Bigger Food = Less Hunger
November 24, 2004 12:47 PM   Subscribe

Portion Distortion Quiz. Just in time for T-day, our helpful friends at NIH have updated last year's quiz with Portion Distortion II. Caution: pictures of food are bigger today than they were 20 years ago.
posted by grateful (29 comments total)
 
And yet my mother still insists that the only healthy way to live is with three rounded meals, identical in number but not size, to the exact number of items she had 40 years ago. Hm.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 12:55 PM on November 24, 2004


I have a feeling the Soup Nazi lobby is going to come out with commercials to combat this obvious truthful site too.
posted by mathowie at 1:01 PM on November 24, 2004


Those exercise times are based on a 130-pound person?

Judging by this chart they must be targeting the 11 year-old white male demographic.
Looking around, 150-180 looks like a more representative adult average. Anyone want to hazard a guess on what difference that would make?
posted by nTeleKy at 1:39 PM on November 24, 2004


After finshing (and losing terribly), it seems some of them are calculated for a 160-pound person. In other news, this is probably the worst I've done on a quiz, ever.
posted by nTeleKy at 1:46 PM on November 24, 2004


I can only imagine what the size of the typical Thanksgiving turkey will look like 30 years from now.
posted by Arch Stanton at 1:48 PM on November 24, 2004


I...welcome...turkey overlords...fuck it, too easy.
posted by Keith Talent at 1:53 PM on November 24, 2004


Arch Stanton, they'll probably look like the ones in this story. Keith Talent, that goes doubly for you.
posted by aubilenon at 1:57 PM on November 24, 2004



posted by swift at 2:13 PM on November 24, 2004


I think this website is a terrific tool. I think part of the problem with managing your weight is truly realizing how much you are eating. I have a cousin who is obese who swore up and down she didn't eat more than 1,800 calories a day, period, and also claimed she burned about 500 calories per day on top of that. I know she's an honest person and wouldn't lie to me, but also fond it unlikely that she was really eating that little and maintaining her great weight, especially since the doctor had ruled out thyroid malfunction.

I asked her if she wouldn't mind me shadowing her for a day. She agreed, and we discovered that her calorie counting was waaaay off. She estimated her breakfast at about 500 calories - cereal, coffee, and orange juice. She based this by counting calories on the packages, but she was way off on the serving size. I measured it up and she was eating about 900 calories. She poured 2 1/2 cups of cereal into a bowl (serving size 1 cup), forgot to add the cup of milk she used (110 calories), dumped an extra 80 calories of sugar into her coffee, and poured a tall glass of orange juice worth two servings. Her pasta dinner weighed in at double the calories she thought as well, and she snacked on about 500 calories worth of "nibbles" throughout the day that she didn't even recognize but that I caught. We also realized her walking was probably only burning about 300 calories, although calorie burn is very individual and hard to measure, so I don't know.

Needless to say, she was surprised but relieved to know there was nothing wrong with her. She kept a meticulous food journal and the weight began to fall off of her. It's amazing to realize how little food we really need in relation to the amount of food considered "normal". Go to Japan and see how distorted our version of serving size has become.
posted by wicked sprite at 2:14 PM on November 24, 2004


The scary thing is that I knew all of the answers to these questions. This either means that I am a good food journalist, or that I am obsessed with calories.

The interesting thing about those "how long would it take you to burn this off?" questions is that activities like vacuuming were calculated assuming that the vacuumer weighed 130 pounds, while activities like golfing were calculated assuming that the golfer weighed 160 pounds.

Hmmm. I wonder where that difference came from? Only tall women golf? Only short men vacuum?

nTeleKy, 130 pounds is a midrange "healthy weight" for a woman 5'4" in height; 160 pounds is a midrange "healthy weight" for a man 5'10" in height. I guess those are the average heights of people in the US or something.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:18 PM on November 24, 2004


Oh, and wicked sprite--the average height in Japan is 5'5" for men and 5'0" for women, so it's kind of understandable that people in the US, where the average height is significantly taller, would need more food, no?

