The ‘correct' portion size of chips has been revealed & people have been left utterly baffled by it
THE 'correct' portion size of chips has been revealed – and it's safe to say people are utterly baffled by it.
Chips are a staple of British comfort food, whether they're paired with fish on a Friday night, piled high next to a juicy burger, or enjoyed straight out of a takeaway box.
2
But now, the suggested 'right' portion size has been revealed, leaving people questioning everything they thought they knew about their favourite treat.
According to nutritionists, the recommended serving size is shockingly small – just 10 chips.
Social media users were quick to react to the revelation after TikTok user @ chellep78 posted a video explaining that she eats that amount while deciding whether she even wants chips.
'I eat 10 chips while I'm plating up,' one person commented, while another joked, 'Mate, I shove 10 chips in my gob all at once.'
As @ chellep78 points out, this equates to around 10 chips per serving.
However, a single serving of oven chips already exceeds the quantity suggested by a Harvard scientist, who believes a portion should be even smaller - just six chips.
Speaking to the New York Times, , explained: 'There aren't a lot of people who are sending back three-quarters of an order of French fries.
"I think it would be nice if your meal came with a side salad and six French fries.'
For most Brits, chips are a food of indulgence, not restraint.
I lost half a stone eating cold chips
Whether they're thick-cut, skinny fries, or drenched in salt and vinegar, it's hard to imagine stopping at six - or even ten - chips.
More people joined in on the debate on TikTok, sharing their thoughts on the surprisingly small portion size.
One wrote: 'I eat at least ten while I'm debating what I'm going to have with what I now know is 4x more chips than I should have had."
Another added: 'I'm already snacking on potato wedges, French fries, seasoned fries, curly fries, and skin-on fries while I'm waiting for my regular chips to cook.'
2
And a third said: 'I don't think I'd bother at all if I had to restrict my portion to 10 chips. I'm an all-or-nothing sorta girl.'
So, while the 'correct' portion size might technically be six - or ten - it seems most people are sticking to their own rules when it comes to enjoying this beloved snack.
Let's face it – who can really stop at just six chips?
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
35 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Cannabis use could double risk of heart deaths, study suggests
Cannabis use may double the risk of dying from heart disease and increase the risk of stroke by 20%, according to a global review of data. The number of people using cannabis and cannabinoids has soared over the past decade. While previous studies have linked cannabis use to cardiovascular problems, the scale of the risk has until now not been clear. This is an important gap in light of major changes in consumption, researchers at the University of Toulouse in France said. To strengthen the evidence base, they searched databases looking for large observational studies, published between 2016 and 2023, which explored cannabis use and cardiovascular outcomes. Twenty-four studies, involving about 200 million people, were included in a pooled data analysis of the results: 17 cross-sectional studies, six cohort studies, and one case-control study. Study participants were mostly aged between 19 and 59. And in those studies where sex was recorded, cannabis users tended to be mostly male and younger than non-users. The analysis revealed heightened risks for cannabis use: 29% higher for acute coronary syndrome; 20% higher for stroke; and a doubling in the risk of dying from cardiovascular disease. The findings were published in the journal Heart. The researchers acknowledged several limitations to their systematic review and meta analysis. There was a moderate to high risk of bias in most of the included studies, largely because of lack of information on missing data and imprecise measures of cannabis exposure. Most of them were observational and several used the same data. Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion With these caveats, the researchers said their work was an exhaustive analysis of published data on the potential association between cannabis use and major cardiovascular disease and provided new insights from real-world data. 'The findings outlined by this meta analysis should enhance the general awareness of the potential of cannabis to cause cardiovascular harm.' In a linked editorial, Prof Stanton Glantz and Dr Lynn Silver of the University of California at San Francisco said the analysis 'raises serious questions about the assumption that cannabis imposes little cardiovascular risk'. More research is needed to clarify whether cardiovascular risks are limited to inhaled products or extend to other forms of cannabis exposure, they said. Cannabis is now generally more potent and has diversified into a wide array of inhaled high potency cannabis concentrates, synthetic psychoactive cannabinoids, and edibles, they added. They wrote: 'How these changes affect cardiovascular risk requires clarification, as does the proportion of risk attributable to cannabinoids themselves versus particulate matter, terpenes or other components of the exposure. 'Cannabis needs to be incorporated into the framework for prevention of clinical cardiovascular disease. So too must cardiovascular disease prevention be incorporated into the regulation of cannabis markets. Effective product warnings and education on risks must be developed, required, and implemented. 'Cardiovascular and other health risks must be considered in the regulation of allowable product and marketing design as the evidence base grows. Today that regulation is focused on establishing the legal market with woeful neglect of minimising health risks. 'Specifically, cannabis should be treated like tobacco: not criminalised, but discouraged, with protection of bystanders from secondhand exposure.'
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Top investors in GP surgery firm Assura oppose £1.7bn bid from US private equity giant KKR
Assura's major shareholders have opposed a tie-up with a US private equity giant. Top ten investors Quilter Cheviot and Schroders, which own around 6 per cent and 5 per cent of shares in the NHS landlord respectively, favour a deal with London-listed rival Primary Health Properties (PHP) over US buyout giant KKR. Allianz, Gravis, Baillie Gifford and Columbia Threadneedle have also leant their support to PHP's bid. Shareholders argued that KKR's proposal undervalues Assura, which owns GP surgeries, hospitals and hospices across the UK. A deal with KKR and its partner Stonepeak would see buildings leased to the NHS fall into the hands of overseas owners. But a takeover by PHP would retain the properties under the ownership of a London-listed business. Assura this week said it would weigh up an improved bid from PHP, despite having backed KKR's £1.7billion offer last week. Marcus Phayre-Mudge, manager of Columbia Threadneedle's TR Property Investment Trust, said: 'The KKR bid simply doesn't offer a premium significant enough to justify walking away from this long-term opportunity. 'That's why we strongly support the PHP-Assura merger and encourage other shareholders to do the same.' A Gravis fund manager said PHP's offer was a 'superior choice for long-term investors'. The KKR bid 'risks crystallising value at what may be a cyclical low', they added. Baillie Gifford investment manager Jon Stewart said the KKR deal was not 'in shareholders' best interests' and 'undervalues Assura's long-term growth potential'. KKR's 'best and final' bid values the company at 52.1p per share, although that includes already declared dividends. Without those, the offer is worth 50.42p, analysts said. Most recently, PHP offered £1.68billion to buy Assura but argued last week that its cash and stock bid is worth more as the value is based on share prices. Assura shares slid 0.1 per cent, or 0.05p, to 50.1p. City exodus goes on Direct Line and Ashtead have moved a step closer to joining the exodus from the London stock market. The £3.7billion takeover of insurer Direct Line by Aviva is set to complete next month after talks with the competition watchdog. Aviva said it is pressing ahead with plans for a court to sanction the deal on July 1. This would see the insurer swallowed up by its larger rival and leave the market. Equipment rental firm Ashtead said it is on course to switch its main stock market listing to New York in early 2026. In the past month, drug maker Indivior and fintech firm Wise said they would switch their main listing to New York.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
My new dentist says I need five fillings - can I get my old one to cover £900 bill? SALLY SORTS IT
I attended a private dental practice in Birmingham for two-and-a-half years and signed up for treatment via a Denplan payment plan, paying £35 a month to cover my dental costs. Very little was done to my teeth in that time. At the end of February 2024, before I moved to Somerset, I was presented with a leaving certificate from the dentist that said no work was required on my teeth. But to my horror when I signed up to a new dentist a few weeks later, I was told I needed five fillings at a cost of £902. I cannot afford this. I complained to the old dentist but have got nowhere. J.T., Somerset. Sally Hamilton replies: You came to me about your complaint in August last year and I contacted the Birmingham practice, asking the dentist involved to explain how you suddenly needed extensive treatment only weeks after leaving. I suggested that a suitable resolution would be refunding your Denplan payments (£910) or covering the £902 cost of the treatment that needed to be undertaken. Denplan is a popular scheme for dentists and their customers. The plan not only helps patients spread the cost of treatment but provides a predictable income for dentists signed up to it. A patient pays monthly charges based on the treatment a dentist expects a patient to require over the year. It took a week or two to receive a response from the Birmingham practice, but eventually your old dentist agreed to review your records, including those from your new practice, once they had been forwarded, and get back. In late October he replied, stating in his clinical view, your X rays did not suggest that fillings were required at the time he last saw you. He agreed one tooth looked as if it might have required further attention in due course. His defence was 'different dentists hold different clinical opinions'. But he added he didn't want any patient to be 'disappointed or disadvantaged' and offered you a £500 refund of the Denplan payments as a gesture of goodwill. You were not happy as this would still leave you £400 or so short in meeting the new bills, which you said you could not afford. He raised it to £766. Reluctantly you agreed, and requested the payment by cheque, but it did not materialise. You were becoming increasingly stressed, not helped by the fact you are recovering from breast cancer, and only wanted to begin treatment with your new dentist when you knew the funds were forthcoming. By February, the money had still not arrived. With your complaint unresolved, I contacted Denplan. Considering you had forked out for its payment plan all the time you had been with the Birmingham practice, and apparently received little care in return, I was hopeful it would have a view on the matter. You also called Denplan to explain your concerns. These actions seemed to finally do the trick. Denplan investigated and, in early March, came some good news. It thanked me for bringing your case to its attention and to 'ensure a speedy resolution' insisted you go ahead with the required treatment to make you dentally fit at your new practice, and that it would pay these bills on your behalf. It said it was working with your old dentist to recoup the £766 promised to you previously. On March 15, an unnamed person from reception at your previous dentist emailed me to say, 'We came to a resolution with J.T., hope she has contacted you.' While it took a painfully long time to extract payment, you were relieved that the battle with your old dentist was finally over. I agreed that I would not write up your case until your course of treatment was completed, which I am happy to say happened when the last tooth was filled on June 3. My £120 phone credit went down the toilet I'm 87 and had an accident with my simple pay-as-you-go mobile phone when it slipped out of my pocket and into the toilet. It was ruined. It had £120.46 credit on it with my provider Vodafone which I'd purchased with cash via a top up card at my Post Office. I have spent ages on the phone with Vodafone trying to obtain a refund, but they keep asking for a bank card number. I paid by cash, so I requested a cheque. It refused. This is most unfair. B.L., Lincoln. Scam Watch Households should beware a scam text impersonating the Department for Work and Pensions, consumer website Which? warns. Tricksters claim you are eligible for an 'energy allowance' of up to £300 – but this doesn't exist. The text prompts victims to click on a link to apply, states a deadline and claims your application will be void if it is late. But the link leads to a malicious website which aims to take your personal and financial data. Do not click on the link and instead forward the text to 7726. Sally Hamilton replies: You told me this incident happened as you had to keep your phone on you all day awaiting a call from social services. You had been in the garden admiring the surroundings when nature of a different kind called. This was when the phone slid out of your pocket and into the toilet bowl. You fished it out and tried to get it working but all efforts failed. Despite getting the credit amount checked and verified by Vodafone, and spending a long time on the phone to them, they would not send you a cheque. You rightly asked me why it wasn't easier for vulnerable, elderly people like you, who pay with cash to top up their phones, to resolve the situation. You felt bereft after having to give up on your 'faithful friend of 20 years' – a phone that was easy to use with just a couple of buttons – and aggravated you couldn't even get back the money you were owed. Cash users often feel like second-class citizens in such circumstances. I asked Vodafone to dial up its efforts to help you, which it has now done. Its customer care team got in touch directly with you – requesting further information and photos of yourself – before finally sending a cheque. Apparently, refunds aren't usually made by cheque to unregistered pay-as-you-go accounts due to strict anti-money laundering policies. This seems a bit heavy handed for such a small sum, but rules are rules, I suppose. You have purchased a new phone which you find more complicated than your trusty old device. You say your daughter, who works for Age UK, is organising a few lessons for you with the charity on how to use it. Straight to the point In January I organised an office collection for a colleague who had recently become a father and bought a £120 gift voucher for a department store with the money. When he tried to spend it, the balance was £0. The store says it was spent in February on a laptop and they won't be refunding the balance. A.H., West Midlands. The department store apologises but says each gift card has a unique number and a Pin, which only the customer has access to. It is not refunding you. *** I ordered a kitchen from Wickes in 2023 which cost almost £18,500. But last year the work surface started peeling around the tap and draining grooves. Wickes says the damage may have been caused by excessive heat, standing water or my cleaning regime – and the warranty doesn't cover this. It's clear that the damage is only where holes have been drilled and around the draining grooves. C.Q., Wolverhampton. Wickes apologises and is replacing your worktop for you. *** During the storm in January the roof of a nearby shelter for bicycles was blown off and landed on my car bonnet. My car was repaired but my insurer Direct Line demanded I pay the £400 excess, which I did. Since then the owners of the shelter have admitted liability but I have not had the £400 repaid by their insurers. N.L., Newton Mearns. Direct Line apologises and says as it mistakenly led you to believe your excess may be reimbursed by a third-party insurer, it has refunded you the excess. Write to Sally Hamilton at Sally Sorts It, Money Mail, Northcliffe House, 2 Derry Street, London W8 5TT or email sally@ — include phone number, address and a note addressed to the offending organisation giving them permission to talk to Sally Hamilton. Please do not send original documents as we cannot take responsibility for them. No legal responsibility can be accepted by the Daily Mail for answers given.
