great taste but loads of sugar. be warned. heat for price
yrreb88 to joegasp777
11 Aug 161#4
Yes but one of main seasonings traditionally used in BBQ sauce is sugar, just over 3 teaspoons assuming you eat every drop of sauce, I don't think a warning is needed. :smiley: However if you're eating pork there's also the high fat content. This isn't a superfood of course but at 300 kcal it's pretty reasonable not to be too concerned about anyway.
futura
11 Aug 16#2
The packaging on these are shocking, great big box and tiny pack inside. About enough to make one decent sized sandwich so £2 is really all they should be
edinburgher to futura
11 Aug 16#3
Totally agree! Was surprised how much fat was on this too. I have stopped buying these items where you can't see what you're getting as they never look like the photo!
jans
11 Aug 16#5
Not wishing to be pedantic, and I'm certainly not preaching because I love bbq pulled pork but those figures you mentioned are a fair way off. Looking at the image on the box, it states that half a pack consists of 13.1g of sugars and I don't know about you but these packs only feed 1 person each which means the whole pack has over 26g of sugar. One teaspoon of sugar is equal to 4g so divide 4 into 26 and you have closer to 7 teaspoons of sugar in each pack and the calorie content states on the box that it is 205kcals per 100g and the pack weight is 380g so judging by that, it must be getting close to 800 cals per pack or at the very least 750.
yrreb88
11 Aug 16#6
If you eat all of something that says serves 2 or contains 2 portions yourself, it's pretty silly to complain about the sugar content. That's like warning people the sugar content is too high in half a cake because one slice is too small or saying a McDonald's quarter pounder is fine, just watch out for the sugar in the BBQ sauce you were going to put on.
The fat and saturated fat content would be doubled too. A gram of salt, almost 10g of sat fat, which is half the current GDA for women, and 26g or nearly 7 teaspoons of fat which accounts for over 1/3 of the whole calorie content compared to about 1/6 from the sugar.
However there does seem to be some confusing shenanigans with the nutritional info by Tesco, maybe one figure is based on uncooked or something. Per 100g it's 861kj and 1/2 pack is 146g and 861x1.46 is 1257kj or 300 calories. But as you mention the pack weighs 380g and 861 is 206 calories so x3.8 and you have about 780. :confused:
Regardless, it's 2 portions of pulled pork in sauce. I like to eat a lot but we're talking close to a pound of meat and sauce. When the product alone is, let's meet in the middle here, ~700 kcal, add a bread roll/bun, maybe a side or two and you bump up the calorie content even higher so the sugar content is one of the lesser concerns in my opinion. This is probably we have issues with the prevalence of overweight people. :smile:
jans
11 Aug 16#7
Point me to the part where I was complaining. I actually pre-fixed my comment with the point that I wasn't preaching. I was merely pointing out that your calculations were incorrect. I think you're getting me mixed up with the original person you initially replied to.
As far as I am aware it doesn't state that it serves 2 and I don't think it's actually meant for more than one (adult) person. I have never tried this particular brand but we get the Aldi version fairly regularly and it's the same weight and method/style of cooking as this one. We have ours over a standard sized portion of jasmine rice and there's no way that one pack would go between the both of us and we're not what you'd call greedy/overweight. These are single portion packs. I'm sure of it, which is why they also have the much larger kilo sized packs available that states that they feed 4 people.
Seems you've alternated from defending the point earlier in the thread to now calling people fat if they indulge in it because you got your figures wrong. Strange.
yrreb88
11 Aug 16#8
Apologies I can't point it out, I have mixed you up, no excuse for that.
Just to clarify, 1257 kJ/300 calories is what it says on the front so that's what I went with, just as as we are using the 26g of sugar as mentioned on the front. If we calculate it from the per 100g figure then the calorie content is higher so I'm not sure which is right. The nutritional info is displayed in terms of half a pack which usually means 2 portions. I do understand what you meant though, apparently one of those large bags of kettle crisps has 5 portions when I find it's clearly 2-3. :smile:
I didn't mean to imply people were greedy or fat for indulging in 2 portions of a product but I can see how my comment was seen that way so apologies again. There is a high prevalence of overweight people and many question why, some blame sugar or junk/processed food etc whilst I just think we tend to have a higher calorie intake and/or don't move as much as we used to if of course able.
Of course this would have made a lot more sense if you were the one originally mentioning the sugar content so again apologies. I am certainly all for indulging and enjoying food and not just simply trying to focus on one ingredient or nutrient as some seem to. It's one of my pet hates unfortunately so I can start rambling like I have done and eventually dig myself to Australia. :neutral_face:
![Fresh Breakfast Meat Box (Using code) @ Campbells Meat [Haggis / Lorne Sausage / Bacon / Black Pudding & More]](/images/topics/208684_1.jpg)
![[Xbox One] Q. u. b. e: Director's Cut on Deals with Gold](/images/topics/208716_1.jpg)
Opening post
8 comments
The fat and saturated fat content would be doubled too. A gram of salt, almost 10g of sat fat, which is half the current GDA for women, and 26g or nearly 7 teaspoons of fat which accounts for over 1/3 of the whole calorie content compared to about 1/6 from the sugar.
However there does seem to be some confusing shenanigans with the nutritional info by Tesco, maybe one figure is based on uncooked or something. Per 100g it's 861kj and 1/2 pack is 146g and 861x1.46 is 1257kj or 300 calories. But as you mention the pack weighs 380g and 861 is 206 calories so x3.8 and you have about 780. :confused:
Regardless, it's 2 portions of pulled pork in sauce. I like to eat a lot but we're talking close to a pound of meat and sauce. When the product alone is, let's meet in the middle here, ~700 kcal, add a bread roll/bun, maybe a side or two and you bump up the calorie content even higher so the sugar content is one of the lesser concerns in my opinion. This is probably we have issues with the prevalence of overweight people. :smile:
As far as I am aware it doesn't state that it serves 2 and I don't think it's actually meant for more than one (adult) person. I have never tried this particular brand but we get the Aldi version fairly regularly and it's the same weight and method/style of cooking as this one. We have ours over a standard sized portion of jasmine rice and there's no way that one pack would go between the both of us and we're not what you'd call greedy/overweight. These are single portion packs. I'm sure of it, which is why they also have the much larger kilo sized packs available that states that they feed 4 people.
Seems you've alternated from defending the point earlier in the thread to now calling people fat if they indulge in it because you got your figures wrong. Strange.
Just to clarify, 1257 kJ/300 calories is what it says on the front so that's what I went with, just as as we are using the 26g of sugar as mentioned on the front. If we calculate it from the per 100g figure then the calorie content is higher so I'm not sure which is right. The nutritional info is displayed in terms of half a pack which usually means 2 portions. I do understand what you meant though, apparently one of those large bags of kettle crisps has 5 portions when I find it's clearly 2-3. :smile:
I didn't mean to imply people were greedy or fat for indulging in 2 portions of a product but I can see how my comment was seen that way so apologies again. There is a high prevalence of overweight people and many question why, some blame sugar or junk/processed food etc whilst I just think we tend to have a higher calorie intake and/or don't move as much as we used to if of course able.
Of course this would have made a lot more sense if you were the one originally mentioning the sugar content so again apologies. I am certainly all for indulging and enjoying food and not just simply trying to focus on one ingredient or nutrient as some seem to. It's one of my pet hates unfortunately so I can start rambling like I have done and eventually dig myself to Australia. :neutral_face: