Are Nutrition Label Servings Only For 2000 Diets?

EccentricDad

This has probably already been answered before, but do the serving sizes on the nutrition labels signify the ACTUAL recommended serving that you should eat based on a human required consumption of the micronutritents included? Or are they just a dart throw at a board of portions or strategically measured to hide certain things (if you lower a portion small enough you don't have to label trans fat and sugar)?

My wife is at a 1200 calorie intake and me a 1520 (which is only 500 less then my TDEE and 100 less than BMR), so when we see a label that says "100g serving" should she do some basic math and proportionately get the right amount for her diet (60g) and me the same (76g) to get the proper portion of our calories consumed of that food? Or should we both eat the 100g (based on a 2000 calorie diet) portion and eat less varieties of food?

LoraF83

To my understanding, nutrition labels work on the average of a 2000 calorie diet (percentage of daily intake, etc).

You should eat as much or as little of a food so that it fits in your calorie and macro goals and that makes you feel satisfied.

Ruthe8

do the serving sizes on the nutrition labels signify the ACTUAL recommended serving that you should eat based on a human required consumption of the micronutritents included?

Not even slightly. A serving size has nothing to do with recommendations for your health. It's nothing more than what the manufacturer says the average person would eat at one sitting.

roachhaley

do the serving sizes on the nutrition labels signify the ACTUAL recommended serving that you should eat based on a human required consumption of the micronutritents included?

Not even slightly. A serving size has nothing to do with recommendations for your health. It's nothing more than what the manufacturer says the average person would eat at one sitting.

Not even THAT, it's just what they label the serving size as. Completely arbitrary, usually.

zaph0d

do the serving sizes on the nutrition labels signify the ACTUAL recommended serving that you should eat based on a human required consumption of the micronutritents included?

Not even slightly. A serving size has nothing to do with recommendations for your health. It's nothing more than what the manufacturer says the average person would eat at one sitting.

Agreed. It's a totally arbitrary measure. I think it's more marketing driven than anything.

sarahharmintx

To my understanding, nutrition labels work on the average of a 2000 calorie diet (percentage of daily intake, etc).

You should eat as much or as little of a food so that it fits in your calorie and macro goals and that makes you feel satisfied.

It might say 100 calories then with a percentage to the side. Its my understanding that the percentage is based off 2000 calorie diet.

californiagirl2012

This has probably already been answered before, but do the serving sizes on the nutrition labels signify the ACTUAL recommended serving that you should eat based on a human required consumption of the micronutritents included? Or are they just a dart throw at a board of portions or strategically measured to hide certain things (if you lower a portion small enough you don't have to label trans fat and sugar)?

My wife is at a 1200 calorie intake and me a 1520 (which is only 500 less then my TDEE and 100 less than BMR), so when we see a label that says "100g serving" should she do some basic math and proportionately get the right amount for her diet (60g) and me the same (76g) to get the proper portion of our calories consumed of that food? Or should we both eat the 100g (based on a 2000 calorie diet) portion and eat less varieties of food?

I wouldn't worry about it. Just eat enough calories to lose weight if you need to. Eat enough protein. Eat mostly healthy with a few treats to keep you sane and be sustainable. Don't make it too complicated for yourself.

We’ve been trying to figure out an exact NUMBER of calories that everyone should be eating, without recognizing that everyone is slightly different. In truth, the calories aren’t the end game. Your body is. So the EXACT amount of Calories that are right for you is the EXACT amount that will allow you to maintain your ideal bodyweight no matter what some calculator or chart says.

In other words, an online calculator might tell you that you need to eat 2,500 calories
per day to maintain your ideal bodyweight. But the only way to know for sure if this is
the right amount for you is to test it out. If you gain weight or can’t lose weight eating
that much, then you know you need to eat less to lose weight no matter how many
calculators and text books say otherwise.

This doesn’t mean your metabolism is broken, it just means the estimate of your needs
was just a bit off.

-John Barban

Ruthe8

do the serving sizes on the nutrition labels signify the ACTUAL recommended serving that you should eat based on a human required consumption of the micronutritents included?

Not even slightly. A serving size has nothing to do with recommendations for your health. It's nothing more than what the manufacturer says the average person would eat at one sitting.

Not even THAT, it's just what they label the serving size as. Completely arbitrary, usually.

Well, true. They obviously know the average person doesn't buy a 20 ounce bottle of Coke and make 2.5 servings out of it. It's based on whatever makes them sound best.

Bentley2718

In the US the serving size is based on what the government says a serving of a given type of food is. For example, crackers and chips are always 1oz servings (or 28-30grams), a serving of peanut butter is always 2 tablespoons. These are standard, but *completely* arbitrary. The only place the 2000 calorie part comes in to play is when they giving the percentages for a daily diet. For example, if the label says that a serving of food has 10% of your daily recommendation for sugar, this assumes a 2000 calorie diet. However, the amount of sugar in grams is for the serving size.

One should never feel constrained to eat the serving size of anything. I regularly eat 3 servings of lettuce in a salad, but only put half a serving of pumpkin seeds on it. This is my decision based on my nutritional needs.

Bentley2718

do the serving sizes on the nutrition labels signify the ACTUAL recommended serving that you should eat based on a human required consumption of the micronutritents included?

Not even slightly. A serving size has nothing to do with recommendations for your health. It's nothing more than what the manufacturer says the average person would eat at one sitting.

