F.D.A. Finishes Food Labels for How We Eat Now

>37g of carb
>thats only 13% of daily value

the fuck? do they recommend 400g of carb a day?

They're good guidelines

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.

Yeah. How much do you eat? 400g carbs is 1200 calories.

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.

300 grams of carbs for a 2000 calories diet with 25 grams being fiber is the general guideline

>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?

If 37g is 13%, 284g is 100%

284g = 1136 calories

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

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

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.

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

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.

but most people are overweight

Here you go, sir:

Why?

That's cool but you know that most people still won't read the label anyway

>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.

carbs breakdown to easily

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

>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!

What do you mean?

Le carbs are bad meme

> AAVAGE

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.

The average American is overweight though. Really theses guidelines should take that into account. Around 70% of adults in America are obese or overweight.

im happy that they show added sugars on the food label

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

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.

>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.

>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

You just have to get farther ahead then

>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.

>Fat people will give a fuck what the nutrition label says

kek

>Not making grams of protein bigger, bold and at the top, right above calories

Does Barack Obama's fuccboi even lift?

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 %?

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

...

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

you're dumb

it's crazy, i was hospitalized after an accident and my discharge instructions included a "nutrition guide" which pretty much had 50% carbs.

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

not the same for everyone

but 50g would be 100% (lmao) on almost any nutrition label you find. not sure about the newfangled thing.

Great post.

>hospitals that serve soda and white flour crackers to patients

>not the same for everyone

You could say that about pretty much everything

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.

>Obesity is caused by small fonts

*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"

>portion sizes that reflect how much Americans actually eat

Cranberry juice isn't naturally sweet so an absurd amount is added to mask the taste hence the added sugar line

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

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.

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.

sugar isn't horrible. a lack of moderation, however, is. depending on your life goals, of course.

but sugar after a workout? sup glycogen.

>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

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.

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.

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.

High carb combined with high fat is worse than high carb / low fat and high fat / low carb.

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

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

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.

hahaha

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.

>mcdonalds disappointed with advice to not start day with a chocolate milkshake

>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

oh yeah, now I see how that line will help the 400 lb bitches worried about glycogen replenishment

What department says there's no reason to avoid saturated fat and cholesterol?

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.

>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.

since when is this about extremely obese ppl? just responding to the misconception that all sugars are equal

>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?

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?

The average American doesn't eat 2kcal or less every day.