Serving size and calorie counts on nutrition labels

[Heisman2]

I made a video discussing where these come from and if they are accurate, for those curious. I actually learned a lot myself when looking things up for the video.

[DougyF7]

Nice video, thanks for sharing.

I was thinking about what you said to not use the typical serving size on a label as a guide for what a serving size should be. My thought is - why not? If this is what people generally consume on average (however this data was acquired) than wouldn’t that be a good indication that it’s a normal size serving?

Thinking about something like protein powder as a general example, the serving size is literally the scoop and about 25g protein usually which makes sense for mps.

Another thought is cereal. Maybe 60g is a serving size. It seems like a good/moderate/sufficient serving size to me.

I guess my thought is that maybe those racc numbers (I think that’s the acronym you used) are more useful than we think.

[paulinkansas]

When i drink beer from a 40 oz bottle in a paper bag wit my homies at a street corner in da hood, the label says the serving size is 12 ounces. That's just crazy.

[Camarija]

Now I want to get one of those calorie ovens to test out different foods

Thanks Doc!

[Heisman2]

Nice video, thanks for sharing.

I was thinking about what you said to not use the typical serving size on a label as a guide for what a serving size should be. My thought is - why not? If this is what people generally consume on average (however this data was acquired) than wouldn’t that be a good indication that it’s a normal size serving?

Thinking about something like protein powder as a general example, the serving size is literally the scoop and about 25g protein usually which makes sense for mps.

Another thought is cereal. Maybe 60g is a serving size. It seems like a good/moderate/sufficient serving size to me.

I guess my thought is that maybe those racc numbers (I think that’s the acronym you used) are more useful than we think.

I agree the RACC values would be useful to look at, but the issue as I said is that anywhere from 67%-200% of the RACC value can be listed as a single serving, and even >200% can be listed as a single serving if it is still reasonable to expect that to be consumed in 1 serving.

For example, look at these three nutrition labels for brownies (I just searched for brownie nutrition labels on google):

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...MygGegUIARCmAg - this one lists 1 serving as 115 grams, with 430 calories. This is actually 288% of the RACC value.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...MygHegUIARCoAg - this one lists 1 serving as 66 grams, with 290 calories. This is 165% of the RACC value.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...MygOegUIARC3Ag - this one lists 1 serving as 48 grams, with 160 calories. This is 120% of the RACC value.

So they can be wildly different.

Stated another way, the RACC value does present the average, so going up to 200% of that would be twice the average, but it can still be listed as 1 serving.

[air2fakie]

I agree the RACC values would be useful to look at, but the issue as I said is that anywhere from 67%-200% of the RACC value can be listed as a single serving, and even >200% can be listed as a single serving if it is still reasonable to expect that to be consumed in 1 serving.

For example, look at these three nutrition labels for brownies (I just searched for brownie nutrition labels on google):

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...MygGegUIARCmAg - this one lists 1 serving as 115 grams, with 430 calories. This is actually 288% of the RACC value.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...MygHegUIARCoAg - this one lists 1 serving as 66 grams, with 290 calories. This is 165% of the RACC value.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...MygOegUIARC3Ag - this one lists 1 serving as 48 grams, with 160 calories. This is 120% of the RACC value.

So they can be wildly different.

Stated another way, the RACC value does present the average, so going up to 200% of that would be twice the average, but it can still be listed as 1 serving.

I find that listed serving sizes on labels tend to be purposely small for many things, so that the calories and %ages of saturated fat etc. all look smaller during the typical quick glance that the average person might take, without really giving it much extra thought or analysis.

[BlackJack619]

You know what grinds my gears?

When manufacturers purposefully manipulate their serving sizes to make their products appear healthier.

But

It’s not really the manufacturer fault thou, because the FDA creates these lope holes.

I’m savy of these tricks, but I fear the common folks may not be.

For example there’s olive oil spray that claim to have zero calories and zero fat in their whole container;

However their serving size is like 1/8th of a second of spraying the oil.

And because that serving has less fat than like .25 grams of fat (I could be off about the exact allotment) they can claim it has zero.

That whole can has probably a thousand or more calories but they claim zero.

[Heisman2]

You know what grinds my gears?

When manufacturers purposefully manipulate their serving sizes to make their products appear healthier.

But

It’s not really the manufacturer fault thou, because the FDA creates these lope holes.

I’m savy of these tricks, but I fear the common folks may not be.

For example there’s olive oil spray that claim to have zero calories and zero fat in their whole container;

However their serving size is like 1/8th of a second of spraying the oil.

And because that serving has less fat than like .25 grams of fat (I could be off about the exact allotment) they can claim it has zero.

That whole can has probably a thousand or more calories but they claim zero.

Good point about the oil spray. Actually fat <0.5 grams can be claimed as 0. Rounding rules on page 129 of this PDF: https://www.fda.gov/files/food/publi...-%28PDF%29.pdf

[paulinkansas]

In a similar note to this thread, I did an experiment on nutritional content in this post:

https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showt...pid+extraction

[altrule]

It's pretty hard to keep up with artificial products.

I just eat like an animal or socially.

[DougyF7]

In a similar note to this thread, I did an experiment on nutritional content in this post:

https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showt...pid+extraction

On spread for doing at home experiment.

[DougyF7]

It's pretty hard to keep up with artificial products.

I just eat like an animal or socially.

Not sure I follow the logic in your post, friend.

[BlackJack619]

Not sure I follow the logic in your post, friend.

Some artificial sweeteners can still spike insulin levels, so people who think sugar free is good could be misled, if they products claim to be sugar free yet have artificial sweeteners that still spike your insulin anyway,

Just a guess of one example this poster could be referring to

[mark031111]

Thanks for sharing bro!

[DougyF7]

I agree the RACC values would be useful to look at, but the issue as I said is that anywhere from 67%-200% of the RACC value can be listed as a single serving, and even >200% can be listed as a single serving if it is still reasonable to expect that to be consumed in 1 serving.

For example, look at these three nutrition labels for brownies (I just searched for brownie nutrition labels on google):

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...MygGegUIARCmAg - this one lists 1 serving as 115 grams, with 430 calories. This is actually 288% of the RACC value.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...MygHegUIARCoAg - this one lists 1 serving as 66 grams, with 290 calories. This is 165% of the RACC value.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...MygOegUIARC3Ag - this one lists 1 serving as 48 grams, with 160 calories. This is 120% of the RACC value.

So they can be wildly different.

Stated another way, the RACC value does present the average, so going up to 200% of that would be twice the average, but it can still be listed as 1 serving.

Oh, interesting. I’ll have to rewatch the video.