Not even THAT, it's just what they label the serving size as. Completely arbitrary, usually.

Well, true. They obviously know the average person doesn't buy a 20 ounce bottle of Coke and make 2.5 servings out of it. It's based on whatever makes them sound best.

Actually, (at least in the US) it is based on what the government tells them a serving size is, with relatively little "wiggle room."

EccentricDad

Sorry for changing the subject, but I thought you were never supposed to eat below BMR? Maybe I am confused

Stay on topic please. This isn't open for discussion on my thread. If you are asking a real question, post it yourself. If you are asking this rhetorically to draw attention to my eating habits, then you are a bully and need to keep your beliefs to yourself.

EccentricDad

So the label serving size is just a government standard so we can compare labels. But the truth is, a person who is on a 1200 calorie diet should probably NEVER eat the recommended amounts because it will be too much of their caloric intake for the day. Example: Salmon serving size= 4oz but a person who is at a 1520 calorie intake should eat 3oz. due to the lower caloric requirements and the need for more variety in the meal?

EccentricDad

do the serving sizes on the nutrition labels signify the ACTUAL recommended serving that you should eat based on a human required consumption of the micronutritents included?

Not even slightly. A serving size has nothing to do with recommendations for your health. It's nothing more than what the manufacturer says the average person would eat at one sitting.

Agreed. It's a totally arbitrary measure. I think it's more marketing driven than anything.

Yeah that's what I'm trying to figure out. Is it marketing or is it to hide ingredients or is it just the ideal serving based on a nutritious diet? Seems the answers are pointing to it being arbitrary and only for reference.

EccentricDad

What about the daily vitamins? There's no way every human needs the same amount of Vitamin D or Calcium is there?

zaph0d

do the serving sizes on the nutrition labels signify the ACTUAL recommended serving that you should eat based on a human required consumption of the micronutritents included?

Not even slightly. A serving size has nothing to do with recommendations for your health. It's nothing more than what the manufacturer says the average person would eat at one sitting.

Agreed. It's a totally arbitrary measure. I think it's more marketing driven than anything.

Yeah that's what I'm trying to figure out. Is it marketing or is it to hide ingredients or is it just the ideal serving based on a nutritious diet? Seems the answers are pointing to it being arbitrary and only for reference.

There is no ideal serviing size for a nutritious diet, as that would depend on how many meals a day you have. Consider 2 people with "ideal" diets - one of them eats 3x/day and the other eats 6x/day. Assuming also that they are roughly the same age, size, and activity level, their serving sizes are going to obviously differ.

zaph0d

Sorry for changing the subject, but I thought you were never supposed to eat below BMR? Maybe I am confused

Yes it's a good rule of thumb not to drop below BMR. I think you can get away with it for some time if you're extremely overweight. But it doesn't look like the OP is in this category.

EccentricDad

Sorry for changing the subject, but I thought you were never supposed to eat below BMR? Maybe I am confused

Yes it's a good rule of thumb not to drop below BMR. I think you can get away with it for some time if you're extremely overweight. But it doesn't look like the OP is in this category.

Nope, I'm actually in the "healthy" range but now I'm skinny fat and poor. Last week I ate at my BMR and lost weight, but money is tight right now until payday (Friday) so I have to eat less regardless of my health. But losing lean muscle mass is supposedly a result of eating below your BMR so it's recommended not to do it. Next week, I'll be eating my BMR and hopefully my TDEE soon enough after that.

EccentricDad

do the serving sizes on the nutrition labels signify the ACTUAL recommended serving that you should eat based on a human required consumption of the micronutritents included?

Not even slightly. A serving size has nothing to do with recommendations for your health. It's nothing more than what the manufacturer says the average person would eat at one sitting.

Agreed. It's a totally arbitrary measure. I think it's more marketing driven than anything.

Yeah that's what I'm trying to figure out. Is it marketing or is it to hide ingredients or is it just the ideal serving based on a nutritious diet? Seems the answers are pointing to it being arbitrary and only for reference.

There is no ideal serviing size for a nutritious diet, as that would depend on how many meals a day you have. Consider 2 people with "ideal" diets - one of them eats 3x/day and the other eats 6x/day. Assuming also that they are roughly the same age, size, and activity level, their serving sizes are going to obviously differ.

Do you know anything about vitamin intake?

bethfartman

I mostly ignore the suggested serving and just choose the amount I’d like to eat to fit my caloric needs. For example: I have almonds every day, the suggested serving size is 28 nuts for a little less than 200 calories, but I choose to eat half of that because 200 calories is more than I need for a snack. I use the suggested serving size to calculate the calories, though.

EccentricDad

I mostly ignore the suggested serving and just choose the amount I’d like to eat to fit my caloric needs. For example: I have almonds every day, the suggested serving size is 28 nuts for a little less than 200 calories, but I choose to eat half of that because 200 calories is more than I need for a snack. I use the suggested serving size to calculate the calories, though.

I agree to that! I eat 7g of almonds every time I'm snacking. Very thankful that MFP does the math for me. I just wish some of the stuff in MFP had more precise measurements (1 cup is arbitrary but 3 ounces isn't).

EccentricDad

Still trying to figure out about the nutrients though.... I know that Calcium is something like 800mg daily intake recommended; but is that intake the same for someone less active than the studied group that set this standard?