Annoyance: Deceptive Serving Sizes
Replies
-
Spreyton22K wrote: »Just a shout out to the fellow Aussies on this thread - does the use of kilojoules in preference to calories on the packet throw you much?
....I must admit if they do use Kj instead of calories I find that a bit extra frustrating in working out amounts....
Kiwi here, and yes, this is one of my pet peeves. Having to calculate kj to kcal before working out if it's worth eating.
I thought Kiwi was someone from New Zealand? And an Aussie was an Australian?
I know this is off topic but I am curious (as it was an Aussie who told me these things)
Yes.
But people in New Zealand use the same measurements as people in Australia.
0 -
Serving sizes have been a pet peeve of mine for years. I think they are getting a bit better than they were, but still not great.
I have had to correct food information in the food database here on a few occasions because someone entered a package of something as 1 serving when it is actually 2.
Most recently for me ... I'm standing in the yogurt section checking out calories on the yogurts. All are the same size or pretty close to it ... what I would consider 1 serving. But my favourite yogurt is, for some unknown reason, 2 servings and therefore the calorie content doubles making it the highest calorie yogurt on the shelf.
What bothers me is when one company calls a certain size "1 serving" and another company calls that size "2 servings". The yogurt was one example of that, but I've come across it with other products as well.
The other thing that bothers me is when something is packaged as though it should be "1 serving" but is listed as more than 1 serving. For example, back a decade or so ago, one 591 ml bottle of pop which most people buy for themselves and drink as one serving, was listed as something ridiculous like 2.43 servings. Fortunately, I think they've corrected that in recent years.
Of course we all check the calories and serving sizes, etc. but it is frustrating that we've got to check everything so closely or we could get caught out.
0 -
Nothing, when you have access to a scale and are comfortable with doing basic math.williamwj2014 wrote: »I can't believe this is a topic on here. I'm just glad that it's even listed. Just weigh it out so you can get the portion you want..what's so hard about that?
Most people don't have food scales. Many people aren't comfortable doing basic math and don't want to do math every time they grab something to eat.
If a company pre-wraps portions, I think it's quite reasonable to expect those pre-wrapped portions to be one serving each and for the nutritional information to reflect that.0 -
GauchoMark wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Then report me. See what happens.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Maybe if you understood math you'd understand that it means the lowest metric that all involved can share.DeguelloTex wrote: »
But you didn't answer my questions.
When I was young and trying to lose weight, I only looked at the calories when I was shopping. Since I was counting calories, that was all that mattered. I didn't even consider that a serving size might not be the amount that I considered a serving size.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Doesn't your conclusion beg the question of whether the obese typically use them in the first place? And that the obese are failing to understand them?Nutrition labeling on food DOES need to be as simple and straightforward as possible if we, as a society, want to complain about the obesity rate.
Good luck coming up with nutritional labels for people who can't read, though.
People who are counting carbs may just look at carbs while they are shopping and then never look at the label again when they are home.
I think a lot of people use the Nutritional Information but not as completely as they should. Also, very few people use a food scale. Shoot, some people say that using a food scale and carefully paying attention to what you eating is actually disorderly eating.
As for labels for people who can't read, someone above mentioned that their country used green, amber, and red to show the healthfulness of nutrients. I can totally see the US heading in that direction.
Protein powder: green, amber, or red?
Ice cream: green, amber or red?
If we're going to die on the hill of making everything obvious to the lowest common denominator, what about color-blind people who can't read?
Nice of you to refer to human beings as "the lowest common denominator" and then bringing up people with a disability. Holy crap.
Nice of you to refer to it as a disability. That's no longer the preferred nomenclature.
Yeah, I get math well enough, thanks.
It's not an appropriate way to talk about people.
threatening people now?! hmm...
That was admit a threat on you it was saying the mods etc are likely to do nothing.
He wasn't abusive from what I could see.
And it does seem to highlight that you might be too sensitive and or misreading or interpreting their posts.
Actually, I was just stirring the pot. The post I was referring to wasn't even directed at me! Had I really felt that someone was threatened, I would have reported him or called him out more than just a one-liner.
Thanks for jumping into the mix, tho!0 -
OK, here's one ...
Ainsley Harriott Moroccan Medly Cous Cous (delicious with steamed veggies BTW)
http://www.ainsley-harriott.com/products/ranges/cous-cous/34/moroccan-medley-cous-cous-
The package is 100 grams.
On the back of the package the preparation instructions say:
- Place the contents of sachet into a bowl
- Add 160 ml of boiling water and stir well
- Leave to stand for 5 minutes to allow the cous cous to absorb the water
Then I move down to the Nutrition Information.
Per 100 grams (because that's how we do things in Australia) = 137 cal.
Oh good, I think ... the package is 100 grams, therefore the package contains 137 cal. Wonderful!!
But wait ... Per Serving (135 grams) = 178 cal.
Where did the extra 35 grams come from? Where did the extra 41 cal come from?
Must be the 160 ml of water I added, but the math doesn't add up ... and since when did 160 ml of water contain 41 cal?
So I keep reading, and in bright yellow bold lettering below the nutrition information it says:
"PER SERVING: 178 CALORIES; THIS SACHET SERVES 2"
What? Now all of a sudden I have to double the 178 cal I'm already puzzled by? So ... this package of cous cous is somehow really 356 cal?
I decide to go to the website, which I linked above to see if it might offer some help ... and it says:
Each 100g sachet provides approx 2 servings.
Nutritional values calculated per 130g serving (cooked as per instructions excluding oil or butter).
Energy 779kJ (185 kcal)
So now we're up to 185 * 2 = 370 cal.
In addition to being very tasty, this product is amazing ... every time I read on, it contains more calories!!
My package looks different to the one on the website, so I'm inclined to go with what's on my package. And I do record it as 356 cal. But it is baffling to me why it would be that amount. In my mind, the package is 100 grams, therefore the calories should be 137. From my perspective, it also doesn't produce enough for 2 servings. But on the road to losing weight I prefer to over-estimate the number of calories I consume, so 356 cal it is.
0 -
100g dry -> one package -> ~260g cooked
They're giving you nutritional value for weights of the cooked product, not dry out of the box. So the "100g = 137 calories" is correct, if you weigh it out *after* cooking.
So yeah, the box is about 350 calories.
0 -
Ha
I'm inclined to agree 
Yeah, I've been here less than a year, but I feel like I've been here forever
and ever
and ever
0 -
^^ Lol,,, round and round we go
well that didn't work to good ,ha
0 -
Also I wonder why there is no daily percentage for sugar grams on any labels. Not one. It just tells you how many grams.0
-
-
The people who were mocking those of us who want serving sizes to be intuitive by joking about a jar of peanut butter...way to be purposely obtuse. I said in my original message that "if your packaging is clearly broken up in a way that appears as a single serving you cannot list the serving size as less than that" not that all food needs to be broken up into single servings. However if you do something like take a box of eight poptarts and divide them into four two tart packages it isn't a leap of logic to assume they did that as two poptarts is what someone is expected to consume in one serving. If they individually wrapped them, or left it as eight poptarts loose in a package than 1 poptart as a serving size would be acceptable. My issue is with deceptive, misleading labeling and not with label reading in general.
Before I decided to really diet, I would eye labels quickly and mentally tally calories to get a loose idea of what I was consuming each day. I know a LOT of people who do that same. Those are the people these labels trip up, unless you take the time to look at the serving size you could be easily fooled into believing you are eating far less calories than you are. Especially now that foods are listing a quick nutrition run down on the front prominently, poptarts list 200 calories (I believe that is what they are...not 100% since I don't eat them) right on the front so people could easily not realize that was not per package but per poptart!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions