basically all arosol’s do that as well, same for pam and just about every other spray, and yeah it’s shady as hell, it’s much like tictac’s are technically sugar free… in spite of being 90% sugar, because their serving size is 1 piece.
it’s shady as hell,
If you consume more than a calorie or two or maybe even a very few from that oil, you are doing it wrong.
1/4th of a second is already more than 2 calories. You’re really underestimating how much oil is used at a time. No one is using less that 1/4th second sprays
I’m glad that folks are in the comments factually educating others about this.
But truly sad that there’s this amount of … ignorance, particularly of the willful kind. I thought that was for the nazis, pedophiles, and their supporters.
Yeah, but what does a mental condition have anything to do with that?
Maybe the amount of calories and fat is too small for typical measuring methods to register anything above 1 given the serving size. Of course, I don’t know how anyone can spray for 1/4 of a second with any close to accurate.
No, in US labeling, it’s all a rounding scheme designed to hide the facts thanks to junk food lobbyists.
“amounts less than 5 calories may be expressed as zero.” [Within whatever arbitrary(!!!) serving size the company elects to use for their junk.] So they just pick a serving size that, for instance would be 4 (k)cal, and then call it zero across the board to suit their desire to obfuscate the truth.
Not to mention, what they call a calorie is really a kilocalorie.
5 calories is all but meaningless. There’s a small beetle on my window right now. Less than 5 calories.
In the calorie tracking world, there’s no difference in kcal and cal.
In civilized countries the nutrition facts need to be stated in both serving size and 100 grams. This makes it easier to compare products with different serving sizes and also prevents bullshit like this.
I just have to disagree. On a product like this, if the nutrition facts for 100g are listed, then you’re going to have to do the math re: how much you’re actually going to use. Having it measured out in a realistic serving size makes more sense to me.
There’s also pretty much no issue comparing products, as products in the same category usually all have the same serving sizes.
Cooking spray just happens to be used so sparingly that its nutritional value when used appropriately is usually negligible
the thing is that different people use different serving sizes. – written by somebody who pours lots of oil over salad.
Is .25g a realistic serving size to you?
Not for avocado oil.
Fentanyl though it’s probably too much.
If it’s in the form of a spray, and I’m spraying it onto the cooking surface rather than the food, then yeah. I’d probably spray for like 2 seconds and only a fraction of that would actually end up on the food.
I’d probably spray for like 2 seconds
I’d hate to break it to you, but that’s already 8 servings according to the label…
and only a fraction of that would actually end up on the food.
Further, if you’re cooking, you’re probably making more than one serving at a time. 2-4 servings in the pan, and only consuming a fraction of what was initially sprayed, 1/4-second spray per serving is about right.
Okay mister guy, with your logic and your facts. I see how it is
then you’re going to have to do the math
Why? It’s listed in both, so you know a spray is close to zero. If you’re using more than a couple or few sprays, you’re doing it wrong, so what’s even a few sprays? 5 calories?
Your measuring inaccuracy on other ingredients is going to be WILDLY more than the calories from the oil. Baking and spray the baking sheet? When you measured your flour, did you get it to the nearest TENTH of a gram? Because a gram of flour is like 3.5 calories, so if you were off by a single gram - or your scale doesn’t even show decigrams, then the rounding error is likely more calories than the oil you use that adds to each ‘serving’ of the thing you’re making.
So this is extremely unimportant.
Oh no! Imagine having to do extremely simple maths… It’s calculus, hardly maths at all.
The whole point is the “realistic serving size” is a myth. It’s like buying a bag of 30 sweets and having the serving size be 3 sweets. You know I’m going to eat the whole fucking bag in 1 go, so I would like to know the actual nutrition facts.
And like I said, usually both are on the packaging, but the 100 grams one is required by law.
Sorry, most people in the US can’t divide. The majority stop retaining around subtraction, and that’s giving the benefit of the doubt.
I know people who whip out the calculator for 9+13.
It’s not even that the labels are sometimes cryptic. Like sure I have 400g of cheese, but how many grams is a single slice? This information is not included on the brand I buy, nor the number of slices.
So I either have to weigh a slice of cheese or count out the number of slices. Then do the math.
In the US it simply says 1 slice is x calories.
I won’t understand this backwards sense of pride in shitty labeling.
Ideally nutritional facts would be given both per 100g and per some reasonable serving size (as well as clearly specifying the serving size), but if I can only have one give me 100g.
Note that while only the 100g figures are required by law, most products in Europe include the ones for serving size as well, so I’m not sure what shitty labeling people are supposedly prideful of.
Personally I would also like a section for figures per the entire package but that’s exceedingly rare.US labeling is perhaps more convenient more often, but it also frequently misleads/hides information from the consumer which I think is much worse.
I’m from the US, if I could read, I bet this post would upset me! 😅
How do they tip, then.
It’s written on the receipts. And when it isn’t, whip out the calculator.
Going to do the math an a number that relates to 100g, as in is pretty much stated in percentage?
then you’re going to have to do the math re: how much you’re actually going to use
Sure, you’re probably going to spray a couple seconds at the most, which would be like less than 30 kcal. Basically nothing that you’d really count, unless you’re on a super-strict diet.
But the problem is that it’s misleading. Uneducated shoppers might choose that brand specifically because “I’m on a diet”, instead of buying a cheaper non-spray version. And/or proceed to put a ton on their food, without realizing avocado oil is almost 900kcal/100g.
“usually all have the same” isn’t fully true either in my experience. Are you really going to eat just 1/3 of a candy bar? It says 100 calories in big letters, surely it’d be much healthier than the avocado oil bottle that says 120 calories per serving.
“Serving size” numbers are bullshit and should be banned.
Op said BOTH. No math needed.
That’s how it is stated in civilized countries. This is American bullshit. You wouldn’t get a serving size on something like oil either.
Yes, that is what they said.
Yeah, You’re right,I misread, my bad.
Wait, stop that. Now I look like a jerk.
No it’s not, oil does not have a “serving size”.
Thorry wrote both would be required, but when there is no “serving size” it would only be the 100g stated on the label.
Generally here (Denmark) we never see “serving size” because it’s bullshit, and probably considered misleading.
And misleading labeling and marketing is illegal.There is a point to having both - or at least giving an idea of how much an item typically weighs. One cookie might be 200g or 50g; people may typically reach for 1-5 cookies, for example.
A misleading serving size (eg “per 1/4 cookie”) is indeed not helpful at all, but I don’t think it’s illegal.
So many single-use packets which barely contain enough for half a meal, yet say “contains 2 servings” so they can halve all the numbers on the nutrition label. Yes, this is in america.
They had to stop doing this for drinks (at least). They now show the whole bottle contents and sometimes also servings for some sizes.
I don’t think a serving is supposed to be a meal. Pretty sure it’s talking about like, the food pyramid. It’s not a thing anymore but you gotta get a certain amount of grains and fruit and veg and dairy and you count the amounts by serving size.
Yeah but the serving sizes aren’t realistic
Serving size is generally speaking complete bullshit regardless. Per 100g is sufficient
Serving size has a lot of use cases, especially when looking at things individually packaged or in separate units (cookies for example).
Per 100g has fewer use cases in my mind as I’m not a scale and have no idea how to break down most products into 100g.
You do the other way around, you see the total weight of the thing, you guesstimate how much you are gonna eat and you do the math. Half of 500g is 250, so x2.5 whatever is on the 100g nutritional panel.
It’s not about when you would use the per 100g it’s about 100g being easy to be transformed into other units so you get an easy multiplier you can apply to the values.
I always used the 100g as percentage since the rest of the nutrients is also listed as g. So if there is 9g of protein per 100g, then i can just make an easy approximation for whatever the serving is.
If you are American it’s about 4oz, and if you want a visual with most foods that is roughly a cubic inch of food per ounce. It’s not exact but it’s close enough to understand when applied to stuff like oil and butter alongside cotton candy or dry crackers where the densities and amounts used dramatically differ.
So to hit my macros tonight I can treat myself to 7 cubic inches of pie. Got it.
the first time I saw a nutrition label like that was, I think, in Ireland. Absolutely blew my mind how staggeringly useful it was in comparing different foods since there’s that common quantity across all of them.
I really wish we had that in the US.
Same with tic-tacs claiming 0 sugar due to serving size.
One serving size seens to only 0.25 grams. It’s so small amount that those numbers makes perfectly sense. Don’t panic about calories. Focus more on sugars.
What doesn’t make sense is anyone pulling out a scale, accurate to that degree, to measure out 0.25g of oil. No one is realistically going to get 1532 serves out of that bottle. The serving suggestion may as well say “rubbing this on your face is 0 calories”, ok but if it’s used for salad or frying?
Most people are just going to see 0 cal, think it’s healthy and layer it into their food. As others have said, most countries having realistic servings and an easier to interpret per 100g/ml/whatever to prevent this sort of deliberate misrepresentation. Which stops companies dividing the product size by whatever number is needed to make it round to zero.
This is a spray oil though. You wouldn’t use it for salad or frying. You’d do a brief spray on a waffle iron or cookie sheet to stop stuff from sticking.
I agree 1500 servings seems like too many, but not wildly too many. I doubt I spray more than half a second of oil on a cookie sheet before dropping cookies on it. 800+ sprays seems perfectly reasonable. And at that scale, the actual amount of calories is a little immaterial.
No one is layering this into their food. Aerosol spray oil is more cooking tool than food you eat.
People wouldn’t use spray oil for frying? So you think half a second (which is double the vague 1/4 second serving size suggestion for this btw) is all you use every time, because I seriously doubt that.
800 is more reasonable? That’s almost halving the amount of servings in the bottle off the jump. I’m confused what your point is here. No one is using only .25g of this stuff or spraying it .25 of a second. You wouldn’t even be able to cover both sides of a waffle iron with .5 second spraying. This, again, obviously a way to misrepresent the nutritional information of the product.
Do you seriously look at 0g of fat for an oil product and think “oh yeah, this seems legit”? Regardless of its use it still end up on your food (especially for waffles…), more than 0.25g is going to be used in a given meal and 0cal is obviously bs. Wild to see people advocating for companies using deceptive nutritional information because “um well actually 0.25g is a really small amount” which is almost entirely beside the point.
Sure, it’s a misleading label, but lets not pretend anyone is gonna accidentally eat 100+ calories of it.
Let’s make a liberal estimate. Lest say it’s actually 3cal/serving as listed. Let’s say you spray it for 5s (way more than I’ve ever sprayed a bottle of PAM). That’s 60cal for the entire sheet pan of whatever it is you’re making. If you’re gonna eat the full sheet pan of cookies you are baking I hate to break it to you, but the 60cal of cooking spray probably isn’t moving the needle. And that’s the most liberal application I can think of.
Have you used aerosol cooking spray before? Are you using enough to make a puddle in your frying pan? Cause if so you’re using it wrong my guy.
The thing is that the serving size is fictional.
You must consider, the info here isn’t random, it’s legally required by the FDA or state regulator. They have to follow the guidelines for packaging labelling requirements precisely. When the serving size is very small, the numbers are misleading. But some manufacturers also use ridiculous serving sizes to fudge the numbers.
Thats why in Australia, they are required to publish two or three columns of data. Per Serving (which can be skipped if the item is clearly just one serving), per 100g (even if the whole thing is less than 100g net, it makes figureing out percentages easier) and per package.
I’m not going to eat 12 seperate portions over several days from this bag of chips just because it says that many on the bag. I know this. The manufacturer knows this. The regulator knows this. We all know I’m hoovering that bag clean in 20 minutes. So the manufacturer is forced to give me a number that is easily mathable so I can’t hide the damage, even from myself.
