Message Boards General Health, Fitness and Diet
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

New Nutrition Labels - Cereal Serving Size



  • bold_rabbitbold_rabbit Member Posts: 1,140 Member Member Posts: 1,140 Member
    I know that I'm a small person who has never been able to eat a lot in one sitting (although grazing will pile on pounds), but I always ate about a serving of cereal. I thought it was plenty of food with milk and fruit.

    I also thought a regular scoop of ice cream was about the right amount. I was actually shocked the first time I heard that some people eat an entire pint of ice cream!

    Years ago when we starting weighing certain foods, I frequently found that my normal serving was less than what was on the label - peanut butter, for example.
  • Nony_MouseNony_Mouse Member Posts: 5,647 Member Member Posts: 5,647 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    I actually think attempting to increase the serving size closer to what a typical person actually eats is a good thing, as it gives someone who doesn't measure out a serving a more accurate calorie amount when they glance at the package. Cereal is one of those items that is often a shock when you start using a food scale because you thought you were eating one serving but were really eating more. Now that I weigh my portions, I weigh out 1.5 "servings" when I have cereal because I found the suggested serving simply wasn't enough to enjoy.

    Trying to tie it to more nutrition is dumb. But for folks who try to mind calories casually, having the bold print calorie number on the box more accurately reflecting what they are eyeballing into their bowl could be helpful.

    I doubt there are very many people who will be paying enough attention to the serving size to start serving themselves more but who isn't also paying attention to the calories going up as well and what that means. Those people were most likely already eating more than 3/4 of a cup or whatever the box said anyway and when asked how much a serving of cereal is, would say "a bowl full".

    Yeah, fair points :)
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Member Posts: 7,604 Member Member Posts: 7,604 Member
    I don't think most serving sizes were artificially low (they were based on what the gov't calls a serving for nutrition information, which is based on what people used to eat, the idea that servings of staple foods (or even things like ice cream, as well as other dairy) were misleadingly small to trick people is something of a myth, as they were set based on standard servings, again). I think there's been portion distortion and this aggravates it.

    People often think of the examples which are confusing -- a large candy bar = 2 servings or a large bag of chips, same, but often those exist because the packaging became larger (there are normal sized bags of chips still, as well as the larger single serve ones). I remember as a kid when they sold half cans of soda and it was normal to drink only half a can (I still do), but now 20 oz is often sold as a single serving.

    That said, I do agree that things in single serving packaging need to give the cals for the whole thing, but I'm against increasing the size for certain foods I eat commonly (like pasta or oats or -- although I don't consume it as much anymore -- ice cream). I think it just says to people who don't count cals that the standard or expected serving is a quite large one.

    For cold cereal, no real opinion as I don't like it and have no clue how large the old serving would seem to me. I am someone who before counting cals at least started with the serving size given as a sensible amount to eat, although I certainly also had periods where I just eyeballed what seemed good (and would make more pasta than I really wanted and then eat it since it was cooked).

    I do get why some disagree and I don't think that's an unreasonable position either (although with portion size creep I wonder where it stops).
    edited January 2020
  • lynn_glenmontlynn_glenmont Member Posts: 9,192 Member Member Posts: 9,192 Member
    Most companies have customer service phone numbers. If you called them, they should be able to tell you what the old serving size was.

    Edited to fix typo.
    edited January 2020
  • bold_rabbitbold_rabbit Member Posts: 1,140 Member Member Posts: 1,140 Member
    Most companies have customer service phone numbers. If you called them, they should be able to tell you what the old serving size was.

    Edited to fix typo.

    That's a great idea! His standards are all Kroger generics.
  • ExistingFishExistingFish Member Posts: 1,191 Member Member Posts: 1,191 Member
    Considering when I eat cereal I always weighed out and logged 1.5 servings, this seems ideal. 1 serving of cinnamon chex was not enough, 2 was too much. 1.5 servings was what I really ate, and that was at my healthy weight and with healthy eating habits fitting it into a balanced diet within a healthy calorie range to maintain my weight.

    1.5 "old" servings is probably the more ideal amount for an adult. I don't see this as a bad change. I see it as companies listing the calories for what people actually eat, not some absurdly low number that no one actually eats so they can keep a low number on the front of the box.
  • SummerSkierSummerSkier Member, Premium Posts: 2,830 Member Member, Premium Posts: 2,830 Member
    I think what is also interesting is that as companies are changing the serving sizes they are also recalibrating the calorie counts. So it's not really just a math problem. If say 3/4 cup of cheerios (30 oz) was 110 cals before it seems like with the new math or serving size it is not proportional. A prime example. Now being 20 cals off may not seem a lot but to me it just shows how difficult it really is to figure out what our calories in accurately truly are.

    The serving sizes changed on this item but the total pint and weight overal container size certainly did not.

  • paperpuddingpaperpudding Member Posts: 7,106 Member Member Posts: 7,106 Member
    wouldnt it be better to enforce the FDA or whoever it is to show calories per 100g (or your imperial equivalent) on everything

    Then serving size is irelevant and everyone can work out what they eat by really simple maths

    Yes I know that doesnt help OP here and now.
Sign In or Register to comment.