openmic.social is an uncensored community. You may encounter strong language, controversial opinions, and mature or NSFW material. You must be 18+ to browse. Illegal content is prohibited and removed on sight — please report it. By continuing, you accept that you may see content you personally disagree with.
that’s why it should say “calories per 100g” instead. no way i’m gonna just use 0.25g. that’s like eating a single potato chip then putting the package away.
The product pictured is an oil spray that you’d use in a pan or like baking sheet or something. If you’re using more than a couple or a few sprays, you are doing it very very wrong, and you need to just use a bottle of oil.
I own this stuff, I buy it at Costco, I don’t even think I could spray it for 1/4th a second it’s not got a very precise nozzle. There’s also a huge difference, literally magnitudes, between 1/4th of a second and a few seconds over a pan. I use cooking spray pretty regularly and have a few applications like my ornate Nordic wear pans where a bottle of oil would not work well and it would be nice to know what I’m adding to my food but I chalk it up to the caloric cost of cooking
more like one crumb of a potato chip
You see that in UK, a tea mix having 1000 calories doesn’t help.
I’ve also seen plenty of UK products that have 2 sets of calorie/nutrition facts side-by-side, one for calories per 100g, and another for either a more typical serving size, or sometimes the whole container, which really strikes me as a fair middle ground. Have a reference quantity that makes it easy to make overall comparisons across all food, but also a reasonable “preset” for displaying the info for the product in question. It lets you eliminate stupid promotional tags like this that let you claim a food is fat-free, calorie-free, or whatever else by requiring a reference standard that doesn’t permit the manufacturer to simply manipulate the serving size until whatever claim they want to make is technically true for the amount they’ve chosen, while also making it easy for people to track their calorie and nutrient intake. The number of canned products I see in the states that have no way to reasonable seal them again and prevent them from going off once you open them, like large cans of energy drinks like Monster, yet have multiple “servings” in the can so the nutrition facts label can claim a serving is actually somewhere around 200 calories is absolutely ridiculous when you considering most people will treat the cans as a single serving and consume double the amount indicated at a minimum.
It’s spray oil to stop your real food from sticking when cooking at high temperatures. You wouldn’t want to use 100 grams. You might as well chug olive oil, and not the good olive oil at that.
no, but you’re not just comparing it with nothing, you might also want to compare it with other kinds of oil. The absolute number itself is barely relevant, what most people want to know is which oil products are healthier than others.
All oil/fat is about 100 calories per tablespoon. The “healthy” and “unhealthy” ones differ in their saturation (rule of thumb, refrigerate it and poke it with your thumb. The harder it is, the more saturated.) and any fat-soluble vitamins, but you pour or scoop a tablespoon, yer gettin’ a hundred calories.
I dislike the “calories per 100g” Just tell me how many calories are in the package and I’ll eat the whole thing.
haha :)
but it’s also about price. do i buy the 200g package at 2,50€ or the 350g package at 4,20€?
having things broken down to “per 100g” helps me with that.
All 1,532 servings?
yes
You should be fine, 1,532 x 0 = 0 after all