Unrealistic Portion Sizes
Replies
-
Some of the designated portion sizes are absurd. Who eats one slice of bread or just 2 cookies, or just a small chunk of cheese? I guess some people do, but I certainly am not satisfied with some meager amount. I try to avoid anything with a tiny serving size for the calories. I do not want to be left feeling like I have been seduced and abandoned by some fairy sized nibble of something I want to stuff my face with. I will make an exception if my craving is strong, or if I am having a day where I just allow myself not to worry about calories. Still tracking it mind you, just not worried about whether I go over by several hundred. So that bag of chips would have it's day someday.2
-
The portion sizes drive me nuts. I feel that anything that's packaged to be sold from a vending machine needs to be labeled as 1 serving. That's what it is, A SINGLE SERVING. Now if they want to put 1 serving as something other than the entire package, then it also needs to have an amount for the entire package as well.
I agree with you, but there's still a part of me that thinks that it shouldn't be that hard to do 120 cal x 2.5=300 for the whole package, and maybe Americans should be able to do math also.
Also, the 100 g thing (which I do like) wouldn't help with this.
Say we have 60 g/serving, 2.5 servings, 120 cal/serving and 100 g=200 cal.
In trying to figure out what's in the package 100 g wouldn't help (still easier to do 120x2.5) and what 100 g of that product is probably isn't going to mean much to me.
Personally, most servings sizes make sense to me as amounts (calories per slice of bread or oz of cheese seems to me the obvious right amount, and calories per 100 g of bread would be awful, although of course you'd have slice also, so it would just be for comparison purposes and a nice thing as a second piece of information).
Anyway, like rainbowbow I am a fan of ignoring serving size and deciding for yourself what a proper serving should be.1 -
ValeriePlz wrote: »My husband is super sad about portion size for cereal, which he loves. He showed me a bowl and it was kind of ridiculous.
This.
Who eats 3/4 cup of cereal? Especially when you put it in the bowl it's like child sized lol1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The portion sizes drive me nuts. I feel that anything that's packaged to be sold from a vending machine needs to be labeled as 1 serving. That's what it is, A SINGLE SERVING. Now if they want to put 1 serving as something other than the entire package, then it also needs to have an amount for the entire package as well.
I agree with you, but there's still a part of me that thinks that it shouldn't be that hard to do 120 cal x 2.5=300 for the whole package, and maybe Americans should be able to do math also.
Also, the 100 g thing (which I do like) wouldn't help with this.
Say we have 60 g/serving, 2.5 servings, 120 cal/serving and 100 g=200 cal.
In trying to figure out what's in the package 100 g wouldn't help (still easier to do 120x2.5) and what 100 g of that product is probably isn't going to mean much to me.
Personally, most servings sizes make sense to me as amounts (calories per slice of bread or oz of cheese seems to me the obvious right amount, and calories per 100 g of bread would be awful, although of course you'd have slice also, so it would just be for comparison purposes and a nice thing as a second piece of information).
Anyway, like rainbowbow I am a fan of ignoring serving size and deciding for yourself what a proper serving should be.
So because people are surprised or annoyed at the serving size for the calories they somehow aren't deciding how much they want to eat? That doesn't make any sense. The package tells us how many calories for a certain amount of whatever the food may be. People may then have a serving or more and do the math. No one is saying that they aren't going to eat how much they want to eat.
And yes, Americans are able to perform basic math when it is called for. That is kind of a rude sentiment to suggest that they can't.4 -
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The portion sizes drive me nuts. I feel that anything that's packaged to be sold from a vending machine needs to be labeled as 1 serving. That's what it is, A SINGLE SERVING. Now if they want to put 1 serving as something other than the entire package, then it also needs to have an amount for the entire package as well.
I agree with you, but there's still a part of me that thinks that it shouldn't be that hard to do 120 cal x 2.5=300 for the whole package, and maybe Americans should be able to do math also.
Also, the 100 g thing (which I do like) wouldn't help with this.
Say we have 60 g/serving, 2.5 servings, 120 cal/serving and 100 g=200 cal.
In trying to figure out what's in the package 100 g wouldn't help (still easier to do 120x2.5) and what 100 g of that product is probably isn't going to mean much to me.
Personally, most servings sizes make sense to me as amounts (calories per slice of bread or oz of cheese seems to me the obvious right amount, and calories per 100 g of bread would be awful, although of course you'd have slice also, so it would just be for comparison purposes and a nice thing as a second piece of information).
