banner
You are not using a standards compliant browser. Because of this you may notice minor glitches in the rendering of this page. Please upgrade to a compliant browser for optimal viewing:
Firefox
Internet Explorer 7
Safari (Mac and PC)
Post Archive
2018 (0)
2012 (8)
August (1)

Happy Birthday, Julia!
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
May (1)

EMR - Electronic Medical Records
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
April (1)

Step 1 - Shoot myself
Thursday, April 5, 2012
March (1)

Dinner Dare, pt 1
Monday, March 19, 2012
January (4)

Who's Got It Better Than Us?
Saturday, January 14, 2012

Tasting Menu - January 11, 2012
Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Food Labeling
Friday, January 6, 2012

Filtering - That Alfredo Guy...
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
2011 (28)
December (1)

So Unbelievably Mad Right Now.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
November (2)

33 Years of Destroying Closet Doors
Monday, November 28, 2011

Filtering - Sous Vide
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
September (3)

DADT & An awesome video.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Hungry
Friday, September 16, 2011

Defending Serena
Monday, September 12, 2011
August (3)

Fair Compensation
Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Tasting Menu - August 10, 2011
Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Tasting Menu - August 3, 2011
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
July (5)

Tasting Menu - July 27, 2011
Wednesday, July 27, 2011

A Thrill, A Rush, A Change of Plans
Thursday, July 21, 2011

Tasting Menu - July 20, 2011
Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Feeding Controversy
Sunday, July 10, 2011

Avoiding Taxes
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
June (1)

Drunk Tennis
Monday, June 20, 2011
May (2)

I Want An Empty Waiting Room
Tuesday, May 31, 2011

About time!
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
April (2)

The Things I've Learned (so far)...
Thursday, April 21, 2011

Love Sucks, Play Hard.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
March (5)

School Lunches
Thursday, March 17, 2011

We Interrupt Your Regularly Scheduled Food Science Blog For...
Friday, March 11, 2011

But You're A Med Student!
Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Filtering - Equipment
Friday, March 4, 2011

Blurring The Lines - Part I
Thursday, March 3, 2011
February (2)

The Future of Food...?
Thursday, February 3, 2011

My Biggest Mistake - Oenology Edition
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
January (2)

Filtering - Maillard, Water & Errata
Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Filtering - Saucing It Up
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
2010 (4)
Rate This Post
Total votes: 2
Blogger Profile

JaySeeDub
School of Medicine
Dub C Med School CA USA

A med & grad student who used to work the line in LA, NYC, SF and Napa talking about the science of cooking and cooking with science. Harold McGee's On Food And Cooking - The Science and Lore of the Kitchen never satisfied my kitchen curiosity and more than one Chef grew exasperated with my asking "Why?" I'll try to stay on topic, but you may see a kvetch or two about the school & hospital.

My posts are presented as opinion and commentary and do not represent the views of LabSpaces Productions, LLC, my employer, or my educational institution.

Blog RSS Feed
RSS Add to My Yahoo Add to Google
Recent Comments
Comment by BeckonsAttore in EMR - Electronic Medical Records

Well, so emr software has it's problems, not like making them public wouldn't cause them any more trouble as it normally would in a paranoid mind, as this yannisguerra's perspective here. I've delv. . .Read More
Aug 08, 2013, 9:35am
Comment by Brian Krueger, PhD in Happy Birthday, Julia!

I'd gladly take on that burden if you were my roomie ;) . . .Read More
Aug 15, 2012, 4:25pm
Comment by JaySeeDub in Happy Birthday, Julia!

If it makes you feel any better, it could be worse. My roommates complain about expanding waistlines. . . .Read More
Aug 15, 2012, 2:33pm
Comment by Brian Krueger, PhD in Happy Birthday, Julia!

Your posts always make me so hungry and its 9am! I saw that amazon now has reruns of "The French Chef" available for streaming.  It made me want to go back and check some of them out.  I remember. . .Read More
Aug 15, 2012, 8:15am
Comment by yannisguerra in EMR - Electronic Medical Records

I feel your pain. It is really bad. Even worse when half of those pages are non important informations (like 5 copies of the same lab, including who ordered it, when, where, etc) So wastefu. . .Read More
May 10, 2012, 6:56pm
Friday, January 6, 2012

Cool Ranch Doritos Nutrition Label
Credit: Frito Lay

Food labeling is complicated. And confusing. For one thing, there is a lot of information on there, from calorie count to ingredients to calories per gram of fat. You almost need a science degree to start to understand it. Serving size, for example, isn’t helpful. On a bag of Doritos you’ll see that the serving size is 1oz (28g), and that there are about 9 servings in a bag. Now I have a kitchen scale. I advocate the use of a kitchen scale in cooking. But I, for one, am not going to pull out the scale when I want some chips to watch the Niners in week 2 of the NFL Playoffs. I don’t sit at home on a Saturday after the Costco run measuring out individual servings of pistachios and chips and peanuts and pretzels. I have other things to do. And yes, the new labels do approximate how many Doritos make up a serving, about 12, but I’m still not going to sit there and count out 12 chips per person per serving. Friends and family will think I finally fell off the deep end and have me committed.

But one of the big puzzles about the nutritional information is how it is calculated. Calories can be done quickly. Throw the items into a bomb calorimeter and burn them. Measure the increase in temperature and calculate the kJ of energy. Then convert those kJ to kcal. 4.184kJ = 1 kcal. Why kilo-calories? Because 1 food calorie (Cal) is equal to 1,000 calories (cal). Now there’s a diet plan. Convert all junk food Calories to calories. That 1 serving of Doritos will have 150,000 calories. The completely clueless as to the difference between Calories and calories would think twice and maybe not eat the chips.

Unfortunately, the bomb calorimeter isn’t very accurate for determining the number of food calories something has. The burning of an item is a lot more efficient than our bodies. If our bodies were that efficient at burning food, our feces would be a lot smaller. Instead, a process called the Atwater system is used. The Atwater system attempts to take into account urinary, fecal, secretion and gaseous losses of food energy. It’s also disputed a lot. But there are no real alternatives to the Atwater system. With the Atwater system the number of food calories is determined by adding up assigned values – 4kcal/g of protein and carbohydrates, 7kcal/g of alcohol, 9kcal/g of fat. These values were determined by first burning in a bomb calorimeter and averaging those values, Atwater called these “Gross Energy Values” (GE). He then multiplied GEs by “Digestibility Coefficients,” which were determined by mixing up large quantities of foods and serving them. Then measuring the amount of nitrogen and undigested proteins, fats and carbohydrates in urine and feces. I don’t know if he determined these from a table or human experimentation. If someone else does, please feel free to let me know. And if it was human experimentation, I feel really sorry for whatever grad student had to go collect Mr. Jones’ poop to sift through for chemical analysis and burning.

But this only tells you how many Calories a given food has. How do they know how much sugar or vitamin A or molybdenum is in there? That information is typically determined with the help of a digester. You put a sample of the food in the digester, and the machine breaks up the food into pieces (or liquid or mush) for analysis. That product is then taken and run through a series of chemical tests to determine concentrations of nutrients.

So that means each new product gets run through a series of chemical and physical tests to determine food labeling, right? Well, no. That can get expensive. Really expensive. All of the information determined from the Atwater system and the digester actually goes into a standard table. A company can have its own standard table or use the USDA’s, or whatever local equivalent government agency to the USDA. These tables are only good for certain things. Those Doritos may have gone through the digester and analysis, but a Double Double from In-N-Out probably did not. Instead, the nutritional information for the Double Double is instead calculated from the tables. There’s an entry for cooked patties, for the tomatoes, the lettuce, etc. So if you want the exact number of food calories in that Double Double, you're out of luck. That data doesn't exist.

And because it’s all standardized information, there is no variation for different growers or ranchers. To the USDA a peach grown at BigAgro Factory Farm is no different than a peach at Frog Hollow Farms. Which is interesting, since the Frog Hollow Farm, and similar local (for me) purveyors, make a better tasting product. Which makes me wonder about the accuracy of those standardized tables. If I see different peaks in GC-IR in running samples casually, doesn’t that mean there are differences in content? And if there are differences in content, just how accurate are those averaged values the USDA gives?

This post has been viewed: 27234 time(s)

Tags:     

Blog Comments

Brian Krueger, PhD
Columbia University Medical Center
Rate Post:

Like 0 Dislike

I have always wondered if those numbers were straight off of a calorimeter or if they were adjusted for digestion etc.  Thanks :)


Genomic Repairman
Rate Post:

Like 0 Dislike

Not to be hokie but this post was "the bomb."

 

Namnezia

Guest Comment

Great post!

So the digested values are lower than those from the calorimeter? Also, wouldn't cooking affect the calorie content ? And finally, wouldn't different carbohydrates be digested to different degrees?


JaySeeDub
Dub C Med School
Rate Post:

Like 0 Dislike

Yes. Digested values are lower than from the calorimeter.

Cooking does affect calorie content, there are values for both cooked and raw foods on the USDA tables. If I were making red sauce and wanted to know the nutritional content, I'd have to add up the cooked values for the garlic, onion, tomatoes, basil and oil. It's really monotonous and some of the people who do the nutritional information for small restaurants have binders with the information.

The digestibility coefficients are supposed to take into account incomplete digestion of nutrients. To what degree? I never found a concrete answer. Which is why the Atwater system is disputed. But no one has proposed a better model.

Robert Mungo

Guest Comment

One thing I find interesting (please read that as "infuriating") is the fact that serving size can change depending on the container. A serving of Doritos in one style bag isn't a serving in another style bag.

I noticed this with Coca-Cola first. A serving size in a standard can is 12 oz. In a bottle, it's 8 oz. So if you gave a 12 oz can, that's one serving of Cola. Double it and put it in a bottle? That's not 2, but THREE servings.

In keeping with your example of Doritos, Frito Lay makes a bag they call "Big Grab". It is also one serving, but of 75 grams, rather than 28 grams serving size for the standard bag you find at the grocery store. That's nearly 3 times the size, yet both are "one serving".

If someone tells me they want "one serving" each of Doritos and Coke, which do I go by? Do they want 8 or 12 oz? 28 or 75 grams?


JaySeeDub
Dub C Med School
Rate Post:

Like 0 Dislike

Serving size is also on a table at the FDA. It is determined by averaging the amount of food a panel of testers eat. So something like the Doritos a bunch of people eat and track what they eat. Once they're done, the values are averaged. With liquids, the default serving size for anything non-alcoholic is 8oz. Goes back to the whole 8oz = 1 glass thing. I'm not sure where that started, though. I can do a bit of digging.

With convenience packages, it's a matter of "value for money." One of the first instances of this is Coke vs Pepsi. The original Coca-Cola bottle was 6.5oz. The original Pepsi was 8oz. Both sold for five cents in the US. During the great depression, Pepsi went up to 12oz bottles, and kept the price at five cents. So people who bought pepsi were getting twice as much product for the same price. Same concept today. If you look at the pricing of packages, if you get the larger size it seems like only a bit of change more for a lot more product. And it became convenient for packages that were designed to be consumed in one sitting to just re-work the nutrition label so that the single consumption package was one serving.

Add Comment?
Comments are closed 2 weeks after initial post.
Friends