Serving size too big?

Options
Beksc_
Beksc_ Posts: 8 Member
in Food and Nutrition
Hey everyone, this might be a stupid question to ask but here goes. Yesterday I ate a bowl of soup and a wholemeal bread roll with a tiny bit of butter for lunch. It equalled 445 calories and after my dinner I was still under my calorie goal by about 500 due to the exercise I had completed that day. Anyway I am just worried that the portion is way too big, as I felt so full after eating it. Does it really matter how big my serving is if it is healthy and if I stay under my calorie goal for the day? I often think about that when I eat a lot of veg in one sitting. Any input would be really appreciated. Thank you!!

Replies

  • cerise_noir
    cerise_noir Posts: 5,468 Member
    edited November 2016
    Options
    Portion size doesn't matter as long as you stick to your calories, weigh your food and log everything. Portion size does matter if the food makes you feel ill.
  • usmcmp
    usmcmp Posts: 21,220 Member
    Options
    It's about the calories. Eating foods that are filling for lower calories is a good goal because it give you the most "Bang for your buck". Serving sizes should be considered when reading labels just to ensure that the calorie count is accurate (some packaging is tricky because you think it is a single serving when it is two servings).

    That being said, being under your goal by 500 calories is typically not a good thing. The goal here is to hit your target, not see how far under you can be.
  • seska422
    seska422 Posts: 3,217 Member
    Options
    Suggested serving sizes are just that - suggestions. Don't feel constrained by them. You are the one in control over how much of something you eat.

    A portion is determined by how much you want right then and how that fits with your day's goals. Sometimes my portion is 1/9th of a serving and sometimes it's 3 servings.
  • Beksc_
    Beksc_ Posts: 8 Member
    Options
    usmcmp wrote: »
    It's about the calories. Eating foods that are filling for lower calories is a good goal because it give you the most "Bang for your buck". Serving sizes should be considered when reading labels just to ensure that the calorie count is accurate (some packaging is tricky because you think it is a single serving when it is two servings).

    That being said, being under your goal by 500 calories is typically not a good thing. The goal here is to hit your target, not see how far under you can be.

    Thanks for that. I am not technically under my calorie goal, it's just that sometimes I exercise twice a day and I don't necessarily eat back the calories just because I am not hungry! Trust me, I love eating! I always hit my calorie goal of 1200, sometimes over. But adding another 500, 600 is just too much food for me.

  • malibu927
    malibu927 Posts: 17,565 Member
    Options
    hgalah86 wrote: »
    usmcmp wrote: »
    It's about the calories. Eating foods that are filling for lower calories is a good goal because it give you the most "Bang for your buck". Serving sizes should be considered when reading labels just to ensure that the calorie count is accurate (some packaging is tricky because you think it is a single serving when it is two servings).

    That being said, being under your goal by 500 calories is typically not a good thing. The goal here is to hit your target, not see how far under you can be.

    Thanks for that. I am not technically under my calorie goal, it's just that sometimes I exercise twice a day and I don't necessarily eat back the calories just because I am not hungry! Trust me, I love eating! I always hit my calorie goal of 1200, sometimes over. But adding another 500, 600 is just too much food for me.

    If you aren't eating your exercise calories back, then you're under your goal. Netting 600-700 calories is not good for your body. You need to fuel it before you crash and burn.
  • callyhockey
    callyhockey Posts: 22 Member
    Options
    usmcmp wrote: »
    It's about the calories. Eating foods that are filling for lower calories is a good goal because it give you the most "Bang for your buck". Serving sizes should be considered when reading labels just to ensure that the calorie count is accurate (some packaging is tricky because you think it is a single serving when it is two servings).

    That being said, being under your goal by 500 calories is typically not a good thing. The goal here is to hit your target, not see how far under you can be.

    The one that always gets me with the serving sizes is pop tarts! Why the hell is it done by pastry? Like who doesn't just eat both of them in the package
  • Ready2Rock206
    Ready2Rock206 Posts: 9,488 Member
    Options
    callyhockey wrote: »
    usmcmp wrote: »
    It's about the calories. Eating foods that are filling for lower calories is a good goal because it give you the most "Bang for your buck". Serving sizes should be considered when reading labels just to ensure that the calorie count is accurate (some packaging is tricky because you think it is a single serving when it is two servings).

    That being said, being under your goal by 500 calories is typically not a good thing. The goal here is to hit your target, not see how far under you can be.

    The one that always gets me with the serving sizes is pop tarts! Why the hell is it done by pastry? Like who doesn't just eat both of them in the package

    Those campbell soup things that are made for the microwave - like to take to work - are 2 servings also. Who the hell eats 1/2 of those and what on earth would you do with the other half?! Ridiculous.
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    Options
    Ready2Rock206 wrote: »
    callyhockey wrote: »
    usmcmp wrote: »
    It's about the calories. Eating foods that are filling for lower calories is a good goal because it give you the most "Bang for your buck". Serving sizes should be considered when reading labels just to ensure that the calorie count is accurate (some packaging is tricky because you think it is a single serving when it is two servings).

    That being said, being under your goal by 500 calories is typically not a good thing. The goal here is to hit your target, not see how far under you can be.

    The one that always gets me with the serving sizes is pop tarts! Why the hell is it done by pastry? Like who doesn't just eat both of them in the package

    Those campbell soup things that are made for the microwave - like to take to work - are 2 servings also. Who the hell eats 1/2 of those and what on earth would you do with the other half?! Ridiculous.

    Absolutely, and some of those soups get silly. There was one in particular that I remember seeing 320 kcals, and it seemed reasonable. Then I saw the 2.5 below it and about had a stroke.
  • cosmonew
    cosmonew Posts: 514 Member
    Options
    are you sure about the serving size? Is it from a restaurant or a can? Just cause "they" say it so many calories or servings doesn't necessarily make it true. Did you weigh and measure this "serving"
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    Options
    cosmonew wrote: »
    are you sure about the serving size? Is it from a restaurant or a can? Just cause "they" say it so many calories or servings doesn't necessarily make it true. Did you weigh and measure this "serving"

    If talking to me, hells no, as I didn't even buy it, because things here seem to be over, not under, and I hate trying to split things like soup. If talking to the OP, disregard.

Categories