Greater than the sum of its parts

[E_SolSi]

Lipton Pureleaf Green Tea


16 FL OZ (1 PT) 473mL bottle

60 + 60 = 130??????

so if a serving is 8 FL OZ
and there are 2 servings per 16 FL OZ bottle
how the hell does the whole bottle have more calories than the 2 servings????

and there is actually slightly less than 2 full servings if you look at it by mL
240 x 2 = 480... which is more than the 473 that is in the bottle

so seriously... this isnt just a simple type-o
i noticed this on a label a few weeks ago
and figured maybe they screwed up when they sent it to printing
but then i went to their website and found that it is the same way there too

http://www.liptonpureleaf.com/our_teas/green_tea.php

so how does a bottle containing slightly less than 2 servings have 10 more calories than 2 full individual servings???

are they counting the label??? are people who drink this really that hard up for fiber???

 

[Hondadude141]

It is a 16.9oz bottle, so almost another ounce. Thats how they get another 10 calories.

 

[reckedracing]

16 fl oz's = 473.176473 ml
16.9 fl oz = 499.79265 ml

nice try

i think its a scam to make american's fatter and lazier

 

[efhondakid]

I've seen the same thing on some other bottled drinks, but I didnt let it get me all worked up.

 

[E_SolSi]

It is a 16.9oz bottle, so almost another ounce. Thats how they get another 10 calories.

clearly states 16 FL OZ on the bottle
and as stated below 473mL

16 fl oz's = 473.176473 ml
16.9 fl oz = 499.79265 ml

nice try

I've seen the same thing on some other bottled drinks, but I didnt let it get me all worked up.

if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem
:fuckyou3:

 

[reckedracing]

well, i found one result for calories in paper
you might be onto something??

0.31 calories per mil per square cm.
How many calories in a piece of paper? - Yahoo!7 Answers

not that i would ever trust yahoo answers, lol

another "trusted" answers source

For a human being, zero. Paper is cellulose. Cellulose is a polymer just like starches, except humans cannot break it down. It will pass right through you as crap.
Only grass-eating animals can digest it for energy. I know I went overboard.

 

[Briansol]

The simple answer: Rounding.


Have you ever seen calories as 123? No, it's 120. They just round to the nearest whole number.

 

[E_SolSi]

if that was the case each serving would have 65 calories... 5s are hardly offensive to anyone's delicate sensibilities

and even if the 5 was too offensive to put on the label...
they would have rounded UP to 70... being that they would catch a lot more shit for rounding down and claiming less calories than the actual amount

 

[reckedracing]

so... this is what you do at work? lol
i think you might need to switch to decaf

but now that B mentions it... i don't think i've ever seen anything other than a 0 at the end of calories
i just checked a couple things i have handy here, and both are 0's, one is water, but thats besides the point... its all i got on hand

 

[K2e2vin]

but now that B mentions it... i don't think i've ever seen anything other than a 0 at the end of calories
i just checked a couple things i have handy here, and both are 0's, one is water, but thats besides the point... its all i got on hand

I noticed that too.

They probably didn't add the rounded figures but rather add up the original figures and then round the final figures to the nearest 10. I don't think they necessarily round up only either because I'm sure bottles may actual have more or less than the indicated figure.

When I worked at a adhesive company and worked in the department that filled containers; we had variances(we were supposed to check very 10 or something like that to make sure they were within tolerance; fill height and weight wise) but of course the label always said the same thing. Same with Slim Jims.

 

[Briansol]

7. Nutrition Labeling; Questions G1 through P8





N7. When the caloric value for a serving of a food is less than 5 calories, can the actual caloric value be declared?
Answer: The caloric value of a product containing less than 5 calories may be expressed as zero or to the nearest 5 calorie increment (i.e., zero or 5 depending on the level). Foods with less than 5 calories meet the definition of “calorie free” and any differences are dietarily insignificant. 21 CFR 101.9(c)(1)

N8. Should a value of 47 calories be rounded up to 50 calories or rounded down to 45 calories?
Answer: Calories must be shown as follows:
50 calories or less--Round to nearest 5-calorie increment: Example: Round 47 calories to “45 calories”
Above 50 calories--Round to nearest 10-calorie increment: Example: Round 96 calories to “100 calories”
21 CFR 101.9(c)(1) Also see Appendix H for rounding guidelines.




Therefore, it does not follow regular rounding, as 60 is greater than 50 and rounds to the tenth, not the 5th.


Therefore, according to the FDA, i am right, so

 

[reckedracing]

i am rather amazed at the amount of time and research that has gone into this thread

 

[Matts96HB]

so, its settled.

60 + 60 = 130.

 

[K2e2vin]

so, its settled.

60 + 60 = 130.

Serving rounded to the nearest 10th means it that "60" figure can be anywhere from 60-65 cal(or rather 55-65).

If the actual figure was let's say, 63(which would still round to 60 per serving), then 63+63=126, rounds to 130, hence 130cal per two serving.

 

[E_SolSi]

:tfg:

 

[Hondadude141]

Its probably something like 63 + 63 = 126 before it's rounded. My mistake on the 16.9, I picked up the tea sitting next to me and it was a 16.9oz, and I thought thats what the bottle said when I tried to read it.

 

[reckedracing]

55-64
65 would/should round to 70
sorry, gotta be that guy

 

[K2e2vin]

Yeah I thought about that, and in general math, you're right, but decided to just stick with "5" since it wasn't specified. As we know, with money, they always round up regardless.

 

[UNDR8D]

The simple answer: Rounding.


Have you ever seen calories as 123? No, it's 120. They just round to the nearest whole number.

The FDA allows rounding and you have to assume that they always round down...fuckers.

 

[95b16coupe]

odds are it probably has 300 calories.

nobody does the calorie testing. the only time it will matter is if someone ever sues the company. they will wait until they are 400lbs and then blame a green tea drink for their obesity.