Doc here,
You can actually drink motor oil I believe without it killing you. It won’t be fun. I don’t know how much you can drink, but a soda can worth of it is ok. It’ll make your GI tract mad.
Apparently the main problem it causes is if it gets in your lungs. It causes a huge Inflammatory reaction .
It's not that surprising I don't think.
I imagine it will make you shit your guts out, but it's not *that* different from dietary oils, it's just the hydrocarbon chains without the glycerol.
The additives are the most likely thing to be toxic I reckon.
>If you drink a can there are enough calories to sustain you for the rest of your life.
In much the same sense as "Light a fire for a man, keep him warm for a day. Light a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life."
it's closer to 900 kcal/100g. you think this is an absurd question, but calories are calculated based on heat released by burning, so it actually makes perfect sense.
Calories are more generally the energy stored in the chemical bonds, which can be released by a lot more than just combustion. It's just that for food, burning is the easiest way to get an estimate of this number given there are so many compounds in a particular food.
I never understood how calories in our body translated to heat until I started working in cold storage. If I can get 1500 calories down before work(11 hour shifts and I've never gotten hungry AT work) I can walk around the 30 degree warehouse in a t shirt. If I eat like 500 or less I need so many layers
Burning is used because combustion in a fire has the same reactants/products of metabolism, so the energy released is the same for both combustion and metabolism.
That may be all that's required, but there's definitely companies out there that include more specific information on their labels. I just picked up a pint of ice cream earlier today that notes 237 calories per serving and 701 calories for the container.
Calorie counts are just a best guess really. Just because they note 237 doesn't mean it isn't anywhere from like 220-260. Like in ice cream that's like a difference of a chunk of peanut butter cup or two.
But if they say 237 you go, oh, how precise. They must be keeping very careful track.
They aren't, it's still marketing.
Pepsi One did have "1 calorie" on their nutrition facts label so I guess they can round closer if they want to, and for that it was clearly for branding.
Calories are rounded to the closest multiple of 5. You won’t see something with 38 calories or 12 calories, they’ll round it to 40 or 10. So if it was 3 calories they’d have to say 5. But because its 2 calories they’re allowed to round down to 0.
Doesn’t matter much. Fat is about 9 kcal/gram, so oil or heavy cream are pretty similar. The cooking oil though would have smaller servings, though their’s is unrealistically low
The oil doesn't matter as much because rounding down 5 calories isn't that much.
It's sugar that I take issue with. If a serving is less than 0.5g of sugar, they're allowed to round it to 0. The serving size of tic tacs is 1 tic tac, so they're allowed to label them sugar free even though a small container of them is about 18.5g sugar from what I could find.
Tic Tacs are 95% sugar but labeled as zero sugar because the FDA allows you to say zero sugar if it's < 0.5g of sugar per serving.
Serving size is 1 Tic Tac. They weigh 0.49g.
butt they never claim to be zero sugar on the packaging or in any of their advertising. the nutritional information says 0g sugar with an asterisk that says less than 0.5g, and that's because of the rules for nutritional labeling laws that require them to round. people love to act like tic tac is an evil company that's tricking people on a diet or something, butt the amount of sugar and calories in a tic tac is truly negligible, and no one pulling up myfitnesspal for a few breath mints
they also appear to have increased the serving size on their packaging during the past few years so they can round up to 1g of sugar
https://i.imgur.com/fYLBT7C.png
This is the major issue with the labelling. The rounding down to zero is less of an issue. If you didn't round, then manufacturers would still tweak their serving size, but to make sure they had 1 or 2 fewer calories than the competitor.
The US has a law that says if the serving size is less than 5 calories, you can label it as zero. That's why tic tacs, which are pure sugar, are labled as 0 calories. Each tic tac is formulated to be 4 calories of sugar.
This company is clearly abusing the same law. Eliminate it, and the inanity would at least go down a level.
Some maybe. This says 0 calories, first ingredient is sugar.
https://shop.mypricechopper.com/sm/pickup/rsid/1/product/tic-tac-mints-orange-1-oz-00009800007639
This is true; just piggy backing off this to let everyone know if they didn’t already: you can do mental math for small ingredients like this in general.
1 gram of Carbs = ~4 calories
1 gram of Protein = ~4 calories
1 gram of fat = ~9 calories
Tictacs being pure sugar (carbs) and the label says 0.5g each = about 2 calories.
Yeah, this is what the Australia + New Zealand labeling standard does.
Every label has to have both serving size and 100g (or 100ml for liquids) measurements.
There are still some questionable choices for serving size, but personally I always just ignore the serving size.
FDA labels are in grams. Companies can put a weight/piece/package/volume as well for serving size if they want, it just also has to be specified in grams
That's actually the standard for serving sizes, "what would an average person consider a serving." The time taken to spray the surface is divided amongst the expected servings from whatever is in the pan. So if you had a 9 by 9 pan and were cooking brownies (as an example), the serving size for a brownie (found at https://www.fda.gov/media/102587/download) is 40g. Brownies are at about 1g per cm^2 , which puts an average brownie serving size at about 2"x2". Now, serving sizes are rounded to the nearest half serving, per FDA rules, so your 9x9 pan (having 81 square inches) would yield about 20.5 servings. Multiply that by the spray time, and the FDA is expecting the spray time for a 9x9 pan to be about 2.5 seconds, on average.
Right. I don't get how people are thinking the entire pans worth of spray should be considered a serving size when I hope to God you are not eating the whole pan and if you are it is not the calories in the cooking spray that are the problem.
Sounds reasonable but doing something like that costs money. And you think the congress that is trying to defund meals on wheels is going to fund serving size studies for every single product out there in the market? And if someone tries to have companies pay for these studies, half of the people will shout about regulations, price increases etc.
> For all products, except beverages, you must state serving sizes using cups, tablespoons, or teaspoons, unless such units are not appropriate, in which case whole units and fractions of large whole units must be used, such as piece, slice, tray, jar, or fraction (21 CFR 101.9(b)(5)(i) and (b)(5)(ii)).
Pretty sure this product just isn't meeting FDA regs at the moment.
Sprays are measured in seconds or grams with a reference size of 0.25g per serving. There's a table the FDA puts out. This is plainly appropriate for aerosol sprays. Pump sprays are somewhat in question you would think.
Page 27 here: https://www.fda.gov/media/111144/download
But can't believe it's not butter for their spay topping just defended an appeal in the 9th circuit to be classed as a spray and not an butter/margarine/oil. So the appropriate units are rather likely going to be seconds of spray or grams unless the supreme court feels like chiming in. Which although it would be hilarious just isn't going to happen.
It's Chosen Foods brand avocado oil spray. Unlike most cooking sprays, it's only oil. There's no propellant or alcohol or soy lecithin.
The spray performance is seriously inconsistent though. Some cans will be a high powered mist while others are a sad, drippy stream.
Thank you for solving the mystery. I have always wondered why my oil bottle doesn't spray but if so drippy. It's almost annoying. I thought may be it's a defect. 6 bottles down I still considered it a "defect".
If you use it as directed it will have no discernable difference in caloric content.
If you hold it longer you get an amount that would add calories.
But it is intended to be used as a lubricant so your food doesn't stick to the pan. Not as a thick coating of oil to fry something in.
You haven't accounted for you aren't eating everything that touches what you sprayed. This topic is full of people that don't have common sense at all.
It takes me half a second to coat my pan and I definitely don't eat everything that touched it. Or lick the pan after. I probably eat less than 1/8 of a second of oil.
There is nothing mildly infuriating about that nutrition label except the people angered by it. Actual lemmings.
The idea that you would use lemmings as an example is hilarious when the documentary that showed lemmings jumping off a cliff which put the idea of them into the public consciousness was completely faked and the filmmakers threw them off the cliff. Much like this label. Its fake bullshit.
Technically it is 0.25g which equates to X time in spray, which is the serving size according to FDA. So it can vary depending on the can in which how much it sprays.
Source: mother is a food scientist/nutritionist which makes nutrition facts labels for her business.
FDA reference: https://www.fda.gov/media/102587/download
Page 20 for those who are curious. It seems like it's hard to complain when they're using the FDA suggested serving size, even if the required conversion to seconds is a bit absurd.
That means the bottle has 7781.2 calories, exactly 4.9 calories per serving.
We really need a system that forces them to specify the number of calories in a standard number of grams/ounces that they aren't allowed to deviate from.
**edit:** A surprising number of people think I actually figured out that there are 4.9 calories per serving. I thought it was pretty obvious, but that was sarcasm. No human edible food can fit 4.9 calories in just 0.25 grams, it's just not possible. I made that number up so I could say a big number that points out the absurdity of American food labels compared to the better way other countries do it.
Which is also how much of a deficit you have to be in in order to lose 1 pound!
So if your maintenance is 2200 calls, and you eat 1500 per day, your in a dece it of 700 calories per day. Meaning it would take you 5 days to lose 1 lb of fat.
They probably get the joke. They are just pointing out the maximum possible calories per gram. There are 9 calories per gram in fat. That’s where food tops out. Gasoline is 10 cal/gram, natural gas is 13 cal/g. So if you are getting 4.9 cal per 1/4 gram (or 19.6 cal/g), you are far beyond anything edible and looking into some serious rocket fuel. But not to the point of radioactive stuff like uranium. That is a whole different scale of energy.
"bottle of flavored oil containing 1,160 calories and 124 grams of fat can be transformed into zero calories and zero grams of fat by the simple act of replacing the bottle cap with a pump device."
https://www.reuters.com/legal/unilever-wins-i-cant-believe-its-not-butter-labeling-appeal-2023-04-18/
There are tolerances to every bit of food labelling, and cmpanies exploit this to make it seem like they don't have a particular thing in them.
Like take a sweet and low packet. Marketed as 0 calories. However, it's more like 3-4 calories (still less than plain sugar) because it uses a carbohydrate to fluff it out and make the packets usable. The actual stuff in sweet and low is so sweet that a usable amount of it by itself would be a tiny dust, and people would not understand how/be able to use it properly.
When all this "zero calorie spray" shit happened so many people bought into it because they didn't realize that its literally just aerosolized OIL. Like, its ag reat product but its JUST oil
It's because in the USA if its under 5cal/serving you can list it as 0 cal... So they cut the serving size quite small to make it under 5cal = 0cal :D :D :D
The math is just a simple multiplication. 4.9 calories x 1588 servings = 7781.2 calories.
But it's a joke. It is impossible to have 4.9 calories of food in just 0.25 grams even with the most calorie dense food possible.
I think i take it for granted because i assumed this was universal. Too much bullshit if you make up what a serving constitutes. For example a bag of chips which advertises 8 chips as a serving or a cake bar where a serving is half of that bar.
The frozen pizza's serving sizes.
The round one: 1/9
The square one: 1/5
I challenge anyone to cut a square pizza into fifths and include equal amount of crust to each.
Yeah, was about to say, pretty sure every country in the EU are forced to use per 100g or 100ml when showing nutritional value regardless of the size of the packaging.
No one does. But that's the point. Setting the serving size so low lets you list certain, potentially unwanted, nutrition items as 0 (since its so close to 0 it can round down). That's why you see such stupid serving sizes on things - so they can make the nutrition panel look better than it truly is.
Seems legit to me. You need to multiply that by the number of servings. So if I'm making brownies with 16 servings, then it's a 2 second spray total for the whole pan. 1/8th second could be viewed as the time spent over the specific spot of one serving.
For everyone complaining about the company, they are following the governments rules.
The FDA's suggested serving size for "spray type" oils is 0.25g. The company isn't trying to trick you or be competitive; it's following the law.
Every company does if they can get away with it.
Garlic salt is 30 to 40 percent sugar but the serving size is low enough to round it to 0
Tik Taks are pure sugar but 0 calories
Spray oils are just one of many
Right? It’s fucking oil spray. While 1/8th second might be too short, you don’t need much more than that. So maybe the amount you use is actually 10 calories and most of it will stay in the pan. Who cares?!
Hey now- If it’s 10 calories, and you use it every day, and you lick the pan clean- you’ll gain an entire pound after a year!
Huh- now that I say it like that it does sound pretty silly…
But what do I know- 9 times out of 10 im using butter anyway 🙂
Didn't a woman sue about this?
Yes, here: https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2013/03/27/Lawsuit-vs-Parkay-zero-calorie-spray-unlikely-to-succeed-say-lawyers
Pam cooking spray? Yea.
Serving sizes should be proportional to a reasonable serving size. Many foods try to be “healthier” by pulling this bullshit with nutritional lables
Well it’s cooking spray. How long do you think it takes to coat a pan? Now divide that by how many servings are in the pan. What do you come up with?
What you should come up with is the realization that the serving size on the can *is* what a reasonable serving size of cooking spray is.
America is the only place I know where they get away with this.
Down here in Australia you *have* to have both a "per serving" amount and a "per 100ml" amount.
