Serving Size

[rooftop1000]

Now I dont mean taking half of a Pepperage Farms cake and calling it a serving, although I have in the past.

What really got me thinking was a package of frozen ravioli (large round) the nutrition info panel said that 4 was a serving. Yeah maybe if you are doing a multi course Italian dinner with a Primi Secondi Intermezzo and Dessert maybe I could stop at 4 ravioli.

We just had ravioli and salad I ate 10 of them.

Have they really lowered "serving size" that much to make food look healthier or am I just a pig?

tracey

Edited January 24, 2007 by rooftop1000 (log)

[Ling]

^I think most food companies want their products to seem healthier (lower cal, lower fat). I mean, it's not so appealing when they print out a label saying one serving is 800 calories, for example...even though I'm sure that's more in line with what most people consume for a meal!

[shellfishfiend]

I love the serving size for ice cream: 1/2 cup.

I have never in my life sat down with a serving of ice cream and had only a 1/2 cup in the bowl. I try not to look at the calories per serving because I would rather not know.

I do think it is important to understand about servign size/portion control. I just choose to ignore it when it comes to ice cream.

And yes, I do think companies do that so their numbers look better.

[OnigiriFB]

That reminds me of ramen. Did you know that the serving size is supposed to be half the package? Who the hell eats half a package of ramen?

[SheenaGreena]

I have been trying to watch what I eat lately and well it's really hard. I eat a lot of rice and apparently one serving of rice is only 1/2 a cup. I don't know about you all, but that just isn't enough rice for me. 1 cup yes ...but half a cup?

regarding the 1/2 cup of ice cream, thats just stupid. I can easily eat a pint of ice cream in one sitting no problem. I can't even begin to think how much fat and calories is in one pint of english toffee hagen daaz

Edited January 24, 2007 by SheenaGreena (log)

[purplewiz]

Many of the serving sizes are dictated by the FDA, they're not just scams by the food companies. The food companies know as well as the rest of us that you're not going to eat only 1 1/3 Oreos (or whatever the silly amount is), but when the FDA says that all serving sizes for the nutritional data for whatever category of product have to be 1 ounce so you can compare them easily from brand to brand, that's what the companies have to report.

I've noticed a number of brands have data for the required serving size, and then for some other size that represents a more typical portion eaten in one serving.

I've gotten really good at multiplying to see what I'm really eating .

Marcia.

[Kent Wang]

How heavyhanded is the FDA (or isn't it the USDA?) about having reasonable portion sizes?

[Shalmanese]

In Australia, all nutritional packets had to have a per serving and per 100 gram panel so you could quickly figure out the percentage of anything in your food. Here, the serving sizes are usually so ridiculously small and the accuracy is so low that it's impossible to figure anything out. I can't even tell 30% cream from 36% cream reliably at the supermarket anymore.

[ghostrider]

I think the intent is to have standardized serving sizes for particular products so that you can quickly compare different brands, regardless of whether that serving size is reasonable.

E.g., the standard serving size for both cold cuts & cheese is 2 oz. It does make it easy to see whose low-salt / low-fat claims are for real.

I only recently discovered that the difference in sodium between low-salt cheese & most normal cheeses is so small that it's pointless to confine yourself to the low-salt stuff.

[scubadoo97]

Reminds me of a stand up comedy routine. I forgot the comedian. He was commenting on the serving size of Fig Newtons. He said it was like 3 fig newtons and then went on the say who eats 3 fig newtons. To him a serving was a whole sleeve. Should we be eating less, no doubt but some of the serving sizes on some items seem ridiculous.

[chow guy]

Lings' point is very well taken, and smaller portion sizes also keep us from realizing how much sodium, fat and sugar we're actually consuming.

After joining Weight Watchers last year, I began doing alot of math calculation and portion control. I was overjoyed that a (low fat) Skinny Cow ice cream sandwich was only 4 points. I didn't read the label, and finally after a few weeks, I realized the 18 grams of sugar in them, was keeping me from getting skinny. Denial is not a river in Egypt.

At this point, I've retrained myself to be satisfied with smaller portions and can be satisfied with just four (or five) ravioli. Now that's a miracle. I'm just grateful to have pasta at all on a diet.

I think restaurant portion sizes have gotten huge so that customers won't feel as bad, about paying 13 bucks for meatloaf etc. etc. etc.

