Discrepancies in the Nutritional Facts

Support General Feedback
1

I have been looking at the nutritional facts on your site and your fact sheets. There are some discrepancies, and one starts to wonder what you actually include in your products. I suggest you’ll have a look at it, since food products are your main focus after all. The list below is what I found, and probably not complete. I have for instance not looked at all the values.

jimmyjoy-plennyshake:

  • “Niacin” is listed twice, in the pdf-sheet.
  • “Choline” is listed in the pdf-sheet but not on the site.

jimmyjoy-plennyshake Vegan:

  • “omega-3 fatty acids” and “omega-6 fatty acids” listed on the site, but not in the pdf-sheet.
  • “Fluoride/Fluorine” is listed in the pdf-sheet but not on the site.

jimmyjoy-plennyshake Sport:

  • “omega-3 fatty acids” and “omega-6 fatty acids” listed on the site, but not in the pdf-sheet.

Thanks

3 Likes
2

Hi @jon.baglo, thanks so much for your feedback! We’ll definitely have a look into this.

3

Thanks.

I also noticed that you mix between IU and metric units. It would be a little easier for the consumer if you cept to g/mg/μg.

4

IU is the accepted standard unit for certain vitamins because there are multiple precursors that have different resulting vitamin levels in your body. The IU value is the resulting uptake, while the weight you’re taking in is not important at all.

5

Hi Isabel,

I also noted that the packaging shows different values than the website. For example Vitamin B12 is listed as 1 mcg on the packaging, while the RDA is around 2,8 mcg. The website listed 2,4 mcg, but isn’t that still lower than the RDA?

1 Like
6

@b.d.albarda @jon.baglo IME it’s much easier to use the per-day totals on the site - various places will list per ‘meal’ or per 100g, and those are less useful IMHO.

gyYtU2x.png968×597 49.8 KB

So, that lists B12 as 2.5mcg per day in a bag of jimmyjoy-plennyshake. That particular graphic might be outdated, though, I’m not sure.

The RDA values have changed over time, of course, and will continue to change. For instance, the EU RDA value for B12 (the vitamin in question) was (still is? not sure) 1 microgram in 2006

http://www.eufic.org/article/en/expid/miniguide-vitamins/#9

EU RDA (1) Per Day
European Union Recommended Daily Amounts for Nutritional Labelling of Food Products.
1.0 µg

However, that’s likely to change soon based on the ongoing work of the EFSA

https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4150

There is consistent evidence in adults that a cobalamin intake of 4 μg/day and greater is associated with serum concentrations of holoTC and cobalamin within the reference ranges derived from healthy subjects, together with MMA and tHcy concentrations below the cut-off values for adults, which indicates an adequate cobalamin status

When you said the B12 is listed as 1mcg on the packaging, was that for 1 full day, 100g, 1 meal, or something different? The package image I could find lists 1mcg so there’s definitely some discrepancies that need to be resolved. :smile:

nutrition_fr.10.full.jpg1321×2064 689 KB

1 Like
7

[quote=“james.manning, post:6, topic:853”]
When you said the B12 is listed as 1mcg on the packaging, was that for 1 full day, 100g, 1 meal, or something different? The package image I could find lists 1mcg so there’s definitely some discrepancies that need to be resolved.
[/quote]You’re answering your own question here. My point was indeed that the packaging (as on your photo) lists 1 mcg as 100%. I was referring to per 520g bag obviously as that should represent the 100% RDA.

Please note that there are also other values on the packaging that don’t correspond with the website’s table. The packaging image is up to date as I have bags here that expire in 2017 with that same table on them.

8

There are plenty of discrepancies, one even wonders how reliable are these numbers in general, not simply for jimmyjoy-plennyshake. Who checks that these are correct, what’s the margin of error, how often are they rechecked?

In any case, the bags themselves have never changed and they have mistakes, including wrong text formatting that was never fixed and stuff like that. Instead the .pdf were updated, so one can expect those .pdf to be more reliable overall.

