Oh Golly I use stuff like hot sauce all the time simply becuase it has ‘0’ calories Now im in trouble But thx Joel It’s never to late to stop
A little while back I sent you an email with the subject “1+1=3?”, informing you of the unstoppable synergy that occurs when you combine a killer metabolic resistance training program like Turbulence Training along with my Cheat Your Way Thin diet system.
And today, I’m back with another stellar math lesson to wow your friends with: 0 does NOT equal 0.
Sounds like some ass-backwards calculus nonsense, I know, but it’s actually a very practical equation. Or should I say “non-quation” (Yes, I know they’re called inequalities, but non-quation sounds WAY cooler to me, and it’s my blog).
Let me explain.
This morning, I sat down to a bowl of Bran Flakes. It was a rather large bowl, because hey, not only do I preach big breakfasts, I eat them, too.
To that bowl I added two packets of Splenda (now, before anyone responds freaking out about me using two packets of Splenda, you can find my thoughts on artificial sweeteners [backed by actual research] here).
And as I sat there, enchanted by the morning anthems of the neighboring fowl, enjoying my flakes of bran, the label on that little yellow box happened to catch my eye.
You see, the label read “0” calories and “0” grams of sugar per packet. After all, that’s the whole point of using an artificial sweetener – to avoid both of the aforementioned.
That said, I couldn’t help but feel as though Mr. Splenda wasn’t telling me the whole story. In fact, I knew he wasn’t, because, well, I’m “in the know”. And today, when you leave this blog post, you’ll do so in a similar position.
If you know anything about ingredient lists on labels, you know that the ingredients are listed by quantity. That is to say, if something appears first within the lists of ingredients, that particular food item contains more of that ingredient than everything else listed thereafter. If it’s dead last, probably not so much.
The list of ingredients on each 1 gram packet of Splenda reads: dextrose, maltodextrin, sucralose.
Now, sucralose is the artificial sweetener commonly refered to as Splenda, but what about the dextrose and maltodextrin? According to the list of ingredients, there is actually MORE of these ingredients than there is sucralose.
Answer: dextrose is sugar, and maltodextrin might as well be (it’s GI is actually significantly higher than table sugar).
So, why is it in there and just exactly how does that equate to zero calories?
Well, the problem with artificial sweeteners like sucralose and aspartame is that they are so sweet that only an extremely small amount is necessary to replicate the sweetness of sugar, an amount too small to “package”, thus the necessity of carriers like dextrose and maltodextrin. That said, both dextrose and maltodextrin do contain calories, and each possesses a rather high GI.
Why then does the label say 0 calories?
Here’s the rule. If a serving of a food item contains less than 1 grams of a nutrient, it need not be counted on the label. In reality, a 1 gram packet of Splenda contains about .1 gram of sucralose and .9 grams of “sugar”. Still, it’s less than a gram, so the product is listed as calorie-free.
Not a major issue if you’re only using a packet or two, but I knew a guy in college that probably used about 30 – 40 packets worth of artificial sweeteners per day. That ain’t 0 calories. In fact, it’s actually more than 100 calories of pure sugar from what is supposed to be a sugar-free, calorie-free product.
Hoodwinked we’ve been.
Oh, and have you ever used calorie-free, fat free cooking spray? The stuff is pure oil. Zero calories? Well, if you use the ridiculously small “1/3 of a second” spray that might coat the pan from my niece’s Malibu Barbie Dream House kitchen set, then yes, it’s less than one gram of fat, and “legally” zero calories.
But if you’re human (not plastic) and you possess normal-sized cookware, think twice before you succumb to the manufacturing giants’ notion that you’re cooking calorie-free. You’re not. Better than coating the pan with a brush lathered in oil? Yes. Calorie-free? No.
And that’s the problem with serving sizes. Often times manufacturers will adjust the serving size to a unrealistic quantity in order to be able to claim “zero” or at least a lower number of calories per serving. To give you a perfect example, one that I just today came in contact with: Vitamin Water 10. Only 10 calories!
Per 8 oz.
Now why would they put the serving size on a 20 oz individual-sized bottle as 8 oz? I don’t know anyone who is buying a Vitamin Water and drinking it in 8 oz intervals. You buy a bottle, you drink the bottle. And you know what? They don’t even sell an 8 oz bottle. That’s called bogus.
I say all that to say this: be mindful of “zero” claims and serving sizes. Sure, these products may be better alternatives to whatever they are substituting for, but you can’t just pile ’em high and pretend that the calories aren’t adding up.
