3 Fat Chicks on a Diet Weight Loss Community  

Go Back   3 Fat Chicks on a Diet Weight Loss Community > Diet Central > Calorie Counters

Fine print vs. large print...rant

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-17-2010, 01:22 PM   #1
Calorie counter
 
Eliana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,679

Height: 5'4.5"

Angry Fine print vs. large print...rant

This is just wrong, I think.

I just made some whole wheat pasta for the four of us for lunch. I checked the nutrition label.

LARGE PRINT: 4 PORTIONS, whole box

small print: serving size equals 2 oz, approximately 7 servings per box; 180 calories per serving.

What, please, is the difference between a "portion" and a "serving"? Had I done the "portions" suggested in LARGE print, I'd have doubled my calories! I just think that's wrong.
__________________
Long term goal: To still be calorie counting 11/9/2010
mini goals: ~211-10% lost;12/24/09 ~203 class I obesity 1/28/10; ~199 Onederland/15% 2/19/10; ~188-20%; ~185 half way 5/14/10; 179-bye 180's 6/12/10; ~174 overweight 7/3/2010;169-bye 170's 8/13/10;~164-30% 10/23/2010159-bye 160's~11/1/10; 153-35%~12/23/10; 149-bye 150's~2/11/11; 145 normal~2/14/2011; ~141-40%; 139-bye 140's ~135 GOAL! (129-45%; 117.5-50%)






My "goal" story: http://www.3fatchicks.com/forum/goal...goal-post.html
Eliana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 01:34 PM   #2
Never want to go back!
 
CLCSC145's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,804

S/C/G: 338.4/190.8/165

Height: 6 ft

Default

That's insane!! What were they thinking?
__________________
CLCSC145 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 01:36 PM   #3
Calorie counter
 
Eliana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,679

Height: 5'4.5"

Default

It was "Healthy Harvest" brand too. Not generic.
__________________
Long term goal: To still be calorie counting 11/9/2010
mini goals: ~211-10% lost;12/24/09 ~203 class I obesity 1/28/10; ~199 Onederland/15% 2/19/10; ~188-20%; ~185 half way 5/14/10; 179-bye 180's 6/12/10; ~174 overweight 7/3/2010;169-bye 170's 8/13/10;~164-30% 10/23/2010159-bye 160's~11/1/10; 153-35%~12/23/10; 149-bye 150's~2/11/11; 145 normal~2/14/2011; ~141-40%; 139-bye 140's ~135 GOAL! (129-45%; 117.5-50%)






My "goal" story: http://www.3fatchicks.com/forum/goal...goal-post.html
Eliana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 01:43 PM   #4
Diet Started: 1/4/10
 
Wild Vulpix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 416

S/C/G: 164/ticker/99

Height: 5'0"

Default

Wow! That's horrible!!!

If anyone knows, I'd like to know how serving sizes are determined. Is there a standard? Who gets to choose?

In fact, I just discovered something really similar on my Goldfish box.

Big bold print on the top: Cholesterol Free
Little tiny print on the bottom: Cheddar Cheese adds a trivial amount of cholesterol.

You can't have it both ways! Either there's none, or there's a 'trivial amount'!
Wild Vulpix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 01:57 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
crcossel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 279

S/C/G: 165.6/158.4/130

Height: 5'7"

Default

Well pasta is pretty much always a 2 oz serving. For unique products I'm sure the manufacturer decides whatever they want as far as serving size.

One thing I do is I always just turn right to the nutrition label. I don't look at ANYTHING else. Once your trained it won't matter what the "large print" says.
__________________
Candice

crcossel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 04:39 PM   #6
Calorie counter
 
Eliana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,679

Height: 5'4.5"

Default

I check the nutrition label first too, but I guess I assume when I read the package telling me how to cook it, it will tell me according to the serving size. For instance, I know a serving size of Steel Cut oats is 1/4 cup dry and has 150 calories. Then I go to the directions for cooking it and it tells me to boil 1.5 cups of water and then add 1/4 cup of dry oats. These directions directly match the serving size on the nutrition label. This box of pasta, which only caught my eye because it was so large, told me that to serve four people I should make the whole box!! I never read directions for cooking pasta as I already know how to do it. But it took up the entire back end of the box. It was hard to miss. I thought it was very misleading.
__________________
Long term goal: To still be calorie counting 11/9/2010
mini goals: ~211-10% lost;12/24/09 ~203 class I obesity 1/28/10; ~199 Onederland/15% 2/19/10; ~188-20%; ~185 half way 5/14/10; 179-bye 180's 6/12/10; ~174 overweight 7/3/2010;169-bye 170's 8/13/10;~164-30% 10/23/2010159-bye 160's~11/1/10; 153-35%~12/23/10; 149-bye 150's~2/11/11; 145 normal~2/14/2011; ~141-40%; 139-bye 140's ~135 GOAL! (129-45%; 117.5-50%)