But still this leaves doubts about the whole thing. There are discrepancies all over, for example even Vitamin C:
On the site: 80mg both standard and vegan.
On the bag: 60mg standard.
On the .pdf: 59.4mg for standard, 79.8mg for vegan.

As you can see it’s all over the place, and 60mg of vitamin C is low by the modern, updated standard, making vegan a better recipe than standard jimmyjoy-plennyshake, if the .pdf are to be trusted. But what do we actually trust?

Not only they should clarify all these numbers, but they really should start working to improve the formula itself same as the american Soylent is doing. Lots of things could use a correction (for example, a better source for Omega3/6 than flaxseed, too high GI and too much protein being a few of the biggest flaws of jimmyjoy-plennyshake).

The thing with jimmyjoy-plennyshake is they they aggressively kept the prices low, and focused on taste, more than recipe overall quality and research. And of course it’s a better choice as business because people will look at taste, price and satiety more than they look at how many mg of vitamin C or the ingredient list.

But hopefully even the meaningful stuff isn’t left TOO behind and is eventually addressed. Otherwise we can only hope Soylent to come over here, in the not too close future. Because other European alternatives ALL have their own issues and aren’t really better than jimmyjoy-plennyshake (outside of Nano, that on paper is even better than american Soylent, and for that reason it looks VERY shady and not to be trusted…)

1 Like
9

I remember something like this been posted before, i think it was about choline, and back then the same response was that you we’re going to look into it. I don’t want to put pressure on or be overly critical, just saying. When your product is a food replacer, possibly completely or mostly, i think your information should be as detailed and accurate as possible.

10

I highly disagree, a lot of people only eat one meal or two per day, it’s much better per meal (per 100grams is kind of an industry standard for food) and you can easily triple it if you eat all 3 meals. Alternatively, we could have all 3 on the website.

11

…and they have redone the .pdf now. Very sad to say Omega-6/3 have been removed from both pdf :frowning:

So now we have yet another slightly tweaked source with different numbers, and all the questions above are still valid.

The website hasn’t been updated and still has obvious mistakes, for example standard jimmyjoy-plennyshake has 23.3mg for iron, corresponding to 166%, compared to vegan (still on the website) that has 27.8mg, so more than standard, but it shows 100%. Just an example.

Another, small, error can be spotted even in these new .pdf, look at Phosphorus:
519 standard 500 vegan (same as old pdf), but standard is 74% and vegan is 75%. This also very openly contradicts the website, where the vegan one is the one containing more Phosphorus than standard. It’s very likely the vegan pdf has a typo and the amount is more than 500mg.

Breakdown of differences between vegan and standard, according to the newer pdf:
Vegan has a bit less fat, a bit more fibre, quite a bit over RDA for both Iron and Magnesium. All other differences that can be spotted tend to be tiny.

All the numbers in the new pdf are identical to the old, for vegan. No changes have been made.

The differences between the new and old pdf for standard, instead:
removal of Omega 6/3
Calcium: 25 to 27
Copper: 0.51 to 0.33
Iodine: 38 to 48
Iron: 7.6 to 7.4
Magnesium: 143 to 125
Manganese: 2.2 to 2.1
Phosphorus: 500 to 519
Sulfur removed
Zinc: 3.4 to 4
B6: 0.7 to 0.45 (!)
B12: 0.3 to 0.83 (!)
C: 19.8 to 26.6 (!)
K: 38 to 25 (!)
Thiamine: 1.2 to 0.8 (!)
Riboflavine: 0.5 to 0.45
Niacine: 6 to 5.4
Folic Acid: 69 to 66.6
Choline removed
Biotine: 48 to 16.6 (!!!)

Also, Vitamin D being at 7.5ug is shown at 50% RDA, which might be true for the UE, but if you go look at more recent studies and recommendations, EVERYONE now recommends much higher intakes (just look at the Wikipedia) from 15 to 20ug, It might be a good idea to increase that, especially because upper intake levels are around 100ug. American Soylent probably already has 15ug, since that’s the RDA over there.

At least now there seem a little higher attention to the formulas, Huel has just updated its own and for example it has 15ug for vitamin D and a really great ratio for Omega 3/6. Though it has its own issues like a bit pricey, way too much protein and very high Manganese that shouldn’t be an issue but it’s still a bit worrying.

1 Like
12

And since we are gathering details, here some more.

jimmyjoy-plennyshake on Reddit:
“it contains 70 gr whey protein that has 120 mg cholesterol per 100 gr. That makes 84 mg cholesterol per jimmyjoy-plennyshake pouch of 520gr.”

Also one guy states:
“The big one is phosphorus to calcium ratio - you need 2.5 times more calcium than phosphorus to prevent the phosphorus from drawing calcium out of the bones and into the blood… we totally don’t want that. This is the main problem with primarily oat-based soylents such as jimmyjoy-plennyshake. The stickers only state the guaranteed minimum amounts but the ingredients themselves have much higher total phosphorus content.”

That can be a bit worrying, and I wonder if it applies to other stuff like Manganese. If the label states the MINIMUM then there are even higher concerns about being very close to upper limit.

P.S.
I’ve read a bit more and it’s indeed quite worrying as calcium, phosphorus and magnesium are closely related and the balance in jimmyjoy-plennyshake is extremely off. Long term it might be a substantial problem. It could probably use an increase in calcium to balance that. This and the high amount of proteins are now my biggest concerns since they are the biggest discrepancies from RDA/RDI, and both might cause similar problems.

13

I’m not skilled enough to understand the impact of this. It sounds dangerous.

Could someone from jimmyjoy-plennyshake please reassure that the product is safe? Specifically, I’d like some reassurance that a mostly jimmyjoy-plennyshake powder based diet isn’t likely to cause serious health issues.

Same question regarding the bars, I read another thread here saying the fat content was too high.

I’m enjoying jimmyjoy-plennyshake and eating it five days a week as a replacement for hotel restaurant food that I used to consume. I feel better and am losing weight. I’d like to continue, but obviously don’t want to get sick.

14

For the most part we are nitpicking here. “Normal” food has plenty of issues of its own, if you dig the details.

This is less about being “unsafe” and more about striving for ideal. So, the stuff I brought up might be an issue in the longer term, it shouldn’t be one if you use the product with moderation. Nor anyone can really reassure anyone else, since this “science” is far from complete and so we don’t have definitive answers to anything.

What jimmyjoy-plennyshake can do is clear up the details on the labels and make progressive changes to the recipe and make it better. They already announced the Twennybar recipe is changing to lower both saturated fats and sugar.

1 Like
15

I see we’re being scrutinized throughly here! That’s actually good news for us!
We know there are some discrepancies in the info being presented in several places on our site. We’re going through a huge remodel of the entire site and we’re doing our best to make sure all the info on it is streamlined. The biggest problem right now is that some of the bags that people are getting home actually have a faulty label on them, which was originally a printing error but there were so many of them printed :confused: like the one james.manning presented. Luckily these are now out of stock and we will only have regular labels everywhere, with the actual info on them.
Furthermore, we are indeed working on re-formulating both powder and bars!
One more note on omega 3-6 not being included in the label: we are guided by European labelling laws and unfortunately those values are not included in the listed nutrients in the current legislation. Neither is cholesterol.

16

I wish I could scrutinize but all my knowledge comes just from reading stuff on the internet and there’s absolute need of better and serious research on this stuff.

But since you’re working on the recipes then it can be useful to discuss.

As I previously said the current “weaknesses” of jimmyjoy-plennyshake appear to be these: too high protein content, many doubts about the GI, ratio of calcium/phosphorus, manganese too high (and maybe better source of omega 3 and rising the amount of vitamin D).

There was in Italy an article on an important newspaper (don’t know if it was just online, though), the guy drank only Jolent for a few days, felt sick, gave an overall very negative review and included some comments from medics that warned about a too high protein content.

The article was pretty bad, but this just to say the high protein content is something that can be superficially seen a a negative, possibly bad for the health. Now, if you actually read online about protein and kidneys you always read there no real “upper limit”, and that they could never find a proof that a high intake of protein is bad, even in the longer term.

Still, the overwork of kidneys with a high protein intake is a fact, and it is a serious risk under certain conditions, like diabetes. In general if you are not an athlete it makes little sense to have a so high protein intake.

This is what Rhinehart a few weeks ago with the presentation of Soylent 1.6:
https://www.reddit.com/r/soylent/comments/4sou6w/i_am_ceo_rob_rhinehart_ama/d5azri3
"Not all carbs are equally bad or good (soylent is low GI) and 20g protein / serving is quite a lot. There is also a risk of nitrogen imbalance from too much protein in the diet."

This after Soylent rose the amount of protein from 1.5 to 1.6, now it’s 105g compared to jimmyjoy-plennyshake 137g. But take Queal and Huel as examples and we have 148g and 146.7g. That’s what I mean when I say competitors have their own big issues. Both Huel and Queal go even higher that jimmyjoy-plennyshake, and Huel is even higher than 148g, because you have to count is compared to 2000kcal instead of the 2100 of Queal and jimmyjoy-plennyshake.

And if you go look that guy that has a blog, using JUST jimmyjoy-plennyshake for the past six months as an experiment… If you dig into the details you see he’s fine, but he still has certain issues that show in his bloodwork and they seem all tied to kidney activity, intake of vitamin D and dehydration. He explains a bit of this if you read his blog too.

All this seems to point to problems in the same areas: too high protein content, issues with vitamin D, and issues with Calcium/Phosphorus balance. All of these converge in the activity of the kidneys, and the use of Calcium depends on vitamin D. So all these small imbalances in the jimmyjoy-plennyshake recipe tend to lead to a single overall issue.

This is all made worse because jimmyjoy-plennyshake is structured around the idea of three meals a day. That means the high protein concentration goes in all at once, and again it’s the kidneys that have to deal with that. It might not be an health issue, but it certainly causes stress that we could do without, striving for a better recipe. At least Soylent is 4 meals, and 2000 calories, that means 25g of protein at once, compared to the 45g of protein in jimmyjoy-plennyshake.

So, if I can give a suggestion this is what I would focus on. Lowering protein under 100g a day to lighten up stress on kidneys, see if there’s a way to reduce the phosphorus levels, increase a little bit the amount of vitamin D.

The thing about vitamin D is that it’s mostly based on exposition to the sun, and adding it in the diet probably doesn’t have a substantial effect. But most recommendations (Italy for example sets it at 10ug) exceed that in jimmyjoy-plennyshake and there are absolutely no negatives about rising it even as high as 20ug. It’s one of those cases where adding more than necessary is not a risk. And because of other issues around Calcium specifically in jimmyjoy-plennyshake might mean that lots of vitamin D in jimmyjoy-plennyshake might be a very good thing to balance it all out.

And of course lowering the GI. There were always concerns about jimmyjoy-plennyshake using too much maltodextrin, and it’s a fact that a lot of effort in the recent Soylent formulas was all about lowering the GI as much as possible. jimmyjoy-plennyshake should try too.

If you lower protein it might be a good idea, if possible, to add more fat.

17

I think the main problem here is that almost everything is speculation. Not meant to bring you down, but we need scientific studies to actually know for sure if one’s kidneys get ‘overworked’ from a jimmyjoy-plennyshake diet as the data may suggest. Also the rate of protein consumption is debatable, multiple studies have shown upper absorption limits from the GI tract, meaning that overconsumption of protein in lower frequencies (as you say 3 times per day) can actually lower protein uptake because the gut can’t absorb that much that fast.

18

Please see Cronometer and various dietary and information requests

Thanks.