SparkPeople advertisers help keep the site free! Learn more


    4A-HEALTHY-BMI   33,689
SparkPoints
30,000-39,999 SparkPoints
 
 
The myth of zero-calorie foods

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Lots of things we eat are labeled as having zero calories. Some even use it for marketing, such as Splenda.

It is interesting to note that while these items are low in calories, they are usually not devoid of them. The reason they are labeled as such has to do with labeling laws, not science.

According to US FDA labeling codes,

The terms "calorie free," "free of calories," "no calories," "zero calories," "without calories," "trivial source of calories," "negligible source of calories," or "dietarily insignificant source of calories" may be used on the label or in the labeling of foods, provided that The food contains less than 5 calories per reference amount customarily consumed and per labeled serving.
www.accessdata.fda.gov/s
cripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/C
FRSearch.cfm?fr=101.60


In other words, if a "serving" has fewer than 5 calories, then the manufacturer can label the food as "zero calories."

Here's a specific example. A standard 1g packet of Splenda contains 3.36 calories, mostly coming from the dextrose and maltodextrin used to provide bulk to the product. (Sucralose is very very sweet, so only a tiny amount is contained in a single packet, and itself contains negligible calorie content.)

For contrast, a standard 2.8g packet of granulated sugar contains 10.8 calories.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp
lenda#Energy_.28caloric.29
_content


Having a packet of Splenda instead of granulated sugar is saving you 7.44 calories.

I'm not going to get into the debate here about whether non-nutritive sweeteners such as sucralose, saccharin, aspartame, or stevia are bad for you. But what I do want to point out is that a "zero calorie" serving of something usually isn't.

So, if you use a lot of these products and you care about tracking your food accurately, then you should assume that a serving of something that labeled "zero calories" actually is 4 calories. And you should track it as such. Just sayin'

EDIT:
How funny. I am listening to old episodes of the Fitcast and in the one I heard last night they happened to discuss this exact same topic with Tom Venuto.
thefitcast.com/episode-1
66-what-women-want-w-tom-v
enuto


And they brought up the very good point that I failed to make above, that the labeling game for manufacturers is to shrink the "serving" size down to where it's under 5 calories so they can label the whole thing "zero calories."
SHARE
  Member Comments About This Blog Post:

STEVIECAT4 7/6/2012 11:15AM

    Ah, yes, the labeling game. Ever notice on pasta boxes that even though they put a serving is only 200 calories, they also claim that a one pound box of spaghetti is 8 servings. 8 servings??? I don't think so. Next time you boil a box of spaghetti when you have, try and separate it into 8 servings and see what you get! So if it's not being served as a side dish and you are eating it as your main meal, you're really eating 400 calories and not 200. It's all a myth. We have to be so label conscious.

Report Inappropriate Comment
TENACIOUSTIGER 5/29/2012 9:16PM

    Interesting we are studying labeling and GM foods ATM in food safety systems have you watched food inc or fast food nation very entertaining

Report Inappropriate Comment
CARRIE1948 5/20/2012 9:57AM

    Always good to be reminded of this

Report Inappropriate Comment
TAICHIDANCER 5/19/2012 6:29AM

    Great blog.

Report Inappropriate Comment
KAYOTIC 5/18/2012 11:50PM

    They do the same thing with "trans fat"grams, if it's less than a certain number they can list it as 0 on the label, even if there is some trace amount of trans fat in there. (I believe it's half a gram, but that's going from memory, which can be tricky these days....)

Report Inappropriate Comment
BLVINBUTTERFLYS 5/17/2012 12:37PM

    emoticon

emoticon
Kat

Report Inappropriate Comment
WATERMELLEN 5/16/2012 7:45PM

    Love this blog . . . doesn't make the Splenda look like such a great "calorie deal".

And you "cut right to the point" in commenting on my blog . . . chopping off a leg would reduce my weight, yeah! But not appealing really. Messy, and would reduce my ability to, um, exercise!!

Report Inappropriate Comment
MOBYCARP 5/15/2012 10:21PM

    Of if you look at it another way, this is a reason to have reasonable serving sizes. Plus or minus 4 calories for one packet of Splenda isn't a big deal; that's less than rounding error in measurement of many foods.

The problem will arise when it isn't just one packet of Splenda.

In my case, you make me think of the "zero calorie" spray oil, where the "serving" is a 1/3 second spray. I don't know about you, but a third of a second isn't enough time to put what I need on a skillet. But I still regard this as negligible calories not worth tracking, because it's one skillet once in a day on days when I use it, and zero uses most days.

Report Inappropriate Comment
AHAPPYLIFE 5/15/2012 7:07PM

    Where do you find your calorie counts? It would be interesting to obtain the real information instead of what a manufacturer wants you to see. I've had a few misgivings about the recipe maker here on Spark for that very reason. If you add 10 packets of Splenda, your recipe has just grown by 33 calories not by zero. I don't think it really causes that big of a problem but if you've hit a plateau, you need to be able to see those calories.

Report Inappropriate Comment
BREWMASTERBILL 5/15/2012 3:21PM

    No, you dump the PB cap'n on the floor for the kittehs and you eat the box.

Report Inappropriate Comment
GRACEFULIFE 5/15/2012 3:16PM

    So after I eat the PB capn crunch, I should nom the box. Good to know!

Report Inappropriate Comment
BREWMASTERBILL 5/15/2012 2:58PM

    Ummm ... seriously? Sawdust? Do you think we have sawdust just laying around the office? We have a ton of cardboard boxes all over. If we're going to make this a lifestyle change, you really must consider availability. I can probably grab a box or two on my way home from work diving into various dumpsters.

Report Inappropriate Comment
BLUE42DOWN 5/15/2012 2:09PM

    Interesting. I'd known for a while that nutrition labels are somewhat inaccurate due to rounding and the ability to not count things if they're less than a certain amount. (Splenda, as I recall, gets away with being less than 1 carbohydrate gram by just enough to put 0g. Which makes sense with 3.36, since 1 carb gram would be 4 calories.)

The other side of the no-calorie claims that I've heard about applies to sweeteners like Saccharin. Even if they have calories, they are in a form that our body cannot metabolize - so they pass right through us. (Which kinda fits with the cardboard. And perhaps explains why some diet foods taste like sweetened cardboard?)

Report Inappropriate Comment
4A-HEALTHY-BMI 5/15/2012 2:09PM

    Not Walden Farms BBQ sauce?

And anyway, why bother with pre-masticated wood pulp? Just have some straight sawdust. Moar fibar.

Comment edited on: 5/15/2012 2:14:52 PM

Report Inappropriate Comment
BREWMASTERBILL 5/15/2012 2:08PM

    I'll work on that later, right now I'm trying to get through this pile of cardboard. A little salt and it ain't so bad.

Report Inappropriate Comment
4A-HEALTHY-BMI 5/15/2012 1:35PM

    Geez, Bill. I didn't say ANYTHING about negative-calorie foods. Get your integers straight, already!
emoticon

Report Inappropriate Comment
BREWMASTERBILL 5/15/2012 1:26PM

    This isn't a myth at all.

There's only one truly negative-calorie "food": cardboard, which is 100 percent cellulose. Because you don't have the enzyme required to digest cardboard, simply moving it through your body would require more energy (calories) than you'd get from the cardboard.

Source: http://www.livestrong.com/article/2
9555-list-negative-calorie-food
s/#ixzz1uxbGtfXt

Bon apetit!

Report Inappropriate Comment
LASKIE2 5/15/2012 1:24PM

    Very interesting article! Thank you so much for this information!

Report Inappropriate Comment
RG_DFW 5/15/2012 1:24PM

    Wow, I can't believe I've been lied to (again)

Report Inappropriate Comment
DDOORN 5/15/2012 12:59PM

    Nope...no such thing as a "free" lunch!

Good reminder!

Don

Report Inappropriate Comment

Add Your Comment to the Blog Post


Log in to post a comment.