hat
Filly
Posts: 13 
|
Post by hat on Nov 5, 2012 13:20:19 GMT -5
Perhaps there could be links or a section which gives you an example of a label and how to read it. They are easy to read once you have the knowledge, but many people do not and it is not something you can really figure out without the readings.
I find this very useful in choosing foods. Often the 'lite' biscuits are only 100 kilojoules less than the regular, better tasting version.
|
|
|
|
Post by DarthAvarous on Nov 5, 2012 22:14:24 GMT -5
A fantastic idea. I will add this to the list of things to discuss. Might you be from somewhere in Europe? Only place I know of that uses kJ/kcal instead of Calories. Why can't the US get with the metric system!? No more conversion factors!
|
|
|
|
Post by skai on Nov 5, 2012 22:38:04 GMT -5
There is one thing to take into account when choosing between different kinds of foods. Even though the "light" version of a food looks like it's healthier through the nutrition facts by having lower fat calories and total calories in total, and/or less sugar/etc, it's not necessarily healthy for you.
A lot of those light foods take a lot of cuts to make it seem healthier than it is, which usually means taking out a lot of ingredients that are healthy for you. I don't have any examples off the top of my head, but I do remember finding an article about it. It's sort of like drinking diet drinks because they're "diet", when they're actually a lot worse than regular versions of themselves.
|
|
hat
Filly
Posts: 13
|
Post by hat on Nov 6, 2012 5:39:55 GMT -5
A fantastic idea. I will add this to the list of things to discuss. Might you be from somewhere in Europe? Only place I know of that uses kJ/kcal instead of Calories. Why can't the US get with the metric system!? No more conversion factors! I'm from Australia! Most things per 100 grams are 2000 kj, so it is pretty easy to work out the calories anyway (roughly divided by 4). There is one thing to take into account when choosing between different kinds of foods. Even though the "light" version of a food looks like it's healthier through the nutrition facts by having lower fat calories and total calories in total, and/or less sugar/etc, it's not necessarily healthy for you. A lot of those light foods take a lot of cuts to make it seem healthier than it is, which usually means taking out a lot of ingredients that are healthy for you. I don't have any examples off the top of my head, but I do remember finding an article about it. It's sort of like drinking diet drinks because they're "diet", when they're actually a lot worse than regular versions of themselves. That reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Krusty is trying to lose weight by drinking shakes all the time. Then someone asks him if they were the diet shakes... But, yes, it takes more than a white and green colour scheme to trick me. |
|
|
|
Post by Vaumer on Nov 9, 2012 2:56:30 GMT -5
A lot of those light foods take a lot of cuts to make it seem healthier than it is, which usually means taking out a lot of ingredients that are healthy for you. I don't have any examples off the top of my head, but I do remember finding an article about it. It's sort of like drinking diet drinks because they're "diet", when they're actually a lot worse than regular versions of themselves. Very true. It's like when you buy '0 Calorie' things or 'No Sugar', you've got to watch out for what the company had to do to keep out those out-of-fashion ingredients while still making the food taste the same. Plus, people can get it in their head that "Because it's healthy I can have more of it.". Which it why it's even worse when it turns out that what they were eating is just as bad, but in a different way. |
|
|
|
Post by deathmineral on Nov 9, 2012 3:13:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by DarthAvarous on Nov 9, 2012 16:46:22 GMT -5
And things that have less than 5 calories can be labeled as having 0 (like diet soda).
|
|
