For portion control, look to the container
 

For portion control, look to the container

This is BS. When the fast food joint I frequent increased the size of their largest meal I just ordered the next size down & when I am full I stop eating, even when I am not done with the sandwich or onion rings.
If someone eats a larger sandwich or drinks a larger drink it is because they wanted a larger sandwich or drink. They ordered it because it was available, that is all.
This is just more "people are not responsible for their actions so we lawyers and psychiatrists can make as much jack as everyone can pay".

They ordered it because they didn't bother to think about what they were doing. "For only 29 cents more, you can get twice the food. Do you want that?" Most people will say yes, because it's a better value, not because they are hungry. Then they are dismayed they are getting fat.

I didn't read the article, I admit, so I can't comment on what it says. But the portions at American fast food chains are so large, and the food so unhealthy, that we are raising a country of whales. The health care costs are going up for everyone as a result. As someone who doesn't typically eat at fast food joints, I'd like it if others would eat sensibly and not raise my health insurance premiums.

So they ordered the larger portion, no one forces "them" to eat it all... one does so because they want to.
Placing the/any blame on the restaurant is just stupid.

Its funny, with all the driving I've been doing I've eaten McD's quite often lately. I've been eating the salads. Talk about huge! They are good though and being enormous they might just wean a few folks off the Mc artery clogger. I hope it isn't too late for Americans to start taking responsibility for themselves because when the Feds do it for us, we will get Katrina-ed.

Exactly. The blame lies with parents who made their kids finish everything in front of them.

AMEN brother.

I don't go to McDonalds for healthy eating, even if they do serve nice, crisp, tasty salads. And actually eating the recommended portion size on a food container? Who here drinks half a soda?

If the notion is externally motivated portion control, then more things should come in single serving packets.

I often drink half a soda. I don't think my wife has ever finished a full soda.
By the same token, if one does not want a large soda... don't order one, duh!

As is anyone who disagrees with you. Right?

The restaurant is pushing this pricing scheme because they make money on it. They don't do it for the benefit or well being of their customers. In fact, they have market research that tells them that the customers will almost always fall for it. They also have the nutritional information that tells them that what they are selling their customers is bad for their customers. They know what they are doing, and they are doing it for a profit. I think they share some of the blame.

To be clear, the customers share the lions portion of the blame for not thinking about what they are ordering.

But should you be allowed to legally force them to stop doing it?

Edit: I don't mean you you, glatt, just society/government in general.

Disagree with me all you like.
I know there are many who feel that people are not responsible for their actions. If you are one of them, fine, enable away.
I makes no sense to me.
If you take an action, you had to have thought of it before doing it, unless you are insane.
If you eat at a fast food restaurant, you do so because that is where you want to eat, instead of somewhere more healthy.
If you order a larger sized meal, it is because you want to instead of a smaller one.
If you eat all the sandwich, it is because you wanted to finish it instead of stopping when you were half done.
It ain't hard.

Good question. Probably not.

At Burger King, before I stopped eating meat, I wouldn't get the 8-piece chicken, I would get the five-piece. Four of them. And king fries.

Larger portion size =/= people eating more.

People liking/wanting more food = people eating more.

Wrong, larger portion could mean some is left or the smaller portion is ordered in it's stead.
Where are we getting that because they offer larger portions people are forced to order them instead of the smaller ones and if they do that they are forced to finish them?
It is illogical.
The second statement is accurate, if they want more, they will eat more, that has nothing to do with the restaurant, they will find one that serves what they want.

Edit: Sorry, you were agreeing with me... I did not get the first symbol as meaning that it did not equal eating more. Thanks.

So you think it should be legal to be a drug dealer, because the drug problem is 100% the fault of the users, and the sellers share no blame?

What kind of drug are you talking about?

Heroin. Crack. Crystal Meth. You name it.

No, those are controlled substances... medications if you like, and highly addictive and poisonous unless monitored by a Dr. Unless the person taking them is a Dr. by self prescription.
It is not the same thing at all... I don't think a Big Mac can be compared to those substances.
However, I do feel that marijuana should be completely legal, yes.
I also feel that gun, rope, dynamite & knife use is 100% of the users fault and not the manufacturer's.

But those substances are not addictive unless you try them first. Surely, that first try is the choice of the user, and the dealer shouldn't be blamed even a little bit if a user makes a decision to head down that road of certain drug abuse.

One has to try food.
Back to food and off of your high-jack... there is far more food, fattier food, at the grocery store, in MUCH larger quantities than the fast food joint & they can buy all they want!!!
Talk about immoral!, right?
Are they not much worse than the fast food joints then?
Should we not be far more concerned at the lack of regulation of the grocery store?

Nonononono, you misunderstand, the '=/=' is a 'not equal to', I was agreeing with you

...i think?

Sorry, I misunderstood... been a while since I took a math class.

My high-jack, as you call it, is to point out that your extreme black and white viewpoint of the issue is ridiculous.

You think the customers are 100% to blame, because they make the decision to supersize. The extra food is harmful (somewhat) to the customer, and the seller knows this but does a hard sell anyway. A drug dealer selling to a first time buyer is in exactly the same situation (except the drugs are more harmful.) The first time buyer isn't addicted yet, so any choice they make is not influenced by addiction. Does the drug dealer share any blame for the drug sale? Or is the buyer 100% to blame?

You are saying someone becomes addicted to larger portions of food, that they then cannot help themselves but to eat larger quantities once they have eaten a larger burger and fries? Good lord.
Apples and oranges.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...bs/hijackb.jpg

Sigh.

No. I didn't say that.

I'm wasting my time here.

I was asking... did you not see the question mark?
You were not comparing the larger portions to addictive drugs?

Glatt, I see where you're coming from, but I disagree, because I think that people eating massive burgers and drinking milkshakes COULD order a salad and a Hi-C instead. The option is given. In fact, the person could go to a different restaurant if they didn't want to be tempted with unhealthy food. A drug dealer, however, doesnt sell drugs and healthy alternatives, and it's a lot harder to kick a meth addiction than to order a medium fries instead of king. You just can't blame McDonalds that people LIKE their unhealthy-but-legal and non-hazardous gray meat (sorry, bleached-to-be-white) nuggets and nasty burgers. Meth can kill you, used as intended by the seller. McNuggets, while foul (fowl, heehee), can't.

Exactly, when I go there, my wife likes it, I get a grilled chicken sandwich, no mayo, with regular drink (often a bottled water), no fries and a salad.
Choice. I am overweight, because I choose to be, I eat too much. It is very hard for me to lose weight because I am on hormone therapy Very hard, but not impossible, if I wanted to lose the weight badly enough, guess what? I would.
I have no one to blame but myself.
If I wanted the fattier food more than I wanted to maintain my current weight, I would be more fat. Simple.

I'm bone-thin (thank you, young metabolism), but I eat so much that the moment my metabolism gives out I'm going to baloon.

And you know what? I won't be able to blame anyone but myself, because I LIKE eating! I'd rather be fat and eat however much I want of what I want than thin and starving myself. It's not Burger King's fault I love their fries so much; In fact, I thank them for it. It's not Ben and Jerry's fault their ice cream is delicious; I thank them for it.

I will totally admit that if I grab a bag of cheetos or goldfish or something, I will almost always end up finishing the bag, even if I only wanted a couple handfuls. But that isn't THEIR fault; I could have grabbed a single-serving bag instead of the six-pound Costco bag. I can't blame them for my love of food and lack of self-control.

I think there is some deliberate obfuscation in manufacturer's packaging that makes it harder to determine what you are eating/drinking.

Say I look at a bottle of SoBe and it says, 120 calories, 31 sugars and 32 carbs. Oh! Thats not too bad, I think I'll drink it. But in smaller print it says '"servings per container - 2.5". :eek: So, if I drink the whole thing (20 fl oz), I'm taking in 300 calories, 77.5 sugars and 80 carbs. Now your 'healthy' drink isn't looking nearly as good. Another tricky one is something like Rice A Roni...lets use Cajun Chicken as an example. It says, Calories 180, Fat .05g, Sodium 1010mg , and 6g of Protein. Then you look a little closer and realize it says in tiny letters, "As packaged". Like anyone would eat it dry, from the box!! A wee asterisk directs you to the bottom of the box where it says, "When Prepared as Directed - Calories 250, Fat 8g (!!), Sodium 40g, and 6g of Protein. Much, much different.

I use the deck of cards/tennis ball method of measuring portions. 1 serving of meat should equal the size of a deck of cards and pasta's and other carbs should be the size of a tennis ball. I simply stay away from fast food...If I wish to indulge, I'll go to a nice, well rounded buffet where I can pick and choose my sins.

Stormie

Are the number of servings not at the top of the label, above the rest of the contents?
I believe so.
I also agree that one must read the entire label with things that must be cooked and some have two parts. They can be confusing, at first glance, but when you read the whole thing it is always clear... as long as you read it all and not just skim it.
Again, in the hands of the consumer... all depends on what one wants to do.

Good information given by all of you.

Sure, but when you buy a package containing 6 cookies, and the label says one portion/serving is four cookies, they are obviously being deceptive. Just trying to make the first glance numbers look better.:mad:

I try to be a man of science, so hard numbers like the "Nutrition Facts" panel are always on my side.

The problem I have is that I also tend to cook and bake a lot of my own stuff. Going off and working out the math from the information given on all of the ingredients and then figuring out what a proper serving is becomes a total hassle. Here's a simple one: frozen chicken thighs. (hey, they're dirt cheap, and it's almost impossible to overcook dark meat). So there's information on the bag as to what the chicken does/doesn't provide. In the simplest case, I'll take 'em frozen, add a little salt and pepper, maybe a little worcestershire sauce, and bake 'em as is. When all is said and done, there's a pretty substantial amount of fat and oils and other stuffs that's been rendered out at the end. I'd presume the mandatory labelling can't account for every preparatory method, so I've always assumed those numbers to meant uncooked. As packaged. Whatever.

The long and short of it is that yes, I could do all sorts of measurements and seriously micromanage my diet. Work out the math when I take some of the leftover chicken and make a chicken salad sandwich later. Being all self-righteously scientific, I actually feel guilty that I never perform such discipline.

I'd much rather stick to some basic rules of thumb (such as the previously mentioned "meat serving about the size of a deck of cards", etc.) I still read package labels, but I'm not religious about it (note that a 16oz bottle of water lists the servings per container as "two")

Having read through the thread, it sounds like most people here have a decent understanding of nutrition. I'm sure there's not a one of us that couldn't eat a little better or exercise a little more.

In fact, the only thing I can advise to anyone is to try to fold some frugality in with their consumption. Ok, so the 1.5 serving cookie "snack pack" is a little ridiculous, but have a couple now and then fold over the wrapper and stick a paper clip on it. Have the others the next day. Most of that sort of thing is so chock-full of preservatives that it's not like they'll be inedible just because you broke the seal 24 hours ago. It's neither wasteful nor indulgent. One of the tricks I've been using is to wash out every resealable container I get, and use those to portion stuff. An empty "single serving" yogurt container is pretty good at splitting up the average can of condensed soup. It looks a little cheap, but shit, if I'm ever being judged on the quality of my tupperware, fuck it.

Bonus: If anyone can figure out what my point was, let me know. I think I'm rambling.

-dis

How is it deceptive if the information is there, in the same place it is on ever other label?

He didn't say it was a lie.

I know what he said and I responded accordingly with my question.
How did you read "lie" into that?
So, if you buy an uncut pie is that an "implied" single portion? People need to learn some accountability.

Ack. I shudder just thinking about having to teach people enough math to wrangle the same-size portion out of any uncut pie.

It's not like it's hard to explain to people how to eyeball a certain angle (as opposed to having them reach for a protractor each time), but as most store-bought pies come in similar plastic cases, maybe it would be easier for them to screen print a template on the lid for "suggested serving size".

At the very least, it would let people see what sort of wedge they should slice out to be in compliance with the label. How they act upon it beyond that? Their problem.

-dis

Well, you implied that something can't be deceptive if the information is there. Something can't be a lie if the information is there, but it certainly can be deceptive.

If the information is clearly stated in a form that is easy to understand... I just don't see how.

Do you really think that because someone may be off by 1/2 a serving of a cookie pack from time-to-time, they will be overweight and there is no other reason?
Come on dude? Really. That is the worst case of enabling I have ever read. If it is on there clearly, in English, they know. We know anyway, seriously. I'm overweight and have to watch everything I eat for many reasons... I look at the label and don't need a trig calculator. They are clear.
You made a couple, but the one that I think is most valid to this discussion is that if you get a 1.5 serving cookie pack you KNOW what the ingredients/contents of that package are and how much of it you should, or should not, eat.
It is that simple... so, you are in COMPLETE control of whether you overeat or not.

I do accept that if people overeat, they need to take responsibility for this. Of course they do! But I also know that if I order a "meal" - because it's easy, because it works out cheaper, because I can't be bothered to think - I will eat and drink everything there in front of me.

I find it hard to buy cans in the shops close to my office now. Cans contain 440ml and having drunk them for years I am conditioned to that being a thirst quenching amount. Now the sandwich shops all carry 500ml bottles. I drink it all (and burp all afternoon).

Yes I know I can choose to throw it away. No I'm not stupid. But neither are the fast food or soft drink manufacturers. They know that they can encourage people to eat and drink more when it is against their (the people's) best interest. And they do this for profit.

Why shouldn't they take some responsibility? Why would Burger King put the Enormous Omelet Sandwich on their menu? Because they know there are people out there who don't have enough self control to resist breakfasting on 730 calories and 46gr of fat. The sort of person who would buy that is not the sort of person currently capable of making healthy choices - it's a self fulfilling prophecy.

Don't hold your AA meeting in the back room of a pub. Don't have a cigarette vending machine on a cancer ward. Don't keep increasing portion sizes when your customers are overweight.

You can lay it at their door if you like, but you lift that fork to your mouth, you choose to or not.
The choice is always yours.

Now you're saying something I never said.

Look, people, seriously, rkzenrage is RIGHT. If you eat it, it's YOUR responsibility. The company you buy it from has NO responsibility at ALL to make sure that you eat healthily.

Oh I agree.

But I also think it is a marketing ploy to use wacky product sizes with convoluted portion descriptions. If I am on a diet and want one serving of ABC but they only sell 1.795 serving sized packets, the temptation to eat/drink the entire thing is there. And in some cases, the extra product is not saveable after you eat your 1 serving portion. So you feel guilty for wasting it and eat/drink it anyway. (My mama taught me to eat everything on my plate, a very hard habit to break).

It's as much a marketing ploy as putting snacks by the checkout and impulse items on the end of the isle. Sneaky!

I have learned to stop eating before I'm full, to eat only when I'm really hungry (as opposed to bored), and to carefully consider the portion sizes I intake. I just avoid fast food altogether, they have nothing good for me there :right: Yes, what and how much I eat is my choice, but the manner in which many products are marketed don't always make it easy.

Stormie

How does putting more in a container make more profit for a company? Wouldn't making smaller containers, and charging same price, or changing ounces per serving and thus lowing calories 'per serving' then advertising **now less calories per serving** tend to do that better?

I have never worked for fast food in a restaurant or at corporate level, but I highly doubt that they are thinking, Ooohhh, how can we add calories to this to make people fatter? More likely, they have suppliers who make a size of something based on their machines and so that's what size things are. To change sizes to smaller would mean lots of manufacturing changes, costing $$, as well as redesigning packaging (again costing more $$).

Personally, I don't think companies should be required to take anything out of the marketplace because a few people don't have enough self control. Be it casinos, adult entertainment shops or fast food restaurants.

If there is no demand, or all the consumers eat themselves so fat they can't get off the couch, then they will close on their own. But the fact is, there is enough of us 'normal, average' joes who CAN control ourselves and only partake occasionally of certain 'sins' that frankly I don't want to be deprived of the opportunity if I so desire. Why should you be punished for my lack of ability to self regulate? Or vice versa. :eyebrow:

Places like McDonalds make huge profits on supersizing because the food is so cheap. The biggest cost of your food at McD's is the wage of the workers at the restaurant. They can give you twice the fries for just 39 cents more and still make a huge prifit because you are already there at the franchise using the time of the staff. That overhead wage cost remains constant whether you order a 99 cent burger or a $5 supersized value meal. The only additional cost for the extra supersize portion is the food itself. And it is almost pure profit.

[Deleted part as it was explained better by Glatt]

Do I believe companies are deliberately adding calories to make people fatter? No, I'm not that much of a conspiracy theorist. There is no logical reason for that unless they are run by aliens sent to create easy pickings for their hungry planet.

But I do think that they are acting irresponsibly in not considering the amount of calories and fat in their products, and making it simpler and easier for people to buy large amounts of food/ drink they would not choose if everything were sold separately? Yes I do.

The same criticism has been levelled at pubs & bars in this country that offer special deals on alcohol, especially during limited hours (buy 2 get one free for the next hour, all shots double for the next hour etc) then turf the whole sodden drunken mess out on the streets for the Police to deal with. It's not that alcohol should be banned. It's not that city centre pubs shouldn't be allowed to compete with eachother. It's just that if you give a drunk person a chance to drink more and drink quickly using a special promotion they will take it.

If you offer a fat person a chance of a ready made burger with bacon AND cheese AND another burger in there too and then package it all up with extra large fries and an extra large drink they will take you up on the offer. That's why they're fat in the first place - they haven't learned to modify their eating habits.

No I don't want these places forced to reduce sizes, or the pubs forced to sell smaller measures of beer or spirits. I would just like to see some responsibility in the way it's approached. Let people build their own meals, their own burgers. Offer mix & match so the extra large fries don't automatically come with the biggest burger. Offer 1 soft drink with every 2 alcoholic ones in a bar.

For the record, I'm not trying to palm off responsibility for people being fat onto those who make and sell high fat products. I certainly make my own choices and accept the responsibility fully, and believe other people should too. And other people includes the people behind the promotions. I just like the idea of corporations sitting and shrugging and saying, "Well, no-one's holding a gun to their head!" Kerching!

Around here everything on a 'value meal' menu (combo meal etc.) is also available separately. If you purchased each separately it would just cost you more. Just because you are craving a big mac, you don't have to get fries and a soda. In fact, when my daughter and I go to McD's I usually get the 2 cheesburger/fries/drink (iced tea) regular sized and a chocolate milk OR the chix nuggets/fries/drink (iced tea) regular sized and chocolate milk and split either with my daughter. For the record, the first time I ever gave her nuggets, I peeled off the batter part, since it has 0 nutrients and most of the fat. Now, she won't eat them unless I do this :rolleyes:.

YES, it IS a marketing ploy, and YES, they CAN make more money on it, but THAT IS NOT THEIR PROBLEM. You can't blame them if you fall for it and voluntarily eat their food they sold to you fairly.

Selling what the majority of the people want is not a ploy... it is just smart.
I agree, it is not their fault if people eat too much... like saying it is the fault of a bakery for selling whole cakes... makes NO sense.