4 ms·

> and it's often your entire meal for the day. I don't know anyone who only eats one meal on days they go to restaurants. For most people, going to a restauran

by dpark 10y ago

> and it's often your entire meal for the day. I don't know anyone who only eats one meal on days they go to restaurants. For most people, going to a restaurant for a meal simply means they eat more in total that day. > I do, though, think that the US has a problem with portion sizes. ... I really wish there were smaller portion options in addition to the larger portion options at more places and I wouldn't waste money by plain not being able to finish the food. The problem is that it's not much cheaper to serve smaller portions. That's why when restaurants have half portions they still cost 75+% of the bigger portion. As you noted, people want to "get their money's worth", so restaurants give them absurdly large portions rather than charge 20% less for half as much food and have patrons complain about getting so little food.

projektir 10y ago
Well, you know at least one person now. Eating a lot less or not at all on restaurant day has always been fairly normal for me and my family. I just won't really enjoy a big lunch much if I already had breakfast. But that is if I don't exercise, if I do, the restaurant meal may not actually fill up the entire day. People who can eat one large meal in a day are likely correlated with people who exercise, which means, on average, they won't end up eating just one meal a day because they'd end up under their calorie intake and because it's actually non-trivial to stuff that many calories into yourself at that point. > For most people, going to a restaurant for a meal simply means they eat more in total that day. Most people (in the US, at least) are also obese, bringing them up in this context doesn't prove much. > The problem is that it's not much cheaper to serve smaller portions. It may not be cheaper to serve smaller portions, but other countries seem to manage it just fine. That's not a good enough reason. It seems more culture bound than business bound.
- dpark 10y ago
  > Well, you know at least one person now. Eating a lot less or not at all on restaurant day has always been fairly normal for me and my family. I think this is pretty abnormal. Even when I lived in Germany I didn't observe this behavior. It's fine if you do this. In fact it's probably good. It's just not common. If it were common, huge restaurant meals wouldn't be an issue. (And actually, if you do this I'm not sure why you're complaining about the big meals.) > Most people (in the US, at least) are also obese, bringing them up in this context doesn't prove much. I'm not sure what you think I'm trying to "prove". I was responding to your broad statement that a restaurant meal tends supplant other food for the day. Given that we're talking about American restaurants and enormous American portions, I think the context of how Americans eat is extremely relevant. > It may not be cheaper to serve smaller portions, but other countries seem to manage it just fine. That's not a good enough reason. It seems more culture bound than business bound. It's quite obviously a cultural consideration. That doesn't mean it isn't a business consideration as well. If your customers' expectations are that a $20 meal has enough calories for a day and you're serving half as much food for the same price, you're likely to have trouble staying in business because your customers think you're ripping them off.

by dpark 10y ago

projektir 10y ago

Well, you know at least one person now. Eating a lot less or not at all on restaurant day has always been fairly normal for me and my family. I just won't really enjoy a big lunch much if I already had breakfast. But that is if I don't exercise, if I do, the restaurant meal may not actually fill up the entire day. People who can eat one large meal in a day are likely correlated with people who exercise, which means, on average, they won't end up eating just one meal a day because they'd end up under their calorie intake and because it's actually non-trivial to stuff that many calories into yourself at that point. > For most people, going to a restaurant for a meal simply means they eat more in total that day. Most people (in the US, at least) are also obese, bringing them up in this context doesn't prove much. > The problem is that it's not much cheaper to serve smaller portions. It may not be cheaper to serve smaller portions, but other countries seem to manage it just fine. That's not a good enough reason. It seems more culture bound than business bound.

dpark 10y ago
> Well, you know at least one person now. Eating a lot less or not at all on restaurant day has always been fairly normal for me and my family. I think this is pretty abnormal. Even when I lived in Germany I didn't observe this behavior. It's fine if you do this. In fact it's probably good. It's just not common. If it were common, huge restaurant meals wouldn't be an issue. (And actually, if you do this I'm not sure why you're complaining about the big meals.) > Most people (in the US, at least) are also obese, bringing them up in this context doesn't prove much. I'm not sure what you think I'm trying to "prove". I was responding to your broad statement that a restaurant meal tends supplant other food for the day. Given that we're talking about American restaurants and enormous American portions, I think the context of how Americans eat is extremely relevant. > It may not be cheaper to serve smaller portions, but other countries seem to manage it just fine. That's not a good enough reason. It seems more culture bound than business bound. It's quite obviously a cultural consideration. That doesn't mean it isn't a business consideration as well. If your customers' expectations are that a $20 meal has enough calories for a day and you're serving half as much food for the same price, you're likely to have trouble staying in business because your customers think you're ripping them off.