Bear Naked Opportunism

[elfs]

Bear Naked is a brand of granola that has recently been making a push in our neighborhood. Two big billboards, and suddenly the stuff is appearing on the shelves in every grocery store in the city. I've had it, and found it good enough granola but hardly remarkable. The billboard is catchy, though.

Since cereals were on the shopping list, I took a look at Bear Naked and its competitors. And I was struck, as I was looking at the nutrition information, that Bear Naked was so much better in the sugars and other "fast" carbohydrates than any of their competitors. I mean, startlingly better.

I took a closer look and realized that Bear Naked said "Serving size: 1/4 cup," whereas every other cereal has "Serving size: 1/2 cup." I mean, who eats a quarter up of cereal in the morning? A half cup isn't terribly much.

Scaling up the serving sizes so they were all the same, the generic "organic" store brand, "Back to Nature" actually came out on top. Better price, less sugar-- excuse me, "evaporated cane juice"-- about the same amout of protein. Slightly less fiber, but the price/performance was overall excellent compared to the others.

Obviously, the assumption here is that even people who look at the nutrition facts block will forget to check the serving size, assuming that every cereal uses the same serving size. But to be so blatant about it as to make the bullshit alarms go off was just stupid of 'em.

Comments

[sirfox.livejournal.com]

portions aren't all that's shrinking.

Half gallon containers of icecream are now almost uniformly 1.5 quarts. NOW! 25% LESS!!!

[pixel39.livejournal.com]

And just try to find an 8oz cup of yogurt these days.

Just make the stuff

[(Anonymous)]

You sometimes make bread, right? Granola is much faster (and fresh granola is pretty good. We I make about 20 cups every two weeks or so (but I have a household full or starving hyenas, and we eat a lot.) Also, cheaper- and you can pronounce all the ingredients!

For one 8-10 cup batch:
8-10 cups of rolled regular oats, or a mix of rolled grains: oats, kamut, barley, triticale, other grains (but not rolled rye, unless you really think you'd like the taste)
about 1/4 cups oil (I like to use nut oil, both for the taste and because it's probably healthy
1/2 cup honey
1 cup sunflower seeds
1 cup slivered or sliced almonds (or other nuts)
sometimes a cup or so of coconut
a cup or so of raisins, if you like raisins in your granola.

preheat oven to 350 F. Dump the grains onto a baking sheet with sides, and let them warm a little while the oven comes up to temperature. Measure the oil into a glass measuring cup, then swish it around the sides (to help the honey not stick). Then measure the honey into the same cup, on top of the oil. Warm slightly in the microwave unless it's pretty darned runny to start with.

Put the grains and nuts in a large bowl. Add the honey and oil. Mix thoroughly. Put the mixture back onto the baking sheet, and bake at 350 F (or 375 F, if you're willing to pay careful attention, as it will burn much faster) until the mixture is as brown as you like it, stirring (carefully) once or twice. add raisins when it's done.

Store in a sealed container, once cool.

Love the site! Thanks for the brain dumps!

[blaisepascal]

On the other hand, I've seen products with nutritional information set for a standard 100g. This is good for comparing across products, but lousy for figuring out what you just ate (or will eat). Who eats 100g of pappadum, for instance?

[lovingboth]

UK / European info has both 'serving' and 'per 100g' (or similar).

[blaisepascal]

I can accept both, especially if the serving size is reasonable (what do you mean, this bag of crisps clearly intended to be eaten by one person in one sitting has 2.5 servings?).

The packet of pappadums didn't have a serving size, however. Just nutrients per 100g.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

I've noticed that too, the 2.5 serving bag. You look at the nutrition facts and see that it has 280 calories-- a bit, but tolerable for a snack, and then you realize after having eaten the bag that it's 700 calories of Doritos you've down and no wonder you feel ill.

Doritos are totally my downfall. I have them about twice a year. I can't be trusted with them in the house.

[pixel39.livejournal.com]

Crunchy snacky things are my downfall. The bf gripes constantly about how there are no snacks* in the house, but if I buy what he considers to be "snacks" and keep them in the house, I or the Spouse will eat them. And with the meds** I can't focus well enough to have willpower.

*Apparently cheese (with or without crackers) is not a snack, in his book, but Cheetos and Doritos are. *shrugs* I've given up trying to figure that man out.

**Oddly enough, non-medicated I can summon enough willpower from the depths to starve myself into anorexia. Go figure.

[bldrnrpdx.livejournal.com]

I've found a way around this - some of the time, anyway. I found that crunchy things are my downfall too. Then I found that Crunch overrode even Fat and Salt for me. Dry, air-popped popcorn works for me, especially while I'm reading or watching TV or whatever. It was the crunch I needed, plus feeling full. I eat WAY less potato chips & cheetos & suchlike these days. Not none mind you, but way less.

[resonant.livejournal.com]

"evaporated cane juice"

Wow - they're allowed to do that? Serving sizes and nomenclature are regulated in Canada and the EU.

[blaisepascal]

The claim is that "evaporated cane juice" has more nutrients than refined white sugar, and therefore better.

It would probably be known as "unrefined sugar" in the EU.

Serving sizes and nomenclature have some regulation in the US as well. That's part of how some of these games are played.

The FDA establishes a "Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed" (RACC) for a wide variety of food products, which form the basis for computing the serving size. For instance, the RACC for cookies is 30g, so if you are selling a package of cookies which each weigh 12g, you'd list the serving size as "3 cookies (36g)", and calculate the nutritional information based on that.

There's an exception for single-serving packages. If the package is less than 200% of the RACC, it's considered a single-serving package, and it's serving size is 1 package. If it's greater than 200% of the RACC, and the manufacturer feels it is reasonable to consume one package, they may use a serving size of 1 package.

How this is played out in real life is obvious when looking at beverages: The RACC for soft drinks is 8 fl oz (240ml). A standard can of soda is 12 fl oz(360ml). A standard plastic single-serving bottle of soda is 20 fl oz (600ml). The serving size listed on a can is "1 can (360ml)", but on a 20oz bottle, it's listed as "8 fl oz (240ml)" and "2.5 servings per container". Since the 20oz bottle is bigger than 200% of the RACC, the manufacturers chose to use the RACC as the serving size, not the whole bottle.

Similarly with the packet of crunchy, salty, fried things I got yesterday. It was a bag marketed at a convenience store, too small to really eat part of and store, or to split. "Serving size: 1 oz. (28g/About 20 pieces). Servings Per Container 4".