From: sbhattac@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Shankar Bhattacharyya)
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg,misc.fitness
Subject: Re: Hidden Fat In Packaged Foods
Date: 24 Jan 93 04:27:45 GMT
Followup-To: rec.food.veg
Distribution: world,local
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

Sorry if you see this twice. I cancelled one attempt because our site seems
to set follow-ups automatically for cross-posted articles, and the first
one got set for misc.fitness. Rec.food.veg seems more appropriate. I also
took the opportunity to correct a couple of typos which even I couldn't
figure out after the fact.

In article <mcdonald.695.727820200@aries.scs.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald) writes:
>In article <35750@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> sbhattac@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Shankar Bhattacharyya) writes:

>>In article <1993Jan22.142519.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> poulin@violet.ccit.arizona.edu writes:

>>>   What I enjoy is entering the supermarkets, walking over to the hot-dog areas
>>>and then looking at the 96% fat free packages and then looking at the caloric
>>>info to see that while they're 4% fat by weight, they still have 60-80% fat by
>>>calories...

>>That's a pretty startling statement.
>>
>>Could you provide an example of the kind of product you have in mind, which
>>simultaneously:
>>  a.   is a hot dog, sausage, or cold-cut type meat product
>>  b.   is 96 %  fat free, by any plausible definition, even the rather
>>       unreasonable one used by meat companies
>>  c.   gets 60% or more of its calories from fat?
>>
>>I think you will find that you have a couple of distinct things mixed up.
>>Standard hot dog type products have approximately 80% of their Calories
>>from fat. But these would not be marked "96% fat-free" or anything like
>>that.

>>Also, commercial hams, which tend to have about 4% fat by weight, have only
>>about 35 or 40% of their Calories from fat. The fancier hams tend to have
>>more fat.

>This sort of stuff is possible. The key is there are several ingredients
>that have mass but zero calories: water and certain non-degestible
>bulking agents.

>It is perfectly possible to have a substance that has 2%fat by weight
>and 100% of the calories from fat. It would consist of say 2% fat,
>96%water, 1% bulking agents, 1% jelling agents like gum, and some
>flavor ingredients and non-calorie sweetner.

Yes, but is that something for which it is meaningful to say, "go over to
the hot dog area" ? See point a in my question.

>For example, you could add some fat to a sugar-free Popsickle.

Sure, but poulin's description was of stuff in the hot dog area of the
supermarket. I have asked for a specific example of a hot dog, sausage,
cold cut, or similar product. That's my interpretation of "go over to
the hot dog area". If someone specifies a product, and it is available
around New York, I'll even go get some and analyze it for myself. That's
easy enough to do.

Products of the sort you describe certainly exist, but they do not meet
poulin's account of something in the hot dog area, unless the store happens
to store soda and popsicles in the same are as the hot dogs. In that case,
of course, poulin's comment about the hot dog area becomes a complete
non-sequitur. I expect he has some specific product in mind. I would like
to know what that might be.

It is exceeedingly unlikely that any hot dog or cold cut or similar meat
product has anything like enough water or bulking agent to satisfy that
description. A product which has 4% fat by weight (which is what 96%
fat-free means for meats; yes, I know that's silly, but that's what it
means in practice) would have to have no more than 6% protein plus
carbohydrate to meet the 60% Calories from fat description, and no more
than 4% to meet the 70% Calories from fat description. A hot dog,
incidentally, cannot, under the law, have a water content that exceeds
(M * % protein + AW) %, where M is a factor called the protein multiplier,
and is about 4, exact value depending on the type of meat, and AW is
allowed to be as high as 10%. AW is called the added water. Hams are
allowed to have more than 10 %, but they can then not be called hams.
They have to be called ham and water products.

So, even if you could concoct a hot dog that met Poulin's description, you
could not sell it in the US.

A standard hot dog has about 25% fat (with 30% a legal maximum), about 12%
protein, and relatively little carbohydrate. 3 or 4% sugar is not exactly
unheard of, but more is rare. 3-4% salt is common.

The water content tends to be in the 55-65 % range. If you make a 4% fat
hot dog, the protein and water will both go up, and there is no way under
the sun that poulin's description will be met.

Mind you, it's not that hot dogs are good food. They are distressingly bad
food. But when someone throws off a casual comment about 96% fat-free hot
dog type stuff with more than 60% of the Calories from fat, something does
not scan.

I'm looking for clarification of that comment. I know how something with
4% fat can get 60% or more of its Calories from fat - I do analytical
chemistry of food for a living. I would like to hear of a hot dog type
product that meets poulin's description.  Having come across a comment I
don't quite get, I'm looking for clarification. I'm open to instruction.

Sorry if my post left unclear what I was trying to ask. I tried to make it
as explicit as I could. Over on rec.food.cooking I have recently been told
that I need a course in English as a second language, so I trust I may ask
for some forbearance.

- Shankar
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg