Do you have adblock enabled?
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 32
    More: Stupid, serving sizes, FDA, nutrition label  
•       •       •

15064 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Feb 2014 at 3:06 PM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-02-28 02:00:30 PM  
8 votes:
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 02:32:54 PM  
5 votes:

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 02:42:42 PM  
4 votes:
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 02:11:25 PM  
4 votes:

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 03:21:18 PM  
3 votes:

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 03:10:26 PM  
3 votes:
What's a bagle?
2014-02-28 04:27:12 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2014-02-28 03:23:04 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:18:02 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:57:35 PM  
2 votes:
What is the new serving size for Internet pedantry?
2014-03-01 12:03:25 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-02-28 04:41:10 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-02-28 04:03:38 PM  
1 votes:
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.
2014-02-28 03:52:38 PM  
1 votes:
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.
2014-02-28 03:51:18 PM  
1 votes:
who really pays attention to this shiat?
2014-02-28 03:44:15 PM  
1 votes:
Man, that was a sad looking bagel.


This is what real bagels look like.

gothamist.com


/Hint: real bagels don't come pre-bagged.
//And you can only get good ones in NY
///Because we have the best jews
2014-02-28 03:39:30 PM  
1 votes:
3.bp.blogspot.com
2014-02-28 03:38:01 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-02-28 03:34:21 PM  
1 votes:
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.
2014-02-28 03:30:56 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-02-28 03:24:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:23:02 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:17:55 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:17:43 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:14:03 PM  
1 votes:
i.huffpost.com

Ain't no socialist FDA gonna tell me what a serving size is!
2014-02-28 03:12:24 PM  
1 votes:
How many calories does a bottle of vodak have in it... the numbers are too damn blurry.
2014-02-28 03:11:14 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:58:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:55:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:48:48 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-02-28 02:42:23 PM  
1 votes:
Where the hell did they find Bartle's and James wine coolers at?
2014-02-28 02:18:05 PM  
1 votes:

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?
 
Displayed 32 of 32 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  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.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report