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.
I was only around for the 70s and 80s, but I know 8" diameter dinner plates were not the norm at that time. Even back then, those were salad plates. I'm not saying that plates haven't gotten bigger over the years, but googling tells me that the standard dinner plate was 9-10" in the 60s and 10-11" in the 80s, and that's my recollection as well.
Sorry for nitpicking. I think your principle is a good one. An 8" plate of food would not be enough for dinner for my husband (a mechanic) or me, but for sedentary people, it's probably fine. Encouraging smaller portions is generally a good thing.
8'' diameter plates are quite BIG, especially if the space is entirely covered with food ! Or did Google convert that badly for me? That woud be around 20 centimeters, right? If so, it would be very big in our culture. Such plates might be used as "platter" serving ones, where you put your normal plate on a larger one so that the meal is served in a prettier way. Or, funnily, as "salad plates" which, from your comment, would be bigger here I guess (assuming it's real salad, 90% raw/cooked vegetables.)
As for the op, I can't really answer because the number of chops doesn't matter as much as their weight. We would usually eat around 100g (3.5 oz) for a relatively active woman and 150g (5.3 oz) for a relatively active man. Add 50g or so for each gender if we indulge. (that would still be too much animal proteins, at least much more than we need).
Same with the potatoes, I don't know what type of potatoes you are talking about. When I get just one baked potatoe while travelling in the usa, it's also huge in my eyes, two would be way too much. So again, weight would be more indicative than numbers, I think.
ETA: I am of course, as the OP was I think, talking about home dinner portions. In restaurants, meat portion would be higher but extremely rarely over 200-250g/plate anyway. I never finish those anyway, but that's me. Men certainly do
It's only my husband and I, so when we do steak, we usually split it. Same with the baked potato - we split it. When serving, it's come and get it style, so I try to only put on my plate what I think I can comfortably eat (there's usually a lot of empty real estate on my dinner plates ) Husband usually piles up his plate, realizes his eyes were bigger than his stomach, then wraps what is left over for the next day. Dog we give a few bites of everything (that doesn't have anything that dogs can't have) and he ALWAYS is hungry for more.
This sounds exactly like us. Does hubby actually eat it the next day, or do you throw it out later? We've had to quit giving anything to the dog...he was getting tubby.
Just 2 of us. Depends on menu item. If we do make more than we can eat, we have containers and use the remainder as left overs for another day that week.
There are five of us (two adults, three teens). Our dinners usually have no more than one pound of meat among us, and often less. We eat lots of vegetables and salads, not much pasta, bread or potatoes. However, my teens are known to come back into the kitchen later in the evening and devour the leftovers, or make themselves a sandwich or bowl of cereal. They're all skinny and this seems normal for their age, so it doesn't concern me.
I was only around for the 70s and 80s, but I know 8" diameter dinner plates were not the norm at that time. Even back then, those were salad plates. I'm not saying that plates haven't gotten bigger over the years, but googling tells me that the standard dinner plate was 9-10" in the 60s and 10-11" in the 80s, and that's my recollection as well.
Sorry for nitpicking. I think your principle is a good one. An 8" plate of food would not be enough for dinner for my husband (a mechanic) or me, but for sedentary people, it's probably fine. Encouraging smaller portions is generally a good thing.
wow, we all have to do what works for them, but a lb or less meat for 5 people including 3 teens doesn't sound like much protein unless they are getting it some other way.
OP: we usually have 1 chicken thigh, one pork chop or about 4 oz of fish for dinner, as well as a carb of some sort: when we have potatoes, if I use a decent size we will split one, otherwise if they are the small red ones for instance we have 1 each. When we have steak or hamburger we have about 6 oz each. 4 is what we should have. We love our veggies. We will have about 4 or 5 brussle sprouts each or 5 or so pieces of asparagus. Dessert is rare in our house unless it is a small ice cream bar or a juice bar a little while after dinner. Now don't ask about the wine intake, that is a different story.
8'' diameter plates are quite BIG, especially if the space is entirely covered with food ! Or did Google convert that badly for me? That woud be around 20 centimeters, right? If so, it would be very big in our culture. Such plates might be used as "platter" serving ones, where you put your normal plate on a larger one so that the meal is served in a prettier way. Or, funnily, as "salad plates" which, from your comment, would be bigger here I guess (assuming it's real salad, 90% raw/cooked vegetables.)
I am wondering about this, because it's hard for me to imagine an 8" / 20 cm diameter plate being large enough to be a charger plate (which I think is what you mean by serving platter). If I stretch out my hand, 8" is about the distance from the tip of my thumb to the tip of my little finger. That would make your dinner plate no more than about 6", or 15 cm, across, which is only a tiny bit bigger than a saucer under a teacup. That seems very small indeed for dinner.
Maybe you're used to multiple courses and plates for dinner? A 6" plate with bread, a 6" plate with some meat or fish and potato, etc., and a 6" plate with salad or vegetables could add up to about one normal US dinner plate of food.
I usually fix my plate on one of my saucers. They're probably about 6 inches across. I fill it with whatever I want, even if it's mostly starches. If I'm still hungry afterward, I'll get seconds. I usually find that I'm satisfied with what's on my "plate," though. I love good ol' Southern comfort food, so this is a good way to keep my weight in check.
ETA: I usually still make a full-size portion for myself at dinner. Like, I'll make a whole steak or pork chop or whatever, then cut it in half to put on my plate, along with sides. Then, I'll have the other half + sides for lunch the next day, if I don't get seconds.
I am wondering about this, because it's hard for me to imagine an 8" / 20 cm diameter plate being large enough to be a charger plate (which I think is what you mean by serving platter). If I stretch out my hand, 8" is about the distance from the tip of my thumb to the tip of my little finger. That would make your dinner plate no more than about 6", or 15 cm, across, which is only a tiny bit bigger than a saucer under a teacup. That seems very small indeed for dinner.
Maybe you're used to multiple courses and plates for dinner? A 6" plate with bread, a 6" plate with some meat or fish and potato, etc., and a 6" plate with salad or vegetables could add up to about one normal US dinner plate of food.
My dinner plates are 11" across, but have a 2" raised rim. I just checked. That makes the target area a reasonable size. Salad is served in a bowl, usually.
Oh, the gluttony!!
We fix our meals on Barbie plates, and we have to walk half a mile, uphill, to the kitchen. We cut our meats so thin that the slices only have one side.
I think I would starve to death on what some of you eat.
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.