Annoyance: Deceptive Serving Sizes
Replies
-
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...
That was admit a threat on you it was saying the mods etc are likely to do nothing.
He wasn't abusive from what I could see.
And it does seem to highlight that you might be too sensitive and or misreading or interpreting their posts.0 -
I am amused by frozen pizzas that list calories by one third of a pizza, or one fifth. Should I be enraged instead? Should I think that, since the package has one pizza, that is a serving? Should I think that the calories for a fifth of a pizza represent the calories for a whole pizza?
It's pretty trivial to multiply by 5, divide by eight, and multiply again by the number of slices.0 -
So this is something I noticed a while ago, but today at the store I noticed it again and it really ticks me off. The deceptive serving sizes on some foods is awful. Good example is poptarts, the serving size is ONE poptart...not one packet of poptarts which comes with 2 tarts in it...ONE poptart. Nobody I know opens a poptart foil package and eats only one, as the package is not resealable and they go stale quickly. They also list the calories on the front so they LOOK healthy if you don't see the super fine print over the nutrition info saying "Per one poptart". Same thing with Ramen, one package of ramen is supposedly 2 servings. Yea, right. Even the butterfinger king size candy bar is 3 servings, even though the bar is broken up into 2 smaller pieces which leads you to assume it is 2 servings...not 3.
This kinda "gotcha" labeling irritates me, and I feel like there should be some FDA rule that if your packaging is clearly broken up in a way that appears as a single serving you cannot list the serving size as less than that. While most of these foods listed are unhealthy to begin with, and ones I no longer eat, it seems to me that part of the obesity issue might be this kind of labeling. People are likely grossly underestimating the calories in what they eat due to companies purposely being deceitful.
Yes, many are very deceptive. But then, some are pretty right on. Like the M&Ms *Sharing* packages with two servings.
The funniest one I've noticed is on Hillshire Farm's Kielbasa sausage; one 13 ounce package states : 6.5 servings!! Are you kidding me? For one thing, they were a full pound for decades, and now they've reduced the package size.
A serving size they suggest is about a one and half inch piece of sausage, lol.0 -
FitOldMomma wrote: »So this is something I noticed a while ago, but today at the store I noticed it again and it really ticks me off. The deceptive serving sizes on some foods is awful. Good example is poptarts, the serving size is ONE poptart...not one packet of poptarts which comes with 2 tarts in it...ONE poptart. Nobody I know opens a poptart foil package and eats only one, as the package is not resealable and they go stale quickly. They also list the calories on the front so they LOOK healthy if you don't see the super fine print over the nutrition info saying "Per one poptart". Same thing with Ramen, one package of ramen is supposedly 2 servings. Yea, right. Even the butterfinger king size candy bar is 3 servings, even though the bar is broken up into 2 smaller pieces which leads you to assume it is 2 servings...not 3.
This kinda "gotcha" labeling irritates me, and I feel like there should be some FDA rule that if your packaging is clearly broken up in a way that appears as a single serving you cannot list the serving size as less than that. While most of these foods listed are unhealthy to begin with, and ones I no longer eat, it seems to me that part of the obesity issue might be this kind of labeling. People are likely grossly underestimating the calories in what they eat due to companies purposely being deceitful.
Yes, many are very deceptive. But then, some are pretty right on. Like the M&Ms *Sharing* packages with two servings.
The funniest one I've noticed is on Hillshire Farm's Kielbasa sausage; one 13 ounce package states : 6.5 servings!! Are you kidding me? For one thing, they were a full pound for decades, and now they've reduced the package size.
A serving size they suggest is about a one and half inch piece of sausage, lol.
Part of this is that the FDA has set appropriate serving sizes -- which is actually an attempt to encourage people to eat less, I assume, not confuse them. So they have determined "reference amounts customarily consumed" or RACC, which manufacturers are required to use to set serving size. It has to be the closed that can be expressed in a reasonable percentage of the package size. The RACC for sausage is 55 grams, which is just about 2 oz, so seems to require that a 13 oz package be 6.5 servings. (The lb would likely be 8.5 servings under the current requirements.)0 -
FitOldMomma wrote: »So this is something I noticed a while ago, but today at the store I noticed it again and it really ticks me off. The deceptive serving sizes on some foods is awful. Good example is poptarts, the serving size is ONE poptart...not one packet of poptarts which comes with 2 tarts in it...ONE poptart. Nobody I know opens a poptart foil package and eats only one, as the package is not resealable and they go stale quickly. They also list the calories on the front so they LOOK healthy if you don't see the super fine print over the nutrition info saying "Per one poptart". Same thing with Ramen, one package of ramen is supposedly 2 servings. Yea, right. Even the butterfinger king size candy bar is 3 servings, even though the bar is broken up into 2 smaller pieces which leads you to assume it is 2 servings...not 3.
This kinda "gotcha" labeling irritates me, and I feel like there should be some FDA rule that if your packaging is clearly broken up in a way that appears as a single serving you cannot list the serving size as less than that. While most of these foods listed are unhealthy to begin with, and ones I no longer eat, it seems to me that part of the obesity issue might be this kind of labeling. People are likely grossly underestimating the calories in what they eat due to companies purposely being deceitful.
Yes, many are very deceptive. But then, some are pretty right on. Like the M&Ms *Sharing* packages with two servings.
The funniest one I've noticed is on Hillshire Farm's Kielbasa sausage; one 13 ounce package states : 6.5 servings!! Are you kidding me? For one thing, they were a full pound for decades, and now they've reduced the package size.
A serving size they suggest is about a one and half inch piece of sausage, lol.
I'm confused. Our family of 6 has one kielbasa for dinner. How large should a serving size be? We usually have pierogies and some other vegetable or fruit along with it.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »FitOldMomma wrote: »So this is something I noticed a while ago, but today at the store I noticed it again and it really ticks me off. The deceptive serving sizes on some foods is awful. Good example is poptarts, the serving size is ONE poptart...not one packet of poptarts which comes with 2 tarts in it...ONE poptart. Nobody I know opens a poptart foil package and eats only one, as the package is not resealable and they go stale quickly. They also list the calories on the front so they LOOK healthy if you don't see the super fine print over the nutrition info saying "Per one poptart". Same thing with Ramen, one package of ramen is supposedly 2 servings. Yea, right. Even the butterfinger king size candy bar is 3 servings, even though the bar is broken up into 2 smaller pieces which leads you to assume it is 2 servings...not 3.
This kinda "gotcha" labeling irritates me, and I feel like there should be some FDA rule that if your packaging is clearly broken up in a way that appears as a single serving you cannot list the serving size as less than that. While most of these foods listed are unhealthy to begin with, and ones I no longer eat, it seems to me that part of the obesity issue might be this kind of labeling. People are likely grossly underestimating the calories in what they eat due to companies purposely being deceitful.
Yes, many are very deceptive. But then, some are pretty right on. Like the M&Ms *Sharing* packages with two servings.
The funniest one I've noticed is on Hillshire Farm's Kielbasa sausage; one 13 ounce package states : 6.5 servings!! Are you kidding me? For one thing, they were a full pound for decades, and now they've reduced the package size.
A serving size they suggest is about a one and half inch piece of sausage, lol.
Part of this is that the FDA has set appropriate serving sizes -- which is actually an attempt to encourage people to eat less, I assume, not confuse them. So they have determined "reference amounts customarily consumed" or RACC, which manufacturers are required to use to set serving size. It has to be the closed that can be expressed in a reasonable percentage of the package size. The RACC for sausage is 55 grams, which is just about 2 oz, so seems to require that a 13 oz package be 6.5 servings. (The lb would likely be 8.5 servings under the current requirements.)
I think that's fine as a nudge; it would be less confusing to people if manufacturers would then package their goods in accordance with recommended serving sizes. (although maybe not great from an ecological POV.)
Or, if the FDA asked that nutritional info reflect the serving sizes as shaped by manufacturers' packaging. (eg. 1 small bag of chips = the serving size. Not 17 chips.)0 -
Requiring that wrapped items be wrapped by stated serving size would reduce confusion. Not everyone is going to read the nutrition label. If an item is "not labeled for retail sale" then it doesn't have the nutrition label even on it.
Yes, it would be nice if they were just honest and up-front about it. Agreed.Yes, they lie big and tell the truth in very small print. Yes, it's annoying. I'm not even sure why they do it. Lying about the calories will not entice anyone who actually cares about them. People who care will read the label.
Most people who are eating King Sized candy bars do not really care about how many calories they're taking in. They could put "5000 Calories!" on the front of the package and people would still buy them and eat them.
That heart Attack restaurant ADVERTISES that the things are terrible for you. They have had two mascot-spokesmen who died. People lined up to get in.
McDonald's has the calories on the menu. I haven't heard one person say, "Wow! I sure was surprised about those calories! I'm not going to eat that now!"
They're so ridiculous, wasting time and money lying about the calories. All they do is get people who care to not trust them. They should just be honest.
Well, reasonably accurate calorie counts help people who are trying to watch them .
And people definitely are surprised by amounts once they start
they are on the package…how much more "honest" do you want them to be…
I am sorry if OP did not correctly read the package, but no amount of regulation is going to solve that.
If something is packaged in pairs, it's quite reasonable to assume that a serving size is a pair. If the serving size isn't a pair then it needs to be packaged individually. If the serving size is a pair, then the company needs to own up to that and put that higher-calorie amount in the nutritional information.
The company cannot. As I read the RACC, the serving size for pop tarts is supposed to be as close to 55 g as reasonably possible, which means the 52 g individual tart is the required serving size.
So what you are saying is that the company should be required to wrap each individually, despite the added waste of plastic (or whatever it's wrapped in). Seems pretty silly given how simple that label is. Anyone who cares enough to glance at the label to see the calories will know the serving size. People who don't care enough to look at the label presumably also don't care about calories.0 -
Watch the documentaries Fed Up and Hungry For Change.... it's a much bigger issue than you think0
-
LosingLaurensWay wrote: »Watch the documentaries Fed Up and Hungry For Change.... it's a much bigger issue than you think
No. Just bunch of conspiracies, tin foil hat shows.0 -
Or, if the FDA asked that nutritional info reflect the serving sizes as shaped by manufacturers' packaging. (eg. 1 small bag of chips = the serving size. Not 17 chips.)
I think the idea is that the FDA thinks that we shouldn't let serving size ideas be increased just because manufacturers want to sell based on volume.
Just two competing ways to be a nanny state, really (which is fine, I'm not against the state trying to nudge people to eat less so long as the nudging is not overly intrusive).
I'm generally impatient with people who claim they can't understand a simple label, though. It seems to me that they didn't want to know but also don't want to take responsibility.
I kind of like also giving the measurements in 100 gram units, but obviously that wouldn't help the average consumer in the US, to whom 100 grams means nothing. (Would work great for MFP loggers, of course.)0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »FitOldMomma wrote: »So this is something I noticed a while ago, but today at the store I noticed it again and it really ticks me off. The deceptive serving sizes on some foods is awful. Good example is poptarts, the serving size is ONE poptart...not one packet of poptarts which comes with 2 tarts in it...ONE poptart. Nobody I know opens a poptart foil package and eats only one, as the package is not resealable and they go stale quickly. They also list the calories on the front so they LOOK healthy if you don't see the super fine print over the nutrition info saying "Per one poptart". Same thing with Ramen, one package of ramen is supposedly 2 servings. Yea, right. Even the butterfinger king size candy bar is 3 servings, even though the bar is broken up into 2 smaller pieces which leads you to assume it is 2 servings...not 3.
This kinda "gotcha" labeling irritates me, and I feel like there should be some FDA rule that if your packaging is clearly broken up in a way that appears as a single serving you cannot list the serving size as less than that. While most of these foods listed are unhealthy to begin with, and ones I no longer eat, it seems to me that part of the obesity issue might be this kind of labeling. People are likely grossly underestimating the calories in what they eat due to companies purposely being deceitful.
Yes, many are very deceptive. But then, some are pretty right on. Like the M&Ms *Sharing* packages with two servings.
The funniest one I've noticed is on Hillshire Farm's Kielbasa sausage; one 13 ounce package states : 6.5 servings!! Are you kidding me? For one thing, they were a full pound for decades, and now they've reduced the package size.
A serving size they suggest is about a one and half inch piece of sausage, lol.
