Confused by celery...

previous topic · next topic
riocaz

Joined: Jun 12
Posts: 657

      quote  
Posted: 25 Feb 2013, 09:05
Okay I'm confused.

I'm pretty sure I've always been told celery is about 7 cal per 100g

Indeed the packs of celery sticks agreed with this.

Today I noticed that Fatsecret lists it as 14cal per 100g. So I googled... And came up with several different answers:

7 cal per 100g: http://groceries.asda.com/asda-estore/catalog/sectionpagecontainer.jsp?skuId=23586243&departmentid=1214921923758&aisleid=1214921925643&startValue=1&referrer=cookiesDetecting

8 per 100g: http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/calories-in-food/salad/Celery.htm

10cal per 100g: http://www.tesco.com/groceries/Product/Details/?id=266741988

14cal per 100g: http://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/usda/celery?portionid=59064&portionamount=100.000

16cal per 100g: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2396/2

So which one is right? Not that it matter a lot to me, but seriously that's a wild divergence in the counts for a generic food.

42" jeans(25/01/2013) 40"(28/02/2013) 38"(20/03/2013) 36"(25/05/2013)
Down from 60" waist jeans since June 21st 2012.

Still keeping to my 26" jeans, but they are too tight for comfort. too many tasty things in the US, and over Xmas.

Onwards and Downwards! Smile
http://www.menu52.com/
mrspackrat

Joined: Aug 10
Posts: 657

      quote  
Posted: 25 Feb 2013, 09:17
According to my package of celery, 110g or 2 medium stalks of celery is 20 calories. So that's .18 calories per g and 100G would be about 18 calories which doesn't match any of the information you found. But I agree, something as easy as celery, there shouldn't be so many answers Smile
blueniamh

Joined: Dec 12
Posts: 102

      quote  
Posted: 25 Feb 2013, 09:24
Honestly I don't know why there is such a wide variance...if it's a basic generic food like celery I tend to use the USDA food database as authoritative which says 16 for celery btw. But I'm currently looking at where they get their info from and it says the following:

Quote:
Data have been compiled from published and unpublished sources. Published data
sources include the scientific literature. Unpublished data include those obtained from
the food industry, other government agencies, and research conducted under contracts
initiated by USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS). These contract analyses are
currently conducted under the National Food and Nutrient Analysis Program (NFNAP),
in cooperation with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and other offices and institutes of
the National Institutes of Health (Haytowitz et al., 2008 ). Data from the food industry
represents the nutrient content of a specific food or food product at the time the data is
sent to NDL.


I guess I had previously thought they did all of their own testing.
liv001

Joined: Oct 09
Posts: 676

      quote  
Posted: 25 Feb 2013, 09:25
I always go with USDA data
http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/

According to it celery raw has 16 calories per 100 grams
eKatherine

Joined: Aug 12
Posts: 1,286

      quote  
Posted: 25 Feb 2013, 11:27
Perhaps some of them are weighed before trimming. I don't like that a lot of the time they leave out critical details you need to choose the right option.
liv001

Joined: Oct 09
Posts: 676

      quote  
Posted: 25 Feb 2013, 13:33
I think sometimes UK and European labels do not count the calories in the fiber when they give the total calories.
I am not sure what the reason for that may be

I would phone them and ask
fredmugs

Joined: Jan 11
Posts: 383

      quote  
Posted: 25 Feb 2013, 14:19
You should always look at the source of the nutritional data for everything on here. Some people like to mod the numbers.
Pain is a by-product of a good time.
blueniamh

Joined: Dec 12
Posts: 102

      quote  
Posted: 25 Feb 2013, 15:25
^ I do definitely like to look at the source of data, and I'm sure some people mod it. But I'm not sure it's always deliberate due to as Liv was saying the packing laws of a specific country. I went to correct an entry for a brand that I think is sold pretty much in Australia. Here the fibre is listed completely separably to the carbs and on FS, fibre is an optional macro entry. So when I went to correct the fibre according to the back of the packet FS wouldn't accept the value, basically because total carbs was less that the fibre value, and I hadn't actually realised until that point that fibre was in fact a carb. By the same token, US laws seem to allow rounding down to zero of sometimes non-negligible amounts of carbs for example. I think for non generic type foods it can get confusing due to a lack of uniformity.
Hoser

Joined: Jul 10
Posts: 2,052

      quote  
Posted: 25 Feb 2013, 15:43
Let's step back and look at the bigger picture, shall we?

One medium stalk of celery has around six calories, according to the USDA's information. How much celery could any one person reasonably eat in one sitting? Three stalks? Four? I can't imagine eating more than one or two, but let's go with four.

Even if the food database is reporting half the calories it should, it would still only be off by 24 calories... at most. More likely it would be off by 5-10 calories for a serving that large.

Ten or twenty calories is noise. It's irrelevant. Don't worry about it.
mrspackrat

Joined: Aug 10
Posts: 657

      quote  
Posted: 25 Feb 2013, 15:54
On certain days, total calories for me is very relevant so I want to know what's more accurate. Unfortunately, I'm finding a lot of discrepancies between what's on the package and what's in FS (I scanned a 32 oz container of yogurt today and it came up as 80 calories--said 1 container 80 calories and no other options to chose 1 cup or 1/2 cup--so this is was clearly wrong. The other day I scanned in cottage cheese and again, the calories were off by at least 20 calories). Anyone wanting to monitor their calories 10-20 here and there can add up after a while.
owlfeathers

Joined: Feb 13
Posts: 52

      quote  
Posted: 25 Feb 2013, 17:09
yes no stress on celery


riocaz

Joined: Jun 12
Posts: 657

      quote  
Posted: 25 Feb 2013, 18:25
Why would US labelling include calories from something we are physically incapable of digesting?

42" jeans(25/01/2013) 40"(28/02/2013) 38"(20/03/2013) 36"(25/05/2013)
Down from 60" waist jeans since June 21st 2012.

Still keeping to my 26" jeans, but they are too tight for comfort. too many tasty things in the US, and over Xmas.

Onwards and Downwards! Smile
http://www.menu52.com/
liv001

Joined: Oct 09
Posts: 676

      quote  
Posted: 26 Feb 2013, 08:00
It is actually quite confusing when you look at the details. There is so much talk about calories that we should think it is super clear cut what is what but what it says on the label is not necessarily going to reflect reality if we really want to be super picky. And in fact scientist are not really sure about how much calories we may or may not absorb from certain foods

Fiber may have calories. Scientists do think that some fiber gets broken down in the long intestine. So in North America the law is that that fiber has to be included in the calorie count.
In UK it is not.
So if we compare labels on cereals for instance. UK labels will have a lot lower number on some cereals than they do here.
Now if the fiber in the ceraal is insoluble - it may have calories that the labels are not reflecting on the other hand over here labels are probably including calories that are not digested

Another thing that happen is that producers inject products with water and stuff so always read to see if there is a list of ingredients that my explain why certain products have certain lower numbers.



Forum Search
Advanced forum search


Latest Posts

Scales at home
This morning I got the dusty scales out from under my bed and I put it on zero, cleaned it off and on the tile floor in my bathroom and weighed myself. And it says 230 lbs. Well there's no way I& ...
by Roschelle McGowan on 23 Apr 18 11:43 AM
Climbing my way out of a very deep sorrow
Losing weight is so hard, even when life is going perfectly. My hat's off to all of you who soldier on through life's trials and tribulations.
by ValerieJN on 23 Apr 18 10:57 AM
BMR with activity factor
“Technically” yes. 1400 calories is a good number for you to start with. We don’t know how much you actually burn. The number FS gives you is approximation and it tends to be on the high side. Still with ...
by Ingria on 21 Apr 18 04:49 PM
Calories
You are very welcome. I'm glad you got the answer to your question.
by teskandar on 21 Apr 18 04:02 PM
Carbs
How many carbs do you need aday
by nanapapyll82 on 21 Apr 18 09:57 AM