Zero aint zero, my friend.
Find this post helpful? Question? Comment? At least 50 replies and I’ll be back with more content tomorrow!
Talk to you in the comments section,
Joel
Related Posts
93 comments - add yours
I have been reading labels for years. The challenge most people don’t think about what they read. As you have pointed out, a small package can contain more than one serving. As for bottled water, Kangen water is the best. I bottle it myself from my machine at home and it is the purest water available.
As for sweeteners, salt, and other spices to flavor foods, I have gotten away from all of them. I have used Stevia in the past but have gotten used to the natural real flavor of food. Sugar is poison. Artificial sweeteners are also. Sea salt is better than mined salt. I have grown to love the natural flavor of veggies and grains. If there is something I don’t like, I don’t eat it!
Our food is not just about the extras we put on it to cover the lack of flavor and nutrients. It is about finding naturally nutrient rich food and developing a taste for what it really is. Organic foods are more initially expensive, but I go back to the statement, “nothing is more expensive than what is thrown away” which includes nutrient deficient foods that pass straight through the system into the commode. These foods rob our bodies of enzymes and energy trying to digest them. Organics also have a more robust flavor. Since they are nutrient dense, we don’t have to eat as much to get more of what our bodies really need.
I will never use sweeteners from a little tear open packet again.
This is not news to me. I already knew all this. When eating, drinking diet stuff (like pop) you still need to have moderation in all things
I remember the labeling policies at Europe. They had to show the nutrition facts either for 100 g. of solid food or 100 ml (about 3.4 oz) of liquid. No matter what the product was. I think that’s why, there, one can find pill versions of Splenda with only .2 g of carbs as excipient as opposed to .9.
Here, at Mexico, we can find both: per 100 g. or per “serving size”. I don’t know how the regulations for labeling are here, but sometimes the macronutrients and calories are listed with one or even two decimals. For example, Zero Coke has 0.5 cal per 200 ml (~6.8 oz).
By the way; I found a product called DiabeSugar. It commes in packets as Splenda and it uses Sucralose also, but its excipient is Isomalt instead of maltodextrine/dextrose. It is still almost 1 g. of a sugar alcohol, but one of the less harmful.
Easy solution = pure stevia :)
This drives me crazy. I remember when I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter Spray came out. Yes, it’s oil. Use five sprays and you have the negligible calorie count. But I was talking to someone one day who was SO excited about this “low calorie nonfat” option that she was unscrewing the top and pouring it in the pan to cook in it! Uhhhhhh…no.
Yup I totally agree with you… That’s why whenever I come across
Somehing that says 0 grams of trans fat… The fact that there even
A label for trans fat.. I deterr away from it
I love your writing, it is FUNNY as well as informative!
thanks for staying up late… how did you concentrate so late at night?
I must admit with your intro I was on the hunt for typos and sleep-deprived-expression-errors… what does that say about me??? lol
anne
PS Disapointed I cant get the prograde in Aus :-(
Well I’ll be swaggered! What a snarky thing to do. LOL
I KNEW it *had* to be too good to be true. I do use splenda…plan on using it for at least the next year to lose a ton of weight (ok, so not a *ton* so much, but very close).
Alas, I over-use it. Another habit I will need to break! I was always afraid to delve deeper into the calorie mist surrounding Splenda but ignorance will not be bliss all over my hips.
Thank you for giving me the proverbial kick in the habit!
Joel, I truly enjoy your articles so keep ’em coming!
To safer health,
Sherri
Originally Posted By LisaThat’s why you’re better off drinking water and learning how to enjoy foods without added sugar of any kind.
I agree with Lisa. Or at least, as Dallin said, moderation.
Joel, I love you! That ‘fat=free’ label on the cooking spray has p’d me off ever since I frist saw it. Ridiculous. Oil is the only ingredient – how can oil be fat-free? Do they think we’re morons?! And they add the maltodextrin to all stevia powders, too, and not saying a thing about that it is sugar. Glad I’m no the only one to be so picky.
Definitely something to keep in mind. I usually mostly Stevia these days but I occasionally I will use other sweeteners. I don’t over do it but it is still important that I keep close watch on my intake.
Hello Joel,
I was told that Spenda is not good for the body, so changed to Stevia which I use in my coffee. For my breakfast which is oats, bran,fruit and unsweetened yogurt, I use a product called “Panela” which is a natural sugar, directly from sugar cane. It is very healthy, it does contain calories yes, but these are healthy ones, eg Protein, carbs, vitamins and trace elements which the body needs. I am aware of my daily calories, so measure this as part of my intake. I also use it in a pro drink after training. What are your comments on this product please and if I am using it correctly.
Thanks
Brian
(Apologies in advance for the length of this post).
Another sneaky way to abuse the labelling legislation seems to be on the increase, over here in the UK at least: using ‘composite components’ (my term) with their ingredients in brackets after.
This promotes the good parts to the top of the list (even if some of them are in small quantities) and splits the sugar up across several entries in the ingredients list, thereby pushing it down the table and, to an extent, disguising it.
Now, I wouldn’t eat this stuff for a number of reasons, but I think the labelling is appallingly cynical and I look at an example below.
It does occur to me that all this fuss about sugar substitutes begs the question: why must we sweeten up everything we eat? Anyway, that’s another topic; on to the labelling example…
I saw the following example while staying with a friend and have retrieved it from the manufacturer’s website. Kelloggs Coco Pops Coco Rocks (see http://www.kelloggs.co.uk/products/cocopops/Cereal/coco_pops_coco_rocks.aspx) has, as its first ingredient:
‘Cereal Flours (Maize, Oat, Rice, Wheat)’ which looks like it’s all full of grainy goodness, but…
The next is ‘Sugar’ (but, of course, there might be more sugar than any of the individual cereals listed). After that is another composite: (deep breath, this is a biggie)
Chocolate Flavour Filling (14%)(Sugar, Vegetable Oil, Cocoa Mass, Fat Reduced Cocoa Powder, Skimmed Milk Powder, Milk Whey Powder, Emulsifier {Soy Lecithin}, Flavouring)
So, straight away we know the sugar they are admitting to is over 14% – but, wait! the first entry in this list is sugar TOO.
Next entry is ‘Glucose Syrup’ which is a type of, let me see – ah yes: sugar.
Next up is ‘Chocolate (3.5%)(Sugar, Cocoa Mass)’ which hides yet more sugar.
It finishes off with a list of industrial-looking chemicals and then some vitamins.
They do, at least, have the per-100g nutrition information and you won’t be surprised to see 75g of Carbohydrate. They’ve somehow managed to keep it down to 32g of sugars, so maybe I was ungenerous about the amount of cereals in it. Joel can tell us about the GI of highly-ground, highly-processed cereals though, I’m sure.
If you made it this far – well done! Caveat emptor has never been so true, and I am reminded of someone’s advice that, if the ingredients list is longer than 3 entries, don’t eat it.
You’ll appreciate Brian Regan’s routine on food labels and serving sizes:
Thanks for the informative piece.
Awesome info Joel! I never believed the 0% stuff or for that matter, the 100% claims on food products, juices, liquids. It’s nice to know, that someone in the know is willing to impart the wisdom to all. I’ll pass it along.
Peace….Tony
Loved your article today – i always expected as much…just didnt have the know-how to prove it; well, that changd today! Thanks.
@Stef73 –
I have a hard time with plain water, too, so I have taken to adding True Lemon, True Lime, or True Orange crystals to my water. They taste great, come in handy to carry packets, and their ingredients are:
Citric Acid, Lactose, Lime – Lemon – or Orange juice, the oil from the fruit, and here’s where you get to Maltodextrin (4th), and then Ascorbic Acid.
They are manufactured in the states and can be ordered off the web by going to http://www.truelemon.com, or may be available in stores like Safeway, Wal-mart, etc., in the powdered drinks and teas section. I live in a rural area and they are hard to find, so I order them off the web. $3 for 32 servings isn’t a bad price. I use them in hot liquids, as well as ice water.
i always thought that zero always meant something else, thanks for the information
Agave is the way to go!!! Natural sweetener that has a lower GI than sugar and is 25% sweeter. Good stuff.
Isn’t better to use something natural like honey to substitute sugar instead of using something manufacturated?? I’m asking, not saying :D
I must say joel, you do surprise me with the quality of your insights, especially this time. Good work.
Thanks Joel…very informative. Really gives you something to think about when reading those labels.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hey, it’s Joel! So you want to know a little more about me, huh? Well, I’d be happy to oblige :-)
I guess it all started back in 2001 (my freshman year of college) when I was just a “skinny fat” 19-year old kid. At the time, I was spending close to 2 hours a day in the gym (now my workouts last about 30 minutes), and despite my efforts, you’d probably never guess I worked out a day in my life by looking at me...