Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Food and Drink
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-23-2011, 06:39 AM
 
Location: Charlotte county, Florida
4,196 posts, read 6,404,309 times
Reputation: 12287

Advertisements

I lost 2 sizes in my shorts in the last 6 months, just by not eating junk or after dinner snacks..

I would eat every scrap of that steak though and gnaw on the bone after
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-23-2011, 07:14 AM
 
Location: Susquehanna River, Union Co, PA
885 posts, read 1,518,381 times
Reputation: 1154
I saw a comparison of portion sizes from the 19040-50s and today. If someone finds it, please post.

Everything is bigger now and we haven't learned to assess with our eye & satiation, we've learned to accept units of food as they are presented to us.

Most old cookbooks seem to be able to produce miraculous amounts of cookies and biscuits from a single recipe, for example, so 'one cookie' has changed but our language and concepts about food have not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2011, 07:30 AM
 
4,897 posts, read 18,464,442 times
Reputation: 3884
Portion Size, Then vs. Now - DivineCaroline
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2011, 07:54 AM
bjh
 
59,952 posts, read 30,275,344 times
Reputation: 135668
We don't need government or anyone else telling people how much to eat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2011, 09:11 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,579 posts, read 86,764,762 times
Reputation: 36643
Quote:
Originally Posted by findinghope View Post

like others have said, i wish they would start to serve food in it's actual 1 person serving size (when eating out) and lower the price. we would all be better off.

restaurants would benefit just as much. they would need to buy smaller quantities of supplies so they wouldn't be losing money.
Yes, they would lose money. A typical restaurant meal, only about 20-30% of the menu price represents the actual cost of the food that is served. The rest is overhead. It costs hundreds of dollars a day just to open a modest restaurant in the morning and turn on the lights.

A restaurant with a reputation for large servings will draw in a lot more customers, who in turn will pay the cost of the overhead and reduce the per-customer cost of doing business. That volume is why all-you-can-eat buffets can let you out the door for only seven bucks.

Let's say you have a stupendous hungry-man breakfast. Six eggs cost 60 cents, a pound of hash browns for 40 cents, a half pound of sausage for a dollar. Everything else they have to pay anyway (labor, utilities, mortgage, insurance, etc), whether you walk in or drive on by. Two bucks for a lot more than most truckers can eat. But they charge more than that for one boiled egg and a slice of toast, because you can't even pay the insurance if you only ring up two bucks per customer. They'll charge 8.95 for that breakfast, and 6.95 is their overhead.

Last edited by jtur88; 10-23-2011 at 09:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2011, 09:23 AM
 
Location: Middle America
37,409 posts, read 53,412,743 times
Reputation: 53067
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnina View Post
^^^ maybe, but those servings were big enough for people at that time, no one was hungry and lots of people were slimmer and more active.
I think it has MUCH more to do with the fact that fewer people are engaged in manual labor as primary employment than the past containing some alternate reality where people ate eleven potato chips or a third of a slice of bread, or a tablespoonful of mashed potatoes, or a sliver of pie, or just a bite of a cookie and said, "Boy, that was a satisfying serving."

My grandmother was a farm wife from the 1930s through 1990s. Her hearty meals did not increase in serving size over the years...they were always large portions meant to nourish people whose jobs incorporated a great deal of physical activity. Even when I think of her desserts...her Amish sugar cookies, for instance...they WERE, admittedly, much smaller than the standard bakery cookie today... more the size of a Chips Ahoy than the size of a teacup saucer, for instance. But, nobody was eating just one, either...more like three or four, so it was kind of a wash. The main issue is that much more physical activity was embedded into many people's workdays, not that they ate tiny portions back in the day. Nobody in my family evidenced anything resembling obesity until we stopped farming. Their diets didn't change, but their level of physical activity did when they stopped working as physically demanding of jobs. When you aren't physically exerting yourself as part of your workday, you can't eat like you did when that WAS the case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2011, 12:27 PM
 
Location: MO->MI->CA->TX->MA
7,022 posts, read 14,442,452 times
Reputation: 5570
I've always found it weird to buy, say, just 1 side of garlic fries or 1 salad as my entire meal at some diner when that's all it'll take to keep me full.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2011, 02:18 PM
 
Location: Tricity, PL
61,428 posts, read 86,506,480 times
Reputation: 131279
Everything in moderation, but why serve food in a plate that can hold whole turkey?
This cinnamon rolls are sold 2 blocks from my work place. People order it ADDITIONAL to their huge meal...
http://www.supersizedmeals.com/food/...mon_Roll_2.jpg
This is one of the main dishes sold there. As you can see... is not served on a dinner plate - but fries, corn and dinner roll has to go on separate plate.
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d7...y/da091b2c.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_uJZry6Zknf...us_2+_blog.jpg typical dinner at that place...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2011, 03:37 PM
 
Location: Philaburbia
41,883 posts, read 74,938,731 times
Reputation: 66814
Quote:
Originally Posted by TabulaRasa View Post
I can't imagine that, in the time since potato chips were invented, anybody has EVER eaten a serving size of 11 chips.
LOL. But seriously, the serving sizes, how and why they're derived, and the variations in measurement are rather ridiculous, aren't they?

Quote:
Originally Posted by elnina View Post
maybe, but those servings were big enough for people at that time
When was a half-cup of cereal ever enough?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TabulaRasa View Post
I think it has MUCH more to do with the fact that fewer people are engaged in manual labor as primary employment than the past containing some alternate reality where people ate eleven potato chips or a third of a slice of bread, or a tablespoonful of mashed potatoes, or a sliver of pie, or just a bite of a cookie and said, "Boy, that was a satisfying serving."
Good point. People ate huge meals, and they snacked.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2011, 04:30 PM
 
Location: Tricity, PL
61,428 posts, read 86,506,480 times
Reputation: 131279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81 View Post
LOL. But seriously, the serving sizes, how and why they're derived, and the variations in measurement are rather ridiculous, aren't they?
Serving sizes are set up by the manufactures. Smaller sizes mean less calories/fat/sugar etc. on the label. Marketing idea...
In other countries serving size is always the same e.g. 100g - so easy to understand and compare. Here the serving sizes varies for the same product from one manufacturer to another. It's very hard to compare, because you not only need to look at the nutrition values, but also compare the serving sizes.


Quote:
When was a half-cup of cereal ever enough?
“If you put on a meaningful portion size, it would scare a lot of people,” said Barry Popkin, a nutrition professor at the University of North Carolina. “They would see, ‘I’m going to get 300 calories from that, or 500 calories.’ ”
F.D.A. Weighs Update to Standard Serving Sizes - NYTimes.com

Quote:
Good point. People ate huge meals, and they snacked.
Yes, but at that time there was less processed food, people ate more at home, and they generally moved more around.
Now people are driving, and sitting longer hours...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Food and Drink

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:31 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top