If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   Photos that illustrate what the FDA's new serving sizes actually look like. Enjoy your tenth of a bagel   (theguardian.com) divider line 147
    More: Stupid, serving sizes, FDA, nutrition label  
•       •       •

15029 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Feb 2014 at 3:06 PM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



147 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-28 02:00:30 PM
Ironic that you chose the stupid tag, Subby, considering that the article explains that the new serving sizes are fixing the  old problem of serving sizes that included a tenth of a bagel.
 
2014-02-28 02:11:25 PM

Theaetetus: the old problem of serving sizes that included a tenth of a bagel.


FTFA:

Like the toaster pastry, the current serving size of a bagel is 55g. To test what that meant, we picked up a bag of Toufayan's classic plain bagels at a local deli, each of which weighed in at about 95g. If we wanted to have 'one serving', that would mean eating the bottom half of a bagel, and a little more than a tenth of the top.

The current labels address 58% of the bagel, not 10%.

So really, reading comprehension all around.
 
2014-02-28 02:18:05 PM

TwistedIvory: Theaetetus: the old problem of serving sizes that included a tenth of a bagel.

FTFA:

Like the toaster pastry, the current serving size of a bagel is 55g. To test what that meant, we picked up a bag of Toufayan's classic plain bagels at a local deli, each of which weighed in at about 95g. If we wanted to have 'one serving', that would mean eating the bottom half of a bagel, and a little more than a tenth of the top.

The current labels address 58% of the bagel, not 10%.

So really, reading comprehension all around.


Before you go throwing stones, how about you read the very next sentence in the article?
 
2014-02-28 02:23:53 PM

Theaetetus: Before you go throwing stones, how about you read the very next sentence in the article?

If we wanted to have 'one serving', that would mean eating the bottom half of a bagel, and a little more than a tenth of the top. Sound unsatisfying? It is.


I guess that's unsatisfying.
 
2014-02-28 02:32:54 PM

TwistedIvory: Theaetetus: Before you go throwing stones, how about you read the very next sentence in the article?

If we wanted to have 'one serving', that would mean eating the bottom half of a bagel, and a little more than a tenth of the top. Sound unsatisfying? It is.

I guess that's unsatisfying.


And then...
The new serving size would be a much more reasonable 110g - or a little more than a whole Toufayan bagel.

Apparently, both you and Subby missed the point that they're expanding the serving sizes to reflect typical servings, rather than just "whatever the manufacturer wants to call a 'serving'."
 
2014-02-28 02:42:23 PM
Where the hell did they find Bartle's and James wine coolers at?
 
2014-02-28 02:42:42 PM
I remember a time in this country where a man could eat as much as his toilet could hold on the back end. Now with "serving sizes" and low-flow toilets, it's like communist France.
 
2014-02-28 02:48:48 PM

Theaetetus: Apparently, both you and Subby missed the point that they're expanding the serving sizes to reflect typical servings, rather than just "whatever the manufacturer wants to call a 'serving'."


No, I get that. I think it's a fantastic thing for people who are trying to watch calories but who don't quite grok the serving size or portion segment. My wife, for instance, is one of these folks; 2 fl. oz.? 83 grams? That's about the same, right, about 4.4 kilojoules? So, no mistake: I'm absolutely pro-making-things-clear and standard.

That being said, subby misrepresented that the old labels were somehow passing a tenth of a bagel off as a serving (they weren't; they were using a 55g portion size). Then you went on and said, hey, spiffy, we're getting a new labeling system so that that tenth of a bagel isn't represented as a portion size anymore!

But there's the problem: IT NEVER WAS. That 10% figure came from "half of the bottom of the bagel AND a tenth of the top." That, incidentally, is arbitrary. You could eat only 58% of the outer diameter, you could nibble from the middle, chomp in a linear fashion. . . it doesn't matter. The standard 55g portion size was 58% of that one specific type of bagel that the author found. I agree: Make portion sizes on labels fall in line with the serving presented to people, or what people are most likely to eat. Great, but let's not misrepresent things.

Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but while the old system leaves much to criticism, this specific angle isn't it. Criticize the flaws of the system and move forward, but don't criticize something you inferred because you didn't read things correctly.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-02-28 02:51:44 PM
I don't think there's anything wrong with a little bit of poetic license when writing a headline.  It isn't a big deal to the editors who write actual headlines.
 
2014-02-28 02:55:41 PM

sigdiamond2000: I remember a time in this country where a man could eat as much as his toilet could hold on the back end. Now with "serving sizes" and low-flow toilets, it's like communist France.


So perfect and yet so succinct.
 
2014-02-28 02:57:35 PM
What is the new serving size for Internet pedantry?
 
2014-02-28 02:58:48 PM

TwistedIvory: That being said, subby misrepresented that the old labels were somehow passing a tenth of a bagel off as a serving (they weren't; they were using a 55g portion size). Then you went on and said, hey, spiffy, we're getting a new labeling system so that that tenth of a bagel isn't represented as a portion size anymore!


Since when did anyone say that a tenth of a bagel was the entire portion size? I think you're reading something neither Subby nor I said.

As you note, the article said that the portion size was one half of a bagel plus one tenth of the other half. I.e. to eat a proper serving, you would have to, at some point, identify a tenth of a bagel half.

Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but while the old system leaves much to criticism, this specific angle isn't it. Criticize the flaws of the system and move forward, but don't criticize something you inferred because you didn't read things correctly.

Yes, you're being pedantic,  and you didn't read either Subby's statement nor my criticism correctly, and inferred something different. So, good jorb with the hypocrisy.
 
2014-02-28 02:59:34 PM
/s/nor/or

/fixed for pedants
 
2014-02-28 03:05:19 PM

kronicfeld: What is the new serving size for Internet pedantry?


We're currently over the daily recommended amount, and the thread isn't even live yet.
 
2014-02-28 03:10:03 PM

kronicfeld: What is the new serving size for Internet pedantry?


1/1000th of a Fark.
 
2014-02-28 03:10:19 PM

Theaetetus: Since when did anyone say that a tenth of a bagel was the entire portion size? I think you're reading something neither Subby nor I said.


Sounds pretty much like what the headline says, to me. That's definitely how I read it.

Theaetetus: As you note, the article said that the portion size was one half of a bagel plus one tenth of the other half. I.e. to eat a proper serving, you would have to, at some point, identify a tenth of a bagel half.


Or do basic math. "Let's see, serving size says 55g, but this bagel weighs 95g. Therefore I'll eat about half."
However, that's problematic if the label doesn't identify the weight of each unit in the wrapper. I get that, that's a problem if you can't just intuit how 55g feels. In the US we have "servings per container," which I think is a decent method of approximation. Nobody is going to cut their bagel halves into tenths. That's a really silly assertion (much like it's silly to have an unrealistic portion size on the nutrition info).

Theaetetus: Yes, you're being pedantic, and you didn't read either Subby's statement nor my criticism correctly, and inferred something different. So, good jorb with the hypocrisy.


Actually, I was really trying to give us a diplomatic way out. I was trying to find a middle ground ("there are problems, I understand what they are and why they are problems but hooray, they're being addressed") so that we didn't have to go back and forth anymore. This was the cue to just say, "Ah hah, chap, I smell what you've been stepping in!" and then we chuckle a bit amongst ourselves and go on our merry ways.

So, yeah, mission failed.
 
2014-02-28 03:10:26 PM
What's a bagle?
 
2014-02-28 03:10:54 PM
Bagle? I assume you meant Beagle. And yes I will; this is a stupendous Chinese restaurant. Good day.
 
2014-02-28 03:11:14 PM
I just don't understand Michelle Obama's hatred for kids with diabetes. Think of all the cash this charity will miss out on when sodas can't have Serving Size: MEGA JUG

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-28 03:12:21 PM
As much as I can't stand Moochella she's finally getting something right.  Well done
 
2014-02-28 03:12:24 PM
How many calories does a bottle of vodak have in it... the numbers are too damn blurry.
 
2014-02-28 03:12:57 PM

Arkanaut: What's a bagle?


Its the weight of a compressed bald eagle.  So that's still pretty big.
 
2014-02-28 03:13:48 PM
Have we seen Michelle's birth certificate?
 
2014-02-28 03:14:03 PM
i.huffpost.com

Ain't no socialist FDA gonna tell me what a serving size is!
 
2014-02-28 03:15:39 PM

VladTheEmailer: Arkanaut: What's a bagle?

Its the weight of a compressed bald eagle.  So that's still pretty big.


img.fark.net
 
2014-02-28 03:16:20 PM
B-e-e-g-l-e. Beegle.
 
2014-02-28 03:17:43 PM

Random Anonymous Blackmail: How many calories does a bottle of vodak have in it... the numbers are too damn blurry.


Vodka is about 100 calories per ounce. So for me that is 300 calories per "serving"
 
2014-02-28 03:17:55 PM

kronicfeld: What is the new serving size for Internet pedantry?


Is it pedantry to point out that the truth is the opposite of what someone is saying? The difference between the headline is not subtle.
 
2014-02-28 03:17:56 PM

HotWingConspiracy: I just don't understand Michelle Obama's hatred for kids with diabetes. Think of all the cash this charity will miss out on when sodas can't have Serving Size: MEGA JUG


I'm not a fancy man. I like Kraft Mac and Cheese and those frozen pierogies. I like the $1.50 Costco hot dogs. But I think I have just a tiny bit too much pride to ever say

"Can I get a mega jug of coke?"
 
2014-02-28 03:18:02 PM

Queensowntalia: kronicfeld: What is the new serving size for Internet pedantry?

1/1000th of a Fark.


I can only ever gave a millifark.
 
2014-02-28 03:18:41 PM

dj_spanmaster: Queensowntalia: kronicfeld: What is the new serving size for Internet pedantry?

1/1000th of a Fark.

I can only ever gave a millifark.


/editing fail
 
2014-02-28 03:18:51 PM
They also decreased the amount of p*ssy one can eat. This will not affect most farkers.
 
2014-02-28 03:19:40 PM

dj_spanmaster: VladTheEmailer: Arkanaut: What's a bagle?

Its the weight of a compressed bald eagle.  So that's still pretty big.

[img.fark.net image 498x1142]


I'd fark one of them.
 
2014-02-28 03:21:08 PM
So how much Soylent Green is one serving?
 
2014-02-28 03:21:08 PM
Goodbye, muh freedoms.

*baldeaglecrying.png*
 
2014-02-28 03:21:18 PM

thurstonxhowell: kronicfeld: What is the new serving size for Internet pedantry?

Is it pedantry to point out that the truth is the opposite of what someone is saying? The difference between the headline is not subtle.


Now people are even arguing about what is and isn't pedantry. This thread truly raises the bar.
 
2014-02-28 03:21:19 PM

naughtyrev: Where the hell did they find Bartle's and James wine coolers at?


Check your mom's pantry; she's been holding out on you.
 
2014-02-28 03:21:44 PM

TwistedIvory: Or do basic math. "Let's see, serving size says 55g, but this bagel weighs 95g. Therefore I'll eat about half."


Or, a half plus a tenth.

However, that's problematic if the label doesn't identify the weight of each unit in the wrapper. I get that, that's a problem if you can't just intuit how 55g feels. In the US we have "servings per container," which I think is a decent method of approximation.

Except that they also allow manufacturers to label packages with "about n" servings per container, which would allow them to round to the nearest whole bagel, making it even more difficult to estimate bagel/serving size ratios.

Nobody is going to cut their bagel halves into tenths. That's a really silly assertion (much like it's silly to have an unrealistic portion size on the nutrition info).

It also allows manufacturers to get away with resizing portions to take advantage of rounding errors. For example, consider the humble Tic Tac, which they're happy to advertise as "the one and a half calorie breath mint". Such accuracy, much significant figures, until they get to the amount of sugar:
The Nutrition Facts for Tic Tac mints state that there are 0 grams of sugar per serving. Does this mean that they are sugar free?

Tic Tac® mints do contain sugar as listed in the ingredient statement. However, since the amount of sugar per serving (1 mint) is less than 0.5 grams, FDA labeling requirements permit the Nutrition Facts to state that there are 0 grams of sugar per serving.
 
2014-02-28 03:21:56 PM

FirstNationalBastard: dj_spanmaster: VladTheEmailer: Arkanaut: What's a bagle?

Its the weight of a compressed bald eagle.  So that's still pretty big.

[img.fark.net image 498x1142]

I'd fark one of them.


You'd be in line, if I could locate them.

/ illegal to hunt, not illegal to fark
// still mostly ambiguous
 
2014-02-28 03:22:17 PM
On another note, I hear that if you have more than one beer per month, you're an alcoholic.


/Which reminds me.......
//brb
 
2014-02-28 03:22:38 PM

naughtyrev: Where the hell did they find Bartle's and James wine coolers at?


I'm sure they were thanked for their support.
 
2014-02-28 03:23:02 PM
I was told when I was in grade school that a 1 serving is about the size of a deck of cards.
 
2014-02-28 03:23:04 PM

Super Chronic: thurstonxhowell: kronicfeld: What is the new serving size for Internet pedantry?

Is it pedantry to point out that the truth is the opposite of what someone is saying? The difference between the headline is not subtle.

Now people are even arguing about what is and isn't pedantry. This thread truly raises the bar.


Technically, I think the floor under the bar has been lowered.
 
2014-02-28 03:24:25 PM

VladTheEmailer: Arkanaut: What's a bagle?

Its the weight of a compressed bald eagle.  So that's still pretty big.


Laden or unladen?
 
2014-02-28 03:25:46 PM
It's a good thing they regulate bagles, they can cause diabeetus.

Also, here's  a majestic basset hound galloping in slow motion.
 
2014-02-28 03:26:01 PM
Don't serving sizes for alcoholic drinks generally revolve around the amount of alcohol?

And, I didn't realize wine coolers had nutrition info...
 
2014-02-28 03:26:44 PM

HotWingConspiracy: I just don't understand Michelle Obama's hatred for kids with diabetes. Think of all the cash this charity will miss out on when sodas can't have Serving Size: MEGA JUG

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 458x561]


I get that you're being sarcastic here, but what people don't get is that that Mega Jug wasn't meant for one person to consume solo. It was meant for a family.
 
2014-02-28 03:28:09 PM
Thanks to Mooshell Obama for telling us how to eat.
 
2014-02-28 03:28:29 PM

Arkanaut: VladTheEmailer: Arkanaut: What's a bagle?

Its the weight of a compressed bald eagle.  So that's still pretty big.

Laden or unladen?


It's been laden.
 
2014-02-28 03:29:11 PM
I was about to post something about needing to take FDA serving sizes with a grain of salt, then realized the irony.
 
Displayed 50 of 147 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report