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

[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.