Onwards And Downwards Continues In February 2014

[AB Editor]

Onwards and Downwards Continues in February 2014

Hello all,

Welcome to this month's Onwards & Downwards. We welcome anyone serious about losing weight and we offer support and kind thoughts - not magic fixes, just sensible help.

Welcome to the month of love everyone, February is here. So how do you combat all the chocolates and cakes due around the 14th? Could you gently suggest to your sweetheart a low sugar, non fat alternative?

Are there any and what do they taste like? I like the look of these:

http://www.hanielas.com/2012/01/delicious-roasted-potatoes.html#.UuuAatJ_uAg

And these heart shaped tomatoes with a healthy dip:

http://eyecandy.nanakaze.net/?p=128

Please do give us your ideas about a healthy Valentine's Treat.

Don't forget your weekly weigh on Wednesday and remember we don't judge!

Here is last months thread

[Old_Geezer]

I got an answer from the company, I’ll summarise as best I can.

100 grams of dried product becomes 260 grams of ‘made up’ product once water is added.

A serving is considered to be 130 grams of ‘made up’ product. (Made previously from 50 grams of dried product.)

100 grams dried = 150 Calories

130 grams of ‘made up’ = 1.3 * 150 Calories = 195 (or ~196) Calories

I still do not see how adding water at 0 Calories to increase the weight changes the calorific value. Reduce the number of calories per gram maybe.

And I don’t see how one can multiply the value for 100 grams of dried product by 1.3 to get the new value when one is using just half the packet (i.e 50 grams) of dried product to make up a serving.

I don’t think I have the heart to send a follow up question. I’m either making a fool of myself, or their explanation simply doesn’t work. It seems to me they have forgotten how the weight increased and just multiplied up the dried figures to create some fantasy ones.

[xstitcher]

I got lost about ½ way through that OG my little brain doesn't work on things like that....can quite understand that you don't want to follow up with any additional questions, but thanks for the explanation.

[Maydup]

Go for it with a follow up question OG, get to the bottom of it! You're not being foolish, they have not explained it all.

[Old_Geezer]

I have advised I didn't think the explanation worked.

[penelope2]

OG, i have followed your posting with interest. The explanation you have received doesn't hold water (excuse the pun). H2O contains no calories so mixing it with anything of stated calorific value cannot, in my opinion, alter the calorific value. Please post any further communication you receive from the company. Many thanks.

[Old_Geezer]

That was exactly my thought but I've had a further reply that may explain.

Apparently both the 100 gram information and 130 gram (per serving) information relate to made-up product. The fact that the bag holds 100 grams being a coincidence.

I took it that the 100 gram figures were the ones relating to the dried product in the bag, I suspect because I couldn't imagine one would say the same thing twice but for different quantities.

I thought I must be missing something. The bad news is that it is 356 Calories a pack then, not 137 :-( Always works out that way doesn't it.

[lardhelmet]

Ive lost 2 pounds. Now I only work in the office 3 days a week, my chocolate intake has gone down by 2/5ths.

[wendilla]

OG I think I will give up on trying to understand that one .
Lard helmet welcome to our onwards . We hope to see you next week with another loss. Well done .

[lardhelmet]

Thank you wendilla. Bike comes out of hibernation in the garage at the weekend. Every little helps.

[xstitcher]

Bikes are a super good way to get exercise. Good luck for next week now that those chocolates are out of harms way.

[Maydup]

Oh well, thankfully you didn't go a bundle on the cous cous anyway OG!

[Marijn]

Well done Lardhelmet!

OG, they probably worded it in a confusing way on purpose, to make people think there are less calories in it than there really is.

[xstitcher]

I'm with you there Mayijn, they all do it.

[wendilla]

I don't think we should go into too much detail of what it says on the back of packets or tins as we will never understand it . The only way we are going to help ourselves is by eating healthily working out what we are going to have for the week and cut down on the portions. If you keep a record of your meals it helps to vary the following weeks meals. Cut out fatty things and crap. Trust me it works. Again if you are not on certain medications unsweetened grapefruit a small glass every morning helps to break up body fat and for me it helps me craving for sweet things .

[xstitcher]

Here here Wendilla! There is no fast easy way although I don't find the healthy eating hard by any means.

[Old_Geezer]

But one needs to read the packets and tins if one wishes to limit the energy intake.

The cynic in me wants to agree Marijn but I think it is a case of, if you know what the details meant you don't necessarily see how unclear it is to someone who doesn't. IMO the back of the pack could do with a redesign, and at least one column ought to be detailing the bought product.

Actually for cous cous it wasn't bad, Maydup. I had a pack on its own although I'd not count any of it against my five a day. But if one had just half a pack as a serving, one would need to add other stuff too.

Congrats lardhelmet, so down to just 3 lbs of chocolate a day now ? :-)

[wendilla]

Half agree with you OG but I still stand by my last post to eat healthily .

[penelope2]

OG, thanx for posting the latest response from the company. My wife takes MugShots as a snack and they display 'typical values' per 100g and 'typical values' per sachet (244g). If you read only the first column 100g (85kcal) and take that as the calorific value, you get quite a shock when you read the second column 244g (207kcal) which in fact is ONE serving.

[wendilla]

That's what I mean Penelope not all people understand the back of the packets and tins ect. It does confuse people .

[penelope2]

Wendilla, if my memory serves me right, I believe there was some EU directive that made manufacturers display values per 100g, hence the manufacturers have to display those values plus the full values (per sachet etc.). Agree it can be very confusing but necessary to understand if you are calorie counting. I personally can't be bothered with all that, as previously posted I just try and avoid processed/refined carbohydrates.