Now, I do understand that people in the US eat more than 8-10% more than people in Japan, but that much of the difference, at least, can be written off to differences in height. Even without getting into the "frame size" business.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:24 PM on November 24, 2004


Does that mean I shouldn't order the 20x20 from In 'n Out anymore? I'm not fat, I just can't wear anything but sweatpants.
posted by Debaser626 at 2:44 PM on November 24, 2004


Oh, and wicked sprite--the average height in Japan is 5'5" for men and 5'0" for women, so it's kind of understandable that people in the US, where the average height is significantly taller, would need more food, no?

This is true, but what their diet consists of also plays a role. I used to host Japanese exchange students and they all ate healthy amounts, but they ate very little processed food and very little soda. They also walked a lot more often.

So my theory is that, while they are smaller, they are eating a bit less but eating whole foods and getting exercise. This is changing now culturally and they are gaining weight as a nation, which leads me to believe that I might at least be partly correct.
posted by wicked sprite at 2:53 PM on November 24, 2004


But they're also gaining height, on the national average, so how much of the weight gain is excess and how much is a factor of increased average height?

Having said that, I totally agree with the importance of eating less, and especially less crap, and exercising more.
posted by Sidhedevil at 3:29 PM on November 24, 2004


Hmmm. I wonder where that difference came from? Only tall women golf? Only short men vacuum?What was funny to me was that all the exercise answers were the same, whatever you are going to be doing, you are going to do it for about an hour. That and the picture of the man washing the car-- in that one "you" are 130lbs. They couldn't find a picture of a woman washing a car?

The portion number in one package is odd sometimes. For example, I love Campbell's tomato soup for breakfast. I eat about half a can. One can is 2 and 3/4 serving, so I guess I should be sharing with another adult and one child. Even the "individual" size snacks are sometimes more than one serving, while what constitutes one serving is often ludicrous, 10 potato chips, 1 and 1/2 cookie, 2 TB of unpopped popcorn.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:32 PM on November 24, 2004


I got a fair number of correct answers for the calorie portion of this quiz, but failed dismally on how much exercise it would take to burn off those calories. Story of my life...

Hmmm? I'm thinking I might just have to spend the entire day tomorrow on the treadmill. Hey! That's my solution! Eat while walking! Not only would it cut down on intake, 'cause I'd be wearing most of my food, but I couldn't go back for seconds! How many calories do you think I'd burn dragging the treadmill out in front of the TV?
posted by Corky at 3:33 PM on November 24, 2004


Where are they getting these "today's portion" sizes from, anyway? The only one that looked right to me was the bagel. Who drinks coffee with mocha syrup every day?
posted by transona5 at 3:35 PM on November 24, 2004


Who drinks coffee with mocha syrup every day?

More people than you'd think. Sick sad Starbucks world.
posted by rooftop secrets at 3:38 PM on November 24, 2004


God do I want to eat that cheeseburger. Charbroiled goodness, covered with cheese.... big juicy tomato... toasted bun... ketchup....
posted by gagglezoomer at 4:40 PM on November 24, 2004


Did the pizza trays change so dramatically in 20 years? Hard to believe.
posted by nagunak at 5:13 PM on November 24, 2004


But Gravy, the funniest thing about the golf one was that they showed a picture of a woman golfing, but figured the activity presuming the person's weight at 160. So apparently, only tall women golf. Or something.
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:42 PM on November 24, 2004


I actually see enormous muffins like that in stores, but I can never eat an entire one, even if it's the only thing I'm having for breakfast.

And note that I am a giant 5'9", Statue-of-Liberty-built person who is quite active, and I try to have a 500-600 calorie breakfast every day, but there's no way I can fit a whole one of those massive 500 calorie muffins into my stomach.

It's like those 32-ounce sodas, or those 20-ounce coffees--who can drink that much? Don't they have to pee really badly right afterwards? I would.
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:47 PM on November 24, 2004


And the "French Paradox" is also due to portion control.

Exercise in its broadest sense--staying active--is also key. That means walking. It's how much we walk to & fro every day, up & down stairs, over a hill and down again, that really burns the calories. A few years ago I was taking a Spanish class in Madrid. My school was a couple miles from my apartment, and I walked back & forth as a matter of course, sometimes twice a day, in addition to strolling around trying new restaurants. I didn't set foot in a gym, ate robustly, and didn't gain any weight. At the time it didn't feel like I was getting any exercise--no huffing, no puffing, no getting into exercise clothes, no setting aside time to exercise--and I missed going to the gym. Now, I work every day at a desk, go to the gym a few times a week, hike on weekends, and still have to be stricter with what I eat than when I was in Spain. The reason is simple. I'm burning fewer calories now, despite the hours each week I devote to exercise, than I did then when I was walking miles a day without really noticing it.
posted by mono blanco at 6:04 PM on November 24, 2004


Years ago I learned a trick: share a meal. Yeah, it's a little weird at first sharing a meal with a co-worker. It works, though. While I do work with some bottomless pits, there are a few of us that like to eat a reasonable amount. I just can't eat like the portions say I'm supposed to, and I won't go a lot of places if I can't share. So, for me, sharing opens up dinning options.
posted by e40 at 6:06 PM on November 24, 2004


Are these just averages? How can they be objective about a "typical" portion 20 years ago, and why aren't there details of how they came to these conclusions, e.g. "This is a typical, say, McDonald's burger/meal 20 years ago, and here's one today." Most of the "comparisons" just look like images made larger in photoshop. Is this at all scientific or just a general exhortation to lose weight? I was interested in the actual differences between meals now and then, but this site is a disappointment in that regard.
posted by Poagao at 7:37 PM on November 24, 2004


How can they be objective about a "typical" portion 20 years ago

They can't. Assuming this is even a meaninful metric in the first place. I always shudder when I see a site such as this resorting to such silly, non-scientific techniques to convince people. Not saying you shouldn't watch the type of food you eat and the portions you imbibe, but c'mon...
posted by stp123 at 8:09 PM on November 24, 2004


Sidhedevil: I'm curious about the average heights, as I think the elderly tend to skew the results. I say this only from my personal experience, but I'm 5'9", and whenever I go to America I find most people are taller than me, while the average height in America is supposedly 5'9". In Japan, likewise, I find I'm about average height, or maybe an inch higher than other males, but the statistical average says they should be 4" shorter. The only thing I can think is that the elderly, who do tend to be quite a bit shorter, are included. This would throw off food comparisons.

That is, for example, let's say the average American is 1 glorp tall, and the average meal is 1 goomple. The average Japanese is 0.5 glorp tall, and the average meal is 0.4 goomple for an expected comparative meal size of 200%, but an actual size of 250%, or "50% oversized".

However, if you factor out the elderly, you get:

The average American is 1.1 glorp, and the average Japanese is 0.7 goomple, resulting in an expected meal size of 157%, but an actual size of 250%, or "159% oversized".

By the way, the reason I'm assuming the average difference in size of non-elderly and elderly Japanese is so much greater than the difference in Americans is that the nutritiveness of the Japanese diet has changed very dramatically from the immediate post-war period during which the current elderly were born to the diet of people born 20, 30, or 40 years ago, while the same is not so dramatically true in the U.S.
posted by Bugbread at 12:12 AM on November 25, 2004 [1 favorite]


Huh. Well I can attest, from personal experience, that all you need to do to put on 10 pounds a year is to eat an extra 100 calories a day over and above what you need. That's a piece of bread, or an apple. If you're slacking on exercise and spending too much time working and sitting in one place and staring at a screen all day, and if your metabolism is slowing down the one or two or three percent a year which is does as you get older, voila! Since 2002 you have put on almost 40 pounds, and you cannot figure out what the hell happened, because you don't overeat, dammit.

Then you buy a gym membership, and prepare to put the work in. Sigh.
posted by jokeefe at 12:19 AM on November 25, 2004


"159% oversized" -> "93% oversized"

I have no idea what the hell I put into the calculator to get 159%, or why I didn't catch it on preview. Sorry.
posted by Bugbread at 12:31 AM on November 25, 2004 [1 favorite]


« Older Chapters in the Sky   |   Who benefits from tort reform? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments