Smaller meal portions for women

[mynamefor2025]

Currently watching good morning Britain and they are discussing If smaller portions should be offered to women to help with obesity rates as women need fewer calories.

Er is there no obese men on the planet? I feel like given a few years, we will all be micro chipped and have every thing controlled for us by the government including our portion sizes.

On average men do "need" more calories than women, although there are nuances. Age, muscle tone, activity levels, pregnancy all present variations. In general people tend to eat more calories than they need though, male or female. Some people are good at moderating themselves but more are not.

Smaller portions on offer are a good idea, with people deciding if they need or want more.

When I cook I do myself a smaller portion than my husband as my waistline started expanding alarmingly around my 50th birthday. When he cooks he gives us the same (large) size portion. But I eat it all because his cooking is lovely!

But thats then food waste which is you grew up poor for example you might have a real problem with

to be honest - apart from the cost the oversized portions of super rich food are another reason I rarely eat out

Generally, there will always be some exceptions.

In any case, women can decide for themselves if they want a smaller amount of food and not have it decided for them.

Calories aren't just about portion size. So many foods contain sugar, glucose, high-fructose corn syrup etc. You expect it in desserts but now there is so much of it in main course foods too. Even something like coleslaw which should be something healthy. I would like to have a sugar-free option, people could benefit from that and not just in terms of weight gain.

Also I just don't like it when everything tastes sweet. Sugary pasta sauces for example. I know they say that you need something to balance the acidity, but that acidity is added citric acid, not the natural acidity of tomatoes.

Anything will be done before just making healthy food cheaper, eh.

Small people have lower calorific needs than taller people. Sex doesn't come into it except insofar as men are on average taller than women. I agree that smaller portions should sometimes be available, but if my husband tried to take a larger portion than me he would get short shrift. My MIL tried ONCE to give him a significantly larger food portion than me. I merely took enough off his plate that we had the same. She didn't try it again!

Male obesity is at an all time high. I think a lot of men think that their flabby guts count as muscle!

Men can think what they like but the fact remains that men, on average, have a higher base metabolic rate than women. It’s really not a debate. This obviously doesn’t mean they can’t also be obese; those things are not mutually exclusive.

It's not sexism it's logic. The average woman is smaller than the average man.

I don't dispute for a moment that my DH has higher calorie needs than me. Fact is, he probably makes up the difference before mid morning, no exaggeration. He gets hungry in the morning. I'm happy with a small yoghurt.
Depending on the restaurant, I probably wouldn't object to the option of having a smaller portion. But if I'm served less, I want to pay less. I can't see businesses preferring that to the current state of play, whereby DH eats up my leftovers like a Labrador.

I assumed they were talking about eating at home if you're talking about eating out no woman shouldn't be given smaller portions than men. Tbf I often give my husband some of my my fries or some of the bread or whatever he always eats a bit of mine because his meal is often not big enough and mine is often a bit too big so meals eaten out work out evenly anyway.

Will it come on a pink plate with smaller cutlery for our delicate little lady hands?

I don't dispute a smaller plate option is helpful for anyone wanting a smaller portion/ less calories but would prefer not to get odd looks when I order a man-sized meal and still use the ladies loos!

I used to fantasise about opening a small local restaurant serving good home-style (but better) food. And one of my plans was that all meals would be served in at least two sizesd, possibly three - ie small, medium, large. And priced accordingly.

My thinking was that it gives flexibility - people who want smaller portions can do that (most likely women more often, but not always) or people with bigger appetites (most likely men more often, but not always) can order large portions. But also, people could then make other decisions - eg just one large course, or two or three smaller courses. Or a mix and match option. Or options for children that aren't chicken nuggets.

For me, it's also a cost of living issue. I had a lovely meal out with a friend recently but the portions were large and the food was expensive. I felt like if I could have had smaller portions, and a smaller cost, I'd have been much happier. The result is that I won't be going back to that restaurant. I don't want to spend £24 for a main course, that I'm then only going to eat half of anyway.

Then why was the proposal only offering smaller meal portions for women? Even if men do require more on average, they are clearly still overeating. Plus my point about guts was that your point that men have a higher base metabolic rate has been distorted so that men who are obese think that their gut is 'muscle' that they 'need' extra calories to maintain. Women are on average far more weight conscious than men.

I eat a smaller portion and would welcome the option to buy a smaller portion for less money (some pubs do this for Sunday lunch and selected other meals)

Women are generally smaller than men and require less calories. So there is some logic to this. There are other issues with it of course!

This is ridiculous.

Firstly, most meals in restaurants are way too many calories for the average person, male or female.
Secondly, people don’t eat out to e nourished within a calorie count.
Thirdly, most restaurants have multiple choices and sizes of plates.

And of course multiple courses are already optional.

What next, refusing anyone over an unhealthy bmi any dishes over 1000 calories?

Bet they won't charge less though! I eat less than a lot of men,but then again there are some men that eat more than (e.g. one of my exes,who had a tiny appetite). In these weight loss injection times,smaller portions should be available to anyone,in my opinion. Not just foisted upon you because you happen to be female. I can remember numerous threads on Mumsnet about men's portion sizes as opposed to women's,I think it was referred to as 'penis portions',whereby someone (usually the mother-in-law) automatically served a larger portion of any meal to the men.

I definitely need a smaller portion that dh but I don't like the idea of someone else deciding, especially based on sex rather than height, activity level etc. Options of small/med/large plates is a great idea though. I often order half portions now where available but that has more to do with the fact that I am getting older, I could polish off everything in front of me when younger, and stay slim too.

this just isn't true. I wish it was. Pubs are quite good about doigng smaller portions at a lower pice, but even then, you have to ask and usually it's then a MUCH smaller portion - ie a child's size.

I can't remember the lat time I went somewhere where it was obvious and clear that yes, you could choose a smaller portion.

I'd love that with, for example, pasta. DH and DS love a massive bowl of pasta. I'd far rather hav ea smaller bowl and a salad on the side or perhaps something protein-based off the starter menu.

I think we are on the slippery slope to restaurant staff being instructed not to serve high calorie food to anyone who is obese.

Is there realy a suggestion that smaller portions would automatically be served to women? Because that's obviously not okay and I'd agree with you, it's a slippery path (look how many women have been refused alcohol or even to buy alcohol in a supermarket if they're pregnant).

But if a restaurant offers the option, which the diner can select, with a corresponding decrease in price, I'd see that as a massive success. My father would always always choose three smaller courses ifi he had the choice - he bloody loves a three course meal but doesn't like to eat that m uch food. DH on the other hand would probalby go for a one course meal, the bigger the better!

The proposal wasn’t offering smaller portions to women, the proposal was offering smaller meals as an option, which (the report suggested) would be more appropriate for women AND “for shorter men, who need to eat less than the average man”

Your point about mens’ “guts” is irrelevant. Men DO have a higher metabolic rate than women on average. Whether men use that fact as an excuse to overeat, or whether they just like pies, I have no idea, but the fact remains.

Exactly! I regularly do intermittent fasting to lose/control my weight and often haven't eaten anything until 6pm. If I went into a restaurant,was absolutely ravenous and ordered a meal that was smaller than what the male customers were being served,I'd be royally pissed off!

I didn’t see the programme this morning but I assumed that the suggestion was to have smaller portions on offer, not force women to eat them.