Portion Size by the Handful

yopeeps025 wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

yopeeps025 wrote: »

How could this method compare to weighing your food out? Everyone has the same size hands right?

As I understand it, the point of using your hands is that you would start with the guidelines, let's say 2-3 servings of meat per day, and use your hand to determine what size a serving is. If you wanted to know how many calories were in that serving, you would need to weigh the portion. A smaller person would end up with fewer calories and a larger person would end up with more calories, but they would both be eating the same number of servings.

Serving size is a serving size and does not change whether I have more body weight. That I have never heard before.

I believe it's to be used with systems that prescribe a set number of servings for all adulObviously, a larger framed person's calorie needs will be higher than a smaller person, so with the same number of servings, the serving size would have to be somewhat customized.

I think it's a great system for people looking for broad guidelines and those who don't want to (or can't, bc they didn't cook it) weigh and measure their food.

bpetrosky wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

bpetrosky wrote: »

The people who the "hand portion" guidelines are targeted to aren't likely to ever adopt a strict measuring and logging routine. We can promote that as the best way to get desired results, but there's still a large population of people who won't get it.

The people who came up with the ''hand portion" are trying to communicate a method of portion control to that part of the population who won't weigh. It's a vastly inferior method, but it can be better than nothing.

I guess…

I mean why be accurate when you can be 'kinda sorta maybe accurate"….

it takes five seconds to weigh most foods…

Again, if you're a public health official trying to communicate to the larger community you have to choose between advocating a gold standard that will be only be adopted a very small group, or a method that is "better than nothing" but can be done by a much larger group.

Personally, I always advocate to friends to try weight logging as the best option.

It's like the saying about the best diet for losing weight: the one you will stick to.

Obviously, people using calorie counting software like MFP are more likely to be open to weighing and measuring, but I really don't think most people would be willing to do it long term.

Hand size is a reasonable method for most adults, as you can give them a single guideline and the difference in hand size will customize it automatically. Yes, there are people whose hands are outsized for their frame, but as we've demonstrated in this thread, most of them know it, so logically would adjust accordingly.

Those who find the hand method not accurate enough can always switch to weighing, but for the average person, it's going to be a pretty good guide. And it's something they might actually do.

SideSteel wrote: »

I know I'm simply repeating myself here but it's a decent method for approximating portion sizes.


Not everyone is going to track calories and in fact there are reasons to not track that have nothing to do with how long it takes, and this method can be effective for those people.

I've used this as a reference and tool for clients who either stop tracking or take extended breaks from tracking and it's quite reasonable.

Consider that it's quite easy to modify this to get in the general ballpark of calorie and macronutrient needs.

I actually went to the PN site that you referred to and read their write-up. I also went to your group and read the thread "Losing fat without counting calories".

I think for me personally that I will try a combination of the two methods...weighing the calorie dense and estimating (eye-balling) the rest. I also liked your tip about waiting until the end of the day to log to see how close I am coming by just estimating.