Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anti-Pasta: When Italian Futurists Tried to Ban Pasta in Italy

mentalfloss.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 112 posts

Re: Anti-Pasta: When Italian Futurists Tried to Ban Pasta in Italy

#71

Post by SamBam »

notauser wrote: post #51
arrrg wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

180g cooked or uncooked? Portions with 125g of uncooked pasta feel fine to me. That‘s 450 calories. Plus sauce (200 on the low end, 350 calories on the high end, depending on what exactly you want to eat – 200 calories would be something like a 400g can of tomatoes, garlic, onions, some olive oil) and cheese (100 calories for 25g Parmesan) you end up with a meal that‘s between 750 and 900 calories. That between a nor…

I work on the basis of 80g of uncooked pasta per person for our family. We aren't exactly skinny, either, despite being pretty active (an average of 70 miles of cycling a week). The difference is probably made up with vegetables, fruit etc.

Growing up in Rome, our rule was 100g per person, and 100g for the pot if it's just a light sauce.

Basically, a box fed about 5 people.

Re: Anti-Pasta: When Italian Futurists Tried to Ban Pasta in Italy

#73

Post by MisterTea »

asveikau wrote: post #6

> the popular 21st-century view that heavy pasta meals leave diners feeling equally heavy and lethargic. Pasta gets a bad rap unfairly, I think. A few years ago over the course of ~18 months, I lost 100 lbs. I ate pasta almost every day when I did this. One problem, particularly in the US, is that portion sizes are so large. This affects much more than just pasta. But in the American mind, a serving of pasta is often…

Yup. When I was boxing my coach started me on weight loss and recommended pasta or rice for dinner with the serving size being that of a small bowl and not "heap the plate and pile the rest of the food on top"

Carbs are energy. You just have to be sure to only eat what you need and actually use the energy. Otherwise the body starts storing it as fat. And like you said small portions of fatty things like cheese and eggs are perfectly fine as long as you burn what you eat.

Re: Anti-Pasta: When Italian Futurists Tried to Ban Pasta in Italy

#74

Post by angrais »

camillomiller wrote: post #26
arrrg wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

180g cooked or uncooked? Portions with 125g of uncooked pasta feel fine to me. That‘s 450 calories. Plus sauce (200 on the low end, 350 calories on the high end, depending on what exactly you want to eat – 200 calories would be something like a 400g can of tomatoes, garlic, onions, some olive oil) and cheese (100 calories for 25g Parmesan) you end up with a meal that‘s between 750 and 900 calories. That between a nor…

Uncooked. depends on the pasta type though. Spaghetti can be easily 180g. Penne, Fusilli or Rigatoni, let's say 150g. My sauces are generally quite light. I'm vegetarian, so they never involve calorie-dense ingredients such as guanciale or pancetta. (I know, I know, what am I missing and so on... :D) For me pasta means less ingredients as possible, at the highest possible quality. Examples: Fresh Tomato-Basil Spaghet…

Why should it depend on the pasta type? 100g penne is same as any other type.

Re: Anti-Pasta: When Italian Futurists Tried to Ban Pasta in Italy

#75

Post by vinw »

harimau777 wrote: post #54
arrrg wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

180g cooked or uncooked? Portions with 125g of uncooked pasta feel fine to me. That‘s 450 calories. Plus sauce (200 on the low end, 350 calories on the high end, depending on what exactly you want to eat – 200 calories would be something like a 400g can of tomatoes, garlic, onions, some olive oil) and cheese (100 calories for 25g Parmesan) you end up with a meal that‘s between 750 and 900 calories. That between a nor…

I'm trying to get an understanding of the portions that you guys are talking about. Am I correct that: 125g would be roughly .3 liters or 1.25 cups of a pasta like spaghetti (i.e. one that isn't hollow so it fills up most of the available space) 25g of cheese would be just enough to melt and form a thin layer over the top of the pasta I think that I would want some meatballs or cubed chicken (or a vegetarian equivale…

Good luck measuring spaghetti in cups. 125g is 4.4oz

Re: Anti-Pasta: When Italian Futurists Tried to Ban Pasta in Italy

#77

Post by lqet »

asveikau wrote: post #6

> the popular 21st-century view that heavy pasta meals leave diners feeling equally heavy and lethargic. Pasta gets a bad rap unfairly, I think. A few years ago over the course of ~18 months, I lost 100 lbs. I ate pasta almost every day when I did this. One problem, particularly in the US, is that portion sizes are so large. This affects much more than just pasta. But in the American mind, a serving of pasta is often…

Purely anecdotal and unscientific, but a few years ago I watched a documentary in which a TV team followed identical twins. One of them only ate pasta-based meals for a month, the other only ate potato-based meals (if I remember correctly, they made sure that both meals where basically the same, modulo potato/pasta). They checked blood results, BMI, etc. before and after the diet. The potato-eating twin gained a few kilos and had generally worse blood results than the pasta-eating twin, who kept her weight. Interestingly, the potato-eating twin hated potatoes after 4 weeks of eating them and had to force herself to touch them at the end, while the pasta-eating twin still liked pasta.

Re: Anti-Pasta: When Italian Futurists Tried to Ban Pasta in Italy

#78

Post by andrewl »

emmelaich wrote: post #49

Note: the paper on the benefits of a Mediterranean diet is the mostly highly cited of retractionwatch's papers. https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard...

It's worth noting that it wasn't a 100% dismissal of the findings. From Retraction Watch:

But the findings haven’t disappeared — the authors have replaced the paper with a new version, which softens its earlier claims.

https://retractionwatch.com/2018/06/13/does-the-mediterranea...

Re: Anti-Pasta: When Italian Futurists Tried to Ban Pasta in Italy

#79

Post by lqet »

camillomiller wrote: post #7
asveikau wrote: post #6

> the popular 21st-century view that heavy pasta meals leave diners feeling equally heavy and lethargic. Pasta gets a bad rap unfairly, I think. A few years ago over the course of ~18 months, I lost 100 lbs. I ate pasta almost every day when I did this. One problem, particularly in the US, is that portion sizes are so large. This affects much more than just pasta. But in the American mind, a serving of pasta is often…

As an Italian, my experience is that I can’t have any satisfaction with less than 180g of pasta. Therefore I only eat it like once a week and make it a little event. Growing up I had similar portions almost on a daily basis and I was never overweight. Trick: do sports. A lot.

As a student, when I ate nothing else during the day, my standard amount for dinner was 125g (so you get 4 meals out of a standard package). When combined with vegetables, it is more than enough.

Re: Anti-Pasta: When Italian Futurists Tried to Ban Pasta in Italy

#80

Post by zzzeek »

"Pasta, he said, was a “passéist food” that “[deluded people] into thinking it [was] nutritious” and made them “heavy, brutish,” “skeptical, slow, [and] pessimistic.” "

all very (subjectively) true. As a pasta fanatic I try to eat Kamut pasta as often as possible as it leaves much less of a lethargic and carby aftermath.

Post reply on HN