you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 21 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That's especially weird with packaged food because it says right on it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    implying people read nutritional labels closely.

    There is nothing more fucking annoying to me than some of the portion size bullshit on packages. Like, when I have a bowl of fruit loops, I'm going to have a bowl, not a tablespoon*. Either give me the whole fucking package worth of calories (which... seriously some people need) or at least be realistic with portion sizes. I know it's an estimate, but I'm pretty sure companies love to make their crap sound better than it is by giving the minimum.

    Edit: * - I call out fruit loops but I haven't actually looked them in a long time now, so my example is not real world. As someone paying attention to this across a lot of different products though, it's been really grinding my gears and I needed to rant. XD

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • I don't know how it is where you are, but here there's always nutritional information per 100g, in addition to the portion sizes. So I always ignore everything but the per 100g, and compare the macronutrient distribution that way

  • source
  • parent