Portion Size by the Handful
Options
Replies
-
TimothyFish wrote: »Some people suggest using your hands to judge portion size. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/17/health-food-portion-control/2091865/)
Protein: palm of hand, without fingers and thumb
Starchy Carbs (potatoes, rice, pasta): fist
Fruit: rounded handful
Vegetables: two hand portion size
Fats (oils, mayonnaise, peanut butter): tip of thumb
Cheese: full thumb
Juice: cup should be about as high as the distance from thumb to forefinger
Because the size of the hand is relative to the body size, people who need more calories get more calories.
Have you found this method of portion control to be useful and how has it compared to other methods you have used?
Also, do you see a significant difference in the size of a fist and the size of a rounded handful?
Impossible for me to memorize all that, imposible to eyeball anyway, how can I log "potato, one fist", and why should I, when I have scales?
0 -
I did this on Whole 30 and lost weight. Granted, I was also cutting out a lot of other things.
I think it's a good guide if you are out and about, but as you get closer to goal weight, you'd have to measure using a scale or measuring cups.0 -
RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »It's pretty much the method I use when eating out at friends/families houses or all you can eat places. By no means accurate but helps me not demolish everything on offer.
This is exactly what I was looking for to help me. I weigh everything at home, but when out, I just guess (other than at restaurants that happen to be in the database). This will help me a lot. Thanks0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wiseandcurious wrote: »
Agreed! Pathetic! I don't think I've ever only eaten a "dice" / "die" size portion of cheese. Was just using that as an example, really.
One dice would two dies, right?
I don't really know - I'm sure I messed up the "plural" of that word. I could look it up, but I'm too lazy at the moment! Forgive my error.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »harpsdesire wrote: »I don't mean this in an insulting way, but-- I feel like this would be a good system for kids, to help them understand what a good portion size or meat or veggies is. Their hands are growing with them, so they would always have a decent approximation of what a serving is, and it's simple.
Many adults need to be more precise, particularly us short ladies who only have 1600-1700 maintenance. Not a lot lot of 'I have particularly large/small hands for my size' wiggle room there.
Gosh, I don't know. Kids probably need a lot more food than the size of their hand. Especially preteen and teen boys. In my experience, their head might be closer to portion size than their hand.
That's a good point. I've been put on diets since I was in second grade, so I kind of forget that many kinds can eat as much as they like and be healthy, as long as there's not terribly much non-nutritional sugar drinks involved.0 -
I like it. She does say it's for "most people" so maybe for people with disproportionate hands, it wouldn't work so well. But it's nice and simple, easy to get used to and to stick to. The thing that she doesn't make clear is how many portions to have! I find that happens often with portion control information. I get that the protein portion is the size of a palm. Now do I have one of those per day? Or one per meal? I'm guessing two a day, but it's not clear in the video. This table is quite useful, but it's for average sized, moderately active people for maintenance. You have to do your own adjustments if you're not average or if you want to lose or gain weight. Personally, I like to maintain protein-based portions and cut down on carbohydrate.
This isn't a criticism of portion control itself. I've successfully lost some weight with portion control in this way and find it a lot easier than calorie counting (no, it's not accurate, but it doesn't really matter as long as you create a deficit and get enough nutrition). Just pointing out that you need to know how many portions as well as what size.0 -
I like it. She does say it's for "most people" so maybe for people with disproportionate hands, it wouldn't work so well. But it's nice and simple, easy to get used to and to stick to. The thing that she doesn't make clear is how many portions to have! I find that happens often with portion control information. I get that the protein portion is the size of a palm. Now do I have one of those per day? Or one per meal? I'm guessing two a day, but it's not clear in the video. This table is quite useful, but it's for average sized, moderately active people for maintenance. You have to do your own adjustments if you're not average or if you want to lose or gain weight. Personally, I like to maintain protein-based portions and cut down on carbohydrate.
This isn't a criticism of portion control itself. I've successfully lost some weight with portion control in this way and find it a lot easier than calorie counting (no, it's not accurate, but it doesn't really matter as long as you create a deficit and get enough nutrition). Just pointing out that you need to know how many portions as well as what size.
I don't know if this helps, but I started down this rabbit trail after reading something that called for "five hands per meal". At each meal, they said you should have one hand of protein, two hands of fruit/vegetables, and two hands of grain. That kind of matches up with the table you linked, if you look at it as three meals with a couple of snacks thrown in to get the rest.0 -
But this method doesn't really help you track calories. If a "serving size" of a particular food has say, 200 calories, then someone with smaller hands might only be consuming 150 calories, but someone with larger hands might be consuming 250 calories.
While the argument has been made that someone with larger hands is likely to be bigger, and therefore need more calories, if they are logging every single item as less than what they are really consuming (as their hands give them a larger serving size than is intended), then how the hell will they have any idea of what their actual caloric intake is?0 -
They'll gain weight if their estimate is too low and lose weight if it is too high.While the argument has been made that someone with larger hands is likely to be bigger, and therefore need more calories, if they are logging every single item as less than what they are really consuming (as their hands give them a larger serving size than is intended), then how the hell will they have any idea of what their actual caloric intake is?
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
They'll gain weight if their estimate is too low and lose weight if it is too high.While the argument has been made that someone with larger hands is likely to be bigger, and therefore need more calories, if they are logging every single item as less than what they are really consuming (as their hands give them a larger serving size than is intended), then how the hell will they have any idea of what their actual caloric intake is?
Yeah. That's kind of my point. Only if you hands are the correct size to measure out a serving per packets etc could this be an accurate method. I'll stick to my scales, thanks.0 -
But this method doesn't really help you track calories. If a "serving size" of a particular food has say, 200 calories, then someone with smaller hands might only be consuming 150 calories, but someone with larger hands might be consuming 250 calories.
While the argument has been made that someone with larger hands is likely to be bigger, and therefore need more calories, if they are logging every single item as less than what they are really consuming (as their hands give them a larger serving size than is intended), then how the hell will they have any idea of what their actual caloric intake is?
Yeah, I can't tell that it helps you track calories at all. You would have to weigh your portions or make an educated guess if you wanted to do that. In general, I think that for weight loss, you wouldn't be able to stick to the government guidelines for how much to eat each day. Something would have to go. Instead of eating 6 servings of grain, maybe you eat 4, or something like that.0 -
I'll stick to my scales, too, but it's pretty conceivable that some human beings are smart enough to think, "Hey, I'm gaining weight using these estimates. I must be estimating too few calories. I'll estimate more" until maintenance is achieved. Right?DeguelloTex wrote: »
They'll gain weight if their estimate is too low and lose weight if it is too high.While the argument has been made that someone with larger hands is likely to be bigger, and therefore need more calories, if they are logging every single item as less than what they are really consuming (as their hands give them a larger serving size than is intended), then how the hell will they have any idea of what their actual caloric intake is?
Yeah. That's kind of my point. Only if you hands are the correct size to measure out a serving per packets etc could this be an accurate method. I'll stick to my scales, thanks.
0 -
If you are using a handful as a measure then you aren't measuring your food....you are estimating. Yeah. No.
And whose size hand are we using? Mine? Yours? The Incredible Hulk's?
Presumably, The Incredible Hulk would use his own hand. He wouldn't want to use your hand, or he would starve to death.0 -
-
I like it because I refuse to use a method that has me weighing food. I prefer something that I can use wherever I am and that doesn't seem so clinical, KWIM? I suppose if I had a medical condition or a ton of weight to use and nothing else was working then I would try a scale. But for my purposes and people who are not necessarily trying to lose weight but just don't want to overeat then I think it's a really good method.0
-
All the 'portion' based diets I have seen offer maximum numbers of portions per day/week. It matters little whether a portion fits on your palm or is 1/2 cup. It is the counting of portions and balancing of food groups which is the object of the exercise. Not overeating the calorie high foods and getting plenty of the lower calorie foods. One I follow averages 1400 kcal a day. Counting actual calories on my plate varies between 1300 and 1500 so overall not at all bad for holidays or meals out when I can't weigh. The main benefit is I can eat higher calorie foods on high exercise days without adding more bulk to my plates. It does make planning so much easier and means I don't have wastage when the food is dished up.0
-
This makes me think of a little story I read about Marie Curie: when she began to set up housekeeping as a new bride, she got confused, and asked her doctor sister, Bronislava ("Bronya"): "Exactly how much is a pinch of salt?"
I've also see this method of casual measuring used by Rachael Rae on her cooking show when it comes to seasonings.0 -
while I do use a scale for some things but I eyeball most things now and basically use my hand, fist, palm, etc to judge. I used to weigh everything and then put it in my hand or my plate to see what that looked like and it helped me become better at estimating my portions. But, I did have to learn how things looked...I wasn't such a good judge of things when I first started...at one point in time, my food scale was my most valuable tool.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions