I tried to stick to suggested serving sizes for a week and I wouldnt do it again(insider.com)
insider.com
I tried to stick to suggested serving sizes for a week and I wouldnt do it again
https://www.insider.com/i-tried-following-the-recommended-serving-sizes-for-a-week-2019-7
42 comments
They even say in the article:
> Notably, the serving sizes on food labels are primarily based on data about how much food people typically eat, not necessarily the quantity of food the National Institute of Health suggests the average person should eat each day.
And they don’t seem to look at all at nutrition information (intended to be compared to the recommended daily amount of various nutrients) - or even if they’re eating the recommended number of calories per day (which it feels to me like they can’t be).
> Notably, the serving sizes on food labels are primarily based on data about how much food people typically eat, not necessarily the quantity of food the National Institute of Health suggests the average person should eat each day.
And they don’t seem to look at all at nutrition information (intended to be compared to the recommended daily amount of various nutrients) - or even if they’re eating the recommended number of calories per day (which it feels to me like they can’t be).
And most foods' servings aren't necessarily eaten alone. That 1/4 cup of pasta might well be served along with 2 other dishes.
When I'm in lose weight mode, it's basically impossible to eat out. Every food I find is usually at least 400 calories, but I need something close to 150, and that's just not possible. I could eat less, but then I would be hungry. At home I just eat 150 calories and then an enormous bowl of veggies (broccoli, salad without topping, lot of tomatoes), that makes my stomach calm down
I agree with you that eating out is tricky while on a diet, but 150 calories for a meal is extremely restrictive even if you're on a diet.
If you follow a more standard low-calorie diet and eat ~400-500 calories per meal, you can often make fast food work by ordering a kid's meal. Another idea would be to order a single small sandwich without fries and with diet soda or water.
This may not be a satiating meal since it doesn't have enough fiber, but something along the lines of a McDonald's hamburger plus a diet coke would be a "normal" thing you could order while on a diet and still stay within your calorie limits.
If you follow a more standard low-calorie diet and eat ~400-500 calories per meal, you can often make fast food work by ordering a kid's meal. Another idea would be to order a single small sandwich without fries and with diet soda or water.
This may not be a satiating meal since it doesn't have enough fiber, but something along the lines of a McDonald's hamburger plus a diet coke would be a "normal" thing you could order while on a diet and still stay within your calorie limits.
I eat a total of 900 calories when on this diet and it worked so well over the years, it's just really bad if you don't have access to your home. It also makes my body feel very healthy when I do, not sure why.
The key to it is distributing the food and eating certain type of foods that are very filling. If I'm hungry, I will eat, I can't think properly otherwise.
So I eat about 4 apples throughout the day (different fruit in summer), that's 200 calories. Fruit is probably the key since it stops hunger. For breakfast I have a cup of milk and 30g of carbs, which is either a slice of bread (no sugar) or some no sugar cereals. I'm looking for an alternative to the bread/cereals because it's not very filling or satisfying. That's roughly 200 calories.
Launch and dinner are 130g chicken breast, a lot of veggies. Chicken breast can be replaced with avocado or fish or beef, just keep it at 160 calories. I also put a drop of evoo (extra virgin olive oil) in the salad, half a teaspoon, otherwise it's really hard to eat (60 calories), so that puts the meal at roughly 250 calories if you account for some calories from the veggies.
Total of 900.
I also drink enormous amount of water while on this diet, it helps a lot.
Third day is the hardest, since the body asks for more calories, past the third something happens and body is fine. The major problem is at 4 weeks the body starts looking for alternative flavors, which is hard to do at low calories. Summer helps a lot because the fruit variety is incredible. Strawberries and nectarines are really good! If I save the evoo calories, I go for a bowl of ataulfo mango + nectarines + strawberries + raspberries, it's really sweet and filling.
I should also point out that I never eat at McDonald's either way, not sure what they put in the North American one, probably sugar, but after 1 big mac and 6 chicken nuggets, which puts me over 1000, I was starving. Did it once, would rather not eat than eat Mcdonald.
The key to it is distributing the food and eating certain type of foods that are very filling. If I'm hungry, I will eat, I can't think properly otherwise.
So I eat about 4 apples throughout the day (different fruit in summer), that's 200 calories. Fruit is probably the key since it stops hunger. For breakfast I have a cup of milk and 30g of carbs, which is either a slice of bread (no sugar) or some no sugar cereals. I'm looking for an alternative to the bread/cereals because it's not very filling or satisfying. That's roughly 200 calories.
Launch and dinner are 130g chicken breast, a lot of veggies. Chicken breast can be replaced with avocado or fish or beef, just keep it at 160 calories. I also put a drop of evoo (extra virgin olive oil) in the salad, half a teaspoon, otherwise it's really hard to eat (60 calories), so that puts the meal at roughly 250 calories if you account for some calories from the veggies.
Total of 900.
I also drink enormous amount of water while on this diet, it helps a lot.
Third day is the hardest, since the body asks for more calories, past the third something happens and body is fine. The major problem is at 4 weeks the body starts looking for alternative flavors, which is hard to do at low calories. Summer helps a lot because the fruit variety is incredible. Strawberries and nectarines are really good! If I save the evoo calories, I go for a bowl of ataulfo mango + nectarines + strawberries + raspberries, it's really sweet and filling.
I should also point out that I never eat at McDonald's either way, not sure what they put in the North American one, probably sugar, but after 1 big mac and 6 chicken nuggets, which puts me over 1000, I was starving. Did it once, would rather not eat than eat Mcdonald.
How many calories do you eat per day? And how many meals?
I answered in the other comment, but roughly 900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35935463#35936567
It is interesting that we - according to science - need less food than we think. I can't find a good primary source but supposedly feeling a little hungry after a meal is good for you. And we definitely are conditioned by advertisement and food corps to eat more than we need to. I remember advice about managing your blood sugar by constantly snacking. Also this 1g proteins per kg body weight is pretty exaggerated. I'm currently at the beginning of a 36 hour fast. I'm doing that about every two to three weeks. It does feel good. But yes, I'm hungry. Then again - life is short and eating should be enjoyed.
I’m trying to lose weight again, and it’s obvious there’s a few different levels to hunger:
- I could eat something, but I’m good right now <- this should probably be what I feel like most of the day
- Feeling hangry, don’t piss me off!! <- this means I’m probably about to cheat
- Feeling dizzy and lightheaded <- I f*cked up and I should’ve been eating more
- I could eat something, but I’m good right now <- this should probably be what I feel like most of the day
- Feeling hangry, don’t piss me off!! <- this means I’m probably about to cheat
- Feeling dizzy and lightheaded <- I f*cked up and I should’ve been eating more
I recently tried to decrease my calorie consumption, improve portion control, and eat better foods[1]. I was surprised to find how much of my desire to eat stemmed from boredom. Especially since I'd traditionally considered myself someone who didn't care about food much.[2]
[1] I ended up mostly abandoning the decreased calorie consumption; however, I've maintained the portion control and better quality foods.
[2] Looking at it now, I think it might actually be: I don't care as much about eating specific foods that I crave. However, I care a lot about being able to eat foods that I at least somewhat like whenever I want. So I found switching to more healthy foods relatively easy; however, I found cutting out sweet foods completely or eliminating snacking very difficult.
[1] I ended up mostly abandoning the decreased calorie consumption; however, I've maintained the portion control and better quality foods.
[2] Looking at it now, I think it might actually be: I don't care as much about eating specific foods that I crave. However, I care a lot about being able to eat foods that I at least somewhat like whenever I want. So I found switching to more healthy foods relatively easy; however, I found cutting out sweet foods completely or eliminating snacking very difficult.
Feeling hangry is likely more about blood sugar than lack of calories.
It seems like this should be true, but is it really? It should be easy to test, just do the finger stick when you are hungry and see what your blood sugar measures at that time.
> according to science ... I can't find a good primary source but supposedly
Thanks for the insight
Thanks for the insight
according to science was specifically regarding serving sizes. that's what the article is about. it's drawing its motivation from official US government health institutions which I would assume (hope) are run by scientists at least with regard to those recommendations.
no source is regarding the you should feel hungry. but then again this follows from this article as a corollary.
no source is regarding the you should feel hungry. but then again this follows from this article as a corollary.
That ancient wisdom from many societies. Hindu Ayurvedic advise to eat slowly until satisfied not full.
Hindu Ayurvedic definitely didn't need to piss in the bottles to not to be fired while enjoying the privilege of working for the greater good of the man[0] in the most democratic country of all countries.
[0] and we even know the name of than man
[0] and we even know the name of than man
What exactly are you ranting about? What connection your statement has with Ayurveda?
It's amusing what it needs to be spoken out, but ancient wisdom isn't applicable for the current times - they are different.
I wonder if that applies to people who are trying to build muscle and/or increase athletic performance? In those cases it seems like one would need to eat significantly more than what a lot of those sorts of studies/diets seem to recommend.
We are conditioned by millions of years of evolution to eat more than we need to.
yes - because of consistently experienced scarcity of high caloric nutrition back in the days. so when you got the chance you should eat as much as you can. but now with supermarkets and fridges this ancient programming is harmful and hence those recommended serving sizes.
> it had a 3-inch diameter... but today's version typically has a 6-inch diameter
> After learning this, I cut my bagel in half to make it comply
This math doesn't add up. Half the volume (and thus amount of food) of the big bagel is still way more than the full volume of a smaller bagel half the radius.
https://www.omnicalculator.com/math/torus-volume
> After learning this, I cut my bagel in half to make it comply
This math doesn't add up. Half the volume (and thus amount of food) of the big bagel is still way more than the full volume of a smaller bagel half the radius.
https://www.omnicalculator.com/math/torus-volume
In the 1960s, the average dinner plate size was 8.5". Today in the US, it's 12".
Same thing with glasses and cups; most mugs in the US today are closer to 14-16oz, not 8oz.
There is a similar comparison with standard coffee drink sizes in the US vs abroad. In the US, a normal "small/healthy-ish" coffee drink is a 12oz latte, but in most of Europe, it's a 6oz cappuccino.
If you want to lose weight via portion control, I highly recommend going to Ikea and spending $50 on smaller dishes, and switching to 6oz cappuccinos when you order coffee out.
Same thing with glasses and cups; most mugs in the US today are closer to 14-16oz, not 8oz.
There is a similar comparison with standard coffee drink sizes in the US vs abroad. In the US, a normal "small/healthy-ish" coffee drink is a 12oz latte, but in most of Europe, it's a 6oz cappuccino.
If you want to lose weight via portion control, I highly recommend going to Ikea and spending $50 on smaller dishes, and switching to 6oz cappuccinos when you order coffee out.
The latte thing is interesting to me as a Brit.
I used to drink black coffee, or coffee with a splash of milk.
I switched to drinking lattes when I realised that they have a significant amount of protein and calories in them from the higher milk content.
So I specifically use them to gain weight. It's crazy to me that you'd drink these if you weren't trying to gain weight. It's drinking 100-200 cal.
I used to drink black coffee, or coffee with a splash of milk.
I switched to drinking lattes when I realised that they have a significant amount of protein and calories in them from the higher milk content.
So I specifically use them to gain weight. It's crazy to me that you'd drink these if you weren't trying to gain weight. It's drinking 100-200 cal.
I agree. And in the US, a 12oz latte is considered the default/healthy option!
Many people order 16 or even 20oz lattes with added syrups/sugar. At Starbucks, a caramel macchiato is one of the most popular drinks. It has 250 calories and 33 grams of sugar.
Many people order 16 or even 20oz lattes with added syrups/sugar. At Starbucks, a caramel macchiato is one of the most popular drinks. It has 250 calories and 33 grams of sugar.
The issue with suggested serving sizes is that people eat a different number of servings.
If your caloric needs for the day are 2500 and you eat 10 servings of meals and snacks you'll overshoot.
It honestly doesn't really make sense as a metric. In times when I've been maintaining my weight I've eaten 1500 calories in a meal and met the target for the day. In times when I've been gaining I've eaten meals that wholly consist of green vegetables and essentially have a zero calorie count.
The total is what matters.
If your caloric needs for the day are 2500 and you eat 10 servings of meals and snacks you'll overshoot.
It honestly doesn't really make sense as a metric. In times when I've been maintaining my weight I've eaten 1500 calories in a meal and met the target for the day. In times when I've been gaining I've eaten meals that wholly consist of green vegetables and essentially have a zero calorie count.
The total is what matters.
For what it's worth, the food selection heuristic I've been trying to follow which seems to work for me is a combination of:
- Try to maximize the ratio of protein to carbs in a food.
- For a given number of calories, look for foods with the highest amount of protein. Or somewhat equivalently, for a given amount of protein, look for foods with the lowest number of calories.
To me it feels like these allow me to reason about and compare foods without getting bogged down in things like serving sizes.
- Try to maximize the ratio of protein to carbs in a food.
- For a given number of calories, look for foods with the highest amount of protein. Or somewhat equivalently, for a given amount of protein, look for foods with the lowest number of calories.
To me it feels like these allow me to reason about and compare foods without getting bogged down in things like serving sizes.
The issue with maximizing protein, is that only carbs or fat makes you feel full so you stop eating. When you maximize protein, you eat more. Yes, it is that simple.
Serving sizes are a scam to manipulate nutritional labels. What we need is what Europe has - what percent of food is what. They have that by making the nutritional label for 100g.
Another thing that would be helpful, is not putting raw calories on there, but putting metabolized calories on there. Looking at a nutritional label for dietary fiber makes a person think they're eating a bunch of empty calories, when they get pretty much zero. Why is the nutritional label showing how many calories are released if I burn the food in a fire? Our digestive system is not a BBQ grill.
Serving sizes are a scam to manipulate nutritional labels. What we need is what Europe has - what percent of food is what. They have that by making the nutritional label for 100g.
Another thing that would be helpful, is not putting raw calories on there, but putting metabolized calories on there. Looking at a nutritional label for dietary fiber makes a person think they're eating a bunch of empty calories, when they get pretty much zero. Why is the nutritional label showing how many calories are released if I burn the food in a fire? Our digestive system is not a BBQ grill.
"The issue with maximizing protein, is that only carbs or fat makes you feel full so you stop eating. When you maximize protein, you eat more. Yes, it is that simple."
This seems very wrong...isn't protein the most satiating macronutrient?
This seems very wrong...isn't protein the most satiating macronutrient?
It is very wrong.
Not at all.
An excellent diet hack is to have a small protein shake 10 minutes before a meal.
For the cost of 100 calories, you'll reduce hunger considerably.
An excellent diet hack is to have a small protein shake 10 minutes before a meal.
For the cost of 100 calories, you'll reduce hunger considerably.
This is completely the opposite of how hunger works for me.
I'm actually trying to gain weight and if I have a protein shake in the morning I could easily just neglect eating a real breakfast for hours.
I'm actually trying to gain weight and if I have a protein shake in the morning I could easily just neglect eating a real breakfast for hours.
I don’t like how this person measured their serving sizes by volume. It’s much better to measure in grams.
Shame they didn't keep going. It takes time to adjust. Probably, a longterm viable place is on average a serving and a half with some days 1serve and some days 2, and I'm willing to bet that's smaller than their normal portion control.
Sticking to portion sizes is undeniably hard.
Sticking to portion sizes is undeniably hard.
I also with the author had stuck with it for longer. Sticking to portion sizes is hard, but personally I find that after about two weeks of adjustment, it's a lot easier.
If you want to feel satiated eating a smaller amount of food, you should eat fatty foods such as nuts, meat and eggs.
Yeah, this strikes me as a typical high carb diet recommended by the government. If you eat small portions on a diet like that, you'll be constantly hungry.
I was joking today that my son who's just starting to eat solid foods already seems to be approaching some of the suggested serving sizes for adults.
This is typical of public health organizations, they completely ignore reality which actually makes their advice worse than useless because people ignore it altogether instead of at least using it as a guideline. Sort of like when you go somewhere that says the speed limit is 5 mph. It's not even possible to drive that slowly so you just ignore it entirely.
A sort of related article this made me think of: Ultra-Cautious CDC Wants You To Cook Your Prosciutto and Salami https://reason.com/2021/08/25/ultra-cautious-cdc-wants-you-t...
This is typical of public health organizations, they completely ignore reality which actually makes their advice worse than useless because people ignore it altogether instead of at least using it as a guideline. Sort of like when you go somewhere that says the speed limit is 5 mph. It's not even possible to drive that slowly so you just ignore it entirely.
A sort of related article this made me think of: Ultra-Cautious CDC Wants You To Cook Your Prosciutto and Salami https://reason.com/2021/08/25/ultra-cautious-cdc-wants-you-t...
I think it's more likely that the serving sizes are gamed by companies to be as small as possible so they can report eg the lowest amount of sugar on the nutrition facts label they can get away with, rather than that the regulators are out of touch and think people eat in tiny portions.
That article is pretty silly. There was a salmonella outbreak, so for a brief time, for a specific batch from a specific brand the CDC advised people to cook those meats.
That outbreak put 12 people in the hospital. Salmonella outbreaks kill people (though not this one in particular - probably because of this recall), especially children, the elderly, and the immunocompromised.
And Reason's objection is, "no one wants to do that?" This just really misunderstands how this works. Grocery stores, restaurants, school cafeterias, and nursing homes around the country threw out the contaminated meat, and it probably saved lives. It almost certainly kept people out of the hospital. (I took a ServSafe food safety course, the sort you'd take to be a restaurant manager or server, and there was a big focus on understanding & actioning on these CDC reports.)
Maybe individuals didn't choose to cook their meats. Whatever. Most of it was probably thrown away before they had the chance to roll those dice.
In light of the life saving nature of this system, Reason's criticism is incredibly shallow. Naturally they spin it into some antimask rubbish.
(I imagine the real reason for the ridiculous portion sizes is that
That article is pretty silly. There was a salmonella outbreak, so for a brief time, for a specific batch from a specific brand the CDC advised people to cook those meats.
That outbreak put 12 people in the hospital. Salmonella outbreaks kill people (though not this one in particular - probably because of this recall), especially children, the elderly, and the immunocompromised.
And Reason's objection is, "no one wants to do that?" This just really misunderstands how this works. Grocery stores, restaurants, school cafeterias, and nursing homes around the country threw out the contaminated meat, and it probably saved lives. It almost certainly kept people out of the hospital. (I took a ServSafe food safety course, the sort you'd take to be a restaurant manager or server, and there was a big focus on understanding & actioning on these CDC reports.)
Maybe individuals didn't choose to cook their meats. Whatever. Most of it was probably thrown away before they had the chance to roll those dice.
In light of the life saving nature of this system, Reason's criticism is incredibly shallow. Naturally they spin it into some antimask rubbish.
(I imagine the real reason for the ridiculous portion sizes is that
From their first link.