|
|
Post by debsback on Dec 8, 2019 15:27:50 GMT
I wonder if breaking out added sugars will impact the way points are calculated, or will they still use total sugar in the computation.
|
|
|
|
Post by zazzles on Dec 8, 2019 15:54:09 GMT
Good article. And it is about time we get this new labeling requirement launched. I wonder, however, since the Dietary Guidelines for Americans are due to be updated and released anew in 2020, whether the NEW label requirement will match the new gudelines. The update: The recommended DV of fiber increased from 25 to 28 percent of total calories. The percent DV of sodium decreased from 2,400 milligrams to 2,300 milligrams I’m confused by this sentence. The label is based on a 2,200 calorie diet. 28% of 2,200 calories is 616 calories which is 154 g of carbohydrate (fiber is a sub-nutrient of total carbohydrates). And yet the sample label states that 4 g of fiber is 14% of the DV which extrapolates to a DV recommendation 28.54 grams. So should the sentence say “…from 25 to 28 grams” instead of “…percent of total calories.”? [154 g of fiber certainly would get digestion moving!] I wonder if breaking out added sugars will impact the way points are calculated, or will they still use total sugar in the computation. Since WW just released the new program, I would’nt look for a change any time soon. The article says “major manufacturers” but doesn’t mention that “small manufacturers” have additional time to implement the label—I forget how long but as I recall it is another 1 to 1.5 years.
alias123, old label or new, I agree that reading them affects buying decisions. Although I heed total carbohydrates more than added sugars (because it is the total carbohydrates that determine the rise in blood sugar), I think most food decisions need to lead to a value-proposition evaluation (is it worth it). |
|
|
|
Post by DotRen on Dec 8, 2019 16:19:12 GMT
I was disappointed that they can now not label sugar alcohols under the "sugar" heading.
For many people on low-carb/keto, sugar alcohols are not counted (I count them, except for erythritol), so it adds to the carb confusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by zazzles on Dec 8, 2019 16:51:50 GMT
I was disappointed that they can now not label sugar alcohols under the "sugar" heading. For many people on low-carb/keto, sugar alcohols are not counted (I count them, except for erythritol), so it adds to the carb confusion. That’s significant and something I didn’t realize. Without knowing total fiber and sugar alcohols an insulin-dependent diabetic (me!) could overdose on insulin. |
|
|
|
Post by finreporter on Dec 8, 2019 17:31:27 GMT
I've been seeing the updated labels for quite some time now. I was surprised when I first started seeing them because I had thought it wasnt being rolled out yet but I guess it has. My girls and I have enjoyed reading the added sugars component.
|
|
|
|
Post by DebDoesWW on Dec 8, 2019 17:36:51 GMT
Just a reminder itsrad and I will edit any posting that has copyright infringement so our board doesn't get shut down. It is okay to post a snippet or two but not the entire article and always include a link to the original article. |
|
|
|
Post by quark12000 on Dec 8, 2019 18:42:15 GMT
I wish there was better labelling on store-prepared food.
|
|
Kitty
Transcendent Member
Posts: 1,450
|
Post by Kitty on Dec 8, 2019 19:12:59 GMT
I am thinking that for foods that have the new labels I may recalculate them to count only added sugars in the formula. If the food is basically a healthy food with natural sugar I am not sure why it should be penalized.
|
|
|
|
Post by zazzles on Dec 8, 2019 21:53:14 GMT
I've been seeing the updated labels for quite some time now. I was surprised when I first started seeing them because I had thought it wasnt being rolled out yet but I guess it has. My girls and I have enjoyed reading the added sugars component. The new label effectivity date has been slipped several times. It was to have been mandatory two or three years ago. The last time the date was extended, some food manufacturers had already made the change on some or all products in order to comply. That’s why we’ve had mixed labels for a couple of years. |
|
|
|
Post by zazzles on Dec 8, 2019 21:54:52 GMT
I am thinking that for foods that have the new labels I may recalculate them to count only added sugars in the formula. If the food is basically a healthy food with natural sugar I am not sure why it should be penalized. No way of knowing, but I’m assuming that if WW changed the formula to use added sugars instead of all sugars they would also likely lower the daily points allowances. How WW implements their formulas is a dark, magic box; I fear reaching inside a dark, magic box and mucking with the internal mechanism could cause me harm. |
|
Kitty
Transcendent Member
Posts: 1,450
|
Post by Kitty on Dec 8, 2019 22:33:45 GMT
zazzles, Well, I know that the default they start with is that 33 calories is an SP. That is if you have a neutral food - no protein, no sat fat, no sugar -- then 100 calories is 3 SP. I get 30 SP a day so that works out to about 1000 calories. Add in 200 calories for 0 point calorie foods then I am at 1200 calories which I think is sort of a minimum for me for long term eating. So, if you only counting added sugar results in a food that is roughly at least 33 calories per point then I think it is safe enough. Now, if changing sugar to added sugar would make a food go from 33 calories a point to say, 50 calories a point then that might be problem. Of course, that is only likely to happen for a food that has a lot of protein with low sat fat and high natural sugar. That doesn't seem very likely....
