I had dinner at a fancy place and the meal I got was maybe 300 calories. I take it that is typical for those places? It was chicken and pasta. BTW, I know that many places give you too much food now. And I’m a guy who is 160 lbs. so I don’t eat a lot, but I really think 300 calories is pretty much a joke.
Sounds like a Nouvelle Cuisineplace? Small portions on big plates or in big bowls?
I had a meal at the French Laundry in CA wine country - the short ribs entree was about the size of a hockey puck and served in a big white bowl - the contrast between the size of the food and the bowl was the point, near as I can tell.
In my case, it tasted wonderful and was filling, so no complaints. But eating at places that go for that kind of presentation can be a bit of a surprise if you aren’t expecting it…
The plate was square and big which made the food look even smaller. I also got a dessert but that was real small too.
In general the idea in this type of place (at least in my experience) is that you’ll order several dishes, like an app, a salad, an entrée (maybe even 2 or 3 like a fish, a pasta and a meat dish) and a desert.
As you can plainly see you’ll rack up quite a bill this way.
We did not order much and the bill for 2 was $150 with tip. That was 2 entrees, 1 appetizer, 3 drinks and 1 dessert.
The expectation at most high end places is that all diners will order a minimum of an appetizer, an entree, and a dessert. It’s not at all uncommon to have two courses of entrees - maybe something like a pasta or fish dish, followed by a meat dish.
I’ve also noticed a trend to have no real set courses, instead dividing the menu into ‘small plates’ and ‘large plates.’ And even then, the large plates are much smaller than your typical restaurant serving.
Personally, I like that, as I’m more interested in trying several things on the menu, not just one or two items. But yeah, they don’t always do a good job of explaining it and I often find myself asking just how large the portion sizes are before making any assumptions about how many courses to order.
Does the place you went have an online menu? Might be easier to figure out what was expected if we had a link.
Here is their dinner menu (along with other menus)
They called it 1st, 2nd , 3rd course
http://www.theumstead.com/food-wine/herons/index.cfm
The hotel rooms are $339, the hotel and eatery are both 5 star rated
I think the OP has the idea that if you’re spending X number of dollars you should get a boatload of food. Unless you’re at the shore and at a seafood buffet or all-you-can-eat crab legs night I wouldn’t expect that.
True fine dining has tiny portions and like** Athena **said, it’s about the flavors and the experience and the presentation, not the portions. You’re not getting the jumbo wine pours there, either. You’re getting exactly a serving size. They expect you each to get your own appetizer, entree and dessert. I wouldn’t go there ravenous, either.
Yeah, looking at that menu, it’s clear the portions are sized assuming you’ll order all 3 courses. And it probably would have been a good sized meal if you had. Not cheap, but enough to fill you up, especially with a dessert.
That’s about right for a place like that. You aren’t there to stuff yourself - you are there to dine.
Just as a comparison point: last Monday we ate at a very nice, but not over-the-top steakhouse. The bill was $200 for roughly the same set of items: 3 drinks, 2 entrees, 2 sides and 1 dessert.
Not a new phenomenon by any stretch of the imagination.
One of the first books I remember reading (somewhere between three and four) was a joke book in the shape of a giraffe. The only joke from it I recall clearly enough to annoy people with from time to time went like this:
I don’t expect a boatload of food, I expect a normal sized meal. I don’t think the appetizer + entree + dessert added up to a normal meal. Maybe it did for a super model but not me. It was probably 500 calories total.
Sounds correct. I absolutely hate it when I miss the signs for these places and go in thinking they’re just a high-class restaurant, though. While I appreciate nouvelle and haute cuisine for what they are - concentrated and exciting dining experiences - coming into them with expectations of something else really ruins it for me. (Obviously not a problem where I live, but I’ve tripped on this once or twice while abroad. I’m more of a bistro person and so is my wallet.)
I would think the rich just love these places, not only can they spend the cost of a month’s groceries for a peon on a meal, but their trophy wives hardly eat at all and can nibble at their small servings knowing they aren’t packing in calories. And they’re both ‘seen’ in the swellest new place.
I’ve eaten in some very nice places and it’s not uncommon for the wife and I to order a late-night pizza a few hours after leaving.
Take that for what it’s worth.
I remember our work crew going to some ‘fine dining’ place back about 1988.
I ordered the Elk Ravioli. I got all of FOUR ravioli and barely enough sauce to cover them. For something like $20 (remember, that was 23 years ago, so we’re talking at least twice that today).
That was the end of that experiment. We stuck to rotating ethnic restaurants after that.
Of course, the alternative these days are the 3,500 calorie Feed An African Village meals the some other establishments foist on you and then get angry if you decide to split them with someone else.
What’s your basis for that figure?
I’m sorta wondering that too. It’s pretty darn hard to get only 500 calories if the meal included pasta and dessert and the amount of butter a restaurant like that puts in everything.
Put it this way - 2 oz of pasta, 1/8 of a normal box of pasta - is 200 calories. That’s a very small amount of pasta. Add in 1 T of butter and a dessert the equivalent size of 3 oreos, and you’re at 500 calories. So that’s 500 calories without any sort of meat, sauce, or whatever the appetizer was.
I’m not saying the serving sizes at these kinds of restaurants are large, but I’d be hard pressed to figure out 2 course + dessert that came in less than 800-1000 calories, and if you picked the right stuff, double that. But in comparison to the US restaurant norm, where it’s not uncommon to see entrees in the 1500-3000 calorie level, yeah, it’s less.
I don’t have any proof it was 500 calories , just a good guess. The pasta was almost nothing so that was hardly any calories. The appetizer was 2 small ravioli , I had 1.
Were you at the next table over from us?
Had one of the best meals of my life this weekend (Blackbird, in Chicago). But we knew from one look it was “one o’ them hoity-toity places”. Dinner with wine and dessert was $160, and, as we always joke, “Oh, well, we can always pick up a McDouble on the way home”.