeas? (I can get that info for a US label, but I'm curious to see if the NZ label has similar info.) Here are the US values (from the USDA nutrient database): Chickpeas - 100 grams, canned: Water: 69.69 g Protein: 4.95 g Fat: 1.14 g Carbs: 22.61 g Fiber: 4.4 g So if I figure it out using the Caloric values above: (4.95 x 4) + (1.14 x 9) + (22.61 x 4) = 120.5 Calories And the USDA database lists the value as 119 Calories/100 grams. So that's pretty close to my calculated value. If you want to play around with the USDA database, here's a link: http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

The 4-4-9 model is in actuality an estimate.  For example, not all kinds of carbohydrates have exactly 4 calories/gram.  Some have less, some have more.  Same goes with proteins and fats. 

Some labels then can refer to exact values of calories/gram for each item, and does not round to the 4-4-9 model.

 

New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Nutritional labels - why don't the numbers add up? Rss Feed