Page 1 of 1
Question about plate size
Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 8:55 pm
by joasia
Just wondering if people are using a 9 inch or 11 inch plate.? I know it sounds silly, but I want to be strict for now.
Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 11:34 pm
by JustAnnie
Currently, I have a 10-inch plate. It's old redware that was made by McCoy. It is beginning to chip though and I am in the market to buy Corelle's smaller Sandstone sets.
As a friend of mine pointed out though, how much you pack your plate is an issue too. I've seen some people pile enormous portions on small plates. I try to divide my plate into quarters with 1/4 carb, 1/4 protein and 1/2 fruit and veggies but even doing that, I COULD stack alot on there if I chose too. I'm trying to take nice "lady like" portions.

Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:53 am
by pangelsue
small plate, fill the whole thing. Large plate, fill the middle and leave the rim empty. Works out about the same. When I am having a hungry day, the plate will be quite full. But on a normal day, normal portions. I am starting to trust myself more to be the judge.
Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 12:24 pm
by Jammin' Jan
Breakfast is a Corelle "luncheon" plate, because I also have juice in a glass and sometimes a little dish of fruit. Lunch is in little containers, dumped onto whatever size plate they have in the cafeteria where I work. Dinner is a "dinner" Corelle plate, but I try not to fill it completely, because we usually have a little plate of fruit on the side.
Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 3:04 pm
by FarmerHal
I use 9" round plates. Even an appropriate sized portion of meat, vegs, carbs looks like a ton of food on it.
So it's better for me to pile it on the 9" rather than pile it on the 13". Which is a ridiculous amount of food! Oy!
Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 8:26 pm
by reinhard
Officially, as far as the No S Diet rules are concerned, it doesn't matter how big your plates are.
But it does obviously make a difference, both because you can't fit as many calories on a small plate and because you'll get that Pavlovian "empty plate = done" signal sooner, so you'll want to eat less.
That being said, I would not worry about this in the beginning, if ever. By far the most important thing is to establish the "empty plate = stop" association and the habit of not snacking between meals. For these, a full, maybe somewhat overfull plate is helpful in minimizing the temptation to violate the literal rules. If you reach for a second small plate or a snack because your one small plate wasn't enough, all those calories that you virtuously avoided (and then some) come sneaking back plus you've reduced the power of the "1=done" association.
Once you have these habits firmly ingrained, then you can worry about plate size if you want -- like I said, it does make sense. But my guess is you won't need to, because the "1 plate, whatever size, and you're done" rule is enough to do the job -- it has been for me.
Reinhard
Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:06 pm
by J Ellis
Personally, I prefer to skip the plate and just use one of those nifty, rectangular cafeteria-style trays.
Just kidding.
Joel
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:42 am
by Rosemary
I've never measured my plate, but it's beautiful!
One of the things I remember Reinhard mentioning, when I first discovered this site, was how meals used to be a family ritual. In the last few years I had developed a very unhelpful way of eating - at the counter, or on the run, so one day in my first week I went to Value Village and bought a lovely bone-china dinner plate. I started to make a little ceremony of meal-times - even breakfast - and I think this is what helped to break my snacking, and eating in a hurry habits.