http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/health/fda-nutrition-labels.html
Thoughts?
>But the sugar industry did not relent in its criticism. The Sugar Association said it was “disappointed” by the F.D.A.’s decision to require a separate line for added sugars. It argued that the rule lacked “scientific justification.”
The association said, “We are concerned that the ruling sets a dangerous precedent that is not grounded in science, and could actually deter us from our shared goal of a healthier America.”
>sugar association
I don't see any problems with any of this
Breddy good thanks Mrs. First Lady Chimp
>>37247380
finally exposed
>>37247380
S A V A G E
A A
V V
A A
G G
E E
This is a pretty huge deal. Sadly it'll get credited to the next administration because of how many years it will take to implement.
>daily value is still a thing
>>37247252
Love it
>>37247380
The sugar industry is fucked up
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/big-sugar-takes-on-the-world-health-organization/
>>37247252
excellent idea.
Its just too bad that 9 out of 10 people have no idea how to read nutrition labels and 8 of those 9 just don't care.
>>37247252
>>37247252
>>37247252
>>37247252
REMINDER: MICHAEL OBAMA IS A MAN AND HAD JOAN RIVERS KILLED FOR OUTING HIM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvuulZPbfBg
>37g of carb
>thats only 13% of daily value
the fuck? do they recommend 400g of carb a day?
>>37247434
They're good guidelines
>>37247421
It doesn't matter who gets the credit as long as it gets done. Now if we could only get nutrition taught in schools. As well as getting PE back.
>>37247486
Yeah. How much do you eat? 400g carbs is 1200 calories.
>>37247504
1600 calories, moran.
This isn't that big a deal is it? Unless you're blind.
They've simply made the calorie amount a bigger font, unless I'm missing something.
Wish UK food labels were standardised like this, but with Myfitnesspal it doesn't really matter.
>>37247486
300 grams of carbs for a 2000 calories diet with 25 grams being fiber is the general guideline
>>37247499
>Now if we could only get nutrition taught in schools
You seriously don't get any kind of basic nutrition taught throughout 12 years of basic education in murica?
>>37247486
If 37g is 13%, 284g is 100%
284g = 1136 calories
>>37247516
They have to include how much added sugar there is now too
Sugar is a big boogeyman so that should make people pay attention a bit more
>>37247525
300 carbs for any diet for someone trying to lose weight is to much
>people wonder why they can lose weight
thank you based obamas
>>37247516
They also removed the listing of calories from fat (since we now know that not all fat is inherently bad) and added a section for added sugar, which I'm surprised diabetics weren't pushing for a long time ago, and I think that's a plus.
>>37247537
It isn't meant for people trying to lose weight
The daily values are meant for an average moderately active normal adult to maintain basic health
>>37247516
Just from the pic it looks like they're making cups/tspn/tbspn on the label. Measurements more Americans will be familiar with. Only a select population of Americans know how much a gram is, druggies and scientists.
>>37247550
but most people are overweight
>>37247481
Here you go, sir: >>>/pol/
>>37247537
Why?
That's cool but you know that most people still won't read the label anyway
>>37247566
>He said a shortcoming of the new rules was that companies could still express sugar in grams, not in teaspoons.
Looks like I was wrong after reading the article. Whatever, by the time they get to changing it again, Amerifats will probably be more familiar w grams.
>>37247588
carbs breakdown to easily
>>37247580
Sucks to be them
If it makes you feel any better it says on the label that you calorie needs can be more or less
The daily value takes 2000 calories cause it's simpler I guess
>>37247543
>diabetics
The American Diabetes Association still advocates people buying low-fat products, which usually contain more added sugars.
I was most pissed they flaunted their 119 Pulitzers in my face when I went to read the link
> Look how good we used to be!
>>37247604
What do you mean?
>>37247588
Le carbs are bad meme
>>37247419
> AAVAGE
>>37247529
It's never really addressed as a whole. Bits and pieces here and there but not anything that draws it all together. Hell, pizza is a "vegetable" here to meet the government guide lines.
>>37247550
The average American is overweight though. Really theses guidelines should take that into account. Around 70% of adults in America are obese or overweight.
>>37247252
im happy that they show added sugars on the food label
>>37247649
These guidelines aren't updated every year you know, it wouldn't be feasible to do so
They started in the 90s
People weren't this fat then
>>37247649
It's addressed as a note that the Daily Values are measured on a standard 2k kcal diet.
You can't adjust the labels based on each individual's TDEE, one should be able to understand that these values may not apply to their case.
>>37247663
>They started in the 90s
Right...
Isn't the entire point that this is all outdated data that needs to be changed.
And trust me it'll take a lot longer than a year to knock that 70% statistic down to more reasonable levels. I feel America would benefit from having daily guidelines reflect that statistically speaking the average person needs to be on a diet. At least for the next decade or so.
>>37247708
>Isn't the entire point that this is all outdated data that needs to be changed
No
The point is to make it easier to understand and make people less clueless about nutrition amd what they're putting in their bodies
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I WORKED SO HARD TO FIGURE THIS SHIT OUT BY MYSELF
NOW LAZY SHITS ARE GONNA GET THIS DONE FOR THEM FOR FREE
I WORKED HARD FOR AN ADVANTAGE
NOW THE ADVANTAGE IS BEING ERASED
I DON'T WANT OTHERS TO CATCH UP TO ME
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>37247753
You just have to get farther ahead then
>>37247252
>Thoughts?
They really didn't change anything substantially enough to really do anything. I'd've been happier if they'd've revised their rounding rules so the damned things would be more mathematically accurate, but I guess knowing how much sugars are added isn't bad, just not enough to get excited over.
Obesity is a bigger problem than drugs ever were.
Michelle Obama is working to get rid of fatties, Nancy Regan made steroids illegal.
Greatest first lady ever.
>believing this shit is going to help anything
Low IQ fatties are always gonna fat as long as there's large amounts of food at easy disposal.
It's like trying to teach a monkey to play beethoven on the piano.
>>37248100
>Fat people will give a fuck what the nutrition label says
kek
>>37247252
>Not making grams of protein bigger, bold and at the top, right above calories
Does Barack Obama's fuccboi even lift?
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/the-science-of-sugar-and-fat-loss.html
Nothing wrong with sugar. Just another thing for fatties to blame their stupidity on and lobby the government for.
why is "added sugar" a big deal if "sugar" has always been on the label? does sugar have more calories if you add it? people get agitated over the weirdest shit
>fda suggests 300g carbs per 2000 caloriea
HOLY FUCKING SHIT AMERICA
that is so dumb
it should differentiate between fructose, lactose, glucose and dextrose to actually help
Why do they not give the percentage of daily protein? They have a recommendation of 50g, why don't they put the fucking %?
>>37248272
I imagine people are likely to try to avoid things woth added sugars just like they did with trans fats so this might make it so food companies try to improve their products
>>37247486
>>37248272
Isn't all sugar added? If I fill up a bottle with orange juice, did I not just add all the sugar that's in that orange juice to that bottle?
Anyone think all the types of fat should be mandatory on labels? No reason why they aren't
>>37248289
you're dumb
>>37248277
it's crazy, i was hospitalized after an accident and my discharge instructions included a "nutrition guide" which pretty much had 50% carbs.
>>37248324
It's just the USDA saying two different things with two different departments.
>there's no reason to avoid saturated fat and cholesterol
>you're eating too much saturated fat and cholesterol, read the food labels
>>37248289
not the same for everyone
but 50g would be 100% (lmao) on almost any nutrition label you find. not sure about the newfangled thing.
>>37248338
Great post.
>>37248346
>hospitals that serve soda and white flour crackers to patients
>>37248356
>not the same for everyone
You could say that about pretty much everything
>>37247607
Usually because fat is what clogs your arteries and reduces endothelial sensitivity to insulin. I will admit though, the more added sugars don't help either.
>>37247252
>Obesity is caused by small fonts
>>37248374
*rabbit arteries
"oh cool, this hunk of fucking sugarcane has no added sugar, think I'll pour some maple syrup on it. 0g ADDED SUGAR AND FAT FREE TOO"
>>37247252
>portion sizes that reflect how much Americans actually eat
>>37248310
Cranberry juice isn't naturally sweet so an absurd amount is added to mask the taste hence the added sugar line
>>37248369
dude i was bedridden and on a fuckton of sedatives and they fed me fucktons of apple sauce and ice-cream because i couldn't eat solids. too out of it to comprehend what i was putting in my body. did somehow muster up the brain capacity to have someone fetch me muscle milk though lmao
eventually i moved up to mushy vegetables and soft AF nasty ass meat tho
>>37248391
You use triangulation of research to apply it to humans. Rabbits are a study model and high fat/cholesterol diets are associated with reduced insulin sensitivity. It's the most likely explanation.
>>37247380
Sugar is horrible. A huge segment of the population is basically addicted to it, particularly poor people, and it's costing them their teeth, obesity, and diabetes.
I didn't really understand how fat people behaved until I had a fat roommate. She CONSTANTLY is eating something with added sugar. There is literally no end to it.
>>37248431
sugar isn't horrible. a lack of moderation, however, is. depending on your life goals, of course.
but sugar after a workout? sup glycogen.
>>37248419
>eating high carb vegan diets associated with reduced insulin sensitivity
oreos are vegan
10g of sugar only being considered 20% of a daily intake is crazy 50g of sugar is an absurd amount of sugar in any given day
>>37248455
No shit. Notice how I said in the original reply that the added sugar doesn't help. I'm not blaming it solely on fat, I'm saying that there's a mechanism through which fat can lead to insulin resistance. Obviously high carbohydrates do the same.
>>37248407
It's still the same sugar if it's 15g naturally occurring or if it's 4g naturally occurring and 11g added. It's 15g of sugar. You can convey that with the same "sugar" line that's been there forever. I don't really care if they have that extra line because I'm not autistic but it's still retarded af ... it reinforces the dumb fucking hippie idea that "natural sugar" is somehow better for you.
>>37248431
I didn't really get how much people were addicted to sugar until I cut junk food from my diet for financial reasons.
After a brief struggle, I relatively quickly lost my urge for sweet food, and now I barely ever desire it . . . in fact, I usually am very unsatisfied by sweet foods. I don't mind the occasional treat ice-cream if I was going out for a special occasion at a restaurant, but it plays virtually no part in my grocery shopping, and I don't miss it.
Meanwhile, I'm surrounded by people stuffing their face with candy and icecream every day and I just don't get it.
>>37248471
High carb combined with high fat is worse than high carb / low fat and high fat / low carb.
>>37248477
I mean, generally speaking more complex sugars are associated with higher fiber content which has its own benefits. However, I agree the extra line is fucking retarded. It's not that hard to figure out what has fiber and what has excessive sugar
>>37248477
actually fructose does not restore muscle glycogen like other sugars and is processed in the liver, so an excess is more likely to cause liver damage vs. insulin resistance
>>37248478
Former mega fatty here. After dropping the weight and maintaining for a couple years, I realized that I never actually felt satisfied when I was 300+lbs. My brain just always wanted more, often to the point where I would throw up.
Need to "reset" the brain. Extreme obesity is a mental disorder, from my experience.
>>37247380
hahaha
>>37248543
Yeah, I've been there.
Fat my whole life, got in shape for 3 years, half my weight, then got depressed and let it slip and lost all my progress.
Back on the bandwagon now; I know all the rules, I get how to do it, just gotta keep at it now and not let my brain let go of my progress this time. The best thing in the world was not being fat for the first time in my life, and the worst was letting that feeling go. This time for realz.
>>37247380
>mcdonalds disappointed with advice to not start day with a chocolate milkshake
>>37248543
>Extreme obesity is a mental disorder
yep it has to be
no normal person can make ther bodies like that
people get addicted to food same way people get addicted to drugs/alcohool
>>37248542
oh yeah, now I see how that line will help the 400 lb bitches worried about glycogen replenishment
>>37248353
What department says there's no reason to avoid saturated fat and cholesterol?
>>37247252
The only significant change is the size of the font and the bolded sections. Sugar is sugar. This is a joke.
Fat fucks need to know that this "single serving" is a total of calories 1840 because they cannot do simple math in their fat heads or read the fine print of 8 servings per container.
>>37248504
>It's not that hard to figure out what has fiber and what has excessive sugar
except that it is.
I don't know if the 32g of sugar in my apple juice is natural occurring (and therefore offset by fiber) or really would have been 10g had more sugar not been added.
>>37248596
since when is this about extremely obese ppl? just responding to the misconception that all sugars are equal
>>37248624
>sugar is sugar
correct however most cannot read the line above sugar (fiber) or balance sugar with the other macros/total calorie count to determine if the substance is abnormally dense in sugar.
Therefore, adding a line to show how much sugar was added to the substance is a quick and easy way to accomplish the same task.
What's the percent next to added sugars?
Are they trying to say they have a daily value of added sugar?
>>37248709
The DV for added sugar is based on 10% of daily calories. It's not a number you're meant to reach, it's a maximum limit you're supposed to stay under, just like with sodium, saturated fat, and cholesterol
"Millions of Americans read food labels"
Then why are so many obese?
>>37247580
>>37247649
The average American doesn't eat 2kcal or less every day.
>>37247529
The very basics are taught in Health classes, but unless you take a specialized food and cooking class in HS like I did then you are never really taught anything in depth. They care more about preventing you from knocking up the chick next to you than becoming obese.
>>37248652
yeah they should probably figure out a way to let people know the fiber content too
>>37247252
people arent fat because of labels
they are fat cause they eat mcdonalds every fucking day and gorge on junk food like pigs.
>>37248835
People are fat because they've never been taught proper basic nutrition and portion control.
You can eat McDonald's every day and lose weight.
>>37248925
most fat people are fat because they pick crappy foods, not cause they care about labels (they dont).
>>37248835
Most fat people are hooked on sweet flavor added to even supposedly savory foods. Their palette is skewed totally to the sweet side and the most effective way to reduce this kind of obesity is to educate them on how exactly they're fucked up and provide them a means to counter it.
Sure, sugar is sugar, but added sugar is still a useful guideline.
>>37248965
im all for detailed labels but this isnt going to stop people from becoming 500 lbs.
good for those of us that give a shit, though.
>>37247469
I used to have no idea AND not care, now I do and it's a great resource for those looking to lose weight.
>>37247604
Simple carbs yes, but you shouldn't be eating those at all.
>>37248277
Most people aren't bodybuilding, 300g of complex carbs isn't bad for you.
>>37249755
That's not true
a little bit of simple carbs before you workout can help with energy, and they can also spike your insulin to help absorb protein
>>37247252
is it bad i only started reading cals and protein on labels?
i dont think i get much sugar since i mostly cook with pasta, rice, patatos. added meat and added vegetables. some fruit.
it was fascinating to find out chips are like 500 cals though. i used to eat 250g bags randomly. fucking 1500 cals in between diner and breakfast.
>>37249788
Most people don't body build though, they eat simple carbs while sitting on the couch. They digest it and it goes to their belly real quick, then theyre hungry again real soon and eating more tater chips.
added sugar is a really useful bit of info desu
>>37247380
They're not wrong. Sugar is sugar whether its natural or added. But then again people aren't logical and added sugar should scare them off.
>>37247516
You don't understand advertising if you think font size doesn't matter.
>>37247380
>sugar association
How cucked is America at this point?
>>37248100
She's pretty based. Harvard law graduate and is using her position to get something done, which can't be said for most First Ladies. She doesn't get much praise for tackling obesity because no one likes to talk about it but it's the greatest civic threat to the US.
>>37247380
>>37248624
>people are stupid
No shit. That's why this might in some small way educate them.
>>37249869
You're missing the point. It's not about added sugars being special, it's about making it as obvious as possible at a glance when a food item's sugar is additive (and therefore optional) rather than just intrinsic to that particular food item.
Remember, food labels in general are all about making information more accessible and obvious. Labeling added sugar separately functions as a, "THERE ARE ALMOST CERTAINLY COMPARABLE PRODUCTS THAT ARE WAY LOWER IN SUGAR THAN THIS ONE" signal that even the most average of American consumers will understand.
The fact that "sugar is sugar" doesn't change the fact that putting scarlet letters on products with unnecessary additive sugar is objectively good for consumers.
>>37247380
>>37249903
jesus christ burgers
>>37249903
>>37249935
Goddamn, stuff like this makes communism look like a good idea. People shouldn't be allowed to spin words like that.
>>37249944
>makes communism look like a good idea
False. It's gross and immoral, but still beats mass-starvation any day.
>>37249966
At least mass starvation isn't self inflicted.
>>37249980
It is if you supported the system that is starving you
>>37250003
You mean the Chinese famine? That was caused by retarded policy making.
Anyway, you know what I mean. Americans have a choice, communists didn't.
>>37250003
Fair comment, I personally think that communism does not equal mass starvation as a rule.
Although looking at the past, it could almost be considered one.
>>37247380
You know whats funny is that the sugar industry receives a shitton of protectionism from the US Government in the forms of tarrifs on sugar imports.
The uneducated claim it "saves jobs" in the sugar industry, but in the bigger picture it kills tons of jobs in all industries that use sugar as a raw material by raising their costs and thus reducing demand for their products
>>37250112
That's how the economy works though. You can't help the economy or the workers without helping the employers and shareholders. Take TARP, we had to loan billions of dollars in captial to Wall Street to fix the economy. They made out like bandits afterwards.
>>37247380
> the government is working against the sugar associations interests
> the government is doing something normal people could benefit from
> the government harms big business interests
What the fuck is going on?
>>37248225
Funny you should say that:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
>First Lady achieved more good in her 8 years than POTUS did
top lel
>>37249935
That baby has gyno
>>37247252
this is fucking awesome, its brutal to the sugar companies, finally they will shrivel up like the roaches that they are in the sunlight. The first thing this transexual shemonkey beast has done well.
>>37247566
Kek
Fatties will still eat what they want. I think it's still useful for regulars who want to watch what they eat though.
Well done, Michelle Obama. Fuck the sugar industry.
>Weigh my food
>Read nutrition label
>Serving
>Per serving
WHO THE FUCK THOUGHT OF THIS THIS IS FUCKING RETARDED
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
The people that do care for it won't eat foods that harm them so it's a non issue for them
the people that don't care don't read the label
>>37247550
I think thats ok if you are actually an active person ie active job or likes to exercise (i mean train, sorry Rip)
But I think it should be pushed that carb intake should be relative to the person. I think for your average office job, couch all night, no exercise slob a paleo-style diet should be the baseline daily intake. Then if they are gently encouraged to do more exercise they can adjust their carb intake based on what they need. Sadly this would need a massive overhaul of the food industry to mitigate financial and environmental factors, and pretty much a forced public education program of how nutrition works. So that will never happen.
![naehrwerttabelle_beispiel_2014[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/dKbiA0Y.png "naehrwerttabelle_beispiel_2014[1].png")
>>37247252
>american labels
top fucking kek, its like you guys are the dumbest humans on this planet haha, that big fucking "Calories 230" font... measuring in cups, its like you want to tell everyone you are sub humans.
pic related, germany, people are actually educated and know whats up... kill yourself you fucking fat amerilards.
>>37251427
God tier European education is needed to save those filthy Burgers.
>>37251427
Pls save us from our nutrition labels the same way we saved Europe from self destructing twice through both world wars.
>>37251427
>Anonymous 05/21/16(Sat)12:17:14 No.37251295▶
All labels in the EU are the same apart from format.
It's an EU law.
>>37251500
EU masterrace checking in.
I pity you americans, your goverment wants you to be fat and kill yourself so you buy all those good meds and shit.. freedom sure is nice lel.
>>37249734
Yeah, but you're the minority. I just hope everyone that doesn't care for their health dies off already so that humanity can move forward.
>>37251427
What's the difference really?
>>37247252
I wish they weren't removing calories from fat.
If they want to ad more information, I understand that but why remove info that is already there?
>>37252491
>I understand that but why remove info that is already there?
Save space I guess
I think people prefer these types if things to be short and to the point
Me personally I wouldn't mind a little booklet with every bit of info on things to come attached with the packaging
>>37252509
There is plenty of space on every package or box that I have ever purchased. Just make the back of the box or package the nutrition area, or better yet the front. That way everyone can see it.
>>37252561
Well here where I'm from at least they have to include nutrition label, ingredient list, the name address and contact information for their company, the gluten/lactose/nuts/whatever allergy markers and probably some other bullshit
It's alot of stuff man
I wonder how much money went into this revolutionary labeling
>>37247566
checknkek
>>37252599
>Well here where I'm from
Where?
>>37252634
Hint: huehuehuehuehue
>>37252599
shower gels and cosmetics use a double layer here in yurop, guess it is the same elsewhere. Though I'm sure they are using this to hide the information, people usually look at me like some weirdo for peeling off the layers (how I dare) to see the ingredients and many don't even know it is listed there.
>>37250211
good luck if the TPP gets passed. shit like this will be even harder.
>friendly reminder that companies like turbo tax lobby the government to make your taxes more complicated than necessary so you pay for their product
>>37249894
Every food industry has an association like that.
So this is literally making the font size of calories bigger and changing the serving size, and this is some how noteworthy?
Unless somethings packaged in a specific unit like a bar, everything should just be standardized to be per 100g.
>>37248431
>it's costing them their diabetes
Honestly now that they don't show cals from fat they should have that extra line go towards having separate cals per serving and cals in the entire can/bag/whatever. Since most Americans just eat the whole damn thing when they get something out anyways. It's simple math I know, but still. America.
Still a step up. Thanks Obama.
>>37255082
It is sad how america does that, you could buy a family size bag of crisps and it would be gone in a fucking hour, or a 2 liter bottle of soda, its disgusting.
>>37247403
based First Chimp setting the sugar industry straight. i ain't mad
>>37249944
We should go the route of Japan, make it illegal to be overweight.
People get sent to camps if they break the weight barrier and cannot leave till they are under it.
>>37255144
just vote bernie and you'll be granted your wish
>>37248478
I don't get it either.
This dude I work with, every fucking day it's the same sugary shit.
>First coffee break
Bottle of "ice tea" and a tub of sugary yoghurt
>Lunch break
Some flavour of microwave pizza, another bottle of the ice tea swill or a Battery and half a plate of chocolate
>Second coffee break
Bag of cinnamon buns and another bottle of ice tea, maybe the remainder of the chocolate
It really isn't my place to worry about what people eat, but quite frankly I'm too disgusted to not do it. Ever since he got a car, he's been getting more voluminous by the day, and it's not like he really did much at work anyway. And in spite of all the sugar he pours into himself every single day, we've found him fallen asleep next to the pressure washer he's using.
>>37255140
I love these kinds of vintage ads hawking dubious nutritional benefits.
>>37255270
>dubious
what do you mean, dubious? it's vitamin donuts. vitamins are good for you
>>37250514
You know 4chan embeds the title of the video into the link, right? It's impossible to rickroll now.
>>37255288
It's what plants crave
In case anyone wants to read it from the horses mouth without the Jew York Times interpretations:
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm385663.htm
![eac4058f5c28ba53d7621c2dba9fdd99[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/j2OsoSV.jpg "eac4058f5c28ba53d7621c2dba9fdd99[1].jpg")
>>37255270
>>37255140
>>37249935
>>37249903
>not lubing your arteries up with grease
>>37255288
Well I'm convinced.
![meat-ad-0021[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/5MmsUTZ.jpg "meat-ad-0021[1].jpg")
![meat-ad-001[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/37tEGKr.jpg "meat-ad-001[1].jpg")
>>37255399
>>37247252
>Ramen noodle nutrition facts
>1/2 of the block of ramen
Thank god. That shit was fucked and nobody denied it. I took a nutrition class in college where they derided the practice.
I feel like the added sugar thing is superfluous and I believe it's cumbersome to highlight the amount of calories. I never had trouble finding how many calories were in food if I wanted to find it. I also like that they stopped putting "calories from fat."
Most often, when I look at a nutrition label, I look for four components:
>How many calories?
>How much sat. fat?
>How much sodium?
>How much fiber?
>>37255270
>>37255342
>>37255356
>>37255399
>>37255418
>tfw you realize we could just as easily be getting bamboozled by such "facts" today
>>37248729
Millions read them
Millions also dont care
>>37255418
>serve red meat three times a day!
kek
>>37247252
Sugar is bad but I don't think it really matters if it's "added" or not. This doesn't really give you any new meaningful information.
>>37255433
>not looking at protein
>>37255471
Eh I dunno, I think most people are pretty keen to the bullshit nowadays thanks to the internet.
>>37255433
I could be wrong but it's possible ramen noodles were served as a side dish or as soup appetizer, and so eating only half of the block would make sense.
Sort of like how a serving of mac and cheese is small because you're supposed to eat it with other things, not just dump the entire box into a bowl and eat it by itself.
>>37255693
>Sugar is bad but I don't think it really matters if it's "added" or not.
It does
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/
>Free sugars refer to monosaccharides (such as glucose, fructose) and disaccharides (such as sucrose or table sugar) added to foods and drinks by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, and sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates.
>“We have solid evidence that keeping intake of free sugars to less than 10% of total energy intake reduces the risk of overweight, obesity and tooth decay,” says Dr Francesco Branca, Director of WHO’s Department of Nutrition for Health and Development. “Making policy changes to support this will be key if countries are to live up to their commitments to reduce the burden of noncommunicable diseases.”
>The WHO guideline does not refer to the sugars in fresh fruits and vegetables, and sugars naturally present in milk, because there is no reported evidence of adverse effects of consuming these sugars.
It's only sugars added to foods and fiber-less sugar from processed foods like fruit juice and syrup that are considered harmful.
>>37251540
Relax Ahmed.
>>37251021
I only really see that with foods from the US. It's crazy:
>Find queer-looking colourful packets of what I can only presume to be food on the shelves at my local merchant's
>Check the nutrition label
>Well this shit ain't too bad it can fit in my macros without breaking the carb bank
>Come home
>Recheck the nutrition label
>Per serving size
>Recommended serving size 1/1957 barley bushel, 1 ounce, 50 grain
>Convert it
>Between 1/4 and 1/3 of the normal 100 g
>Ergo the macros are three to four times as shit
>Whatever I bought only comes in industrial-size bags
Last time it was a bag of Doritos, macros so shit (even for crisps), I just used them to bread a gorillion oven-baked tater tots and donated them to the church's barbeque where the proceeds went to securing gay's rights in Uganda.
PERCENT DAILY VALUE FOR ADDED SUGARS
BASED
SODAS WILL BE LIKE 500% DV
FATTIES BTFO
>>37255144
What about sumo's
>>37248100
>she
Michelle ahem i mean Michael is a man baby.
>>37248925
>You can eat McDonald's every day and lose weight
and your health too.
