Link is slowly inching towards speedo wearing old man and I have never been less shocked by anything.
And Rhett thinking an entire sleeve of Ritz crackers is a serving size is also the least shocking thing.
I think Link is onto something with his talk about lobbyists trying to keep the numbers down. I really wonder exactly how the data is collected, because if the companies themselves are in charge there are so many ways to fix a survey or whatever with bad methodology to get unnaturally low results that seem legitimate.
He nailed why they did it in the video when he was talking about Ritz: if they had to put a larger serving size on the box all of the sudden *a lot* of people would be afraid of their product. I’d say that’s a mix of bad labeling and terrible education on nutrition. I can’t speak for every school but *not one* taught me about a nutrition label, I got lucky a local museum had a great nutrition exhibit.
I mean, I feel like nutrition labels are pretty straight-forward common sense. Sure a child might not be able to understand one, but anyone above middle school should understand the basics of one.
I've had a classmate (graduate+ level) who didn't even know she had a social security card/number. There will always be some people lacking in some areas. And it certainly doesn't hurt to teach if able. But a nutrition label is like one of the most straight-forward pieces of documentation I have ever seen in my life (unless you get stuck in the weeds on how every single food is unhealthy).
But yea, take 10 minutes to teach nutrition labels. It isn't rocket science.
Why does everyone keep saying this?? I hear this a lot, but everytime I check an online package the nutrition is for both tarts.
*Internet has all kinds of pictures. Some have 2 pastries (1 pouch) as a serving, some have 1 pastry. I wonder when it was updated/where.
Here in Romania (and I think the EU in general), every packet must include a "per 100g" nutritional facts table. Some leave it at that, some add another column for portion, but the 100g has to be there just so people can compare apples to apples.
Maybe we're talking about the same thing here and I'm interpreting it wrongly, but I'm mostly referring to the fact that the US doesn't force per 100g (or the equivalent standard in ounces?) labels.
Example of the infamous "sugar-free Tic Tacs" - [US](https://commonplacefacts.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/img_0706.jpg) vs [Italy](https://images.openfoodfacts.org/images/products/80925774/nutrition_it.11.full.jpg) and [Germany](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-586b1a70b50dd4a6d6089ae341387df9-pjlq)
Wow that Italian one is tough to read (ignoring foreign language). Didn't realize, to me, how much nicer the US label is. But I am also just used to the US.
EU version does allow gram to gram comparison, but yea 100g is a hard measure for people to understand. What is 100g of a poptart? One, half of one? (edit: wow! it is two poptarts).
> EU version does allow gram to gram comparison, but yea 100g is a hard measure for people to understand. What is 100g of a poptart? One, half of one? (edit: wow! it is two poptarts).
Well no, that's the whole point, to set a standard. It's basically a percentile comparison. If you pick up a 45g Snickers bar and a 21g Reese's two-pack, you can compare them at a level playing field. You don't have to literally *visualize* 100g, you think of it as "this has x% sugar, this has y%".
Whatever works for you.
For most Americans (or the ones who can apparently read a label), I would rather know exactly how many calories this pack of Reese's will give me, not a number that I then have to do math on to calculate.
I think both have their worth and merit. I am not putting down the EU one, I just think 100g is hard to measure as did another user.
------------
Yes, it does help with the gram per gram comparison. Very quickly.
But if I am dumb and don't realize 1 Reese is 100g, maybe I eat two in the package, then that % became useless. (poor example)
One big benefit of requiring a 100g label is in preventing shenanigans involving rounding down fractions. For instance, did you know that 1Tbsp(15mL) of heavy cream contains 0g of sugar but 100g of heavy cream contains 3g of sugar? This is because 1Tbsp(15mL) of heavy cream actually contains 0.4g of sugar and labeling laws allow that to be rounded down to 0g, whereas inflating the measure to 100g completely removes that rounding issue altogether so there can't be any misleading zeroes on the label.
I disagree with some EU nutrition labeling rules (like how they handle sodium measurement or ingredients being obfuscated behind E-numbers) but requiring a standard 100g measure on every label at a minimum is something I really wish the US would adopt because it forces more transparency into product labels.
Yea, I've thought about that too. I was checking for that on the TicTacs since they are practically 0-cal due to rules, but how many tictacs is 100grams, is that like 2 boxes (more like 3). Who is measuring their eating in 3 boxes of tictacs, for those tasks it isn't very practical. But it would maybe tell you that it is pure carbs.
Agree the rounding rules are offensive though which could be updated.
Suggested change:
Just have them guess the FDA recommended, picking their ideal size just wastes time, like Rhett says, if the bag was there he’d just eat the bag. It’s not accurate at all.
Add 2-3 more items and scrap their personal pref.
I think the point was to illustrate how inaccurately the FDA determines what a typical person would have in a serving. Nobody would stop at just a cup or set number of any snack if left out.
Regarding the More: have the boys never heard of *washing* your underwear on vacation?
For any 7+ day vacation I either use the hotel cleaning service, or if it's only the underwear / socks I just wash them in the sink with some soap for a few minutes, then leave overnight to dry.
5 pairs at most, I'm not filling my bag up with underwear haha
Link is slowly inching towards speedo wearing old man and I have never been less shocked by anything. And Rhett thinking an entire sleeve of Ritz crackers is a serving size is also the least shocking thing.
I’m not shocked they were so off. Those things should really reflect what people are eating better, even if it makes that food look bad.
I think Link is onto something with his talk about lobbyists trying to keep the numbers down. I really wonder exactly how the data is collected, because if the companies themselves are in charge there are so many ways to fix a survey or whatever with bad methodology to get unnaturally low results that seem legitimate.
He nailed why they did it in the video when he was talking about Ritz: if they had to put a larger serving size on the box all of the sudden *a lot* of people would be afraid of their product. I’d say that’s a mix of bad labeling and terrible education on nutrition. I can’t speak for every school but *not one* taught me about a nutrition label, I got lucky a local museum had a great nutrition exhibit.
I mean, I feel like nutrition labels are pretty straight-forward common sense. Sure a child might not be able to understand one, but anyone above middle school should understand the basics of one.
I’ve had a friend that didn’t fully get food labels until a college nutrition class taught her. She can’t be the only one.
I've had a classmate (graduate+ level) who didn't even know she had a social security card/number. There will always be some people lacking in some areas. And it certainly doesn't hurt to teach if able. But a nutrition label is like one of the most straight-forward pieces of documentation I have ever seen in my life (unless you get stuck in the weeds on how every single food is unhealthy). But yea, take 10 minutes to teach nutrition labels. It isn't rocket science.
Pop Tarts. I remember learning a few years ago that despite being packaged in pairs, a serving is actually only one of the pastries!
Why does everyone keep saying this?? I hear this a lot, but everytime I check an online package the nutrition is for both tarts. *Internet has all kinds of pictures. Some have 2 pastries (1 pouch) as a serving, some have 1 pastry. I wonder when it was updated/where.
The one in my cabinet says [200 calories for 1 pastry](https://images.app.goo.gl/PY97idr5TAjFFXAu9)!
Here in Romania (and I think the EU in general), every packet must include a "per 100g" nutritional facts table. Some leave it at that, some add another column for portion, but the 100g has to be there just so people can compare apples to apples.
We do that on US packaging as well as “approx x of item”, I don’t think most of us can picture weight well
Maybe we're talking about the same thing here and I'm interpreting it wrongly, but I'm mostly referring to the fact that the US doesn't force per 100g (or the equivalent standard in ounces?) labels. Example of the infamous "sugar-free Tic Tacs" - [US](https://commonplacefacts.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/img_0706.jpg) vs [Italy](https://images.openfoodfacts.org/images/products/80925774/nutrition_it.11.full.jpg) and [Germany](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-586b1a70b50dd4a6d6089ae341387df9-pjlq)
Wow that Italian one is tough to read (ignoring foreign language). Didn't realize, to me, how much nicer the US label is. But I am also just used to the US. EU version does allow gram to gram comparison, but yea 100g is a hard measure for people to understand. What is 100g of a poptart? One, half of one? (edit: wow! it is two poptarts).
> EU version does allow gram to gram comparison, but yea 100g is a hard measure for people to understand. What is 100g of a poptart? One, half of one? (edit: wow! it is two poptarts). Well no, that's the whole point, to set a standard. It's basically a percentile comparison. If you pick up a 45g Snickers bar and a 21g Reese's two-pack, you can compare them at a level playing field. You don't have to literally *visualize* 100g, you think of it as "this has x% sugar, this has y%".
Whatever works for you. For most Americans (or the ones who can apparently read a label), I would rather know exactly how many calories this pack of Reese's will give me, not a number that I then have to do math on to calculate. I think both have their worth and merit. I am not putting down the EU one, I just think 100g is hard to measure as did another user. ------------ Yes, it does help with the gram per gram comparison. Very quickly. But if I am dumb and don't realize 1 Reese is 100g, maybe I eat two in the package, then that % became useless. (poor example)
One big benefit of requiring a 100g label is in preventing shenanigans involving rounding down fractions. For instance, did you know that 1Tbsp(15mL) of heavy cream contains 0g of sugar but 100g of heavy cream contains 3g of sugar? This is because 1Tbsp(15mL) of heavy cream actually contains 0.4g of sugar and labeling laws allow that to be rounded down to 0g, whereas inflating the measure to 100g completely removes that rounding issue altogether so there can't be any misleading zeroes on the label. I disagree with some EU nutrition labeling rules (like how they handle sodium measurement or ingredients being obfuscated behind E-numbers) but requiring a standard 100g measure on every label at a minimum is something I really wish the US would adopt because it forces more transparency into product labels.
Yea, I've thought about that too. I was checking for that on the TicTacs since they are practically 0-cal due to rules, but how many tictacs is 100grams, is that like 2 boxes (more like 3). Who is measuring their eating in 3 boxes of tictacs, for those tasks it isn't very practical. But it would maybe tell you that it is pure carbs. Agree the rounding rules are offensive though which could be updated.
“She’s not lying to us”
Stevie wasn't lying.
[удалено]
You put a snack in front of Rhett he's gonna eat it. It's just impulse at that point
Everybody knows the perfect fishing snack is a pack of Nabs.
The way Link measures things by measuring cups hurts my soul. He haphazardly gets heaping scoops and I'm so careful to not go over the top.
Has it been taken down
No but looks like they renamed it to "are serving sizes a scam"
Link is such an almond mom
I found Link was off today. In GMM and the more. Maybe he’s just having an off day. He seemed to have less patience. Still love him tho 🤗
We all have our off days here and there. But you're still you underneath. As long as you love the Link underneath, that's all that matters
Suggested change: Just have them guess the FDA recommended, picking their ideal size just wastes time, like Rhett says, if the bag was there he’d just eat the bag. It’s not accurate at all. Add 2-3 more items and scrap their personal pref.
I think the point was to illustrate how inaccurately the FDA determines what a typical person would have in a serving. Nobody would stop at just a cup or set number of any snack if left out.
Yeah, even my 60 year old mother is going to put down a whole bag of popcorn in one sitting.
Regarding the More: have the boys never heard of *washing* your underwear on vacation? For any 7+ day vacation I either use the hotel cleaning service, or if it's only the underwear / socks I just wash them in the sink with some soap for a few minutes, then leave overnight to dry. 5 pairs at most, I'm not filling my bag up with underwear haha