Is this misleading, or am I being stupid?

Grumpy_chap

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81985678#Comment_81985678

The "as prepared" adds nothing to the nutritional value but does add to the serving weight when consumed.

In the case of pasta the brand we use says 100 grams dry pasta per serving and the nutritional value "as prepared" gives value for 100 grams and for 170 grams serving with the asterisk taking you to a note that 100 grams of dry pasta weighs 170 grams when prepared according to the instructions.

It is not uncommon for ingredients / product weight to vary up or down in the cooking process.

Alderbank

The "as prepared" adds nothing to the nutritional value but does add to the serving weight when consumed.

I'm not too sure about that?

For example, frozen chips go up in calorific value and saturated fats when deep fried. Grilled sausages go down.

sheramber

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81985715#Comment_81985715

Iassume that remark is referring to the item in question, where only water is added.

Frozen chips that are deepfried will include some of the fat they have been cooked in.

Grilled sausages will lose some fay in the cooking process.

Does the packaging on these products claim the nutritional value is the same 'as prepared' as before being prepared?

Grumpy_chap

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81985715#Comment_81985715

Yes, but I was responding in direct reply to the OP, as quoted, referencing a product where only water is added.

Ergates

I suspect that the real answer is that that this is what is required by the laws in question - which would be written to work for all preparation "scenarios" even if they give somewhat strange results where you just add water.

teaselMay

It's the standardised way of presenting nutritional composition. If you and your other half are regularly checking protein content but misunderstood this it's worth rechecking how you interpret the nutritional contents of the rest of what you eat if you're aiming for something in particular.

Okell

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81985688#Comment_81985688

We eat De Cecco linguine as here - De Cecco Linguine | Waitrose & Partners

As far as I can tell (it's very very small print and mostly in Italian) the packet simply says "Average nutritional value per 100g" without specifying whether that 100g refers to dry weight or cooked weight. The Waitrose website doesn't specify either.

Are you saying the 100g refers to cooked weight rather than dry weight, so that we have to weigh each portion after cooking to determine its nutritional values?

Yes - only one pot is consumed at a time but as explained in my previous post my other half keeps a close tally of what she eats. She's a lightweight double sculler whose partner weighs under 50kg so for competitions she tries to keep as close to the maximum weight (59kg?) as she can without going over. So she thinks it makes a difference whether one food item contains 394 calories and 18g of protein, or just 173 calories and 7.9g protein

Okell

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81985702#Comment_81985702

Well obviously(!) how you prepare something will make a difference if you are adding other ingredients which have their own separate nutritional values.

What I'm questioning is the confusing way in which the nutritional information is expressed on the pack and the use of three different weights: 92g the dry weight of the contents of the pack; 100g; and 210g

(Ok - I'm feeling I haven't explained this very well …)

Okell

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81985703#Comment_81985703

Thank you.

What you say about your pasta brand makes perfect sense to me

However, so far as I can tell the brand we use does not say "as prepared". It simply gives nutritional values per 100g and gives no indication whether that weight is the weight of pasta before or after cooking.

But if our brand means 100g dry weight after it's been prepared, then that is perfectly fine and sensible by me, because it's referencing the dry weight before "preparation" and it doesn't matter how much zero nutritional value water it absorbs during cooking. (Although in your example it sounds like 70g of water per 100g dry weight)

The problem I have with the noodles in question is that they don't give nutritional values in that straightforward way.

They don't give nutritional values for the pre-preparation dry weight of the contents of the pack (which seems most logical to me), they only give information for the "as prepared" wet weight. That would be the same as if your pasta brand only gave nutritional values for the wet cooked weight of pasta (ie per 170g) and not for the pre-cooked dry weight(100g).

To me they should just give nutritional values for the unprepared dry weight of the pack contents (92g) and for 100g dry weight, because adding water makes no difference at all to those values, no matter how much you add.

Giving nutritional values per 100g and per 210g is unnecessarily confusing when the contents only weigh 92g.

Okell

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81985794#Comment_81985794

The grilled sausages - or anything with a fat content that is grilled - are an interesting example.

If the nutritional information is expressed as "per 100g" is that the pre-grilled weight or the grilled weight after its lost calories and fat? How is the lost fat accounted for in the nutritional information?

What if you fry instead of grill?