· 164 comments · Save ·
Questions & Help Mar 13, 2026 at 6:26 PM

Lawsuit says protein bars marketed as low-fat actually pack a lot more calories

Posted by AudibleNod

https://www.denver7.com/life/food-and-drink/lawsuit-says-protein-bars-sold-at-target-marketed-as-low-fat-pack-a-lot-more-calories
🚩 Report this post

164 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
Klutzy-Delivery-5792 Mar 13, 2026 +671
What a confusing headline. The issue in the article is that there are more calories, like a lot more, than are shown on the nutrition label. Independent tests have shown that these are coming from fat also not listed on the label (2.5g listed vs 12.2g tested).
671
thefanciestcat Mar 13, 2026 +194
That headline is amazing for leaving me knowing even less when I started off knowing nothing, but it got me to click and read more to find out, I guess.
194
AqueductMosaic Mar 13, 2026 +34
Old adage (Mark Twain?): It is better to be uninformed than to be misinformed.
34
waywardflaneur Mar 13, 2026 +17
Occurs to me you could probably say that about most headlines.
17
Vibingcarefully Mar 13, 2026 +10
Since 2010 and the internet going less and less literate , 100% agreement.
10
waywardflaneur Mar 13, 2026 +7
Part of the problem is that everything of quality and substance has been locked behind paywalls since then. People will consume what’s free, and what’s free is mostly garbage. This is the problem of misinformation and propaganda in the internet age. You will be served it for free. You will consume it because it’s free. When money is tight, disposable income is not going to a New York Times digital subscription, or whatever
7
idontknowjuspickone Mar 13, 2026 +27
Also, just because a lawsuit claims something doesn’t mean that it’s true
27
Rot-Orkan Mar 13, 2026 +16
Apparently the extra calories \*not\* listed are from an indigestible form of fat. So, while the food technically has more calories than is listed, those extra calories won't be absorbed by a human body.
16
AegParm Mar 13, 2026 +26
The calories listed on a NFP are *explicitly* the calories gained by your body, not some hidden latent calories in the food but not used. If they are not absorbed by your body, the calories are not on the NFP. Same thing happens with insoluble fiber, there are certainly ways to assign a calorie to it as defined by being able to raise 1g of water 1C, but for food labeling, it provides no calories to the body, therefor is 0 calories on a packaged food.
26
Far_Radish7752 Mar 13, 2026 +46
That’s cuz those extra calories are from “**esterified propoxylated glycerol, or EPG**, which is allegedly indigestible. Personally, I’d prefer the real thing rather than the highly modified EPG. Ten years down the line, they might even find it to be toxic. Remember when trans fat was once the latest “improvement” in our diets when it came to processed foods?
46
turikk Mar 13, 2026 +11
Sure, but couldn't you say that about literally everything? We have only been seriously studying the health effects of food for a short while.
11
NoButThanks Mar 14, 2026 +1
Snickers was originally marketed as an energy bar.
1
turikk Mar 14, 2026 +2
Finally an excuse to eat snickers on my diet
2
EarlyFig6856 Mar 14, 2026 +9
trans fat was never an improvement, it was always a c**** butter substitute for poor industrial workers
9
JoshHuff1332 Mar 13, 2026 +34
This isn't a secret though. The discrepancy is that the fat in the bars isn't digested completely. Fat is 9 calories per gram, where as what is in the bar is 0.7 calories per gram (or something absurdly small like that). It should probably be labeled similar to carbs and fiber
34
Loose_Criticism8651 Mar 13, 2026 +39
Does that mean it gives you the shits? Like those fat free potato chips from the 90s that caused "a*** leakage"?
39
effrightscorp Mar 13, 2026 +24
No, unlike olestra it's solid at ~~room~~ body temperature, so no leakage. Might still give you issues if you eat a ton of it though Edit: mistyped originally
24
earl_of_angus Mar 13, 2026 +7
They also have non digestible sugar alcohols to ensure you c*** your pants if you eat too many.
7
thefanciestcat Mar 13, 2026 +9
The Halo Top shits.
9
rabidstoat Mar 14, 2026 +3
Just how much Halo Top are you eating?
3
ClassiFried86 Mar 13, 2026 +12
If it has fat, how is it fat free?
12
MatureUsername69 Mar 13, 2026 +37
It was called Olestra, it was a fat substitute that mimicked the taste fat could give to fried foods. It resulted in Lays Wow chips which had to give national warnings about the a*** leakage they caused. Olestra itself is no longer used in food, the only way you can find it now is under a brand called Sefose. What is it used for today you may ask? Its an industrial lubricant for manufacturing.
37
Scavenge101 Mar 13, 2026 +8
THATS where the madTV skit came from! That's been in the back of my head for 30 years and I never knew what it was referencing. Kid me was always just "lol poop joke"
8
Cool_Jelly_9402 Mar 13, 2026 +16
Olestra. Literally warned people it could give you a*** leakage and diarrhea
16
albanymetz Mar 13, 2026 +2
You mean Olestra? Depends.
2
Ordinary-Leading7405 Mar 13, 2026 +4
Olestra, the agent orange of the bowel.
4
JoshHuff1332 Mar 13, 2026 +2
Yea, if you eat enough of it, it won't be good for your bowel movement lmao
2
lookslikesausage Mar 13, 2026 +1
In the past, I've gotten a lot of farts from protein bars but it was mostly from sugar alcohols. Now there are a lot of bars that use little to no sugar alcohols. For most of us, our bodies just aren't very good at handling them.
1
Harflin Mar 13, 2026 +3
So you're saying the testing that puts these bars at 270 cal from the advertised 150 cal are wrong?
3
JoshHuff1332 Mar 13, 2026 +6
The testing didn't put it at 270 calories. It measured fat that wasn't included on the nutrition label because it isn't digested in the same manner as regular fats.
6
Harflin Mar 13, 2026 +8
I see now. The test picks up this less-calorically-dense fat substitute, then they apply the normal 9 calorie multiplier as if it's normal fat. Something I couldn't find was if they are required to still report the total weight of the substitute as fat on the nutrition facts. That's a technicality that could still get them even if the calories end up correct at 150.
8
JoshHuff1332 Mar 13, 2026 +4
I have no idea on that part, but realistically the best answer would be a sublevel that clarifies it. No different than carbs, fiber, and then soluble vs insoluble
4
Harflin Mar 13, 2026 +2
For sure. This definitely looks like a case where David is in somewhat new territory and regulations and testing haven't really adjusted to it.
2
JoshHuff1332 Mar 13, 2026 +2
Yea, the only thing similar would be the Olestra craze back in the day, which also didn't count it on the label, i believe
2
peteypauls Mar 14, 2026 +1
It’s actually why David’s bars bought Epogee (who made EPG) and then cut off other companies from using it. They were sued for that and won.
1
Blue_Swirling_Bunny Mar 13, 2026 -6
How is it confusing? An item that says it's low fat is not low fat. Pretty straightforward.
-6
sbd2010 Mar 13, 2026 -7
ETA: I’m old please ignore the previous statement in which I misremembered the negative effects of making everything low fat and fat free in the 90s.
-7
Cosmo-xx Mar 13, 2026 +10
That’s both untrue and unrelated to this article. Replacing fat with sugar gram for gram will result in a 5 calorie deficit per gram
10
sbd2010 Mar 13, 2026 +4
You’re right, I’m wrong, sorry. I confused increased calories with the other negative effects of replacing fat with sugar. I’m just old enough to remember this being a problem that had been fleshed out already in past diet crazes. And old enough to misremember the details of what the problems were.
4
Cosmo-xx Mar 13, 2026 +3
Thank you for being human and admitting it
3
sbd2010 Mar 13, 2026 +5
No problem. I hate the long drawn out debates I see when people can’t admit they were mistaken on a provable fact. I’m too old for that mess.
5
ProfessionalRandom21 Mar 13, 2026 +172
remind me of a protein powder brand that has rave review on the taste but turns out to just be cake mix.
172
AudibleNod Mar 13, 2026 +140
> protein powder brand that has rave review on the taste but turns out to just be cake mix [US premium protein powder praised for cake-like taste allegedly turns out to be high-sugar cake mix](https://mustsharenews.com/protein-powder-cake/) Well, I'll be...
140
SaraAB87 Mar 13, 2026 +49
This is crazy to me. They obviously lied about everything on the label.
49
oneeighthirish Mar 13, 2026 +32
I work in food processing, and have had to do a ridiculous amount of training on policies and procedures for labeling products, preventing cross-contamination, and also on identifying and preventing food fraud. This has given me a stroke.
32
Crayshack Mar 14, 2026 +27
There's people with food allergies whose lives depend on those labels being accurate. Not to mention diabetics, celiacs, and what other gealth reasons someone might target or avoid certain nutrients.
27
1200____1200 Mar 14, 2026 +9
>“It’s literally the best thing in the entire world. It literally tastes like you’re eating dessert every day,” TikToker Madeline Rose said in a February 2023 video. >She later demonstrated baking the powder into cupcakes, promoting it as a versatile protein supplement Poor Madeline thought she had a fitness channel when it was really a baking channel all along
9
WhenSummerIsGone Mar 14, 2026 +3
lol, how does protein look like cupcakes? Basic food science would tell you something is fishy. You need some kind of carb to give you a bread product.
3
loves_grapefruit Mar 14, 2026 +8
The benefits of not regulating supplements…
8
epidemicsaints Mar 13, 2026 +63
That was unbelievable. And they were charging $70 for about $2 of cake mix. Holmes Nutrition.
63
PindaPanter Mar 14, 2026 +6
>*Holmes* Nutrition. No connection to Elizabeth?
6
SaraAB87 Mar 13, 2026 +13
OMG this is totally crazy. Also cake mix contains raw flour which you obviously should not eat unless cooked. Was this sold in the USA? This has to be illegal, over here, you can't just lie about what is in your product because then that's an issue with the FDA. They should be taken to court for this and have to return all the money people put into their product not to mention pay the bills for people who had harmful effects and needed treatment because of it. I see a class action lawsuit coming.
13
Rockerblocker Mar 13, 2026 +21
Yeah, mostly on the west coast IIRC. Not sure what came out of lawsuits and whatever, but very very illegal. Imagine if someone with diabetes consumed a bunch of that, thinking that it was low-carb, and got sick because of that? Or someone with celiacs disease. Or just anyone trying watch their macros and getting the polar opposite of what they thought they were consuming...
21
SaraAB87 Mar 13, 2026 +6
I am on the east coast so it seems that product didn't make it here. Yes this is it. I have heard of people with celiac's consuming food that said it was gluten free only to get a reaction. For these people from what I know every reaction slowly also destroys the persons insides, which is why its so important for them to not eat gluten. I have seen soda product lines pulled because they were incorrectly labeled and diabetics could get sick if they drank the soda. Or a diabetic consuming something that said they could have it, and then having their blood sugar spiking. Most diabetic's have CGM's now which from what I understand tells you exactly what happens when you eat what food. This is something that could land a person in a hospital easily. If a diabetic consumes a bunch of sugar suddenly and doesn't get treatment fast they could die. Some people are trying to lose weight for medical reasons too, and if they were consuming a bunch of this at a time they would wonder why they are not losing weight and possibly get depressed or have other issues. Also a bad meal if you are trying to lose weight in a serious manner for a medical reason can derail you for a while, possibly putting treatment on hold and other things. All in all not a good thing. I hope this didn't contain raw flour or else you would have a lot of sick people. I also have to wonder what is in all these protein foods you see on the market now, are the labels real, or are a bunch of them lying to us on the labels?
6
ermergerdperderders Mar 14, 2026 +7
Vitamins and supplements aren't governed by a regulatory body in the US. Because the "protein powder" is considered a supplement, they could sell whatever they want and label it with whatever claims they want; this is the reason every bottle of vitamins or supplements sold in the US has "These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA" written on it. It's only until they cause harm to a few people that it gets pulled from the shelves.
7
hex4def6 Mar 13, 2026 +212
This article was posted an hour ago. David's has had a statement out basically as soon as this lawsuit started making the rounds, saying that these plaintiffs measured the calories the wrong way -- using a bomb colorimeter which measures total energy of a substance, and isn't the correct way of measuring food calories. The fact that this article doesn't include that statement is frankly lazy or negligent reporting. David's isn't trying to hide behind the FDA +/- 20% guideline, despite what the article implies. They're saying EPG isn't digestible calories, so don't count towards the reported calories on the food label. Thing of it this way; if you ate just sawdust, you'd starve to death because you can't digest it, despite it having \~5 calories per g.
212
PixelofDoom Mar 13, 2026 +78
You seem to be operating under the assumption that I am not a moose.
78
suggestiveinnuendo Mar 13, 2026 +20
I don't see race ... or genus for that matter ...
20
Xirdus Mar 13, 2026 +8
A møøse once bit my sister...
8
Lil_Buddie Mar 13, 2026 +12
Kind of like the 1990's "non-fat" Lay's chips: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olestra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olestra) >"Nonfat" Lay's potato chips, historically marketed as "WOW!" chips, were produced using a fat substitute called Olestra
12
Sodomeister Mar 13, 2026 +19
Didn't they take those off the market because they made people shit like crazy?
19
TrumpnEpstein Mar 13, 2026 +7
Can confirm, shit my pants after eating WOW! chips
7
Blue_Swirling_Bunny Mar 13, 2026 +10
I ate Olestra-tinged Pringles one time. ONCE. Finished the whole tube and then noticed the ingredients. The day ended poorly.
10
Plane-Tie6392 Mar 14, 2026 +1
Olestra didn't affect me at all. According to the studies a small number of people were affected by them.
1
Church_of_Cheri Mar 13, 2026 +26
All I can think about is how David’s science expert that just stepped back, [Dr. Peter Attia](https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/longevity-expert-dr-peter-attia-steps-down-david-protein-after-epstein-links-2026-02-03/), is in the Epstein files sending “crude humor” emails.
26
manachar Mar 13, 2026 +6
Which measure is required by food labeling requirements?
6
[deleted] Mar 13, 2026 -4
[deleted]
-4
hex4def6 Mar 14, 2026 +3
Just to be clear, you are suggesting that a snack vendor, as a matter of course, sends their product out to a lab to be put in a bomb calorimeter? 100% not happening. For sure, they are either using the FDA food database / 4-4-9 Atwater system (with 0.7cal/g for EPG). Now, maybe you disagree with the FDA that it's 0.7cal/g, and instead is 9cal/g. Fine. But you're not disputing that by just burning a David's bar. You're going to need volunteers. Because you're going to be burning their poop.
3
igetproteinfartsHELP Mar 13, 2026 +51
Plaintiff Regina George brings this suit...
51
bizarro_kvothe Mar 14, 2026 +2
Kälteen bars They just burn all your carbs
2
Plane-Tie6392 Mar 14, 2026 +1
Their recent response said "no one is getting Regina Georged" lol.
1
starfirex Mar 13, 2026 +33
There was a Daily podcast about these bars a while back, there's a food science breakthrough at play here. Some of the ingredients can't be digested and just go right through you (which is what allows them to pack so many grams of protein in). If you're not digesting those calories they probably shouldn't be listed on the package, which is where the issue comes in.
33
Puzzleheaded_Bee1169 Mar 13, 2026 +29
Has anyone tasted those David bars? They taste like ass
29
Seastep Mar 13, 2026 +40
I'm a Barebell guy, which I'm sure aren't perfect either but they are delicious.
40
therobshow Mar 13, 2026 +19
They're suspiciously delicious and I've always wondered about them. Them new brownie batter ones are better than basically any candy bar I've ever had while having less calories and 20 grams of protein. How? 
19
Grabthar-the-Avenger Mar 13, 2026 +15
They’re just candy bars with added protein powder and artificial sweeteners. To reduce calories Barebells is replacing sugar with sucralose, the sweetener in Coke Zero
15
zerobpm Mar 14, 2026 +2
Love them!
2
thekillercook Mar 13, 2026 +11
Them and built bars are my new candy bar
11
dank-kush Mar 14, 2026 +2
Their new bronze bar line is basically just built bars with better macros, but built puff bar sour line is too good and no ones replicated it yet
2
TheCeilingIsTheRuuf Mar 13, 2026 +3
Hell yeah, they have a cherry one that tastes just like a little debbie strawberry shortcake roll
3
bico89 Mar 15, 2026 +2
Came here for these comments. I always say they are more delicious than store bought candy bars too. If David bars are mislabeled, I can only imagine with barebell. Ignorance is bliss until then.
2
Rockerblocker Mar 13, 2026 -7
Barebells taste like poison to me. The sugar alcohols in there make me gag. There are a handful of foods that I don't like, but I can finish basically anything. Barebells are the only thing I've ate since I was a picky child where I physically couldn't bring myself to take another bite of it and had to throw it out
-7
small_hands_big_fish Mar 13, 2026 +14
They do taste like ass. They also have the best protein to calorie ratio. If you are trying to cut and hit your protein goals, they are nice. If you eat more than two, they aren’t great for digestion.
14
Puzzleheaded_Bee1169 Mar 13, 2026 +1
Duly noted
1
sabinscabin Mar 14, 2026 +2
i had them, and they actually tasted fine. And that's after I learned that Attia was buddies with Epstein
2
atanos Mar 14, 2026 +1
Other than the blueberry pie, they are pretty bad. My favorite protein bar is Pure Protein Chocolate Peanut Caramel.
1
rayinreverse Mar 14, 2026 +1
A few of their flavors are okay. They’re very expensive.
1
Plane-Tie6392 Mar 14, 2026 +1
That's funny because I've seen other people saying they knew this was coming because the bars tasted too good to be true to them.
1
Church_of_Cheri Mar 13, 2026 +1
Their [science expert](https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/longevity-expert-dr-peter-attia-steps-down-david-protein-after-epstein-links-2026-02-03/) was a pal of none other than Jeffrey Epstein.
1
Sanity_in_Moderation Mar 13, 2026 -4
I still love Cliff Bars. Perfect hiking snack.
-4
AudibleNod Mar 13, 2026 +6
I accidentally gave my daughter the caffeine infused one. Gotta read labels!
6
Puzzleheaded_Bee1169 Mar 13, 2026 +3
Me too. The peanut butter ones are my favorite.
3
yhwhx Mar 13, 2026 +56
Sugar is extremely low-fat...
56
AudibleNod Mar 13, 2026 +35
>For example, they claim the company’s red velvet bar — advertised at 150 calories and 28 grams of protein — contains 271 calories. They attribute the discrepancy mostly to fat content: the nutrition label lists 2.5 grams of fat, while testing found 12.2 grams. They're just throwing a ton of fat in, according to the suit.
35
knellotron Mar 13, 2026 +49
No, the debate is whether or not the calories from EPG count, since they're not digestable. EPG is the fat that acts much like Olestra did in the 90s, but without the "consider wearing wearing dark pants" warning.
49
VicFatale Mar 13, 2026 -6
Man, this has got me so mad. I’m on a medically restricted low-fat diet, and I depend on nutrition labels being correct, or at least a close approximation. This is nearly 5x the listed fat content! For me, this takes it from being safe to eat, to something that could trigger a medical emergency. For me it’s fat, for you it might be something else. But we have the right to know what they put in our food, that’s why the nutritional content laws were created.
-6
mulletstation Mar 14, 2026 +5
It's not digestible EPG is a patented molecule that acts like fat and is fat but isn't digestible
5
SaraAB87 Mar 13, 2026 -5
This has me mad too. You never know when a person like yourself is going to have a medical issue from it. I can see if it was 5 calories off, but this is not 5 calories, this is almost double. 271 calories is almost eating 2 150 calorie bars instead of one. Also for people who are trying to lose weight especially for medical reasons, if you are eating 150 calorie bars that say they are 150 calorie, but you are actually getting 271 calories per bar that's a huge problem. This might result in wondering why you are not losing weight even though you are doing everything right, causing big problems. You also have to wonder how many more of these products are on the market that are lying like this.
-5
FiraGhain Mar 13, 2026 +8
The point is that it isn't digestible. You eat 270 calories, maybe. But you digest 150. Like if you ate a pebble of uranium. If you lived, you just ate a billion calories - but your body isnt digesting that. You arent going to swell to the size of an elephant and your diet isnt ruined - in reality, you just take a really weird shit in a few days. (Apart from the bit where you died, but let's ignore that for the sake of the example).
8
Tu_mama_me_ama_mucho Mar 13, 2026 -2
Funny how many fat tests I do at work and it never occurred to me try it on food that is advertised like that. I'm going to start a lot of lawsuits.
-2
SaraAB87 Mar 13, 2026 +4
Would love to see what's actually in all these new protein foods that are everywhere.
4
Pitiful-Mobile-3144 Mar 13, 2026 +1
Not just fat, but other foods too. One of the big ones for me was “Kabocha” being incorrectly labeled by the USDA. Normal pumpkins are basically just water so they’re very low calories, and the USDA used these measurements for Kabocha. But Kabocha is a special type of Japanese pumpkin more similar in texture and density to a sweet potato and has like double the calories of regular pumpkin. I can only imagine how many other foods have incorrect calories as well, it’s sure to be widespread
1
Inquisitor_ForHire Mar 13, 2026 +1
Mmmm sweet potatoes!
1
thefunkybassist Mar 13, 2026 -3
It must be some fatless fat coincidentally then! 
-3
JoshHuff1332 Mar 13, 2026 +17
You're actually on the right track. They didn't include EPG because it's not digestible like normal fat
17
SaraAB87 Mar 13, 2026 -2
That's a huge discrepancy. 150 calories is not the same as 271 that's for sure.
-2
rabidstoat Mar 14, 2026 +3
I have seen candy that is pure sugar, like the American smarties candies, labeled as a 'low fat food.' I mean, they're right, but.
3
SaraAB87 Mar 13, 2026 +1
And its always fat free!!! So is hershey's syrup, remember its always been fat free..... LOL! I still have that commercial burned into my head
1
Saneless Mar 13, 2026
Yep. Just drink coke after coke, no worry because no fat! We wonder why people gain weight and they still think fat in foods is the main reason they gain weight. I bet they think it literally just gets deposited as is
0
Bigringcycling Mar 13, 2026
Yes, that’s a correct statement but that’s not what this is about. Testing showed a higher discrepancy than allowed. FDA allows 20% margin of error while this was showing the bars contained 78% to 83% more calories than stated on their nutrition labels. This includes the fat content not being low fat like the label claimed.
0
Plane-Tie6392 Mar 14, 2026 +2
Right? Gross that comment has 50 upvotes. I mean you can even see it says 0g sugar in the pic.
2
icebreather106 Mar 13, 2026
My favorite example of this is twizzlers advertising themselves as a "fat free snack"
0
SaraAB87 Mar 13, 2026 +1
Hershey's syrup is fat free and always has been (cue 90's commercial about it being fat free)!!! Sugar is also fat free! Time to indulge in some sugar cubes.
1
epidemicsaints Mar 13, 2026 +25
The official response from the company is very interesting. There is more to this story and this article isn't even bothering to include public statements and posts from the company. David is claiming that an innovative ingredient they are using is being misread by these tests. >Rahal said the plaintiffs’ testing was flawed. The discrepancy, he said, has to do with an ingredient in David protein bars called esterified propoxylated glycerol, or EPG, a modified plant-based fat substitute that moves through the body without getting digested. [https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/david-protein-bar-founder-lawsuit-calories-rcna263052](https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/david-protein-bar-founder-lawsuit-calories-rcna263052)
25
satoru1111 Mar 13, 2026 +15
The lawsuit is c*** literally The fat used in these bars isn’t digestible. Meaning they don’t count to the fat count This would be like measuring Low calorie sugars by weight and then adding that to the sugar column and saying it’s not low calorie because it has x grams of sugar Also sort of 'conveiently' this 'consumer' lawsuit comes as many companies are scrambling because David Protien bought the company that produces this ingredient. So now other companies are having problems getting supply One must wonder if the 'consumer' lawsuit is infact not actually a 'consumer' one but one of the industry at large using it as a smear campaign against Davids Protien and EPG as a byproduct too. Many companies are now marketing their products as not having EPG as if EPG was some kind of toxin, despite their products previously touting it like it was the 3rd coming of Christ. Aka the lawsuit isn't designed to win and its not the point. The point is to make David Protine and its 'key' ingredient EPG look bad as 'its totally fat'. I'm honestly not one for conspiracy theories, but this...... is really fishy
15
FunnyFilmFan Mar 13, 2026 +8
Sounds like the Seinfeld episode about the frozen yogurt
8
ARoodyPooCandyAss Mar 13, 2026 +5
This was a Seinfeld episode
5
AudibleNod Mar 13, 2026 +19
>The Food and Drug Administration requires calorie counts on labels but allows a 20% margin of error. That means a product advertised as having 100 calories could legally contain between 80 and 120 calories. Wow. I never knew that. I knew that tictacs were marketed as zero calorie but were actually two. But since it was under five, they were (legally) able to round down. But a 20% margin seems pretty wide. Can't we narrow that down to 7.5%
19
Nope_______ Mar 13, 2026 +16
For some things they could probably nail it down to a very small tolerance, where it's a uniform thing and very controlled. Like soda. But others would be pretty tough just from normal variation on what goes in. Like a bag of trail mix with more or less chocolate pieces/nuts or something like that.
16
Henrook Mar 13, 2026 +9
Or especially on natural things. Like it’s completely within the realm of possibility that 100g of beef from one cow will have 20% more calories than 100g of beef from another cow depending on the butchering and body fat percentage of the cows
9
Nope_______ Mar 13, 2026 +2
Yeah that too
2
JoshHuff1332 Mar 13, 2026 +6
No, because it would be never be that accurate. The 20% difference doesn't mean that you are consistently eating 20% more or less than what is labeled. It means that there is an allowance for individual packages. If they arbitrarily labeled it 20% less or more, the variances between package to package would cause it to fall out of that range
6
dual_citizenkane Mar 13, 2026 +3
I wonder if it's a limit of the way we are able to measure calories, manufacturing, etc. It may be normal to account for those kinds of things since I wonder how exact the science can be to begin with on massive CPG production scales like this.
3
Fubai97b Mar 13, 2026 +8
Remember when Coca-Cola said no reasonable person could think Vitamin Water was healthy based on their advertising and the court agreed? Pepperidge Farms remembers
8
AssCrackBanditHunter Mar 14, 2026 +3
Explain to me in detail why you think that pertains to this in any meaningful way.
3
AntEast2465 Mar 13, 2026 +3
I bet Regina George filed this lawsuit
3
jimbobbyricky Mar 13, 2026 +3
All I know is I started a calorie in /calories out meal plan and I meticulously track my calories. I've been eating these bars for 2 years, and I've lost 150lbs. I found out about them from my dr, and they've been a godsend in my meal plan. According to my scale, everything in this article is BS.
3
livonyote Mar 14, 2026 +3
Kalteen bars from Mean Girls
3
Remarkayble Mar 13, 2026 +2
This bar has some of the grossest shit
2
jmalq Mar 13, 2026 +4
[https://www.youtube.com/shorts/umVCgQYhqdE](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/umVCgQYhqdE)
4
sceez Mar 13, 2026 +5
Fat does not equal calories, it means fat.
5
No-Personality1840 Mar 13, 2026 +3
Fat has almost twice the calories as carbohydrates and protein so if it’s marketed as having less fat it would be assumed less calories.
3
R67H Mar 13, 2026 -2
Yea, "low-fat" is code for "extra sugar". Unless it's sugar free, too, which translates best to "tastes like wet paper"
-2
NothingISayIsReal Mar 13, 2026 +9
Sugar would still be reflected in the nutrition label
9
Plane-Tie6392 Mar 14, 2026 +1
Why would sugar free translate to "tastes like wet paper?" There are billions or artificial sweeteners these days my dude.
1
BNLforever Mar 13, 2026 +1
Low fat? No. Extra calories! 
1
jnmjnmjnm Mar 13, 2026 +1
There are a few ways to make food taste good. Fat and sugar are two of the easy ones. If you cut one, you often need to add the other!
1
BigBlackSabbathFlag Mar 14, 2026 +1
Cosmo Kramer an investor in David?
1
Empath1999 Mar 14, 2026 +1
Given how many other diet food companies david screw over, i don’t feel bad for them.
1
nuclear_engineer Mar 15, 2026 +1
I eat a ton of protein bars/snacks and David bars are legit the first ones I physically cannot eat because of how terrible they taste
1
NanDemoNee Mar 16, 2026 +1
Are protein bars a carb?
1
frankenmaus Mar 19, 2026 +1
Answer to lawsuit says "so what" ?
1
Quirky_Spend_9648 Mar 13, 2026
as someone who relies on nutritional labels, this is petty screwed up.
0
gwelfguy Mar 13, 2026 +1
Low fat, but high sugar.
1
Plane-Tie6392 Mar 14, 2026 +2
Literally 0 grams of sugar in these but okay bud.
2
mixmasterADD Mar 13, 2026
Peter Attia is in the Epstein files. This article is an add disguised as news
0
PointandStare Mar 13, 2026 -1
Well ... duuuhh! Always check the ingredients.
-1
SaraAB87 Mar 13, 2026 +1
Not if they are blatantly lying about what is in the product... [https://mustsharenews.com/protein-powder-cake/](https://mustsharenews.com/protein-powder-cake/) I have to wonder how many of these keto and protein products are doing something similar
1
Tall_poppee Mar 13, 2026 -4
>the nutrition label lists 2.5 grams of fat, while testing found 12.2 grams. Wow, I'd be hella pissed. Fortunately I never bought any of these. Just really trying to get away from fake food and processed food. If you can even call a protein bar food.
-4
kornkid42 Mar 13, 2026 -2
low fat usually means high carb
-2
SaraAB87 Mar 13, 2026 -2
And high in sugar A lot of people went on a "low fat" diet in the 1990's, in fact they actually gained more weight, because low fat products replaced the fat with sugar, and well, sugar turns to fat in the body. Not to mention people were getting hungry more often because fat satiates you more and when you eat nothing but sugar it goes right through your body and you are hungry shortly after eating. Doctors actually recommend people eat more fat since it makes you feel more full, and then you eat less if you are less hungry.
-2
Error_404_403 Mar 13, 2026 -4
Of course. Isn't it a common knowledge? And those which are marketed as "sugar-free" usually pack a lot of fat.
-4
ThePaineOne Mar 14, 2026
Low fat does not mean low calories.
0
Plane-Tie6392 Mar 14, 2026 +2
That's not the issue.
2
No_Clock2390 Mar 14, 2026
The people who sued are idiotic. They will lose.
0
Plane-Tie6392 Mar 14, 2026 +2
Assuming what the company says is true it seems like a pretty open and shit case. If the body doesn't process the fat then it makes perfect sense to not count them on the label.
2
Luckyhedron2 Mar 14, 2026 -4
It doesn’t matter because calories are fake. Kcal is a reductive measure of energy, as material is not consumed by means of combustion.
-4
Plane-Tie6392 Mar 14, 2026 +3
You could have worded that better but dumb you got downvoted because what you said is what is at issue. The fats in this bar combust but are supposedly not absorbed by the human body for the most part. Yet another poster got 50 upvotes for just assuming the "extra" calories were coming from sugar when the bar legitimately has no sugar.
3
Wandering_butnotlost Mar 13, 2026 -1
Do they still help to strengthen my core?
-1
Alternative_Rate7474 Mar 14, 2026 -1
Are people incapable of reading nutrition labels or something?
-1
Plane-Tie6392 Mar 14, 2026 +2
Are you incapable of reading articles? "Plaintiffs say independent testing shows the bars contained 78% to 83% more calories than stated on their nutrition labels."
2
KLGChaos Mar 14, 2026 -1
Calories come from other sources than "fat". It can be marketed as low fat, but be high in carbs.
-1
Plane-Tie6392 Mar 14, 2026 +2
That's not what's going on here though.
2
Kluian2005 Mar 14, 2026 -2
Do people not understand calories is a combination of Protein / Carbs / Fat? Just because something is "low fat" doesn't mean it isn't jacked up in carbs and will be high calorie.
-2
← Back to Board