Are Nutrition Label Servings Only For 2000 Diets?

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.

mfp_1

gramacanada wrote:
This whole thing would be much easier to understand if the term serving size were not used.

Well put!
That's why European food labels say "per 100 g".