Are Nutrition Label Servings Only For 2000 Diets?

bethfartman

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.

Polly758

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RDA numbers that are used on nutrition labels are actually a bit outdated; they were developed during WW2.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.

Polly758

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.

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?

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.

EccentricDad

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. LOL

WestCoastPhoenix

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.

zaph0d

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.

gramacanada

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

EccentricDad

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. 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 foods contain. All developed countries have mandated labeled food.

Wouldn't it be great if they put ALL the nutrients on there? I mean, I buy Spinach and it says "calcium" and "Vitamin A" but nothing about Vitamin K and all the other micronutrients. How the hell am I supposed to track it if you don't provide all the information!

WestCoastPhoenix

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. 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 foods contain. All developed countries have mandated labeled food.

Wouldn't it be great if they put ALL the nutrients on there? I mean, I buy Spinach and it says "calcium" and "Vitamin A" but nothing about Vitamin K and all the other micronutrients. How the hell am I supposed to track it if you don't provide all the information!

You are focusing way too much on the minutiae.

gypsybree

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?

The percentages are typically based upon 2,000 calorie per day. Many food items will specfically say "*Percent Daily Values are based on a 2,000 calorie diet." I'd assume it would specify what it was based on if it differed from 2,000.

You have posed a very good question, one I have not seen before... and I think that it depends just basically on how you want to do it. You're saying eat less of each item but have plenty of variety... or eat a full serving and less things.

If you like to eat alot of stuff then yeah it makes sense to eat smaller portions.

I have three different yet similar beverage bottles here.. they all say that one serving is the entire bottle... the ounces range from 12 to 14 to 20 ounces. The calories from 170-250.
You can make your own serving size of anything.

And yes some manufacturers will choose to have a serving size a certain size so it will be 100 calories (100 calorie packs) or cut the trans fat or other listed nutrition.

Helloitsdan

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.

It's clear you over think just about everything.
This statement above blew my mind.

MoreBean13

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. 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 foods contain. All developed countries have mandated labeled food.

Wouldn't it be great if they put ALL the nutrients on there? I mean, I buy Spinach and it says "calcium" and "Vitamin A" but nothing about Vitamin K and all the other micronutrients. How the hell am I supposed to track it if you don't provide all the information!

You don't need to stress so much about EVERY micronutrient. Eat a wide variety of food and a balanced diet, and you're covered. Try to get a variety of different colored fruit and veg each day, and you're doing better than most. If you have a particular deficiency, or you know that your diet/lifestyle might lead to a deficiency, pay attention to that micronutrient. For example, people that don't get enough sunlight should probably pay attention to vitamin D. Vegetarians and vegans might want to watch B12 and iron. Women of childbearing age need folic acid. etc etc etc Most people can cover their bases simply by eating a variety of nutritious food. Since you're on a budget, stock up on frozen vegetables when they're on sale- they're cheap, and you can get your color variety from, for example, a stir fry mix. Don't scale the micronutrient recommendations with calories. A woman on a 1200 calorie diet has the same vitamin C needs as if she were on a 2000 calorie diet.

With regards to hitting all your micronutrients and your calorie restricted diet- I can tell you this- the ASCM set the calorie minimum for women to 1200 calories and the calorie minimum for men at 1800 calories. After much research, these calorie limits were set because they are considered to be the minimum calorie level that a person can meet their MINIMUM macro and micronutrient levels at with real food. In other words, without supplementation it's unlikely that a man can get your full nutrition in with less than 1800 calories. Since you are so concerned with the details, I thought this information might be relevant, even though you aren't willing to discuss your caloric intake.

SoDamnHungry

Only the percentages have anything to do with the 2000 calorie diet. Serving size gives you an idea of how many calories in how much food, but you don't have to eat a whole serving.

EccentricDad

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.

It's clear you over think just about everything.
This statement above blew my mind.

I've read your road map thread and the fat 2 fit radio site and it says to eat like the smaller leaner you instead of the you of today. Since I don't exercise or move around much, my TDEE is under 2000. Eating at 1500 is a 20% deficiency which is said to be safe. I am not over thinking this, I am just near the end of my dieting cycle. And if anyone says that my TdEE is that low because I lost lean muscle it doesn't matter at this point. What's gone is gone. I can only work with what I have now. And when the money comes back in on Friday I'll be back up to 1650 (BMR). And when those last 4 or 5 scale lbs are gone Ill be at my TDEE and I'll eat that forever until I have access to a gym. It isn't a great strategy, but when dirt poor, you do what you can. My kids come first.

yarwell

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?

Such things are usually set by a committee to represent a minimum that they think a person should take in. The logic and evidence is usually available on line. They don't go down to the level of individuals, you may see recommendations for children or for men and women separately in some cases.

Helloitsdan

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.

It's clear you over think just about everything.
This statement above blew my mind.

I've read your road map thread and the fat 2 fit radio site and it says to eat like the smaller leaner you instead of the you of today. Since I don't exercise or move around much, my TDEE is under 2000. Eating at 1500 is a 20% deficiency which is said to be safe. I am not over thinking this, I am just near the end of my dieting cycle. And if anyone says that my TdEE is that low because I lost lean muscle it doesn't matter at this point. What's gone is gone. I can only work with what I have now. And when the money comes back in on Friday I'll be back up to 1650 (BMR). And when those last 4 or 5 scale lbs are gone Ill be at my TDEE and I'll eat that forever until I have access to a gym. It isn't a great strategy, but when dirt poor, you do what you can. My kids come first.

Gotcha.

neverstray

I asked this question a while ago and got zero responses. This guy asks and has 46 responses already. Sheesh!

How would they ever know any persons caloric intake or requirements? I think it's totally random. And, since I completely disagree with the government (big industry funded) food pyramid, I wouldn't trust the serving size anyway. So, I just use it as a guide formy own needs.

The serving sizes are about 5 times less, maybe even more, than I used to eat, so there's something there. I just don't know what.