5995
5996

Picture of TextA buffet restaurant's sign (i.imgur.com)

saraboulos が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Wargame4life 1ポイント2ポイント  (17子コメント)

250g is not a meal FFS. especially as anything that is even remotely healthy is relatively heavy due to the water content

a bag of rice can feed a million people if they only have 1 grain each using their logic.

[–]DeepDuck 3ポイント4ポイント  (16子コメント)

Google seems to disagree, I did a quick search and apparently average meal size is 250g - 400g a meal, depending on the site.

[–]CyriusBloodbane 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Good work, you deserve a raise!

[–]Wargame4life -2ポイント-1ポイント  (14子コメント)

well how can i compete with the high calibre source of "a quick google search"

ahem i asked a guy down the pub who knew for definite........

a simple can of baked beans is just over 400g if you think 250g is an average meal of the calibre that the caterer is providing you are insane.

measuring weight is completely nonsense metric for waste anyway as its so easy to wildly fluctuate

[–]DeepDuck -1ポイント0ポイント  (13子コメント)

A can of baked beans isn't a meal. It's part of a meal.

The recommended serving of baked beans is 100g.

Lets look at a well rounded meal with a protein, carb, and vegetable.

  • Protein: Chicken breast - Recommended serving size: ~85g ( or 3 oz) (Source: USDA, Health Canada has it at 75g)
  • Carb: Beans - Recommended serving size: 100g (Source: USDA)
  • Vegetable: Asparagus - Recommended serving size: 1/2 cup (or 90g). (Source: USDA and Health Canada)

There's a well rounded meal, using the recommend portion size for each item that comes out to 275g. Which could easily fit into an average meal of 250g.

[–]purtymouth 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Many Americans have no idea what a reasonable portion size looks like.

[–]Wargame4life -1ポイント0ポイント  (11子コメント)

so this is pretty fucking easy to show you how wrong you are.

3oz of chicken breast = 130kcal

100g of baked beans=155 kcal

90g asparagus =kcal 18 calories

total = 130+155=18 = 303 calories

average calorific intake for a man = 2500

average calorfic intake for a woman = 2000

meals required to get daily energy requirement = 8 for a man, 7 for a woman based on your "average meal"

hurrr durrrr with a bag of rice you can fead a million people a meal, but they have to eat 10,000 meals a day in order to get the required energy to function hurrr durrr, --- that is basically your argument.

its painful this has to be walked through to you at such length and i bet even still you will despute it and try and claim having a meal 7-8 times a day is "Normal"

face facts you were wrong and its been shown.

[–]DeepDuck -2ポイント-1ポイント  (10子コメント)

TIL people don't eat or drink at all between meals. Your calorie calculations also doesn't take into account things like butter or oil which wont add much to the weight but increase calorie intake by quite a bit.

And you're calorie intake is very dependent on age a 10 year old should not be eating 2500 calories a day and no where on that sign said it was 180 19-30 male meals.

[–]Wargame4life -1ポイント0ポイント  (9子コメント)

Jesus Christ this is just embarrassing now, its appalling you are this stupid.

[–]DeepDuck -1ポイント0ポイント  (8子コメント)

Wastage was 45 kgs which can feed 180 people.

Your recommend calories were only true for a very specific type of "people". 2-3 year olds are people, they only need 1100 calories a day. This sign is using weight and serving size for it's calculations, not calories. But go ahead and keep being an angry little man.

[–]Wargame4life -1ポイント0ポイント  (7子コメント)

oh dear god the more you try and justify yourself the more stupid you expose yourself as.

i genuinely suspect you might have a learning difficulty or something, i mean i have seen some stupid things on reddit, but you really do take the cake.

this is actually becoming quite sad and pathetic and less funny the more this goes on.

you use an "average meal" in your own fucking comment/justification and then try and refute using the "average calorific requirements" I mean for Christ sake think that through for 2 seconds and realise just how fucking moronic you actually are.

you should genuinely (seriously) be embarassed about how stupid you are being (are) its fucking tragic

[–]DeepDuck 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

You didn't use the "average calorific requirements" for people. You used the average calorific requirements for a very specific subset of people. This sign is not claiming to feed 180 19 to 30 year old males. It claims to feed 180 people. Last I checked 2 year olds and 70 year olds are still people. And I'm almost positive they still need meals too.

Recommended serving sizes aren't calculated for 19 - 30 year old males.