New portion size guidance - what do you think?

[TheFifthKey]

www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jan/14/nutritionists-launch-portion-size-guide-to-tackle-overeating

This is roughly in line with the portion sizes I've been eating recently in a drive to be healthier - BUT I have been often pretty hungry (not starving, just used to a greater amount of food and having to reset my norms) and it's very very hard to eat out at all and follow these guidelines. I know reading threads on here, for example, many people think 500g of mince will only serve two people in bolognese.

how often do we see here people eating a whole pack at a time

I don't think I've ever seen anyone eat a whole packet of biscuits to themselves. I know people joke about it - oh don't put them near me, I'll eat them all - but I've never actually seen anyone do it.

I think that type of binge culture is more to blame than portion sizes overall, unless you're eating out often. It is difficult to find ready made things that aren't insanely calorific, even sandwiches are usually 400 - 500 calories in the Sainsbury's near work.

Spag Bol is an interesting one too. When I was using a jar of sauce, 500g would do two - now I make it properly with veg and 500g easily does four pretty good portions.

Wilma - sounds right to me. 4 oz is roughly 120g I think.

When I'm menu planning I allow 100-150g of, say, mince beef (depending on the dish (i.e) upper end if it's a burger, lower end if it's lasagne) with 150-180g if serving meat as a stand alone with accompaniments depending on type of both meat and accompaniments (e.g. 200-250g potato) and I always deliberately err on the side of slightly overdoing the portions with these numbers in mind.

Still shocked by 250g pp of mince in bolognese! I did actually eat a 250g steak quite recently at a restaurant in France (with probably only about 175-200g of potato on the side)... it was absolutely delicious but I was so full at the end of it there was no room for dessert even though the starter had been a very light salmon tartare.

I am not a light eater

I found the guidance really useful - its hard to know how much to give dd. Dp probably gives dd too much. I probably give too little (because I still think of my 6 yr old as a cute little toddler ).

So the salmon we gave last night should have been half of dd's hand size I think? That seems quite small...

Spag Bol is an interesting one too. When I was using a jar of sauce, 500g would do two - now I make it properly with veg and 500g easily does four pretty good portions

Ah ok, 250g of beef per person is still a lot but I didn't realise it was literally the beef and a jar of sauce that was being added to it.

I find that my teens will eat as much meat as I put on the table. If we have a joint of beef- about monthly- it's best to serve it in the kitchen or they'll eat it all. I buy enough for loads of leftovers too, but they will eat it all if they can.

Those portion sizes are a bit low, I feel, but not terrible if you heap up the veg. I often bulk out pasta with veg , but then I'm trying to lose weight. It works too.

The official recommendation for a sedentary woman my age and hight has been reducded to 1700 kcal (different area), which seems about right. To slowly reduce my weight I'd need to stick to 1400 kcal.
Eating a 2:5 diet or keeping the traditional abstinence days like my DGM did would do the trick.

(As for spaghetti bolognese I use the recipe my Italian childminder gave me when my DC left for kindergarten. No jars involved.)

None of this seems excessive or news to me. A 500g packet of mince will do 5 of us for 2 nights (although the kids are all under 8). I use 2 diced onions, 2 tins of tomatoes and one or two green peppers in the recipe, then add a tin of kidney beans to half to make chilli. A biscuit or two is ample for an afternoon snack. I always thought a matchbox size piece of cheese classrd sd a portion, mature cheddar or anothrr strongly flavoured cheese and that's actually enough.

Eating out is tricker I agree as portions are huge and it is hard to leave food on the plate. If I have, say, a hot crossed bun or piece of cake at a cafe with a friend, I'll treat it as part of lunch and if I know we're having takeaway I want to leave room to enjoy it so would have just a piece of toast at lunchtime. A takeaway for us is a large Dominoes between DH and I (no sides / desserts). If we have Chinese or Indian it's usually with a bigger group so share rices and breads. I mean it is harder to stick to sensible portions when eating out but luckily our lifestyle means we are too skint and knackered to eat out often and when we do we tend to just have mains and half a Twirl on the way home!

BarbaraofSeville I suggest you are the one who is not average. I literally know not one woman who could eat 2000 cal a day and not put on weight. I have to eat under 1000 to lose weight and around 1200 to maintain. I am in my 50s, fairly sedentary but not a sloth. Post menopause I can hand on heart say that 2000 cal is too much for most women.

I don't know anyone who could eat 2,000 a day either.

I eat 2000 calories a day. I weigh 9 stone and I'm 5'7''.

As a hangover from teen anorexia I calorie count and I do this to maintain weight because I don't get hungry so have to add stuff like bread to meals.

It is possible - I have four dc, a job, I travel for work, I'm really stressed.

I eat 2,000 calories a day. I am slim.

we were advised by rehab to buy old dinner plates from charity shops, so much smaller than the new-style ones and a valuable visual adjustment to portion control.

It was a real eye-opener recently when I had a clear out and found some old plates - just as you say, they were about half the size! And these were only about 15 years old.

I like the hand illustrations. I do wonder the extent to which population-level guidelines are useful though.

People mainly take the top line advice from these things (e.g. the 2000 calories, 5 a day) and don't take on board some of the nuances that are boiled down into the guidance.

A lot of the recommendations are weights or caloric amounts. I think that puts some people at risk of disordered or restrictive eating. Conversely, it's not always intuitive and can seem like a lot for someone who is trying to overhaul their diet.

I cheered at the common sense no nonsense comments made, especially the ones about most people over estimating how many calories they eat and how just 200 or so extra a day can cause obesity... Yeh finally someone brave enough to say that it's eating too much that is causing the obesity crisis and individuals need to take responsibility for their portions.

I would love to be able to eat 2000 cals! I think that was worked out in the '50s when people were generally more active. Does not make sense for modern lives though.

i think it will bother the people that will become obsessed.i don't agree to overthinking it like this.there should be a portion on plate and its ok if its balanced right.so if your potato was bigger one time it wont hurt because all in all its balanced.
and I don't want someone telling me how much veg or salad I or anyone should have.
yes yes a first look at portion sizes so you get the round about sizes.but then not continuing to measure so tightly on every meal.it take the fun and joy out of it.
food should be enjoyed.food should be able to be cooked and served and that's it it shouldn't need thought and such tightness like this.
plus when making a meal we will always know there will be leftovers. so wouldn't portion it like this so tightly for 1,2,3,4 people.
this is what they can put money into so they aren't bothered about what this sort of obsessional advice can bring for so many.
the mental health and emotional side of food is too expenesive and time consuming for them to put money into,
teaching people to cook good food.
food prices.
self care
self awareness
health in schools
keeping active.
eating disorders.
self esteem it all fits into how good you will eat and look after yourself but putting guidliness and new number on plates is far easier for them to do.

Noeuf I think that's really brave and amazing of you to know you have to do this.it must be really hard sometimes to go agasint that scary voice of old in ur mind.
you should be very proud of doing that hard work to make sure you safe.

I eat 2500 kcal/day even though my TDEE calc'n is about 2000.

5'5" tall 50yo woman weighing 145 lbs has BMI=24.1 (which is within 'healthy' range, anyway).
If she gets moderate exercise, TDEE = 1982.
Says the calculators I find online. 2000 seems fine for most women, if they actually get exercise following official guidelines, anyway.

It was so depressing eating tiny portions of pasta etc that I've just stopped eating them! Eat spuds and lentils now instead.

@kateandme wow what a nice post. Thank you.

I'm just under 10st and 5'3 and 50. I exercise 6 days a week - cardio and weight training. My personal trainer advises me to eat 2000 cals per day. I also walk about 3-4 miles per day. I am still losing weight slowly. I think you need to ignore the "average" and work out what works for you.

I think the portion sizes sound fairly generous. But then I rarely finish a meal out unless I order a small/child’s portion and often split a meal with my husband if it’s somewhere more casual (eg if we get a curry we would split one rice, one main and a side and have plenty left over for a lunch another day).

@lljkk. 'Moderate exercise' that's another one I don't think is well documented.

That's 30-60 minutes of working out(tennis, swimming, running) 5 days a week.
Not a stroll round the block with the dog a couple of times a day and to the pub on a weekend which is what I do.

Pretty much anyone who doesn't go to the gym 5 days a week and works in an office, is classified as sedentary.

Just use your common sense! If you're gaining weight, eat less. I walk at least 5 miles/day 5-6x/week and do weights 3x/week and just go by how my clothes fit.

No, sorry to be a pushy cowbag. But that's a myth that you have to work out 5x/week. Moderate does not mean vigorous.

These are screenshots from the Chief Med Officers guidelines. Moderate means heart rate raised, but not working "hard".

So when they say 30 minutes day of moderate, 5x/week, they mean 30 minutes of brisk walking or ordinary cycling. Enough to warm you a bit is moderate. Moderate doesn't have to mean sweaty.

15 minutes of vigorous equates to 30 minutes of moderate.
If you're doing only sweaty exercise, 75 minutes/week = meeting the activity guidelines.

ps: it's possible the TDEE calculators follow other rules when they define moderate activity. Maybe TDEE calculators really do mean vigorous physical activity for at least 1 hour on each day mentioned, when they suggest 'moderate' exercise.

In which case I am eating even massively more calories than my TDEE predicts, mind.

I just know how the CMO guidelines work.