Portion sizes

[Georgiana]

In Europe, most labels show nutritional info for 100 g and the consumer is the one who has to decide how big a portion size should be for him/her. Then, since Hans (random name) knows how many calories or whatever are in 100 grams of ____, he can decide how many calories or whatever he consumed by eating X grams of ____.

I know in the US, foods come in portion sizes and that's how nutritional facts are given on the label. I'm wondering if having set portion sizes doesn't unteach people to listen to their hunger. For example, although a serving size for chicken wings is 3 wings (I don't know if that's what it is), I could be happy eating only 1 or 2 instead of 3. Same for other foods. Maybe it's just my non-English brain, but I feel that "portion size" sounds as if that is the size in which some food has to be eaten, because that's what is considered a "normal" serving.

Do you find portion sizes useful? Or, in other words, more useful than simply knowing the nutritional info for 100 g of food, independent of the food?

[Ohbehave007]

Re: Portion sizes

A lot of the stores I shop at here carry American foods with the American nutrition info on the side...honestly the portions given on there confuse me. I would rather use the European way of 100g and then decide how much I want...

[not2late]

Re: Portion sizes

In Europe, most labels show nutritional info for 100 g and the consumer is the one who has to decide how big a portion size should be for him/her. Then, since Hans (random name) knows how many calories or whatever are in 100 grams of ____, he can decide how many calories or whatever he consumed by eating X grams of ____.

I know in the US, foods come in portion sizes and that's how nutritional facts are given on the label. I'm wondering if having set portion sizes doesn't unteach people to listen to their hunger. For example, although a serving size for chicken wings is 3 wings (I don't know if that's what it is), I could be happy eating only 1 or 2 instead of 3. Same for other foods. Maybe it's just my non-English brain, but I feel that "portion size" sounds as if that is the size in which some food has to be eaten, because that's what is considered a "normal" serving.

Do you find portion sizes useful? Or, in other words, more useful than simply knowing the nutritional info for 100 g of food, independent of the food?

There's a technical difference between portion size and serving size. A portion size is the amount you choose to eat. A serving size is the amount that's recommended by the manufacturer/USDA to eat.

So, a manufacturer can state that box of 12 cookies has 32 servings. However, your portion size of that same box may be 1.

I find the sizes on the label useful because it helps me understand what these people think I should be eating. And it also lets me see how sneaky some manufacturers are. But more importantly, I don't know how much 100 grams looks like, but I can certainly divide something in half or I can count out 15 pieces, etc. Yes, yes....but what if the pieces are broken or what if I can't cut straight and one half is slightly larger than the other? I simply do my best and I would rather that I underestimate than overestimate.

[Greeneggs&ham]

Re: Portion sizes

I think you're on to something Georgiana. I always thought that portion sizes on some products were unrealistic anyway. I mean, who actually eats just 2 fig newtons? Everyone knows that one eats the entire sleeve as a serving! What? You just eat 2 cookies? Maybe that's why I'm on Atkins...

Seriously though, if nutrition info were listed based on a standardized weight or volume, it would be much more uniform in checking for carbohydrate amounts. As it is, a company can simply set the serving size low enough to "play" with the numbers thus making something "appear" to have less carbs than it really does.

I would love to see US labels switch to standardized measurements, but I doubt the US corporations would ever let the government make such a move.

[krispysky]

Re: Portion sizes

I'm in America. I honestly think they set the portion sizes so they can dictate whether something is high calorie or not. Or if they know there's too much sodium in something they just say that you should only have a smaller amount. It's their dirty sneaky way of pretending things aren't bad for you.

[liv]

Re: Portion sizes

The last thing is so true. One of the leasing cereal makers made their cereal healthier by just cutting the portion size latly.

I think very few people pay attention to how small this portion size actually is. For cereal for instance it is very small. Most people just fill their bowl and then believe they ate a portion but have very little concept of what they actually ate. I find that to be an issue sometimes.
One chicken wing G - my goodness - I can eat 15 sometimes.

[Georgiana]

Re: Portion sizes

There's a technical difference between portion size and serving size. A portion size is the amount you choose to eat. A serving size is the amount that's recommended by the manufacturer/USDA to eat.

Oops. I meant serving size, except in the first paragraph.

So, a manufacturer can state that box of 12 cookies has 32 servings. However, your portion size of that same box may be 1.

lol.... 0.375 of a cookie. A while ago I saw some video on YouTube where people were shown foods and they were asked to say how many serving sizes are in that food. One muffin I think had something like 3 serving sizes, as if someone really cuts it in 3. And some other food had 2.5 --- I guess that way you need to buy two boxes (or whatever) to have 5 servings in total, so that you can eat 1 serving each day.

But more importantly, I don't know how much 100 grams looks like, but I can certainly divide something in half or I can count out 15 pieces, etc.

We do the same here. Foods usually come in "round" quantities, like 25, 50, 100, 125, ... , 250, etc. grams. For example, FAGE is sold in 200 g or 500 g cups. Frozen veggies are often sold in 750 or 1000 g bags. So if we want to figure out how much a serving size is, we just divide the whole amount by some factor.

With cookies, the US system is probably smarter. There you can count directly how many cookies you want, because you know how many pieces are in a serving size. In Europe you'd have to do a little more math.

[Georgiana]

Re: Portion sizes

One chicken wing G - my goodness - I can eat 15 sometimes.

3 pieces of chicken wing is the serving size at our university cafeteria. But they break the wings in two, so in one serving size you're eating about 1.5 wings. Plus you always have to hope you'll be lucky enough to get the halves that have some meat on them...

[Georgiana]

Re: Portion sizes

Seriously though, if nutrition info were listed based on a standardized weight or volume, it would be much more uniform in checking for carbohydrate amounts.

On the other hand, I think it's more difficult for someone in Europe to figure out the amounts of some food one can eat. For example, 3-4 oz of cheese mean 85-113 grams... so unless you use a scale, there's really no way to measure 3-4 oz. I always considered 100 g to be the limit when I make my menus.

[Ohbehave007]

Re: Portion sizes

With cookies, the US system is probably smarter. There you can count directly how many cookies you want, because you know how many pieces are in a serving size. In Europe you'd have to do a little more math.

I've noticed that on the cookies I buy my boyfriend it mentions how many calories there are in one cookie. Not that he can stop at one cookie but he is better then I was

One of the leasing cereal makers made their cereal healthier by just cutting the portion size latly.

On cereal here they do mention that a serving size is like 30g. I see that under the main 100g nutrition info, they then say something (in small letters) like how many calories 1 serving has and then gives the number of grams one serving would weigh. But then again it isn't on everything.

[ldyj]

Re: Portion sizes

Years ago I purchased an ice cream sandwich, one of those 4" diameter thingies. I did look at the calories, seems it was like 350, and decided that I could do that. I'm eating away, enjoying my treat, when, for some reason, I looked at the label again. Yeah, it was 350 calories per serving alright, except there was TWO servings to a package!

Between that, eating low carb, and the fact that my daughter (and thus her sons, who I've loved and fed for 25 years!) is a vegetarian, I have become an avid label reader. I don't go by the servings sizes, but how much I feel I want (or in the case of carbs, can) eat. So it wouldn't matter which labeling method was used, metric or US, I'd still read the label and determine what I wanted to consume!

[Georgiana]

Re: Portion sizes

On cereal here they do mention that a serving size is like 30g. I see that under the main 100g nutrition info, they then say something (in small letters) like how many calories 1 serving has and then gives the number of grams one serving would weigh. But then again it isn't on everything.

I noticed that on some foods as well. I think it's something they've only recently introduced (at least in Germany). I don't remember seeing it 3 years ago when I moved here, but it could be that I just didn't notice it. For cream cheese they also write nutritional info for 25 grams, which I assume is what it's considered a serving size. And waffles have nutritional info for a serving size as well... though I don't remember how big a serving size of waffles is. But from what I've seen, many people still eat 1/2 the bag (400 g) in a sitting.

[Ohbehave007]

Re: Portion sizes

ut from what I've seen, many people still eat 1/2 the bag (400 g) in a sitting.

They have stroopwafels here and they don't last an hour around my boyfriend or mother lol. But yeah I think it is a new thing here as well..they have been advertising this "choose wisely" thing with foods. Nice pubic anouncement commercials, funny.

[Aways2Go]

Re: Portion sizes

I noticed a long time ago the way labels/serving sizes are adjusted here in the US to make the calorie counts come out the way the manufacturer wants. Condensed soups, for example - the serving size will change from one type of soup to another from the same manufacturer so the calories per serving is equal... on a vegetable soup, the portion may be 1 cup, but on the chicken and noodle variety, it may be only 2/3 of a cup... but the calorie count remains 100 calories, LOL! (As if I weren't going to eat the entire can in any case, even if it does say 2.25 servings, LOL!).

The same thing is very common on boxes of breakfast cereals - 1 cup here, 3/4 cup there, 2/3 cup on another variety. To the unobservant consumer, hey! You can choose any variety you want, because they all (seem to) have the same amount of calories! (I have only noticed serving adjustments that seem to accomodate calorie counts, or maybe fat grams from time to time).

I learned a long time ago to just calculate the calories/fat/carbs or whatever I am checking for on an entire package of something and then just re-divide based on how many servings it will realistically be in my household. It matters not if the manufacturer wants to say there are 8 servings in something, if I know it will only get divided into 5 servings.

Luckily for me, I do math easily in my head. But I think it would be more fair to the consumer if quantities on the label were more standardized - a half cup for vegetables, 4 ounces for meats, something like that. Rather than the current random amounts which are most likely chosen by marketing folks.