Just how big is three plates? With Diagrams!

stevecooper · Post by **stevecooper** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:22 pm

Well, I lied. There are no diagrams. But there is a table!

So, I was wondering about plate sizes. How much food can you fit on three dinner plates? Is it more than four tea plates? Intrigued, I set out to enumerate every combination of plates known to man. And here are the results. A dinner plate is 10 inches across. A tea plate is 7 inches across. Percentages are %age of a normal 3-dinner-plate no-s day.

Code: Select all

2 total plates
---------------
 32%  0 dinner plates, 2 tea plates = 76 sq inches 
 49%  1 dinner plates, 1 tea plates = 116 sq inches 
 66%  2 dinner plates, 0 tea plates = 157 sq inches 

3 total plates
---------------
 49%  0 dinner plates, 3 tea plates = 115 sq inches 
 66%  1 dinner plates, 2 tea plates = 155 sq inches 
 83%  2 dinner plates, 1 tea plates = 195 sq inches 
 100%  3 dinner plates, 0 tea plates = 235 sq inches 

4 total plates
---------------
 65%  0 dinner plates, 4 tea plates = 153 sq inches 
 82%  1 dinner plates, 3 tea plates = 193 sq inches 
 99%  2 dinner plates, 2 tea plates = 233 sq inches 
 116%  3 dinner plates, 1 tea plates = 273 sq inches 
 133%  4 dinner plates, 0 tea plates = 314 sq inches

FarmerHal · Post by **FarmerHal** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:27 pm

SWEET! I love seeing it put out like that!
Turns out I use tea plates most all of the time, so that's good!

Thanks for taking the time to calculate that!

palomayombe · Post by **palomayombe** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:02 pm

*****************

kccc · Post by **kccc** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 1:11 am

And here I opened it, wondering how on earth you got a diagram into a post.

Ah well. I suppose putting plates on a TABLE makes more sense.

The math geek side of me is totally taken with this. The practical side says "Got it. In general, 2 tea plates can sub for one dinner plate in a pinch. Remember that for emergencies."

Now, can you add a conversion for the teeny plates generally used for "heavy hors d'oeuvre" parties? Then I'll really be set.

stevecooper · Post by **stevecooper** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:21 am

shamrockmommy wrote:Thanks for taking the time to calculate that!

I'm a computer programmer, so it only took a few minutes to create a program to do it.

KCCC wrote:Now, can you add a conversion for the teeny plates generally used for "heavy hors d'oeuvre" parties? Then I'll really be set.

How big are these plates? I'll knock something together.

KC 7707 · Post by **KC 7707** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:54 am

stevecooper

I really admire and appreciate what you did, but those calculations feel, to me, like an attempt to add some "numerology" to a diet that has purposely taken the numerology out. I could see somebody deciding that the area of the plate should be subdivided according to macronutrients and given a point system.

This would all lead to special plates you have to order that have special markings on them and special food you have to buy to fit inside the special markings.

Everyone would have to pay to go to meetings every week to offer each other support for eating special foods that go on special plates with special markings.

Post by **reinhard** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:22 pm

I love this quantification of plate number and size tradeoffs, Steve! Very amusing -- and actually useful, I think. A couple inches off the diameter makes a huge different in terms of surface area. The miraculous surprises of basic math!

KC 7707, I think it's useful as a playful, eye opener. Not something Steve intended people to rigorously stick to under all circumstances.

Reinhard

stevecooper · Post by **stevecooper** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:24 pm

KC 7707 wrote:I really admire and appreciate what you did, but those calculations feel, to me, like an attempt to add some "numerology" to a diet that has purposely taken the numerology out.

Not really what I was aiming for

Someone on another thread mentioned that she has very long days and was wondering whether she could have four smaller meals -- this was an attempt to see how she could accord with the actual diet (a fixed number of plated meals) without adding more food.

reinhard wrote:I love this quantification of plate number and size tradeoffs, Steve!

I'm now thinking that it might be improved to give you a quanified way to do not-so-virtual-plating. You can substitute two teaplates for a dinner plate, and *still be doing fixed real plates.*

This might also be useful -- what fraction of a 10-inch plate is an X-inch plate?

Code: Select all

Plate sizes, as a fraction of a 10-inch dinner plate
----------------------------------------------------
  1/6 -- 4 inch plate
  1/4 -- 5 inch plate
  3/8 -- 6 inch plate
  1/2 -- 7 inch plate
  5/8 -- 8 inch plate
  4/5 -- 9 inch plate
    1 -- 10 inch plate
1 1/5 -- 11 inch plate
1 5/12 -- 12 inch plate

kccc · Post by **kccc** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 7:02 pm

What a great review of "basic math facts"! It is just astonishing how a small difference in diameter translates to a BIG difference in area. (And yes, I suppose I knew that in theory, but this example really makes it relevant.)

I'm particularly struck by the fact that a 12-inch plate holds almost HALF AGAIN as much as a 10-inch plate. That bit of info will make me a LOT more careful in restaurants!

On the other hand, I often go to buffet dinners with tiny plates, and it helps to have some idea how many of them equal a real plate.

Thanks Steve - seriously.

KC 7707 · Post by **KC 7707** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:09 pm

I didn't mean to sound judgemental. I just kept thinking about people who have been over exposed to dieting culture and infomercial culture. They could take your calculations and run with it and the end result for some people would be a club you have to join and food and plates you would have to pay for.

I think we all know the people I'm referring to.

I think some of us are the people I'm referring to.

stevecooper · Post by **stevecooper** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 11:19 pm

KC 7707 wrote:I think we all know the people I'm referring to.

Yeah, I think I do

I think the fact that No-s is based on something as simple as a plate insulates it from this worry, though.

KCCC wrote:What a great review of "basic math facts"! I'm particularly struck by the fact that a 12-inch plate holds almost HALF AGAIN as much as a 10-inch plate.

It's that square in it. -- pi.r^2. It gets big, fast. Same sort of thing applies to bowls; a bit wider and a bit deeper, and you get a lot more liquid.

So a six-inch wide, 2-inch deep bowl contains half the liquid of a seven-inch wide, 3-inch deep bowl.

Also, sorry guys, but I made an incorrect assumption -- that the radius of a ten-inch plate is ten inches! of course, it's 5-inches radius, 10 inches diameter. I'm just about to correct all the tables in their original posts. THE PROPORTIONS ARE THE SAME, THOUGH.

Blithe Morning · Post by **Blithe Morning** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:48 am

If plate size were part of the rules I would be one of those who would be forever consulting the Table of Wisdom to see what was Allowable and was Forbidden.

However, this is something that is useful when you are one of those odd situations where there is no dinner plate or the plate is way bigger or smaller than what you normally use. In that case, I wouldn't be so worried about following the rules as just trying to not overstuff or starve myself.

So, I measure my plate. It's 26 cms (about 10.2") in diameter. However, the shallow well part where I actually put the food is about 22.2cms. The 5cm rim is a different color so there is some deep psychological taboo against putting food there.

I do have a set of plates that are one color all the way through. I can't really differentiate between the the well and the rim on those. I don't use them much anymore because I have a feeling I put more food on the plate. Since I'm not hungry after eating on the smaller plate, I don't see any reason to go to the larger plate even though it is allowable. I want to avoid stuffing myself or wasting food.

I've noticed that square plates are all the rage these days. I'm curious about how they compare in terms of area. Anyone have measurements?

stevecooper · Post by **stevecooper** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 7:13 am

Blithe Morning wrote:If plate size were part of the rules I would be one of those who would be forever consulting the Table of Wisdom to see what was Allowable and was Forbidden.

...

I've noticed that square plates are all the rage these days. I'm curious about how they compare in terms of area. Anyone have measurements?

Yeah, these are _nothing_ like official.

A square plate is 25% bigger than a round plate of the same width.

joasia · Post by **joasia** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 3:18 pm

Us darn dieters! We find a way to measure even when we were told not to =) I am the same way.

BrightAngel · Post by **BrightAngel** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:48 pm

Interesting, and really good calculations.

....but I think I'll stick to just the one plate rule, along with whatever other small bowl or saucer fits on that plate...

And, although the no s diet is supposed to eliminate the need...????
(I will continue to weigh & measure my food while counting my calories)
Because, while I wish it were not true....
A 10 inch plate of spaghetti & rich meat sauce covered with cheese
is a whole lot different than
a 10 inch plate filled with 3 oz roasted chicken breast, 1/2 cup of rice, and 1 cup veggies.

CrazyCatLady · Post by **CrazyCatLady** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:51 am

The first thing I thought of when reading your post, Steve, was "you're weird!" LOL!

What I learned from all your calculations was....eat one plate of food. Three times daily. Don't stack the food too high or you might as well be eating off a square plate.

ROFL! What a fun post...thanks for the figures, and the chuckle!

eljay · Post by **eljay** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:32 am

Don't stack the food too high or you might as well be eating off a square plate.

funfuture · Post by **funfuture** » Thu Feb 10, 2011 10:14 am

Because I'm suddenly curious about plates (who'd a thunk it after all the time I've been hanging around NoS), I thought I'd bump this thread. I read it the first time, but I'm so maths challenged my eyes glazed over at the numbers the first time around.

I thought some of the newer members might also find it interesting.

yoozer · Post by **yoozer** » Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:05 am

Interesting calculations, Steve. It is quite surprising how much difference a few inches of diameter make.

stevecooper wrote:It's that square in it. -- pi.r^2. It gets big, fast.

Indeed. In fact, you don't really have to worry about pi -- just observe that 7 squared is 49 while 10 squared is 100, so a 10-inch plate is about twice as big. Likewise, 5 squared is 25, so a 5-inch plate is a quarter of the size of a 10-incher.

Blithe Morning · Post by **Blithe Morning** » Thu Feb 10, 2011 2:48 pm

Thanks, fun. I recalled this thread and thought about looking for it to bump up but ran out of time.

I'm trying to think up a witty remark about pie/pi on the plate but it's just not happening. So, fill in witty pie joke here ---->

osoniye · Post by **osoniye** » Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:21 pm

Thanks for bumping this up- I LIKE this thread!!

Nicest of the Damned · Post by **Nicest of the Damned** » Thu Feb 10, 2011 4:59 pm

Thanks for bumping this thread! I sometimes eat things that don't share a plate very well (something that might make other stuff on the plate soggy, for example), and this is good to know for those times.

oolala53 · Post by **oolala53** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:12 am

I've gotten to the point where the portion sizes don't have much to do with the plate size. The only foods i allow to fill a section of the plate is half a plate of veggies, whatever the size of the plate. Meat and starch are determined by the size of my palm and fist, respectively. I find that using small plates makes me feel that I'm dieting or trying to eat a child's portion. It seems to help others, though.

Blithe Morning · Post by **Blithe Morning** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:24 pm

Rebump. Just because it's an interesting thread in light of Over's square plate thread below.

Some more plate size math.

10 inch/25.4 centimeter diameter round - 78.5 inÂ²/506 cmÂ²

10 inch//25.4 centimeter square - 100 inÂ²/645 cmÂ²

12 inch/30.5 centimeter diameter round - 113 inÂ²/730 cmÂ²

9 inch/22.86 centimeter diameter round - 63.5 inÂ²/419 cmÂ²

A plate mod has been suggested on and off and looking at the numbers it might be something to incorporate once the habits are down. That 13 squares inches difference between 9 inch round and 10 inch round might not look huge but I could see it making a difference. If adding an additional 13 square inches can result in gradual weight gain then taking it away could help with gradual weight loss.

Minkymoo · Post by **Minkymoo** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 2:55 pm

I find it interesting and useful! I have no intention of complicating the diet - I love the simplicity of No S. For me weight loss only started when I began using a tea plate for breakfast and lunch instead of the larger ones. Seeing the numbers in cm squared makes me realise why that small change worked so well! Thanks for bumping this as I rarely find time to look through older posts.