Nutritional information slow burn food

kookai9

The supermarkets cant seem to get the right Nutritional info on their products ;Not only have tesco recently upped the price on their coco while reducing the package size, under their rebrand the 100g info part is different on the old & the new one too
Now looking at Asdas Great scot peas ;they are showing 105kcals as the anount per 100 grams ,yet other brands are showin oer 300 ,which would be consistent with all my yrs experience.I have seen this with many other products too
Imagine if , l offered you some coffee cake,now heres 3 times less than you were expecting ,thats essentially what this product info is stating.

jenniewb

Its not unheard of for supermarkets to get nutritional information wrong. I think its still on some of the M&S ready cooked chicken (it was a year or so ago but its so rare I shop there I can't vouch for it) they had three flavors of the ready cooked chicken, 130g a pack.
Plain chicken had 150kcals per 100g but 130kcals per pack.
BBQ Chicken had 140kcals per 100g and Tika covered chicken had 130kcals per 100g, one was around 200kcals per pack and the other 130kcals per pack. Hmmmm. So, by covering chicken in all sorts of flavorings, in sugar and in oils/fat you lower the calorie amount...? And by packaging it up you alter the nutritional amounts further also?? I think not!

Go with your gut instinct. I doubt Tesco will offer to foot the bill when you find clothes don't fit so well!

catwoman73

I suspect with the peas that one is for dried peas and the other for cooked ones, which will have 30/40g peas and the rest water in 100g product, hence lower in calories.

I wouldn't bother counting calories TBH. What you want is natural unprocessed food with minimal additives (dried peas are fine, but I would be suspicious about shop bought cake, which usually contains all kinds of nasties and the coatings on the chicken could be rubbish too).

Its sugar, refined carbs, additives and processed food that makes people fat, to a much greater degree than fat itself, its just that the sugar lobby is very powerful and has perpetually bribed governments etc to not mention its harmful side effects while overstating the effects of fats.

The chicken could vary if its breast or leg and with or without skin.

jenniewb

catwoman73 wrote: »

The chicken could vary if its breast or leg and with or without skin.

None had skin, two had flavors and it wasn't so much the amount for each being wrong (because they were) it was that they didn't tally right. 130g pack having fewer calories then per 100g? I think someone screwed up at M&S!:cool:

kookai9

catwoman73 wrote: »

I suspect with the peas that one is for dried peas and the other for cooked ones, which will have 30/40g peas and the rest water in 100g product, hence lower in calories.

I wouldn't bother counting calories TBH. What you want is natural unprocessed food with minimal additives (dried peas are fine, but I would be suspicious about shop bought cake, which usually contains all kinds of nasties and the coatings on the chicken could be rubbish too).

Its sugar, refined carbs, additives and processed food that makes people fat, to a much greater degree than fat itself, its just that the sugar lobby is very powerful and has perpetually bribed governments etc to not mention its harmful side effects while overstating the effects of fats.

The chicken could vary if its breast or leg and with or without skin.

They are both dried peas