Are those "recommended portion sizes" on the nutrition

>>9254469
>Who really eats only 11 chips?

I believe you mean 'about' 11 chips.

>>9254469
Honestly though, that's horseshit. I'm glad they started making products in smaller packages put the entire info for the package on the front.

It is pretty dishonest, they know that virtually everyone is going to eat more than 11 chips at a time.

>hork hork eating more than 5 chips is pig zone

They don't expect you to eat an entire 200g bag on your own you fat fuck.

>>9254469
Don't eat chips period, so that's a little difficult for me to answer. The cereal thing though; yeah, I only eat base/2*base serving size when I have cereal. I keep track of everything that I eat, and consider my next meal accordingly. I'm a bit of a fag

Your point is a good one though. For general day to day fags, they see that tiny little bag and think 'oooo a quick snack', not realizing that the damn thing is 3/4ths an entire meal (I'm assuming most amerifags don't do much physically strenuous activity in their day, and sure as shit don't need 2000 calories).

Also in terms of chips, Doritos are fucking disgusting

>>9254469
That's why you weigh it out.

>>9254469
>Who really eats only 11 chips?

Someone who was watching their calorie intake could use the recommended portion size to figure how how many chips they can have via basic arithmetic.

>>9255339
>autist weighing out individual doritos in the cafeteria

>>9254469
It's dishonest. The foods are made to be eaten quickly, without regard for the content, so they just make the serving size whatever minimum they need to still put "only X amount of Y per serving!" on the front of the bag. I've seen candy bars where a serving is only 1/3 of the bar, but they still advertise "only 90 calories!" on the front, even though it's really 3x that.

>>9254469
It's reasonable if you're not a fat fuck