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

[Guest guest]

Hi JW:

My impression is that the official definition of 'cup' is 236.6 mls.

Many cook books round that to 250 mls.

I notice that my Pyrex measuring 'cup', which has mls on one side and

cups on the other, does seem to show a cup to be appreciably less

than 250 mls. About, by eye, 237 mls.

Rodney.

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...>

wrote:

> 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.