Part of this is that the FDA has set appropriate serving sizes -- which is actually an attempt to encourage people to eat less, I assume, not confuse them. So they have determined "reference amounts customarily consumed" or RACC, which manufacturers are required to use to set serving size. It has to be the closed that can be expressed in a reasonable percentage of the package size. The RACC for sausage is 55 grams, which is just about 2 oz, so seems to require that a 13 oz package be 6.5 servings. (The lb would likely be 8.5 servings under the current requirements.)
I think that's fine as a nudge; it would be less confusing to people if manufacturers would then package their goods in accordance with recommended serving sizes. (although maybe not great from an ecological POV.)
Or, if the FDA asked that nutritional info reflect the serving sizes as shaped by manufacturers' packaging. (eg. 1 small bag of chips = the serving size. Not 17 chips.)
Or.....people could read and use their brains and figure out what they are cramming into their pieholes.0 -
Pretty insensitive to the anencephalic, IMO.mantium999 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »FitOldMomma wrote: »So this is something I noticed a while ago, but today at the store I noticed it again and it really ticks me off. The deceptive serving sizes on some foods is awful. Good example is poptarts, the serving size is ONE poptart...not one packet of poptarts which comes with 2 tarts in it...ONE poptart. Nobody I know opens a poptart foil package and eats only one, as the package is not resealable and they go stale quickly. They also list the calories on the front so they LOOK healthy if you don't see the super fine print over the nutrition info saying "Per one poptart". Same thing with Ramen, one package of ramen is supposedly 2 servings. Yea, right. Even the butterfinger king size candy bar is 3 servings, even though the bar is broken up into 2 smaller pieces which leads you to assume it is 2 servings...not 3.
This kinda "gotcha" labeling irritates me, and I feel like there should be some FDA rule that if your packaging is clearly broken up in a way that appears as a single serving you cannot list the serving size as less than that. While most of these foods listed are unhealthy to begin with, and ones I no longer eat, it seems to me that part of the obesity issue might be this kind of labeling. People are likely grossly underestimating the calories in what they eat due to companies purposely being deceitful.
Yes, many are very deceptive. But then, some are pretty right on. Like the M&Ms *Sharing* packages with two servings.
The funniest one I've noticed is on Hillshire Farm's Kielbasa sausage; one 13 ounce package states : 6.5 servings!! Are you kidding me? For one thing, they were a full pound for decades, and now they've reduced the package size.
A serving size they suggest is about a one and half inch piece of sausage, lol.
Part of this is that the FDA has set appropriate serving sizes -- which is actually an attempt to encourage people to eat less, I assume, not confuse them. So they have determined "reference amounts customarily consumed" or RACC, which manufacturers are required to use to set serving size. It has to be the closed that can be expressed in a reasonable percentage of the package size. The RACC for sausage is 55 grams, which is just about 2 oz, so seems to require that a 13 oz package be 6.5 servings. (The lb would likely be 8.5 servings under the current requirements.)
I think that's fine as a nudge; it would be less confusing to people if manufacturers would then package their goods in accordance with recommended serving sizes. (although maybe not great from an ecological POV.)
Or, if the FDA asked that nutritional info reflect the serving sizes as shaped by manufacturers' packaging. (eg. 1 small bag of chips = the serving size. Not 17 chips.)
Or.....people could read and use their brains and figure out what they are cramming into their pieholes.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Pretty insensitive to the anencephalic, IMO.mantium999 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »FitOldMomma wrote: »So this is something I noticed a while ago, but today at the store I noticed it again and it really ticks me off. The deceptive serving sizes on some foods is awful. Good example is poptarts, the serving size is ONE poptart...not one packet of poptarts which comes with 2 tarts in it...ONE poptart. Nobody I know opens a poptart foil package and eats only one, as the package is not resealable and they go stale quickly. They also list the calories on the front so they LOOK healthy if you don't see the super fine print over the nutrition info saying "Per one poptart". Same thing with Ramen, one package of ramen is supposedly 2 servings. Yea, right. Even the butterfinger king size candy bar is 3 servings, even though the bar is broken up into 2 smaller pieces which leads you to assume it is 2 servings...not 3.
This kinda "gotcha" labeling irritates me, and I feel like there should be some FDA rule that if your packaging is clearly broken up in a way that appears as a single serving you cannot list the serving size as less than that. While most of these foods listed are unhealthy to begin with, and ones I no longer eat, it seems to me that part of the obesity issue might be this kind of labeling. People are likely grossly underestimating the calories in what they eat due to companies purposely being deceitful.