Anyway, like rainbowbow I am a fan of ignoring serving size and deciding for yourself what a proper serving should be.
So because people are surprised or annoyed at the serving size for the calories they somehow aren't deciding how much they want to eat?
I didn't say that at all. You are reading it in. The comment about picking your own serving size had 0 to do with being surprised or annoyed at what they are, but was merely an endorsement for rainbowbow's comment above. I know a serving size for meat is generally 3 oz, but who cares? On the other hand, for me the package serving size for pasta (56 oz) is quite generous and I normally use it.And yes, Americans are able to perform basic math when it is called for. That is kind of a rude sentiment to suggest that they can't.
If it's too hard to figure out the number of calories in a package if the package contains 2.5 servings, yes, people need to improve their math skills (which lots of other evidence suggests is so anyway). Plus you seem to have taken that WAY more seriously than it was meant, wow.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The portion sizes drive me nuts. I feel that anything that's packaged to be sold from a vending machine needs to be labeled as 1 serving. That's what it is, A SINGLE SERVING. Now if they want to put 1 serving as something other than the entire package, then it also needs to have an amount for the entire package as well.
I agree with you, but there's still a part of me that thinks that it shouldn't be that hard to do 120 cal x 2.5=300 for the whole package, and maybe Americans should be able to do math also.
Also, the 100 g thing (which I do like) wouldn't help with this.
Say we have 60 g/serving, 2.5 servings, 120 cal/serving and 100 g=200 cal.
In trying to figure out what's in the package 100 g wouldn't help (still easier to do 120x2.5) and what 100 g of that product is probably isn't going to mean much to me.
Personally, most servings sizes make sense to me as amounts (calories per slice of bread or oz of cheese seems to me the obvious right amount, and calories per 100 g of bread would be awful, although of course you'd have slice also, so it would just be for comparison purposes and a nice thing as a second piece of information).
Anyway, like rainbowbow I am a fan of ignoring serving size and deciding for yourself what a proper serving should be.
So because people are surprised or annoyed at the serving size for the calories they somehow aren't deciding how much they want to eat?
I didn't say that at all. You are reading it in. The comment about picking your own serving size had 0 to do with being surprised or annoyed at what they are, but was merely an endorsement for rainbowbow's comment above. I know a serving size for meat is generally 3 oz, but who cares? On the other hand, for me the package serving size for pasta (56 oz) is quite generous and I normally use it.And yes, Americans are able to perform basic math when it is called for. That is kind of a rude sentiment to suggest that they can't.
If it's too hard to figure out the number of calories in a package if the package contains 2.5 servings, yes, people need to improve their math skills (which lots of other evidence suggests is so anyway). Plus you seem to have taken that WAY more seriously than it was meant, wow.
I read your comment and that is exactly what you suggested.3 -
QueenKristine71 wrote: »Portion control is always a problem for me. I have gotten better and have actually started to measure out a lot of foods, for example, the other night I had spaghetti sauce on my pasta and actually measured out the sauce so I could accurately log my numbers.
The problem I have with logging is that the measurements do not always match. For example, MFP may have [per ounce, per 8oz, per 1 cup] but the food you are eating is measure in units such as [service size = 3 cookies], so I end up guesstimating the equivalence. I always try to over estimate so my cal. err on the higher side. But it makes it more difficult to accurately track your intake.
This is only complicated more when you are not at home and do not have the tools to accurately measure out your portions. When I am at work and eating at the cafeteria, I often find myself having to guesstimate. This makes portion planning much more difficult.
Have you tried a food scale? It takes a lot of the guess work out of the equation. You can find them pretty cheap for like $10-15.
Revised to edit: Sorry i didnt realize you were talking about when you're at work
I do have a food scale. Sometimes the scale does help, but not always and you can't exactly carry one with you all the time... I do use glass "beaker style" measuring cups which are really nice and help out a lot. I have them all the way up to 3-cups and they break down into much smaller increments.1 -
It's certainly not what I intended to suggest.
What I said:
(1) "Personally, most servings sizes make sense to me as amounts (calories per slice of bread or oz of cheese seems to me the obvious right amount, and calories per 100 g of bread would be awful, although of course you'd have slice also, so it would just be for comparison purposes and a nice thing as a second piece of information)."
and
(2) "Anyway, like rainbowbow I am a fan of ignoring serving size and deciding for yourself what a proper serving should be."