My "goal" story: http://www.3fatchicks.com/forum/goal...goal-post.html
Eliana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 05:04 PM   #7
I am worth it
 
sweetnlow28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 601

S/C/G: 250/ticker/140 (maybe 130)

Height: 5' 3" and a half ;)

Default

I feel your frustration. Since I have began counting calories, I have a growing frustration regarding servings and portions. My pet peeve is when a serving is determined by dry weight only and you have no idea how much it will weigh when cooked. It makes it harder to portion your serving from an entirerecipe. I usually end up cooking a single portion separately then weighing the cooked product for future reference. It's a pain in the behind
sweetnlow28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 05:24 PM   #8
Ready for Change
 
SNMomof1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 239

S/C/G: 216.6 / 208.2 / 116

Height: 5'1

Default

You can probably google (I'm a google addict) and get an email for their customer service department. That'd be something to let them know about. Perhaps if enough people complain, they'll DO something.
SNMomof1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 05:56 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
toobig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,042

S/C/G: 260/ticker/160

Height: 5'6 1/2"

Default

Yikes!!!!
__________________
url=http://www.3fatchicks.com/] [/url]

05/16/10 -20 made it 02/24/10
10/19/10 -40 made it 07/31/10
12/25/10 -50 made it 10/04/10
04/24/11 -70 made it 04/28/11
10/19/11 -90 made it 05/14/12
10/19/12 -100 made it 10/11/12
Long Term Weigh Ins
11/28/11 185.5 1/29/12 181 3/29/12 177 5/29/12 172 7/29/12 170 9/29/12 164 11/29/12 166.5 1/28/13 164 3/29/13 161.5
toobig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 06:00 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Karen925's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 1,114

S/C/G: 192/maintaining upper 120's

Height: 5"8.5" 51 yrs

Default

Sticker shock still happens to me. I feel your pain.
__________________

Karen925
Karen925 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2010, 09:44 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
mayness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Central NY
Posts: 1,309

S/C/G: 160/160/115

Height: 5'2"

Default

I noticed that on a box of Barilla Plus pasta the other day, and thought it did seem a little sneaky and misleading.

They want to make it seem like there's a ton of fiber and protein in the pasta... so they put on a big label saying "X grams per portion!" which is some arbitrary "portion" that has nothing to do with the normal, standard serving size.

When it comes to the numbers, I ignore everything on the box outside of the nutrition label.... because all the rest is just advertising.
mayness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2010, 11:11 AM   #12
Cancun Bound
 
Shannon in ATL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Wherever I go, there I am...
Posts: 7,057

S/C/G: 190/149/130

Height: 5'5.5"

Default

I was about to say what Mayness said. I saw that on the Barilla Plus & the Healthy Harvest as well. The nutrition chart on the side of the box shows the info for the predetermined 'portion' they are going for and the info for the standard serving. Definitely advertising.
__________________
-Shannon
"Nothing is impossible. The word itself says I'm possible." --Audrey Hepburn
My Long Goal Story Post|My Daily Plate Journal

Shannon in ATL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2010, 05:56 AM   #13
Getting Healthy!
 
Alecto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 36

S/C/G: 315/268/160

Height: 5'9

Default

The Consumerist blog did a story on how portion sizes are determined. The USDA sets it based on the following:

1. Consideration of typical portion sizes from food consumption surveys.
2. Convenience in relation to common measuring sizes.
3. Nutrient content.
4. Sizes from previous guides.

There is some talk about changing the labeling to more accurately reflect what people actually eat. I tend to use general portion sizes for most everything I eat and weigh stuff. But I also have learned not to stress too much if I am a bit off.
Alecto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2010, 03:18 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
ohmanda's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Iowa
Posts: 153

S/C/G: 225/207/140

Height: 5'5

Default

I think the portion is considered how much people actually eat. In that example I guess they figure people have 2 servings in one of portion. 2 oz of pasta is a lot less than you might think.

Last edited by ohmanda : 01-20-2010 at 03:18 PM.
ohmanda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2010, 12:40 AM   #15
Member
 
minijaxgrl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 38

S/C/G: 225/202/150

Height: 5'4

Default

It's all a scam! lol... Seriously though!
minijaxgrl is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Posts by members, moderators and admins are not considered medical advice
and no guarantee is made against accuracy.


Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:32 PM.






Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.3.2