>serves 2-3
who do they think they're kidding?
thats the biggest hamster I have ever seen
also I firmly believe portion sizes are determined based on the calorie requirements of people that do absolutely zero voluntary exercise
>>7251626
Who has time to exercise these days?
>>7251634
smart people
if you're day is so jammed packed that you can't exercise then you need to consider why you are wasting so much of your time
>>7251611
It serves 2-3 if you actually eat normal people portions and not the gigantic portions you americans are used to.
>>7251953
>105 calories serves 2-3 people outside of America.
Do you mean those living in poverty?
>>7251961
normal people eat balanced meals that don't consist of 1 thing
you're not supposed to eat 2000 calories in 1 sitting
>>7251953
>this post was brought to you by
>shitposting Americans
>or
>shitposting Australians
>>7251973
Australians only tell the truth. If that's shitposting to you, so be it. Enjoy your society of eternal deception.
>>7251953
that eternal yuropoor obsession
>>7251651
you must be a history major
>>7251634
>Who has time to exercise these days?
If you have time to browse 4chan you have time to exercise.
I know, my wife and I split half a portion and still have leftovers :(
The reason serving sizes are so small is because you're not supposed to make a meal out of one or two things. You take a serving of a bunch of different foods and make a meal with some variety, not eat a whole bag of a chips by itself
I love how American labelling is openly dishonest.
See, there's no standardisation as to what a "serving" in the US actually is and can therefore mean anything the manufacturer would like it to mean.
As such, many "sugar free!!!" sweets here list sugar as one of the top, if not the very top, ingredients. Yet, because anything under a half gram "per serving" is considered 0 by USican labeling laws, the "nutrition facts," (a name which is incredibly dubious) can legally state "sugar, 0g!!!"
For example, because a single Tic-Tac is considered "a serving," and each Tic-Tac weighs only 0,4g, Perfetti, the company which manufacture them, is allowed to slap "Sugar free!!!" onto their "nutrition facts" (lol) despite the ingredients label very clearly stating that it does indeed contain sugar.
Pretty sneaky, sis.
You really ought to do as we do in the rest of the goddamned world: give the nutrition information per 100g of product and let the consumer decide what a fucking serving is. But no: that would hardly be prudent, right?
>>7252105
They say what a serving is on the box...
>>7252105
>yuropoors this fucking bent
>2016
your tears sustain me.
Why are labels like "made with REAL cheese" or "made with REAL milk" or "REAL mayonnaise" so attractive in American markets?
Are there so many "unreal" products that real ingredients are a unique selling point?
Buy a can of soup:
"2 servings"
16 oz can of soda:
"2 servings"
Packaged sandwich, 3 wedges:
"2 servings"
>>7252130
But they then define what a serving is by either ounces or pieces or what have you.
See me making stupid claims about your food label bullshit? No, because I'm not informed enough and it'd be stupid of me to try. Take a second and think about whether this post was a good post or a bad one. Then you can feel free to apologize for making me type this shit out.
>>7251651
A 6 hour commute. My life is hell.
>>7252129
Sadly, yes
>>7252117
You miss the point more than Shaq with a free throw.
>>7252127
A serving size of 0,000002g of tears has 0g of salt per serving, so enjoy this salt free food!
>"how can it be salt free when it tastes so salty?"
The label says it's salt free and we can't print falsehoods on labels, right? So it must be salt free!
>"but according to this, tears are made primarily of salt..."
Despite what it's made of, there are 0g of salt per serving of tears, so it's salt free!!!
>"isn't that a tad disingenuous?"
That's the point! Now enjoy your salt-free food!
My Tic Tacs say serving size: 2
>>7252236
Are they the sugar-free ones?
>>7251953
this.
when i went to new york, i ate at some restaurant that had calories marked in the menu and holy fuck those were high. iirc the highest was around 2,7k calories and the lowest around 1,4k and add your drink to that which went as high as like 400 or something like that. that shit was ridiculous. hell, even appetizers were ridiculously big and could have been eaten as the main course.
also i'm like average size and i had 0 chance in finishing those mains
>>7252129
you have no idea
we are up to our necks in "cheese foods" and "artificial flavors"
our gubment sold our souls long ago for big business
>>7251611
Crazy
A banana & a cup of coffee are my daily work week breakfast
