Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Is this a bit scary and confusing, or have I simply not thought it through?

distinctlybeautiful
distinctlybeautiful Posts: 1,041 Member
edited December 2 in Debate Club
From the MFP blog on updated nutrition labels ...

"On the new label, serving sizes will increase to reflect today’s larger portion sizes –– because, by law, serving sizes must be based on what people are actually consuming, not what they should be consuming."
«13

Replies

  • MissusMoon
    MissusMoon Posts: 1,900 Member
    I think overall this is probably going to be a helpful thing. If someone is bothering to look at the calories they're going to see the bigger picture via portion.

    Lucky for us here at MFP, we're learning to cut those portions, weigh out those portions and keep it in check.
  • emdeesea
    emdeesea Posts: 1,823 Member
    emdeesea wrote: »
    Nah. I went to the FDA web site and it's like what I suspected.

    Here's one of the bullet points of the press release:

    **For packages that are between one and two servings, such as a 20 ounce soda, the calories and other nutrients will be required to be labeled as one serving because people typically consume it in one sitting.**

    And this is just an example and makes sense to me. You just continue to follow what's on the label if you want to calorie count. This change is really more for the average general public.

    http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm502182.htm
  • distinctlybeautiful
    distinctlybeautiful Posts: 1,041 Member
    edited June 2016
    I guess I'm imagining people using them as a guide for how much they should be eating. The blog gave the example that ice cream will now say the serving size is 2/3 cup instead of 1/2 cup. It's not a huge difference, I know, but it did seem problematic upon first reading. I see y'all's points too though.
  • Char231023
    Char231023 Posts: 700 Member
    distinctlybeautiful wrote: »
    I guess I'm imagining people using them as a guide for how much they should be eating. The blog gave the example that ice cream will now say the serving size is 2/3 cup instead of 1/2 cup. It's not a huge difference, I know, but it did seem problematic upon first reading. I see y'all's points too though.

    Yeah, but some people are unaware that most calorie counts are per serving instead of the the whole thing. So it might make some people think twice about picking something that a high calories if you want the whole thing.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    sparklyglitterbomb wrote: »
    I think this will be an eye opening revelation to many. A friend of mine kept grabbing some smoothie drink (Naked?) and the bottle was like 2 or 3 servings. He, not particularly caring about calories, just glanced at the label and thought it was 160 calories or so... not 480 or whatever it is.

    I bought a chocolate bar recently, I was standing in the store to decide between two of them, looked at the nutrition label, scanned for calories, bought the one with fewer of them. Or so I thought. I should have checked the serving size, too. Wound up buying the one with almost twice as many calories. They were about the same size so it was an easy mistake for someone in a hurry.
  • seska422
    seska422 Posts: 3,217 Member
    I don't think that the change will have much impact on the actual amount eaten out of more-than-one-serving containers. I think most people just get what they get (a portion) and don't pay much attention to what the container thinks should be the amount in a serving. For example, a bowl of cereal will still depend upon the size of the bowls people have rather than what the box says.

    Ignoring the serving size suggestions and eating the portion sizes that I want (be they smaller or larger than the serving sizes on the box) has been one of my favorite things about using a food scale.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited June 2016
    I prefer it as is (apparently they are going to increase the serving size for ice cream, and .5 cup is an adequate serving). I think that the servings on packages actually did help form my idea of what a sensible serving is, although of course I feel free to eat more or less, and I think normalizing the larger sizes isn't the best idea.

    Back in my early to mid 20s, I used to live on these packaged rice and bean things -- I'd just add vegetables -- and they were something like 150 calories for 6 servings. I'd divide them into three or two servings and eat them for a whole meal (with the veg) as opposed to as a side, and easily did the math to know what I was eating. (I didn't count calories, but I did look at them.)

    But on the whole I don't think it's that big a deal. I do the math now, and will once they change it.
  • Lounmoun
    Lounmoun Posts: 8,423 Member
    I don't decide how much to eat based on a label. I pre-log my food and decide what fits my goals best.
    I think it is helpful to have realistic portion sizes on the label. I think it will make it easier for people who may not log to know right away how many calories they are eating. They can see it and decide to eat less or eat something else. Less confusing I would think. I'm not sure why it would be anymore scary than it is now.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    The question, though, is what is a realistic portion size. I think US pasta sizes (2 oz) is realistic even if people often eat a lot more, for example.
  • Beverly2Hansen
    Beverly2Hansen Posts: 378 Member
    OK the real answer is yes we need this change and yes your going to poop your pants when your looking at the actual at a glance calories you mistook when it didn't give you an accurate number for how much you ate. Delusions are nice but the mirror reflects truth.

    This lable thing confused people trying their hardest to eat the right amount for weight control up or down many of those people where depressed when they didn't succeed and unsure of what caused the failure. I'm super bad at math for example and not looking to bring my calculator to the grocery but usually buy small single (or what everyone eats as single serving) items this will really help me.

    As for upping how much you eat show me someone eating less than half a cup of ice cream, most people have trouble not smashing the whole carton. 4oz is still working your restraint over time in my opinion and I aplaud you for your iron will.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Current labels are not confusing or difficult to understand if someone bothers to read them. For example, the rice and beans I mentioned before. 1 serving for 150 and about 6 servings per bag, which is probably a reasonable amount if you eat it as a side (and portion distortion IS related to why people in the US tend to eat too much, IMO--I had a weird idea about pasta portion sizes and yet find eating the current recommended serving is plenty). I never found it difficult to eat 2-3 servings (if as a main dish) and do the math to 300 or 450. Easy-peasy.

    And I nearly always eat a half cup of ice cream, and I think having that in people's minds as a sensible serving size makes sense.

    I don't care that much about the label change -- I think it's a slightly bad idea but will have no meaningful effect on anyone reading labels carefully and with an existing idea of what they should be eating. I just roll my eyes when people pretend like the labels are too confusing and responsible for their own overeating.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    kommodevaran wrote: »
    Calories per 100 grams is so much more user-friendly.

    I disagree. I realize that a lot of MFP users weigh all their food but the vast majority of people do not and will not.

  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    distinctlybeautiful wrote: »
    I guess I'm imagining people using them as a guide for how much they should be eating. The blog gave the example that ice cream will now say the serving size is 2/3 cup instead of 1/2 cup. It's not a huge difference, I know, but it did seem problematic upon first reading. I see y'all's points too though.

    I think this is a legitimate concern. I've seen quite a few posts on MFP where people seem to think that the serving sizes listed on packages is an instruction of how much to eat, rather than a notification of what amount was used for nutritional information.
  • DorkothyParker
    DorkothyParker Posts: 618 Member
    edited June 2016
    Maybe we can combine the front label listing (from that other post) to show total package calories and then continue to have back labels reflect the recommended serving size?

    When I was in my 20's a pint of Ben & Jerrys was 1-2 servings to me, not the actual 4 listed on the package. Knowing the total would have been helpful from the get go and it makes it easier to compare two or more products.

    It's like the difference between the interest rate and the APR on a loan...
  • bagge72
    bagge72 Posts: 1,377 Member
    sparklyglitterbomb wrote: »

    And for reals.. the "king size" bag of M&Ms? Imma eat that bad boy, not split it up into 2 ;)

    For sharing my *kitten*, that s just for me!

  • paradi3s
    paradi3s Posts: 343 Member
    Not really scary, but more convenient. I mean, if I got a small can of pork & beans or tuna, I wouldn't be splitting it into 2.3 servings! Doing the calculations to get the calories on the whole pack is easy, but it just gets irritating at times having to use a calculator when some servings are worth 2.420382 or whatever decimal place lol
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    bagge72 wrote: »
    I think this is so much better, I hate looking at something like a bag of chips, and seeng 160 calories per serving, and then seeing about 3.5 sevings per container. Just tell me the damn bag is 560 calories, because I'm eating that whole "Snack Size" bag of chips.

    I checked the snack size chips in my office, and their calorie count (140 or so) IS for the whole bag. Those bags that are 560 aren't really one serving, and I don't think it's useful to tell people that's a sensible amount to eat as a serving.

    If they make this change, I'd prefer if they'd have per bag (if we must, even though anyone who can't comprehend 2 servings or 3 servings means the whole bag has quite a bit more calories doesn't really have my sympathy, since that person is not trying) AND per recommended serving. I'm also fine with saying the serving sizes have to be whole numbers, even though I don't personally find 3.5 servings particularly difficult to deal with mathematically.
  • KetoneKaren
    KetoneKaren Posts: 6,412 Member
    Actually @lemurcat12 - one of my friends, who is an intelligent, educated person, and who does care about her intake, and is a Jazzercise instructor with amazing fitness at the age of 68, was fooled by the label of the item I posted earlier. She may not have your sympathy, but she certainly has mine, and it has nothing to do with whether or not she is "trying" or not. Many MFP posters are whiz kids (you being a good example) about reading labels. It does not mean that those who aren't as skilled at it aren't trying.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited June 2016
    I'm sorry, but I simply don't understand how someone can read a label that says "serving size, 1/2 pack" and calories per serving 250, and not understand immediately that eating the whole pack will be 500 calories. It is not comprehensible to me. I do think lots of people don't read labels carefully.

    Now, if things are marketed as single serving (like a bowl with a spoon), I agree they probably should be required to provide calories for the whole portion. It does annoy me that Pret's dressings, which come with a single serving salad, are 2 servings per container. It didn't confuse me, but it seems wasteful and probably intentionally misleading (although I suppose the reason for it is that lots of people do want more than one serving of dressing -- I just use half, however).

    What seems more problematic are things where they AREN'T one serving. Increasing serving size likely leads to even more portion creep (I strongly think it will with the ice cream example), or is confusing -- why do I want to know the total calories and not calories per serving of a larger bag of chips or (more relevant to me) box of pasta?

    If they do that, I'd hope (as was my point above) they'd keep the per serving also, and not normalize eating 560 calories of chips or whatever.

    And people who don't read labels aren't generally going to be affected anyway. When I wasn't watching calories I still looked at labels and saw calorie information all the time (it's generally posted in chains here). I've mentioned before that I used to get a 300 or so calorie turkey sandwich at a local chain (Potbelly's) and then often also a cookie, which was something like 350 calories. (My office often brings in food from their for a work meeting, and the cookies too.) Once I started paying attention to calories and knew my own calorie goal for maintenance and loss, 350 seemed like a crazy lot and if I really wanted the cookie (rarely but on occasion) I'd eat half and the rest another day. Before that, it didn't mean that much to me (and I pushed it out of my head/actively did not pay attention to it, as I think a lot of people do with calorie information presented). This doesn't apply to your friend, of course, but likely the average non dieting overweight person. For the most part I think "oh, I gained weight because I was misled by packaging" is one of those excuses being discussed in another thread here. Not ever really true.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories