Add a Comment
Email This
I see what you're saying, but even your example is still to difficult to care about for the "average joe" in my average joe opinion. Honestly, I'm curious who out there really tracks how much vitamin C and calcium and taurine (you Monster drink lovers) you take in daily, weekly, yearly, et al? I know this is OmniNerd and there may be somebody out there, but I'd be willing to bet money that even the resident nutrition buff, Brandon, doesn't even get that picky.
The other cool thing about the Flex Plan that I didn't mention because it was additional minutia at the time, is the emphasis placed on eating a certain amount of servings that count toward different food groups such as dairy, vegetable, fruit, etc. Like you said above, you wouldn't want to result in an unbalanced diet of (just for the sake of example) 16 cookies a day at 2 points a piece equalling your daily allowance of 32 points....that would not be very balanced.
RSS
RE: Nutrition Facts labels vs Point System
Something as simple as a point system similar to the Weight Watchers Flex Plan would make so much more sense to the average joe than nutrition labels simply because it would break down all the big numbers of things such as calories, fat, and dietary fiber and simplify it into a single number.
It would be simpler, but it might oversimplify. In other words, it might lead to people scaling their intakes in a manner that did not result in a balanced diet.
The nearest food box to me, a cereal box, says it contains 25% RDA of Vitamin C, 6% RDA of calories, and 17% RDA of calcium. You'd need 6 servings to get to your RDA of Calcium, 4 servings to get your RDA of Vitamin C, and 17 servings to get your RDA of calories. If you simplified the numbers to "25 out of 100", someone eating 4 servings would get "100 out of 100" and their RDA of Vitamin C, but they'd get less than their RDA of calcium, and far less than their RDA of calories.
View Full Discussion