Serving Size Surprise
Mon at 14:49pm on Mar 8th, 2010
I am excellent at calorie estimation. It's quite ridiculous actually. If you ask me how many calories are in a meal, or single food, or anything, I'm generally only off by about 10 calories. And what is 10 calories? A french fry. I'm usually only off by a single french fry.
This "talent" of mine is actually just likely from years and years of pouring over nutrition labels. Unfortunately, most people don't study labels so closely. They may glance at the calories and fat content, but what they most likely fail to notice is the serving size.
For instance, the other day my sister texted me what she had for breakfast and asked me to analyze it. One of the things she had for breakfast was a bottle of chocolate milk. That bottle of chocolate milk alone probably has about 400 calories, sissy dearest, I told her. No, only 200, she said. 200? How could I be 200 calories off?! My guess was, I wasn't. It's probably 200 calories per serving, sissy dearest, I told her, and there's probably 2 servings in the bottle. Her response? Oh, yeah.
Many Americans make the same error. In attempt to tame obesity rates, an article in the NY Times says that "the F.D.A. is now looking at bringing serving sizes for foods like chips, cookies, breakfast cereals and ice cream into line with how Americans really eat."
Along with altering the serving sizes to match what Americans are actually eating, the FDA also plans to encourage manufacturers to list nutrition information on the front of the package. Well, I guess some people need the contents of what they are eating to stare them in the face. We can't all be as talented in estimating as me, I suppose. Joke. Nonetheless, when you see the numbers on nutrition labels double or triple in the near future, know that it's probably close to what you were eating before anyway. After all, how many of us can say that we measure out a cup of cereal or weigh out 3 ounces of chicken? Until then, I suggest you check your serving sizes. It could save you from eating double what you mean to.





Comments
Who's on your copy desk?
Ahem. "Poring over." Not "pouring." Unless you are made of liquid. Which I guess is possible, but probably not. Because then all of those labels would get wet.
Is there really a point to
Is there really a point to this article, other than to gloat about your ineffectual "talent"? Literally, that's all I'm getting from this other than the portion dilemma that virtually the ENTIRE United States is already aware of. People don't care. If they haven't cared yet, they still won't, even after your utterly rousing (Joke) and arrogant article. None of this is original nor thought provoking.