THIS is what a serving of pasta looks like...

1356

Replies

  • Jams29
    Jams29 Posts: 108 Member
    Thank you for this! I recently discovered this as well with spaghetti....so I added a whole bunch of veggies and chicken to round out a meal. Turned out pretty good
  • NCK96
    NCK96 Posts: 146 Member
    grinning_chick wrote: »
    Maybe don't put it in a 3-4+ cup serving bowl? Then it won't look like quite so pathetically little.

    I eat a 2 oz dry measured spaghetti portion ( ~5.65 oz or so cooked) with 6 oz of meat sauce and fresh grated Parmesan in a regular (i.e., not special or child sized) 7.5" diameter soup/cereal bowl (8 oz liquid capacity, 20 oz if impractically overflowed to the rim). It always looks like plenty to me when I make, serve, and eat it.

    1vdstile4l73.jpg


    It’s a 19 oz. Fiesta bowl measuring 6.875” x 1.875”.

    https://mcys.co/2USxMaW
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,925 Member
    snowflake954 wrote: »
    yirara wrote: »
    snowflake954 wrote: »
    sugaraddict4321 wrote: »
    What's interesting is how the same company varies serving sizes depending on the market. In the USA, a standard serving of pasta is 2 oz dry (56 grams). In western Europe, the standard serving size on the box is 85 grams - or just over 3 oz - if there's even a serving size listed. I wonder why they change up serving size depending on the market?

    Often the food labels in Europe only give info per 100 grams, so you don't know what a "recommended" serving size is. However, at least that makes tracking very easy because it's all metric and if you weigh your food in grams it's easy to figure out how much you're consuming.

    Here are two images of a very popular pasta brand as an example

    USA:
    barilla-pasta-food-label-world-of-label-with-regard-to-barilla-with-regard-to-barilla-pasta-food-label.jpg

    Europe:
    51CecOvyxfL.jpg

    Also notice that in the USA they measure in milligrams of sodium, whereas in western Europe they use grams of salt. The RDA for salt in Europe is higher than in the US. A gram of salt contains about 413 mg of sodium.

    For us, in Italy a serving size of pasta is 100g. Then you add your sauce, vegetables, seafood, meat, legumes, etc. I cook for 3 men everyday and almost always make pasta (I've learned a million ways--without meat, because my husband doesn't eat meat, except for fish). I prefer a half portion for myself--50g. Everyone in the family is a normal weight or thin. Pasta is a staple here, and I always chuckle at the pasta threads on MFP. They are so alarming. Pasta in the correct proportions does not make you fat. There...I finally said it.

    Om nom nom! Pasta made with love! I wish I could get the right ingredients here. Actually, I might cook pasta alla gricia tomorrow, even though the quality of pecorino here is a bit sad, and I can't get ceropegia. I'll improvise with what I can get <3

    Today I made pasta with crab. I boiled 500g of linguine al dente, and heated up olive oil, threw in a peeled garlic clove, crab claws in pieces, pepper flakes, a can of peeled tomatoes, and salt. It was fantastic. This amount was for 3 men and myself.

    Yummy! I wish I could get fresh crab here. I can get sole, herring, mussles, lots of coldwater beasts, but not the yumminess you have.
  • snowflake954
    snowflake954 Posts: 8,399 Member
    yirara wrote: »
    snowflake954 wrote: »
    yirara wrote: »
    snowflake954 wrote: »
    sugaraddict4321 wrote: »
    What's interesting is how the same company varies serving sizes depending on the market. In the USA, a standard serving of pasta is 2 oz dry (56 grams). In western Europe, the standard serving size on the box is 85 grams - or just over 3 oz - if there's even a serving size listed. I wonder why they change up serving size depending on the market?

    Often the food labels in Europe only give info per 100 grams, so you don't know what a "recommended" serving size is. However, at least that makes tracking very easy because it's all metric and if you weigh your food in grams it's easy to figure out how much you're consuming.

    Here are two images of a very popular pasta brand as an example

    USA:
    barilla-pasta-food-label-world-of-label-with-regard-to-barilla-with-regard-to-barilla-pasta-food-label.jpg

    Europe:
    51CecOvyxfL.jpg

    Also notice that in the USA they measure in milligrams of sodium, whereas in western Europe they use grams of salt. The RDA for salt in Europe is higher than in the US. A gram of salt contains about 413 mg of sodium.

    For us, in Italy a serving size of pasta is 100g. Then you add your sauce, vegetables, seafood, meat, legumes, etc. I cook for 3 men everyday and almost always make pasta (I've learned a million ways--without meat, because my husband doesn't eat meat, except for fish). I prefer a half portion for myself--50g. Everyone in the family is a normal weight or thin. Pasta is a staple here, and I always chuckle at the pasta threads on MFP. They are so alarming. Pasta in the correct proportions does not make you fat. There...I finally said it.

    Om nom nom! Pasta made with love! I wish I could get the right ingredients here. Actually, I might cook pasta alla gricia tomorrow, even though the quality of pecorino here is a bit sad, and I can't get ceropegia. I'll improvise with what I can get <3

    Today I made pasta with crab. I boiled 500g of linguine al dente, and heated up olive oil, threw in a peeled garlic clove, crab claws in pieces, pepper flakes, a can of peeled tomatoes, and salt. It was fantastic. This amount was for 3 men and myself.

    Yummy! I wish I could get fresh crab here. I can get sole, herring, mussles, lots of coldwater beasts, but not the yumminess you have.

    Then make pasta w clams (pasta alle vongole) or w mussles. It's a classic here.
  • admaarie
    admaarie Posts: 4,297 Member
    This is when volume eating comes in handy for me because I’ve come to realize I eat with my eyes. If something looks skimpy I’m already telling myself it’s not gonna be enough before even starting my meal!
    I like to add zucchini noodles if I’m doing spaghetti for instance and I can double the portion without adding many calories (anywhere from 18-25 calories for a lot of zucchini)
    Like others have mentioned veggies (broccoli, mushrooms & peas I find help with bulking up pasta) and meat sauce works as well.
  • Hilogirl2018
    Hilogirl2018 Posts: 687 Member
    Re: the fast food graphic showing increasing American portion sizes: my strategy when eating fast food is to order the kids meal, which still has the 1950s portions for burger, fries, and sodas. Satisfies my burger fix while staying in my (1200) calorie range. As for pasta, I use many of the strategies other folks here have already mentioned, but pasta isn't a food I've ever really craved, so at home, I most often skip the pasta itself and go for a bit of yummy sauce with bread dipped in it. I'm more of a bread gal, and counting my bread calories is easier than fussing with pasta calories for me, anyway.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    snowflake954 wrote: »
    just_Tomek wrote: »
    I think because of this thread I made adzuki bean spaghetti in putanesca and pollock fillet last night. Protein rich and filling for sure for me. 600cal dinner, not too shabby. Real spaghetti this was not, but filling, big volume and nutrient dense for sure.
    Two serving of spaghetti (110g dry) = 400cal and 42g protein.
    100g pollock = 100cal and 20g protein.
    1/2cup home made putanesca at 100cal or so.

    Could I just mention here that your bean flour spaghetti--110g dry(400cal) is about equal to Barilla durum grain pasta--110g dry(395 cal). I know you are interested in the extra protein, but for someone who's not, regular pasta is fine and costs a lot less. Calorie wise they are the same.

    I had the same thought. And since I don't need over 60 g of protein at a meal, having 56 g of penne with, say, shrimp and a variety of veg can easily fit in my calories and macro preferences.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    yirara wrote: »
    diannethegeek wrote: »
    It's funny because we often tell people to weigh their pasta and that they'll likely be disappointed when they see serving sizes weighed, but when someone does just that and posts about their results it seems like everyone just wants to argue with the point of the post.

    I remember the first time I cooked 2 ounces of pasta by dry weight and I was similarly disappointed. Did I find ways around it so that I still include pasta in my diet? Sure did. But not everyone is going to find it worth the calories and it was absolutely an eye opener for me the first time I did it. I'm glad @NCK96 posted and hopefully others who are just starting out will see it and recognize the importance of weighing their portions, too.

    But that's the thing: don't go with servings but with what fits into your calories. You're allowed to eat 4 servings if it fits, or 2-7/12. If I have a pasta or rice dish (or anything else) I start cooking the sauce/main part, weigh all the ingredients and then see quickly how much pasta/rice/potato/couscous/freekeh/whatever I can use to stay within my calories.

    Yesterday I made a Japanese dish with salmon, lots of veggies and sushi rice. I ended up using 75g rice, as it fitted my remaining calories perfectly.

    That's exactly my point of disagreement. Pasta is not uniquely disappointing, the calories are on par with many diet staples per gram of weight, if not lower. Oats are often higher in calories per dry weight. Cooked chicken, even without fat, is often higher in calories per cooked weight, nuts are in a whole other realm of calorie density, and so on and so forth.

    Yeah, agree. That is, I'm sure they could be for a particular eater (just as the cals in nuts might be disappointing, or that in any other food), but I don't like the idea that pasta is somehow far higher in cals and difficult to fit in than other foods as a general proposition. It's clear some don't find it filling, but many of us do -- you because you find starches generally filling, me because I find it a satisfying base for a mix of foods I find filling and enjoyable.

    I don't find that my pasta dinners are less satisfying or smaller or more caloric than other dinners I have. Obviously, people can vary on this, but "pasta is not worth the calories" is not something I agree with as a general proposition.
  • Spadesheart
    Spadesheart Posts: 479 Member
    To add a side note to this, the shape of the pasta actually has a substantial effect on how much is on the plate. The less dense pastas that are tubular or have thin fringes actually have a surprisingly large serving size. Give it a try! I hardly eat pasta right now, but I remember that when I did, I was always surprised with how full the plate could look.
  • snowflake954
    snowflake954 Posts: 8,399 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    snowflake954 wrote: »
    just_Tomek wrote: »
    I think because of this thread I made adzuki bean spaghetti in putanesca and pollock fillet last night. Protein rich and filling for sure for me. 600cal dinner, not too shabby. Real spaghetti this was not, but filling, big volume and nutrient dense for sure.
    Two serving of spaghetti (110g dry) = 400cal and 42g protein.
    100g pollock = 100cal and 20g protein.
    1/2cup home made putanesca at 100cal or so.

    Could I just mention here that your bean flour spaghetti--110g dry(400cal) is about equal to Barilla durum grain pasta--110g dry(395 cal). I know you are interested in the extra protein, but for someone who's not, regular pasta is fine and costs a lot less. Calorie wise they are the same.

    I had the same thought. And since I don't need over 60 g of protein at a meal, having 56 g of penne with, say, shrimp and a variety of veg can easily fit in my calories and macro preferences.

    Exactly! My pasta dishes are a complete meal sometimes. I eat that and a fruit. There's a reason the Italians are thin overall. Also, 500g (a box) of pasta costs me $.50. The legume pastas that are coming out are very expensive. I can't feed a family daily on that.
  • snowflake954
    snowflake954 Posts: 8,399 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    yirara wrote: »
    diannethegeek wrote: »
    It's funny because we often tell people to weigh their pasta and that they'll likely be disappointed when they see serving sizes weighed, but when someone does just that and posts about their results it seems like everyone just wants to argue with the point of the post.

    I remember the first time I cooked 2 ounces of pasta by dry weight and I was similarly disappointed. Did I find ways around it so that I still include pasta in my diet? Sure did. But not everyone is going to find it worth the calories and it was absolutely an eye opener for me the first time I did it. I'm glad @NCK96 posted and hopefully others who are just starting out will see it and recognize the importance of weighing their portions, too.

    But that's the thing: don't go with servings but with what fits into your calories. You're allowed to eat 4 servings if it fits, or 2-7/12. If I have a pasta or rice dish (or anything else) I start cooking the sauce/main part, weigh all the ingredients and then see quickly how much pasta/rice/potato/couscous/freekeh/whatever I can use to stay within my calories.

    Yesterday I made a Japanese dish with salmon, lots of veggies and sushi rice. I ended up using 75g rice, as it fitted my remaining calories perfectly.

    That's exactly my point of disagreement. Pasta is not uniquely disappointing, the calories are on par with many diet staples per gram of weight, if not lower. Oats are often higher in calories per dry weight. Cooked chicken, even without fat, is often higher in calories per cooked weight, nuts are in a whole other realm of calorie density, and so on and so forth.

    Yeah, agree. That is, I'm sure they could be for a particular eater (just as the cals in nuts might be disappointing, or that in any other food), but I don't like the idea that pasta is somehow far higher in cals and difficult to fit in than other foods as a general proposition. It's clear some don't find it filling, but many of us do -- you because you find starches generally filling, me because I find it a satisfying base for a mix of foods I find filling and enjoyable.

    I don't find that my pasta dinners are less satisfying or smaller or more caloric than other dinners I have. Obviously, people can vary on this, but "pasta is not worth the calories" is not something I agree with as a general proposition.

    I think this all has to do with the low-carb movement.
  • NCK96
    NCK96 Posts: 146 Member
    I looked up bowls and plates from when I was younger and I'm suprised they're only slightly smaller.

    https://www.replacements.com/p/corning-butterfly-gold-corelle-coupe-cereal-bowl/corbug/62126581

    Vintage Corelle cereal bowls are 6 1/4" by 1 7/8" and plates are 10 1/4". My current Fiesta plates are 10.5"
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,925 Member
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    yirara wrote: »
    diannethegeek wrote: »
    It's funny because we often tell people to weigh their pasta and that they'll likely be disappointed when they see serving sizes weighed, but when someone does just that and posts about their results it seems like everyone just wants to argue with the point of the post.

    I remember the first time I cooked 2 ounces of pasta by dry weight and I was similarly disappointed. Did I find ways around it so that I still include pasta in my diet? Sure did. But not everyone is going to find it worth the calories and it was absolutely an eye opener for me the first time I did it. I'm glad @NCK96 posted and hopefully others who are just starting out will see it and recognize the importance of weighing their portions, too.

    But that's the thing: don't go with servings but with what fits into your calories. You're allowed to eat 4 servings if it fits, or 2-7/12. If I have a pasta or rice dish (or anything else) I start cooking the sauce/main part, weigh all the ingredients and then see quickly how much pasta/rice/potato/couscous/freekeh/whatever I can use to stay within my calories.

    Yesterday I made a Japanese dish with salmon, lots of veggies and sushi rice. I ended up using 75g rice, as it fitted my remaining calories perfectly.

    That's exactly my point of disagreement. Pasta is not uniquely disappointing, the calories are on par with many diet staples per gram of weight, if not lower. Oats are often higher in calories per dry weight. Cooked chicken, even without fat, is often higher in calories per cooked weight, nuts are in a whole other realm of calorie density, and so on and so forth.

    What's often disappointing is that the WAY we eat pasta sometimes (basically, things that are added to it) makes the dish higher in calories for the volume. Depending on what's important in the meal, pasta can easily fit into most people's diets if they find a way to prepare it that makes it fit. You start cooking the sauce then add whatever starch, I do the opposite, starch is important to my satiety, so I record the serving of starchy food I want to eat, then manipulate the sauce to fit and bulk it with vegetables. Both ways are valid, and neither requires you to rigidly stick to serving sizes (210 calories is not enough for a meal and I don't need 400 calories of sauce in order to stick to 210 calories of pasta). In all cases, weighing food allows creating dishes that both satisfy and fit into calories.

    Nothing wrong with that! I think our approaches are actually pretty much the same as I know intuitively how much ingredients other than pasta or rice, or whatever I can use to have about 70-80gr dry pasta/rice, or about 100gr for veggie dishes. If I really mess up then I spead out my dish over 3 instead of two days and add more pasta (and fill up the rest of the calories with more veggies. I'd never eat only 50g of pasta as I love that stuff far too much.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    rubyslipperss1 wrote: »
    I have retired my Philips Pasta Maker indefinitely.

    I left my Bosch bread mixer behind in a move. I can eat a crazy amount of fresh bread. With butter. LOTS of butter. And sometimes honey. Or cheese.

    I'm doing better with naan. I can eat a reasonable serving and freeze the rest.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    edited May 2019
    xtrain321 wrote: »
    Is it any wonder that people lose weight when they "cut carbs"? Besides shedding water initially, cutting carbs can mean cutting hundreds of calories. Some people really are less tolerant or carbs, but I think many people are convinced they can't eat carbs when they really just need to be mindful of calories.

    Yes, simply reducing my portion sizes of rice and pasta (while upping veggies and protein) worked well for me.

    I can eat loads of calories of pasta and butter, but if I have protein and veggies too I will be satisfied with my meal for far less calories.
  • NCK96
    NCK96 Posts: 146 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    NCK96 wrote: »
    I looked up bowls and plates from when I was younger and I'm suprised they're only slightly smaller.

    https://www.replacements.com/p/corning-butterfly-gold-corelle-coupe-cereal-bowl/corbug/62126581

    Vintage Corelle cereal bowls are 6 1/4" by 1 7/8" and plates are 10 1/4". My current Fiesta plates are 10.5"

    Perspective differs. Something introduced in 1970 being "vintage" is sorta amusing, in my world. I know it won't seem so to others who are not "vintage" themselves, as I am.

    Overall, common dishware has gotten larger on average, more or less roughly tracking with the rise of the so-called "obesity crisis". (I'm not saying it caused the obesity; there's a complicated culture evolution behind both.) Over longer history, a 19-ounce bowl is large as a place setting piece, though bowls as wide existed for specialty purposes (like wide, shallow ones with a wide rim for soup, for example - though I suspect those weren't 19oz at normal fill level, either).)

    I see the Macy's site describes the 19-oz bowl as "medium", and one of the comments complains that it's too small. (Fortunately, there are medium, large and extra large "bistro" bowls at 38oz, and 96oz, which I hope are intended as serving pieces, though there does seem to be a separate entry for a "large serving" bowl, and they describe that 68oz bistro one as "The Dinner Bowl featured on The It List" so maybe Buddha is supposed to eat his Buddha bowl from it?)

    The "small" individual bowl at Macy's is 15 ounces, 5.6"x1.875". Early fiesta (1930s) small (actually called "fruit", also "oatmeal") place-setting bowl was 4.75", height unspecified. There was a wider soup bowl/soup plate, quite shallow; but I saw nothing that appears to be 15-19oz capable originally. By the 1950s, there were some 6" ones intended as an individual personal bowl. There does seem to be a modern fruit bowl, at 5" only a bit larger than the originals; it's 9oz. I'd say that 8-9oz range is probably typical for the average individual serving place-setting type bowls when I was growing up in the 1960s.

    That was a fun rabbit hole. ;)

    I know, right?

    And then there's silverware... :D
  • lkpducky
    lkpducky Posts: 17,599 Member
    dewd2 wrote: »
    Pasta is the reason I'm a long distance runner.

    Also Oreos
    And Mt DEW
    And Bacon
    And...

    :D

    Best response ever!
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    dewd2 wrote: »
    Pasta is the reason I'm a long distance runner.

    Also Oreos
    And Mt DEW
    And Bacon
    And...

    :D

    and gummy bears ;)

    I'll tell you that the bacon someone had at mile 20 of my first ironman was like manna from heaven...as was the chicken soup on the rest of the run course
  • trisH_7183
    trisH_7183 Posts: 1,486 Member
    Interesting thread. I learned from it. Thanks all.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,089 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    NCK96 wrote: »
    grinning_chick wrote: »
    Maybe don't put it in a 3-4+ cup serving bowl? Then it won't look like quite so pathetically little.

    I eat a 2 oz dry measured spaghetti portion ( ~5.65 oz or so cooked) with 6 oz of meat sauce and fresh grated Parmesan in a regular (i.e., not special or child sized) 7.5" diameter soup/cereal bowl (8 oz liquid capacity, 20 oz if impractically overflowed to the rim). It always looks like plenty to me when I make, serve, and eat it.

    1vdstile4l73.jpg


    It’s a 19 oz. Fiesta bowl measuring 6.875” x 1.875”.

    https://mcys.co/2USxMaW

    It just cracks me up how much bigger average dishes are than was typical when I was a kid, or even young adult.

    Recently, I had to replace some everyday bowls I got when first married (1977), ones that were considered normal soup or cereal bowls as part of a dishware set, not unusually small.

    Now, I had to look all over to find some that didn't make (what I consider to be) a sensible portion look like a chihuahua in the bottom of an empty swimming pool. The ones I found were still a little bigger than the old ones, and labeled ”dessert bowls".

    My old bowls (still have a couple) hold about 8 fl. oz. of soup comfortably. My new "dessert bowls" hold about 12, with about the same free zone for slosh management.

    19 oz. would indeed be a normal general-use tableware bowl now.

    Heh. Eye of the beholder.

    To be fair, I have several of those 19 oz. Fiesta bowls bought at various times over the past few decades, and I'm sure they were always sold as serving dishes, not place-setting dishes (that doesn't stop me from using them for an individual salad or one serving of microwaved hot cereal or anything else where a roomy dish might be helpful).

    To be fair on the other side, I still have the last unbroken Fiesta bowl my mother bought sometime in the 20 years after the end of WW II. I suspect it might have been sold as a soup bowl, but she generally used it to serve vegetables (e.g., asparagus, broccoli, etc.) to feed as many as 8 people (which may say more about her realism when it came to how little veg her husband and most of the kids would eat). That bowl will hold 16 fl. oz. before overflowing -- maybe 12 fl. oz. of soup if you don't want to risk it slopping over the edge.
  • snowflake954
    snowflake954 Posts: 8,399 Member
    Today! Pasta with aspargus, cream and parmigiano. It vanished in a flash.

Categories