[MarketStEl]

That reminds me of ramen. Did you know that the serving size is supposed to be half the package? Who the hell eats half a package of ramen?

←

I don't know about you, but I find that a package of ramen noodles cooked according to instructions yields about the same volume of ramen noodle soup as a can of condensed soup does once you add back the can of water.

In both cases, it's enough to fill two decent sized soup mugs or bowls.

One of the funnier serving sizes to me has to do with prepackaged sliced bread: one slice. Other than toasted in the morning, who consumes only one slice of bread at a time?

[Tess]

^I think most food companies want their products to seem healthier (lower cal, lower fat). I mean, it's not so appealing when they print out a label saying one serving is 800 calories, for example...even though I'm sure that's more in line with what most people consume for a meal!

←

The manipulation of the numbers goes farther than that! Some packages announce e.g. "zero trans fats per serving" yet trans fats are listed in the ingredients. If the number is under a certain amount per (often tiny) serving, they are allowed to claim zero.

[Toliver]

^I think most food companies want their products to seem healthier (lower cal, lower fat). I mean, it's not so appealing when they print out a label saying one serving is 800 calories, for example...even though I'm sure that's more in line with what most people consume for a meal!

←

The manipulation of the numbers goes farther than that! Some packages announce e.g. "zero trans fats per serving" yet trans fats are listed in the ingredients. If the number is under a certain amount per (often tiny) serving, they are allowed to claim zero.

←

Which is exactly why servings sizes are as crazy as they are.

And also why something like a fast food hamburger seems so extreme calorie and fat-wise in comparison. If fast food companies were allowed to slap similar small (and ridiculous) serving sizes on their product, no one would bat an eyelash at them.

Companies make the servings size small on purpose so they can tout "zero trans fat per serving" or "one calorie per serving".

Read the labels. Be wise to their shenannigans.

[Jennifer F]

Oh, the memories of my days counseling patients about using the food labels! The most accurate way to use food labels for meal planning is to look instead at the grams of carb, fat & protein per serving (as listed on the package). If you know how many servings you should have per meal, then you can adjust the serving size listed on the package to what's appropriate for you.

I also found this information on the FDA website (RACCs are Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed):

In Sec.  101.9(b)(1) (21 CFR 101.9(b)(1)), we defined the term

``serving'' or ``serving size'' to mean:

    an amount of food customarily consumed per eating occasion by

persons 4 years of age or older, which is expressed in a common

household measure that is appropriate to the food. When the food is

specially formulated or processed for use by infants or by toddlers,

a serving or serving size means an amount of food customarily

consumed per eating occasion by infants up to 12 months of age or by

children 1 through 3 years of age, respectively.

    In Sec.  101.12(b) (21 CFR 101.12(b)), we established RACCs (upon

which label serving sizes are to be determined) for 129 food product

categories representing the general food supply and 11 categories for

infant and toddler foods. The general principles and factors that FDA

considered in arriving at the RACCs are described in Sec.  101.12(a).

Among these principles, FDA sought to ensure that foods that have

similar dietary usage, product characteristics, and customarily

consumed amounts have a uniform reference amount so that consumers

could make nutritional comparisons of like products in the marketplace.

    The RACCs represent the amount of food customarily consumed per

eating occasion for each product category, and were derived primarily

from data obtained from the 1977-1978 and 1987-1988 Nationwide Food

Consumption Surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (58

FR 2229 at 2236-2237). We reviewed food consumption data for the foods

in each product category and considered three statistical estimates,

i.e., the mean (average), the median (50th percentile), and the mode

(most frequent value). Following the procedures detailed in the 1991

serving size proposed rule (56 FR 60394 at 60403-60406), we determined

the reference amount that was most likely to represent the amount

customarily consumed for each product category.

[Milagai]

People have also become used to eating more and more

at each meal, so the subjective view of what's a reasonable

portion (or serving?) has gone up....

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2006/healthy.b...et.exclude.html

Milagai

[Carlovski]

I have the same issue with recipes too - I've often tucked away a serves 4 recipe by myself....

It depends on the ingredient though - personally I eat a lot of rice, pasta vegetables but not a lot of meat - both recipes and prepared meals seem to be biased the other way - I've seen recipes to serve 6 which require over 3 pounds of meat, but then say serve with less than a pack of pasta or about 300g of rice.

[JanMcBaker]

Many of the serving sizes are dictated by the FDA, they're not just scams by the food companies.

←

But how much of that is just the FDA deciding on a serving size, and how much is due to food companies lobbying the FDA for what the companies want?

[Pontormo]

I think the intent is to have standardized serving sizes for particular products so that you can quickly compare different brands, regardless of whether that serving size is reasonable.

E.g., the standard serving size for both cold cuts & cheese is 2 oz.  It does make it easy to see whose low-salt / low-fat claims are for real.

←

Nutrition Info:  [per 1 serving] Calories 100; Total Fat 8g; Cholesterol 24mg; Sodium 170mg;

Nutrition information may vary

Yesterday, while searching for the caloric value of Gorgonzola Dolce, I found this information at wegmans.com.

What exactly determines a serving according to that company? I find it difficult to believe that two ounces of cheese adds up to only 100 calories. I found a more plausible number at a site that nonetheless accommodated differences between batches too much, claiming 3-4 oz. are 393 calories.

And Sandy, I hear you on the bread, but half a sandwich will do if you have a nice big bowl of soup and fruit afterwards. Better than rice cakes.

[MarketStEl]

And Sandy, I hear you on the bread, but half a sandwich will do if you have a nice big bowl of soup and fruit afterwards.  Better than rice cakes.

←

Actually, I need to modify my statement a bit.

I have noticed lately that some brands of "whole grain white" bread -- that new variety that's made from a strain of wheat that produces a flour with the color and taste of white bread flour without stripping away the husk -- list their nutrition information for a 2-slice serving.

The reason they do this is because this ups the dietary fiber stat to a figure they can promote. Whole wheat bread is higher in fiber than the other varieties (including those multigrain ones), and this new white bread is as high in fiber as whole wheat. Per slice, these breads have twice as much fiber as other varieties, and if you eat two slices, you're getting 4g of fiber--more than you'd get eating a bowl of oatmeal.

[misstenacity]

Inflating of serving sizes can, in some cases, be a good thing.

Case in point: my usual stir-fry. Take one 5-serving bag of frozen "stir fry" veggies (Harvest Hodgepodge is a nice one, from Trader Joe's), and cook/combine in the desired stir-fry manner.

5 servings my butt! One package = one serving. I like my veggies a pound at a time, please...

Andrea

http://foodpart.com

[rooftop1000]

Well thats different

its Veggies -VS- Ravioli

t

[Live It Up]

I don't buy many packaged foods, so I don't usually pay attention to recommended servings, but there is one brand of bread that I always buy (the Baker). Their serving size does not correspond to slices--it's 2oz. Yesterday I weighed my 2 slices of their bread and it came out to 2 3/4 oz..what a pain.

Now, when it comes to recipes, my husband and I usually eat a recipe that is supposed to serve 4 between the 2 of us...but I know we're a little piggy. And when I do buy packaged ravioli..forget about it. I just hope that by making most of our food I'm avoiding some of the hidden fat and calories, but I'm probably deluding myself.

[dividend]

I'm going to out myself as a nerd and say that alot of the time, I actually do measure a serving size. It started out as a way to quantify exactly how much I was eating, and now it's kind of second nature. So I'll cook 2 oz of pasta, or eat 1 oz of chips or trail mix. It's part of my philosophy that I'm not going to deprive myself of things that I like to eat that are bad from me even though I generally try to eat less processed foods.

regarding the 1/2 cup of ice cream, thats just stupid.  I can easily eat a pint of ice cream in one sitting no problem.  I can't even begin to think how much fat and calories is in one pint of english toffee hagen daaz

←

I actually buy a pint of really rich ice cream to keep in the freezer, and serve it with a little cookie scoop. I just can't allow myself to eat right from the bag, or the carton, or I'll eat the whole thing mindlessly, and then feel crappy afterwards.

[MarketStEl]

Inflating of serving sizes can, in some cases, be a good thing.

Case in point:  my usual stir-fry.  Take one 5-serving bag of frozen "stir fry" veggies (Harvest Hodgepodge is a nice one, from Trader Joe's), and cook/combine in the desired stir-fry manner.

5 servings my butt!  One package = one serving.  I like my veggies a pound at a time, please... 

Andrea

http://foodpart.com

←

Look on the bright side! You've nailed your "5-A-Day" in one sitting!

That leaves you free to consume anything else that strikes your fancy the rest of the day. Including more veggies, if that's what floats your boat.