How do they come up with "servings"?

Eleniala

Just wondering who and how they decide what constitutes a "serving" of packaged food? Is there any kind of system or science behind it, or is it just completely random?

I realize that I, like many people, probably tend to eat larger portions than what is reasonable. However, there doesn't seem much rhyme or reason to a lot of the serving info.

For example, for flavored yogurt a serving is typically around 170 grams (6 oz), but for plain Greek yogurt it's about 225 grams (one cup). Why? Because one tastes delicious (and has more calories) so I should eat less of it? A single-serve container of fruit yogurt leaves me wanting more, but I am struggling to eat a full cup of plain Greek yogurt without it coming out my nostrils. LOL. Another example is cereal. A serving of Frosted Mini Wheats (54 g) seems like a reasonable portion. But a serving of Special K (30 g) isn't even worth getting a bowl and spoon dirty.

Sued0nim

Plain Greek yogurt has higher protein, just add berries to it if you like it fruity

And serving sizes are just that, completely made up for a sales tactic, so they can put the calories per serving on the packaging

Be wary and weigh everything, get rid of your cups

red99ryder

Eleniala wrote: »

Just wondering who and how they decide what constitutes a "serving" of packaged food? Is there any kind of system or science behind it, or is it just completely random?

I realize that I, like many people, probably tend to eat larger portions than what is reasonable. However, there doesn't seem much rhyme or reason to a lot of the serving info.

For example, for flavored yogurt a serving is typically around 170 grams (6 oz), but for plain Greek yogurt it's about 225 grams (one cup). Why? Because one tastes delicious (and has more calories) so I should eat less of it? A single-serve container of fruit yogurt leaves me wanting more, but I am struggling to eat a full cup of plain Greek yogurt without it coming out my nostrils. LOL. Another example is cereal. A serving of Frosted Mini Wheats (54 g) seems like a reasonable portion. But a serving of Special K (30 g) isn't even worth getting a bowl and spoon dirty.

Those are two cereals i eat .. i like the fruit in the middle mini wheats .. but its 190 cals for the mini and 110 for the Special k red berry i eat ,, and yea probably a selling tool to hit a calorie number ... one thing i do know . since i started weighing my cereal ,,,the box sure last ALOT longer !!!!!

good luck

lemurcat12

There are federal rules about it in the US, but it's confusing and the regs are kind of complicated, and honestly it's not even worth thinking about. Figure out how much makes sense for you given your goals and calories and go with that.

For some foods, like pasta, a serving (in the US -- 56 g -- I think other countries have different servings) makes sense to me, although I sometimes have less. Same with an oatmeal serving and an ice cream serving. Those were helpful for retraining myself to understand what really was plenty vs. what my eyes might tell me. For other things (cottage cheese, plain greek yogurt), I tend to buy non single serving sizes and just eat what seems to work with my meal or snack. If on the go and I buy a single serve of something (not that common), I typically eat the whole thing.

In the back of my head 4 oz raw or else 100 g raw is a standard serving size of meat/fish, but if I have a lean meat I tend to think that a little more is better (I figured this out over time and it has to do with balancing the meal and total calories), and might go by what divides what I have up into sensible servings (without any left over). So I commonly will eat 124g of salmon (or even 154 g) or some such.

I haven't been regularly logging for some time, but from logging in the past it just seems to make easy sense to me even without calorie counting.

Lounmoun

Eleniala wrote: »

Just wondering who and how they decide what constitutes a "serving" of packaged food? Is there any kind of system or science behind it, or is it just completely random?

I realize that I, like many people, probably tend to eat larger portions than what is reasonable. However, there doesn't seem much rhyme or reason to a lot of the serving info.

For example, for flavored yogurt a serving is typically around 170 grams (6 oz), but for plain Greek yogurt it's about 225 grams (one cup). Why? Because one tastes delicious (and has more calories) so I should eat less of it? A single-serve container of fruit yogurt leaves me wanting more, but I am struggling to eat a full cup of plain Greek yogurt without it coming out my nostrils. LOL. Another example is cereal. A serving of Frosted Mini Wheats (54 g) seems like a reasonable portion. But a serving of Special K (30 g) isn't even worth getting a bowl and spoon dirty.

http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm386203.htm says it was based on surveys of food consumption.
You can eat whatever amount you want that fits your calorie goal no mattter what they say is a serving size on the label.

distinctlybeautiful

Serving sizes vary based on packaging too. Chobani plain greek yogurt in the single-serving container is 150 grams. In the larger container, a serving size is listed, like you said, at 225 grams.

cwolfman13

A serving on a package just allows you to do the math...it doesn't mean that it's recommended...it just allows you to do the math.

Eleniala

cwolfman13 wrote: »

A serving on a package just allows you to do the math...it doesn't mean that it's recommended...it just allows you to do the math.

That makes sense, but I figured there'd be some kind of system to determining serving sizes. If there isn't, they should just do it the European way and list everything based on 100 grams instead of magical "serving". That actually makes the math a lot easier, and also lets you compare "calorie density" of various foods without doing any math at all. Oh well.

Eleniala

Lounmoun wrote: »

http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm386203.htm says it was based on surveys of food consumption.
You can eat whatever amount you want that fits your calorie goal no mattter what they say is a serving size on the label.

Thanks for that link! That's what I was curious about.

I definitely eat what fits into my goals...but sometimes I do feel a bit "guilty" if I eat a whole container of something that's supposedly "two and a half servings". Like a can of soup. Really? Who is going to portion that into several meals? Not me.

kommodevaran

Eleniala wrote: »

cwolfman13 wrote: »

A serving on a package just allows you to do the math...it doesn't mean that it's recommended...it just allows you to do the math.

That makes sense, but I figured there'd be some kind of system to determining serving sizes. If there isn't, they should just do it the European way and list everything based on 100 grams instead of magical "serving". That actually makes the math a lot easier, and also lets you compare "calorie density" of various foods without doing any math at all. Oh well.

I suspected you were European too I don't understand the idea of "servings" either. I think they are just noise, confusing, complicating, potentially contributing to obesity.

DeficitDuchess

The worst, is 3/4 of a pickle, as a serving & I dislike the 1/2 serving packages, that require someone to buy 2 packages; to gain the whole serving!

smotheredincheese

It makes me laugh when things like packets of Skittles list the serving size as 'seven sweets'. Yeah, sure Skittles, I'm going to count out a portion of seven and then put the bag away.
Or when a can of fizzy drink has 330ml in it but lists a portion size as 250ml.

gojaqs

If they only want me to eat one donut, why do they put six in the package?

YvetteK2015

The worst one for me was pasta. I wanted to see what a serving was because I could only fit that amount into my dinner that night. It was spiral pasta. It was 20 pieces to a serving lol. I laughed and just said F the pasta, I'll eat something else. That's when I discovered Shiritaki noodles, and I've never craved pasta since.

lemurcat12

I think pasta servings are perfectly reasonable--2 oz or 56 g in the US. 100 g wouldn't be more helpful for me, since you'd still have to weigh it. How I used to use servings before I weighed was as a rough measure -- if it was 3 servings and 200 calories each I'd know that half the bag (for example, I did this a lot with beans and rice I used to use as a quick meal) was 300 calories, and since I was using it as a main dish, not a side, that seemed reasonable (not that I had any clue what my calorie goal should be or how much I'd otherwise eaten that day -- this is way back well before MFP). I find the 5.5 serving things annoying because of this -- I think they should be full servings -- but doing the math in my head wasn't that tough. Having a 640 g container with X calories in 100 g would be much worse for me, although I'm sure what you are used to matters.

ashjongfit

I'm not sure how they come up with it, but I read once that the general population dictates serving size? Which to me makes little sense.

Pasta killed me at first because 85g was very small when cooked COMPARED to what I used to eat which was half the bag. Now I'm fine with it, I bulk every pasta dish up with veg.

RhapsodyWinters

Eleniala wrote: »

Just wondering who and how they decide what constitutes a "serving" of packaged food? Is there any kind of system or science behind it, or is it just completely random?

I realize that I, like many people, probably tend to eat larger portions than what is reasonable. However, there doesn't seem much rhyme or reason to a lot of the serving info.

For example, for flavored yogurt a serving is typically around 170 grams (6 oz), but for plain Greek yogurt it's about 225 grams (one cup). Why? Because one tastes delicious (and has more calories) so I should eat less of it? A single-serve container of fruit yogurt leaves me wanting more, but I am struggling to eat a full cup of plain Greek yogurt without it coming out my nostrils. LOL. Another example is cereal. A serving of Frosted Mini Wheats (54 g) seems like a reasonable portion. But a serving of Special K (30 g) isn't even worth getting a bowl and spoon dirty.

I believe the last time the FDA took data to determine what a serving size should be (based off of what the typical American ate) was somewhere in the late 1900's. I can't remember where I last read that, but believe me that the guidelines are very old. There is a change that must be completed by late July 2018. This will include an updated serving size (which will either increase or decrease, depending on what the average American eats currently.

So, let's say you eat one package of yogurt of one brand that is 250 calories. That is one serving. Then you eat a different brand that is 300 calorie (because of fruits added, etc). They won't say that it's 3/4 of a container. It should say that that one is also 1 serving.

You can read up on it here:

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm385663.htm

SingRunTing

I've yet to find a listed serving size that I thought was unreasonable. Was it less than what I used to eat? Absolutely! But they work for me for the most part.

tomteboda

I still think 2 oz of pasta is sad and not filling. I eat 3 oz of a high fiber pasta almost every day for lunch. The difference between between 150 calories and 225 is very easy for me to accommodate and my lunch does not make me sad.

This is to point out you don't have to eat "1 serving" of things, you just have to properly account for the calories and fit them into your budget

HeidiCooksSupper

Lounmoun wrote: »

Eleniala wrote: »

Just wondering who and how they decide what constitutes a "serving" of packaged food? Is there any kind of system or science behind it, or is it just completely random?

http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm386203.htm says it was based on surveys of food consumption.
You can eat whatever amount you want that fits your calorie goal no mattter what they say is a serving size on the label.

Beyond this recent change to force more labels to match serving size to package size, there isn't much in the way of regulation. Food manufacturers use serving size to avoid listing nutritional information that makes the food look bad. For example, the manufacturer wants to advertise the snack as having only 100-calories per serving? They make a 100-calorie amount the serving size. They want to say zero trans fats? They make the serving size sufficiently small as to have its amount of trans fats legally rounded to zero. The new rules will make it a bit harder for manufacturers to play these games but they will still occur.

Bottom line? Determine your own serving sizes and do the math. For this, grams are the way to go and remember middle-school math.

Let's say you only have room for 150 calories-worth of spaghetti in your meal. The package says a 56g serving is 180 calories. If 56 grams are 180 calories, how many grams are 150 calories? Pull up a calculator. Divide the number of calories you want to eat by the number of calories in a serving. Multiply that number by the number of grams. There you have it. So, given our spaghetti example:

(150/180)x56 = 47 (actually 46 2/3 but close enough).

Cook 47g of cooked spaghetti and it's 150 calories.

Let's say you have room in your menu for 250 calories of pasta. Cook 78g of spaghetti.

(250/180)x56 = 77 2/3

lemurcat12

SingRunTing wrote: »

I've yet to find a listed serving size that I thought was unreasonable. Was it less than what I used to eat? Absolutely! But they work for me for the most part.

I feel the same way.

I also don't quite get the benefit of "the average American eats more since 1999 (or whatever), let's change serving sizes to normalize that even more!" But really I think it's more important to educate people to read the package and that actual serving size isn't really that important.

They actually already do have a bunch of regs on what a proper serving size is supposed to be, too -- people seem to think manufacturers are free to just do whatever, but they are not.