to think that this is an appropriate portion size for a 5 year old?

[EnchanciaAnthem]

This was DD's dinner. She is a very healthy weight. My cousin was here with her 4 year old girl, who I gave the same size portion - yet my cousin asked for extra everything for her DD as what I'd put out wasn't 'enough'.

They had ricecakes as an after school snack too.

I would say that's enough but my 5yo would ask for more. DH would serve him more in the first place but then I think DH's portions are too big.

You can get your 5 year old to eat that much veg???

You deserve a medal

Children are so different. My enormously tall, strong DS would've picked at half at that when he was five. He seemed to exist on a diet of air!

My DD is now 5 yrs old and eats an adult sized portion of dinner, plus a cooked lunch/pud at school and a hearty breakfast. She is very tall, though, and a very active child.

My average sized 5yo would eat twice as much (and probably still ask for more!)

Everyone is different. I don't think your cousin was rude or that you were wrong for giving them the same amount of food each.

That's absolutely fine as a dinner for a 5yr old imo.

Some kids are just hungrier than others so if her cousin needed a bit more to fill her up, that's fine too.

I would probably eat that myself as a light lunch.

Old woman alert

At 5yo I was in my second year of school, the year was 1960.
An average day's food:
Half a grapefruit with sugar
Fried bacon, egg + fried bread
Cereals with full-fat milk
Tea with milk & sugar
? pint school milk, full-fat
2 or 3 biscuits
Apple
Meat + 3 veg
Starchy pudding with custard
Fruit juice
Biscuits, crisps or chocolate
Banana
2 slices of bread with butter, meat/cheese filling + salad
2 slices of bread with butter + jam
Cake or jelly
Fruit
Tea with milk & sugar
Meat + 3 veg
Starchy pudding with custard
Hot drink made with full-fat milk & sugar
2 or 3 biscuits

None of us were overweight. Bears some thinking about, doesn't it?

I'm suspicious of recommended portion sizes - I suspect they're based on some research team's idea of how much energy the child uses during their day. My parents' generation took it for granted that DC need as much again for 'growth', laying down healthy bone, brain development, etcetera. Since we baby-boomers are currently the healthiest generation of oldies in history, I'm unwilling to say they were wrong!

Garlic I was a child of the 70's and we didn't eat anything like that amount...actually not even half of that.

But mostly everything was full fat and cooked with lard etc

The huge difference was, the amount of exercise we got compared to today.

I don't remember any 2 car families, there were only 3 channels on the TV, no computer games etc...and most of us really did spend our spare time playing in the street or the park.

So even if I and my friends had eaten anywhere near that amount, the chances of it making us overweight, would have been slim (no pun intended).

Looks fine to me. Dd (7) wouldn't eat much more than that

No rice or potatoes? That wouldn't last my DD at all.

Looks like a similar portion size to what I feed DD age 4 1/2. If she ate it all and was still hungry I'd give her a bit more. Usually she is full on that amount and is a perfect height and weight. Although, when she is having a growth spurt that would be a mere snack

Yes, Worra, the amount of exercise has change dramatically for most children. There was even a 50% reduction in a child's ambit between my '50s and your '70s. We both got games at school every day, and sporting activities after school. If you look at old photos from "our" era, kids were slim but ... stockier? More muscular, I guess.

I do give credence to the theory of 'double it for growth' though, and to currently unfashionable truisms such as 'baby fat' and children growing out before they grow tall. I'm almost certain (having not done any formal research, obvs) that many children these days are underfed. They shouldn't be spindly, unless of course they come from a spindly family.

Animal fat is grossly underrated imo. Not saying everything should be swimming in lard (urgh) but it does serve metabolic purposes that are not matched by substitutes.

At the end of the day, if your child doesn't wobble when she runs and can do everything normally, she's probably not overeating :)

They shouldn't be spindly, unless of course they come from a spindly family.

Yes they should. A child should have ribs clearly showing and not be carrying fat.

Fizzy drinks! Us oldies blame fizzy drinks for all of today's ills

Sirzy, you're simply stating today's perspective as compared to my parents'. We won't know whether one has genuine advantages over the other for another 40+ years - I'll be dead by then, so shan't be saying I told you so!

You mean I am stating what has been medically shown and the modern advice rather than clinging onto the old way of thinking?

Looks fine. Would fill my 3 and 4 year olds. Plenty of dairy and protein for one meal surely with eggs, cheese, milk in quiche and the yogurt. I might give a little more salad/ veg but would be happy if they left something

Some days they are hungrier than others. However they are very active child who walk, scoot and cycle miles every day and swim most evenings. Even then that would be plenty.

Their stomachs are only so big

I've seen this on threads before about runs clearly showing. What does that actually mean? In my head it conjures an image of them being very obvious from all angles at all times. You know, properly sticking out with dips in between. Is that what it means? And at what ages, at all ages? Mine are both middle of normal and with no fat but I wouldn't say their ribs were obvious, it's not something I notice when I look at them. Have you got a picture? Or something. To me being able to see all someone's ribs is images of starvation on the news but obviously that's not what is intended.

Ribs not runs ffs

Tbh I don't think children "should" be spindly across the board either, unless that is how they are built. Some children are slighter than others, like some people are slighter than others, that's just how it is.

A child should have ribs clearly showing and not be carrying fat. I thought that was Greyhounds.

My understanding was that a child shouldn't have any extra fat but that their bones shouldn't show either.

That portion size looks about the same as I would have for my evening meal. I have cooked lunch at work, so only want light meal in the evening.

However, having said that, my 3-year-old dgd has bigger portions than me sometimes!

That would be fine for my 4 year old dd (she probably wouldn't finish it) but my 6 year old ds would require a bit more. He is incredibly active though and has a large appetite.

I can see my ribs still as an adult, as can I on both children. They are 98th percentile height, 90th weight. Perfectly healthy according to doctor

I've been assuming when looking at the portion size that it was on a small children's plate rather than a standard plate. If the plate is a full sized one, then my children would struggle to eat that much even on a hungry day, but I would still believe them off they said they were hungry after reading that much.

I have always wondered about the visible ribs, too. If DD (aged 7) stretches, I cam see both ribs and a six pack which suggests that she is both strong and has pretty low body fat. But if she is just standing normally, I can only just about see the outline.

Actually, having posted that I got both DCs to show me, and with arms moving around as they talked, I could see a ripple of rib outline. Not sticking out, but definitely visible. I have no idea of DS's height and weight but composted to other children of his age he seems taller, slimmer and a bit more muscular.