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

Need2Exerc1se

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

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

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...

BarbieAS

ilex70 wrote: »

DavPul wrote: »

kommodevaran wrote: »

Calories per 100 grams is so much more user-friendly.

For whom? People that carry a food scale everywhere they go?

Don't need a scale for that to be very helpful.

It makes it very simple to see calorie density if the measured amount is static vs. different for different products.

No way.

Recently a friend offered me some of a package of Walkers shortbread with the UK label on it. I wanted to eat one cookie, and while normally I'm firmly in the camp of weighing my food whenever practical, I was not at that time able to weigh the cookie nor to look up the nutrition info prior to eating it. But, I still wanted to know how many calories I was going to be eating before I actually ate the thing. I needed a fricking graphing calculator and a stats degree to figure out how many calories were in one cookie before I ate it.

"Let's see....there's 250g in the package and that's all it tells me about what's in here, so let me count how many cookies there are in the package even though a few are already gone, and hope no one notices that I'm fondling this bag of cookies and feeling all of them up trying to count them ....ok, I think there were 12, so that's about 20 grams per cookie [remember I'm doing all this in my head], and it says 533 calories per 100 grams, and there's 5 cookies in 100 grams - yes I'm still trying to decide if I want a cookie, shut up, I'm thinking! - so I guess a little over 100 calories? Ok, I can fit that in my day."

I mean, honestly. Maybe it's different if that's what you're used to, and yes I guess that it's a useful bit of information when you're trying to compare foods and make choices or trying to evaluate your diet overall, but, unless you have a food scale and a calculator, it tells you NOTHING ABOUT THE PIECE OF FOOD YOU'RE ABOUT TO EAT, which is what's relevant to everyone at the moment they are consuming the product.

bagge72

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!

bagge72

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.

paradi3s

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

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

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

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.

cwolfman13

distinctlybeautiful wrote: »

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."

All this means is that companies aren't going to be able to "misrepresent" on their labels. For example, a 20 oz coke states calories per serving @ 110 and a total of 2.5 servings...who's going to grab that coke and measure out 2.5 servings really? If you grab a 20 oz coke it's highly likely you're going to drink that whole thing...thus the proposed label would read a serving size of 20 oz with calories at 275 to more accurately reflect what is likely to be consumed.

Nothing scary about this at all...it's a good thing, particularly for people who don't pay a whole lot of attention to nutritional labels...which would be the majority of people I think.

KetoneKaren

Sure! There are lots of people who just quickly glance at the label for calories and don't read anything else.

BlondeTheHardWay

Serving size is supposed to reflect a 2,000 cal. a day plan. I just measure out what I want and keep it under my calorie limit for my day. I'm too busy to make a science out of this.

Gisel2015

lemurcat12 wrote: »

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.

For me a 2oz dry serving of pasta is for two people, not for one, regardless of what is written in the package. Add lots of vegetables and you have enough food without going over the carbs.

But I agree with some of the comments saying that some people may interpret the new labeling as being "allowed" to eat more. Basically if people didn't read labels before, they are not going to read them today or tomorrow even if the wording changes.

I live with one of those people...:

buzz3d269

In Australia, we have two sets of data on our labels - kj (cal) per serving AND kj (cal) per 100 grams. This means that when you're at home and have your food scales out, it's simple to check that you're eating a 'serving' worth. It also means you can compare like foods at the supermarket very easily and quickly. But if you're out on the go, you can estimate using the serving size instead.

onefortyone

I hope I like this change, I admit when I first started losing weight in America I tried to eat 'one serving' of everything, according to the package. Absolute disaster. And it DID affect me at first. I thought, if this is what normal people are eating to maintain a healthy weight, then I'm seriously effed.

I usually need anywhere between a little and a LOT more than one 'serving' size, and it involves doing an annoying amount of mathematics when you're combining multiple ingredients. MFP makes that easier for sure, but doing stuff on the fly and trying to use the nutrition label is annoying. If the label reflected closer to what we actually eat, it could make it easier. Emphasis on 'could' lol as I haven't seen the changes yet - it could be even worse on the other side lol. E.g. "Calories per gallon container of ice cream - 4320. Good luck fatty!"

And I did find it almost impossible to calculate calories when I lived in England where everything was in grams and I didn't have a scale, so I had to guess a LOT. I remember trying to bake and I was like, "okay, the whole package is 1kg, the recipe calls for 200g, so that's one fifth of the package, and about here is half, so about there is a quarter of it, and a fifth is less than that..." it was a nightmare lol.

That said, I still lost weight close to expected (1lb per week) so my estimates must have been okay. It does suck doing long division just to come out with a rough guess but I didn't/wouldn't use it as an excuse not to lose weight.

rainbowbow

i'd consider this completely irrelevant considering the info per 100g is available. Simply eat the portion you want and use the per 100g information. For people who count calories changing the serving size changes nothing.

For people who aren't counting calories, i see If anything this will just be helpful. to all those ignorant people who think they're being healthy by getting a muffin (with 4 servings), or a bottle of juice (with three servings) atleast the caloric damage is more easily viewable.

Dove0804

I think it's great. I don't think it's encouraging people to eat more, but being more transparent about how many calories are truly in something for people who aren't very savvy at reading nutrition labels. I think it could be an eye opener for many people.

This one got me a couple of months ago:



I quickly grabbed this mini pizza from the freezer section and didn't think too hard about it- a small personal pizza, 380 calories? Sure. I got home and looked closer at the small print. "Per 1/2 pizza". 760 calories- likely more (I didn't have a food scale then). Those personal pizzas are not very big, if you've ever had them. If I sit there and think about it, the caloric value makes sense, but that packaging is just designed to fool you. I read labels all the time and I was duped. Those little pizzas are pretty much made to be consumed in one sitting, and I'd argue with anyone who says they're not.

loxxsley

I'm usually just a lurker but I read about the FDA's new guidelines (which won't be fully implemented for a couple years, btw) a while ago and found them to make sense, so I thought I'd share this info. In addition to the earlier quote, the guidelines also state:

"The new rules also change how manufacturers label foods in multi-serving packages that could be consumed in either one sitting or in multiple sittings, which FDA defines as containing 200- 300 percent of the RACC. These foods will be required to use a dual-column nutrition facts panel that provides both 'per serving' and 'per package' calorie and nutrition information. For example, a pint of ice cream that currently lists nutrition information per serving will be required use the dual-column nutrition facts panel and list nutrition information per serving and for the entire pint of ice cream. Certain exceptions apply to this part of the new rules (e.g., products requiring further preparation)."

The dual-column labels will look like this:



I hope this clears up any confusion.

(If you'll notice, there's also now an entry for 'added sugars'. I hope MFP adds this as a tracking option. I hate having natural sugars from fruit, etc., lumped in with the crap that's added to processed food for little or no good reason.)

katharmonic

I think that's great. Just having 2 columns makes you aware that there is more than 1 serving if they are different.

I have been fooled by things like those small containers of soup that you'd think are 1 serving but they are usually 2 or even 2.5. Does anyone really eat just half of one of those?