Here's an idea!
So I've been thinking about why the heck people shun fats due to CW and lead "low-fat, high-carb" diets which they believe will lead them to a healthy body and ideal level of fitness. I think the reason is because we use the term "fat" to mean BOTH dietary 'fat' (the good stuff), as well as 'overweight.' Seriously, in my honest opinion I think it would be a fantastic idea to start labeling 'fat' on nutrition labels as 'lipids,' or something along those lines, so that people stop thinking, 'oh, it has fat in it so therefore I will become fat if I eat it.' Anyone else think this is a good idea, or feel like this is one of the contributing factors to today's CW nutritional misinformation? Perhaps the FDA would agree to start using the word 'lipids' (like the French) on the nutrition labels.
Just a thought, but I honesty believe that the double-meaning of the word 'fat' has a negative effect on most people.
I like the idea of using a standard serving size as well, at least for similar food items. I suppose for some foods it wouldn't work out too well, e.g. spinach and beef - those will obviously need to be different. But the principle is a great idea. If more and more people could just understand that the vast majority of our health issues could be cured through diet alone (yes, exercise is obviously important as well), then I think that would be a major milestone.
[QUOTE=Cierra;1088610]I agree with you. I also think that we should start using the metric system and change American measurements over. However,this would be quite costly to the American government to change over to the metric system, just as it would be financially "unwise" for American food companies to go about changing all their food labels.
From a strict, mental health POV, though, it's brilliant. While we're at it, why not change all the serving sizes to be equally the same (like using a standard 100g for all labels) so than when comparing labels, you can figure out the nutritional density of everything fairly. That'd be helpful, too![/QUOTE]
That's the way labeling is in the Netherlands, at least (and I guess anywhere using metric?). And 100g is pretty much a standard on all the labels, too, even if it also gives you the numbers for other amounts (ex. a box of cereal would have stats for 30g and 100g, or pea soup tells you for 100g and 400g which is the whole single-serving can).
I definitely used to fear the fat. It's also just the easiest way to cut calories from your diet, for a lot of people, if they need to do so. Yesterday I didn't get home and eat until 9 pm, and I had a 150g sausage (and could easily figure out the stats w/ a X1.5 calculation) -- but I got full on 250 g of romaatjes (little baby romas) and a head of broccoli (I could tell you the grams if I ever kept receipts).
yeah,good idea,I like the idea of using a standard serving size as well, at least for similar food items too,thanks [img]http://www.oksky.us/imiss/images/1.gif[/img]
Too confusing for the masses. There are plenty of people who won't know what the word lipid means, I kid you not.
[QUOTE=Damiana;1088955]Too confusing for the masses. There are plenty of people who won't know what the word lipid means, I kid you not.[/QUOTE]
True, but after awhile people would become accustomed to it certainly. I mean, I didn't [I]know[/I] what carbohydrate meant until recently (I'm 23; I just understood carb in the loosest, most basic sense possible.) I also don't know what half of the ingredients on processed food labels mean either, but that didn't stop me from buying them before anyway.
Time for a change, IMO
While we're at it, why not change all the serving sizes to be equally the same (like using a standard 100g for all labels) so than when comparing labels, you can figure out the nutritional density of everything fairly. That'd be helpful, too![/QUOTE]
This is what I do when using Nutritiondata etc to find out the nutritional value of everything - if it is 100g I can directly compare. It is so helpful!!!
Sorry, but I think this would be a horrible idea. A lot of people don't know what lipids are, and a lot who do typically see it on their prescriptions to lower their cholesterol. So it will still have a negative association attached to it.