Check the link Cr is rating diets. OK fine, read the chart on page 1. Note the columns under** Percent of Calories**
Weight Watchers
Protein 24
Fat 7
Sat fat 56
Carbs 20
Total 107%
Shouldn’t these numbers always total to 100%
All of the diets listed total more than 100%. They all exceed 100% by the number in the fat column. Is CR saying that calories from fat don’t count? Did I miss the memo? Or does the staff at CR need some remedial math lessons? Or am I missing something here?
One other nit to pick, why would they, above the chart, state
but in the footnotes below the chart is the following
Why would they change scales in the middle of a single article?
On the chart thing, it looks like Mr. Daniel DeNoon translated CR’s ratings to make them more presentable for his article.
The chart, then, is an actual excerpt from CR, and the footnote at the bottom goes with that, not with DeNoon’s translations. He should have been more careful to not be confusing, or perhaps the chart was added without his knowledge.
As far as the calories go, I don’t know. Perhaps the “fat” category is already included into the “saturated fat” category (though it seems like it ought to be the other way around).
Mr. DeNoon mis-translated the original table. I looked at the original Consumer Reports article (online here; paid subscription only), and the proper order of columns is Fat, Saturated Fat, Carbohydrates, and Protein.
So, the Weight Watchers columns should read: Fat: 24 Saturated Fat: 7 (included in “Fat”) Carbohydrates: 56 Protein: 20
Sum is 107%, less 7% saturated fat already enumerated.
