Unrealistic Portion Sizes

13»

Replies

  • redversustheblue
    redversustheblue Posts: 1,216 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    gdsmit1 wrote: »
    The portion sizes drive me nuts. I feel that anything that's packaged to be sold from a vending machine needs to be labeled as 1 serving. That's what it is, A SINGLE SERVING. Now if they want to put 1 serving as something other than the entire package, then it also needs to have an amount for the entire package as well.

    I agree with you, but there's still a part of me that thinks that it shouldn't be that hard to do 120 cal x 2.5=300 for the whole package, and maybe Americans should be able to do math also.

    Personally it just bugs me because companies try to trick you by proudly putting on their label "only 130 calories per serving!" and then you look at the serving size and its two or more. Happened to me the other night with a mini pizza crust. I would think most reasonable people would assume that a mini pizza crust is one serving...the front of the package said "only 130 calories per serving!" right on the front and I thought, wow that's not bad! And bought it. Of course, I should have realized that a mini pizza crust is not 130 calories for the entire thing (duh), so it's on me too, but is sure seems like the company also tried to make it seem like it had better calories than it did intentionally.

  • zyxst
    zyxst Posts: 9,131 Member
    I must be a whack-job because I eat most of the listed serving sizes of foods. If I just ate the amount I wanted, I'd still be 320#!
  • cross2bear
    cross2bear Posts: 1,106 Member
    I do think that our sense of what is an "appropriate" portion size has been skewed over the years by the fast food industry, with their supersizing and other giant meal offers - people seem to equate large servings with value for the money, but that isnt the case - 1/2 pound of crappy protein is just as crappy as 1/4 pound of crappy protein. And french fries falling off the plate is no skin off the companies nose - potatoes are cheap and a great filler - you feel like to have had an enormous meal, walking away full, but its a carb high (not that carbs are evil in anyway).

    My favourite snack is Kelloggs Special K cracker chips in all kinds of flavours, and the serving size is 17 chips, or 20 grams. I thought that was just ridiculous, that it wouldnt be a satisfying portion size. Turns out it is exactly right for me - takes the craving away and I feel like I have had a treat. I think 35 grams of potato chips would be about the same since potato chips are pretty light, it would be a satisfying portion for me.

    Last night I had a lemon and cream donut - I checked the box and oh dear - 100 grams is 400 calories!! So I cut back a bit at dinner, skipping the potato and bread so I could fit the donut in. When I weighed it, the whole donut was only 77 grams!! Bonus!!
  • dwulet130
    dwulet130 Posts: 108 Member
    A). Serving sizes are so that you can easily compare between products. A servicing size fore most beverages is 8oz/1 cup, so you can sit in the grocery store and decide is grape juice is healthier than milk.

    B). Yes is is *kitten* that packages and servicing sizes are not related in any way.

    c). What's worse is that often the weight on the package is pretty far off from what it says it is. Weigh the package. Be saddened. Then log appropriately and feast.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    cross2bear wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    It's certainly not what I intended to suggest.

    Does that help? Or do you want to find something else that I have said to take great umbrage at?

    First off, a disclaimer - this is meant in a light hearted, joking manner.

    OMG you are going to hell - you ended a sentence with a preposition. You SHOULD say "Or do you want to find something else with which to take great umbrage?"

    LOL!!!

    Heh.

    And if you want enjoyable pedantry, check out this discussion of the (probably apocryphal) anecdote about Winston Churchill and ending a sentence with a preposition: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001702.html
  • cross2bear
    cross2bear Posts: 1,106 Member
    Winston is one of my heroes!
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    gdsmit1 wrote: »
    The portion sizes drive me nuts. I feel that anything that's packaged to be sold from a vending machine needs to be labeled as 1 serving. That's what it is, A SINGLE SERVING. Now if they want to put 1 serving as something other than the entire package, then it also needs to have an amount for the entire package as well.

    I agree with you, but there's still a part of me that thinks that it shouldn't be that hard to do 120 cal x 2.5=300 for the whole package, and maybe Americans should be able to do math also.

    Personally it just bugs me because companies try to trick you by proudly putting on their label "only 130 calories per serving!" and then you look at the serving size and its two or more. Happened to me the other night with a mini pizza crust. I would think most reasonable people would assume that a mini pizza crust is one serving...the front of the package said "only 130 calories per serving!" right on the front and I thought, wow that's not bad! And bought it. Of course, I should have realized that a mini pizza crust is not 130 calories for the entire thing (duh), so it's on me too, but is sure seems like the company also tried to make it seem like it had better calories than it did intentionally.

    Yeah, it annoys me when it's clearly intended to mislead about calories.
  • JenHuedy
    JenHuedy Posts: 611 Member
    edited January 2017
    The current "serving size" is based on what the USDA & FDA tells the manufacturers a typical serving should be (called the Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed) The USDA bases it on averages from surveys done several decades ago and is currently updating it.

    http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm386203.htm
  • Gisel2015
    Gisel2015 Posts: 4,034 Member
    cityruss wrote: »
    In the UK we have printed nutritional information for 100g of product.

    So if you're weighing your intake arbitrary servings and portion sizes are redundant.

    Same in Australia, I do not understand this "serving size" thing at all. Why not just weigh whatever you're eating on a scale and log what you've eaten in grams??

    You can do that at home Christine, but not when you are out and about.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,373 Member
    cityruss wrote: »
    In the UK we have printed nutritional information for 100g of product.

    So if you're weighing your intake arbitrary servings and portion sizes are redundant.

    Same in Australia, I do not understand this "serving size" thing at all. Why not just weigh whatever you're eating on a scale and log what you've eaten in grams??

    Yeah it's an American thing I guess. I'm not really sure. Although to be fair, I don't think that many people have an idea of how much 100g of chips is either, you know?
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    gdsmit1 wrote: »
    The portion sizes drive me nuts. I feel that anything that's packaged to be sold from a vending machine needs to be labeled as 1 serving. That's what it is, A SINGLE SERVING. Now if they want to put 1 serving as something other than the entire package, then it also needs to have an amount for the entire package as well.

    I agree with you, but there's still a part of me that thinks that it shouldn't be that hard to do 120 cal x 2.5=300 for the whole package, and maybe Americans should be able to do math also.

    Personally it just bugs me because companies try to trick you by proudly putting on their label "only 130 calories per serving!" and then you look at the serving size and its two or more. Happened to me the other night with a mini pizza crust. I would think most reasonable people would assume that a mini pizza crust is one serving...the front of the package said "only 130 calories per serving!" right on the front and I thought, wow that's not bad! And bought it. Of course, I should have realized that a mini pizza crust is not 130 calories for the entire thing (duh), so it's on me too, but is sure seems like the company also tried to make it seem like it had better calories than it did intentionally.

    Yep. IMO it's just some marketing trick to try and make more $$ by tricking people into thinking that something is less calories than it really is. I can't really imagine that the FDA would tell a frozen waffle company that a serving of waffle should be half a waffle, for example (that's the case for some frozen waffles out there).
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited January 2017
    Francl27 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    gdsmit1 wrote: »
    The portion sizes drive me nuts. I feel that anything that's packaged to be sold from a vending machine needs to be labeled as 1 serving. That's what it is, A SINGLE SERVING. Now if they want to put 1 serving as something other than the entire package, then it also needs to have an amount for the entire package as well.

    I agree with you, but there's still a part of me that thinks that it shouldn't be that hard to do 120 cal x 2.5=300 for the whole package, and maybe Americans should be able to do math also.

    Personally it just bugs me because companies try to trick you by proudly putting on their label "only 130 calories per serving!" and then you look at the serving size and its two or more. Happened to me the other night with a mini pizza crust. I would think most reasonable people would assume that a mini pizza crust is one serving...the front of the package said "only 130 calories per serving!" right on the front and I thought, wow that's not bad! And bought it. Of course, I should have realized that a mini pizza crust is not 130 calories for the entire thing (duh), so it's on me too, but is sure seems like the company also tried to make it seem like it had better calories than it did intentionally.

    Yep. IMO it's just some marketing trick to try and make more $$ by tricking people into thinking that something is less calories than it really is. I can't really imagine that the FDA would tell a frozen waffle company that a serving of waffle should be half a waffle, for example (that's the case for some frozen waffles out there).

    Let's look at waffles. I checked, and Eggo waffles are 70 g for a serving, which consists of 2 waffles and 180 calories.

    A serving size (based on the surveys) for waffles is 85 g, but it is supposed to be listed in units (i.e., __ waffles).

    Additional information for those doing the labeling:http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=4bf49f997b04dcacdfbd637db9aa5839&ty=HTML&h=L&mc=true&n=pt21.2.101&r=PART#se21.2.101_19

    "(i) For products in discrete units (e.g., muffins, sliced products, such as sliced bread, or individually packaged products within a multiserving package) and for products which consist of two or more foods packaged and presented to be consumed together where the ingredient represented as the main ingredient is in discrete units (e.g., pancakes and syrup), the serving size shall be declared as follows:

    (A) If a unit weighs 50 percent or less of the reference amount, the serving size shall be the number of whole units that most closely approximates the reference amount for the product category;"

    My note: this applies, as one waffle is 35 g, and that's 50% or less of the reference amount. So the number of whole units closest to 85 is either 2 or 3 (70 or 105). It appears the manufacturer gets to choose.

    Apparently Eggo also makes a chocolate-y waffle that is bigger and higher cal: 56 g for 160 cal. That is one waffle per serving. That is because if a unit is more than 50% but less than 67% of the standard serving size (or here, between 42.5 and 57 g, you get to choose either one or two units as the serving size.

    You can see that they are choosing the option that is lower cal, but based on the rules (and the rules are probably why the chocolate waffle comes in at just under 57 g).

    All that aside, we had Eggo waffles sometimes as a treat when I was a kid and I grew up thinking of two (plain waffles) as a serving, and even now that's what I'd assume, although I haven't had them in years. They used to come two to a package, even, I think, within the box itself.
  • MelanieCN77
    MelanieCN77 Posts: 4,053 Member
    Sort of related - skinny/diet/low-whatever recipes where the title touts a super neat low calorie/point/whatever value and the picture is clearly of an amount enough for a whole family. Show us the picture of the serving.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,373 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Francl27 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    gdsmit1 wrote: »
    The portion sizes drive me nuts. I feel that anything that's packaged to be sold from a vending machine needs to be labeled as 1 serving. That's what it is, A SINGLE SERVING. Now if they want to put 1 serving as something other than the entire package, then it also needs to have an amount for the entire package as well.

    I agree with you, but there's still a part of me that thinks that it shouldn't be that hard to do 120 cal x 2.5=300 for the whole package, and maybe Americans should be able to do math also.

    Personally it just bugs me because companies try to trick you by proudly putting on their label "only 130 calories per serving!" and then you look at the serving size and its two or more. Happened to me the other night with a mini pizza crust. I would think most reasonable people would assume that a mini pizza crust is one serving...the front of the package said "only 130 calories per serving!" right on the front and I thought, wow that's not bad! And bought it. Of course, I should have realized that a mini pizza crust is not 130 calories for the entire thing (duh), so it's on me too, but is sure seems like the company also tried to make it seem like it had better calories than it did intentionally.

    Yep. IMO it's just some marketing trick to try and make more $$ by tricking people into thinking that something is less calories than it really is. I can't really imagine that the FDA would tell a frozen waffle company that a serving of waffle should be half a waffle, for example (that's the case for some frozen waffles out there).

    Let's look at waffles. I checked, and Eggo waffles are 70 g for a serving, which consists of 2 waffles and 180 calories.

    A serving size (based on the surveys) for waffles is 85 g, but it is supposed to be listed in units (i.e., __ waffles).

    Additional information for those doing the labeling:http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=4bf49f997b04dcacdfbd637db9aa5839&ty=HTML&h=L&mc=true&n=pt21.2.101&r=PART#se21.2.101_19

    "(i) For products in discrete units (e.g., muffins, sliced products, such as sliced bread, or individually packaged products within a multiserving package) and for products which consist of two or more foods packaged and presented to be consumed together where the ingredient represented as the main ingredient is in discrete units (e.g., pancakes and syrup), the serving size shall be declared as follows:

    (A) If a unit weighs 50 percent or less of the reference amount, the serving size shall be the number of whole units that most closely approximates the reference amount for the product category;"

    My note: this applies, as one waffle is 35 g, and that's 50% or less of the reference amount. So the number of whole units closest to 85 is either 2 or 3 (70 or 105). It appears the manufacturer gets to choose.

    Apparently Eggo also makes a chocolate-y waffle that is bigger and higher cal: 56 g for 160 cal. That is one waffle per serving. That is because if a unit is more than 50% but less than 67% of the standard serving size (or here, between 42.5 and 57 g, you get to choose either one or two units as the serving size.

    You can see that they are choosing the option that is lower cal, but based on the rules (and the rules are probably why the chocolate waffle comes in at just under 57 g).

    All that aside, we had Eggo waffles sometimes as a treat when I was a kid and I grew up thinking of two (plain waffles) as a serving, and even now that's what I'd assume, although I haven't had them in years. They used to come two to a package, even, I think, within the box itself.

    That's interesting but really so crazy complicated and unnecessary, lol.

    The waffles I'm talking about are the 'waffle waffle' brand. They're thicker, heavier, Belgian style waffles so I guess that's why they count as 2 servings... they're heavier. Also when I weighed one, it was 25% heavier than what the package said on top of that... so there were really 2.5 serving per waffle.

  • Jackie9003
    Jackie9003 Posts: 1,078 Member
    Just had this, the values on the front are for a 25g serving. The bar is 30g........!

    ujoj7zqxe4qx.jpg