RACCs - A few weeks ago, my Mom bought something that seemed to be the lowest in calories, but in fact was not. Last week I bought something that I thought was a low calorie food that did not in fact qualify as one. What is going on? Serving sizes in both cases, and the Reference Amount Customarily Consumed in the latter.
The incident with my M0m involves egg substitutes. She went to the store on my behalf and instead of just buying the brand "Egg Beaters" she looked for the egg substitute with the least calories (she loves me so much!). Now I had searched the brands long ago and already knew which was the lowest. She returned home with egg whites which had less calories. It took me some time to figure it out until I remembered what I am always complaining about...inconsistent serving sizes. What she bought was labeled as 3 Tbsp and what I buy is 1/4 cup. I later learned that the 3 Tbsp is about 46 grams and the 1/4 cup is 61 grams.
The second example is similar but what confused me was that a 60 calorie dessert cup (mousse) had a label statement, "not considered a low calorie food." I pondered on that for about a week. I recall that the reports I have recently read indicated that a small RACC was considered low in calories if it had 40 per serving. This indeed was a small RACC (an especially small one). I realized it mostly when I opened the package. It was VERY light and had no substance. I went back and compared it to the PUDDING cups that have 60 calories and boy buddy - was there a difference. The mousse, which I won't buy again, weighs 71 grams and the pudding weighs 106 grams.
The incident with my M0m involves egg substitutes. She went to the store on my behalf and instead of just buying the brand "Egg Beaters" she looked for the egg substitute with the least calories (she loves me so much!). Now I had searched the brands long ago and already knew which was the lowest. She returned home with egg whites which had less calories. It took me some time to figure it out until I remembered what I am always complaining about...inconsistent serving sizes. What she bought was labeled as 3 Tbsp and what I buy is 1/4 cup. I later learned that the 3 Tbsp is about 46 grams and the 1/4 cup is 61 grams.
The second example is similar but what confused me was that a 60 calorie dessert cup (mousse) had a label statement, "not considered a low calorie food." I pondered on that for about a week. I recall that the reports I have recently read indicated that a small RACC was considered low in calories if it had 40 per serving. This indeed was a small RACC (an especially small one). I realized it mostly when I opened the package. It was VERY light and had no substance. I went back and compared it to the PUDDING cups that have 60 calories and boy buddy - was there a difference. The mousse, which I won't buy again, weighs 71 grams and the pudding weighs 106 grams.
Fortification - I noticed a milk this week that had flax added to it. Really? Recall what the Dietary Guidelines and the IOM Front of Pack reports say - the nutrient that we need is best found in its natural source. Milk does not naturally contain flax!
Qualifiers- Though I have said this before, I feel compelled to reiterate. With regard to foods that are labeled all natural, natural or organic... There are either no standards, vague standards, lax standards and or no evidence to show that consuming foods with those labels is beneficial to your health. With regard to weight, there is absolutely no difference. It makes far more sense to review the labels for the amount of the short fall nutrients or foods/nutrients to limit as indicated by the Dietary Guidelines. Short fall meaning we need more - like fruits and vegetables and whole grains and well, limit is self explanatory but refers to saturated fat, sodium, calories and the like.
(LA - where ARE you?)
1 comment:
The first official odds and ends were found in lumberyards
Post a Comment