Tim Hortons announced yesterday that they are renaming their sizes to accommodate an even LARGER extra large. That’s right… they didn’t want to make you feel bad by calling the new 24oz extra large cup the ‘extra EXTRA large’ size, so they just shifted everything down. Don’t worry kids, you can still get your medium… it’s just called a small now, and small has been bumped to the extra small.
In a world where childhood obesity is on the rise, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford is tipping the scales at 330lbs, Southern Cooking Queen Paula Deen has diabetes, while women who are size 6 to 12 are considered plus sized models and people are starving themselves through crazy fad diets to be thin – doesn’t it make you want to throw up your hands and call this whole world crazy?
There has been a lot of talk about how the quality of our food contributes to the obesity rate of our society – but I would like to point out another side to the coin: serving size. Yes, eating nothing but highly processed food swimming in salt, fat and sugar will help your arse to grow faster than the wolfman’s hair after a Rogaine bath. But I question the need for the amount of food that we are shoveling into our faces.
Trust me… that’s fast.
The other night while on the search for Ottawa’s best taco I visited Lonestar and ordered their 3 taco meal (my only option for tacos). It was served to me on a platter. And I know this isn’t uncommon! Seriously? A platter? Do people remember when platters were used for serving family style meals? As in, intended for multiple people to pass around the table, take SOME and pass it along. Not for one person to eat by themselves.
We have literally trained our stomachs to hold more food than we need at each and every meal. Consuming more calories on a daily basis than ever before. Before we ate off platters, we ate off plates. And before plates were piled right to the rim as they often are now, the plate had a decorative rim and the actual space of a plate that was used for food was half of what it is now! Before mugs were the bottomless, monstrous things … they held 8 oz. A serving.
When it comes to counting calories, serving sizes haven’t changed. Eating more is just that, eating more. So now when you have your 24 oz extra large coffee at Timmies, you are actually having 3 servings of coffee – but dollars to doughnuts you are counting it as one.
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 17, 2012 at 10:42 am
Peady (@Peady)
Great post!!
(Plus you used the word “arse” and we all know how I feel about that!)
You are so right! When I lived in the States there was a chain restaurant that prided itself in one of its “specials” having to be served on its own plate!! Meaning, it was such a huge chicken fried whatever that the veggies came on one plate and the main arrived on it’s own platter! There are no words. It is certainly no mystery.
And speaking of dollars to doughnuts, how many people accompany their “vat” of sugary, fatty coffee with one of those, to boot?
January 17, 2012 at 10:54 am
Jennifer Covert
Great post and you’re so right! Take a look at your grandmother’s china (if you happen to have some) and compare to your current china–I’d be willing to bet that the plate size is smaller and simply holds less food than your current dish set. Makes me want to use my grandmother’s china all the time!
January 17, 2012 at 10:58 am
simplyfreshottawa
It’s true! With my mother’s wedding china, the serving size of a dinner plate is comparable to a side plate in today’s kitchen.
January 17, 2012 at 11:33 am
Yael
this is exactly what i was thinking when you mentioned their sizing was changing. it’s amazing how we’ve trained ourselves, as a society, to think outlandishly large mugs, plates and servings are the norm!
a few months back i went to breakfast with my brother. i think it was broadways’ we ate at. he ordered the “superman” or something similar, which had enough food to feed 4 people. i kid you not. 4 pieces of toast, 2 pancakes, bacon, sausages AND ham, 4 eggs… ugh. it was horrifying to watch as he ate every last morsel.
January 17, 2012 at 2:29 pm
Don (@foodieprints)
To add to your argument, serving sizes are larger and so is caloric density.
http://blog.koldcast.tv/2012/koldcast-news/the-worlds-most-fattening-foods/
And here is a piece that describes how the dishes in modern “Joy of Cooking” editions are actually larger and richer than past editions…
“By examining the 18 recipes that have been continuously published in “The Joy of Cooking” since it was first published in 1936, Cornell Professor Brian Wansink has found that the average calories per serving have jumped 63 percent in the past 70 years.”
“What served four people in 1986 would have served almost seven people by 1936 standards,” Wansink noted.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Feb09/JoyCookingPortions.html
January 17, 2012 at 2:46 pm
simplyfreshottawa
That is so interesting! I had no idea about the changes to the Joy of Cooking!
January 17, 2012 at 8:47 pm
brian
Hmmm, no reference to the fact of big business has told us how much we can eat every day (milk calendar). Health endorsements on products are bought and paid for and not very healthy. And what is wrong with eating one taco and bringing the rest of the platter home for another meal? I am sure back in the day when truck stops were selling hungry man breakfasts people went to do blue collar work, and not sitting at a desk.
B