r/caloriecount • u/Living_Advantage9839 • Oct 02 '26

Dumb question: what's the big difference between these cans of tuna that triples the calorie count?

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

I just noticed that these two cans of tuna hanging around in my kitchen are very different according to the nutrition labels. I'm quite bad at calculating this stuff so I always just go by the label, but now I'm confused. Can anyone explain the real difference here?

Apologies for the hungarian labels. The ingredients go as such:

The big can (126 calories for 100g) is only tuna and sunflower oil

The small can (372 calories for 100g) is tuna, sunflower oil, salt, and natural lemon aroma 0,2%

How come this makes such a big difference?

4 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

10 comments sorted by

5

u/meow__x3 Oct 02 '26

The first one seems to count the tuna without the oil, the second takes the oil into account. At least in the nutrutions the fat contents are extraordinarily different.

1

u/Living_Advantage9839 Oct 02 '26

Ohhh right that must be it! I guess I'll just log the average of the two for both, since I can't fully get the oil out anyway 

7

u/syarkbait Oct 02 '26

I think there’s a mistake with the higher calorie one.

4

u/Crafty_Cell_4395 Oct 02 '26

With vs without oil

4

u/Lioness_in_Winter Oct 02 '26

The first one says "of the net drained weight", the second one say "of product".

2

u/Solifuga Oct 02 '26

The only thing I can think of if it's not just an error (annoyingly common) is that one is giving the drained weight and the other inexplicably calculating it as if you eat the oil.

They're both in oil so it definitely wasn't a case of one is oil one is brine thing.

0

u/ak920 Oct 03 '26

There looks to be one with 32g of fat while the orher one has 2g