Starbucks 'Trenta': How The New Size Compares To Your Stomach
Famous Death Row Last Meals
Lately, the problem of portion size has been all over the news. Unsurprisingly, the general consensus is that in order to curb the "obesity epidemic" and improve the heath and nutrition of most people, especially Americans, portion sizes need to be kept under control.
Great idea - but how can it be put into effect?
Since it is impossible to control how much people pile onto their plates when they're at home, thoughts are turning to restaurants to monitor how much they dish out to patrons. The theory is that if a diner isn't served 3 pounds of pasta, s/he can't eat 3 pounds of pasta. But this means that every single restaurant would have to reduce their portion sizes and risk losing customers, because customers are attracted to whatever they feel is a good value. If only one restaurant did not reduce portion sizes, customers would continue to patronize it because the temptation of a good value (and thus the opportunity to overeat) is incredibly hard to resist.
Though it make take more time, continuing to educate people about proper nutrition and healthy eating habits is a better way to go. Trying for force people to accept smaller portion sizes won't resort in happier, healthier people, but in a lot of people who resent being told what to eat. Once everyone wants to maintain a reasonably healthy lifestyle (one without 3-pound dishes of pasta), things like portion size will sort themselves out. Value will be in the quality and taste of the food more than the quantity.
LOOK: Amazing Underwater Photos Of Dogs
Broke Stars: 11 Celebrities Who Went Bankrupt
Jane Seymour's Modest And Modern Style
Adele Five-Year Break? Singer Plans to Focus on Relationship, Write 'Happy Record'
Social Security Is Failing Even Faster Than We Thought
Janice Dickinson's Outrageous Style
Man Says Starbucks Discriminated Against Him Because He Has Half An Arm
Chris Brown, Grammys 2012: Embattled Singer Slams Critics
PHOTOS: How You Can Get The 'Miracle' Dress
Ford's clever Sports Illustrated Swimsuit ad features phantom model
3 Economic Misconceptions That Need to Die
Photos Of Dead Lacrosse Player's Injured Body Shown To Jury
Trace Adkins Reunites With College Crush, 30 Years Later
Van Gogh's Starry Night modded into beautiful interactive light and sound show (video)
PHOTOS: Model Falls At Dennis Basso Show
'Hooker Teacher' Forced To Resign, Now Can't Find Work
Lauren Scruggs Goes On Ski Vacation
WATCH AND LAUGH: Cops In 2-Hour Standoff With Empty Car
New Clues, Details Emerge In Powell Case
Woman's Dead Fiance Is Behind Her Disappearance: Cops
Stephen Wiltshire Draws Cities From Memory
PHOTOS: Remembering The People's Ballerina
20 Of Elizabeth Olsen's Versatile Looks
We Meant There WERE Nukes In The Fire
LOOK: The Last Of The Cave People
Style Icon Dies After Collapsing At Fashion Show
Best In Show Winner Declared
WATCH: Saint VaLINtine Hits Game-Winning Shot
Most Eligible Post 50 Celebs
PHOTOS: Kate Spends Valentine's Day Solo!
10 Celebs Who Refuse To 'Fix' Their Teeth
Prosecutors Appeal Overturned Murder Convictions
6-05-2006 @8:42AM Buck Q. Fitch said... They'd have to reduce prices, too. It's a good idea, retaurants serve way too much food. If the portion sizes were smaller, there'd be room for dessert.
Reply
6-05-2006 @9:49AM Sir Not Appearing in this Blog said... Count me as someone who would resent the government telling me how much I can and can't eat. See, I subscribe to an obviously antiquated and quaint school of thought which says it's none of the government's (or anyone else's, for that matter) effing business how much I eat.
It's not their JOB to worry about my diet. Of course, very little they're doing today was in their original mandate-welfare, education, 'social' security, medicare, etc-so there's precedence for them to stick their collective nose even further in where it doesn't belong. Still, it is nice when they allow us these little illusions of freedom.
Reply
6-05-2006 @10:38AM Nova said... I personally think it's a good idea because I always feel guilty when I have leftovers. And leftovers are something that usually I will not eat later- they never taste the same just by reheating in a microwave at home, the next day.
The prices would have to come down somewhat, with the portion sizes being reduced, but restaurants may realize that there are more customers like me, who would often rather get an appetizer-sized meal and a side salad, than a huge meal and the guilt of not cleaning the plate in one sitting. Restaurants may actually be able to earn the same as they are now if they tried this, since side salads cost extra.
Reply
6-05-2006 @11:54AM rainey said... I would love it but agree that it's only reasonable that prices are, proportionately reduced as well. That way people can order exactly as much food as they want and not be constantly (as we do in my family) taking home styrofoam containers of food at premium prices that will have less than premium flavor when cold at breakfast the following day. ((Still, what will ever get a day going better than cold Indian? ::I wonder::))
Lower prices and reduced portion size could also mean that some of us could enjoy a salad AND an appetizer. Or two people could share three interesting entrees. Or a family of four could practically put together their own tasting.
Bring (less of) it on!!!
Reply
6-05-2006 @1:17PM Sir Not Appearing in this Blog said... Ask for a smaller portion. Or ask for a child's portion. If they bring you a huge portion, split your order with someone else at your table. Or just eat what you want and then give the rest to a homeless person. I guarantee they won't be as picky as you.
As for me, I LOVE leftovers. If I can spend $15-20 on dinner and get two or three meals out of it, that's pretty good in my book.
Whatever your reason for wanting a smaller portion, don't try to shrug off your own responsibility onto the government. They've already taken far too many of our freedoms away. Take some bloody responsibility for yourself. Do you expect other people to take care of you your entire life?
Reply
6-05-2006 @1:18PM Hawk said... I noticed something when I started eating at college-campus chinese restaurants. People will be willing to eat a cheap thing that isn't very good if there is a lot of it. People will also assume they should maximize their food quantity (and thus benefit? utility? something college-y..) for a given monetary value.
That's dumb. It's not a 'better deal' to get a whole freaking side of bacon for 6 bux at a truck stop. It's a good deal if you're going to use it to make bacon for a whole week, but it's not a good deal if you're going to eat it all at once.
I was at this bbq place near my apartment, and I thought, "gee, this appetizer's kind of expensive for like 6 cheezy sticks..." it was about 7 dollars. However, they were really, really good cheese sticks. If I'd gotten an entire dinner plate piled with GFS moz sticks, would that be a 'better value' ?
I fear that if portions shrunk, prices wouldn't, and people would become poorer as a result of spending more on food for the same amount of fatness, or worse... poor people would eat even cheaper-crappier quality food in the same volumes as they do now.
Reply
6-05-2006 @3:35PM lance fulcrum said... this article is really making me crave the all-you-can-eat sushi place down the street from my house...
Reply
6-05-2006 @7:21PM Dave Barnhart said... Hey, I like the large portions. I can almost always get a second meal out of the left overs.
Reply
6-06-2006 @10:38AM Heather said... I like bringing the leftovers home to have as lunch the next day, but admittedly, if I'm too hungry the temptation to overeat instead is strong.
I'd love to see half-portions more readily available; at half price, of course!
Reply