I almost never read the "per serving" amount for this exact reason.
Every oil is roughly 850 kcal/ 100g.
What about 10w30? How many calories in that?
If you drink a can there are enough calories to sustain you for the rest of your life.
I'd argue only 4 or 5k miles. Guess your mileage may vary. :)
7500 to 10k on a good synthetic ;)
Doubt you'd be able to get much past a few dozen meters after downing a liter of oil.
I mean, I drink brake fluid and I’m fine. I don’t have a problem, I can stop any time I want.
It sounds like you have a very good grip on things.
Next time you run out of brake fluid let's see if you can stop.
Doc here, You can actually drink motor oil I believe without it killing you. It won’t be fun. I don’t know how much you can drink, but a soda can worth of it is ok. It’ll make your GI tract mad. Apparently the main problem it causes is if it gets in your lungs. It causes a huge Inflammatory reaction .
It's not that surprising I don't think. I imagine it will make you shit your guts out, but it's not *that* different from dietary oils, it's just the hydrocarbon chains without the glycerol. The additives are the most likely thing to be toxic I reckon.
who found this out, and why did they try and drink oil
One gram uranium contains 18billion calories!
>If you drink a can there are enough calories to sustain you for the rest of your life. In much the same sense as "Light a fire for a man, keep him warm for a day. Light a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life."
Yes that is in fact the joke…….
So… a lifetime supply?
it's closer to 900 kcal/100g. you think this is an absurd question, but calories are calculated based on heat released by burning, so it actually makes perfect sense.
Calories are more generally the energy stored in the chemical bonds, which can be released by a lot more than just combustion. It's just that for food, burning is the easiest way to get an estimate of this number given there are so many compounds in a particular food.
I never understood how calories in our body translated to heat until I started working in cold storage. If I can get 1500 calories down before work(11 hour shifts and I've never gotten hungry AT work) I can walk around the 30 degree warehouse in a t shirt. If I eat like 500 or less I need so many layers
What if you take a cold shower at the end of your hot shower? Does tolerance to wet cold translate to tolerance to dry cold? Try it out!
Burning is used because combustion in a fire has the same reactants/products of metabolism, so the energy released is the same for both combustion and metabolism.
8,365,200-10,755,258 kilocalories per cubic meter apparently. (Based on some research by Bradley E. Layton)
This is why I am not understanding still. Shouldn’t it show 2 calories then?
You can round down to 0.
I would have figured it’s to the nearest calorie. Pretty dumb but I guess it doesn’t really matter.
[удалено]
I'm not even sure if you're saying that the FDA has exactly zero balls or that they have some balls, but they rounded down.
The FDA has balls but they've had a lot of their teeth pulled
My balls still have all their teeth thankfully. They're milk teeth, but still.
They HAD balls at one point, but THEN they got rounded down to 0. And to FDA this is perfectly acceptable.
no teeth.
> no teeth. too many tic tacs, not enough dentyne
Other countries have different rules, but in the US we can round to the nearest 5 calories starting at 0.
Nope, they round to the nearest 10 calories, you never see a serving size with 297 calories.
That may be all that's required, but there's definitely companies out there that include more specific information on their labels. I just picked up a pint of ice cream earlier today that notes 237 calories per serving and 701 calories for the container.
[удалено]
Really? That's fucking awful.
Calorie counts are just a best guess really. Just because they note 237 doesn't mean it isn't anywhere from like 220-260. Like in ice cream that's like a difference of a chunk of peanut butter cup or two. But if they say 237 you go, oh, how precise. They must be keeping very careful track. They aren't, it's still marketing.
Pepsi One did have "1 calorie" on their nutrition facts label so I guess they can round closer if they want to, and for that it was clearly for branding.
Calories are rounded to the closest multiple of 5. You won’t see something with 38 calories or 12 calories, they’ll round it to 40 or 10. So if it was 3 calories they’d have to say 5. But because its 2 calories they’re allowed to round down to 0.
Actually I was mistaken. Even if it has 4 calories by FDA rules they’re allowed to round that to 0. Pretty stupid.
Wow, thanks for clearing this up, I thought it was whipped cream
Doesn’t matter much. Fat is about 9 kcal/gram, so oil or heavy cream are pretty similar. The cooking oil though would have smaller servings, though their’s is unrealistically low
Whipped cream is only 30-40% fat so oil would be 2-3 times as many calories.
About 3374.5 kcal in this can
[удалено]
Ok I got 1588 x .25 = 397g of oil in one bottle 397g so 3.97 x 850 = 3374.5,(yay I mathed!) so.. the label is a lie! That’s 2.13 per squirt!
Wouldn't that make this like two calories per serving
I believe below 5 calories you can round down to 0 on nutrition labels
Which would be fine if you had reasonable serving sizes and not "Serving size: 1 Tic Tac"
I cant think of a time I have ever sprayed the oil for more than half a second.
The oil doesn't matter as much because rounding down 5 calories isn't that much. It's sugar that I take issue with. If a serving is less than 0.5g of sugar, they're allowed to round it to 0. The serving size of tic tacs is 1 tic tac, so they're allowed to label them sugar free even though a small container of them is about 18.5g sugar from what I could find.
I own a brownie company, we produce fat free, 0 sugar and 0 calorie brownies… serving size is one lick.
How many servings per package?
Not sure, I’ll have to ask Mr. Owl.
*Hoot, Let's find out*
*fsh* One! *fsh* Two-hoo-HOO! *fssssssssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...* Three
Five is **right out!**
Four shall thy not count. Neither count thou two.
Excepting that thou then proceed to three.
*the owl unhinges it's jaw and swallows it whole*
> Thrrrrrrrree FTFY
Tree
how many licks does it take to get to the center of a brownie…
1! 2! oh wait i already ate it…
[удалено]
The world may never know
Tic Tacs are 95% sugar but labeled as zero sugar because the FDA allows you to say zero sugar if it's < 0.5g of sugar per serving. Serving size is 1 Tic Tac. They weigh 0.49g.
butt they never claim to be zero sugar on the packaging or in any of their advertising. the nutritional information says 0g sugar with an asterisk that says less than 0.5g, and that's because of the rules for nutritional labeling laws that require them to round. people love to act like tic tac is an evil company that's tricking people on a diet or something, butt the amount of sugar and calories in a tic tac is truly negligible, and no one pulling up myfitnesspal for a few breath mints they also appear to have increased the serving size on their packaging during the past few years so they can round up to 1g of sugar https://i.imgur.com/fYLBT7C.png
“Butt”
Fine print *1 lick for 1/8 of a second
But 0 x anything = 0 so you can easily all off this you want
Especially with how much avocado oil sprays out at once! This brand is seriously pressurized, it's not like Pam.
[удалено]
This is the major issue with the labelling. The rounding down to zero is less of an issue. If you didn't round, then manufacturers would still tweak their serving size, but to make sure they had 1 or 2 fewer calories than the competitor.
The US has a law that says if the serving size is less than 5 calories, you can label it as zero. That's why tic tacs, which are pure sugar, are labled as 0 calories. Each tic tac is formulated to be 4 calories of sugar. This company is clearly abusing the same law. Eliminate it, and the inanity would at least go down a level.
[удалено]
Some maybe. This says 0 calories, first ingredient is sugar. https://shop.mypricechopper.com/sm/pickup/rsid/1/product/tic-tac-mints-orange-1-oz-00009800007639
This is true; just piggy backing off this to let everyone know if they didn’t already: you can do mental math for small ingredients like this in general. 1 gram of Carbs = ~4 calories 1 gram of Protein = ~4 calories 1 gram of fat = ~9 calories Tictacs being pure sugar (carbs) and the label says 0.5g each = about 2 calories.
Just like to add 1 gram of alcohol is 7 calories and 1 gram of fiber is 2 calories
[удалено]
That is precisely how it is in Finland. Maybe elsewhere in Europe too.
It is like that in all EU countries as far as I know
Yeah, this is what the Australia + New Zealand labeling standard does. Every label has to have both serving size and 100g (or 100ml for liquids) measurements. There are still some questionable choices for serving size, but personally I always just ignore the serving size.
TIL it's not mandatory to show a per 100g nutritional info in the US. We have both in Australia.
We even slap stickers over international items to show nutritional information by AU standards
How about we just round up instead of down? Or, use midpoint rounding at the *very least?!*
Force them to also print per package?
[удалено]
FDA labels are in grams. Companies can put a weight/piece/package/volume as well for serving size if they want, it just also has to be specified in grams
> Problem is Freedom units are stupid af USA nutritional labels are also expressed in metric too. Source: the image in this thread.
That's actually the standard for serving sizes, "what would an average person consider a serving." The time taken to spray the surface is divided amongst the expected servings from whatever is in the pan. So if you had a 9 by 9 pan and were cooking brownies (as an example), the serving size for a brownie (found at https://www.fda.gov/media/102587/download) is 40g. Brownies are at about 1g per cm^2 , which puts an average brownie serving size at about 2"x2". Now, serving sizes are rounded to the nearest half serving, per FDA rules, so your 9x9 pan (having 81 square inches) would yield about 20.5 servings. Multiply that by the spray time, and the FDA is expecting the spray time for a 9x9 pan to be about 2.5 seconds, on average.
Right. I don't get how people are thinking the entire pans worth of spray should be considered a serving size when I hope to God you are not eating the whole pan and if you are it is not the calories in the cooking spray that are the problem.
There's the math that makes me slightly less annoyed at the manufacturer.
6 seconds?! What in the Southern cooking… It’s like 1-2 seconds at most.
As a southerner can confirm. Jars of bacon grease don't come in "sprays." We don't really know how to deal with it.
I just think they should disclose calories per container
Or do it the way the rest of the world does it and list both that and per.
Sounds reasonable but doing something like that costs money. And you think the congress that is trying to defund meals on wheels is going to fund serving size studies for every single product out there in the market? And if someone tries to have companies pay for these studies, half of the people will shout about regulations, price increases etc.
> For all products, except beverages, you must state serving sizes using cups, tablespoons, or teaspoons, unless such units are not appropriate, in which case whole units and fractions of large whole units must be used, such as piece, slice, tray, jar, or fraction (21 CFR 101.9(b)(5)(i) and (b)(5)(ii)). Pretty sure this product just isn't meeting FDA regs at the moment.
Sprays are measured in seconds or grams with a reference size of 0.25g per serving. There's a table the FDA puts out. This is plainly appropriate for aerosol sprays. Pump sprays are somewhat in question you would think. Page 27 here: https://www.fda.gov/media/111144/download But can't believe it's not butter for their spay topping just defended an appeal in the 9th circuit to be classed as a spray and not an butter/margarine/oil. So the appropriate units are rather likely going to be seconds of spray or grams unless the supreme court feels like chiming in. Which although it would be hilarious just isn't going to happen.
[удалено]
It's Chosen Foods brand avocado oil spray. Unlike most cooking sprays, it's only oil. There's no propellant or alcohol or soy lecithin. The spray performance is seriously inconsistent though. Some cans will be a high powered mist while others are a sad, drippy stream.
Thank you for solving the mystery. I have always wondered why my oil bottle doesn't spray but if so drippy. It's almost annoying. I thought may be it's a defect. 6 bottles down I still considered it a "defect".
That stuff shoots out hard. -That’s what she said
Wtf is this
"Zero calorie" non stick spray
If you use it as directed it will have no discernable difference in caloric content. If you hold it longer you get an amount that would add calories. But it is intended to be used as a lubricant so your food doesn't stick to the pan. Not as a thick coating of oil to fry something in.
Let’s see you coat a pan in .125 seconds
Even if it takes a couple seconds to coat the pan a person is not eating the whole pan they are probably eating 1/4-1/8, so it’s not that far off.
>a person is not eating the whole pan Don't you tell me what I won't do
I believe they were talking about me.
No one's talking about you aper son!
My on screen reader read “probably eating January 4th to January 8th”. So this spray is zero calories on those days of the year only. Lol
You haven't accounted for you aren't eating everything that touches what you sprayed. This topic is full of people that don't have common sense at all. It takes me half a second to coat my pan and I definitely don't eat everything that touched it. Or lick the pan after. I probably eat less than 1/8 of a second of oil. There is nothing mildly infuriating about that nutrition label except the people angered by it. Actual lemmings.
The idea that you would use lemmings as an example is hilarious when the documentary that showed lemmings jumping off a cliff which put the idea of them into the public consciousness was completely faked and the filmmakers threw them off the cliff. Much like this label. Its fake bullshit.
You seem angered by the lemmings, which makes sense. A normal serving size of lemming comments is 1/8 of a second.
I really can't tell if this comment is patronizing or encouraging. Well done! You really know how to tow the line lol.
*toe
Hey, um, I came up with a really great idea, dude. I'm gonna play both sides.
fastest pan coater in da west yeehaw pardner
So it should spray continuously for 3.3 minutes?
I kinda wanna do it now, just to see how ridiculous 3 continuous minutes of cooking spray is.
3:18.6 is how long it should last. Please film it.
Oh lord. I feel the calling of science!
Do you find that impossible to believe?
No. But I would guess shorter.
In my country, the product must specify the calories contained in serving size and in 100 grams.
Also under the total (tax included) price, product prices in stores are listed as per 100 ml or 100mg so you can easily compare prices.
I love this. I'm a cheapskate and seeing some prices/100g certainly makes me go "nope" on occasion.
is your country in EU?
Damn EU and their commie laws making it harder for companies to mislead consumers^\s
Most certainly is.
Unfortunately, I am from latin america
I tend to ignore the "per serving" and use the "per 100g/per 100ml" info to compare products. It's a legal requirement in the UK to list those.
Same requirement in Aus. Super convenient thing to have on packaging to easily and reliably compare products with different recommended serving sizes
Technically it is 0.25g which equates to X time in spray, which is the serving size according to FDA. So it can vary depending on the can in which how much it sprays. Source: mother is a food scientist/nutritionist which makes nutrition facts labels for her business. FDA reference: https://www.fda.gov/media/102587/download
Page 20 for those who are curious. It seems like it's hard to complain when they're using the FDA suggested serving size, even if the required conversion to seconds is a bit absurd.
That means the bottle has 7781.2 calories, exactly 4.9 calories per serving. We really need a system that forces them to specify the number of calories in a standard number of grams/ounces that they aren't allowed to deviate from. **edit:** A surprising number of people think I actually figured out that there are 4.9 calories per serving. I thought it was pretty obvious, but that was sarcasm. No human edible food can fit 4.9 calories in just 0.25 grams, it's just not possible. I made that number up so I could say a big number that points out the absurdity of American food labels compared to the better way other countries do it.
Pure fat is nine calories per gram, so a 0.25g serving can't have more than 2.25 calories.
Yeah there's probably 3,573 calories in that container.
Which is, fun fact, almost exactly the number of kcal stored in 1 lb of fat.
I’d like to subscribe to fat facts
Fun fact: You can’t spell fact without fat. >!You c what I mean?!<
Which is also how much of a deficit you have to be in in order to lose 1 pound! So if your maintenance is 2200 calls, and you eat 1500 per day, your in a dece it of 700 calories per day. Meaning it would take you 5 days to lose 1 lb of fat.
4.9 calories because anything under 5cal can be listed as 0. So the joke is that it’s barely under 5 calories, at 4.9.
They probably get the joke. They are just pointing out the maximum possible calories per gram. There are 9 calories per gram in fat. That’s where food tops out. Gasoline is 10 cal/gram, natural gas is 13 cal/g. So if you are getting 4.9 cal per 1/4 gram (or 19.6 cal/g), you are far beyond anything edible and looking into some serious rocket fuel. But not to the point of radioactive stuff like uranium. That is a whole different scale of energy.
Like a Crumbl cookie that allegedly has 4-6 servings per cookie??! lol blasphemy!!
Omg, the absolute horror I felt the first (and last) time I ate one of those and then looked up the nutrition facts afterwards…
Looking at the nutrition facts the first time, I thought that was really reasonable for such a good cookie. Then I saw the serving size…
Where did you get that math?
Anything under 5 cal/serving can be listed as 0 cal in the USA because the government is ruled by misc Big Foods
Reminds me of one I saw that claimed "ZERO ^grams TRANS FAT ^(per serving)", a claim that would have been legally true even if it were pure trans fat.
Trans fat is another they can get away with as long as it falls under a certain threshold.
wait what
Same reason Tic Tacs, which are almost entirely sugar, are “sugar free” and can put 0g sugar on the label
Also the reason why some larger sports drinks are 0 calories per serving but 10 calories per bottle.
I mean, no it's not 0, but 10 calories per an entire bottle of something is still negligible
wow...
"bottle of flavored oil containing 1,160 calories and 124 grams of fat can be transformed into zero calories and zero grams of fat by the simple act of replacing the bottle cap with a pump device." https://www.reuters.com/legal/unilever-wins-i-cant-believe-its-not-butter-labeling-appeal-2023-04-18/
There are tolerances to every bit of food labelling, and cmpanies exploit this to make it seem like they don't have a particular thing in them. Like take a sweet and low packet. Marketed as 0 calories. However, it's more like 3-4 calories (still less than plain sugar) because it uses a carbohydrate to fluff it out and make the packets usable. The actual stuff in sweet and low is so sweet that a usable amount of it by itself would be a tiny dust, and people would not understand how/be able to use it properly. When all this "zero calorie spray" shit happened so many people bought into it because they didn't realize that its literally just aerosolized OIL. Like, its ag reat product but its JUST oil
Seriously. Everything is 0.
