Looking for answers.
Have you tried reading the label? I find that sums it up rather nicely.
Labels do tell about fat and carbohydrates, but not proteins, vitamins and other such thing
Where do you live that that’s the case? In the US, that information is required on food labels.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Wait. Are you telling me that the US actually has a better standard for Nutritional Facts than other first world countries?
And somehow we’re STILL the fattest nation in the world?
The standard US “Nutrition Facts” label is very limited and typically doesn’t include much information on micro nutrients. I don’t know how it compares to other regions, but it certainly leaves a lot to be desired.
Yeah it would be nice to have mandatory micronutrient labeling. Some labels have them, others don’t. I think it might be up to the producer to decide which micronutrients they can list.
Nah, the US has “per serving” on the label instead of “per 100 gr.”. And since “per serving” is moslty an arbitrarily term, it means food producers can grossly mislead consumers about the contents of their food.
Pretty sure Mexico is fatter
They should pump cocaine into the water supply. Rapid weightloss.
Interestingly, UK foods destined for import in the US market use the US label and do include that information. Heinz Beans have 50mb calcium, 1.5mg Iron, and 370mg potassium per 130g serving, for example.
Huh, can you post a picture of the can?
Huh, well it’s definitely got some of the nutritional values added (fat, salt, carbs, protein, etc.), but vitamins appear to be absent. In the US, if they weren’t listed, I would assume they were not present but TBF, I have no idea how (if at all) labeling is regulated in the UK.
TA: In the UK you fucking PRICKS.
I am not understanding. Are you saying that you can’t read the label on the product?
No. That in the UK a canned product label doesn’t show vitamin and mineral content.
That doesn’t seem likely. Look at the label more closely.
Removed by mod
Such language.
Yes it does, well it should anyway. it’s required by law in the US, and there’s no way in hell the US has stricter laws regarding nutrition.
I’m in the UK where tinned food doesn’t have vitamins and minerals on the label.
How in the world does the backwards ass United States have better nutrition laws than another first world country? a European one at that
More strict sanitation laws often. It doesn’t matter how non-food related the system (like the box crushing machine) if it is going in a US food plant it will follow IP69K.
Are chainweasels an relation to ferrets? I like ferrets.
Well, your question as asked has the answer of yes, and then no.
Canning absolutely does not destroy or otherwise remove “nutrition” totally. And, as such, if the food that is canned was not empty calories to begin with (which is a kinda bullshit term tbh, since the only thing that covers is sugars only, and maybe fats only, which nobody cans), then the food inside the can is not empty either.
As others have said, the process of canning does break down some nutrients. However, so does cooking to some degree. But, cooking also makes some things easier to extract from the food as it goes through digestion, so it isn’t like raw things are inherently better than their cooked versions by virtue of being raw.
So, in general, canned foods are going to be “good enough” on average, when it comes to vitamins and minerals. Some things will be better than others in that regard, so you’d have to look things up as you go and figure out what is going to be reduced enough to merit going through extra effort to obtain and store frozen/raw.
Somewhere in between. The canning process does alter the ingredients, but not by a whole hell of a lot compared to something like, say, cooking them.
So, they still can have good nutrition. The bigger thing to worry about are things like extra salt and sugar added, which can add up with other things in your diet to reach an unhealthy amount.
All that said, frozen is usually better these days, pretty much across-the-board.
It has most of the nutritional value it had before it was canned but some vitamins degrade pretty rapidly.
One of the factors in food preservation and nutrition is the stability of different vitamins. Specifically, there are water-soluble and fat-soluble vitamins.
Water-soluble vitamins dissolve in water. They are less stable and more affected by processing and include folate, thiamine, and vitamin C. Fat-soluble vitamins dissolve in fat. They’re more stable and include water, vitamin A, D, E, and K. Fat-soluble vitamins are less effected by cooking and preserving.
Basically it depends on what the food is and how it is preserved
If I’m honest with you though there is no harm in eating canned food and no such thing as “empty calories” all of your daily nutrients are important and you should get them but not meeting you daily quota isn’t such a huge deal as long as it isn’t especially consistent. Calories are your fuel but you can think of vitamins and micro nutrients as your oil that keeps things running smoothly.
If your diet is primarily canned goods I would recommend taking a multivitamin or altering your diet to include fresh produce containing those water soluble vitamins.
I would argue that anything with more carbs, sugar, etc than fat and protein is by definition empty calories and in the case of soda and juice (yes even fruit juice) it’s even worse because of the complete lack of nutrients and what sugar does to your insulin response, hunger response, etc.
You can and people do make breads that are heavier and packed with more nutrients. I don’t remember the specifics but simply letting dough rise for longer than you usually would does add some nutrients but it’s still not outweighed by the negative effects of a carb heavy diet.
Canned foods tend to have less nutrients compared to fresh or frozen fruits/veggies.
IIRC, frozen actually has the most nutrients because its harvested when its ripest versus fray produce thats harvested earlier than it should be and "ripens " as its delivered and shelved. Could be wrong, just something I remember hearing.
That’s part of it, but I believe the other part is the canning process further depletes some of the nutritional value.
Makes sense, raw produce is more nutrient rich than cooked produce
Yes, but the nutrients in raw are not as available as cooked. They’re present in higher quantities, but a lot will pass through undigested.
Calculating how much is destroyed by cooking vs how much is made available is going to depend heavily on the food and nutrients in question.
But I will say that if you need more or less of a nutrient, you will get much further by changing the food vs how it’s prepared.
Mostly, but sometimes cooking them can actually increase some values by breaking down cell walls and making nutrients more available (to a point, anyhow).
Just because it’s tinned doesn’t mean it’s not nutritional… Most things in a can aren’t changed or added to in any way other than pasteurization after being sealed to kill anything on the food in the can.
At worst, canned soups and meats and sometimes vegetables with added salt have too much salt and canned fruits have added sugar when they are packed in “syrup” instead of water or their own juice.
Don’t know why you’re downvoted so much.
Yes there will be vitamins and minerals.
Maybe nutritiondata.org has more info if you want to check.
Depends whats in the tin.
Fruit and veg? Sure
Custard? Mostly sugar (empty calories)
deleted by creator