Yes, many are very deceptive. But then, some are pretty right on. Like the M&Ms *Sharing* packages with two servings.
The funniest one I've noticed is on Hillshire Farm's Kielbasa sausage; one 13 ounce package states : 6.5 servings!! Are you kidding me? For one thing, they were a full pound for decades, and now they've reduced the package size.
A serving size they suggest is about a one and half inch piece of sausage, lol.
Part of this is that the FDA has set appropriate serving sizes -- which is actually an attempt to encourage people to eat less, I assume, not confuse them. So they have determined "reference amounts customarily consumed" or RACC, which manufacturers are required to use to set serving size. It has to be the closed that can be expressed in a reasonable percentage of the package size. The RACC for sausage is 55 grams, which is just about 2 oz, so seems to require that a 13 oz package be 6.5 servings. (The lb would likely be 8.5 servings under the current requirements.)
I think that's fine as a nudge; it would be less confusing to people if manufacturers would then package their goods in accordance with recommended serving sizes. (although maybe not great from an ecological POV.)
Or, if the FDA asked that nutritional info reflect the serving sizes as shaped by manufacturers' packaging. (eg. 1 small bag of chips = the serving size. Not 17 chips.)
Or.....people could read and use their brains and figure out what they are cramming into their pieholes.
I readily admit to googling that. Thanks for adding a valuable word to my vocabulary.0 -
When I was young, I actually thought cooking sprays have no calories. Then I found out...and felt dumb.Boil in bag rice... 3 bags but 5 total servings. WTF.
I also hate ridiculously small serving sizes so they can say 0 calories or whatever. Logging 50g of Splenda in a recipe is a PITA just to find an accurate entry...
And of course the good old oil sprays with 1/3 of a second spray serving sizes. I'm sure most people use 20 calories of oil there.
0 -
It'd help the average drug user in the US.lemurcat12 wrote: »Or, if the FDA asked that nutritional info reflect the serving sizes as shaped by manufacturers' packaging. (eg. 1 small bag of chips = the serving size. Not 17 chips.)
I think the idea is that the FDA thinks that we shouldn't let serving size ideas be increased just because manufacturers want to sell based on volume.
Just two competing ways to be a nanny state, really (which is fine, I'm not against the state trying to nudge people to eat less so long as the nudging is not overly intrusive).
I'm generally impatient with people who claim they can't understand a simple label, though. It seems to me that they didn't want to know but also don't want to take responsibility.
I kind of like also giving the measurements in 100 gram units, but obviously that wouldn't help the average consumer in the US, to whom 100 grams means nothing. (Would work great for MFP loggers, of course.)0 -
True. Sugar definitely needs to be labeled that way, then!0
-
UltimateRBF wrote: »The only one that ever annoys me is the Pop Tart one. Ever tried only eating one Pop Tart and saving the other one for later? You can't. It goes stale if you try to keep it in its wrapper after it's been opened.
That why God invented zip lock bags.0 -
+1 what you did there, I sees it.lemurcat12 wrote: »True. Sugar definitely needs to be labeled that way, then!
0 -
you can't legislate ignorance…
end thread/0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Theres talk that they're going to have those companies re-do the labels to account for different sugars.lemurcat12 wrote: »True. Sugar definitely needs to be labeled that way, then!
I wish they'd just put everything on the labels: all the nutrients (e.g. Potassium) as well as the stuff that's on there now. I wish they'd do it because they agree that people should get to know what they're putting in their bodies and not because the government has forced them to do it.
Just be upfront and honest. "Here's what you're swallowing when you eat this." No tricky slogans, no cloaking, etc. Just a list.
Does it sound to obsessive to want to know exactly what is in the food we buy? I'm serious here. Am I being too nutritionally wacky? Have I crossed into nuttiness?
[Edited by MFP Staff]0 -
azulvioleta6 wrote: »I don't know from Pop Tarts because I have never had one (or two!) but you really have to read EVERYTHING, very carefully. The less processed food you eat, the less this is a problem.
The one that got me for a long time was frozen yakisoba veggie noodle bowls from Costco. The package is tiny and I never saw the box (a relative would split them with me) so I assumed for ages that they were one serving. Nope! Two servings and way too many carbs for one meal.
