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.

Its interesting ready how many people are commenting on the seeming lack of ability to feel hungry any more. its definitely been my eye opening moment with my diet over the past couple of months. I've learned that being hungry isn't a bad thing, it just means that my body has efficiently processed the nutrients I provided it with at my last meal. If it processes them too quickly I need to change what I feed it so it processes them more slowly.

Since I accepted that feeling hungry isn't 'bad' I've found that my portions are smaller and I eat far more sensibly.

I used to make 500g of mince last for 8 portions when my kids were small then as they grew, it only lasted for 6 - added tomatoes and onions and peppers and if it was a bolognaise, or swapped peppers for carrots if serving with potato! Even now they are adults, 500g last for 4 portions

If you are eating massive portions and are still a healthy weight, obviously you don't need to take heed of the guidance!

It's not hard.

And it advises 4 starchy carb portions a day - if one fist size baked potato is too small for you, why not have one the size of two fists and count it as half of your starchy carb portions for the day? You still could have a couple of weetabix for breakfast and a bowl of rice/pasta for dinner on top of your extra large baked potato for lunch or whatever.

*If you are eating massive portions and are still a healthy weight, obviously you don't need to take heed of the guidance!

It's not hard.*

No, you're right...it's not. It's still worth having a discussion about though isn't it? I don't think a one size fits all guide is helpful, especially as reducing calories is just one part of a healthy lifestyle. I also think that a focus on restriction is not the best approach for some people.

500g for 8 portions of mince will leave you severely lacking protein in your diet unless the rest of you diet is all beans egg, chicken and/or salmon.

75g is actually quite a lot of pasta. Two handfuls is a huge amount and massively imprecise. Generally i do 50g. Nothing wrong with more pasta than that if if fits within the rest if your diet

mirialis
As *Raspberry rightly says, she can get away with it now.
But in 25 years time - when she's as old as me - her calorific needs will have dropped by around 15% even if she keeps her exercise level similar
and hence why middle age spread happens.

Its not about "restriction"
its about awareness of real need

I agree - when you can't just eat as much as you want without worrying about it, it's pretty good to have a guide that doesn't involve calorie counting and weighing stuff but gives you an easy to follow principle to adjust to your changing needs.

Marialis tbh when you put it like that I'm falling short of my four portions a day some of the time .

I literally know not one woman who could eat 2000 cal a day and not put on weight.

I can. Late 40s, little overweight at 11st at 5'4 but quite active.

My problem is that I often eat more than 2000kcal.

OK, looking at the NHS targets, change quite active to active.

I literally know not one woman who could eat 2000 cal a day and not put on weight.

I'm pretty sure I do, I don't spend time obsessing about calories and being a food bore and just enjoy what I eat and go by clothing size. Late 40s, very active and muscular.

I'm with you, Raspberry. I've lived in places where people are starving and yet here you have people weighing out a portion of pasta and being ascetic as monks. Miserable.

I like it being based on handfuls as small people have small hands so their handful will be smaller

I like it based on handfuls too as although I am not big I have got massive hands. I could get a huge portion of pasta into my hands. aaah!

I literally know not one woman who could eat 2000 cal a day and not put on weight.

Ooh, that sounds like a challenge!

I've no idea about calories but suspect, based on these guidelines and portion sizes, that I might eat more than that. And I have trouble keeping weight on.

PlumpSyrianHamster I'm one of those people that weigh out pasta, doesn't make me miserable at all, thanks.By the way, while not starving, some of us do have plenty of experience of going a bit short of food in this country.

I think 2000 may be ok if you are following the activity guidelines but the reality is most people don’t.

I think 2000 may be ok if you are following the activity guidelines but the reality is most people don’t.
NOPE
That figure was based on a 5'6" 35 year old doing manual housework.
People older, or shorter than that need less.

My TDEE - even if I go to the gym every day - does not go up to 2000

I have disproportionately small hands. Sigh!!

I'm with you,Raspberry. I've lived in places where people are starving and yet here you have people weighing out a portion of pasta and being ascetic as monks. Miserable.

So you'd rather people just did too much and wasted food? Weighing just means you cook what you eat, failing to see how that is miserable tbh.

Yeah, sorry, but also found that comment a bit silly. I cook for a living, am lucky enough to eat out at some of the top restaurants in the world, I LOVE food and being aware of portion size is really not miserable at all. I can do it by eye for meals due to how much cooking I have to do but if I didn't I think this guide would be fab because it gives people who don't like weighing/calorie counting an easy rule of thumb. DH and I weigh out our dog's food so we get it right for him and don't make him unhealthy - it takes seconds and if we can spare that level of care for a pet, surely we can spare that level of care for people!!

GreenEggs the average adult woman needs around 45g of protein per day. 70g of 15% mince has around 13g of protein; there is a small amount of protein in other spaghetti bolognese ingredients too, plus wholemeal pasta in around 10% protein (so 7g+ in a 75g portion). Assuming most people also have breakfast and lunch daily, a bowl of porridge with milk is around 10g of protein, a slice of Warburtons has 4g protein so around 15g of protein in a cheese sandwich, there is protein in varying amounts present in cupcakes, chocolate, bananas etc. It is actually very hard to be protein deficient without being majorly calorie deficient in the UK.

So is the 2,000 calories based on a 1950s housewife doing 2+ hours per day on manual housework then? Why hasn’t it been updated?

Well for one thing, women these days, especially younger women are taller and heavier than your average 1950s housewife, so simply existing burns more calories.

I'm 45, 5'7", weigh about 12 stone 4 and the TDEE calculator gives between 2000 and 2200 calories burnt per day, depending on whether I am lightly or moderately active, I would say lightly active.

I'm not much more than average height or weight, but my job is about half in an office and half quite, but not very active, so not like a nurse, postwoman, warehouse/retail worker etc. I don't go to the gym, but do a bit of walking and running. I definitely eat more than 2000 calories a day, which is why I'm overweight.

Younger women, those with active jobs, or those who do a decent amount of exercise, are likely to burn more calories than I do. As someone upthread has indicated, you have to be very light and sedentary, to burn significantly under 2000 calories a day, which is why the average is still 2000 for women.

I'm 5ft 2 so at a natural disadvantage in eating to my heart's desire

For moderate, regular exercise (do running/ fitness classes most days) and walk a lot for local errands e.g. school run so lots of short bursts of decently paced walking, I need about 1950 calories. Sedentary days I need less (would be about 1400). Long run day can be 2300+ (but occurs less frequently).

When I've monitored my intake on MFP, I naturally eat around 2000 calories and do observe long term to keep myself comfortably in the healthy zone.

Eating out, portions are often ridiculous. I'm often left looking at the mountain on a smaller plate thinking that I should have had the children's carvery. Then there's the other extreme of unhealthy foods significantly underplaying a portion size to make it sound healthier when the bar of chocolate or whatever contains 2.3 times that amount.

2000 might be an average for a woman but the range of what people need as a TDEE is around that mean figure is so broad. Then arbitary figures such as dieting at 1200 gets thrown in the mix. For some, that is more deprivation than they need and can tolerate.

Decent portions of salad and vegetables are out of synch. Our local pub had a grill based menu where the "veg portion" could be something like a dollop of coleslaw. Side salads are often under a portion.

Sadly my hands are disproptionately small, but generally, it's a good compromise on a generic, but personalised approach to portions.

Sorry haven’t RTFT but wanted to reply to the comment about TDEE calculators and how they measure exercise and how it’s hard to tell what they’re counting as exercise - a tip I learned is to only ever put in that you’re sedentary. Then you can add your own activities in MFP etc, just to help the number be more tailored to you :)