Per Serving - Was: Re: Traditiona weight loss groups losing people ......

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Does anyone here believe the 'per serving' unit of measurement really

means anything?

Is there an objective (and practically meaningful) definition of what

constitutes a 'serving' of various foods?

My impression, perhaps mistaken, is that it is simply a marketing

device used by food manufacturers. By adjusting their serving size

to suit their purposes, they can try to make it appear their food is

healthier than it really is. Specifically, by exaggerating the

serving size if they hope to convince you it has more nutrients than

it really has, or by minimizing the serving size if they hope to

convince you it has fewer calories than it really has.

No serving size I have ever seen has represented the amount I would

serve myself when eating the item. (And I have never been

materially 'over weight' by conventional measures).

Since we cannot eat unlimited calories, and within our calorie

allowance we should try to maximize our micronutrient intake, it

seems to me that the only useful measure is 'per 100 calories'. (Or,

if you prefer, per calorie. Or in my opinion better, per 1700

calories, or whatever number of calories you are currently aiming to

eat). The latter helps because you can much more easily relate the

item's nutrient content to the RDAs for the various nutrients - which

is a lot more difficult if you are looking at data per calorie, and

cannot do at all if you are looking at data per some entirely

arbitrary 'serving size' manipulated by the marketing department.

Rodney.

> True- compared to avocado, my listed vegetables are 'higher' carb-

but per

> serving, the total carb load (GL) is quite low for these compared

with most

> other available foods. And the nutrient/calorie ratio is quite

high, with

> abundant fiber.

[Guest guest]

On the can, it means the size has been selected to be less than 300 mg sodium, but in the medical world a serving is about 3 oz of solid foods. SR16 denotes serving sizes. A "glass" of milk is <8 oz. A serving of orange juice is ~<6 oz (that's because no one can drink the frozen concentrate stuff). A 4 oz apple. It's about what you can put in your hand (ha).

It's about what you can eat in a day divided by 3. Like if you can actually eat 9 oz of spinach then 3 oz per serving.

But even the traditional "cup" has variances - do we mean cup volume of cup weight (8 oz)? I use cupv and cupw and it's an 8 fluid oz cup. My coffee pot holds 32 oz at he 6 cup level. In fact my 12 cup pot holds exactly the same as my 10 cup pot.

Notice SR16 uses "fluid" oz when converting to grams. 29.xx instead of 28.35 gms per oz.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Rodney

Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 6:51 AM

Subject: [ ] "Per Serving" - Was: Re: Traditiona weight loss groups losing people ......

Hi folks:Does anyone here believe the 'per serving' unit of measurement really means anything? Is there an objective (and practically meaningful) definition of what constitutes a 'serving' of various foods?My impression, perhaps mistaken, is that it is simply a marketing device used by food manufacturers. By adjusting their serving size to suit their purposes, they can try to make it appear their food is healthier than it really is. Specifically, by exaggerating the serving size if they hope to convince you it has more nutrients than it really has, or by minimizing the serving size if they hope to convince you it has fewer calories than it really has.No serving size I have ever seen has represented the amount I would serve myself when eating the item. (And I have never been materially 'over weight' by conventional measures).Since we cannot eat unlimited calories, and within our calorie allowance we should try to maximize our micronutrient intake, it seems to me that the only useful measure is 'per 100 calories'. (Or, if you prefer, per calorie. Or in my opinion better, per 1700 calories, or whatever number of calories you are currently aiming to eat). The latter helps because you can much more easily relate the item's nutrient content to the RDAs for the various nutrients - which is a lot more difficult if you are looking at data per calorie, and cannot do at all if you are looking at data per some entirely arbitrary 'serving size' manipulated by the marketing department. Rodney.