I think this injecting oil into potatoes is a bit of a chinese whispers that has started somewhere and then got out of hand to be honest.
I was looking at their nutritional information and it all adds up correctly, they would be under legal action easily if their meals were not made to go alongside their nutritional information printed on their site.
I have just been having a look on there and a jacket potato with beans (with butter and salad dressing omitted) is 514 calories and 1.9g of total fat, which is correct and exactly the same nutritional information if you had made it yourself at home.
As for why slimming world are saying this meal from Wetherspoons has syns is beyond me , especially when they say a packet of savoury rice is free. There does seem to be far too much variation in things, including the inaccuracies with the syns calculator.
None of this makes any sense. If you think about it, why would Wetherspoons bother to put oil in or on their jacket potatoes, or fry them? Why go to the added expense?
Someone ordering a dessert with whipped cream presumably
likes whipped cream, so there is an advantage to Wetherspoons in putting it on - it will attract that kind of customer.
But if someone orders a jacket potato they are probably doing so because they see it as a healthier option, and if she or she wanted something fried they would order the chips.
So, why bother? There seems to be no commercial advantage.
Britmum's careful calculations about the jacket potatoes (above) don't tally with the Syn value at all.
Like I say, it makes no sense.
When I asked a consultant I know (
not the one from my class!) about this, she stuck her fingers in her ears and said that if one more person asked her that she would scream!!
I might ask her again when she has calmed down!