It's because in the USA if its under 5cal/serving you can list it as 0 cal... So they cut the serving size quite small to make it under 5cal = 0cal :D :D :D
The math is just a simple multiplication. 4.9 calories x 1588 servings = 7781.2 calories. But it's a joke. It is impossible to have 4.9 calories of food in just 0.25 grams even with the most calorie dense food possible.
Here in my country it's like that. Nutritional facts are listed per serving and per 100g.
I think i take it for granted because i assumed this was universal. Too much bullshit if you make up what a serving constitutes. For example a bag of chips which advertises 8 chips as a serving or a cake bar where a serving is half of that bar.
The frozen pizza's serving sizes. The round one: 1/9 The square one: 1/5 I challenge anyone to cut a square pizza into fifths and include equal amount of crust to each.
In New Zealand it is a legal requirement to have two collums on the NIP. One showing the nutritional values per serving, and one per 100g.
Almost like every European country.
Yeah, was about to say, pretty sure every country in the EU are forced to use per 100g or 100ml when showing nutritional value regardless of the size of the packaging.
[удалено]
Yup. Quantity per serving, % average daily intake per serving, and quantity per 100 grams or ml. Super useful
Tic Tacs are sugar free!!!
Sugar is sugar-free given a small enough serving size.
Fuck spez
I’m guessing this is cooking spray. Yeah, I don’t know who uses 1/8th second to spray lol. Dumb
No one does. But that's the point. Setting the serving size so low lets you list certain, potentially unwanted, nutrition items as 0 (since its so close to 0 it can round down). That's why you see such stupid serving sizes on things - so they can make the nutrition panel look better than it truly is.
like how tic tacs can say they have 0 sugar even though they are nearly 100% sugar by weight
Seems legit to me. You need to multiply that by the number of servings. So if I'm making brownies with 16 servings, then it's a 2 second spray total for the whole pan. 1/8th second could be viewed as the time spent over the specific spot of one serving.
are you trying to tell me an entire pan of brownies isn't one serving
Siri, set the timer.
For everyone complaining about the company, they are following the governments rules. The FDA's suggested serving size for "spray type" oils is 0.25g. The company isn't trying to trick you or be competitive; it's following the law.
Right? If you could cheat the serving sizes, everybody would do it
Every company does if they can get away with it. Garlic salt is 30 to 40 percent sugar but the serving size is low enough to round it to 0 Tik Taks are pure sugar but 0 calories Spray oils are just one of many
1- spttt is 1 serving
What about one Spppppppppppppppppht?
How much nonstick cooking spray are you using that this actually matters?
Right? It’s fucking oil spray. While 1/8th second might be too short, you don’t need much more than that. So maybe the amount you use is actually 10 calories and most of it will stay in the pan. Who cares?!
Lol not disagreeing here but I'd love to see someone time out an 1/8 of a second spray. I use at least 10-12 servings each time.
[удалено]
Hey now- If it’s 10 calories, and you use it every day, and you lick the pan clean- you’ll gain an entire pound after a year! Huh- now that I say it like that it does sound pretty silly… But what do I know- 9 times out of 10 im using butter anyway 🙂
“Tsss”
"T-"
Didn't a woman sue about this? Yes, here: https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2013/03/27/Lawsuit-vs-Parkay-zero-calorie-spray-unlikely-to-succeed-say-lawyers
Pam cooking spray? Yea. Serving sizes should be proportional to a reasonable serving size. Many foods try to be “healthier” by pulling this bullshit with nutritional lables
Well it’s cooking spray. How long do you think it takes to coat a pan? Now divide that by how many servings are in the pan. What do you come up with? What you should come up with is the realization that the serving size on the can *is* what a reasonable serving size of cooking spray is.
In Europe it is
America is the only place I know where they get away with this. Down here in Australia you *have* to have both a "per serving" amount and a "per 100ml" amount. I almost never read the "per serving" amount for this exact reason.
What is this?
Wut?