Are Nutrition Label Servings Only For 2000 Diets?
EccentricDad
Posts: 875 Member
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?
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?
0
Replies
-
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.0 -
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.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?0 -
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.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 THAT, it's just what they label the serving size as. Completely arbitrary, usually.0 -
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.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?
Agreed. It's a totally arbitrary measure. I think it's more marketing driven than anything.0 -
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.0 -
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 Barban0 -
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.
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.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 THAT, it's just what they label the serving size as. Completely arbitrary, usually.0 -
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.0 -
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.
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.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 THAT, it's just what they label the serving size as. Completely arbitrary, usually.
Actually, (at least in the US) it is based on what the government tells them a serving size is, with relatively little "wiggle room."0 -
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.0 -
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?0
-
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.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?
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.0 -
What about the daily vitamins? There's no way every human needs the same amount of Vitamin D or Calcium is there?0
-
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.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?
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.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?
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?0 -
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.0
-
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).0 -
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?0
-
It’s just an average guideline- you'd also have to take into consideration gender and age (I don’t think activity level is as important of a factor.) Many people dispute the guideline entirely, so who knows if it's even an accurate recommendation? Technically, if you're eating a healthy rounded diet (fruit, veg, whole grains, lean dairy, and lean protein) you should be getting the nutrients you need. You have to realize, too, that while there is a daily intake recommendation, it's not necessary to meet that every day- some days you'll be over, others you'll be under and it all should average out to 'enough' in the end. I track my micronutrients, but more for curiosities sake. If I notice I’m below every day on something (like I noticed I was with calcium) I’ll try to integrate something that contains that a higher amount nutrient into my daily diet (I eat cream of wheat now instead of a bagel thin for breakfast, cream of wheat has 20% your daily recommended value.)
If you have a restricted diet for whatever reason, like vegan or vegetarian, you should track your nutrients more closely and try to get with a dietician for your intake recomendations. Some nutrients are hard to get enough of if you're excluding food groups. Some vegans/vegetarians will dispute that, but speaking from experience I was severly low in many nutrients like iron, protein, and calcium (concluded via blood tests) when I was vegetarian even though I ate a huge variety of healthy items daily.0 -
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.
Whoa... it's either a "standard" which is based on science, or it's "arbitrary" which is based on a whim.
RDA numbers that are used on nutrition labels are actually a bit outdated; they were developed during WW2. There's a newer set of standards out but these older ones are still used for labeling.
At any rate, the serving sizes are meant to limit the bad things and allow the good things, meanwhile trying to make sure you get a variety of everything. So you know, 1 whole apple, which is lots of vitamins, and 1 ounce of chocolate, which is high in fat.
It's nutrition for dummies.
I prefer to measure things out by macronutrients to make sure I'm getting enough of each of those... someday I'm sure I'll work on my micros, but for now I'm going by the idea of eating a variety of fruits and veggies and hoping that's doing good enough.
http://fnic.nal.usda.gov/dietary-guidance/dietary-reference-intakes
Some good resources on that website, lots of free nutritional information with a lot of detail. Your tax dollars at work.0 -
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?
I didn't see anything about activity levels, but the higher the protein intake, the higher the calcium need. This is why American RDA of calcium is higher that British levels-- to account for differences in average protein intake.0 -
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?
I didn't see anything about activity levels, but the higher the protein intake, the higher the calcium need. This is why American RDA of calcium is higher that British levels-- to account for differences in average protein intake.
That makes sense. I'm just trying to figure out if I should be obsessing over hitting my Vitamin C, A, Calcium, or Iron every day. I take a multi-vitamin, but it doesn't knock everything out. I'm just concerned about getting them all, ya know? Malnutrition runs in my family because of Celiac and Digestive Diseases.0 -
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.
Whoa... it's either a "standard" which is based on science, or it's "arbitrary" which is based on a whim.
RDA numbers that are used on nutrition labels are actually a bit outdated; they were developed during WW2. There's a newer set of standards out but these older ones are still used for labeling.
At any rate, the serving sizes are meant to limit the bad things and allow the good things, meanwhile trying to make sure you get a variety of everything. So you know, 1 whole apple, which is lots of vitamins, and 1 ounce of chocolate, which is high in fat.
