Canned garbanzo beans

A place to get your questions answered from McDougall staff dietitian, Jeff Novick, MS, RDN.

Moderators: JeffN, Heather McDougall, carolve

Canned garbanzo beans

Postby Zena » Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:03 pm

Hi Jeff,

While going thru my pantry, I came across 2 different brands of garbanzo beans. The calorie counts made me scratch my head in wonderment and I couldn't figure out why there's so much of a difference between the two. So I thought to turn to the expert :-)

Here's the info on the labels:

#1
S&W -
Serving size: 1/2 cup (130g)
Servings per container about 3-1/2

Amount per serving:
Calories 80 / Calories from fat 15

Total Fat 1.5 g
Cholesterol 0mg
Sodium 460mg (yikes!)
Total Carbohydrate 18g
Dietary Fiber 7g
Sugars 2g
Protein 6g

Ingredients: prepared garbanzo beans, water, salt, sugar, disodium edta, calcium chloride, sodium sulfite added to promote color retention.


#2
Ziyad -
Serving size: 1/2 cup (130g)
Servings per container about 3-1/2

Amount per serving:
Calories 120 / Calories from fat 20

Total Fat 2 g
Cholesterol 0mg
Sodium 440mg (yikes again!)
Total Carbohydrate 20g
Dietary Fiber 6g
Sugars 4g
Protein 6g

Ingredients: water, garbanzo beans, salt, disodium edta, calcium chloride, trace of sodium sulfite (for color retention).

I couldn't tell why the 2nd brand was 50% higher in calories so I thought I'd look up canned garbanzo beans using the Cron-o-meter. To add to my confusion, the same 130 g serving size yielded 155 calories.

I've been using these either in salads or as a snack item (after rinsing them as much as possible). And I sometimes will go thru a full can in the course of a day. But there's a big difference between 280 cals, 420 cals, and 542 cals. Hope you can shed some light.

Thanks!
Zena
User avatar
Zena
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:35 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA

Postby Chumly » Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:11 pm

Maybe the lower calorie version includes the water in the calculation instead of just the beans.
Chumly
 
Posts: 1316
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Postby dlb » Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:13 pm

Zena -

Good question!

I have a can of Eden Organic Garbanzo beans (130g serving, 130 calories, 10 from fat) which are 7.69%. The only ingredients are garbanzo beans, water, kombu seaweed.

Looking at the two cans you have they both appear to have added fat in them somewhere. Can 1 is 18.75% and Can 2 is 16.67%.

What stumps me is that Can 1 has added sugar and is higher in fat yet lower in calories than Can 2.

Looking forward to Jeff's answer.

Donna
dlb
 
Posts: 1451
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:07 am
Location: Amelia Island, FL

Postby Zena » Sat Apr 19, 2008 5:33 pm

Chumly wrote:Maybe the lower calorie version includes the water in the calculation instead of just the beans.

I had wondered the same thing myself, but usually people don't consume the liquid with canned beans. And I've noticed that when liquid is included, it usually refers to that in the serving size description. But this maybe the case in this instance (though the liquid that's w/ garbanzo beans is really gross).

I didn't see anything in the ingredient list that points to any added fat. Perhaps its just the calculations the different companies are using that give various read outs on all the individual factors.

The comment DLB made in regards to the sugar was also something that had caught my attention. I'd have thought between the two the added sugar would have been the higher calorie brand. Maybe there's something in the way S&W "prepares" the beans that makes the calories just "fall out" of them??
User avatar
Zena
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:35 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA

Re: Canned garbanzo beans

Postby JeffN » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:29 am

Zena wrote:Hi Jeff,

While going thru my pantry, I came across 2 different brands of garbanzo beans. The calorie counts made me scratch my head in wonderment and I couldn't figure out why there's so much of a difference between the two. So I thought to turn to the expert :-)

Here's the info on the labels:

#1
S&W -
Serving size: 1/2 cup (130g)
Servings per container about 3-1/2

Amount per serving:
Calories 80 / Calories from fat 15

Total Fat 1.5 g
Cholesterol 0mg
Sodium 460mg (yikes!)
Total Carbohydrate 18g
Dietary Fiber 7g
Sugars 2g
Protein 6g

Ingredients: prepared garbanzo beans, water, salt, sugar, disodium edta, calcium chloride, sodium sulfite added to promote color retention.


#2
Ziyad -
Serving size: 1/2 cup (130g)
Servings per container about 3-1/2

Amount per serving:
Calories 120 / Calories from fat 20

Total Fat 2 g
Cholesterol 0mg
Sodium 440mg (yikes again!)
Total Carbohydrate 20g
Dietary Fiber 6g
Sugars 4g
Protein 6g

Ingredients: water, garbanzo beans, salt, disodium edta, calcium chloride, trace of sodium sulfite (for color retention).

I couldn't tell why the 2nd brand was 50% higher in calories so I thought I'd look up canned garbanzo beans using the Cron-o-meter. To add to my confusion, the same 130 g serving size yielded 155 calories.

I've been using these either in salads or as a snack item (after rinsing them as much as possible). And I sometimes will go thru a full can in the course of a day. But there's a big difference between 280 cals, 420 cals, and 542 cals. Hope you can shed some light.

Thanks!
Zena


Hi Zena

THe discussion so fat has covered most of the issues.

THere is a "lee way" companies are allowed which is 20%. So, while these appear to be 50% off, they could actually fall into the "lee way" if they both tested around 100. If they were both around 100, rounding off to 80 or 120, is within the "lee way".

The answer though is that I do not know. As has been said, it may have to do with the water, and or the sugar differences.

This is also not unusual as if you look throughout the grocery store, you will see this often. Pull out 5 mustards (or any other identical product) and you will see differences. Some of it has to do with how they tested it, which lab did the testing, but most of it has to do with rounding off and numbers. And often times you will see numbers change if you follow a product. This is because they retested and found new more accurate numbers.

A friend, wrote a great article, very similar to my "label reading" talk on some of these issues which you may enjoy reading.

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/labels.html

IMH(P&P)O, the main lesson here is that this is another powerful example of why calorie counting or micro-managing of ones intake is not recommended. It is impossible to do and you will go crazy trying to do so. There are too many exceptions, loopholes, averages, rounding off, etc to accurately track anything. And, don't forget the 20% "lee-way". This is way even when trained professionals were asked to accurately track what they ate, they were up to 30%. We just do not have good tools to track calories.

However, this is also why the principles and guidelines of calorie density are better, easier and more helpful in determining what to eat.

You do not have to know the exact calories of anything or the portion. Just know the "approximate" calorie density (not what is on the label) and follow the basic principles of the MWL.

In regard to labels, follow my guidelines and they will help you pick the best product (knowing there is limits on the info the label gives up.

If you remember in my video/talk, when we come to the Nutrition Facts label, I point to the word "facts" and say "that is the first lie because most of the information is not factual.

It may not be the best possible label, but it is the best label every and the best out there, so we have to make do with what we have.

In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby JeffN » Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:01 am

I received and email from a friend who has provided another alternative answer, and which may explain what actually happened.

The first product may have subtracted the amount of fiber, from the total carbohydrates, and used what may be considered "available" cabs, before doing the calculations.

This is possible and would explain most of the difference, but I am not sure of the official FDA stance on this and will look into it.

However, there are still other problems and things that do not line up.

The first can lists sugar in the ingredients yet lists total sugars as 2. The second can lists no added sugars in the ingredients but lists total sugars as 4.

Interesting, adding sugar to the ingredients results in 2 less grams of total sugars? :)

In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am


Return to Jeff Novick, RD

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests



Welcome!

Sign up to receive our regular articles, recipes, and news about upcoming events.