▲ 437 ▼ I'm a monster (thelemmy.club) submitted 1 week ago by The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world [M] to c/memes@lemmy.world 107 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Codpiece@feddit.uk 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child) That’s a European serving. The rest of the jar is one Texan serving. permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 14 points 1 week ago (2 children) we don't even list serving sizes on our stuff, just nutrients per 100g so you can count it yourself permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (3 children) I used to think this was a bad idea because while objective numbers are great, it can be difficult to apply it to real life. But then manufacturers play games with serving size so it’s no more realistic than a flat 100g, so I’ll pick the more honest choice permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 4 points 1 week ago 100g maps directly to percentages. 3.5g sugar per serving, 1 serving is ⅓ cup -> ??% sugar per unit weight. 9g sugar per 100g -> 9% per unit weight. makes it possible to actually calculate nutrient intake in your head. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Schmeckinger@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 child) In Germany the nutrients per 100g are mandatory, but most of the time there is nutrients per serving on there too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago A nutrition label useful for both comparison and meal planning? What will they think of next? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Manjushri@piefed.social 2 points 1 week ago I used to think this was a bad idea because while objective numbers are great, it can be difficult to apply it to real life. If you aren't going to measure how much you're eating, then neither form of label matters. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Codpiece@feddit.uk 1 point 1 week ago I know, I was making a reference to how ridiculously large American portion sizes are. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lime@feddit.nu 14 points 1 week ago (2 children) we don't even list serving sizes on our stuff, just nutrients per 100g so you can count it yourself permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (3 children) I used to think this was a bad idea because while objective numbers are great, it can be difficult to apply it to real life. But then manufacturers play games with serving size so it’s no more realistic than a flat 100g, so I’ll pick the more honest choice permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 4 points 1 week ago 100g maps directly to percentages. 3.5g sugar per serving, 1 serving is ⅓ cup -> ??% sugar per unit weight. 9g sugar per 100g -> 9% per unit weight. makes it possible to actually calculate nutrient intake in your head. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Schmeckinger@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 child) In Germany the nutrients per 100g are mandatory, but most of the time there is nutrients per serving on there too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago A nutrition label useful for both comparison and meal planning? What will they think of next? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Manjushri@piefed.social 2 points 1 week ago I used to think this was a bad idea because while objective numbers are great, it can be difficult to apply it to real life. If you aren't going to measure how much you're eating, then neither form of label matters. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Codpiece@feddit.uk 1 point 1 week ago I know, I was making a reference to how ridiculously large American portion sizes are. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (3 children) I used to think this was a bad idea because while objective numbers are great, it can be difficult to apply it to real life. But then manufacturers play games with serving size so it’s no more realistic than a flat 100g, so I’ll pick the more honest choice permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 4 points 1 week ago 100g maps directly to percentages. 3.5g sugar per serving, 1 serving is ⅓ cup -> ??% sugar per unit weight. 9g sugar per 100g -> 9% per unit weight. makes it possible to actually calculate nutrient intake in your head. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Schmeckinger@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 child) In Germany the nutrients per 100g are mandatory, but most of the time there is nutrients per serving on there too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago A nutrition label useful for both comparison and meal planning? What will they think of next? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Manjushri@piefed.social 2 points 1 week ago I used to think this was a bad idea because while objective numbers are great, it can be difficult to apply it to real life. If you aren't going to measure how much you're eating, then neither form of label matters. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lime@feddit.nu 4 points 1 week ago 100g maps directly to percentages. 3.5g sugar per serving, 1 serving is ⅓ cup -> ??% sugar per unit weight. 9g sugar per 100g -> 9% per unit weight. makes it possible to actually calculate nutrient intake in your head. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Schmeckinger@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 child) In Germany the nutrients per 100g are mandatory, but most of the time there is nutrients per serving on there too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago A nutrition label useful for both comparison and meal planning? What will they think of next? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago A nutrition label useful for both comparison and meal planning? What will they think of next? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Manjushri@piefed.social 2 points 1 week ago I used to think this was a bad idea because while objective numbers are great, it can be difficult to apply it to real life. If you aren't going to measure how much you're eating, then neither form of label matters. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Codpiece@feddit.uk 1 point 1 week ago I know, I was making a reference to how ridiculously large American portion sizes are. permalink fedilink source parent
