Low Carb Friends  
Netrition.com - Tools - Reviews - Faces - Recipes - Home


Go Back   Low Carb Friends > Main Lowcarb Lobby
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-21-2014, 12:56 PM   #31
Major LCF Poster!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,564
Gallery: Mistizoom
Stats: 300/205/190 initial goal
WOE: low carb
Start Date: November 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geiri View Post
I think a lot of you are misunderstanding me.

I never go by servings and it's not about overeating and being pissed about it afterwards. It's just more convenient to have the percentage of an ingredient so you know right away if it's low-carb or not. It doesn't make me mad and it's not a huge deal but it would be ore convening not having to convert and calculate in the store and rather see it instantly.
I don't really care what the percentage of carbohydrates is, though. I care about actual grams.
Mistizoom is online now   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old 02-21-2014, 01:04 PM   #32
Senior LCF Member
 
Nimuae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 420
Gallery: Nimuae
Stats: 296/190.0/165
WOE: Atkins -currently Atkins 72 Induction week 1
Start Date: Restart - 01/24/14
I agree ~ The serving size as stated is ridiculous and has no bearing on reality
Nimuae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2014, 01:11 PM   #33
Senior LCF Member
 
Mr_Geiri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Reykjavik, Iceland
Posts: 860
Gallery: Mr_Geiri
Stats: 209/166/170
Start Date: December 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistizoom View Post
I don't really care what the percentage of carbohydrates is, though. I care about actual grams.
Of course that's what you want to know in the end.

Calculating that is easier when you have the percentage (how many grams out of 100 grams) And it's also more accurate.

Last edited by Mr_Geiri; 02-21-2014 at 01:13 PM..
Mr_Geiri is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2014, 02:37 PM   #34
Senior LCF Member
 
grneyedldy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 616
Gallery: grneyedldy
It took me awhile to figure out what you were saying (I'm sharp that way ) so if I understand you correctly......you think it would be better if all foods used 100 grams measurements as its standard? Per portion? Not per serving? The consumer would decide how much of 100 grams they want or if they want 150 grams, etc.?

So for instance on a box of cereal it would read something like:
10 carb grams per 100 grams

But if it was something like cookies, unless the cookies were an easy calculation size (25 g, 50 g, 100 g, etc) you would still have to be doing math to know your grams, right?

I like the concept of every single product having the exact same "portion" size for math convenience.

Last edited by grneyedldy; 02-21-2014 at 02:39 PM..
grneyedldy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2014, 07:13 AM   #35
Senior LCF Member
 
gardengoddess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Mt. Pleasant, Michigan
Posts: 988
Gallery: gardengoddess
Stats: 199 highest/187/157 current/130 5'2
WOE: LCHF
Start Date: Restart: 9/5/2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowangel9 View Post
I with ya on this one. Very deceitful in my opinion. Like anyone eats A serving of cereal, or chips or anything really. And I do think it's deliberate. If they make the serving size small enough it 'looks' better. And gee, as 'part' of a 'balanced' diet that's not bad, right? Ha! What a joke!!
I used to eat "a serving" of cereal.

A serving is half a box, right?
gardengoddess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2014, 07:16 AM   #36
Fat Burning Machine Extraordinaire!
 
DiamondDeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 73,671
Gallery: DiamondDeb
Quote:
Originally Posted by gardengoddess View Post
I used to eat "a serving" of cereal.

A serving is half a box, right?



I recall bread coming in single or two serving loafs...
DiamondDeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2014, 01:58 PM   #37
Way too much time on my hands!
 
metqa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 12,431
Gallery: metqa
Stats: 147/142.5/135
WOE: HCG
Start Date: joined LCF 2003: HCG 11/2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanutte View Post
Yes, maybe that is a better way to say what I was trying to say.

I just think it's helpful to know what you are eating; whether it's one serving or three servings as described on the label, then fine, you have the information. I didn't say it was meant to be the be-all end-all of "everyone must only have one serving!", I just find it useful to look at actual portion sizes. For example, dry pasta. I don't eat pasta, but if I make whole wheat pasta for my partner, I weigh it just to see what is considered a normal amount for someone's dinner. It ends up being about 2 1/2 "servings". That is a lot of carbs. He's not low-carb, so that's not the point. For me it is interesting to think about how many carbs, calories, etc are in "normal" portions of typical foods.
That's something that I get, cause when I bought dreamfields, i measured out 56g which is "1 serving size". Sometimes it was not enough and sometimes it was too much depending on the meal. But by knowing how much was 56 grams I can easily estimate when I need more for a certain dish, how much more it will make. I'm not a pastaholic, so it takes me a long time to go through a box, and after adding all the extra ingredients, 1 serving size is plenty for me. But that's equal to just half a serving from a place like Olive Garden.


Quote:
Originally Posted by gardengoddess View Post
I used to eat "a serving" of cereal.

A serving is half a box, right?
That's what BF thinks!
__________________
"You have to understand zat ven a vampire forgoes . . .the b-vord, zere is a process zat ve call transference? Zey force Zemselves to desire somesing else? . . .But your friend chose . . . coffee. And now he has none." "You can find him some coffee, or . . .you can keep a vooden stake and a big knife ready. You vould be doink him a favor, believe me." Monstrous Regiment by Terry Pratchett
IBKKF 898
metqa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2014, 09:54 PM   #38
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
~PaperMoon~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,758
Gallery: ~PaperMoon~
Stats: 100+ Pounds lost!
WOE: Low Carb and general low calorie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willgirl View Post
Hahaha! "I like to have one chip for lunch, one for dinner, and if I am being really indulgent....I have half a chip for a snack!"
LOL Exactly!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peanutte View Post
Nobody else uses the recommended serving sizes as an opportunity to re-train your eyes to see what a reasonable portion ought to be?

Maybe this is something low-carb has caused me to get more comfortable with, because an ounce of cheese or nuts is small, but it's an ounce. It's a serving. I'm used to what that looks like.
No I've trained myself to recognize a real serving of something, I have a food scale and everything, I know what a serving should look like, but those packages deliberately mislabel something as having a lot of servings in order to put a small amount of calories on the package. Their servings are not true serving sizes but are labelled that way so they can say it only has 50 calories per serving on the package to make itself look "healthier". It's misleading because it's not true serving sizes. That's the point. If the serving sizes were true serving sizes, I could live with that. They don't want to say that the package has 500 calories so they say only 100 calories per serving then in small print on the back say it has 5 servings. If they say the package that clearly 1 person will eat has 500 calories people won't buy it. It's misleading. A single little Hershey's Kiss is not 3 servings LOL! 3 people are not going to share 1 little Hershey's Kiss. ( I don't know how they label a Hershey's Kiss because it's been a looooong time since I bought any, just using an example.) That type of stuff is what I don't like. If it has 500 calories just label it as 500 calories and stop trying to hide behind bogus serving sizes.
__________________



~The woman came from a man's rib. Not from his feet to be walked on. Not from his head to be superior, but from his side to be equal. Under his arm to be protected, and next to his heart to be loved. ~

Last edited by ~PaperMoon~; 02-23-2014 at 10:02 PM..
~PaperMoon~ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2014, 09:20 AM   #39
Senior LCF Member
 
Just Russ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Southern New England
Posts: 267
Gallery: Just Russ
Stats: Restart 7.2.14 * 249#
WOE: Carb Adicted: Atkins 72, measured portions
Start Date: Original start 2000, 252/168
Wife got on my case for eating a whole small container of SF Jello... saying that's 4 servings! (I buy & make my own snacks.) Yes it is, so their 10 calories = 40 consumed (if I was counting calories). I'm not oblivious to calories but not tracking them either.

So I looked at my serving size 1 boiled egg but I eat 2 as a snack.

Pork rinds... 12 servings in a package. Who are they kidding?! I use fewer when I spray with butter spray & sprinkle with cinnamon & Splenda. Probably get 2-3 servings per package that way. (Without the toppings, I'd probably eat most of a package.)
__________________
"Eat all you need to not be hungry, eat only what you need to not be hungry... eat on plan." Dr Atkins Diet Revolution @1972

"NO, I CAN'T EAT JUST ONE!" "Lead me not into carb temptation!"

Multiple Sclerosis Dx 2001 *a lot of meds* now SP * Able to stand & shuffle a few steps with support: does not = meaningful exercise. Harder to do by just WOE... but gotta stay ON it.
Just Russ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2014, 12:30 AM   #40
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
~PaperMoon~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,758
Gallery: ~PaperMoon~
Stats: 100+ Pounds lost!
WOE: Low Carb and general low calorie
I just came across this article and thought about this thread. Thank goodness they plan to change it.

FDA Proposes Major Food-Label Revamp

Official serving sizes are finally catching up with modern eating habits.

A 20-ounce soft drink would now be a single serving, and so would a whole cup of ice cream, under a major revamp of the familiar food label being released Thursday.

Federal health officials are proposing the first changes to food labels in more than 20 years, and they plan to bow to the reality that Americans do indeed guzzle down those giant bottles of soda in one go, and that half a cup of ice cream just plain doesn't cut it.

"By law, the label information on serving sizes must be based on what people actually eat, not on what they 'should' be eating," the Food and Drug Administration said in a statement.

Administration officials say about half of Americans really try to use the food labels, and it's only fair to tell them how many calories are in a container, not just how many are in a notional serving.

"For certain packages that are larger and could be consumed in one sitting or multiple sittings, manufacturers would have to provide 'dual column' labels to indicate both'per serving' and 'per package' calories and nutrient information," FDA says.

"Examples would be a 24‐ounce bottle of soda or a pint of ice cream. This way, people would be able to easily understand how many calories and nutrients they are getting if they eat or drink the entire package at one time."

They’ll also reflect changes in thinking about what makes us fat — with less emphasis on total fat and more on overall calories. The FDA also proposes making food companies put clearly on the label whether there’s added sugar in a product.

And the calorie count will show up in really big font.

The goal is to address the obesity epidemic. With two-thirds of Americans overweight or obese, it’s time to help people realize more clearly what they are putting into their mouths, Obama administration officials say.

The new labels will reflect the latest science. While in the 1990s, fat was blamed for making people fat, studies published since then have made it clear that sugar and other processed carbohydrates are just as much to blame.

So their eyes are opening.

Last edited by ~PaperMoon~; 02-27-2014 at 12:38 AM..
~PaperMoon~ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2014, 06:24 AM   #41
Way too much time on my hands!
 
metqa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 12,431
Gallery: metqa
Stats: 147/142.5/135
WOE: HCG
Start Date: joined LCF 2003: HCG 11/2013
saw this with my BF yesterday. he said it was about time.
Though I use the total calories from fat to choose the thing HIGHER in fat!
metqa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2014, 08:56 AM   #42
Senior LCF Member
 
Nimuae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 420
Gallery: Nimuae
Stats: 296/190.0/165
WOE: Atkins -currently Atkins 72 Induction week 1
Start Date: Restart - 01/24/14
Long overdue if you ask me! I mean seriously - 1/3 of a cup of Special K is a "full Serving? ha, I had that much just picking at it while I poured a bowl full.
Nimuae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2014, 01:19 PM   #43
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
~PaperMoon~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,758
Gallery: ~PaperMoon~
Stats: 100+ Pounds lost!
WOE: Low Carb and general low calorie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nimuae View Post
Long overdue if you ask me! I mean seriously - 1/3 of a cup of Special K is a "full Serving? ha, I had that much just picking at it while I poured a bowl full.
LOL! Exactly!
~PaperMoon~ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2014, 04:44 PM   #44
Fat Burning Machine Extraordinaire!
 
DiamondDeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 73,671
Gallery: DiamondDeb
Personally, I think the food labels are a huge waste of money. Do most people really pay any attention to them and actually eat a single serving? I don't think it is going to change how people eat.

I mean, the news reported as an example that Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream will have a more realistic serving size of 1 cup instead of the 1/2 cup it has now. As I recall it B&Js comes in single serving containers... lol...

I can do the math on my veggies & protein servings. Most people, if so inclined, can do the math or let a tracker do it. It is not rocket science.

Seriously, put the money where it is going to make a difference.
__________________
It’s truly remarkable how successful Madison Avenue has been at indoctrinating
eating habits that produce huge profits for giant multinational corporations
– and developing devastating health consequences for consumers –
into generations of society. ~
Mark Sisson, The Primal Blueprint
DiamondDeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2014, 05:13 AM   #45
Major LCF Poster!
 
Just Jo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,543
Gallery: Just Jo
Stats: 265/122/130 BMI=20.9
WOE: Atkins '72 & IF: Daily kcals <1400 & <12 carbs
Start Date: Repeat Offender: May '13 = 265 & 5 July '13 = 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~PaperMoon~ View Post
I just came across this article and thought about this thread. Thank goodness they plan to change it.

FDA Proposes Major Food-Label Revamp

Official serving sizes are finally catching up with modern eating habits.

A 20-ounce soft drink would now be a single serving, and so would a whole cup of ice cream, under a major revamp of the familiar food label being released Thursday.

Federal health officials are proposing the first changes to food labels in more than 20 years, and they plan to bow to the reality that Americans do indeed guzzle down those giant bottles of soda in one go, and that half a cup of ice cream just plain doesn't cut it.

"By law, the label information on serving sizes must be based on what people actually eat, not on what they 'should' be eating," the Food and Drug Administration said in a statement.

Administration officials say about half of Americans really try to use the food labels, and it's only fair to tell them how many calories are in a container, not just how many are in a notional serving.

"For certain packages that are larger and could be consumed in one sitting or multiple sittings, manufacturers would have to provide 'dual column' labels to indicate both'per serving' and 'per package' calories and nutrient information," FDA says.

