Protected:

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

So,
I’m reading this, and I come across the following:
******

R81.

Question:

Data base analysis indicates that a food contains 277 calories, 464 mg sodium, 39.22 g protein, and 5.81 g fat per serving. Can a restaurant use the same numbers that are generated by data base analysis (or provided in a cookbook or other source of nutrient content information) directly in its nutrition labeling?

Answer: Yes. However, labeling that declares nutrient values in a way that implies an unwarranted degree of accuracy could be misleading. To avoid the impression of unwarranted accuracy, as well as to make nutrition labeling easier for consumers to review and understand, restaurants are strongly encouraged to follow the rounding rules set out in # 101.9(c) (see attachment A). To be consistent with these rules, the above values should be declared as 280 calories, 460 mg sodium, 39 g protein, and 6 g fat.

******
The impression of unwarranted accuracy.  I’m gonna have to remember that one.
I should probably spend my time on other things, eh?

Of course, since I had been playing well Tuesday night, I totally had to biff most of my throws yesterday…

Links-O-Million:
~~This, Common Cat Parasite Affects Brains, is just weird.  I mean, it has the sound of pseudoscience to me.  Just…weird.
~~When Only One Twin Gets a Disease is much less weird.  Some interesting things going on with gene expression.  Plus, research bits on RA.
~~A nice little editorial about Folk Science.  Anecdotal evidence had become one of my major pet peeves.  And it’s so hard to avoid using it myself.  It’s much easier to tell a story you’ve has heard (or experienced) than it is to look up and quote the research (or do the research).  I just don’t have the capacity in conversation to quote what I read somewhere days or months before.  So, in conversation, I’ll cut someone slack.  Online, there’s no reason not to google what you’re talking about.  And there’s no excuse for the multitude of articles I read that have been haphazardly posted that pass themselves off as science when all they are is anecdotes.
~~Some research reported on serving sizes and consumption.
~~And just for Eric, who was muttering about the nutritional values used at FitDay: How Calories are Counted by Food Manufacturers.  So, it’s based on an indirect, rounded average of kilocalories per gram of nutrient and then rounded again by the manufacturer.  ‘Cause the package of their example energy bar won’t read 201 calories, it would be reported as an even 200.  And yes, I realize they are treating proteins in their usual somewhat incorrect manner.