They were two separate comments, as the "anyway" was intended to suggest. The second referred to a prior comment by rainbowbow: "I don't use serving sizes for this reason. I determine what i'm going to eat. I determine what is a serving. Then I weight and count the calories."
I did not at all say "someone who cares about serving sizes must be unable to eat a different amount than the serving size." In that above I ALSO criticized serving sizes (specifically ones that are not whole numbers), that is an odd way to read the comment.
In case it's still not clear, I will rephrase:
(1) In terms of actual behavior, I don't think anyone should worry about the serving size in choosing how much to eat. (And I am not assuming that anyone here is doing so.) Back when I used to eat more premade stuff I ate a lot of rice and beans (packaged product) and since I was using it as a one pot dish (I added veg and goat cheese), I took the 6 servings for 150 cal and changed it to 2 servings for 450 cal or 3 for 300 cal and ate a third or half of the package. I wasn't counting calories, but I still read labels, always have.
(2) As for the serving sizes on packages, most of them make sense to me -- I think a slice of bread is the obvious unit for bread (easy to double if you have two pieces), a bun is the obvious unit for a bun, an oz of cheese is a good unit for cheese, and 56 g for pasta and .5 cup for ice cream (although I know that one is getting changed) make sense to me too. Even 7 pringles seems sensible enough and is likely close to what a small bag of chips is (although I don't eat chips often so am not an expert). I do agree that it is annoying and dumb to have not whole number units, though, and would like that gotten rid of. I also have been convinced that there are benefits to the non US practice of 100 g as an alternative measurement on the package. BUT, as a lighthearted comment, given that it's valuable to be able to do simple math, it's possible to defend even the silly sizes as requiring us to practice that. (Not totally serious.)
Does that help? Or do you want to find something else that I have said to take great umbrage at?1 -
In the UK we have printed nutritional information for 100g of product.
So if you're weighing your intake arbitrary servings and portion sizes are redundant.
Same in Australia, I do not understand this "serving size" thing at all. Why not just weigh whatever you're eating on a scale and log what you've eaten in grams??1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »In the UK we have printed nutritional information for 100g of product.
So if you're weighing your intake arbitrary servings and portion sizes are redundant.
Same in Australia, I do not understand this "serving size" thing at all. Why not just weigh whatever you're eating on a scale and log what you've eaten in grams??
My understanding is that the idea behind having a serving size on the package is that it will help people quickly tell the nutritional value they're likely to get. The serving size isn't based on what someone thinks we *ought* to eat, it's based on research showing what people actually eat. That is why you will sometimes have silly serving sizes like 2/3rd of a pickle or 3/4 of a bag of chips. They were never meant to convey a recommendation as to what someone should eat (though they are often taken that way).
As to the validity of the research showing what people actually eat of a food, I'm not sure how it is conducted or if it is based on self-reporting.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »It's certainly not what I intended to suggest.
Does that help? Or do you want to find something else that I have said to take great umbrage at?
First off, a disclaimer - this is meant in a light hearted, joking manner.
OMG you are going to hell - you ended a sentence with a preposition. You SHOULD say "Or do you want to find something else with which to take great umbrage?"
LOL!!!
6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The portion sizes drive me nuts. I feel that anything that's packaged to be sold from a vending machine needs to be labeled as 1 serving. That's what it is, A SINGLE SERVING. Now if they want to put 1 serving as something other than the entire package, then it also needs to have an amount for the entire package as well.
I agree with you, but there's still a part of me that thinks that it shouldn't be that hard to do 120 cal x 2.5=300 for the whole package, and maybe Americans should be able to do math also.
Personally it just bugs me because companies try to trick you by proudly putting on their label "only 130 calories per serving!" and then you look at the serving size and its two or more. Happened to me the other night with a mini pizza crust. I would think most reasonable people would assume that a mini pizza crust is one serving...the front of the package said "only 130 calories per serving!" right on the front and I thought, wow that's not bad! And bought it. Of course, I should have realized that a mini pizza crust is not 130 calories for the entire thing (duh), so it's on me too, but is sure seems like the company also tried to make it seem like it had better calories than it did intentionally.
1 -
I must be a whack-job because I eat most of the listed serving sizes of foods. If I just ate the amount I wanted, I'd still be 320#!1
-
I do think that our sense of what is an "appropriate" portion size has been skewed over the years by the fast food industry, with their supersizing and other giant meal offers - people seem to equate large servings with value for the money, but that isnt the case - 1/2 pound of crappy protein is just as crappy as 1/4 pound of crappy protein. And french fries falling off the plate is no skin off the companies nose - potatoes are cheap and a great filler - you feel like to have had an enormous meal, walking away full, but its a carb high (not that carbs are evil in anyway).
My favourite snack is Kelloggs Special K cracker chips in all kinds of flavours, and the serving size is 17 chips, or 20 grams. I thought that was just ridiculous, that it wouldnt be a satisfying portion size. Turns out it is exactly right for me - takes the craving away and I feel like I have had a treat. I think 35 grams of potato chips would be about the same since potato chips are pretty light, it would be a satisfying portion for me.
Last night I had a lemon and cream donut - I checked the box and oh dear - 100 grams is 400 calories!! So I cut back a bit at dinner, skipping the potato and bread so I could fit the donut in. When I weighed it, the whole donut was only 77 grams!! Bonus!!1 -
A). Serving sizes are so that you can easily compare between products. A servicing size fore most beverages is 8oz/1 cup, so you can sit in the grocery store and decide is grape juice is healthier than milk.
. Yes is is *kitten* that packages and servicing sizes are not related in any way.
c). What's worse is that often the weight on the package is pretty far off from what it says it is. Weigh the package. Be saddened. Then log appropriately and feast.0 -
cross2bear wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »It's certainly not what I intended to suggest.
Does that help? Or do you want to find something else that I have said to take great umbrage at?
First off, a disclaimer - this is meant in a light hearted, joking manner.
OMG you are going to hell - you ended a sentence with a preposition. You SHOULD say "Or do you want to find something else with which to take great umbrage?"
LOL!!!
Heh.
And if you want enjoyable pedantry, check out this discussion of the (probably apocryphal) anecdote about Winston Churchill and ending a sentence with a preposition: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001702.html0 -
Winston is one of my heroes!1
-
redversustheblue wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The portion sizes drive me nuts. I feel that anything that's packaged to be sold from a vending machine needs to be labeled as 1 serving. That's what it is, A SINGLE SERVING. Now if they want to put 1 serving as something other than the entire package, then it also needs to have an amount for the entire package as well.
I agree with you, but there's still a part of me that thinks that it shouldn't be that hard to do 120 cal x 2.5=300 for the whole package, and maybe Americans should be able to do math also.
Personally it just bugs me because companies try to trick you by proudly putting on their label "only 130 calories per serving!" and then you look at the serving size and its two or more. Happened to me the other night with a mini pizza crust. I would think most reasonable people would assume that a mini pizza crust is one serving...the front of the package said "only 130 calories per serving!" right on the front and I thought, wow that's not bad! And bought it. Of course, I should have realized that a mini pizza crust is not 130 calories for the entire thing (duh), so it's on me too, but is sure seems like the company also tried to make it seem like it had better calories than it did intentionally.
Yeah, it annoys me when it's clearly intended to mislead about calories.0 -
The current "serving size" is based on what the USDA & FDA tells the manufacturers a typical serving should be (called the Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed) The USDA bases it on averages from surveys done several decades ago and is currently updating it.
http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm386203.htm
1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »In the UK we have printed nutritional information for 100g of product.
So if you're weighing your intake arbitrary servings and portion sizes are redundant.
Same in Australia, I do not understand this "serving size" thing at all. Why not just weigh whatever you're eating on a scale and log what you've eaten in grams??
You can do that at home Christine, but not when you are out and about.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »In the UK we have printed nutritional information for 100g of product.
So if you're weighing your intake arbitrary servings and portion sizes are redundant.
Same in Australia, I do not understand this "serving size" thing at all. Why not just weigh whatever you're eating on a scale and log what you've eaten in grams??
Yeah it's an American thing I guess. I'm not really sure. Although to be fair, I don't think that many people have an idea of how much 100g of chips is either, you know?redversustheblue wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The portion sizes drive me nuts. I feel that anything that's packaged to be sold from a vending machine needs to be labeled as 1 serving. That's what it is, A SINGLE SERVING. Now if they want to put 1 serving as something other than the entire package, then it also needs to have an amount for the entire package as well.
I agree with you, but there's still a part of me that thinks that it shouldn't be that hard to do 120 cal x 2.5=300 for the whole package, and maybe Americans should be able to do math also.
Personally it just bugs me because companies try to trick you by proudly putting on their label "only 130 calories per serving!" and then you look at the serving size and its two or more. Happened to me the other night with a mini pizza crust. I would think most reasonable people would assume that a mini pizza crust is one serving...the front of the package said "only 130 calories per serving!" right on the front and I thought, wow that's not bad! And bought it. Of course, I should have realized that a mini pizza crust is not 130 calories for the entire thing (duh), so it's on me too, but is sure seems like the company also tried to make it seem like it had better calories than it did intentionally.
Yep. IMO it's just some marketing trick to try and make more $$ by tricking people into thinking that something is less calories than it really is. I can't really imagine that the FDA would tell a frozen waffle company that a serving of waffle should be half a waffle, for example (that's the case for some frozen waffles out there).0 -
redversustheblue wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The portion sizes drive me nuts. I feel that anything that's packaged to be sold from a vending machine needs to be labeled as 1 serving. That's what it is, A SINGLE SERVING. Now if they want to put 1 serving as something other than the entire package, then it also needs to have an amount for the entire package as well.
I agree with you, but there's still a part of me that thinks that it shouldn't be that hard to do 120 cal x 2.5=300 for the whole package, and maybe Americans should be able to do math also.
Personally it just bugs me because companies try to trick you by proudly putting on their label "only 130 calories per serving!" and then you look at the serving size and its two or more. Happened to me the other night with a mini pizza crust. I would think most reasonable people would assume that a mini pizza crust is one serving...the front of the package said "only 130 calories per serving!" right on the front and I thought, wow that's not bad! And bought it. Of course, I should have realized that a mini pizza crust is not 130 calories for the entire thing (duh), so it's on me too, but is sure seems like the company also tried to make it seem like it had better calories than it did intentionally.
Yep. IMO it's just some marketing trick to try and make more $$ by tricking people into thinking that something is less calories than it really is. I can't really imagine that the FDA would tell a frozen waffle company that a serving of waffle should be half a waffle, for example (that's the case for some frozen waffles out there).
Let's look at waffles. I checked, and Eggo waffles are 70 g for a serving, which consists of 2 waffles and 180 calories.
A serving size (based on the surveys) for waffles is 85 g, but it is supposed to be listed in units (i.e., __ waffles).
Additional information for those doing the labeling:http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=4bf49f997b04dcacdfbd637db9aa5839&ty=HTML&h=L&mc=true&n=pt21.2.101&r=PART#se21.2.101_19
"(i) For products in discrete units (e.g., muffins, sliced products, such as sliced bread, or individually packaged products within a multiserving package) and for products which consist of two or more foods packaged and presented to be consumed together where the ingredient represented as the main ingredient is in discrete units (e.g., pancakes and syrup), the serving size shall be declared as follows:
(A) If a unit weighs 50 percent or less of the reference amount, the serving size shall be the number of whole units that most closely approximates the reference amount for the product category;"
My note: this applies, as one waffle is 35 g, and that's 50% or less of the reference amount. So the number of whole units closest to 85 is either 2 or 3 (70 or 105). It appears the manufacturer gets to choose.
Apparently Eggo also makes a chocolate-y waffle that is bigger and higher cal: 56 g for 160 cal. That is one waffle per serving. That is because if a unit is more than 50% but less than 67% of the standard serving size (or here, between 42.5 and 57 g, you get to choose either one or two units as the serving size.
You can see that they are choosing the option that is lower cal, but based on the rules (and the rules are probably why the chocolate waffle comes in at just under 57 g).
All that aside, we had Eggo waffles sometimes as a treat when I was a kid and I grew up thinking of two (plain waffles) as a serving, and even now that's what I'd assume, although I haven't had them in years. They used to come two to a package, even, I think, within the box itself.0 -
Sort of related - skinny/diet/low-whatever recipes where the title touts a super neat low calorie/point/whatever value and the picture is clearly of an amount enough for a whole family. Show us the picture of the serving.2
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »redversustheblue wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The portion sizes drive me nuts. I feel that anything that's packaged to be sold from a vending machine needs to be labeled as 1 serving. That's what it is, A SINGLE SERVING. Now if they want to put 1 serving as something other than the entire package, then it also needs to have an amount for the entire package as well.
I agree with you, but there's still a part of me that thinks that it shouldn't be that hard to do 120 cal x 2.5=300 for the whole package, and maybe Americans should be able to do math also.
Personally it just bugs me because companies try to trick you by proudly putting on their label "only 130 calories per serving!" and then you look at the serving size and its two or more. Happened to me the other night with a mini pizza crust. I would think most reasonable people would assume that a mini pizza crust is one serving...the front of the package said "only 130 calories per serving!" right on the front and I thought, wow that's not bad! And bought it. Of course, I should have realized that a mini pizza crust is not 130 calories for the entire thing (duh), so it's on me too, but is sure seems like the company also tried to make it seem like it had better calories than it did intentionally.
Yep. IMO it's just some marketing trick to try and make more $$ by tricking people into thinking that something is less calories than it really is. I can't really imagine that the FDA would tell a frozen waffle company that a serving of waffle should be half a waffle, for example (that's the case for some frozen waffles out there).
Let's look at waffles. I checked, and Eggo waffles are 70 g for a serving, which consists of 2 waffles and 180 calories.
A serving size (based on the surveys) for waffles is 85 g, but it is supposed to be listed in units (i.e., __ waffles).
Additional information for those doing the labeling:http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=4bf49f997b04dcacdfbd637db9aa5839&ty=HTML&h=L&mc=true&n=pt21.2.101&r=PART#se21.2.101_19
"(i) For products in discrete units (e.g., muffins, sliced products, such as sliced bread, or individually packaged products within a multiserving package) and for products which consist of two or more foods packaged and presented to be consumed together where the ingredient represented as the main ingredient is in discrete units (e.g., pancakes and syrup), the serving size shall be declared as follows:
(A) If a unit weighs 50 percent or less of the reference amount, the serving size shall be the number of whole units that most closely approximates the reference amount for the product category;"
My note: this applies, as one waffle is 35 g, and that's 50% or less of the reference amount. So the number of whole units closest to 85 is either 2 or 3 (70 or 105). It appears the manufacturer gets to choose.
Apparently Eggo also makes a chocolate-y waffle that is bigger and higher cal: 56 g for 160 cal. That is one waffle per serving. That is because if a unit is more than 50% but less than 67% of the standard serving size (or here, between 42.5 and 57 g, you get to choose either one or two units as the serving size.
You can see that they are choosing the option that is lower cal, but based on the rules (and the rules are probably why the chocolate waffle comes in at just under 57 g).
All that aside, we had Eggo waffles sometimes as a treat when I was a kid and I grew up thinking of two (plain waffles) as a serving, and even now that's what I'd assume, although I haven't had them in years. They used to come two to a package, even, I think, within the box itself.
That's interesting but really so crazy complicated and unnecessary, lol.
The waffles I'm talking about are the 'waffle waffle' brand. They're thicker, heavier, Belgian style waffles so I guess that's why they count as 2 servings... they're heavier. Also when I weighed one, it was 25% heavier than what the package said on top of that... so there were really 2.5 serving per waffle.
0 -
Just had this, the values on the front are for a 25g serving. The bar is 30g........!
3 -
How can I modify the portion sizes? For instance, I'm trying to log 15 grams of oyster crackers. The ONLY option is to log by groups of 22 crackers. Who's going to count out 22 oyster crackers?0
-
jwhuffaker wrote: »How can I modify the portion sizes? For instance, I'm trying to log 15 grams of oyster crackers. The ONLY option is to log by groups of 22 crackers. Who's going to count out 22 oyster crackers?
@jwhuffaker, I don't know where you are, but in the US, a food label is likely to have a weight/volume serving size, and a matching other serving size. Example: My bag of Doritos says "about 12 chips (28 grams)".
If I eat some Doritos, I set the bag on the scale, zero (tare) the scale, pull out the handful of Doritos I want to eat, then read the negative number on the scale. Let's say it's -35 grams. If I then look in the MFP database, maybe the only entry I find that matches the package calories/nutrients has "12 chips" as the serving size rather than 28 grams.
What I do: I know I'm eating 35 grams of chips. That means my serving is 35 divided by 28 of a serving. 35 divided by 28 is 1.25, so I'm eating 1.25 of the package's idea of servings. I can use the "12 chips" entry in the database, put "1.25" in the number of servings, log it, and MFP will record the calories/nutrients correctly.
Many of us hated story problems in elementary school arithmetic classes, maybe didn't think it mattered if we ever learned how to figure them out. Using calorie counting for weight loss involves surprisingly many story problems. This is just one example0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions