How much is "about 2" really?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Can of soup or can of worms? Either way, it's opened.
This video is supported by viewers like you on Patreon: / vihart
Thank you especially to Caleb Wright, Albert Wenger, Pat Devlin, Jack Heidrick, David Perryman, Jade Bilkey, Chris Pierik, Donald "Chronos" King, Andew Romaner, Jodi Vezzetti, Carol Ghiorsi Hart, Andrea Di Biagio, Charley Sheets, Yana Chernobilsky, David A Smith, and Michael Tiemann! - Розваги
Love how they say “Chicken has been inspected”
Doesn’t mean they passed. Just meant someone looked at it and said “yea that’s chickens”
exactly, very very true, mebe more than you know
Kinda like those health products that advertise they're "clinically tested". They eagerly claim they took the test, but they don't say they passed the test. If they had, they would say something more concrete like "clinically proven" or "drug facts".
That's like me inspecting all my chicken nuggets and running out of chicken nuggets
They didn't even have to say that! They just had to look at it :P
Ray
What a the labels that say “Mechanically separated chicken”?
Makes me think of a giant robot ripping them into pieces.
why am I watching this? I do not even own a soup.
Life of Boris me neither. But blyat, you would make one rather than buy, anyways. Just put potatoes, onion and some flavorings in water
Does borscht not count as an soup? It cannot be canned but you can soup it
Because soup is CHEAP and GOOD for yu.
I don't know. Bylat shit is good.
The video that is
It's a small world after all
Vi, it's been months, were you kidnapped by Big Soup?
She died of sodium O.D.
@zoe maxwell she was in rehab because of her math addiction...
They gave her about 2 options.
Where is she
I love this comment 😂
This is the point of UA-cam
hbihu you ruin things.
Yes that may be the case but on the good side of thoughts the real use of UA-cam could be for entertainment but it might be far fetched the creators know deep down they just want the money to live the life they want but they gain so much they start to realize the sadness of the people that don’t have the money so they donate realizing they don’t have enough so they raise the ads... repeat and all the games and apps just turn into ad invested money makers, some games are just copy’s of others just drowned in ads. But talking again about entertainment, there must have been a reason to making UA-cam when starting it in the first place there must have been a purpose, which is most likely to be for entertainment or a way of sharing life like social media
no it's not a point it's a space with two spacial dimensions and one temporal dimension
@hbihu r/wooosh
+
Wow, this comment got about 2,000 likes
Policemen1: so... How many people did they kill anyway?
Policemen2: about 2.
Policemen1: what.
so roughly they killed 2.5 and a little more of a person
that is actually possible, if he shot 3 and knows that 2 are for sure dead but 1 is sjot in the chest and has a chance of surviving wich can be said as about two
Whyet Perry policeman about2*
“A very 2ey number officer”
I don’t get it!
I figured this out when I was anorexic (though used maximum values allowed by FDA guidelines to be safe) and had even more unease at the thought of eating. Then I realized that the Calorie counts are really just estimations because they can't control for how nutritious the ingredients they're using are over time or how well you digest it. I think this was a final blow to my extreme self-auditing and Calorie counting, as I could no longer justify writing an exact number down (at one point I would calculate multiple estimates to multiple decimal places based on ingredients and macronutrient composition and use the larger one for my records), and I started to grossly overestimate my Calorie consumption just to be "safe." After a series of hospitalizations that were a direct result of this, and after ~2 years of time for the implications of this to set in, I am no longer anorexic and no longer have any faith in nutrition labels. This was corroborated in the graduate-level food science classes I have taken since.
Thank you. I'm recoving right now... could you, like, reassure me that if I get what I want and don't count the calories, I'll, y'know, be ok?
@@screamingweevil3410 Absolutely! The short of it is that Calories are a useful but flawed measure of how much energy we can get from eating foods. However, the flaws are numerous. For one, food energy is stored in different molecules that are treated differently by the body, and whose metabolism differs from hour to hour based on activity. Additionally, nutrition labels are intentionally fudged depending on the market the product is selling in. In experiments where foods were independently re-tested, their nutrition label Calorie contents didn't even correlate with the actual number. Food is made up of organisms whose nutrient content is just too unpredictable to reliably count.
For instance, broccoli may have 0.31 Cal/g on average, but any given sample may vary drastically.
Knowing this, it's hard to justify the obsessive counting. So yes-- get what you want and don't count Calories! You'll be okay. The first steps are scary, but after a while you may find that your fears are unjustified and that you have actually been completely in control the whole time!
FDA: Breaking bad nutrition, consumer trust, and negative thinking alike since 1906
@@screamingweevil3410 hope ur doing good!
Glad you're doing better. Also seeing this comment about 2 years later. Lol
Good thing I live in a country where the law is that every food product must have their nutrition table show values for both per 100g, the amount in the product, and maybe (if the product is used for multiple servings) per prepared single serving. This makes it much easier to compare in the supermarket.
Oh, it sounds like you live in a country called the EU.
Not exactly a country but whatever :D
Shaeress - Nope! :D
Damn ^^
Öğrenci Sarp Eren Hangişi no need to cyber bully
Not really 'about 2' but due to the rounding down and serving sizes below a defined limit, TicTacs which are flavoured sugar pellets can be marketed as zero calorie snacks.
They even admit it on their website
"The Nutrition Facts for Tic Tac® mints state that there are 0 grams of sugar per serving. Does this mean that they are sugar free?
Tic Tac® mints do contain sugar as listed in the ingredient statement. However, since the amount of sugar per serving (1 mint) is less than 0.5 grams, FDA labeling requirements permit the Nutrition Facts to state that there are 0 grams of sugar per serving."
WTF USA? How can any of this possibly be legal?
"How can any of this possibly be legal?" Politics and general bureaucracy. It's funny that this is one of the few times where rounding a number actually makes things more complicated.
"How can any of this possibly be legal?"
American laws often go by the rule of "if this is sort of close to the actual number, then it's sort of not quite a lie, right?"
The simple answer is that bribery is effectively legal in the US. The general public have no influence on government policy, despite apparently being in a democracy, because all of the options they're given are already bought and paid for long before they ever hear of them.
Same thing with Splenda. It has the exact same amount of calories as sugar, but it’s 4 calories per serving. Because it is below 5 calories it can market itself as zero calorie!
She is the type of person to accidentally discover the meaning of life and the universe ...
*And not care*
Yup
Accurate
About 42.
@@jannisopel exactly 42
The meaning of life is soup
wouldn't it be a Soup Can-spiracy?
stop.
*stop.*
Long live the pun king
There is a door to your right.
Use it.
Majoofi
👏 👏 👏 👏 👏
How could I have been so blind? Please enlighten me, senpai!
Top 10 youtubers who left without warning
What happened?
Old no This was the warning
I hope she comes back man, YT recommendations are really helping her
:(
I think she might have, according to another comment? Subbed because of this video though
In before Big Soup censor this video
Justin Y.
Fu-
Justin Y.
I did not hit her. It’s bullshi- oh hi Justin Y. wassup
no.
How do you comment EVERYWHERE
I once saw a chocolate bar with 12 blocks but the serving per pack is 11. Am I supposed to drop the last block? Give it to someone else? Divide it by 11? Who knows. I ate the whole thing in one go, anyway.
Franz Anthony 😂, if you ever wanna be healthy, I accept donations in the form of 1 block of chocolate.
Yeah you're definitely supposed to cut the last block into elevenths and eat one of those along with 1 full block. Simple
Are you CRAZY?! The last piece has as many calories as the rest put together!
That last PEICE will make it so you can’t walk it has millions of calories... let the dog eat it animals don’t get fat
wow what a rebel
did you read a 132 page document on soup servings just for this?
Now that's dedication.
why not just eat ramen out of the pot instead of pouring it all into a bowl? you would have to clean the pot but that's one less bowl if your goal is minimal cleaning.
r77xxl Either way, in the end you still have about two dishes to clean... :-°
The pot is harder to clean than a bowl though. It's the MSG seasoning that really makes it stick to the container, so personally I'd prefer that happened in a bowl or not at all.
The pot is too hot to be an effective dish from which to eat from.
natslovebug this is false. See: me when I’d forgotten to run the wash.
Self-respect？
*can you tell this video isn't a paid sponsorship*
I've always wondered what "About two" meant on my soup can. I pondered for days and I still didn't have any clue,. Of course by that time my soup was cold so I needed to heat up another one, but seeing the nutrition got me thinking about it again. This video is exactly what I needed. Now all of my soup-related problems are resolved. Thanks Vihart.
I have a package of Top Ramen in the cupboard that is so old it simply says "Servings per container: 2".
Apparently there was some mass migration to "About 2" by Big Soup.
daemn42 about 2 servings seems like big enough soup already
Big soup
daemn42: what, you don’t eat only have a package of top ramen?
This is the person you read about in those math problems.
Okay, so who else kept waiting for Vihart to pull out an actual calorimeter at the end and put that soup on fire and actually measure in actual calories how much heat she gets out of it? :-D
Thunderf00t would probably do that in a 40 minute badly edited video and blame it on elon musk's hyperloop and somehow he would make sense.
Wtf theres suck thing as a calorimeter
do you have the formulas?
Mohamed Diab, you hit the nail on the head with that one.
Rob Spagrenetti I’m disappointed in your school. If you didn’t light Doritos on fire in a cup under a cup of water to test how much the water temperature increased you have been failed by your education system! 1 gram of water increases 1 degree for every calorie so if you have 100 grams of water that increased by 2.5 degrees it was a 250 calorie food
6:01 Did you just use "84.999..." to represent "an arbitrarily small amount less than 85"?
Who are you, and what have you done with the real Vihart?!
The thing is, the FDA doesn’t understand that 0.9999... actually equals 1.
just imagine that there are an arbitrarily large but finite number of nines.
84-1/inf
It’s probably a countably infinite number of nines.
That would still be equal to 85. In fact, if there are infinite nines, I think there necessarily has to be a countably infinite number of them, since there exists a bijection between the natural numbers and the number of nines.
Omg do you look at the calorie per dollar ratio on your food as well? I thought it was just me
The Gibbie I also do this because I need the calories to survive. #soupgate
i too am poor
I 100% do this lmao I have too high of a metabolism to not
Store brand canned ravioli or spaghetti and meatballs (generic Chef Boyardee stuff). Cheap, calorie dense, tastes great, lots of fiber too!
When they started putting calorie counts on fast food menus, I gravitate to the best calorie / dollar which leads me to the higher calorie items on the menu.
Isn't that why they started posting that info?
I never understand what she is talking about but I still watch her videos.
She talks so fast. But I love it anyway.
Your conclusion reminds me of a study I read years ago. It concluded that money doesn't corrupt politicians because a change in the amount of rules regarding campaign finance didn't alter the amount of corruption. It used prosecutions as a stand-in for corruption. Which means it actually showed that campaign finance laws are followed at about the same rate whether they are loose or restrictive. In other words, campaign finance laws are effective. When you losen them so much that corruption is legal, there will be more legal corruption and still about the same number of people who cross even that very loose line.
There was another study about the same time that concluded that small and mid-sized controbutions dominate politics, not large contributions. They reached this conclusion by raising the number on what they called a "large" contribution so much it made it a smaller portion of the total. They ended up calling a contribution on par with the median income in America "mid-size". That struck me as the kind of study that found their conclusion first, then worked backwards to make the data fit.
sources?
Sam I’m to drunk to understand this
Money doesn't corrupt politicians, power does.
The two cans I had were marked per 100ml on one and 100g on the other, for minimum comparability. Bonus: the 100g one was for a diluted result, so indeterminate per can contents.
Suckers. They should have counted the contributions in each bracket instead of summing them up. That way they could say that medium and large contributions constitute a negligible portion of all contributions.
At least you didn't microwave the soup for 9:99 or you might have found truly how many Calories it contained.
Is the calorie count literally as much as stuff could burn for? I reckon that'd b pretty useless: I doubt we can process all raw actual calories equally well...
At least I don't see many people filling their diets with crude oil or other such delicious high calorie sources.
