What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Serving size

  • Thread starter jimscott
  • Start date

jimscott

Tropical Fish Enthusiast
I was making pancakes for breakfast this morning. Actually, I use a skillet and it is one large pancake. My daughter, Rachel, (the one the fruitflies) turns to me and says that it is too big and it is 4 serving sizes. Okay, so she's going to school for Culinary Arts, and she knows a bit about such matters. But to me, if I can eat it in one sitting, that is one serving size. Just like one box of Life Cereal equals one serving size. Who came up with this serving size stuff and on whom was it based - pigmys?
confused.gif
 
that just means it has 4x the cals of one serving.
 
Food labels tell you how much fat and nutrients are in a certain amount of the food you're eating. That's what a serving is, and serving sizes are different for different foods and products. Simple as that.
 
They come up with serving sizes based on the FDA daily recommended intake of nutrients as based on a 2000 or 2200 calorie-per-day diet. Or at least, so I'm told. It may not seem very satisfying, but unless you have an unusually high metabolism, it's all you really need. You'd be surprised at how little food is needed to keep you alive. I think Americans just tend to overeat because we're compelled to all our lives - as children we cram down adult-sized meals and become accustomed to the intense feeling of satiation that goes along with eating too much. I once heard that people who overeat consistently wind up with disproportionately large stomachs because their meals stretch them out; no doubt having an oversized stomach leads to an oversized appetite.
~Joe
 
A sickening number of companies fudge the serving size so their products appear to have less fat, fewer calories, etc at first glance.
 
yeh my family is definatly a overeating family, tehey expect me to eat huge amounts. If i over reat they complain, but if i even so much a stry to take less thannormal they complain and make comments. If i want to stay thin...


i should move
 
Serving size doesn't have quite as much to do with required daily intake as the nutrition info does. Servings sizes vary, nutrition requirements are constant. On the food labels, they base all daily requirements on the premise that you need 2,000 calories a day, or a 2,000 calorie diet. The percentage you see next to the vitamins and stuff tells you how much each serving gives you relative to how much you need in a day. Say one glass of orange juice is a serving, and it gives you 90% of the vitamin C you need in a day and 30% of the calcium you need. That's how it works. Bad thing about some foods is that once they are cooked, their nutritional content can change, often deminishing many of the nutrients.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Who came up with this serving size stuff and on whom was it based - pigmys?

I agree Jim, the "official" serving size on most packets is ridiculous, even those mini packs of peanuts that they used to serve when you got on a plane were about 1 1/2 servings.

Incidentally, I make my pancakes exactly the same way you do, one mega-flapjack that fills the pan. I only have to cook the one pancake, cover it in syrup and sit down to eat it. Why do the same work 4 times ? ? ? ?

I think it's all decided by the oomba loombas, those little dudes that work for Willy Wonka.
 
lol Very time efficient thinking. Pancakes are very filling and one big one would do. But 3 or 4 look very pretty stacked up high with boysenberry syrup dribbling over the sides and a pat (or a stick) of butter on the top.
smile.gif


French toast and waffles are good too.
 
  • #10
A simple google search of "Serving Size" yielded these three helpful results:

Exactly what is a serving?
[PDF] USDA: Serving Sizes in the Food Guide Pyramid and on the Nutrition Facts ...
Making Sense of Serving Sizes - health information

The best explanation I've found thus far is:

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]"The Nutrition Facts label lists the serving size of the food and the
number of servings per container. It also identifies and quantifies
key nutrients in a serving as a percentage of Daily Values (%DV)
for a 2,000-calorie diet. Before FDA regulation, the choice of
serving sizes on food labels was up to the discretion of individual
food manufacturers. Serving sizes are now more uniform. The
Nutrition Facts label, therefore, enables nutritional comparisons of
similar foods. The label is now ubiquitous on food packages and
widely recognized by consumers."

Hope that helps!

~ Brett
 
  • #11
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]unless you have an unusually high metabolism, it's all you really need.
Yep, that's me
smile_n_32.gif

I have a hard time finding foods that have enough calories to fuel this body of mine. What's up with all the foods that have 250 calories per serving and there are only 2 or 3 servings in the package? I need 1000 or more calories per serving. I was going to start riding my bicycle to work to save $$$ on gas, however with my fast metabolism it actually would cost me more $$$$ to get to work and back than the gas would cost
confused.gif
 
  • #12
A serving size to me is what gets me to full. Beyond that, if the Government posts the serving size to be a certain amount, I don't believe them. They have lied to everybody so far, so why stop now? Set your limits, and forget the rest.
 
  • #13
I think serving sizes should be delineated by method in which served. For example...a serving size of roast beef would be a "slab", a serving size of mashed potatoes would be a "splat" topped with a "glop" of gravy. Then you'd have a "ladle" of peas and "hunk" of bread. Calories, fat, fiber and carbs would have nothing to do with these serving sizes.
laugh.gif
 
  • #14
All you really need to survive are sufficient amounts of the vitamins, amino acids, proteins, trace elements and minerals that mantain our bodies. Often, we are strong enough to keep going despite lacking certain nutrients, particularly when we eat lots of fats and sugars for temporary sustinance. If we intake foods that have the highest concentrations of nutrients, we won't haveto eat as much. Our bodies aren't eating for mass, they are eating for energy and the specific parts that keep us functioning. I have started a diet the last few months. I have sought foods with the highest concentration of all the vitamins I need. Foods like goji berries and cacao beans (chocolate beans) are some of the most nutritious foods in the world. I went a whole day just eating small amounts of those, and felt just fine. It wasn't that I was starving myself, but I just wasn't hungry and forgot to eat anything else. I also eat lots of fruits and vegetables, and kelog's smart start antioxidant cereal, and minimal amounts of meat. You should also eat as many raw foods as you can. I feel great since I've been doing this, and I don't have a lot of random health problems like I used to. In theese days of wealth and high technology, we need to take advantage of it and give our bodies the best and not indulge in foods that really aren't good for us.
 
  • #15
[b said:
Quote[/b] (fatboy @ Sep. 24 2005,2:05)]I agree Jim, the "official" serving size on most packets is ridiculous, even those mini packs of peanuts that they used to serve when you got on a plane were about 1 1/2 servings.

Incidentally, I make my pancakes exactly the same way you do, one mega-flapjack that fills the pan. I only have to cook the one pancake, cover it in syrup and sit down to eat it. Why do the same work 4 times ? ? ? ?

I think it's all decided by the oomba loombas, those little dudes that work for Willy Wonka.
Troy, you and I (and also PAK & Bugweed) are on the same wavelength!
 
  • #16
A serving size is that which gets me full, and it doesn't take that much, really. Buffets make money on me, unless bacon is involved.
 
  • #17
LOL is right. if they had a pill with 100% of everything you need we wouldn't have to eat anything at all except that pill. and water, too.
 
  • #18
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]All you really need to survive are sufficient amounts of the vitamins, amino acids, proteins, trace elements and minerals that mantain our bodies

no, this is a false statement

we need calories to 'burn' in our bodies to convert to energy. All the other stuff is needed for it to work smoothly but doesent provide the raw energy needed for movement and bodu functions.
 
  • #19
Yea, we do need calories. That's why they sugdest we eat 2,000 a day, because we need that much energy.
 
  • #20
[b said:
Quote[/b] (lol @ Sep. 24 2005,9:59)]All you really need to survive are sufficient amounts of the vitamins, amino acids, proteins, trace elements and minerals that mantain our bodies.
Well, relative to what most people in the first world eat, this has some truth. Really, though, it's just a crash diet - when you don't get carbs (and the sugars derived from them,) your body fuels itself by burning stored fat, which won't last forever. To 'run,' all you need is sugar; it makes your nerves and muscles work. Many (if not most) insects consume sugar almost exclusively, because they are born with all of the nutrients they will ever need and their physiology is designed in such a way as to not deteriorate enough to need regeneration over their lifetime. All they have to eat is sugar to keep things running. But to really stay alive, humans need some of everything, because the machinery of your body is made from vitamins, minerals and protiens and will break down without raw nutrients to sustain the material lost from normal wear and tear.
~Joe
 
Back
Top