Serving sizes that are kind of mysterious.

ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken Posts: 1,530 Member
edited December 2024 in Food and Nutrition
What drives me up the wall is the labeling on some items. A label may say a serving size is 4 oz of say, ground beef. Is that raw or cooked? Sometimes rice or other grains pull the same dirty deed. Or The serving size will be specified as raw and leave the cooked serving a mystery. Some items do not measure the same after cooking. Is there a good web site that gives a better run down of these types of foods? I do get tired of searching or having to call the customer service number to get the info. Ain't nobody got time for that!

Replies

  • If it's not specified then the serving size is "as is". If the product is raw, then the serving size is raw.

    Things like rice, dry beans and pasta typically only give raw serving sizes because the cooked weight will vary based on how long the product is cooked. Longer cooking time generally means more liquid is absorbed.

    I wish I had found that to be true. I have assumed incorrectly at times. I have been told by customer service phone reps, "We assume the consumer would measure it raw" Or sometimes, "We assume the consumer would measure it after cooking." I actually do keep a running list once I find out for sure. But really, they should just specify. That would be rad.
  • ummijaaz560
    ummijaaz560 Posts: 228 Member
    I wish I could compute the actual amount per serving for popcorn. The uncooked kernals vs cooked, and dont even bother with the microwave bags :/
  • williams969
    williams969 Posts: 2,528 Member
    edited October 2016
    I wish I could compute the actual amount per serving for popcorn. The uncooked kernals vs cooked, and dont even bother with the microwave bags :/

    Yaass. I just buy 100 calorie snack bags or pre-popped popcorn (with serving size listed in grams) to stop myself from over-analyzing such confusing labeling.

    Another confusing label I came across was on Honey Maid graham crackers. "Serving size 8 crackers. 1 serving = 2 full crackers."

    WTF? Good thing I use a food scale. The serving weight is listed as 31g. Boom! Scale wins in that case.
  • ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken
    ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken Posts: 1,530 Member
    edited October 2016
    Dano74 wrote: »
    If it's not specified then the serving size is "as is". If the product is raw, then the serving size is raw.

    Things like rice, dry beans and pasta typically only give raw serving sizes because the cooked weight will vary based on how long the product is cooked. Longer cooking time generally means more liquid is absorbed.

    I wish I had found that to be true. I have assumed incorrectly at times. I have been told by customer service phone reps, "We assume the consumer would measure it raw" Or sometimes, "We assume the consumer would measure it after cooking." I actually do keep a running list once I find out for sure. But really, they should just specify. That would be rad.

    You. Are. 128%. Legit.

    The fact you're calling companies to dial this in... laser focused. Also, you used "Rad". +1


    Changing the world one label at a time! Also with old school slang!
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,368 Member
    I wish I could compute the actual amount per serving for popcorn. The uncooked kernals vs cooked, and dont even bother with the microwave bags :/

    Yaass. I just buy 100 calorie snack bags or pre-popped popcorn (with serving size listed in grams) to stop myself from over-analyzing such confusing labeling.

    Another confusing label I came across was on Honey Maid graham crackers. "Serving size 8 crackers. 1 serving = 2 full crackers."

    WTF? Good thing I use a food scale. The serving weight is listed as 31g. Boom! Scale wins in that case.

    It's because there are 4 crackers per sheet, and 1 serving is 2 sheets.

  • ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken
    ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken Posts: 1,530 Member
    edited October 2016
    I like to do stove top pop corn. The label on my current jar gives the unpopped serving size as well as how much that becomes once popped. So 3 TBS of popcorn kernels becomes 7 1/2 cups of popped pop corn. I don't know about the microwave stuff though. I haven't used it in years.
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    ScottF83 wrote: »
    I've never understood "cup"

    A look in my cupboard shows that I have many different sized cups

    But I did learn that for my homemade curries, I shouldn't use my Starbucks cup to do a cup of curry powder.

    No sirreeee

    Dude, go big or go home.
  • ScottF83 wrote: »
    I've never understood "cup"

    A look in my cupboard shows that I have many different sized cups

    But I did learn that for my homemade curries, I shouldn't use my Starbucks cup to do a cup of curry powder.

