Re: (2008-01-11) New survey on the RFC site:Portion/serving sizes
- From: maxine in ri <weedfam@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 13:14:22 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 11, 7:59 pm, Karen AKA Kajikit <kaji...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I never used to pay any attention to the 'serving size' labels - I
thought they were ridiculously small... but that was before I started
counting calories and dieting! Now I almost always eat the portion on
the packet, if not less (why DO they always make the calorie count on
confectionary the count for the WHOLE thing when it's divided into six
or eight or a dozen pieces in the packet? I don't want to eat nine
hersheys kisses - two fits into my calorie allowance much better!)
They have to choose some size for a portion. I like it when the
portion
is divisible by the pieces/calories, so I can decide how much I want
to add to my diet.
I've found, for example, that a 100 calorie piece of good dark
chocolate
is perfect for me, satisfies my craving and doesn't leave me wanting
more.
The usual portion on the packet is 4-6 squares, and I can get by with
2.
Has the added advantage of making me feel good that I don't _have_ to
eat the whole portion<G>.
maxine in ri
.
- References:
- (2008-01-11) New survey on the RFC site:Portion/serving sizes
- From: ChattyCathy
- Re: (2008-01-11) New survey on the RFC site:Portion/serving sizes
- From: Vilco
- Re: (2008-01-11) New survey on the RFC site:Portion/serving sizes
- From: Karen AKA Kajikit
- (2008-01-11) New survey on the RFC site:Portion/serving sizes
- Prev by Date: Re: Caught another kitchen mouse.
- Next by Date: Re: Caught another kitchen mouse.
- Previous by thread: Re: (2008-01-11) New survey on the RFC site:Portion/serving sizes
- Next by thread: Re: (2008-01-11) New survey on the RFC site:Portion/serving sizes
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|