SO i thought I would be a little different in my diet and try some canned pumpkin. It is the shit. I eat it and realize that I am really full. REALLY REALLY FULL. The nutrition label said the whole can had about 200 calories in it.
Here’s the strange part: after I ate it, I ran 4 and a half miles just under 30 minutes. I felt like I could have kept going toO! I would blae the fiber content but I can eat a shit load of any other veggie and I’m still really hungry. So who knows what’s up?
Nutritional Labels are usually pretty accurate, being off by only a handful calories SOMETIMES.
OT, but I recently started adding cinnamon to my pumpkin. I liked the taste before, but pumpkin’s even better with cinnamon.
One day I’ll try adding whipped cream and Splenda for fake pumpkin pie.
[quote]evitagen wrote:
OT, but I recently started adding cinnamon to my pumpkin. I liked the taste before, but pumpkin’s even better with cinnamon.
One day I’ll try adding whipped cream and Splenda for fake pumpkin pie.[/quote]
Im already ahead of you
[quote]Stength4life wrote:
SO i thought I would be a little different in my diet and try some canned pumpkin. It is the shit. I eat it and realize that I am really full. REALLY REALLY FULL. The nutrition label said the whole can had about 200 calories in it.
Here’s the strange part: after I ate it, I ran 4 and a half miles just under 30 minutes. I felt like I could have kept going toO! I would blae the fiber content but I can eat a shit load of any other veggie and I’m still really hungry. So who knows what’s up?[/quote]
that has nothing to do with the calories in it (directly speaking).
Now the FDA does allow loopholes for lying
With regards to feeling more energetic, maybe you were deficient in vitamin A, which pumpkin has a lot of.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Stength4life wrote:
SO i thought I would be a little different in my diet and try some canned pumpkin. It is the shit. I eat it and realize that I am really full. REALLY REALLY FULL. The nutrition label said the whole can had about 200 calories in it.
Here’s the strange part: after I ate it, I ran 4 and a half miles just under 30 minutes. I felt like I could have kept going toO! I would blae the fiber content but I can eat a shit load of any other veggie and I’m still really hungry. So who knows what’s up?
that has nothing to do with the calories in it (directly speaking).
Now the FDA does allow loopholes for lying[/quote]
Care to elaborate?
I eat pumpkin every day. put it in my shakes. it is extremely filling. probably due to the fact that it has 5 grams of fiber for only half a cup.
[quote]on edge wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
Stength4life wrote:
SO i thought I would be a little different in my diet and try some canned pumpkin. It is the shit. I eat it and realize that I am really full. REALLY REALLY FULL. The nutrition label said the whole can had about 200 calories in it.
Here’s the strange part: after I ate it, I ran 4 and a half miles just under 30 minutes. I felt like I could have kept going toO! I would blae the fiber content but I can eat a shit load of any other veggie and I’m still really hungry. So who knows what’s up?
that has nothing to do with the calories in it (directly speaking).
Now the FDA does allow loopholes for lying
Care to elaborate?[/quote]
take a look at a can of cooking spray
Front says for calorie free fat-free cooking.
even the nutritional panel on the back shows 0 calories.
Now take a look at the serving size. and of course the ingredients is some kind of cooking oil, which is pure fat.
just one example
yeah, I believe companies are allowed to put 0 calories if there’s less than 5 calories per serving. Catch is, they can also make the serving size whatever they want, or just small enough that they aren’t obligated to report it having any calories. Thus, some “free” cooking sprays are actually not free if you use too much. Its mostly within the realm of condiments and flavor substitutes.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
on edge wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
Stength4life wrote:
SO i thought I would be a little different in my diet and try some canned pumpkin. It is the shit. I eat it and realize that I am really full. REALLY REALLY FULL. The nutrition label said the whole can had about 200 calories in it.
Here’s the strange part: after I ate it, I ran 4 and a half miles just under 30 minutes. I felt like I could have kept going toO! I would blae the fiber content but I can eat a shit load of any other veggie and I’m still really hungry. So who knows what’s up?
that has nothing to do with the calories in it (directly speaking).
Now the FDA does allow loopholes for lying
Care to elaborate?
take a look at a can of cooking spray
Front says for calorie free fat-free cooking.
even the nutritional panel on the back shows 0 calories.
Now take a look at the serving size. and of course the ingredients is some kind of cooking oil, which is pure fat.
just one example
[/quote]
That’s not a “loophole for lying”. They have to have thresholds for when they round up or down. If a serving size provides a 1/4 gram of fat it’s not a big deal to round it down to zero for the purpose of the label declaration. The serving size of the nonstick sprays is miniscule.
[quote]spadesofaces wrote:
yeah, I believe companies are allowed to put 0 calories if there’s less than 5 calories per serving. Catch is, they can also make the serving size whatever they want, or just small enough that they aren’t obligated to report it having any calories. Thus, some “free” cooking sprays are actually not free if you use too much. Its mostly within the realm of condiments and flavor substitutes.[/quote]
You are right, less than 5 calories will be rounded down to zero. They can’t make the serving size whatever they want though. They have to use industry standards for the serving size. For instance, if you are marketing a salad dressing, you have to use the same serving size that everyone else is using.
The only exception to this would be if you come up with a completely unique product that doesn’t fit into any existing catagory, then you can establish the serving size for your product.
Well whatever the case is, I’m pretty sure pumpkin isn’t as low in calories as it says it is. I know what is feels like to eat foods that are low and calories and then train. This isn’t one of them.
[quote]on edge wrote:
They have to use industry standards for the serving size. For instance, if you are marketing a salad dressing, you have to use the same serving size that everyone else is using.
.[/quote]
For the most part, but you can’t tell me a “typical” serving of cooking spray is 1/3 of a second of spray, lol
[quote]Stength4life wrote:
Well whatever the case is, I’m pretty sure pumpkin isn’t as low in calories as it says it is. I know what is feels like to eat foods that are low and calories and then train. This isn’t one of them. [/quote]
Are the calories claimed on your can comparable to this
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/cgi-bin/list_nut_edit.pl
[quote]on edge wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
just one example
That’s not a “loophole for lying”. They have to have thresholds for when they round up or down. If a serving size provides a 1/4 gram of fat it’s not a big deal to round it down to zero for the purpose of the label declaration. The serving size of the nonstick sprays is miniscule.[/quote]
i believe the “no calorie” lable can be applied to anything containing 4 or less calories per serving.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
on edge wrote:
They have to use industry standards for the serving size. For instance, if you are marketing a salad dressing, you have to use the same serving size that everyone else is using.
.
For the most part, but you can’t tell me a “typical” serving of cooking spray is 1/3 of a second of spray, lol[/quote]
Yeah, I have to concede that one. I’m sure when they were establishing the Nutritional Labeling requirements the makers of Pam and such lobbied hard for a small enough serving size to be able to say zero.
I’d be interested to know if Con Agra (the makers of Pam - the leader in the category) had established the serving size prior to the early 90’s when the Nutritional Labeling Guidelines were getting worked out.
[quote]on edge wrote:
Stength4life wrote:
Well whatever the case is, I’m pretty sure pumpkin isn’t as low in calories as it says it is. I know what is feels like to eat foods that are low and calories and then train. This isn’t one of them.
Are the calories claimed on your can comparable to this
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/cgi-bin/list_nut_edit.pl
[/quote]
I can’t read that shit.
[quote]Stength4life wrote:
on edge wrote:
Stength4life wrote:
Well whatever the case is, I’m pretty sure pumpkin isn’t as low in calories as it says it is. I know what is feels like to eat foods that are low and calories and then train. This isn’t one of them.
Are the calories claimed on your can comparable to this
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/cgi-bin/list_nut_edit.pl
I can’t read that shit.[/quote]
That didn’t seem to copy over properly. Let me see whatI can do…
[quote]Stength4life wrote:
on edge wrote:
Stength4life wrote:
Well whatever the case is, I’m pretty sure pumpkin isn’t as low in calories as it says it is. I know what is feels like to eat foods that are low and calories and then train. This isn’t one of them.
Are the calories claimed on your can comparable to this
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/cgi-bin/list_nut_edit.pl
I can’t read that shit.[/quote]
Pumpkin, canned, without salt
New Search
Refuse: 0%
NDB No: 11424 (Nutrient values and weights are for edible portion)
245g
Proximates
Water
g
220.43
Energy
kcal
83
Energy
kJ
348
Protein
g
2.69
Total lipid (fat)
g
0.69
Ash
g
1.37
Carbohydrate, by difference
g
19.82
Fiber, total dietary
g
7.1
Sugars, total
g
8.09
Sorry, not much better