The latest Small Bites survey asked readers what values they paid most attention to when reading food labels.The most important figure on a label relates to calories per serving -- at least that's how seventy-five percent of respondents voted.
The ingredients list (32%), fiber content (30%), and serving size (29%) also received a good deal of votes.
While saturated fat was considered important by 23% of readers, total fat content received a significant 40% of votes.
I'm not too sure why this is the case.
Fat content in and of itself doesn't tell us much about the food that we can't already gauge by taking a look at calories per serving (since fat contributes 9 calories per gram, foods with higher fat contents provide more calories than lower-fat ones).
If you only look at total fat values, wonderfully healthy foods like guacamole or walnuts appear no different than brownies or ice cream sandwiches.
When it comes to fat content, saturated fat (and trans fat, although once food companies were mandated to display trans fat figures on their products they miraculously found new trans-fat-free formulas for their products) is the value to keep your eye on.
Remember, high intakes of saturated fat are linked to higher risks of heart disease and a decrease in HDL (or "good") cholesterol.
Guacamole, though, is mostly composed of monounsaturated fats (the kind that help lower LDL -- or "bad" -- cholesterol).
This is why fat content -- without a more specific breakdown -- isn't an appropriate factor to base food purchases on (unless, as previously mentioned, you are trying to gauge calories).
I was surprised to see that vitamin and mineral values are largely considered irrelevant. Only 5 percent of respondents consider vitamin content to be important, and a measly 4 percent feel that way about mineral figures.
A huge thank you to those of you who took a minute to participate!
Please leave comments and thoughts on the results in the "comments" section.
Posts
1 comment:
Hey Andy,
First, thank you -- I just discovered your blog and am really enjoying reading it.
I was one of the folks who voted for total fat content if I remember correctly -- personally I voted for it because I've recently come to the conclusion that fat is not evil (after months in "weight loss" mode, where everyone advocated reducing fat as a means of reducing overall calories).
After looking for low-cal, low-fat options for so long I'm now trying to make sure I have *enough* fat in my diet to satiate me, hence my choice on the poll.
Anyway, you mentioned that saturated fat is the "bad" fat and this definitely is the common understanding these days. Have you read any conflicting evidence about this? After reading the first half of Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories I came to the conclusion that saturated fat really isn't a big deal unless you're in the extreme heart disease risk category, which, at 27 and with normal cholesterol levels, I don't think I am. And, while I don't agree with Taubes' anti-carb approach, I found his evidence about regarding the fat-cholesterol link (and how research was so highly influenced by politics, guesswork, and some key personalities) very interesting, and moderately convincing. It seems that cholesterol levels are only veeery minimally affected by saturated fat in one's diet.
I know you haven't read the book (and probably don't plan to!) but I'm wondering how you feel about this aspect of his argument... or if you've seen other people calling the evilness of saturated fat into question recently. I thought I had it all figured out, but this is the one thing I'm still not sure about.
Thanks so much,
Meredith
Post a Comment