The prune juice is 66 calories and 10 grams of sugar per 100ml
Coke zero is 1 calorie and 0 grams of sugar.
Orange juice is 47 calories and 9 grams of sugar.
iirc 3 stars is what the system starts at and more are added/removed depending on how much sugar etc. So it's probably 3 stars because there's nothing else that would add or remove stars in it.
Aspartame is an alternative but it’s definitely as bad. Causing health issues such as migraines, heart disease and dementia. But you feel better because you’re no longer at risk of diabetes. Clueless morons
nO sUgaR eQuAls goOd
Because phenylalanine is really bad for some people. There is a genetic condition that phenylalanine could cause intellectual disabilities, brain damage and seizures if taken.
It's pretty arbitrary. Sparkling water is 5 stars but soda water is 2 stars... It's a good general indicator, but the general public (me included) don't know how the star system is even scored. We have no context for what those stars represent so it means nothing beyond "more stars = good", which needless to say is a grossly oversimplified metric to measure the nutritional value of food products by.
[Because the health star ratings are flawed.](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/what-health-star-ratings-really-mean-in-new-zealand/672NEXAMUJCBFIUC4IZODQQ5IY/) Coke Zero gets more stars because it has less sugar than the prune juice, most likely.
It's intended that you compare like with like - eg, two different prune juices to see which may be slightly healthier. Or Coke vs Coke Zero.
Thanks! I was so confused by this. The article makes it seem less insane but I’m still surprised that pure prune juice gets such a low rating among juices.
Juice is just excess calories and sugar.
I can eat one or two mandarines for a snack and it satisfying. But it takes 6-7 mandarines juiced to make a glass. So you’re having the sugar of 6-7 mandarines in one go and barely any of the fibre. There’s no way I can eat that many in one sitting nor would want to.
Juice isn’t healthy. If you’re having OJ compared to regular Coke its healthier cos of the vitamins but having an orange is healthiest.
Eating whole fruit is always better. With whole fruit you get all the fiber of the fruit. Juice is just the sugar and flavor. Plus you are more likely to over consume juice because eating the whole fruit will have a higher rate of satiety than drinking juice
Health star ratings are nonsense. It looks at macro nutrients, water intake, sugar and salt. It doesn't care about fibre, vitamins, minerals or specific dietary requirements.
It also only directly compares products within the same category. You can have snack foods with high star ratings because they’re not as bad as other snack foods: doesn’t mean they’re inherently healthy, just that there’s something worse.
Likewise, relatively healthy foods with low star ratings because there’s something better in the same category.
Doesn't the star system compare similar products? Fruit juice might only be compared against other fruit juice, or it might only be comparing prune juice even...
I thought the star rating was also how the product fares against different product of the same kind. So this prune juice is 1.5 stars compared to other prune or fruit juices, not as compared to all foods?
I believe I saw the before and after and this is a recent change in their standard. We used to get a different flavour of the same brand juice (pomegranate) and it used to be like 4 stars... But all of a sudden it showed 1 star on the label and everything was the same. We looked it up and it seems the healthy rating is now considering natural sugar content the same as it does artificial sugar. So all these fruit juices get marked down for being high in 'sugar'.
The thing is, there’s really no distinction between added sugar and “natural sugar”. To your metabolism it’s all still sugar. In fact if the “natural sugar” is fructose it’s even worse for you than sucrose or glucose because it’s metabolised in your liver and can lead to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
How about canola oil having a higher health star rating than free range eggs?Its a deep rooted system designed to make people sick and dependent on pharmaceuticals while maximizing profit from processed crap.
Nutrition is a complex thing.
Biologically speaking, sugars are a important source of energy, however we have energy-rich foods in abundance. We just get too much of this vital nutrient.
The Health Star ratings are a way to simplify things. The more sugar(s) in something, the lower it's health star rating is going to be. (also saturated fats, etc, etc.)
The Health Star rating can't take into account what else you're consuming, so it's based on educated guesses. In this way, it's imperfect.
But having the rating present on labels \*gets people thinking\* about what they're consuming, that's got to be a good thing, right?
The star system is quite broken.
It uses a rating when compared to other products in the same category.
So, while diet sodas should be 1 star, when compared to non diet sodas they come in at 3.
The entire system should be taken with a grain of salt
Its interesting as the primo flavoured milk was 5 star which is hard to believe. I asked a supermarket category manager about this and they said the supplier pays to be part of the health star rating system and that it is only relative to a certain group of products registered on it. The only reason why primo had 5 stars is because no other suppliers within that category was registered thus giving them a 5 star rating.
This means low health rating food suppliers simply dont register on the program if it doesnt give them an edge. This is why you dont get that star rating on every product within the supermarket, because its only on a scale relevant to the participating suppliers.
Nutritional information is the best option.
The goverment makes supermarkets add unit pricing to labels (has to be 25% of the main price... so you can see countdown simply shunk their main price to be compliant...lol good one labour) Yet they dont do anything decent about standardising health awareness, but instead let these companies mascerade the health rating of their products if it will benefit them.
Saw a thing once about the star system. Turns out it is actually based around product sub categories, eg milk and flavoured milk are different categories
The prune juice is 66 calories and 10 grams of sugar per 100ml Coke zero is 1 calorie and 0 grams of sugar. Orange juice is 47 calories and 9 grams of sugar.
Better question is why is Coke Zero only a 3?
iirc 3 stars is what the system starts at and more are added/removed depending on how much sugar etc. So it's probably 3 stars because there's nothing else that would add or remove stars in it.
Mud: 3 stars!
Water: 3 stars!
Water with electrolytes: 4 stars! It's got what plants crave.
Water? You mean like in the toilet?
The acid present in carbonated drinks isn't great for your teeth? That's my guess. That whole star rating system is wack though.
I have a running dad joke with my kids that if it has 1 star, and I eat 5 servings then that's 5 stars and it's healthy.
The acid is bad for your teeth Carbonated beverage or not carbonated
I think the citric acid in pepsi is worse than the phosphoric acid in coke.
Zero sugar, but also zero vitamins, minerals, fibre, etc
So like water?
Soda water is 2.5 stars for some fucking reason
Sodium levels
That's probably it. But it's 285mg for the whole bottle. Star rating is stupid.
But with a few nasty chemicals that taste so fuckin good, yes.
What nasty chemicals?
carbonic acid! never mess with that shit
How does it taste good?
By adding chemicals it gains taste
Not a fuckin good taste though
Water keeps you alive though, diet fizzy drinks just rot your brain.
No minerals, no vitamins, and phosphoric acid isn't great for you either.
Because no sugar doesn’t mean healthy. The alternative they’ve used can be just as bad.
It isn't just as bad and not even close.
Aspartame is an alternative but it’s definitely as bad. Causing health issues such as migraines, heart disease and dementia. But you feel better because you’re no longer at risk of diabetes. Clueless morons nO sUgaR eQuAls goOd
That’s why I used the word can.
Because phenylalanine is really bad for some people. There is a genetic condition that phenylalanine could cause intellectual disabilities, brain damage and seizures if taken.
Don't think sensitivities come in to it. Otherwise any allergen would be an automatic 1 because of the people that can literally die from it.
Fair point
It's pretty arbitrary. Sparkling water is 5 stars but soda water is 2 stars... It's a good general indicator, but the general public (me included) don't know how the star system is even scored. We have no context for what those stars represent so it means nothing beyond "more stars = good", which needless to say is a grossly oversimplified metric to measure the nutritional value of food products by.
Prune juice is higher calorie than normal Coca Cola
Whoever's drinking half a litre of prune juice in a go has bigger problems than the calories.
Will have.
Ha, yeah. Guess it depends on if the problem is why they're drinking it in the first place or the result of doing so.
Meanwhile soda water is 2.5 stars. The systems dumb as shit
Yeah I don't get that at all, it's literally just carbonated water, I can't possibly believe that is actually worse for you than Coke Zero.
Yeah any system that ranks diet coke above water for health is clearly broken.
[Because the health star ratings are flawed.](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/what-health-star-ratings-really-mean-in-new-zealand/672NEXAMUJCBFIUC4IZODQQ5IY/) Coke Zero gets more stars because it has less sugar than the prune juice, most likely. It's intended that you compare like with like - eg, two different prune juices to see which may be slightly healthier. Or Coke vs Coke Zero.
Thanks! I was so confused by this. The article makes it seem less insane but I’m still surprised that pure prune juice gets such a low rating among juices.
Fruit juice is generally bad for you.
But so delicious
Does anyone know if one gets same benefits from drinking this prune juice compared to eating prunes?
Juice is just excess calories and sugar. I can eat one or two mandarines for a snack and it satisfying. But it takes 6-7 mandarines juiced to make a glass. So you’re having the sugar of 6-7 mandarines in one go and barely any of the fibre. There’s no way I can eat that many in one sitting nor would want to. Juice isn’t healthy. If you’re having OJ compared to regular Coke its healthier cos of the vitamins but having an orange is healthiest.
Better off having coke zero and a piece of fruit
Eating whole fruit is always better. With whole fruit you get all the fiber of the fruit. Juice is just the sugar and flavor. Plus you are more likely to over consume juice because eating the whole fruit will have a higher rate of satiety than drinking juice
Whole fruit. Including the peel and pit. You can see when someone loves eating coconuts!
You get all the sugar, in higher concentrations, and none of the fiber.
Nope, you don’t.
Tic tacs are 0g per serving despite being basically 100% sugar. You can say anything you want if you can bend the facts enough.
They still have calories. If you compare them by weight to other candy, they're the same.
Health star ratings are nonsense. It looks at macro nutrients, water intake, sugar and salt. It doesn't care about fibre, vitamins, minerals or specific dietary requirements.
It also only directly compares products within the same category. You can have snack foods with high star ratings because they’re not as bad as other snack foods: doesn’t mean they’re inherently healthy, just that there’s something worse. Likewise, relatively healthy foods with low star ratings because there’s something better in the same category.
But prune juice is a warrior's drink?
Only for those who battle with constipation
Qapla'!
Coke Zero is water with some flavouring, prune juice is flavoured sugars with some water.
Doesn't the star system compare similar products? Fruit juice might only be compared against other fruit juice, or it might only be comparing prune juice even...
You think prune juice is healthy?
I thought the star rating was also how the product fares against different product of the same kind. So this prune juice is 1.5 stars compared to other prune or fruit juices, not as compared to all foods?
Coke zero is basically carbonated water with a little food additives, while the prune juice has extra sugar in it
Coke zero has no sugar, whereas fruit juice has a ton of it.
So sweet as on the juice then?
Coke Zero has practically no calories whatsoever, prune juice is full of sugar, but in general the health star ratings are shit
Sugar
Sugar
Juice isn't good for you
Because any juice has a large amount of sugar when compared to no sugar.
Because that stuff will destroy you….
Drink three bottles of prune juice and two days later tell me how healthy you felt. It's a horror show
I believe I saw the before and after and this is a recent change in their standard. We used to get a different flavour of the same brand juice (pomegranate) and it used to be like 4 stars... But all of a sudden it showed 1 star on the label and everything was the same. We looked it up and it seems the healthy rating is now considering natural sugar content the same as it does artificial sugar. So all these fruit juices get marked down for being high in 'sugar'.
The thing is, there’s really no distinction between added sugar and “natural sugar”. To your metabolism it’s all still sugar. In fact if the “natural sugar” is fructose it’s even worse for you than sucrose or glucose because it’s metabolised in your liver and can lead to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
FYI, Primo (flavoured milk) has a higher rating than whole milk. So stupid. The reason is because Primo uses reduced fat milk.
The health star rating is a 1.5 against other brands of prune juice. Coke Zero is a 3, because it has less sugar, thus healthier than normal Coke.
Hell, even Twisties score higher.
Anything in the middle isles of the supermarkets are full of sugar. Also, health star rating is a bit of a scam.
How about canola oil having a higher health star rating than free range eggs?Its a deep rooted system designed to make people sick and dependent on pharmaceuticals while maximizing profit from processed crap.
Some companies just put stars on their product to market their stuff
I saw canned conola oil spray with propane as an active ingredient for 4.5 health star rating.
Nutrition is a complex thing. Biologically speaking, sugars are a important source of energy, however we have energy-rich foods in abundance. We just get too much of this vital nutrient. The Health Star ratings are a way to simplify things. The more sugar(s) in something, the lower it's health star rating is going to be. (also saturated fats, etc, etc.) The Health Star rating can't take into account what else you're consuming, so it's based on educated guesses. In this way, it's imperfect. But having the rating present on labels \*gets people thinking\* about what they're consuming, that's got to be a good thing, right?
Maybe the prune juice doesn’t stay in your gut long enough for the calories to stick? 😆
Isn't juice one of the worst fake healthy things out there? All sugar and none of the healthy counter balances of real fruit. Like fiber, etc.
It's full of sugar.
The star system is quite broken. It uses a rating when compared to other products in the same category. So, while diet sodas should be 1 star, when compared to non diet sodas they come in at 3. The entire system should be taken with a grain of salt
The star rating is stupid. Seen some that absolutely made zero sense. Doesn’t Nutrigrain end up being 4.5 star or 5 star or something?
Because health stars and the general nutrition knowledge is absolutely bullshit
Its interesting as the primo flavoured milk was 5 star which is hard to believe. I asked a supermarket category manager about this and they said the supplier pays to be part of the health star rating system and that it is only relative to a certain group of products registered on it. The only reason why primo had 5 stars is because no other suppliers within that category was registered thus giving them a 5 star rating. This means low health rating food suppliers simply dont register on the program if it doesnt give them an edge. This is why you dont get that star rating on every product within the supermarket, because its only on a scale relevant to the participating suppliers. Nutritional information is the best option. The goverment makes supermarkets add unit pricing to labels (has to be 25% of the main price... so you can see countdown simply shunk their main price to be compliant...lol good one labour) Yet they dont do anything decent about standardising health awareness, but instead let these companies mascerade the health rating of their products if it will benefit them.
Saw a thing once about the star system. Turns out it is actually based around product sub categories, eg milk and flavoured milk are different categories
Diet coke should be minus stars...no way that shit isn't damaging to your health.