I'm also annoyed by Asian noodles that come pre-divided into 3 servings when the package says there should be five servings. You have to open tiny, futzy ribbons and re-divide and weigh the noodles. It's a pain. I have several types of pasta from Japan, China and Vietnam...all of them have this problem.
I AGREE!
So annoying! I see the noodles and I'm like oh wow, only 300 calories. Then I see PER SERVE and there are 3 serves per packet. I'm like WTF. How the hell am I supposed to break it up three ways when you only give me enough seasoning anyway for ONE SERVE?!
It's so stupid! Things like Doritos are the same. What, 8 chips for a serve for 160 cal? Who the hell eats 8 chips?!0 -
This content has been removed.
-
barbecuesauce wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »Agree, it's obnoxious. A lot of it is done so that the front of the box can claim "fat-free" or "only 2g of sugar!" or some such, because they manipulated the serving size to be able to make virtually bs claims about their product.
On the flip side, some companies have serving sizes that make life more complicated than need be. Like why does a box of Oreos think I'm interested in the nutrition of 2 Oreos instead of just one? Why does a bag of Murray's Gingersnaps think I want to know the nutrition of 5 gingersnaps instead of just one? Why does a box of Hostess tell me the nutrition of 2 Twinkies (individually wrapped, mind) instead of just one? But yet Hostess will tell me the nutrition of just one Ding-Dong so there seems to be no rhyme or reason to it all!
And that's what annoys me the most! You might log two servings of something and there is no fat in your macros, even though you've consumed at least one gram.
I watched a show about the Heart Attack Restaurant once. The guy's whole point is to wake people up about the way we eat (or so he says). He seems to be making money hand over fist doing it and I'm not sure how awake we are.
I think what he's saying is bs, and he's only saying it to prevent criticism of him exploiting America's obsession with supersize, supercal, super everything to make money.
Granted, most restaurants and food corps do this and he's just being upfront about his exploitation. He also has this "incentive" to finish your food because if you don't finish your food or something you get paddled by a nurse. So I read lots of people actually try to finish the food because those spankings apparent hurt!
Point is, its not working because there are heaps of overweight people who go there and have his triple bypass burgers and fries and shakes cooked in pure lard and proudly take pictures and great pride in partaking in that wasteful and morbidly excessive exercise of gluttony.
It's not the fact that its fattening that gets me, its just the portion sizes, the "celebration" of such excessiveness and unhealthiness that really gets to me. Literally #firstworldproblem. Food shortages, riots and starvation around the world and we in the West here are gorging ourselves to death on too much food and absolutely just wasting it in the worst way possible, not to enjoy, not for health, not for any real necessity except to turn it into some twisted competition and amusement. The slap on the face is dying from obesity, not obesity related illnesses but actual plain overeating obesity. Like really. Some perspective here.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
azulvioleta6 wrote: »I don't know from Pop Tarts because I have never had one (or two!) but you really have to read EVERYTHING, very carefully. The less processed food you eat, the less this is a problem.
The one that got me for a long time was frozen yakisoba veggie noodle bowls from Costco. The package is tiny and I never saw the box (a relative would split them with me) so I assumed for ages that they were one serving. Nope! Two servings and way too many carbs for one meal.
I'm also annoyed by Asian noodles that come pre-divided into 3 servings when the package says there should be five servings. You have to open tiny, futzy ribbons and re-divide and weigh the noodles. It's a pain. I have several types of pasta from Japan, China and Vietnam...all of them have this problem.
I AGREE!
So annoying! I see the noodles and I'm like oh wow, only 300 calories. Then I see PER SERVE and there are 3 serves per packet. I'm like WTF. How the hell am I supposed to break it up three ways when you only give me enough seasoning anyway for ONE SERVE?!
It's so stupid! Things like Doritos are the same. What, 8 chips for a serve for 160 cal? Who the hell eats 8 chips?!
Um....eat the number of chips you want, simple math to calculate the calories you just consumed, log it. If you are taking the time to read the label in the first place, what's an extra 30 seconds to do the math?0 -
I can't believe this is a topic on here. I'm just glad that it's even listed. Just weigh it out so you can get the portion you want..what's so hard about that?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions