New Nutrition Labels - Cereal Serving Size

When your husband weighed out his cereal previously, did he write that down or record it anywhere? Maybe he can just reference back to that serving size he’s used before?

Doesn't he remember how much it was?

I mean I can remember that my ice cream in 2008 was 53g. Now it's 85g on the label. That's 1.60 X 53...or stated another way it's 85 divided by 53.

Which is still not enough ice cream.

Whatever the portion size is in the database on ANY item, you can just divide what you ate by what the serving is in the portion box.

When I was losing weight I used to have cereal a lot in the mornings. I can tell you that the serving sizes were always from 28 to 31 grams across a fairly wide variety of non sugary type cereals. I also found it very strange when the labels changed which increased the size. If he goes back to the 28-30 grams he will be in the range of the old serving sizes but if he is counting cals he will have to do math to see what they are. I think Special K was the first to make this change in 2018 and it sounds like they have all gone that way. I have switched over to the Low Sugar oatmeal packs and it would be hard for them to adjust those serving sizes... LOL. I have 2.

Maybe he can try to google it. Google the cereal + “serving size change” or some such phrase, and it might give him some info on how much it increased by, which he can use to figure his usual amount.

Looks like the change was from 1 cup to 1.5 C, so whatever that works out to in grams for the particular cereal. However, smaller manufacturers have an additional year to make the change and the FDA is delaying enforcement, so the change may not have occurred on all brands he uses.

https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2019/11/05/General-Mills-seizes-Nutrition-Facts-Label-update-as-an-opportunity-to-optimize-cereal-fortification

...The updates include increasing the serving size of ready-to-eat cereal from 1 cup to 1.5 cups for consumers older than 4 years as well as call-outs for different nutrients, updated daily values and a new added sugar line along with several other changes.

These technically go into effect Jan. 1, 2020, for businesses with more than $10m in annual sales. However, last month FDA announced it would exercise enforcement discretion for an additional six months for products that needed the extra time to comply. Smaller businesses have until Jan. 1, 2021, to comply.

Theoldguy1 wrote: »

I'd assume he probably eats the same couple of types of cereal most of the time and uses the same style bowl. Why doesn't he just fill the bowl to a level he always has, i.e, eyeball it? It's not exact, but would be close enough for someone not counting calories.

I really think this makes the most sense. And then take the amount and see how much it is in terms of cups, as most cereals will give a cup measure and grams.

I searched and saw the 1 to 1.5 change that kshama mentioned, but I also checked current packages (on line) and Special K's current measure seems to be 1 cup, while shredded wheat seems to be 1.33 (or in some cases a number of squares).

I hate cold cereal, so no personal knowledge.

This is actually why I think the change based on "what people normally eat" (when we know the average person overeats) is not a good idea, especially since there already are standard serving size measures that have been used in recommendations for daily diet (varying based on total cals, of course). Like your husband, before I counted cals at all I would often look at the serving size. Back in my 20s I ate a rice and beans mix a bunch, and I'd look at the serving size and double it (since the serving size was for it as a side and I was eating it as a main dish). It was about half a package doubled, and the cals seemed reasonable. Similarly, when I ate oats a lot I'd measure out 1/4 cup based on the serving size on the package. Even with something like ice cream, I'd usually have a half cup of ice cream (quarter of a pint) since that was the serving size. Sure, I'd also from time to time eat more (half a pint, even a whole pint), but I was aware I was being indulgent (or eating a silly amount) when, say, eating the whole pint and sometimes 4x the serving to know how many cals. I'm not wild about normalizing larger serving sizes when people already eat too much on average (although I'd also say that we should make our own choices about what serving size makes sense for us when counting).

It's not the same thing in my mind as dividing an obvious single serving package into multiple servings.

Also questioning how increasing serving sizes is going to help reduce obesity...

OP, could you perhaps check the MFP database to find the old serving sizes?

fitoverfortymom wrote: »

A serving of Honey nut Cheerios used to be 28g and now it is 37g.

Nice of them to make the increase some strange fraction eh?

I don't think most serving sizes were artificially low (they were based on what the gov't calls a serving for nutrition information, which is based on what people used to eat, the idea that servings of staple foods (or even things like ice cream, as well as other dairy) were misleadingly small to trick people is something of a myth, as they were set based on standard servings, again). I think there's been portion distortion and this aggravates it.

People often think of the examples which are confusing -- a large candy bar = 2 servings or a large bag of chips, same, but often those exist because the packaging became larger (there are normal sized bags of chips still, as well as the larger single serve ones). I remember as a kid when they sold half cans of soda and it was normal to drink only half a can (I still do), but now 20 oz is often sold as a single serving.

That said, I do agree that things in single serving packaging need to give the cals for the whole thing, but I'm against increasing the size for certain foods I eat commonly (like pasta or oats or -- although I don't consume it as much anymore -- ice cream). I think it just says to people who don't count cals that the standard or expected serving is a quite large one.

For cold cereal, no real opinion as I don't like it and have no clue how large the old serving would seem to me. I am someone who before counting cals at least started with the serving size given as a sensible amount to eat, although I certainly also had periods where I just eyeballed what seemed good (and would make more pasta than I really wanted and then eat it since it was cooked).

I do get why some disagree and I don't think that's an unreasonable position either (although with portion size creep I wonder where it stops).

I think what is also interesting is that as companies are changing the serving sizes they are also recalibrating the calorie counts. So it's not really just a math problem. If say 3/4 cup of cheerios (30 oz) was 110 cals before it seems like with the new math or serving size it is not proportional. A prime example. Now being 20 cals off may not seem a lot but to me it just shows how difficult it really is to figure out what our calories in accurately truly are.

The serving sizes changed on this item but the total pint and weight overal container size certainly did not.