response 28 of 55:

Jul 30 20:59 UTC 2007

I honestly wish I could do that, and make it work. I'm really good at 
boxing stuff up, but not so really good at remembering to make another 
meal of it. They generally end up being science projects/biohazards. 
Lots of pretty colors.

response 30 of 55:

Jul 31 01:05 UTC 2007

I've gotten alot better at taking home a part of my meal to save for
later...

Sindi, *of course* eating at home is an option and I'm sure that most
people do eat at  home much of the time.  Though whether or not
*cooking* may or may not be an  *easy* or even a desirable of an option
as it seems to be for you.  Like for me, I do  eat most of my meals at
home.  Sometimes I'll cook--and when I do cook, I often will  make
enough for leftovers.  Other times, for various and valid reasons, I
can't or don't  cook. Instead, I'll make a peanut butter sandwich, or
nuke a frozen item, or have a  pre-made whatever out the 'fridge or
pantry.

But like so many people, I do enjoy dining out from time to time.  We
may want to do  so for various reasons--including not having to cook and
clean up afterwards, to try  new and different things, very often [most
of the time!] I can get better tasting [and  sometimes better for me]
meals. First off, going out to eat is/can be fun and enjoyable. 
Sometimes its easier and sometimes quicker to have someone else do the
actual  preparations for the meal.  And meeting other people for dinner,
drinks, or dessert  [whatever] is a fine way to socialize and catch up
with one another.  I'm sure there are  lots of other valid reasons for
enjoy eating away from home, too.

That said, that doesn't mean we have to like the trend of restaurants
increasing the  portion size and/or the price of what they serve.  There
ARE options in dealing with  this-like, as already being
discussed--taking stuff home for another meal. Splitting an  entree [or
dessert, appetizer or whatever] with someone is another option.  Not
dining  out quite as often is another possibility.  Or choosing less
expensive places to dine. 

But not going out to eat/drink/whatever all of the time isn't a viable
option for many  people.  

Eating at home all[most] of the time is fine with you, Sindi, and that's
perfectly ok. You  seem to prefer it; but that doesn't mean that
everyone else's interests/needs have to  reflect yours.  And that's ok
for us, too.  So please try not to be so 'preachy' [is that a  word??]
when people discuss things they enjoy doing. After all, this IS a
conference  relating to food and dining/restaurants and such definitely
fit the bill. [And if the costs of  dining out outweighs the benefits
and/or means of being able to do other stuff, then we  do cut back
somewhere--either in dining out less often, go someplace cheaper, or cut
 back in some other areas of one's budget.]

:-)

response 32 of 55:

Jul 31 02:25 UTC 2007

Re: #27
Fill up on salad and breadsticks at Olive Garden, then have your whole
entree boxed - three meals for the price of one!  :) 


I eat out some, but i generally don't drink out, even on somebody else's
tab.  Paying $4 for the kitchen's work, turning 40 cents of ingredients
into a pile of pancakes, sounds reasonable to me.  Paying $4 for a quick
flick of the bottle opener, on a $1 beer, does not. 

I'd guess that appetizers are growing for the same reasons that other
portions are - with huge fixed costs, giving 100% more food for 50% more 
money is much more profitable for the restaurant. 

I ate out with over a dozen people Friday, at a newer local restaurant.
Nobody had appetizers, nobody ordered dessert, and still many took half
their food home in a box.  Not sure how that helps the restaurant...but
we decided to eat there, not some place else, so if both places have
empty tables and fixed costs...

I finished off my meal Friday, but i couldn't keep that up if i ate out
very much.  Not sure what i'd do if i had to eat out more often.  Learn 
to call a $4 soup and $2 side veggie a dinner?  Eat an entree every 2 or 
3 meals, and near nothing the rest?  Outside of family, splitting an 
entree seems seldom viable. 

response 34 of 55:

Jul 31 13:11 UTC 2007

I do not consider response 25 at all rude.  I consider 33 rude, along with
several other responses you have made to me, such as attacking me for listing
'your' height, weight and age, which were actually my own, for which you never
apologized.  I try to ignore your rudeness, which is probably not intentional
but just how you react to things and not intended to annoy.

I presume the reason restaurants are serving larger portions is that most of
their customers want them, probably because the customers are larger than they
were.  Instead of complaining online, people could ask the restaurants to
serve smaller portions.

response 36 of 55:

Jul 31 13:47 UTC 2007

I've noticed that Cubs AC has very large "appetizers" as well.  I think
part of what we are seeing is that it is not primarily a restaurant.

When people order appetizers there, the food is not meant as a prelude
to the rest of the meal.  It is a snack to be consumed with drinks.  

And, it is a snack that is often shared.  So their sizing and pricing
are more for "snack-shared-by-beer-drinkers"  rather than "small amount
of food meant to whet the appetite of an individual".  

I frequently order an appetizer plus (side, soup, salad, another
appetizer) instead of a full meal.  Or, if there's creme brulee, an
appetizer and dessert.  I *always* check the dessert menu before I
order.  

response 38 of 55:

Jul 31 20:54 UTC 2007

It's not that simplistic.  One of the main jobs of the kitchen manager
in a restaurant is to keep track of the food left on the plates by
customers. There is software to do this, because it is a big issue in
profitability.  Restaurants don't "think they're making people happy by
serving larger amounts".  Any restaurant that doesn't run on data is
going to go broke very quickly.  

Most restaurants fight every day to keep food costs under 30%.  It's not
easy, and you don't  do it by doubling the amount of food you buy.  

When I was running the restaurant, a large part of my time was spent
trying to cut expenses.  Wages and equipment are fixed costs for the
most part, except for the $2.15/hour waitresses, which we could send
home at any time during their shift to cut expenses.  One waitress gone
for a whole day saved us less than $20, so that didn't help anywhere
near as much as cutting the food bills.  

Doubling portion sizes doesn't bring in that many customers, either. 
Again, this is based on shared industry data, not untested assumptions.
 Your web search gave you very superficial data, and your lack of
knowledge about restaurants led you to some pretty wild conclusions.

response 40 of 55:

Aug 1 01:53 UTC 2007

Why assume that most people would especially WANT larger servings all or
most of the  time? Sure, it's one thing to have the option of having
more food/larger servings, but  having the option of having smaller
portions [and pricing accordingly] would be a better  way to go. 
If/when given a choice of what to get, many people will not opt for the 
'Super-Sized' meal [check any McDonald's or Burger King and you'll see
that many  people don't get the bigger sizes].

Though one thing about many people is that if a plate of food is sitting
in front of them,  they'll eat it all [or a lot of it], just because its
there, whether they need it to fill them  up or not.  The flip-side can
also be true for many of us.  If/when served smaller  servings, we may
stop there and be satisfied and not go back for more.

Why are portion sizes getting larger, then?  I need to reread some of
the statistics to  determine how cost effective it is to serve [only]
larger portions [without the option of  getting the older standard
amounts at these dining establishments].  My first instinct is  to say
that they're increasing the size to increase the costs to the consumre,
thus  increasing their profitability.  But this may or may not be the
actual case.


"  And I presume most people don't mind
getting more than they really wanted, and are happy to either take it
home or throw it out. "

I agree in that a lot of people don't mind having leftovers to bring
home for another  meal.  [Same thing with larger bottles of pop and
such, people will often drink some of  it then and save some for another
time... Or as I said before, they might be satisfied  with a smaller
serving size/bottle but don't have that option these days....  But to
have  us decide that we could just throw out what we don't want?  Yeah,
some people really  don't mind doing that. But many will/do think that
this is very wasteful to have to do  [and thus, feel they 'wasted'
money].  


" But those of you who don't want to do either of those could
ask the restaurants to offer the option of smaller portions for a bit
less money. "

Many [most?] restaurants don't have the capability to provide smaller
portions at a  reduced price--unless there ARE size-options already
provided on the actual menu.   Menu items and prices are a 'fixed' thing
that can't easily be changed by the waitstaff,  managers, etc [even if
we request them to].  Sure, they could actually bring less food  than
what that menu-item normally provides but they very well may not take a 
deduction off of your bill.  [Though there often is the option of not
having specific side  dishes that come with the main course item and
have those charges not included in the  bill.  Like when the menu says
that sandwiches and burgers come with an order of fries,  they very well
may charge less for just the sandwich.]  In other words, just because we
 ask for something in a place of business doesn't mean we'll be able to
get it, regardless  if we're paying for it or not.

response 42 of 55:

Aug 1 02:10 UTC 2007

And yes, Sindi, I'm aware that the average weight of people in America
has been  rising.  But eating too much isn't the only reason [and
granted, a lot of americans ARE  eating too much.  Partly their own
direct decision but also *because* of the trends in  advertising,
commercialism, the media, etc. They all play a role in this.]   

Other things also come into play.  Like with all of the 'modernization'
of how we do  things in our society.  We use washers and dryers to do
our clothes in.  We use  vacuums and such to clean the floors. Cooking
appliances reduce time spent in  preparing our foods and refridgeration
allows us to make food easily in larger quantities  so that we can make
stuff to last for several days and/or to freeze for a later time,  thus,
reducing time spent in the kitchen.  So we're not having to be as
physically active  in our day-to-day chores.  Yes, some people may
decide to still do everything the 'old- fashioned' way to get more
exercise.  but in many situations, these are not always a  viable option
when we have other things to do [like having to have a 2 incomes in a 
family to just pay the bills].

Our work habits HAVE changed over time. So have our leisure activities. 
Many can and  do spend much of their free time watching tv or playing
video games [or, heaven  forbid, spend time on the computer checking in
on grex!].  Though with a lot of this, it's  the media and society
itself that advertises so much of this type of behavior [pushing  the
fast food, larger servings, faster cars, more gadgets to make life
easier for us.   Heck, if we want to, we can even push a little button
on a remote and have the car start  up and warm it up in the winter
before we have to go out to drive it.

In all of this, yes, we as individuals have choices and options.  But
very often [in  varying degrees], what we want is dictated by what the
media and/or society tells us  what we want.

So, with the increasing size of americans [and with us as individuals],
it certainly more  than us deciding 'ok, I am going to eat too much and
be lazy today'.

response 44 of 55:

Aug 1 02:12 UTC 2007

Any good suggestions for fun appetizers for these hot summer days?

:-)

response 46 of 55:

Aug 1 13:34 UTC 2007

That sounds good, Anne...

There have been a number of times when I've added a little bit of
[hershey's] chocolate  syrup to a bowl of sliced up strawberries.  The
small amount of the chocolate doesn't add  on much in the line of
calories but it does provide a bit more of flavor to it.

Sometimes when I'm really hungry before a meal is ready to be served,
I'll have  something along the line of cheese and crackers or a handful
of nuts or something else  like that.

response 48 of 55:

Aug 1 14:48 UTC 2007

This reminds me of an attempt to help me gain weight when I was an
underweight pre-schooler .

The doctor had my mom feed me a bowl of ice cream half an hour before
dinner.  Some appetizer.  

response 50 of 55:

Aug 2 22:45 UTC 2007

*shrug*  They thought it would stimulate my appetite.  I wasn't going to
complain.  

response 52 of 55:

Aug 3 15:59 UTC 2007

I'd like to report that last night at dinner, Dave and I shared an 
appetizer and then split a sandwich for dinner.  It was the perfect 
amount of food for the two of us.