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.

•       •       •

15120 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Feb 2014 at 3:06 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:    more»

 Paginated (1/page) Single page, reversed Normal view Change images to links Show raw HTML
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

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.

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.

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?

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.

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'."

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

What is the new serving size for Internet pedantry?

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.

/s/nor/or

/fixed for pedants

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.

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

1/1000th of a Fark.

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.

What's a bagle?

Bagle? I assume you meant Beagle. And yes I will; this is a stupendous Chinese restaurant. Good day.

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

As much as I can't stand Moochella she's finally getting something right.  Well done

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

Arkanaut: What's a bagle?

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

Have we seen Michelle's birth certificate?

Ain't no socialist FDA gonna tell me what a serving size is!

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

B-e-e-g-l-e. Beegle.

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"

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.

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?"

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

1/1000th of a Fark.

I can only ever gave a millifark.

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

They also decreased the amount of p*ssy one can eat. This will not affect most farkers.

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.

So how much Soylent Green is one serving?

Goodbye, muh freedoms.

*baldeaglecrying.png*

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.

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.

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.

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

On another note, I hear that if you have more than one beer per month, you're an alcoholic.

/Which reminds me.......
//brb

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

I'm sure they were thanked for their support.

I was told when I was in grade school that a 1 serving is about the size of a deck of cards.

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.

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

It's a good thing they regulate bagles, they can cause diabeetus.

Also, here's  a majestic basset hound galloping in slow motion.

Don't serving sizes for alcoholic drinks generally revolve around the amount of alcohol?

And, I didn't realize wine coolers had nutrition info...

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.

Thanks to Mooshell Obama for telling us how to eat.

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

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

I was about to post something about needing to take FDA serving sizes with a grain of salt, then realized the irony.

DubtodaIll: I was told when I was in grade school that a 1 serving is about the size of a deck of cards.

They told me the same thing at magic camp.

maram500: 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.

They say that about everything with absurd proportions, but it never actually works out that way.

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 the joke, but FYI Type 1 diabetes (juvenile) is an auto immune disease. Diet doesn't cause it.

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]

That's awesome.

Help us find a cure! How about not drinking the tub O'soda!

Wouldn't it be a fifth of the other half? Rounding up?

Yeah its problematic if you only halfass look at nutrition labels. Oh these potato chips are only 30 calories per serving(look at fine print) 27 servings per bag... so that 30 calories is like A chip.

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

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

*Gasp* a bald eagle bein' laden? The terrorists have won.

hmm... will this undermine the food corps shady math in regards to the "ZERO FAT" bullsh*t?

From what I understand (and I may have been misled here so don't take this as fact) they get to say something has ZERO this that or the other (fat, sodium, sugar, etc) if the percentage per serving is below a certain amount (thus making it a "trace" amount and considered to be "nothing"). Except the companies were being allowed to come up with their own serving sizes which meant they could make the serving size of oh... let's say greasy ass, salt encrusted potato chips to be like 5 chips thus bring the fat/salt content down below the threshold. Then Captain McBlubberbutts everywhere read the label thinking "duurrr... dese be HEALTHY and junk" and scarf down ten bags then wonder why their "diet" isn't helping them lose weight and they have to keep their cardiologist on speed dial.

Lemme see if I've got this straight...

The serving size listed on food containers seems to be impossibly low, right?  I'm guessing this means that, for all this time, Americans have been assuming that whatever the package size IS, must be the recommended serving size.  And I figured that size was measured based on some formula that says, "assuming you're counting calories, or something, this is about how much of THIS you should eat."  And nothing more.

Well, that's what I always thought.  I realized that there was a "suggested serving" listed there.  But, seriously, I never considered that to be an accurate measure of how much I intend to eat.  1/2 cup of ice cream?!  I eat like 2 cups in a sitting without thinking twice.

So what does this new idea from the First Lady's mean to do?  More accurately describe how much we eat?  Exactly how is that going to change anything?  We will still eat the same.  The only thing that will be different is less math for those that actually read the labels.

BAGLE?

durbnpoisn: So what does this new idea from the First Lady's mean to do? More accurately describe how much we eat? Exactly how is that going to change anything? We will still eat the same. The only thing that will be different is less math for those that actually read the labels.

It means Americans will be getting useful and practical information that is easy to comprehend while remaining factual.

Of course Republicans will have a problem with this.

Well....at least it's more realistic.

Nothing on breakfast cereal? That's the main one I'd like to see standardized. As it stands they list a serving sizes of 1/2, 3/4, 2/3 and 1 cup, try comparing that while standing in the grocery store.

I think those portion sizes are fine, but I am a petite female, for a male, they might need more to feel full.

Man, that was a sad looking bagel.

This is what real bagels look like.

/Hint: real bagels don't come pre-bagged.
//And you can only get good ones in NY
///Because we have the best jews

Bareefer Obonghit: Bagle? I assume you meant Beagle. And yes I will; this is a stupendous Chinese restaurant. Good day.

maram500: 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.

Subby sounds like one of those 'pfft gubmint, can't do anything right, amiright!?  ROND PAIL!" derpers.

sandi_fish: BAGLE?

Beigel. Or possibly beigal.

LemSkroob: /Hint: real bagels don't come pre-bagged.
//And you can only get good ones in NY
///Because we have the best jews

Correct.
Correct.
Wrong, it's the water!

\ yeah, no, you're probably right, I've never even been there.

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

Wow. The serving size for people who just visited the surface of the sun and need a depth-charged sized drink.

One box of Kraft Mac and Cheese is now gonna be labeled as one serving? Cause that's what the single bachelor I used to be used to do for dinner.

Magnanimous_J: 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?"

NO WE ONLY SERVE PEPSI WANT SOME TOAST?

who really pays attention to this shiat?

durbnpoisn: More accurately describe how much we eat?

Prevent companies from deliberately misleading people about the sugar, fat, or salt content of the food they're eating.

Most people - like you - reasonably assume that one thing or packet is one serving, except when it comes to bulk boxed items like cereal and cookies.

This allows a company to advertise things as "only 50 calories per serving*!" and then in tiny writing elsewhere advise the thing is 10 servings, when you know and I know and they know no one with a sensible brain in their skull considers that thing anything but one serving.

I once bought a fruit and yoghurt thing in a plastic tray with a foil tear-off lid and one spoon.  Read the label - 2.5 servings.  For a 100g un-resealable dairy product.  What a joke.

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]

In my area, retail businesses that reach a certain goal in selling the little paper sneakers for JDRF's annual 'Walk for the Cure' are rewarded with a giant, heavily-frosted, sneaker-shaped sugarbomb chocolate cake.  A coworker who recently lost half his left foot to diabetes finds it particularly amusing.

`So nothing has really changed. The FDA has just made it slightly easier for people who can't do basic math to figure out the nutritional value of what they are eating.Who am I kidding. "People who can't do basic math," is about 80% of the US.Carry on, FDA.`

if_i_really_have_to: durbnpoisn: More accurately describe how much we eat?

Prevent companies from deliberately misleading people about the sugar, fat, or salt content of the food they're eating.

Most people - like you - reasonably assume that one thing or packet is one serving, except when it comes to bulk boxed items like cereal and cookies.

This allows a company to advertise things as "only 50 calories per serving*!" and then in tiny writing elsewhere advise the thing is 10 servings, when you know and I know and they know no one with a sensible brain in their skull considers that thing anything but one serving.

I once bought a fruit and yoghurt thing in a plastic tray with a foil tear-off lid and one spoon.  Read the label - 2.5 servings.  For a 100g un-resealable dairy product.  What a joke.

You know, I was thinking that very thing as I was typing it, but I guess I never got that point across.
If this really does come down to making the industry be more forthcoming with what they are packaging, that's a good thing.  It's really strange that it has been allowed to be so misleading for so long.

sandi_fish: I think those portion sizes are fine, but I am a petite female, for a male, they might need more to feel full.

So you're saying that size matters, right. I knew it!

Some of these make sense. Some are insane. A whole cup of coffee? No kidding, who drinks half of one? A bagel and 1/10 or part of an avocado? Get real.  Who in the hell eats a bagel and a tenth? Just make it one.  Same with an avo.  Who eats less than or more than 1?  The ice cream is about 1/3rd of a serving.

On Thursday, first lady Michelle Obama and the Food and Drug Administration

Well as long as the left is putting their best scientist on the case, I for one support it.

// farking idiot should stick to tending her magic garden.

Mmmmmm.... 1/5 of an over-ripe avocado.

Looks tasty.

vpb [TotalFark]
(favorite: Blamed "right wing conspiracy " for Family Research Council shooting after shooter was identified as left wing gay activist)

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.
That's obvious from your past posts. Truth seems to have no value to you.

Bagel!

Activity level has to come into this some where. I knew a body builder guy that ate 9 meals a day and needed something like 12,000* calories a day to fuel his metabolism.

Exercise.

*talkin' out of ass, but I remember being floored by the number he said. I guess I could google it...nope don't care.

Seems fairly sensible, which means the Right will be sent into screaming conniptions over it.

So it's a win-win all around.

Serving suggestion: place in garbage, acquire proper food, read nutrition information and eat accordingly.

Oldiron_79: Yeah its problematic if you only halfass look at nutrition labels. Oh these potato chips are only 30 calories per serving(look at fine print) 27 servings per bag... so that 30 calories is like A chip.

That's the whole point though. The FDA knows it's a bullshiat serving size, they want manufacturers to actually be held to a reasonable quantity. They don't care if your chips are 5000 calories each, as long as it's properly disclosed.

Serving sizes are also gamed so that manufacturers can say "0g trans fat!!!!" instead of the more accurate "We set the serving size small enough that the amount of trans fat fell below .5g!"

OnlyM3: On Thursday, first lady Michelle Obama and the Food and Drug Administration
Well as long as the left is putting their best scientist on the case, I for one support it.

// farking idiot should stick to tending her magic garden.

Let's hear your, what I'm sure will be a completely sane and rational, justification for being against having nutrition labels reflect realistic serving sizes.

I mean I know you are filled with hatred and aren't incredibly smart but it's a real reach to imply this is somehow a bad idea. Please try to state your case without likening the first lady to a gorilla if at all possible.

busy chillin': Activity level has to come into this some where. I knew a body builder guy that ate 9 meals a day and needed something like 12,000* calories a day to fuel his metabolism.

Exercise.

*talkin' out of ass, but I remember being floored by the number he said. I guess I could google it...nope don't care.

Old-school NFL linemen used to have to wake up in the middle of the night and eat an extra meal of steak and potatoes, to maintain weight.  Now they can use protein shakes.

sigdiamond2000: DubtodaIll: I was told when I was in grade school that a 1 serving is about the size of a deck of cards.

They told me the same thing at magic camp.

Bridge, poker or Tarot?

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

Jesus, do those things just continue to ferment? That might be some pretty good stuff after 20 years or so. You might just see Frank and Ed right there in your living room...

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! the "serving size" on the Nutritional Label is closer to the actual serving size a normal person eats, while recognizing that not all bagels are the same weight/volume/etc.

ReapTheChaos: Nothing on breakfast cereal? That's the main one I'd like to see standardized. As it stands they list a serving sizes of 1/2, 3/4, 2/3 and 1 cup, try comparing that while standing in the grocery store.

Cereals are sold by weight, not by volume. The volume is approximate. There's always a gram measurement.

Get a kitchen scale, it's your best friend.

Why is it stupid? I think it's a good idea to increase the serving size of the daily nutritional facts to reflect what's actually being eaten.

A lot of folks don;t actually read the quatity per serving portion/daily but rather go straight to the nutritional facts per serving which gives a distorted and often much less numerical value.

I guess subby must be a 6 footer and weighs 100 ibs wet to WANT to actually think he's eating much less than what he actually ate.

dj_spanmaster: Magnanimous_J: 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?"

[img.fark.net image 251x201]

NO WE ONLY SERVE PEPSI WANT SOME TOAST?

These aren't the mega jugs I wanted to see.

bigbadideasinaction: Seems fairly sensible, which means the Right whoever wants to push for campaign money will be sent into screaming conniptions over it.

So it's a win-win all around.

Greed doesn't follow a political perspective, which is apparently why they pushed for farking SOPA.
/fark politics

Angela Lansbury's Merkin: maram500: 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.

You haven't met...me.

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

1/1000th of a Fark.

Also known as a Gredunza

\since we're redefining serving sizes anyway

Personally, I think serving sizes should work something like this:

* Any processed, ready-to-eat (or just add water, just heat, whatever) thing sold in an unsealable container: One serving size is the whole container

* Anything else: Set up a Nielsen-style survey of people's eating habits over say ~1,000 households. Record how much is eaten of any given item per person, per day. Average the results, hey presto -- there is your serving size. Rinse and repeat annually based on the previous year's results. Not enough data for a given food? Use the serving size of the closest food in the database, nutritionally speaking.

* Restaurant food: Nutrition info isn't calculated from your specially hand-prepared item made specifically for testing. Ten samples are chosen randomly and anonymously (samples are taken from random branches of your restaurant chain and ordered as if you are a normal member of the public), then the results averaged.

* No rounding down of any bad-for-you figures (eg. 0.478g of fat is 0.5g or 1g, not 0g)

* No rounding up of any good-for-you figures (eg. 0.27g of fiber is not 0.5g or 1g, it is 0.2g or 0g)

* No bundling of ingredients (it's not "spices" or "flavorings", it is the actual names of the items you put in there)

* No beautifying / rebranding of ingredient names where they are not significantly nutritionally different from existing ingredients (it's not "Valencia oranges", it's "oranges"; it's not "Chilean sea bass", it's "Patagonian toothfish".)

* No using misleading terminology (eg: It's not 98% fat-free, it's 2% fat.)

* No using misleading references (eg. if your product wouldn't ordinarily contain fat, no labeling your product "a fat-free food" -- we all know that soda is fat-free and lard is sugar-free, thanks very much.)

* No misleading product photography (ads must show the actual foodstuff in question, it must be taken as a random, anonymous sample from actual production, and it may not be "dressed / styled" or the photo retouched locally. (eg. you see the poorly-assembled abortion McDonalds actually sells you, not the puffy, fluffy, colorful and juicy-looking fake creation you see now.)

Pros:
- You'd have realistic serving sizes for the first time ever.
- As serving sizes change over time, so would the nutritional info, reflecting current behavior
- Level playing field for manufacturers

Cons (from the manufacturer's perspective):
- Expensive survey (but adding just one cent to the cost of each processed food item sold would cover this many, many times over)
- Cost of changing packaging (but in our computerized, digital world, realistically this could be set to update automatically.
- Sales of many processed foods would tank once misleading claims were removed and people could see the truth about what they were eating
- It will never happen, ever.

/this is all a pipe dream

busy chillin': Activity level has to come into this some where. I knew a body builder guy that ate 9 meals a day and needed something like 12,000* calories a day to fuel his metabolism.

Exercise.

*talkin' out of ass, but I remember being floored by the number he said. I guess I could google it...nope don't care.

Exercise is overrated. A 5K run for me amounts to about 500 calories used.  For the average person it's not enough to counteract the 3000-4000 calories they're eating daily.

/ Thank you girl with the nice tits that tried to keep up with me yesterday night.

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

1/1000th of a Fark.

Also known as a Gredunza

\since we're redefining serving sizes anyway

HEY!

That 1/1004th of a FARK.

How about someone in power on either side of the aisle stops spending over \$10B per year in subsidies for the express purpose of flooding the market with the cheap crap we're eating ourselves to death with?

No campaign contributions in that?  Oh, okay.

Arkanaut: What's a bagle?

It's the British spelling.

Well, this thread went to hell faster than normal.

IMO, when you have a population getting much heavier from lousy diets, perhaps it's not best to adjust the 'serving size' to encourage this.

My generation tended to be a lot less heavy for various reasons, but top most was the very simple fact that we were not overwhelmed with snack and fast foods. They existed, but not in the incredible amounts like today. Nor was TV full of advertising encouraging us to gobble down every bit of delicious garbage displayed.

In 1965, no one in my town had ever heard of frozen pizza. 2014 and the grocery stores have whole freezers devoted to assorted versions of the stuff.

Wangiss: How about someone in power on either side of the aisle stops spending over \$10B per year in subsidies for the express purpose of flooding the market with the cheap crap we're eating ourselves to death with?

No campaign contributions in that?  Oh, okay.

Blech, whole can of worms being opened, but...

Most countries that produce food subsidize food production.  This is to ensure that there's food.  Believe it or not there's actually only a few edible products that can be stored in a raw state - wheat, feed corn, barley...  Because without food society crumbles.

Anyhow it's really up to you to control what you decide to shove down your gullet.  If you decide to eat too many calories of your favorite organic whatever BS food, you're still going to get fat(ter).

Shazam999: Exercise is overrated. A 5K run for me amounts to about 500 calories used. For the average person it's not enough to counteract the 3000-4000 calories they're eating daily.

/ Thank you girl with the nice tits that tried to keep up with me yesterday night.

Exercise is not over-rated.

You cannot eat while you are exercising.
Also, you usually don't eat a few hours before exercising.

So, you also have to deduct the calories not eaten while exercising and to exercise to the calories used while exercising.

Misch: ReapTheChaos: Nothing on breakfast cereal? That's the main one I'd like to see standardized. As it stands they list a serving sizes of 1/2, 3/4, 2/3 and 1 cup, try comparing that while standing in the grocery store.

Cereals are sold by weight, not by volume. The volume is approximate. There's always a gram measurement.

Get a kitchen scale, it's your best friend.

I was talking about serving sizes, not package content. Serving size is measured by volume, like 1/2 or 3/4 cup. You can have two boxes of cereal, each listing the calories per serving, yet the serving size on each is different. Makes it a pain to compare one against the other.

/hot like the pizza hopefully isn't

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

It remains an all you can eat buffet.

Rik01: Well, this thread went to hell faster than normal.

IMO, when you have a population getting much heavier from lousy diets, perhaps it's not best to adjust the 'serving size' to encourage this.

My generation tended to be a lot less heavy for various reasons, but top most was the very simple fact that we were not overwhelmed with snack and fast foods. They existed, but not in the incredible amounts like today. Nor was TV full of advertising encouraging us to gobble down every bit of delicious garbage displayed.

In 1965, no one in my town had ever heard of frozen pizza. 2014 and the grocery stores have whole freezers devoted to assorted versions of the stuff.

Just because something happened together does not mean one caused the other. By the same argument, you can argue that it is cell phones causing people to get heavy because there are so many cell phones now whereas  in 1965, nobody had heard of cellphones.

SuperNinjaToad: Why is it stupid? I think it's a good idea to increase the serving size of the daily nutritional facts to reflect what's actually being eaten.

A lot of folks don;t actually read the quatity per serving portion/daily but rather go straight to the nutritional facts per serving which gives a distorted and often much less numerical value.

I guess subby must be a 6 footer and weighs 100 ibs wet to WANT to actually think he's eating much less than what he actually ate.

Don't manufactures make the serving size so that the trans fat is 0.5g so that they can put 0g in the trans fat entry.

There are so many things with hydrogenated cottonseed oil or hydrogenated palm kernel oil in the ingredient list and then 0g in the trans fat section.

mr0x: Shazam999: Exercise is overrated. A 5K run for me amounts to about 500 calories used. For the average person it's not enough to counteract the 3000-4000 calories they're eating daily.

/ Thank you girl with the nice tits that tried to keep up with me yesterday night.

Exercise is not over-rated.

You cannot eat while you are exercising.
Also, you usually don't eat a few hours before exercising.

So, you also have to deduct the calories not eaten while exercising and to exercise to the calories used while exercising.

Don't forget the calories consumed by your jaw moving while eating.

Serving suggestion: place in garbage, acquire proper food, read nutrition information and eat accordingly.

Hey, avocado is my favorite fruit.

mr0x:
Just because something happened together does not mean one caused the other. By the same argument, you can argue that it is cell phones causing people to get heavy because there are so many cell phones now whereas  in 1965, nobody had heard of cellphones.

Great, now I'm going to eat my cell phone tonight.

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

1/1000th of a Fark.

Also known as a Gredunza

\since we're redefining serving sizes anyway

HEY!

That 1/1004th of a FARK.

IMPERIALIST DOG! You'll take the great and most glorious metric serving sizes and like it!

TwistedIvory: 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.

Favorited for not being a bullying ass.

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

The only post in this thread worth quoting.

Arkanaut: What's a bagle?

My thought exactly.

IT'S A WALK OUT!

You know... I know this has nothing to do with nothing but I keep getting drawn back to that picture of the Palin-ator up there. She is looking more and more like the white trash crackheads that used to skitter around my old hood. Like... she isn't my favorite person in the world but is she... um... ok? Seriously not looking healthy and her behavior is becoming increasingly erratic. Even by her standards.

Kind of frightening there was a real chance of her possibly becoming POTUS in a not so alternate universe.

Loxley and Bagel! You can't miss!

mr0x: You cannot eat while you are exercising.
Also, you usually don't eat a few hours before exercising.

I can jog in place really fast while eating lots of things.  Probably not soup, but chips and cookies sure. I've actually done this once or twice when I got insanely hungry while exercising (and one time my weight still went down the next day)

And eating right before exercising isn't much of a problem unless you're going to the extreme with your exercise.  Not a problem for the government recommended 30 minutes of moderate activity a day.

Shazam999: Wangiss: How about someone in power on either side of the aisle stops spending over \$10B per year in subsidies for the express purpose of flooding the market with the cheap crap we're eating ourselves to death with?

No campaign contributions in that?  Oh, okay.

Blech, whole can of worms being opened, but...

Most countries that produce food subsidize food production.  This is to ensure that there's food.  Believe it or not there's actually only a few edible products that can be stored in a raw state - wheat, feed corn, barley...  Because without food society crumbles.

Anyhow it's really up to you to control what you decide to shove down your gullet.  If you decide to eat too many calories of your favorite organic whatever BS food, you're still going to get fat(ter).

All completely true, but you and I are being coerced into spending a few dollars a month that goes to making more corn than everyone combined actually wants to eat. That creates an opportunity cost penalty to anyone who wants to manufacture food with anything other than the lowest nutritional-value foods in history. Why is \$50 worth of spending power forced from the average taxpayer per year that (1) they could use to buy healthier food, thereby subverting (but certainly not negating) your personal responsibility argument; and (2) goes to make unhealthy food cheaper instead of healthy food?

Republican? Great. Shrink government or at least get those big government cronies making something healthy cheaper instead of corn syrup.
Democrat? Great. Move some of that subsidy money to smaller, less privileged farm regions targeted in blue states or with historically disadvantaged populations that want to grow quinoa and kale.
Statist? Great. It's your moral responsibility to make sure that the government is helping instead of harming all the people that corporations are fattening up.
Libertarian? Great. I don't even need to tell you anything.

It's stupid to do what we're doing, or if you disagree we're at least doing it in a way that seems to be inarguably detrimental. I don't see the advantage of subsidizing one of the main sources of diabetes and obesity.

mr0x:

You cannot eat while you are exercising.
Also, you usually don't eat a few hours before exercising.

If the governmental control-freaks have their way, we'd only be allowed to eat carefully measured amounts the human-equivalent of those boring  little dried nuggets that we feed our pets - you know. Iams, Hill's Science diet etc.

And we'll be dying of boredom.

LemSkroob: Man, that was a sad looking bagel.

This is what real bagels look like.

[gothamist.com image 640x479]

/Hint: real bagels don't come pre-bagged.
//And you can only get good ones in NY
///Because we have the best jews

Not ALL of them

lostcat: So nothing has really changed. The FDA has just made it slightly easier for people who can't do basic math to figure out the nutritional value of what they are eating.

Who am I kidding. "People who can't do basic math," is about 80% of the US.

Carry on, FDA.

Or saves time for the hurried parent rushing through the supermarket.  Or hurried anyone really.  Or kids, learning about nutrition.

If we're gonna require nutritional labeling, we should do it in a way that makes a tiny bit of sense.

I know, the horror, the horror.

I don't really watch calories but have to watch sodium and I find the variable serving sizes a real pain.  This can of soup is 2.5 servings while this other one that is the same size from another manufacturer is 4 servings.  Try to guess the relative calories or salt content without a calculator and be my guess.  And don't get me started on why a can of soup is more than one bloody serving as most people eat the whole thing.

I spend the time cooking more to be sure not to use prepared foods as all of them use enough sodium to kill a horse.

I drink my coffee black like everyone should, but the old standard for sweetened coffee wasn't even a full damn cup's worth.

Other than the Yogurt Lobby somehow having pull at the FDA,

/imokaywiththis.jpg

Bagle indeed

\hot like Britta

vernonFL: 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"

Don't calories tend to be pretty much inline with proof of the liquor?

/uses zero calorie mixers
//people still drink wine coolers? I don't think I've even seen those in the store

I can`t respect an article that calls pop tarts `pastries`, doesn`t say `bagel` but instead says `Toufayan bagel`, in one sentence says "Forget serving sizes and go for the halves or fourths method instead, like a normal person" and then uses a weird serving size (One cup is about one and a half Chobani containers)

Sounded too much like an advert for stuff.

StreetlightInTheGhetto: [static.guim.co.uk image 620x372]

I drink my coffee black like everyone should, but the old standard for sweetened coffee wasn't even a full damn cup's worth.

Other than the Yogurt Lobby somehow having pull at the FDA,

/imokaywiththis.jpg

That`s espresso, right? You`re allowed that much espresso?

I am so glad I just eat ketogenic; it comes with built-in 'you need no more food' triggers. I only look at nutrition labels for carbohydrate count anyhow.

/eat fat; get skinny
//fark the 'low fat' and 'whole grains' bullshiat
///down 45 lbs in 5 months - best  blood test results ever.

maram500 : 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.

I get that you're being pedantic here, but really - No, it wasn't.

lets just get this out of the way: pop-tarts are disgusting

gweilo8888: Personally, I think serving sizes should work something like this:

* Any processed, ready-to-eat (or just add water, just heat, whatever) thing sold in an unsealable container: One serving size is the whole container

* Anything else: Set up a Nielsen-style survey of people's eating habits over say ~1,000 households. Record how much is eaten of any given item per person, per day. Average the results, hey presto -- there is your serving size. Rinse and repeat annually based on the previous year's results. Not enough data for a given food? Use the serving size of the closest food in the database, nutritionally speaking.

* Restaurant food: Nutrition info isn't calculated from your specially hand-prepared item made specifically for testing. Ten samples are chosen randomly and anonymously (samples are taken from random branches of your restaurant chain and ordered as if you are a normal member of the public), then the results averaged.

* No rounding down of any bad-for-you figures (eg. 0.478g of fat is 0.5g or 1g, not 0g)

* No rounding up of any good-for-you figures (eg. 0.27g of fiber is not 0.5g or 1g, it is 0.2g or 0g)

* No bundling of ingredients (it's not "spices" or "flavorings", it is the actual names of the items you put in there)

* No beautifying / rebranding of ingredient names where they are not significantly nutritionally different from existing ingredients (it's not "Valencia oranges", it's "oranges"; it's not "Chilean sea bass", it's "Patagonian toothfish".)

* No using misleading terminology (eg: It's not 98% fat-free, it's 2% fat.)

* No using misleading references (eg. if your product wouldn't ordinarily contain fat, no labeling your product "a fat-free food" -- we all know that soda is fat-free and lard is sugar-free, thanks very much.)

* No misleading product photography (ads must show the actual foodstuff in question, it must be taken as a random, anonymous sample from actual production, and it may not be "dressed / styled" or the photo retouched locally. (eg. you see the poorly-assembled abortion McDonalds actually sells you, not the puffy, fluffy, colorful and juicy-looking fake creation you see now.)

Pros:
- You'd have realistic serving sizes for the first time ever.
- As serving sizes change over time, so would the nutritional info, reflecting current behavior
- Level playing field for manufacturers

Cons (from the manufacturer's perspective):
- Expensive survey (but adding just one cent to the cost of each processed food item sold would cover this many, many times over)
- Cost of changing packaging (but in our computerized, digital world, realistically this could be set to update automatically.
- Sales of many processed foods would tank once misleading claims were removed and people could see the truth about what they were eating
- It will never happen, ever.

/this is all a pipe dream

Id be OK with this.

Yeah they need to fix that stuff, all around. How the hell am I supposed to eat 47 servings of vegetables a day? Oh, a serving is 4 peas, I see.

Shazam999: busy chillin': Activity level has to come into this some where. I knew a body builder guy that ate 9 meals a day and needed something like 12,000* calories a day to fuel his metabolism.

Exercise.

*talkin' out of ass, but I remember being floored by the number he said. I guess I could google it...nope don't care.

Exercise is overrated. A 5K run for me amounts to about 500 calories used.  For the average person it's not enough to counteract the 3000-4000 calories they're eating daily.

/ Thank you girl with the nice tits that tried to keep up with me yesterday night.

Exercise also raises the basal metabolic rate, so you burn a lot more calories than from just the exercise itself.  Pro athletes burn a ridiculous amount of calories because of this.  Muscle mass (especially fast twitch) will burn a lot of calories simply by being there.

DubtodaIll: I was told when I was in grade school that a 1 serving is about the size of a deck of cards.

That's actually useful.

vodka: lets just get this out of the way: pop-tarts are disgusting

Shut you dam mouth, you anti-tart.

Here's a radical solution to the nutrition labeling problem:  stop eating stuff that requires nutrition labeling.

Seriously, our obesity problems stem from people putting a higher priority on their time than on their health.

WelldeadLink: Bareefer Obonghit: Bagle? I assume you meant Beagle. And yes I will; this is a stupendous Chinese restaurant. Good day.

[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 280x210]

Why has Snoopy been fatally flattened by a giant turd?

Also: who could eat anything made to look like Snoopy?  I couldn't even cut into it.

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]

"Juvenile" Diabetes refers to Type I Diabetes. That's the kind kids get (like I myself did) when a random auto-immune fluke causes the cells in the pancreas to produce insulin to be destroyed.

It has absolute nothing to do with the obesity-related, overeating-induced, Type II Diabetes, which is where you develop insulin resistance from doing things like guzzling a gallon of sugary soda.

As a Type I Diabetic, the conflation of these two is a perpetual annoyance. I've had more than one person state or imply something to the effect that it's my fault for having diabetes, when this person has no understanding of the difference between Type I and Type II.

There's no reason my disease, which totally strikes at random and without any lifestyle factors, should get a bad reputation or lose out on funding because of the lard-asses who brought it on themselves.

Y'ᗩᒪᒪ ᔕOᑌᑎᗪ ᖴᗩT.

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.