"Serves 2" - Does it Fuck.

[MarmiteMakesMeHappy]

Or are me and DH pigs? possibly, yes

About once a week, we have a 'ready meal'. Usually a 'naice' Waitrose/M&S/Charlie Binham type thing - so a Beef Sroganoff, Moussaka type thing.

There's never enough.

I am not sure if it's because we don't do 'starters' and 'pudding' on a Tuesday night, or stuff our faces with bread and olives first, but we are always left feeling a bit hungry and a bit ashamed that we want more.

Even when DD, 11 and I shared a Waitrose meal for 2 the other week, we weren't quite full so maybe I'm the pig

I have come to the conclusion that they probably do serve two, IF YOU'RE A HAMSTER.

Or is it just us?

I have thought this so many times. I always get the "serves 2" to myself. Happy to see I'm not alone

It's probably all worked out calorie wise BUT the fact is that ready meals are not as satisfying as home made so that's why you need more to fill you up, so I was taught at Home Economics.

Sometimes it's about appearance as well as quantity. When DH and I were on a cycling/camping holiday, at a posh restaurant one evening our starter was a vol-au-vent with smoked salmon/cream cheese/chives on a 'bed' of sauce. Looked amazing but was tiny - we were hungry. We looked at the food, then each other, decided to eat it slowly and savour every mouthful. The strategy worked, it was fab and unbelievably satisfying.

I saw something on tv the other day that was saying the portion/facts and figures of the recommended amounts of salt, fat etc printed on food is based on a sedentary woman.

That would explain why it isn't enough for a bloke with a physical job. Although as an actual sedentary woman I also often don't find them enough. :o

Most ready meals designed to serve 2 are too much for one but not enough for two, but not too bad if you add a side like garlic bread/salad/veg as appropriate.

However, many meal deals provide loads more food than 2 people could ever eat – like the M&S Dine in for £10 – the paella would easily serve 3 especially if you got a potato or garlic bread side and the chicken and veg option does a couple of meals for a family. A lot of the puddings easily serve 3 or 4.

Supermarket curry deals for 2 are also a good one – we sometimes get the Waitrose/M&S curry for a tenner where you get 2 curries, rice and samosas etc and they serve 3 to 4 and even sharing amongst that number of people probably contain a lot of calories for one meal (over 1000).

Restaurants and takeaways are even worse – so much food, easily at least twice as much as a normal portion, which is good if you like being able to take the leftovers away for lunch the next day.

One microwave pouch of rice feeds three in this house (two adults and one big teen).

Supermarket curry deal for two - two curries with rice, naan and sides is MORE than we would normally eat if having a homecooked meal; we always feel a bit stuffed if we have one.

A cake for six serves six (trifle no way, though!)

None of us are overweight.

How can one shank ever serve 2....?
Particularly if they're frenched.

No yanbu, I always buy double when it comes to ready meals. I go to 'cook' a lot and dh and I will eat a 'serves 4' between us. As you say, I think they assume you'll be having 3 courses or some form of accompaniment

I don't buy ready 'meals'as it would be a very expensive way to feed 2 adults and 4 teens, but I do buy puddings like a cheesecake now and again. They often say 'serves 6' and I have commented that a family of four would be unlikely to leave any in reality. We would often have fruit with it, though.

I'm small so need about 1800 calories if I'm being sedentary to 2000 when I'm fairly active, so roughly in line with the 2000 theoretical amount. I tend to find suggested portion sizes are unrealistically small.

I've got a couple of old plates from the early 80s, and although they're not much different in circumference to my modern ones, the inner area is a lot smaller. I grew up with a couple of 60s/70s plates that were notably smaller. I try to use older smaller bowls for breakfast as it moderates the portion size as I naturally fill them to the same level.

I suspect portion suggestions are set to make the calories/fat/sugar/salt look more reasonable rather than being realistic. How many people really buy a 500ml bottle of fizzy drink and split between two people?

Packets of microwave rice! We have one each even though it apparently serves two! LIARS!

I think people have odd ideas of what constitutes 'full' and also of what constitutes a properly-sized portion. I've been dieting (calorie-counting) since Christmas and have discovered that if I choose the meal carefully then I can be happy and feel quite full on 1200 cal a day (1600 if feeling flush). However I can also quite easily gorge myself and eat that at a sitting. The problems arise when we routinely eat that much at a sitting and consider it healthy - I don't think it is.

Another thing I've noticed is that I'll finish my 500cal dinner and be all 'But I'm STARVING' but actually 20 minutes later I'll feel full. Stupid lying body.

I'm small so need about 1800 calories if I'm being sedentary to 2000 when I'm fairly active, so roughly in line with the 2000 theoretical amount. I tend to find

I think everyone's different on that one. I'm small, active but if I go over 1400-1500 cals a day I end up gaining weight. 2000 cals a day and I'd end up huge.

Agreed. DH is 6 foot 4, 17 stone and plays rugby twice a week plus going to the gym. I'm 5ft5 and have a very petite frame. If I ate the same portions as him I'd be the size of a (short) house.

i always thought I was of the 'eat all I want and not gain weight' ilk, until I started counting what I eat and actually, eating all I want works out at about 1800 kcals. If I ate 2000 kcals I'd gain weight.

Serves 2 if there's a decent chunk of salad on the side with it. On its own we'd both demolish one each.

Both normal weight, I'm breastfeeding and he's over 6'.

Don't posties walk about 10 miles a day while carrying a heavy bag bush?

Given his height and activity levels, I bet he could eat pretty much unlimited amounts and unless he has a really slight build, probably isn't overweight at 15 stone.

Ive just weighed out a 30g serving of crunchy nut cornflakes, it was tiny. I then poured my normal sized bowlful 70g!!!! comforts self with the fact that I don't have anything else like toast but am still

One microwave pouch of rice feeds three in this house (two adults and one big teen

Oh wow DP finds one of those rice packets isn't enough just for him!

Physical job and vegan so isn't getting shit loads of 'easy' calories like cheese.

BarbaraofSeville I think bush's point was that she eats the same size portions as her DH, not that he's overweight!

YelloDraw get your DP onto lentils if he's willing; I'm vegan and find them far more filling than rice. Brown rice/quinoa/bulghur wheat are also good and you can get them in microwavable packets too.

Grotbag I know! .

It's just that a 15 stone man is probably technically overweight by the BMI method so I think I was clarifying that he can probably eat an awful lot and not be fat because of his activity levels and high muscle mass because he walks a lot means that he burns a lot of calories each day.

Ah ok, makes sense! DH is technically overweight at 17 stone but extremely muscular, no fat. He's just big!

MrsKEveryone has different calorific needs and should eat to that.
But they don't do they? Look around you on any high street and it's blindingly obvious that most people massively overeat.
We're living through an era of mass delusion regarding weight and portion size.

Serves 2 (in brackets: anorexic white mice . . .)