Comments on: Expanding portion sizes in the Joy of Cooking

By: News bites: eat cheaper and better | Homecooking Revival

News bites: eat cheaper and better | Homecooking Revival — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 22:54:51 +0000

[...] Insidious portion growth. Marion Nestle calls attention to a study that shows the growth of portion sizes in successive editions of Joy of Cooking. It’s a good reminder that the more we put on our plates, the more we’re likely to eat. (Food Politics) [...]

By: Obesity And…The Joy of Cooking? | GrubGirl.

Obesity And…The Joy of Cooking? | GrubGirl. — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:06:22 +0000

[...] (and, so, far, The Jungle’s probably got the highest ick factor), but we noticed over at the Food Politics blog that Marion Nestle has a document for download where one has analyzed the increasing serving size [...]

By: sid

sid — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:02:17 +0000

junk food vendors in canada are on this oversized train too. A small size bag of chips used to be one ounce, now is two ounces. Coke used to be 7-12 ounces, is now 16. The list goes on. Try to buy a small coffee, you get a 12-16 oz cup. In a related vein, try to get a hotel on saturday night, and they are going to bill you for two nights even if you only stay one night. I figure for evry nice person in the world there are a dozen devious scumbuckets trying to rob you legally or not. Many of these seem to have MBAs.

By: FoodBubbles

FoodBubbles — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:12:07 +0000

I really wonder what the cause of this trend is. Many questions come to mind: Are the cookbooks following restaurant portion sizes? Why, then, the size increase in (American) restaurant dishes? Lisa Young points to the rise in calories available per person, but does that instantly mean we have to eat that much more? Does the availability of calories simply make everything cheaper? Then why not cheaper dishes, not bigger dishes?

Ug, cause and effect are so obscure when it comes to these sorts of things.

By: Michelle @ What Does Your Body Good?

Michelle @ What Does Your Body Good? — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:36:36 +0000

I understand why McDonald’s has created a supersized menu. But what is the explanation for the Joy of Cooking’s portion sizes to increase? I guess it’s just a reflection of current ideas about eating. What an interesting post!

By: Dblspeak

Dblspeak — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:09:23 +0000

I find this little paper very interesting. I’d love to know which 18 recipes have survived (are they main dishes, desserts, vegetables?). Just looking at the recipes that have survived over the years may not reflect the overall trend of the book. In addition many recipes now contain suggestions for lower fat and lower calorie substitutions. A study of whether the average calorie count per serving size for each chapter of the book has gone up or down over time would probably address the basic research question more accurately (but of course require a lot more work:).

Thanks for sharing this concise study.

By: Corey - 2 Equal Parts

Corey - 2 Equal Parts — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:06:35 +0000

Increased portion size, the amount of soda or “pop” people drink, and our sedentary lifestyles are all part of the obesity problem.

By: Mira Dessy

Mira Dessy — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 02:43:30 +0000

Scary to see how much recipes have been upsized. Good thing I still have my 1974 version of J.O.C.

And my favorite recipes are becoming the small batch ones where you only make 8-12 cookies at a go.

By: Sheila

Sheila — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 02:17:15 +0000

This is really a two-fold problem. First, the size of the specific item is larger (i.e. giant cookie) and/or the recipe is richer, AND second, we still have not adjusted the internal counter on how many of these items constitutes a serving. So, many of us can’t or don’t eat just one cookie at 500 calories each, many of us still think of 2 or 3 cookies (or more) as the serving. So, now the problem is compounded…we eat 2 or 3 or more cookies at 500 calories each, and whew!! those pounds just compound exponentially.

By: Bowl of Plenty

Bowl of Plenty — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:27:13 +0000

Well, maybe THIS is the explanation.

http://thisiswhyyourefat.com/