Calories are strange, annoying little units. Most of us don’t really understand calories. We just think of them as a measurement of how fattening something is but, on the other hand, we instinctively think in terms of volume and calories simply refuse to match up with volume. How can that itty bitty candy bar have over two hundred calories and a large apple have only 110 calories? The little kid that lurks in each of us wants to cry, “It’s not fair!”
Do candy bars seem terribly small to you? They were about right when we were 8 years old but now only the “King Size” seems like enough. Those are (Yikes!) 400 calories or more. It’s not… Uh… anyway… Have you noticed how tiny serving sizes in general are, as indicated on food packaging? A single serving of Ruffles Sour Cream and Onion potato chips has 160 calories. That doesn’t seem too awfully bad until you look at the serving size: 1 ounce or “about 11 chips.” What lunatic decided that? It was the government, right? Only the government could come up with something that insane. Who counts out just 11 chips or weighs out just one ounce and eats that and no more?
But I didn’t start this intending to rant about the government, although it would be helpful if packages would tell us how many calories are in a realistic size serving. What always gets me are the small packages that are obviously intended to be single servings but say they contain two and half servings or something like that. So there’s one serving for you and one for a friend and… What are you supposed to do with that half serving?
Anyway… I don’t really know where I was going with this. I was just thinking about how odd it is that some things that are so small could have so many calories. Even though I sort of understand why it’s that way, it still just doesn’t seem right.