Heresy or panacea?
3 Likes
Why not have one reasonable size in a restaurant for a reasonable price. Having eaten for two weeks in Italy was a good reminder that you can get excellent dishes (most of them even in small neighborhood restaurants are at least on the same level as upscale places in SF) which focus more on quality than quantity. Nobody takes anything home when you go there for dinner as the portion size is “normal” to not leave you hungry but also not overly stuffed. And prices are about half what you pay here in the US
5 Likes
Neither?
There are two kinds of people in the world: 1) Those who enjoy leftovers for breakfast (that’s why God had some brilliant soul invent boxes) ; and 2) everyone else.
Then, there’s a deli we know that offers sandwiches in “regular” and “not so hungry”. Well, wouldn’t you know, given the slight price difference, who orders “not so hungry” when you can get a box (and maybe a couple slices of bread if you look and sound pathetic enough.
4 Likes
Maybe Sicily is an outlier, but we found the ‘primi’ to be very large — so much so that we never even could consider a secondo or dolce.
I absolutely love it when Italian restaurants stateside offer 1/2 portions of their pasta dishes, even if I don’t plan on a secondo.
3 Likes
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying.
But portion sizing, and providing the option to the diner, is really more a public health policy issue and less of a quality of dining issue, or even cost of dining out issue (at least not in the pure direct monetary sense).
The author provides at least one study that reaches a rather intriguing result – i.e., providing a choice of (smaller v. larger) actually leads to a choice of the smaller sized entrée.
My team and I conducted a study to show there is a simple, low-cost solution to this issue: Restaurants should start offering their entrées in two sizes. Fast food restaurants already give consumers size options; sit-down restaurants are starting to do the same. Places like Olive Garden offer lunch-sized versions of their classics, and the Cheesecake Factory offers “SkinnyLicious” options. But many people feel self-conscious ordering off a stigmatizing “SkinnyLicious” menu. There are other options: In one study, my team and I showed participants a menu that offered entrées in two sizes. We called the smaller option “standard” and the larger option “large.” For the control group, we did not label the smaller size. Those who saw the “standard” label were more likely to choose the smaller size.
Offering two sizes is a win for diners, public health, and even the restaurant industry. Americans now are eating out more than ever before, so for diners, ordering the smaller sized entrée means being shielded from the temptation to consistently overeat. If enough individuals eat fewer calories and less saturated fat and sodium, that will have public health benefits. In turn, the restaurant industry can capitalize on a technique currently used by big beverage and snack brands. That is, rather than getting more people to buy a soda, they offer more sizes of that soda to accommodate various occasions and types of consumers. This tactic has led to increased revenue for The Coca-Cola Company, for example, which introduced the 7.5-oz mini can nationally in 2010.
I’m older than you, Honkman, 69 this year, but even when I was younger I was never able to eat much at a single sitting. I’ve read in awe your reports of your tasting menu eating with the luscious photos. I’ve always assumed these were for 2 people or maybe 3 if your daughter is with you.
I can say with certainty that I couldn’t have eaten at a single sitting even 1/3 of what you posted. So I would always need to take something home.
“Normal” is very individual. When I was 5 years old, my 2 year old brother ate more for breakfast than I ate in a day.
So “reasonable” is also very individual. I realize I’m on the extreme of portion size. Two hours later after home, I’ll snack on several bites of what I brought home and be happy it’s there. And eat the rest for breakfast.
9 Likes
That’s the nice thing about fine dining, such tiny portions. 
A few places I get lunch near work have size options - small/large burritos & banh mi, halves of other sandwiches. Nice when I’m hungry but don’t want a food coma. Small/large pho is also common here.
3 Likes
I’ve never enjoyed a traditional breakfast unless it happens a few hours after I wake up. For me, leftover good pizza eaten cold is the ultimate breakfast food! It’s the one thing I can eat early in the morning, if I’ve had my own good coffee first.
1 Like
I kind of like how the mass of the dish being served is included in the description of the dish on the menu at some restaurants in Czech Republic and Greece.
In Greece, at fish tavernas, many of the dishes are sold by weight.
In Canada, many dim sum restaurants have their dishes listed as S, M, L, XL. These categories are more about the price of the dish due to the cost of the ingredients, rather than the mass, volume or number of calories. Seafood dishes regardless of their serving size tend to be priced as XL, calorie bomb carby fried donut is a S, because it’s cheaper to make.
I do like that some Italian sandwich shops in Toronto offer a mini version of their regular sized chicken or veal sandwich.
It’s pretty common to be able to order either a 1 piece or 2 piece fish and chip dinner in Canada.
I think the problem in Canada is that the restaurant owners need to make $25-$50, (or more) off each person who sits down in the restaurant. If they need to charge that much, they don’t want the customer to feel ripped off. It’s cheaper, and quicker in terms of prep time, for the restaurant to give a lot of food for $25-$50, and Canadian people feel like they’re getting value if they get a lot of food.
Whereas a more reasonable sized meal, which might cost $15-$30 might not seem like good value to a customer who has become used to volume.
I had told one friend who runs a Thai restaurant that the appetizer of fried battered squash was too big. I would have preferred a portion that was 1/3 the size for half the price. I hadn’t thought about the fact that was a cheap thing for him to prepare. He didn’t really care if some of the food was wasted because it cost him peanuts and the huge portion looked like value to some customers. That’s the same reason the portions of pad thai and pad see ew are way too big in Toronto. That’s how much people expect when they pay $18-$26 CAD for a plate of Pad Thai or other fried noodles. Any less, and people feel ripped off.
I find the portion sizes typically more reasonable in most parts of Germany, in Austria , in Italy, and in Greece. I have rarely over ordered or felt sick after a restaurant meal in Europe.
In the States, I often order 2 appetizers, or an appetizer and a salad.
I remember trying to stick to 2 appetizers at a restaurant in Ellicottville, NY, knowing the mains were ridiculously big. Well, turns out their appetizers were ridiculously small. 
I was still hungry. Sometimes, you can’t win.
2 Likes
Yes and no - it is individual but I would argue that portion sizes in Europe like Italy, France, Germany, Spain etc are reasonably good “averages” (obviously there are always outlier restaurants).
Tasting menus tend to be very small portions and sometimes/often a full tasting menu is less food than a regular American meal (and served over 3-4 hours)
I know this a completely different discussion and many people here will disagree but I think one of the reasons why so many people have weight and health issues in the US is this “culture” of constant snacking. Most people might not realize how many calories they eat over the day with their constant snacking - it is always “fascinating” to see at work.
Obviously everywhere people have to earn enough money with their restaurants to survive but you raise a point of a different mindset I see in restaurants in Europe vs US/Canada where restaurant owners are actually take pride in what they offer. What you describe is only possible with low quality ingredients to still make living - why is he not trying to make the money with smaller portions but much higher quality ingredients (and perhaps more unusual dishes not available anywhere else)
1 Like
I think this is how many European restaurant owners and many European clients see the restaurant business.
I don’t think this is how most restaurants that manage to stay in business in Canada for more than 5 years operate.
It doesn’t necessarily mean the ingredients at the restaurant that is charging X for a large portion are low or lower quality.
It means it’s easier for the restaurant owner to stay afloat by selling a larger meal for $ X, instead of more small meals for less than $ X.
The cost of the extra amount of food served in a big portion is relatively small compared to the other costs of the owner must cover, such as rent and wages.
Quite a few upscale restaurants in Toronto have been closing over the past 6 months, often with 2 weeks notice.
For one upscale restaurant in my neighbourhood, it closed for 2 weeks, and reopened as a wine bar, with more pastas, and less complicated and less expensive mains. People seem to be okay with spending $38 on a fancy pasta at a wine bar with $26 glasses of wine, but not willing to spend $60 for a piece of lamb or fish at a restaurant with more formal service.
3 Likes
It’s actually how they see business in general.
It’s what happens when your effective income tax rate on average is close to 50%, and the government provides a larger and deeper social safety net in terms of health care, education and even paid time off than the US does (dunno about Canada, though).
It’s just a different mentality.
1 Like
Canadians pay a lot more income tax and sales tax than Americans.
The American portion sizes and love of Bang for the Buck has crept north despite the high taxes in Canada.
That said, portions for a mid-range meal are still typically much bigger in an average American city than they would be in an average Canadian city.
Canada also has more of a social safety net.
I agree that it is a different mentality.
Not sure if I agree - to make business sense with large portions and financial stability those restaurant owners have to cut some corners - and that will be ingredient quality
Whether visiting a foreign country or here at home, it’s a rare occurrence that I am served a dish that I cannot finish. It’s also a rare occurrence that I’m served a dish that’s insufficient.
4 Likes
100% agree on the point of “reasonable” sizes being extremely personal. I’m 5’1” and 113 lbs (and would like to stay that weight!); what is “reasonable” for me to eat is very different vs. someone a foot taller and 80+ lbs heavier. I also can’t even come close to finishing what most people would consider a “reasonable” meal in a restaurant. It’s aggravating to never be able to order more than one plate. I would very much welcome the option of smaller sizes!
7 Likes
I would be very happy to see options like “appetizer portion” applied to everything on the menu, not just the pasta and risotto and the occasional crabcake. But the probably insurmountable hurdle to this is contained right in the article:
One challenge is that consumers see sizing up as a way to save money: Why buy the 230-calorie fries for $4 when you can pay just $2 more to get double that amount?
2 Likes
Yes, a “reasonable” portion for my size (a couple of inches and a few pounds larger than you) and eating capacity is half of an appetizer salad and 2 slices of an 8" pizza. My husband ate 4 slices of the 8" pizza and the other half of the salad. We brought the remaining 2 slices of the pizza home and I “snacked” on them for dinner.
My husband and I very often split two appetizers when we go out. And he eats more than I do. I love tapas/small plates restaurants because I can taste more things, and bring the rest home.
5 Likes