You’re correct, but the information they presented isn’t misleading - it’s straight up bullshit.
Well, what Agent641 left out is that manufacturers in the US are allowed to “round down” to 0 if the calories/amount per serving are below a certain threshold. So by claiming 1,532 serving, they can get away with saying the calories in each serving are tiny and write 0. Tick-tack uses this to claim 0 calories even though the are mainly sugar, simply by claiming a portion is 1 tick-tack. It’s just another ridiculous US regulation no one wants to fix.
It’s cooking spray.
It’s made with reversed-chirality molecules, which do not react in the digestive tract
A statement perfectly crafted to send professors of undergrad courses into a fit of violent rage.
Yep, they’ve turned what was intended to be informative into a selling vehicle.
They push calories as the only thing we need to consider or track then they pull shit like this.
I weep for our future. Kids in grade school right now are graduating barely able to read anything past the poorly spelled texts on their phones, let alone parse something so “complicated” as a nutritional label. Of course plenty of adults can’t manage it either, but it’s getting worse, is the point.
One thousand five hundred and thirty-two servings
tsst
If it was only 1500 then I think it would have rounded to one calorie.
The FDA let’s calories under 5 round down to 0
🎼 “525,600 servings - how do you measure a quarter-second spray?” 🎶 ~Rent, probably.
How about love?
This is why they are allowed to say Tic Tacs are zero calories as well. Absolute BS
So it doesn’t burn then right?
Reading comprehension is a skill one can acquire. Easily.
2.21 Kcal per gram.
spraying it for a full second would be about 10 kcal, and overkill for anything less than a massive steak or making a 6 egg omelette, in other words if you’re using that much you’re either doing it terribly wrong or it’s a rounding error compared to what your actually making.
So according to this it has 884 calories per 100g. So 1g has 8.84 calories, and 1/4 of that has 2.2 calories.
So they can’t even pretend to have rounded down to 0 from a fraction of a calorie. Apparently it’s also loaded with saturated fats. Which tracks since it’s, ya’know, oil.
It does have a considerable amount of saturated fat by volume, but it is more loaded with polyunsaturated fat proportionally speaking.
The FDA lets anything under 5 calories to be rounded down to 0. It’s a scam
Ah so if I just use a table spoon then is still 0! Free oil! (Don’t tell Americans.)
WTF. Like, sure, if you say “no decimal calories needed” it would make sense at the time, and could lead to this by accident. But that’s just silly.
What institution in your country ISN’T a piece of shit owned by Big Coconut Oil???
To be fair, caloric measurement is always an approximation. No two servings will ever have the exact same number of calories. Even if they did, different gut biomes will also feed on those macronutrients to different extents. Couple that with everyone having different metabolic rates, and 2 calories is indistinguishable from a rounding error.
And the guidance from the FDA reinforces this. The reason this panel shows 0 instead of 2 is not because anyone screwed up or is trying to mislead; it’s because any serving that provides less than 5 calories is supposed to be rounded to 0 per FDA regulation.
I could be wrong but I believe they can round to the nearest 5 calories.
That would do it. If that is in fact how the law works then they are technically correct, if disingenuous on the calories at least.
Yeah, unfortunately, if that’s a US label, that is how the regulations work. The FDA allows rounding to the nearest five. However, if it’s less than five, they allow you to round to 0.
(1) “Calories, total,” “Total calories,” or “Calories”: A statement of the caloric content per serving, expressed to the nearest 5-calorie increment up to and including 50 calories, and 10-calorie increment above 50 calories, except that amounts less than 5 calories may be expressed as zero. Energy content per serving may also be expressed in kilojoule units, added in parentheses immediately following the statement of the caloric content
that’s how ferrero’s tic-tacs are 0 calories on the label in the u.s… serving size is one mint, calories and sugar content both get rounded down to 0.
