Confused by calorie counts on packet and portion sizes?

[MissHoof]

80calories a portion apparently, packet contains two portions, 115 per 100g but half a packet is more than 100g?!

Just me or is this confusing?

What is the food?
Sometimes with pasta, the per 100g is uncooked, and the portion amounts are cooked.

I would assume the portion size is half of the cooked weight, which might be different from the raw weight.

Your post is a bit confusing in itself as I think you've written 80 calories when you mean grams.

I ignore the serving and go purely by weight. So 144/100 will give you 1g kcals. 1.44 x by weight (once cooked from what I can see on the pack)

*edited to correct my math 😂

80 * 3 =240

There’s 345 cals in the whole meal, at 240g. That’s the bottom line, so if you eat the whole thing that’s your calorie count. That’s because it’s 144 cals per 100g and you have 240g in the whole meal. 144 cals multiplied by 2.4 is 345cals in total.

Proteins lose weight after cooking so given this is a high protein meal the raw weight of 240g should reduce after cooking.
Does seem a lot to lose though, its usually about 20%
Weight it before and after

No. Its 230kcals. The precooked weight has nothing to do with it.
Per serving 115kcal. 2 servings in pack

It depends what the calories per 100g is based on. Frozen or defrosted, raw or cooked? It should state which it is. Then just weigh your portion accordingly.

It's because it weighs 240g including the box, that's what the e means after 240g, it means total weight. What you are getting is the 80g per portion or 160g of food altogether and the rest is the box and rest of the packaging.

I don’t think that’s what the “e” symbol means?

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/food-information-to-consumers

It definitely works out to include the packaging as I weigh my food and always have and discovered situations like this where the portions and total weight differ, it includes the packaging weight.
Apparantely the symbol officially means estimated but the weight does include the packaging which is why 80+80g portions doesn't add upto to 240g total weight.

I think there can legally be 20% variance on foods between what is advertised and what is actually there as well.

According to the link I posted, the weight on packaged food has to be net, without packaging, by law. The e symbol means that it’s within a tight average range of weights, so it’s meant to be an indicator that the weight is accurate.

I think that there’s an error on the packaging and if 80g is a portion, then there should be three portions in the packet and the error is the statement that the pack contains approximately 2 portions.

Easy to check by weighing the contents and checking whether it’s 160g ish or 240g ish. The calories per 100g should be correct, so you can still work out the calories in what you actually use from the packet.

I work for a food manufacturer. The weight on the packaging is the weight of the contents. It does NOT include the packaging weight.

if they want to include the packaging weight too, they would clearly state that.

The only confusing thing on this packaging is why 240g is only 2 x 80g portions, not 3! 115 calories per portion would be 345 if it’s 3 portions. The 144 divided by 100 and multipled by 240 (the packet weight) is 345 calories.

Suggests to me there’s a typo on the box and it should say there are 3 portions.

Sorry! Just noticed that. Yes I should've put g.

Aldi plant based chicken substitute

This is exactly what confuses me. The weights/portions do not add up.

That's what I am going to do. Weigh it and go by the 'per 100g' calories content.

Aldi? (I can see "Warwickshire" on the label.)

You would not believe how many errors I see on their packaging (I used to sign off packaging as part of my job).

I agree, that packaging is wildly confusing. I think the front of pack gives the answer though. It says "per 80g serving (cooked)".

If you want to be sure, weigh 120g of whatever it is before cooking then cook it and weigh again after cooking and see if it's there or thereabouts 80g. (Seems like an awful lot of weight loss to me though.)

But also just for your knowledge, nutritional can be 20% out and be perfectly legal.

I should have said the front of pack labelling is the same data as the back of pack 80g data that's why I think it's relevant.

That's not true for all food. I bought a sharing bag of crisps and literally a few days ago weighed out a portion and the total weight including the bag amounted to the total weight printed on the pack with an e.
To work out what I ate I weighed it with the pack then took a portion out then reweighed it. So how is this possible if that isn't happening? Clearly it is happening and even in this case with the box.

The problem with something like crisps is that the e shows it’s an approximate weight due to the nature of the contents. We don’t produce something with that type of weight, so I’m not sure of the tolerance on it. But an empty objet of crisps is incredibly light - I’m not surprised to hear the total pack weighs around the same, it’s likely within the tolerance. The op looked like a cardboard packet which will be heavier. It would be incredibly misleading to the public to include the packaging weight. What about if it’s in a glass jar?

The pack weighed 34g! It wasn't zero. It was 154g incl the crisps or 120g without the pack. On the pack was printed recommended portions of 30g and it said 4 portions per pack then it said 154g e for the weight.
I wouldn't say its misleading, I've always thought weight included the packaging because I weigh food a lot to input my calories and it always includes the packaging.

Either an error or the word 'approx' is being stretched to its limits.

Weight never includes the packaging, it has to be the net weight, legally. The “e” sign means the value is an average estimate, within the legal acceptable tolerance range. That means that most packs need to be at least the weight stated and only a few may be less than. The overall average when the product packs are tested needs to be at least the weight value stated on the pack.