    No sirreeee

    I hope this is humor..... if not you need a home ec lesson. LOL!
  • cosmonew
    cosmonew Posts: 513 Member
    TBH I had a foreign exchange student from Germany and she thought my measuring cups were the neatest thing.... they don't have them. METRIC system people.
  • BusyRaeNOTBusty
    BusyRaeNOTBusty Posts: 7,166 Member
    ScottF83 wrote: »
    I've never understood "cup"

    A look in my cupboard shows that I have many different sized cups

    But I did learn that for my homemade curries, I shouldn't use my Starbucks cup to do a cup of curry powder.

    No sirreeee

    I hope this is humor..... if not you need a home ec lesson. LOL!

    Or he's not from the U.S. mL are much easier to use.
  • cosmonew wrote: »
    TBH I had a foreign exchange student from Germany and she thought my measuring cups were the neatest thing.... they don't have them. METRIC system people.

    Unless it was STATED that he was not in the US one has no way of knowing. I have actually know real live people who have lived in The Unite States Of America all their life who didn't know this stuff. So yeah. It's going to be okay!
  • LushFix
    LushFix Posts: 303 Member
    I think all we can do is pick one and be consistent, if you weigh raw and your losing as planned than keep doing that, if you weigh cooked and your not losing as planned then you'll just have to rethink your game plan.

    But to truly know of this works you'll have to have a very tight food diary, especially if you only have a 250 calorie deflect, I'm sure a couple things a Day weighed wrong or a few unlogged bites or licks here can definitely ruin that deflect.
  • sgt1372
    sgt1372 Posts: 3,997 Member
    I've read other threads like this where people express their angst over the apparent inconsistencies in measurement methods but I just don't think it matters because "estimating" your calorie intake doesn't require that much precision. Close enough is good enough.

    I've lost 30 lbs in the past 4 months and 40 lbs in 5 months 3 yrs ago by measuring everything I eat (raw/uncooked) using a measuring tsp, tbsp, cup or scale. So, at least in my case, close enough has been more than good enough to achieve consistent weight loss. The key IMO is to record something for EVERYTHING you eat.
  • dutchandkiwi
    dutchandkiwi Posts: 1,389 Member
    When it raw just use a reputable database instead For instance the USDA database that specifies raw or cooked usually
  • YvetteK2015
    YvetteK2015 Posts: 654 Member
    popcorn is so easy. I bought a machine on Amazon for $20, weigh the amount I want, and it literally takes 2 minutes for a big bowl. This way, you can control any salt or butter or whatever else you put on it. I just eat as is now. The popcorn does give the measurements for the kernels, and one for the popped.
  • sgt1372 wrote: »
    I've read other threads like this where people express their angst over the apparent inconsistencies in measurement methods but I just don't think it matters because "estimating" your calorie intake doesn't require that much precision. Close enough is good enough.

    I've lost 30 lbs in the past 4 months and 40 lbs in 5 months 3 yrs ago by measuring everything I eat (raw/uncooked) using a measuring tsp, tbsp, cup or scale. So, at least in my case, close enough has been more than good enough to achieve consistent weight loss. The key IMO is to record something for EVERYTHING you eat.

    You must define "close enough". Also, if this happens enough times in the day you can easily go over by a few hundred calories.
  • Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,696 Member
    sgt1372 wrote: »
    I've read other threads like this where people express their angst over the apparent inconsistencies in measurement methods but I just don't think it matters because "estimating" your calorie intake doesn't require that much precision. Close enough is good enough.

    I've lost 30 lbs in the past 4 months and 40 lbs in 5 months 3 yrs ago by measuring everything I eat (raw/uncooked) using a measuring tsp, tbsp, cup or scale. So, at least in my case, close enough has been more than good enough to achieve consistent weight loss. The key IMO is to record something for EVERYTHING you eat.

    Yeah, that may work for people who have a lot of weight to lose or people with higher TDEEs, but for many people, small inaccuracies in estimates throughout the day can throw off your counts by hundreds of calories. If you are running a deficit of 250 calories, and you overestimate your intake by 250 calories, you maintain. Overestimate by more than that consistently, and you gain weight.

    By all means, continue to do what works for you, but please understand that for many of us, precision is necessary.
This discussion has been closed.