Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
1,083 bytes added ,  11:17, 28 December 2020
Line 292: Line 292:  
* 895 kcal
 
* 895 kcal
   −
The corrected normalisation has well worked out for the serving group, but not at all for the 100g group. We expect that the peak at 856 is the correct one.
+
The corrected normalisation has well worked out for the serving group, but not at all for the 100g group. We expect that the peak at 856 is the correct one. So what should the correction factor be if we want the peaks to match?
 +
[[File:OliveOilsKcalEnergyDistributionFudged20201227.png|thumb|center|Fudged kcal-energy distribution (27-dec-2020)]]
 +
The peak is roughly correct with a factor 1.055 instead of the 1.01 used earlier. No idea where this comes from.
    
==== Correlations ====
 
==== Correlations ====
Line 331: Line 333:  
| Poly-unsaturated fat (g) || 7.1 || 11.2 || 14.3
 
| Poly-unsaturated fat (g) || 7.1 || 11.2 || 14.3
 
|}
 
|}
 +
==== Accuracy and Variation ====
 +
How accurate are the listed nutritional values? And has the apparent variation any meaning?
 +
 +
Many products use the canonical values as indication for their nutritional values, like 3700kJ or 900 kcal. These are probably average values. Note that the listed accuracy is one or two significant digits. This means that it is not worthwhile to add more significant digits. Normally this implies that the variation is ± 50 kcal or 50 kJ (200 kJ?). This corresponds to the spread of values seen in the graphs above.
 +
 +
One can wonder about the usefulness of products that display the nutritional values with four or five significant digits. Are those values just a reflection of statistical errors, actual differences in olive oils (year, olive, region?)
    
== OFF Conclusions and thoughts ==
 
== OFF Conclusions and thoughts ==
3,393

edits

Navigation menu