|
|
|
|
Post by zazzles on Dec 8, 2019 23:28:35 GMT
Kitty, let’s see… 24 oz. of skim milk has 10 points and 36.5g of natural sugars. Recalculating by omitting the natural sugars makes the same 24 oz. of skim milk 5 points. That’s 5 points to eat, say, 5/8 oz. of Dove dark chocolate. Or maybe 6 oz. of white wine. The sugar penalty represents a phantom 146 calories (i.e., WW charges for calories that don’t exist in the food); the dark chocolate has 102 REAL calories; the whie wine has 145 REAL calories. I can’t see how that methodology wouldn’t cause problems. Am I missing something in the logic department?
|
|
|
|
Post by DebDoesWW on Dec 9, 2019 0:19:03 GMT
Just a reminder itsrad and I will edit any posting that has copyright infringement so our board doesn't get shut down. It is okay to post a snippet or two but not the entire article and always include a link to the original article. =================================================================== I think you meant me, not Itsrad. As I noted, last time I posted a link some couldn't read it due to pop ups. Anyway, I'll wont post articles or links. Sorry. No I meant exactly what I said, itsrad and I will edit all posts that are articles posted in full. It is a copyright issue and it is for you as much as it is for us. You can be fined and banned from here for doing it by ProBoards because they can get in trouble for it and we don't want to lose you. Just post a few of the important points you want to get across and then post a link. Livestrong isn't like the sites that have a limit to the number of views so no one should have issues with it. |
|
|
|
Post by zazzles on Dec 9, 2019 1:25:15 GMT
Just post a few of the important points you want to get across and then post a link. Livestrong isn't like the sites that have a limit to the number of views so no one should have issues with it. The issues with sone sites Livestrong being one of then, is that they make it almost impossible to read an article given the in-article advertisements they post, the unwanted videos that follow you down the page and play whether you want them to or not, etc. And some other sites are just what’s called click-bait, requiring going through a series of pages in order to read an entire article that has, sometimes, just a single useful piece of information on, say, page 24. By the time you get there, you’ve given them a hundred or more page views for ads and helped them earn their profit. I fear that alias123 was trying to accommodate me. But posting a full article is not needed. If I follow a link and see that it beyond annoying, I simply close the web site and skip the article. DebDoesWW is right about copyright, especially under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act changes. Those changes allow any web site owner (Livestrong in this case) to serve the owner of a web site witth a “take down notice” for any content they claim to own; they don’t have have to go through due process or prove anything. So it is best to post only selected extracts of information and then for the purpose of commenting on it. But links to articles are fair game. |
|
Kitty
Transcendent Member
Posts: 1,450
|
Post by Kitty on Dec 9, 2019 5:47:45 GMT
Kitty , let’s see… 24 oz. of skim milk has 10 points and 36.5g of natural sugars. Recalculating by omitting the natural sugars makes the same 24 oz. of skim milk 5 points. That’s 5 points to eat, say, 5/8 oz. of Dove dark chocolate. Or maybe 6 oz. of white wine. The sugar penalty represents a phantom 146 calories (i.e., WW charges for calories that don’t exist in the food); the dark chocolate has 102 REAL calories; the whie wine has 145 REAL calories. I can’t see how that methodology wouldn’t cause problems. Am I missing something in the logic department? WW implicitly I think says that if you eat 33 calories per SP then you are OK calorie wise. And, in fact, for someone eating 30 SP a day then that would be 990 calories (plus zero point foods which for me are rarely more than 200 calories). So 24 ounces of skim milk is 10 points at 249 calories. So basically 25 calories per point. Because of the high protein 249 calories without sugar would be 50 calories a point. I wouldn't calculate it that way if I wasn't counting natural sugar. Personally I would calculate it more like 7 to 8 SP treating it more like a "neutral" food. There aren't a lot of foods that have high protein and high natural sugar but low saturated fat. Skim milk is probably an outlier. In my case, though, I would be in no danger of overeating by doing this as I also track calories and would stay within my desired calorie range.... But the bigger point to me is that WW says it is OK to eat foods that are high protein and low sugar and get the benefit of the calculation (I think it goes too far so I would probably count this more like 7 or 8 SP). And most people probably don't drink 24 oz of milk a day. There are plenty of days that I am under 1000 calories but my points are in the 26 to 30 SP range. If I eat a few more calories due to not penalizing natural sugar I will do OK. But, this is one reason that I do think it makes sense to count calories also. |
|