9:59?
Kram1032 it's important in chemistry because it doesn't just apply to food, it's a measure of how much energy can be released from something when it is burned, except calories are just a unit of measurement normalised to water. E.g. 4.18 joules heats 1 gram of water by 1 Kelvin - which is exactly the same as what 1 calorie is capable of, but by calling it a calorie we get rid of the nasty 4.18 number and replace it with a nice, round, 1
Kram1032 IIRC, yeah, that’s more or less how calorie counts are done. Also IIRC, “burning the calories” is exactly what our bodies do, just not quickly enough that we burst into flames.
yaseen reza No. 9:99
Watching this video again for the umpteenth time and I just realized how careful you are not to judge anyone's preferences on whether they want higher or lower calorie soups, and I appreciate how conscientious and kind you are in doing that :)
So here in the EU, everything is required to be labeled with calories etc. per 100g or 100ml as well as per serving, which makes comparing two products much easier. Servings per container on stuff like soup tends to be "1/2 a can" which removes the missing fractional portion for rounding terms, and calorie counts aren't rounded to the nearest 10 because apparently EU consumers can handle more than one significant figure. I'm sure there are still ways of fudging these numbers but with every loophole that gets closed, the margin of fudgability shrinks.
It's far better, but it has its share of loopholes. For instance, Bong canned soup is condensed, so they get to label it per diluted soup; and suddenly you can't figure out the weight that the can results in, because they don't tell you the volume of the can. At least they have to indicate that they're fudging using a footnote for the comparison table.
LoneTech
Concentrated or rehydratable foods need to list values for the food both before and after dilution/rehydration.
That would obviously be better, but this can doesn't.
While rounding in the US is ripe for manipulation it's "dangerous" to think that EU labelling precision is useful. Pure substances like salt being robotically added to five decimal points might test out very consistent. However, I'm sure that if you check 10 cans, that aren't from a single homogenous batch, you'll find that none of them agree and none of them match their label perfectly either. Honest labelling would give a distribution for each ingredient. Sometimes the pork is much fattier, other times the machine completely misses adding pork to the can, and occasionally it adds shards of metal from itself. Mmmmm sharp! That level of analysis would overwhelm even the most math savvy of consumers. Ultimately, things like how much you chew your food and your genetic propensity for producing certain digestive enzymes complicate the picture considerably. It's better that we recognize that all of the numbers are approximations and as long as it's only 10% "off" or whatever it won't matter since we're already consuming 200% of the recommended amount. That's the point I believe Vi was getting at; the magnitude of the error is small compared to how much harm we do by overeating in the first place.
It's understood that values have variance. Rounding them off just adds bias to that uncertainty, which in this example is clearly exploited to the detriment of the customer (and since we're talking food, actually consumer). Incidentally we don't use five decimal points, we typically have two significant digits.
A fair amount of this comes from the US using "A cup", which is a measure of volume, not weight.
Also, in the UK (at least, probably most of Europe too) while they can (and generally do) put nutrition information "per serving", they are also required to put information "per 100g" (for dry goods) or "per 100ml" (for wet goods). So all products can be compared on an equal level. So you can really see if that "Low sodium" soup has less sodium than it's regular counterpart.
Soup: *Rounds down the calories.*
Vihart: "I'm about 2 end this soups whole career."
Wait no, the video is just old ad
😂
Or alternatively, "about 2 end this soup's whole serving".
underrated video callback pun
In Sweden they just write "per 100 g" which is so much simpler. Makes it so much easier to figure out the percentage of fat/protein/sugar etc.
Wheres our new hexaflexavideo? Hexaflexagon day has passed!
aka “why ramen is better than soup”
Ramen is soup.
mrtannzr oohhhhhh
*sips tea*
The FDA does seem to do a pretty good job. They'd do an even better job if they were more accountable. For example, imagine if taxes were used to fund healthcare. Then the FDA would have a greater vested interest in reducing the amount of healthcare people need. Wouldn't that be interesting?
I knew from the start I was "about 2" get political up in here.
Well, the taxpayers already pay for healthcare. They just do it out of their own pockets. It's a fun little game called "I better try and save up $150,000 as soon as possible in case someday I miss one concrete step and ruin my life forever."
There are other countries with a much lower per-capita GDP that have sorted this out.
Also, your counterargument seems to be the issue of leeway. That was already my point. That they _could_ be better. But why would they? Where's the incentive for the FDA to tell food manufacturers, "Hey, stop it with the sugar and salt, you knuckleheads"?
Lol, If you take the gdp of Sweden, then add it to Norway's, then add that to Denmark's, that is about how much the US government spends on health care every year for seniors, military, disabled, and children.
We could _buy_ your little communist nation with our healthcare budget.
"We could buy your little communist nation"
Who is the "you" in this sentence?
Tom Haflinger Well, technically, there isn't "you" in that sentence, but I get what you're saying. And the comment is mostly directed at all the eurotrash haters that always seem to pop up in threads like these. More of a preemptive strike. Not directed at other Americans, obviously.
Probably have to start making a conspiracy theory on why vi said 427 when she actually writes 472...
"Souper Market"
None of this "about 2" bollocks on UK cans of soup, at least not those in my kitchen about now.
Two words: Marketing strategy
About two words
iOSMinecraft120 lol
They charge 1$ for can not really that deep just don't buy it if it bothers you
*you continue to buy it just to complain about the marketing tactics*
Chaitanya Singh One word: Marketing.
Obviously marketing but just seems deceitful/ a way around whatever the labeling laws are.
how tf did she manage to make math interesting 🙄 TEACHERS TAKE NOTES
GreeK omg yesssss 😭😭😭😭😭
Watch more vihart videos
That's all of her videos, it's greeaatt
If you think this one is entertaining just check out the rest of her videos
by soup
I discovered your channel only yesterday, and you have already leapfrogged over all my other subscriptions to become my favourite UA-camr. 🥇
Well she stopped making videos
Why did she stop though?
or live in a country that doesn't have an allergy towards regulations and the labels are more accurate.
I will, as soon as Elon Musk starts selling tickets to there.
At 8:32 you pulled a complete logical 180 by using the fact the labels aren't accurate to try to tell the audience they are?
Certainly, sketchy tricks like those shown on those cans are outlawed here europe and certainly the UK.
That's why almost all American food that get's imported here needs to be relabelled to actually have accurate numbers to replace the old ones
Electromag[e] the point is that companies are trying every trick in the book and the labels are still mostly accurate. It wasn't that long ago when there were no nutritional guidelines at all. Imagine what sold then.
The point's definitely not "it's perfect and can't be better" though.
Saying that the labels are good labels because you didn't used to have labels is absolutely batshit.
It's like putting plastic bags on your feet because you didn't have shoes and exclaiming they're the most comfortable shoes money can buy!
By saying "mostly" you've pointed out exactly why your labels aren't good. Because they're not accurate, at all. They're full of work-arounds, strange rounding quirks, and have the ability to almost tell you nothing accurately about your food given the right shenanigans.
There shouldn't BE any "trick in the book", there shouldn't be room to pull these kind of stunts, and in europe, you literally cannot because of the strict standards put in place so that consumers actually know what they're getting without having to pull mental gymnastics.
Electromag[e]
Exactly
Electromag[e] Well the problem here is most people don't care about this. The normal consumer doesn't care if the labels are the most accurate things. Unless you're on a diet, the nutrition facts are good enough for the average person. If you know anything about the US, you know it's capitalist country. One of the joys of capitalism is the power of the consumer. Whenever there's a product you don't like, don't buy it. If enough people do the same thing, the company who made the product sales will go down. This gets the message across the company, since your hurting what it values, money.
Of course it might seem simpler for the government to just 'fix' the issue, but many of my fellow Americans (Myself included) don't trust the government to fix it.
@@billyswift1745 I understand why you dont trust your government as the same companies theyre meant to be regulating are the ones basically pulling the strings over there, but thats truly not an excuse for basically putting rubbish on your labels.
