Annoyance: Deceptive Serving Sizes
Replies
-
Maybe if you understood math you'd understand that it means the lowest metric that all involved can share.DeguelloTex wrote: »
But you didn't answer my questions.
When I was young and trying to lose weight, I only looked at the calories when I was shopping. Since I was counting calories, that was all that mattered. I didn't even consider that a serving size might not be the amount that I considered a serving size.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Doesn't your conclusion beg the question of whether the obese typically use them in the first place? And that the obese are failing to understand them?Nutrition labeling on food DOES need to be as simple and straightforward as possible if we, as a society, want to complain about the obesity rate.
Good luck coming up with nutritional labels for people who can't read, though.
People who are counting carbs may just look at carbs while they are shopping and then never look at the label again when they are home.
I think a lot of people use the Nutritional Information but not as completely as they should. Also, very few people use a food scale. Shoot, some people say that using a food scale and carefully paying attention to what you eating is actually disorderly eating.
As for labels for people who can't read, someone above mentioned that their country used green, amber, and red to show the healthfulness of nutrients. I can totally see the US heading in that direction.
Protein powder: green, amber, or red?
Ice cream: green, amber or red?
If we're going to die on the hill of making everything obvious to the lowest common denominator, what about color-blind people who can't read?
Nice of you to refer to human beings as "the lowest common denominator" and then bringing up people with a disability. Holy crap.
Nice of you to refer to it as a disability. That's no longer the preferred nomenclature.
-1 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Maybe if you understood math you'd understand that it means the lowest metric that all involved can share.DeguelloTex wrote: »
But you didn't answer my questions.
When I was young and trying to lose weight, I only looked at the calories when I was shopping. Since I was counting calories, that was all that mattered. I didn't even consider that a serving size might not be the amount that I considered a serving size.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Doesn't your conclusion beg the question of whether the obese typically use them in the first place? And that the obese are failing to understand them?Nutrition labeling on food DOES need to be as simple and straightforward as possible if we, as a society, want to complain about the obesity rate.
Good luck coming up with nutritional labels for people who can't read, though.
People who are counting carbs may just look at carbs while they are shopping and then never look at the label again when they are home.
I think a lot of people use the Nutritional Information but not as completely as they should. Also, very few people use a food scale. Shoot, some people say that using a food scale and carefully paying attention to what you eating is actually disorderly eating.
As for labels for people who can't read, someone above mentioned that their country used green, amber, and red to show the healthfulness of nutrients. I can totally see the US heading in that direction.
Protein powder: green, amber, or red?
Ice cream: green, amber or red?
If we're going to die on the hill of making everything obvious to the lowest common denominator, what about color-blind people who can't read?
Nice of you to refer to human beings as "the lowest common denominator" and then bringing up people with a disability. Holy crap.
Nice of you to refer to it as a disability. That's no longer the preferred nomenclature.
Yeah, I get math well enough, thanks.
It's not an appropriate way to talk about people.0 -
Campbell's soup does this too! They say 80 calories for 125 ml. Meanwhile the can is 284 ml. 2.272 servings. Bah.
If the can were 250 ml, that wouldn't bug me though.
And that king size chocolate bar thing you mentioned is really stupid.0 -
Then report me. See what happens.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Maybe if you understood math you'd understand that it means the lowest metric that all involved can share.DeguelloTex wrote: »
But you didn't answer my questions.
When I was young and trying to lose weight, I only looked at the calories when I was shopping. Since I was counting calories, that was all that mattered. I didn't even consider that a serving size might not be the amount that I considered a serving size.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Doesn't your conclusion beg the question of whether the obese typically use them in the first place? And that the obese are failing to understand them?Nutrition labeling on food DOES need to be as simple and straightforward as possible if we, as a society, want to complain about the obesity rate.
Good luck coming up with nutritional labels for people who can't read, though.
People who are counting carbs may just look at carbs while they are shopping and then never look at the label again when they are home.
I think a lot of people use the Nutritional Information but not as completely as they should. Also, very few people use a food scale. Shoot, some people say that using a food scale and carefully paying attention to what you eating is actually disorderly eating.
As for labels for people who can't read, someone above mentioned that their country used green, amber, and red to show the healthfulness of nutrients. I can totally see the US heading in that direction.
Protein powder: green, amber, or red?
Ice cream: green, amber or red?
If we're going to die on the hill of making everything obvious to the lowest common denominator, what about color-blind people who can't read?
Nice of you to refer to human beings as "the lowest common denominator" and then bringing up people with a disability. Holy crap.
Nice of you to refer to it as a disability. That's no longer the preferred nomenclature.
Yeah, I get math well enough, thanks.
It's not an appropriate way to talk about people.
0 -
Spreyton22K wrote: »Just a shout out to the fellow Aussies on this thread - does the use of kilojoules in preference to calories on the packet throw you much?
....I must admit if they do use Kj instead of calories I find that a bit extra frustrating in working out amounts....
Kiwi here, and yes, this is one of my pet peeves. Having to calculate kj to kcal before working out if it's worth eating.
I thought Kiwi was someone from New Zealand? And an Aussie was an Australian?
I know this is off topic but I am curious (as it was an Aussie who told me these things)0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Then report me. See what happens.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Maybe if you understood math you'd understand that it means the lowest metric that all involved can share.DeguelloTex wrote: »
But you didn't answer my questions.
When I was young and trying to lose weight, I only looked at the calories when I was shopping. Since I was counting calories, that was all that mattered. I didn't even consider that a serving size might not be the amount that I considered a serving size.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Doesn't your conclusion beg the question of whether the obese typically use them in the first place? And that the obese are failing to understand them?Nutrition labeling on food DOES need to be as simple and straightforward as possible if we, as a society, want to complain about the obesity rate.
Good luck coming up with nutritional labels for people who can't read, though.
People who are counting carbs may just look at carbs while they are shopping and then never look at the label again when they are home.
I think a lot of people use the Nutritional Information but not as completely as they should. Also, very few people use a food scale. Shoot, some people say that using a food scale and carefully paying attention to what you eating is actually disorderly eating.
As for labels for people who can't read, someone above mentioned that their country used green, amber, and red to show the healthfulness of nutrients. I can totally see the US heading in that direction.
Protein powder: green, amber, or red?
Ice cream: green, amber or red?
If we're going to die on the hill of making everything obvious to the lowest common denominator, what about color-blind people who can't read?
Nice of you to refer to human beings as "the lowest common denominator" and then bringing up people with a disability. Holy crap.
Nice of you to refer to it as a disability. That's no longer the preferred nomenclature.
Yeah, I get math well enough, thanks.
It's not an appropriate way to talk about people.
threatening people now?! hmm...0 -
Not a threat. An invitation to look like a hypersensitive goof.GauchoMark wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Then report me. See what happens.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Maybe if you understood math you'd understand that it means the lowest metric that all involved can share.DeguelloTex wrote: »
But you didn't answer my questions.
When I was young and trying to lose weight, I only looked at the calories when I was shopping. Since I was counting calories, that was all that mattered. I didn't even consider that a serving size might not be the amount that I considered a serving size.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Doesn't your conclusion beg the question of whether the obese typically use them in the first place? And that the obese are failing to understand them?Nutrition labeling on food DOES need to be as simple and straightforward as possible if we, as a society, want to complain about the obesity rate.
Good luck coming up with nutritional labels for people who can't read, though.
People who are counting carbs may just look at carbs while they are shopping and then never look at the label again when they are home.
I think a lot of people use the Nutritional Information but not as completely as they should. Also, very few people use a food scale. Shoot, some people say that using a food scale and carefully paying attention to what you eating is actually disorderly eating.
As for labels for people who can't read, someone above mentioned that their country used green, amber, and red to show the healthfulness of nutrients. I can totally see the US heading in that direction.
Protein powder: green, amber, or red?
Ice cream: green, amber or red?
If we're going to die on the hill of making everything obvious to the lowest common denominator, what about color-blind people who can't read?
Nice of you to refer to human beings as "the lowest common denominator" and then bringing up people with a disability. Holy crap.
Nice of you to refer to it as a disability. That's no longer the preferred nomenclature.
Yeah, I get math well enough, thanks.
It's not an appropriate way to talk about people.
threatening people now?! hmm...
-1 -
My favorite: sliced bread. (The brand I'm refering to gives you both the one and the two slice figures, which is odd in itself, but read on and you'll see why.)
One slice reads as 70 calories. But if you read the two slice column, it adds up to 150 calories. Umm....
I actually called the comments/questions line and asked about this. Turns out, they're relying on that 5 calorie window that the FDA allows them - and saying "ONLY 70 CALORIES" on the front looks a lot better than "75," apparently.0 -
Spreyton22K wrote: »Just a shout out to the fellow Aussies on this thread - does the use of kilojoules in preference to calories on the packet throw you much?
....I must admit if they do use Kj instead of calories I find that a bit extra frustrating in working out amounts....
Kiwi here, and yes, this is one of my pet peeves. Having to calculate kj to kcal before working out if it's worth eating.
Why not just change your MFP settings to kilojoules? 1200 calories a day is just over 5000 kilojoules. The only time I look at calories (using an app converter on my phone) is when reading the boards so I get a better idea of what people are talking about
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »47Jacqueline wrote: »My pet peeve is why so few place carry individual serving potato chips - 1 oz, a serving is one oz. Even the packages they sell acknowledge that there are 1.6, 2, 3, 5 servings in a package. And why is everything FAMILY sized? As if that is laudable. My family consists of 1 person. Me.
Trader Joe's does. They have their potato chips in individual serving bags.
Trader Joe also has these triple chocolate bunt cake. They look like 1 serving per size. Label says serving size 1/2 cake. a whole cake is 680 calories and not that big.
0 -
I thought I had, but here goes. If I still don't answer your questions, could you restate them?DeguelloTex wrote: »
But you didn't answer my questions.
When I was young and trying to lose weight, I only looked at the calories when I was shopping. Since I was counting calories, that was all that mattered. I didn't even consider that a serving size might not be the amount that I considered a serving size.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Doesn't your conclusion beg the question of whether the obese typically use them in the first place? And that the obese are failing to understand them?Nutrition labeling on food DOES need to be as simple and straightforward as possible if we, as a society, want to complain about the obesity rate.
Good luck coming up with nutritional labels for people who can't read, though.
People who are counting carbs may just look at carbs while they are shopping and then never look at the label again when they are home.
I think a lot of people use the Nutritional Information but not as completely as they should. Also, very few people use a food scale. Shoot, some people say that using a food scale and carefully paying attention to what you eating is actually disorderly eating.
As for labels for people who can't read, someone above mentioned that their country used green, amber, and red to show the healthfulness of nutrients. I can totally see the US heading in that direction.
Protein powder: green, amber, or red?
Ice cream: green, amber or red?
If we're going to die on the hill of making everything obvious to the lowest common denominator, what about color-blind people who can't read?
I think that obese people use nutrition labels all the time but don't use them completely or correctly and then don't understand why they keep gaining weight. For instance, they don't notice that 1 Pop-Tart is 1 serving so they eat 2 and have twice as many calories as they think they are eating.
I'm not familiar with the standards used for the green, amber, red system. You would need to use Google to find those yourself if you are curious.
How about lowest common denominator to several standard deviations. It's impossible to directly accommodate everyone.0 -
Ah, usually "the point" is given lead status. Perhaps that's just a quirky thing I've seen effective writers use.GauchoMark wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
What does that have to do with being honest? Are you suggesting more regulation so as to dictate the grouping patterns of Pop Tarts? Is it dishonest not to individually wrap Pop Tarts? What was the point of your post?GauchoMark wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
How can they be "more honest" than the Pop Tart nutrition label I posted earlier?GauchoMark wrote: »amazing how the pop tart is the first thing that "popped" in my mind when I read the title of this!
I guess the bottom line - yes they should be more honest or more regulated, but the truth is that the only person you can trust is yourself and a kitchen scale!
you missed the point of my post...
We get it. The pop tart label has the size listed clearly. You win! It just doesn't make sense to break it up that way.
the point was in the first post of mine that you argued
"the only person you can trust is yourself and a kitchen scale!"
In other words, don't just blindly accept the number on the package, read it, measure it, and use your brain to log it correctly. The pop tart thing is just annoying, which was why this thread was started!
See, even when things are written down, even YOU can miss the point!
What good is reading and measuring if you can't accept the information on the package?
0 -
I don't think it's necessarily deceptive...I think people in general are unaccustomed to actually reading the nutritional labels or analyzing nutritional data to begin with...so they get a little "sticker shock" when they do.
It's not only pre-packaged food either...generally recommended serving of chicken breast for example is 4 oz raw...most chicken breasts are closer to 8...so if you're eating a whole chicken breast, most likely you are eating a couple servings of chicken, not one. And yes...I'm one of those people who will slice up my chicken breasts into tenders so that I can control portions that way....and yes, I could have only one pop-tart, not that I would want to.0 -
You think they use the labels. Do you have any studies that indicate that they do and fail at it or do you just feel like they do?
I thought I had, but here goes. If I still don't answer your questions, could you restate them?DeguelloTex wrote: »
But you didn't answer my questions.
When I was young and trying to lose weight, I only looked at the calories when I was shopping. Since I was counting calories, that was all that mattered. I didn't even consider that a serving size might not be the amount that I considered a serving size.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Doesn't your conclusion beg the question of whether the obese typically use them in the first place? And that the obese are failing to understand them?Nutrition labeling on food DOES need to be as simple and straightforward as possible if we, as a society, want to complain about the obesity rate.
Good luck coming up with nutritional labels for people who can't read, though.
People who are counting carbs may just look at carbs while they are shopping and then never look at the label again when they are home.
I think a lot of people use the Nutritional Information but not as completely as they should. Also, very few people use a food scale. Shoot, some people say that using a food scale and carefully paying attention to what you eating is actually disorderly eating.
As for labels for people who can't read, someone above mentioned that their country used green, amber, and red to show the healthfulness of nutrients. I can totally see the US heading in that direction.
Protein powder: green, amber, or red?
Ice cream: green, amber or red?
If we're going to die on the hill of making everything obvious to the lowest common denominator, what about color-blind people who can't read?
I think that obese people use nutrition labels all the time but don't use them completely or correctly and then don't understand why they keep gaining weight. For instance, they don't notice that 1 Pop-Tart is 1 serving so they eat 2 and have twice as many calories as they think they are eating.
I'm not familiar with the standards used for the green, amber, red system. You would need to use Google to find those yourself if you are curious.
How about lowest common denominator to several standard deviations. It's impossible to directly accommodate everyone.
It seems likely that, given the literacy rates in industrialized countries, nutrition labels probably already cover at least two, if not three, standard deviations from the mean as far as being able to read them.
0 -
Annoying? Yes. Infuriating? Not so much. But then I've always been suspicious of labels. You just have to read carefully.0
-
I thought I had, but here goes. If I still don't answer your questions, could you restate them?DeguelloTex wrote: »
But you didn't answer my questions.
When I was young and trying to lose weight, I only looked at the calories when I was shopping. Since I was counting calories, that was all that mattered. I didn't even consider that a serving size might not be the amount that I considered a serving size.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Doesn't your conclusion beg the question of whether the obese typically use them in the first place? And that the obese are failing to understand them?Nutrition labeling on food DOES need to be as simple and straightforward as possible if we, as a society, want to complain about the obesity rate.
Good luck coming up with nutritional labels for people who can't read, though.
People who are counting carbs may just look at carbs while they are shopping and then never look at the label again when they are home.
I think a lot of people use the Nutritional Information but not as completely as they should. Also, very few people use a food scale. Shoot, some people say that using a food scale and carefully paying attention to what you eating is actually disorderly eating.
As for labels for people who can't read, someone above mentioned that their country used green, amber, and red to show the healthfulness of nutrients. I can totally see the US heading in that direction.
Protein powder: green, amber, or red?
Ice cream: green, amber or red?
If we're going to die on the hill of making everything obvious to the lowest common denominator, what about color-blind people who can't read?
I think that obese people use nutrition labels all the time but don't use them completely or correctly and then don't understand why they keep gaining weight. For instance, they don't notice that 1 Pop-Tart is 1 serving so they eat 2 and have twice as many calories as they think they are eating.
I'm not familiar with the standards used for the green, amber, red system. You would need to use Google to find those yourself if you are curious.
How about lowest common denominator to several standard deviations. It's impossible to directly accommodate everyone.
I don't think the vast majority of people really look at food labels or nutritional information at all...I never really did until I started counting calories. Most people are just completely ignorant when it comes to nutrition and have no clue how many calories they are consuming...a lot of people don't even know what a calorie is, let alone how many they would need to maintain a healthy weight, etc.
Obesity isn't a result of nutritonal labeling or deceptive labeling...the obesity epidemic is largely attributable to an overly abundant food supply; much of which cheap with a low nutritional value to caloric density ratio combined with a whole lot of ignorance of general nutrition.0 -
My biggest pet peeves about this is "individual packets" of nuts(2.5 1 oz servings), ice cream bars that are two servings and foods that use something like ml for a food which is most certainly not consumed by the general populace as a liquid(Ice cream being measured in ml is just nuts).0
-
All I have is me and what I've seen in the grocery store. You can Google for studies just as easily as I can.DeguelloTex wrote: »You think they use the labels. Do you have any studies that indicate that they do and fail at it or do you just feel like they do?0 -
For you peanut butter people:
And it's actually labeled so that one tub is one serving. Yay! That's how you do it.
I think it is these that are weird too, if you buy a jar of peanut butter, a serving size is 2 Tablespoons, but these individual packages are more than a serving, but at least the quote the calories for the entire package. There is no way I could only eat part of that after opening it.
0 -
Spreyton22K wrote: »
^^^I just HAD to look up about the comment about the Heart Attack Restaurant......
Batman helping me check my weight:
0 -
But I'm not the one making the claim that we need better labeling to fight the obesity epidemic, you are.
All I have is me and what I've seen in the grocery store. You can Google for studies just as easily as I can.DeguelloTex wrote: »You think they use the labels. Do you have any studies that indicate that they do and fail at it or do you just feel like they do?
0 -
-
Right. Asking you to support what you say is trolling. Good luck with that.0
-
You could cut it in half and stick what you don't eat back in the freezer, I've done it when I really wanted some chocolate but didn't have a whole lot of calories to play with, but portion control can definitely be a problem.I was looking at different ice cream bars the other day, Figuring it was better portion control for me than buying a pint or half gallon of ice cream....The ice cream bar was 2 servings, how do you eat half an ice cream bar?
Soup and canned beans just get me though... uggg
0 -
Most annoying to me are the vegetable cooking oil sprays. I have one (large Kirkland canola from Costco) where a serving is 1/4 second spray. Can someone explain if this is even possible? How do you time it? It's kinda ridiculous.0
-
Spreyton22K wrote: »Just a shout out to the fellow Aussies on this thread - does the use of kilojoules in preference to calories on the packet throw you much?
....I must admit if they do use Kj instead of calories I find that a bit extra frustrating in working out amounts....
Kiwi here, and yes, this is one of my pet peeves. Having to calculate kj to kcal before working out if it's worth eating.
Why not just change your MFP settings to kilojoules? 1200 calories a day is just over 5000 kilojoules. The only time I look at calories (using an app converter on my phone) is when reading the boards so I get a better idea of what people are talking about
*shrugs* Just always used calories, and I'm set in my ways now
asking me to change to kj would be like changing all the road signs to miles! 0 -
Now I want Pop Tarts.0
-
How do you know if a pop tart has become stale? My son used to eat these and I'd pop the second in a baggie, but more because of the crumbs that the food.
I'm not sure a stale Pop Tart would taste any different than a "fresh" (if you can even call them that) Pop Tart.0 -
I don't think that it is generally an issue of reading skills. It's a lot of work to properly pay attention to all of these details and it's not a lot of fun. Most of us have dropped the ball at one point or another, no matter how well we read.0
-
Spreyton22K wrote: »Just a shout out to the fellow Aussies on this thread - does the use of kilojoules in preference to calories on the packet throw you much?
....I must admit if they do use Kj instead of calories I find that a bit extra frustrating in working out amounts....
I don't get what your talking about.
Food packaging has kj on it. I log in kj. No converting anything, no extra step.
Have you got you mfp set to calories?
My fit bit is in calories but that gets synched to mfp as kj.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions