4 ms·

What's with the confusing system? Maybe it's from growing up with it, but here in Europe the system makes a lot more sense: all foods specify the calories/ othe

What's with the confusing system? Maybe it's from growing up with it, but here in Europe the system makes a lot more sense: all foods specify the calories/ other food info per 100 grams. This makes it easy to compare different foods. Since the weight of the pack is also given in grams, it's really basic level math to figure out how many calories eating half a pack of something gives.

ComputerGuru 17y ago
I disagree. How many grams of Cereal did you just pour into that bowl? How many Chex Mix grams did you just chomp down? How many grams of Tang did you mix in with that water? Sure, using grams is great for comparison... But getting the average person to find out how many grams of xxx they just consumed, unless it is easily quantifiable as "all/half/quarter of the total amount" is pretty hard.
- niallsmart 17y ago
  I've lived in both US/Europe and believe the kcal/100g is an important part of the nutrition label for two reasons: 1) Calorific density is much more important then calories per portion. If the majority of your food intake is in the 300-500kcal/100g range then you are going to feel hungry more often, over consume and gain weight - the body's satiation feedback loop is calibrated for fresh, natural food (50-200kcal/100g) not doritos (500kcal+). Interestingly, natural foods outside the typical range are difficult to consume in large quantities (try eating 2000kcal of avocados or honey in one sitting). There's a good discussion of these issues in the Volumetrics book. 2) US "serving sizes" are completely artificial, to the point of being downright misleading. The food industry is essentially lying to consumers. Calorie density can't be spun.
- m_eiman 17y ago
  The best use of the "per 100g" version is that you can compare different brands of the same kind of food. If you're buying breakfast cereal the interesting question is which cereal suits you best, not if it contains more energy per 100g than butter (if it does, it's unlikely to be healthy).
  - ars 17y ago
    Except for water and fiber all cereals have almost exactly the same amount of calories per 100g. So really, all you should check for is the fiber content. (And it's physically impossible to make a cereal with more energy per 100g than butter.) To a good approximation ALL foods have about the same amount of calories per 100g. The only real difference is how much water. (And how much fat, but in normal food that doesn't vary so very much from food to food. Water varies a lot.) This system just encourages manufacturers to add water, (and salt) to their food. Much better would be "fiber per 100 [kilo]calories", "percent of calories from protein", and "percent - NOT number - of calories from fat".
tomjen2 17y ago
Because it is not the case, sadly. I am sitting here with a European 1.5L Coca Cola and it indeed lists Energy, Protein, Carbohydrates, fat, fibres and natrium in g pr 100ml (reasonable, since it is a liquid). But right under that it says "A portion contains" such and such amounts of sugar, etc relative to the recommended maximum daily allowance for a person. The problem is that it defines a portion size as 250ml, which is unlikely to be what people actually eat.

ComputerGuru 17y ago

I disagree. How many grams of Cereal did you just pour into that bowl? How many Chex Mix grams did you just chomp down? How many grams of Tang did you mix in with that water? Sure, using grams is great for comparison... But getting the average person to find out how many grams of xxx they just consumed, unless it is easily quantifiable as "all/half/quarter of the total amount" is pretty hard.

niallsmart 17y ago
I've lived in both US/Europe and believe the kcal/100g is an important part of the nutrition label for two reasons: 1) Calorific density is much more important then calories per portion. If the majority of your food intake is in the 300-500kcal/100g range then you are going to feel hungry more often, over consume and gain weight - the body's satiation feedback loop is calibrated for fresh, natural food (50-200kcal/100g) not doritos (500kcal+). Interestingly, natural foods outside the typical range are difficult to consume in large quantities (try eating 2000kcal of avocados or honey in one sitting). There's a good discussion of these issues in the Volumetrics book. 2) US "serving sizes" are completely artificial, to the point of being downright misleading. The food industry is essentially lying to consumers. Calorie density can't be spun.
m_eiman 17y ago
The best use of the "per 100g" version is that you can compare different brands of the same kind of food. If you're buying breakfast cereal the interesting question is which cereal suits you best, not if it contains more energy per 100g than butter (if it does, it's unlikely to be healthy).
- ars 17y ago
  Except for water and fiber all cereals have almost exactly the same amount of calories per 100g. So really, all you should check for is the fiber content. (And it's physically impossible to make a cereal with more energy per 100g than butter.) To a good approximation ALL foods have about the same amount of calories per 100g. The only real difference is how much water. (And how much fat, but in normal food that doesn't vary so very much from food to food. Water varies a lot.) This system just encourages manufacturers to add water, (and salt) to their food. Much better would be "fiber per 100 [kilo]calories", "percent of calories from protein", and "percent - NOT number - of calories from fat".

tomjen2 17y ago

Because it is not the case, sadly. I am sitting here with a European 1.5L Coca Cola and it indeed lists Energy, Protein, Carbohydrates, fat, fibres and natrium in g pr 100ml (reasonable, since it is a liquid). But right under that it says "A portion contains" such and such amounts of sugar, etc relative to the recommended maximum daily allowance for a person. The problem is that it defines a portion size as 250ml, which is unlikely to be what people actually eat.