Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / March 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Sort OT: Portion size

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Bear - 07 Mar 2004 22:21 GMT
 Thought this was very interesting.

 http://tinyurl.com/2lzfq
 --
 Bear
 Grrrrrrrrrrrr  :o)
 297/268.5/210
 Highest weight   353
 http://home.earthlink.net/~polarbear50/index.html
Tom - 07 Mar 2004 22:43 GMT
Haha. I can see it now. "Eat Healthy. Try our new USDA approved portion
controlled meal for only a $1 more."
By the way Bear, the last posting I saw from you, was a continuing stall at
271. Glad to see you poked through and are losing again.

   Tom
210/186/180

>   Thought this was very interesting.
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>   Highest weight   353
>   http://home.earthlink.net/~polarbear50/index.html
Bear - 08 Mar 2004 04:50 GMT
Yeah Tom. I finally broke through. I was pretty impatient. Patience is not
one of my virtues.
Signature

Bear
Grrrrrrrrrrrr  :o)
297/268.5/210
Highest weight   353
http://home.earthlink.net/~polarbear50/index.html

> Haha. I can see it now. "Eat Healthy. Try our new USDA approved portion
> controlled meal for only a $1 more."
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> >   Highest weight   353
> >   http://home.earthlink.net/~polarbear50/index.html
carla - 07 Mar 2004 23:02 GMT
>   Thought this was very interesting.
>
>   http://tinyurl.com/2lzfq

Interesting; thanks for the link, Bear.  The photo accompanying the article
was from a "Cheesecake factory" Restaurant - I had lunch at one of these on
a recent business trip, and I was horrified at the size of the portions they
served.  I ordered a caesar salad and I got a positively enormous plate with
a humongous mountain of salad piled on it.  It was almost obscene, and would
have illustrated the point of the article even more starkly than the
hamburger plate they showed there.

I think that many of us can think back to the portions we were served at
home as kids, and recognize that servings are completely out of control.
Another example springs to mind - the cafeteria at my office has placards
around that list nutrition information for various items that are served.
(They don't list out net carbs or fiber, which annoys me, but that is
another complaint.)  You have to read them carefully, however, because the
"serving size" listed along with the nutritional information bears no
relationship at all to the amount they actually serve you.  It's horribly
misleading.

I do believe, however, that people have to take responsibility for paying
attention to what they shove into their maws.  McDonald's recent decision to
pull "supersize" portions off the menu has been much talked about in the
media.  But, McDonald's added those portions in the first place because they
could make money off them.  You can bet your bottom dollar that they
wouldn't pull them if they felt it was more profitable to keep them there.
That they are being pulled could be a good sign that folks are starting to
realize that eating humongous portions isn't such a great idea.  It's more
likely, however, that for some reason (changes in the base price of
supplies, for example) McDonald's can no longer afford the slimmer profit
margins that come from doubling a portion while adding only a quarter to the
price.

carla
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.