Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nutrition Labels

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Nutrition Labels

    If someone could clear this up, I would appreciate it.

    This is a nutrition label for ground beef that is 90% lean and 10% fat. Based on the serving size of 100 g, it says there is 10 g of fat; 10/100 = 0.10 = 10%, simple enough. It also says that there is 20 g of protein. My question is; what constitutes the other 70 g? Also, it states that of the 176 calories, 90 of those are from fat, which is 51%.

    How does one actually interpret the values on the label?
    Attached Files

  • #2
    Originally posted by FRANK_KOVACIC View Post
    If someone could clear this up, I would appreciate it.

    This is a nutrition label for ground beef that is 90% lean and 10% fat. Based on the serving size of 100 g, it says there is 10 g of fat; 10/100 = 0.10 = 10%, simple enough. It also says that there is 20 g of protein. My question is; what constitutes the other 70 g? Also, it states that of the 176 calories, 90 of those are from fat, which is 51%.

    How does one actually interpret the values on the label?
    The other 70% is animal flesh, moisture, etc.

    Fat=9 cal per g. 10g of fat = 90 calories.

    90/10 doesn't mean 10% of the calories are fat, it just means it can't contain more than 10% by weight, of fat. So as illustrated above, that 10g of fat equal to 90 calories, means 51% of the calories are coming from fat.
    Last edited by Imprezivr6; 02-09-2015, 11:32 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Imprezivr6 View Post
      The other 70% is animal flesh, moisture, etc.

      Fat=9 cal per g. 10g of fat = 90 calories.

      90/10 doesn't mean 10% of the calories are fat, it just means it can't contain more than 10% by weight, of fat. So as illustrated above, that 10g of fat equal to 90 calories, means 51% of the calories are coming from fat.
      Interesting, thank you.

      Moisture/water I can understand, but does that mean that the animal flesh has no caloric/macronutrient values?

      I knew fat was 9 calories per gram; I don't know why I was too simple to put that together. It seems kind of unsettling that the majority of the calories in this case are coming from fat, despite being somewhat lean. Looking at it this way, lesser quality foods seem even more horrendous nutritionally.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by FRANK_KOVACIC View Post
        Interesting, thank you.

        Moisture/water I can understand, but does that mean that the animal flesh has no caloric/macronutrient values?

        I knew fat was 9 calories per gram; I don't know why I was too simple to put that together. It seems kind of unsettling that the majority of the calories in this case are coming from fat, despite being somewhat lean. Looking at it this way, lesser quality foods seem even more horrendous nutritionally.
        No problem.

        I'm not sure where the confusion is in regards to the total make up/weight though. When you eat a food it's weight is always more than the sum of its macros(oils are pretty much all fat though). Look at the macros of a lb of lettuce for example.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Imprezivr6 View Post
          I'm not sure where the confusion is in regards to the total make up/weight though.
          ..
          Attached Files

          Comment


          • #6
            Moisture/water as Imprez mentioned.

            Skip


            Facebook: Skip Hill
            Instagram: @intensemuscle
            YouTube: TEAMSKIP
            TikTok: @intensemuscle


            For Training Inquiries: [email protected]

            Use discount code "SKIP" and get your TEAM SKIP protein here: www.TrueNutrition.com/TEAMSKIPblend

            Comment


            • #7
              So then which is the better perspective to look at when planning meals; grams of fat or calories from fat? I know to a lot of people this has to be a "you've got to be kidding me" thread, but in the past I always looked at the labels and checked out the total calories and the amounts of the three macronutrients. I would wager a lot of people do the same. In the above ground beef example I considered something that had 20 g of protein and 10 g of fat to be fairly decent (obviously chicken and fish are better). But now it seems to me that eating something where the majority of calories are coming from fat sounds terrible.

              Comment


              • #8
                It really is going to depend on your diet structure and alloted/desired macros. It's kind of hard to answer. There's people who eat extremely low carb and by nature have a much bigger allotment of fat for example.

                If you have a protein/fat meal having a slightly fattier cut of meat might be doable.

                Or things like nuts, nut butters, oils etc would be mostly/purely fat and would be eaten as "fat sources" to fill your desired fat content. If you looked at something solely on % of fat these would look horrible on paper.

                Have you sat down and came up with a starting point in regards to calories/macros that you're trying to plan for?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Imprezivr6 View Post
                  It really is going to depend on your diet structure and alloted/desired macros. It's kind of hard to answer. There's people who eat extremely low carb and by nature have a much bigger allotment of fat for example.
                  Absolutely. I mostly mean in regards to overall health. To say "Hey, this only has 10 g of fat, great." When in actuality it's "Geez, more than half of these calories are from fat."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    It depends on the big picture more than anything. Imo

                    Something like pb is over 70% fat for example and not inherently unhealthy. Fat content in general doesn't necessarily make something healthy or unhealthy by default.

                    If your diet is structured in a way that it coincides with your opinion of what healthy is(people have different beliefs here) than it kind of self regulates. Ie if you believe a low fat diet is the best in terms of health there's only so much 80% ground beef you'd be able to consume as a viable protein source.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Imprezivr6 View Post
                      It depends on the big picture more than anything. Imo

                      Something like pb is over 70% fat for example and not inherently unhealthy. Fat content in general doesn't necessarily make something healthy or unhealthy by default.

                      If your diet is structured in a way that it coincides with your opinion of what healthy is(people have different beliefs here) than it kind of self regulates. Ie if you believe a low fat diet is the best in terms of health there's only so much 80% ground beef you'd be able to consume as a viable protein source.
                      I see what you're saying. Thanks for your replies.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X