A local cooking celebrity on WIBC Linda Allee was recently complaining about being served too much food at a local downtown Indianapolis Italian rest. She lamented that so many restaurants serve too much food. This is a sentiment that I hear more and more. However, some of us (yes many, but not all of us fall into the clinically significant obese category) like to get full when we pay fifteen and in some cases over thirty dollars for a meal! So why not have more restaurants that have an “all you can eat” policy? The initial portions would be smaller than average, but you could have as many “seconds” as you wished. It probably wouldn’t even cost them more money since those who ate seconds would be offset by those who didn’t (and who were getting smaller portions than used to be the case). I spoke with a waiter at Olive Garden who seemed to support my thesis. He said that when they ran the “all you can eat” specials probably eighty percent of the people don’t order seconds (and he said the initial portions were smaller than average). He did say that he had one guy that ordered eight additional bowels of pasta (now that is a man who might even take me in an eating contest).
Nothing to add, just that it boggles my mind that people would complain that they got too much for their money.
That would likely work in the restaurant’s favor (initial smaller portions, and those with smaller appetites don’t want seconds). But for me, if I’m going to pay that $15 to $30, then I’d prefer the larger portion, and I’ll have a take-home box for the extra thank-you-very-much. That can be lunch tomorrow.
Keep in mind I am talking about instead of simply serving smaller portions. According to Linda Allee smaller portions is a growing and according to her unstoppable trend (especially in upscale) restaurants these days. Being paranoid I suspect it is nothing but a “backdoor” way of raising prices while blaiming it on the “fatness” of the American people (in other words I don’t think they give a hoot about us being fat, it just gives them cover to serve smaller portions while charging the same price).
I live in Japan, where restaurant portions are typically not exactly huge. I was in Canada for the hollidays, though, and I did complain about what at times I perceived as ridiculously large servings in some restaurants.
It bothered me in part because I don’t like stuff going to waste. There’s a difference between getting your money’s worth and getting served a mountain of food that virtually no one can finish. I would much, much rather get smaller portions of better-tasting food. For some, that’s what “getting your money’s worth” really means.
All-you-can-eat joints are, with precious few exceptions, typically quite near the bottom when it comes to quality. For those who do have large appetites, two better options would be to offer large servings at a small supplement and menus made of many small, cheap, dishes – you just keep on ordering more stuff as you go along. Both approaches are common here, and I think they’re a better compromise than having pig sty binges for everybody.
Point taken. However, in my experience, the portions served in many restaurant chains (ie: Friday’s, Applebee’s, Olive Garden, etc.) seem to be either eaten in their entirety by the ordering party, or have their remnants taken home in to-go boxes. I’ve noticed that it’s rare to leave a restaurant around here and see plenty of food left on the table.
You say that all you can eat places are near the bottom for quality. However, I am suggesting that there is no reason for them to be this way. Why, can’t even a five star restaurent have an “all you can eat” policy (mind you I’m not talking about a buffet here, but more food prepared as needed in the kitchen). My way allows those who want to eat only a little to do so while those with larger appetites don’t go away hungry. Almost everyone is happy and there is minimal waist.
Honestly, I think some of it comes down to simple snobbery. I’ve notices that among my friends who earn over six figures that this is a common sentiment (that portions are too large when they eat out). However, my working class friends and associates think you should get enough for two meals!
I imagine that cooking a 5-inch steak and a 10-inch steak takes the same amount of time and effort on the chef’s part. However, cooking two 5-inch steaks - one after the other - will take double the amount of time.
That’s my immediate thought, anyway. Better to ensure that your customers are MORE than satisfied than risk that most of them will be put off. I mean, there’s a REASON that Claim Jumper’s is so popular…
I often end up taking a to-go box home when I go to a “sit-down” restaurant, which makes two meals out of an entree. However, if presented with an all-you-can-eat option, I look at it like a personal challenge and gorge myself unnecessarily in an effort to “beat the house.”
I despise wasting food, so I always try to get my money’s worth, clean my plate, and take leftovers home. And nothing bothers me more than paying a premium for a restaurant meal and getting a tiny portion. Say what you will about the Cheesecake Factory chain (a common target for food snobs), but they have a vast selection of menu items, and all their portions are HUGE. Despite being priced at the higher end of casual dining, I feel that they definitely give you your money’s worth, better than most comparable restaurants.
American restaurant chains are sprouting like shrooms in the fall around Spain… and they serve American-sized portions.
But no doggie bag.
You know, if the only way I can get a fix of BBQ is by ordering a whole freaking rib rack, I want to be able to use the leftovers as my dinner for the next two days!
Also, often when us foreigners go to eat out in the US, it’s during business meetings. You can’t take a doggie bag to the hotel (at least not when you know that you’re going to be eating out and dining out for the whole time the meeting lasts). So having an option for half portions would be an absolute plus for any restaurant that’s close to my hotel. I’ve often been able to convince my group to see if we can share, but many foreigners with less “American miles” than me are awfully shy about it. And some waiters look at you like you’re one of Jack Nicholson’s characters in Mars Attacks, when you ask for “4 portions of ribs, but bring 8 dishes, they’re for sharing”.
Hotel portions are huge, too. One of those Caesar’s would go to the center in one of my family’s 5-people lunches and half of it would be left over. For me a salad is supposed to be a light complement, not a whole meal!
That style of presentation puts me off my feed.
With places that have boxes/doggie bags, nobody is forcing you to finish that entire meal. If you have a smaller appetite, save the leftovers for another day!
This is what I often do if I’m taken out to dinner. I’ll eat half the meal, then save the rest and eat it for lunch/dinner the following day.
I think the distaste for large portion sizes is less of a complaint about the inner workings and plating styles of restaurants, than it is an ethical distaste about gluttony. I’d bet some people share the same dislike of excess whether it’s in the form of 3/4 pound hamburgers with three fistfuls of fries, or 32 ounce soft drinks, or comicly large SUVs. If anything, many people are probably reacting against the “bigger is better” ethos, or some kind of feeling of being left out in the cold in preferring quality over quantity.
That’s not always practical. If I’m going out afterwards, I don’t want the food sitting around in my car unless it’s cold out, or if I’m taking public transportation to the next place, I won’t have a car to stow it in. Or you might have ordered something that doesn’t reheat well - say a cream sauce that’d separate, or vegetables that are still supposed to have some crispness to them and will wilt if recooked. Business and vacation travel make that difficult as well, as would a lunch out during work hours.
I have additional trouble with this as my appetite is more suited to multiple small meals throughout a day - I can rarely clean my plate in a typical restaurant, even if I avoid appetizers, salad, and dessert. All-you-can-eat places would be a waste of my money. I find myself reassuring worried-looking waiters that no, the food was lovely, but I just don’t have the appetite in one sitting to clean the plate.
There is a happy medium between the stereotypically small portions of nouvelle cuisine, and the heaped-up servings in most American restaurants. I would happily pay less for less food.
Now that would certainly make me happy…
For me, it’s not snobbery - it’s that I literally can’t eat that much. I’m a graduate student that lives on a pretty tight budget, and I would rather pay less and have a me-sized portion.
There’s an all-you-can-eat Chinese place by campus that’s actually pretty good, but whenever I go, I have some rice, chicken, potstickers, and veggies. I can’t eat more than a plateful; but I still pay the same as the guy who has sweet-and-sour sauce dripping off his mountain of fried chicken, and is on his fourth plate.
But again, it’s not snobbery, it’s just how much I eat - I grew up in a Greek family, and it was my theory that, when planning a dinner, my grandma multiplied the number of guests by five, then made that much food. When I was little, I could eat all day. But I just don’t want to anymore, and having a trough of pasta dumped before me just isn’t all that appetizing.
For one thing, all-you-can-eat lobster or Beef Wellington could be a real money loser. To price such things high enough to avoid that would make them prohibitively expensive. Then there’s the psychology of it – if I want a small portion, but have to pay the same price as someone who wants five helpings, I feel like I’m subsidizing the gluttons and paying more than I should.
I believe the most feasible approach would be for restaurants to offer small and large servings. Many do just that for things like prime rib, certain steaks, or even fried chicken. Much less problematic than all-you-can-eat.
While I don’t object to large portion sizes, I really think there’s a market for a restaurant that serves smaller portions and charges less for them.
I remember the last time I visited Montreal. The dollar was strong then, and I was expecting that eating out would be very expensive in Canadian dollars. But they were charging about what I’d pay for for the same meal in Schenectady in US dollars. Couldn’t figure it out until I realized the portions were smaller. Enough to make a good meal, but less than the huge portions you expect at a US restaurant.
What I don’t like about large portion sizes is that I can’t order many items. When I eat out it’s often a special occasion and I want to try several different dishes. I don’t want to fill myself up with one huge plate of pasta.
The all-you-can-eat concept gives many people the feeling that they are obligated to overeat. The same is true of free food, and doubly so for free beer.