It's nutrition for dummies.
I prefer to measure things out by macronutrients to make sure I'm getting enough of each of those... someday I'm sure I'll work on my micros, but for now I'm going by the idea of eating a variety of fruits and veggies and hoping that's doing good enough.
http://fnic.nal.usda.gov/dietary-guidance/dietary-reference-intakes
Some good resources on that website, lots of free nutritional information with a lot of detail. Your tax dollars at work.
Funny you say that about chocolate, because a dark chocolate bar I bought as the serving size 4 squares yet my apple serving size is 100g and the average apple in America is 160g (without core). So I think it's funny that it's encouraging me to binge on anti-oxidants and high saturated fats but only eat 2/3 of an apple. LOL0 -
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?
I didn't see anything about activity levels, but the higher the protein intake, the higher the calcium need. This is why American RDA of calcium is higher that British levels-- to account for differences in average protein intake.
That makes sense. I'm just trying to figure out if I should be obsessing over hitting my Vitamin C, A, Calcium, or Iron every day. I take a multi-vitamin, but it doesn't knock everything out. I'm just concerned about getting them all, ya know? Malnutrition runs in my family because of Celiac and Digestive Diseases.
Never mind the fact that multi-vitamins are shown to have very little risk OR benefit to them, ie. turns your money into bright yellow pee.0 -
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?
I didn't see anything about activity levels, but the higher the protein intake, the higher the calcium need. This is why American RDA of calcium is higher that British levels-- to account for differences in average protein intake.
That makes sense. I'm just trying to figure out if I should be obsessing over hitting my Vitamin C, A, Calcium, or Iron every day. I take a multi-vitamin, but it doesn't knock everything out. I'm just concerned about getting them all, ya know? Malnutrition runs in my family because of Celiac and Digestive Diseases.
I think you should be obsessing over what foods you can buy on sale, to fill your belly and hit some reasonable daily calorie target. If and when your income situation is stabilized, you can obsess over the minutiae.0 -
This whole thing would be much easier to understand if the term serving size were not used. People see a serving as what they put on their plate. The serving size (portion) used in labeling is merely the amount of nutrients, calories what have you in a certain amount (portion) of that food. The only thing it has to do with government is that the government mandated that manufactures include the label. All developed countries have mandated the labeling of food. The defining of what nutrients a food contains is actually a scientific process. Controlled neither by the government nor the manufacturers. If your calorie requirements are not in line with a certain serving (portion) size. It's up to you to adjust them accordingly. People are not held to one serving (portion) as stated on the label. The labels are there so we know what nutrients a certain serving (portion) of that food contains.0
-
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?
I didn't see anything about activity levels, but the higher the protein intake, the higher the calcium need. This is why American RDA of calcium is higher that British levels-- to account for differences in average protein intake.
That makes sense. I'm just trying to figure out if I should be obsessing over hitting my Vitamin C, A, Calcium, or Iron every day. I take a multi-vitamin, but it doesn't knock everything out. I'm just concerned about getting them all, ya know? Malnutrition runs in my family because of Celiac and Digestive Diseases.
Never mind the fact that multi-vitamins are shown to have very little risk OR benefit to them, ie. turns your money into bright yellow pee.
Not proven and not arguable either. We put them in our body in the off chance they actually work. Sadly, we may never know the truth.0 -
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?
I didn't see anything about activity levels, but the higher the protein intake, the higher the calcium need. This is why American RDA of calcium is higher that British levels-- to account for differences in average protein intake.
That makes sense. I'm just trying to figure out if I should be obsessing over hitting my Vitamin C, A, Calcium, or Iron every day. I take a multi-vitamin, but it doesn't knock everything out. I'm just concerned about getting them all, ya know? Malnutrition runs in my family because of Celiac and Digestive Diseases.
I think you should be obsessing over what foods you can buy on sale, to fill your belly and hit some reasonable daily calorie target. If and when your income situation is stabilized, you can obsess over the minutiae.
Just one week and I'll be back at BMR. But I refuse to eat TDEE until I hit my target weight. I'll eat my target weight's TDEE before I eat my own.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions