But 25% smaller means 25% less calories. I need all I can get.I eat the whole bag, but I seem more than full. I'd be on board if they serving size would be reduced by 25% and it would be a great portion for myself.
It is the loss of calories that pisses me off. Some meals are not worth carrying for lack of calories. IMHODon't know about others, but MH reduced their package weight across the board for most of their meals. I first noticed it on Chili Mac & Beef and that one is about 25% smaller by weight. Eating the old size for most of their meals was not easy (since I hunt solo), but now that they are charging more and giving you less, eating one package is much easier. Here's their response as to why the packages are smaller. Take a look at the file name for my feelings on this.
Eddie
I agree. But also a 175 pound individual doesn’t need the same calorie intake as a 300 pound dude.But 25% smaller means 25% less calories. I need all I can get.
In the backcountry it is hard to carry enough calories. These meals are the easiest way to up that count imo.I agree. But also a 175 pound individual doesn’t need the same calorie intake as a 300 pound dude.
I can't remember what they are called, there is another thread on here.I agree. But also a 175 pound individual doesn’t need the same calorie intake as a 300 pound dude.