And if you didnt know, every country in Europe is a capitalist country too and we don't have that problem (though we certainly have problems like any country, don't get me wrong) but your capatlism point has literally nothing to do with people not knowing what theyre buying
*looks in pantry*
"Who highlighted all the soup cans?"
SOUP CONSPIRACY
I guess the US can't do the sensible thing and just make it mandatory to specify nutrients per 100g/100ml like a lot of countries all over the world do?
I'd really like to know how they are getting the numbers for a serving size. They must be using children to come to those sizes. I have yet to find a product that has a serving that's actually filling. Eating 2-5 servings is not unusual (and that's me almost being underweight).
I think American food corporations bank on the consumer not understanding price per mass as a concept.
Calories per mass isn't helpful. Different products have different masses. So you have to do multiplication anyways.
It is useful, because it is standardized and makes comparison very easy. That's the point of it. For example to see that a fat reduced "diet" product actually has a lot more sugar in it instead, otherwise it wouldn't taste like anything. Usually the manufacturers put a "per serving" column on their as well (but only the per 100g/100ml is mandatory). And btw. if they do it is specified in grams, what they consider one serving. The multiplication isn't hard, when it's based on 100g/100ml.
superdau its not helpful because I dont know the weight of what I eat. I want calories for the whole pizza because I'm going to end up eating the whole pizza. The serving size is too small and so is 100g. How many calories are in the entire pizza?
you have the weight of the pizza on the package, just do the math..
At about 2 mins in (2:22)
Writes down 472
Says 427
Are you sure about dat Vi
I watched this video when it came out and I'm somehow watching this again. I love this so much you have no idea
Nobody:
Literally Nobody:
Vihart: SOUP CONSPIRACY!
Well this makes me feel slightly better because I always eat more than the suggested serving. I mean, who opens a bag of chips and only has 10 of them?
This video was my brain when I had an eating disorder lmao
Hello, yes, i was summoned
I love this style of video where math can be used to decipher the world around us! If "Big Soup" is trying to manipulate us with sketchy math, who else might we uncover next?!
🖤LMAO SHE BE EXPOSING THEM🖤
1:04 my matrix methods professor calls it the "Multiplicative inverse" He also calls subtraction the "Additive Inverse".
I'm stating the obvious here, but that makes sense, especially when talking about "division" in the context of matrices.
"servings aren't the only number with exploitable rounding rules" indeed, just look at e and pi both being equal to exactly 3
Where I have been this whole time. What a wholesome channel 😂😂
That ramen life pro tip is where it’s at
Vi found one of the worlds mysteries, soup.
Why are they using grams as a unit of measurement? I thought they were 'Merican cans of soup. Shouldn't they use lb, oz or firkin?
The companies should be forced to specify what the soup contains per 100g, like all civilized countries do.
Jakob American Labels list both ounces and grams
Jakob we use both for old peeps sake. All of our science is metric.
American products will use whatever form of labeling that makes the least sense to the customer. Specifically because the US mostly uses Imperial measurements, metric is very popular for food, because nobody here has any real grasp on what "100 grams" is.
Jetsetlemming imperial is not the same as customary. Imperial is stones, fathoms, etc. Customary does use SOME imperial units but the conversion rates are different. The reason we use both is because the US is legally required to but the conversion rate is incorrect. If you ever buy cake mix from a us company, convert it yourself always.
Part of the problem with exact amounts in each serving of soup is that, depending on the soup type, because there are usually several types of chunky ingredients like cubes of chicken, peas, carrots, etc, the exact ingredient ratio will never be exactly the same in every can. Thus, if you get more meat in one can than another, that can will certainly have more protein than a can that happens to get more chunks of celery, when doled out from the big cauldron the large batch is cooked in.
From now on I will always boil eggs with my noodles. That's genius.
i love this person's voice. it makes me calm for some reason.
Thank you algorithm for showing this to me:
The thing that jumps out to me immediately is that all the cans (except that slightly smaller one) are US #2 cans, which have a volume of 20 fl.oz (2.5 cups) . The smaller can is a #1 Tall which has a volume of 16 fl.oz (2 cups even) So allowing for rounding it seems to line up. Then you definitely do have to worry about the density of the soup itself accounting for the different masses.
This video was a pleasure to watch. Thanks for making it.
And number 5: give up on the label and use physics and burn it in a calorimeter to know for once and for all how many calories there are!
Found your video by accident. I'm glad I did it was incredibly interesting. and your quirky humor got me to giggle a few times I must admit. 😁
I'm so happy we have the nutritional values of 100 gr on every food here in Europe.
This consumer deception as shown here is illegal in our countries.
Such awesome observation skill...
I totally love this...
did you just buy soup for this video??
If this video has taught me anything, it's that I really should keep a colorful pack of sharpies around just in case.
Now I want soup
It's been years since I've regularly watched your content. Glad to see it's still well thought out, informed, and still entertaining.
Vi just eat ur soup
It'sJack But... it’s more fun and mathy this way.
Eat your soup Apollo
I'm so glad this stuff is standardised in the UK
Wow... sometimes I hope I don't overthink things. I am happy you have done it for me
What do you do for a living.
Overcomplicate soup😐🤘
This is the kind of content I'm looking for.
This video was the term "down a rabbit hole", but in video form. I have tried to count the calories of this very soup before, out of curiosity, but I always just assumed that "about 2" meant a decimal so insanely close to 2 that "Big Soup" just decided to call it that. Therefore, I was shocked to see that, on your first soup, "2" actually meant 2.22. In terms of rounding, I guess that means 2, but for someone trying to track their calorie intake, that is most definitely not 2. Anyways, thank you for exposing the conspiracy of "Big Soup."
The step you missed to get even closer to the exact calories would be drying and burning it and calculating the calories by measuring the rate of heat of the outside container.
Gees Vihart I though you wanted to be thorough!
the problem is that (even if you dehydrated it, then weigh the water) Cellulose and Dietary Fibre doesn't've Calories when eaten but does release Heat when burned
if all lectures were like this, nobody would skip classes anymore.
Surprised because I just came across this today while eating lunch and looking at the can. I'm surprised these companies can get away with it still. I'm even more surprised I stumbled onto this video the same day I noticed the can having that numerical issue. Thanks Vihart
Great. Now I’m hungry want to make have soup even though it’s time for me to go to sleep. Just great.
The numbers on each can for "per serving" are a bit of a gray area, since soups aren't homogeneous. If you were to have a soup that separated (chicken noodle, for instance), then decanted off 1 cup after it's settled, then poured the second cup, you would end up with 2 very different cups.
There's also the deal with cooked goods having a very unpredictable amount of nutrition inside of them, even moreso with soup. It would take some pretty high-end lab equipment to be able to tell exactly how much nutrition is even in these things given all of the processing they've done to it. The simple answer for the "about 2" would really just be "We don't know how much is actually in there, just about how much there is" rather than any conspiracy :)
I have no idea what you’re saying but I just like your voice.
;)
The way you said "chicken" in the sentence "this video not sponsored by eggs whose parent is... chicken" cured my depression
I love that you write in all caps, I do the same thing. Great Can..spiracy!
I wasn’t even hungry when I clicked on this video but half way though I had to stop the video to make myself a bowl of soup...
I don't know what made you so passionate about this topic... But I appreciate your thoroughness.
Wow, someone else who spends as much time looking at and analysing the nutrition facts on food as I do? Amazing lol.
She said ABOUT 2.22, so she's lying to us as well!
Vihart: writes down 472
Also vihart: 2:21
ngl, vihart's voice is so cute i could listen to her talk about anything
That's why I'm glad to live in Europe were food controls and legislations are stronger and all food has to has their nutrition values in "for every 100g (exactly)".
Soup Canspiracy
Imagine walking into her house and seeing numbers written on all the food
This was a bit too much math so I suspected it was a certain youtuber I was right
I cannot even begin to comprehend this
2:20 through 2:30 is the most upsetting video segment I've ever watched on FB
RnathanF this is UA-cam tho
This makes me so happy to see I’m not the only one doing grocery store math
This is giving me ASAP science vibes for some reason and I’m loving it
Best things to add to ramen: lentils, beans, carrots, green onions.