"Health Food" vs. Healthy Food -- How to read labels

if this lecture shows anything it is not that there is to much fat in a product, rather that the rest of the product doesnt contain much calories. He is right about that, but then twists it to make a nonpoint.. if they put 50% sugar in it then percentage calories from fat would go down rapidly.. would that be better?

"the rest of the product doesn't contain much calories"...

Thats the point. We eat to get calories (and micronutrients, etc). If we need a certain number of calories to live, and we dont want a high percentage of those to come from fat, then we need accurate information on our labels.

the info IS accurate. if u see, which is stated on the label, that there is not a whole lot of carbohydrates and proteins in a product (which is the case in this particular calorie distribution), it is easy to put that into perspective with the amount of fat in it (it is both measured in mass) and get all the info you need. and there is nothing wrong with a lot of your calories coming from fat, especially not if it is one product.

I would assume that health conscious people also eat pasta, vegetables and fruit, drink milk and so on. this calorie hunt is just a food related induced schizophrenia. these particular statements are misleading at best. You could have a product easily match 70% carbohydrates by adding sugar to it. it doesnt mean its healthy. Ofcourse, you dont want to eat too much fat, but this is a quite flexible and individual requirement. This guy is playing on peoples ignorance. Any soup with any taste

to it has at least 40% calories coming from fat. this would be considered unhealthy by these standards ofcourse. I am sure that this particular product is junk, but its not because of the evil fat.

he is outright lying. if you have 1% fat it naturaly and logicaly means that it applies to mass. Since fat is very caloric ofcourse more than 1% of total calories come from fat. 67% calories from fat just means that the rest of ingredients have almost no nutritional value. if u had a bucket of water and a spoon of sugar in it, 100% calories would come from sugar. This ofcourse doesnt mean that the bucket of water is 100% sugar. The public listening to this fraud are morons

Settle down, dinkolino2, I'm pretty sure he's making the point that every health recommendation (from every health authority in the world) refers to fat as a percentage of total calories. So, for a company to call something 99% fat free, when in fact most of its calories are from fat is misleading to those who are trying to be health conscious.

Again, the health conscious person, trying to reduce the number of calories from fat, would be misled by this label. I'm sure that's all he's saying.

fat is not bad for you. there are many different fats anyway, its like saying carbohydrates are bad for you. or proteins.. some poisons are proteins..

I know this seems like a joke, but I was really asking: What about organic poison berries?

If we concede that nature is capable of producing food that is unequivocally BAD for us, then that admission must apply across the board. Meat may be simply BAD for us; it has little to do with how it is processed.

I'm sorry, but I seem to have missed this thread. Why do we want "colloidal silver"?