"Examples would be a 24‐ounce bottle of soda or a pint of ice cream. This way, people would be able to easily understand how many calories and nutrients they are getting if they eat or drink the entire package at one time."

They’ll also reflect changes in thinking about what makes us fat — with less emphasis on total fat and more on overall calories. The FDA also proposes making food companies put clearly on the label whether there’s added sugar in a product.

And the calorie count will show up in really big font.

The goal is to address the obesity epidemic. With two-thirds of Americans overweight or obese, it’s time to help people realize more clearly what they are putting into their mouths, Obama administration officials say.

The new labels will reflect the latest science. While in the 1990s, fat was blamed for making people fat, studies published since then have made it clear that sugar and other processed carbohydrates are just as much to blame.

So their eyes are opening.
Wow thanks for sharing the link and the information. It's nice to know that "they" have finally validated what Atkins was saying back in the 70s that sugar and processed carbs are to blame for making people fat.

I personally know that those two things plus portion-control have been the reasons for my weight problem.
Just Jo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2014, 05:23 AM   #46
Way too much time on my hands!
 
metqa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 12,431
Gallery: metqa
Stats: 147/142.5/135
WOE: HCG
Start Date: joined LCF 2003: HCG 11/2013
I'm the only one I know who even looks at that stuff, and mostly I'm looking at the total fat, total carbs, sugar and fiver, and protein. The calories matter less to me since I'm probably not overeating of calories as much as I'm overeating of carbs in general. If I'm eating mostly fat and protein, I will stop eating at some point cause too much fat and or protein makes me nauseated and I stop. I can keep eating sugar and starchy stuff forever.

the calories is still a misguided way of being afraid of fat since even though they removed the "fat from calories" line, people are still going to avoid food that is calorically high in fat cause they are avoiding calories in general. A low fat snack wills still beat out a high fat snack for this reason.
metqa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2014, 09:54 AM   #47
GME
Big Yapper!!!!
 
GME's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CA Coast
Posts: 9,282
Gallery: GME
Stats: 250/166/175 And again...223/215.0/146 5'7
WOE: Misc.
Start Date: April 2000 (the first time)
I bought a bottle of mint-infused water the other day while out shopping..... water. Zero everything, but the bottle listed two servings. I suppose by having two they could have been hiding some sodium or something.
GME is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2014, 11:52 AM   #48
Major LCF Poster!
 
Arctic_Mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Alaska
Posts: 2,716
Gallery: Arctic_Mama
Stats: 257/145.8/140
WOE: Atkins 2002/Protocol
Start Date: Began losing 10/08. Working off last 20 lbs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiamondDeb View Post
Personally, I think the food labels are a huge waste of money. Do most people really pay any attention to them and actually eat a single serving? I don't think it is going to change how people eat.

I mean, the news reported as an example that Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream will have a more realistic serving size of 1 cup instead of the 1/2 cup it has now. As I recall it B&Js comes in single serving containers... lol...

I can do the math on my veggies & protein servings. Most people, if so inclined, can do the math or let a tracker do it. It is not rocket science.

Seriously, put the money where it is going to make a difference.
Agreed. If they just gave the gram weight of the package, grams of the macros, and an ingredients list, a little division could do the rest. Most people don't care, and those of us that do can make do.
Arctic_Mama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2014, 12:13 PM   #49
GME
Big Yapper!!!!
 
GME's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CA Coast
Posts: 9,282
Gallery: GME
Stats: 250/166/175 And again...223/215.0/146 5'7
WOE: Misc.
Start Date: April 2000 (the first time)
If the government really want to improve the nation's health they would quit subsidizing the commodities that are killing us and stop letting giant food corporations dictate agriculture (read: food) policy.

I'm sure ConAgra is secretly thrilled because this little insignificant tweak is a distraction that will take the focus off the real problem for a little while.

Last edited by GME; 03-01-2014 at 12:16 PM..
GME is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2014, 12:47 PM   #50
Fat Burning Machine Extraordinaire!
 
DiamondDeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 73,671
Gallery: DiamondDeb
Quote:
Originally Posted by GME View Post
If the government really want to improve the nation's health they would quit subsidizing the commodities that are killing us and stop letting giant food corporations dictate agriculture (read: food) policy.

I'm sure ConAgra is secretly thrilled because this little insignificant tweak is a distraction that will take the focus off the real problem for a little while.
But then the average American might even start to eat healthy and that would lead to more people being healthy and that would be very bad for big business & big pharma so it is not going to happen.
DiamondDeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:54 PM.


Copyright ©1999-2014 Friends Forums LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms of Service | Privacy Policy
LowCarbFriends® is a registered mark of Friends Forums, LLC.