Why are US meal portions so big??
Replies
-
I always just figured the restaurant wanted me to have lunch for the next day!
Here are my thoughts on this topic:
The portions are too big here. I figure, restaurants have a lot of competition. Size = Value in their minds. If they have a better "value" (more for your money) they get more customeres. Economy is poor, people want to get the "best bang for their buck".
The economy sucks, if you don't make a lot of money and going out to a restaurant is a treat, you want to "eat like a king" and the restaurant wants your business. So they make portions huge.
The US also has an issue where the poorer you are, the better chance you have of being overweight. It all ties together I'm sure.
Cooking at home is always your cheapest and best option.0 -
Cooking at home is always your cheapest and best option.
Totally agreed. DH and I are homebodies and we rarely eat out unless we're traveling. Sometimes we laugh at how cheap our meals are, especially the bean soup he makes with ham hocks. One strip steak will serve both of us, with leftovers that I cut up and throw into a salad the next day.Heck, if that dish cost me $9 and I can split it into 3 good size meals, then I'm a happy camper who just paid $3 for my dinner 3 days in a row. Saving money rocks!
Restaurants make a lot of money from the extras- beverages, appetizers, desserts, etc. I know you can order tap water as a drink- I frequently do- and skip dessert, but even then you have to factor in the tip. Finally, the generous portions aren't generous with ingredients such as steak, shrimp, fresh-cooked veggies, etc. They're heavy on bread and pasta and other cheap starches. Your $9 would buy enough ingredients for both DH and me to have entrees for couple of days. While restaurants undoubtedly get price breaks because they buy in volume and frequently prepare everything at one central location up to the point that it's microwaveable, then ship it to the restaurants, there's no magic math here. They still have to pay for preparation, shipping, serving, etc. and that's passed on to you- plus the tip.0 -
Totally agreed. DH and I are homebodies and we rarely eat out unless we're traveling. Sometimes we laugh at how cheap our meals are, especially the bean soup he makes with ham hocks. One strip steak will serve both of us, with leftovers that I cut up and throw into a salad the next day.
Haha, same here. Honestly, eating at home is cheaper and I don't feel so full that I want to fall asleep afterwards. :P
Honestly, I just don't like eating out, because most restaurants over here do not have a calorie count of what is in their foods. It's hard to really judge how many tablespoons they may have used of some high calorie dressing (and you know they did not go for low fat, etc.). Same with how much oil they may have used, or they may have deep fried something... you know, it's just hard to tell sometimes how unhealthy something really is, because you don't know the full ingredients they may have used.
I used to eat at the cafeteria at my workplace, which was my downfall. I always had wraps there... haha. One of the things that really helped me lose weight (and save money) was deciding to bring my lunch into work every single day. That way I had no temptation for their crap food, and I knew exactly what I was getting.
The occasional time my friends invite me out to a restaurant, I will try to walk for hours beforehand. And then I'll pick the healthiest choice on the menu (which sometimes isn't even so healthy). Just because I know their choice of restaurants is going to be teeeeeeeeeeerrrrrible for me, but I still want to see them.
I think what's worse than big portion sizes is that a lot of bars offer 4 L pitchers... now THOSE call my name....
That is my definitely downfall. Beer! 0 -
Cooking at home is always your cheapest and best option.
Wrong.
Oh, sure, I understand what you're *trying* to say with this comment, but it's still wrong as is.0 -
Cooking at home is always your cheapest and best option.
Wrong.
Oh, sure, I understand what you're *trying* to say with this comment, but it's still wrong as is.
And it is so close to being an agreeable comment.0 -
because the people are big0
-
Cooking at home is always your cheapest and best option.
Wrong.
Oh, sure, I understand what you're *trying* to say with this comment, but it's still wrong as is.
And it is so close to being an agreeable comment.
Exactly.
One just has to realize there is a certain point where they can be reasonably certain that their statement is correct...but the temptation to overreach is so very strong. Going for the absolute is bold, but so often leads to fallacy.
Maybe next time.0 -
The only thing I can think of is restaurants hold the belief that consumers only care about getting the most for their buck.
0 -
Cooking at home is always your cheapest and best option.
Wrong.
Oh, sure, I understand what you're *trying* to say with this comment, but it's still wrong as is.
OK, I'm only an actuary so maybe these concepts are too complicated for me. Let's assume a restaurant can buy equivalent ingredients 10% cheaper. Even if they added no additional costs and charged only for ingredients, I'd have to pay a tip on top of that so it would cost just about what I pay at home. Except that restaurants pay rent, taxes, advertising, wages, utilities, and some profit for the owner. All of that is added into the cost of the food. Unless you're comparing the 80%-lean (that means 20% fat) burger from the shins of the cow on a crappy refined white-flour bun from McDonald's Dollar Menu with the one Iowa-cut pork chop that feeds both DH and me, I don't know how it can ever be cheaper to eat at a restaurant.0 -
Cooking at home is always your cheapest and best option.
Wrong.
Oh, sure, I understand what you're *trying* to say with this comment, but it's still wrong as is.
OK, I'm only an actuary so maybe these concepts are too complicated for me. Let's assume a restaurant can buy equivalent ingredients 10% cheaper. Even if they added no additional costs and charged only for ingredients, I'd have to pay a tip on top of that so it would cost just about what I pay at home. Except that restaurants pay rent, taxes, advertising, wages, utilities, and some profit for the owner. All of that is added into the cost of the food. Unless you're comparing the 80%-lean (that means 20% fat) burger from the shins of the cow on a crappy refined white-flour bun from McDonald's Dollar Menu with the one Iowa-cut pork chop that feeds both DH and me, I don't know how it can ever be cheaper to eat at a restaurant.
Retail grocers also pay rent, taxes, advertising, wages, and utilities and hope for some profit from the owner. Only restaurants don't buy from retail grocers. And if you're buying that magic pork chop from a place like Whole Foods then you are paying a hefty premium. But go on with comparing the magic pork chop to McDonalds. Perhaps they don't teach cost accounting in actuary school?0 -
It was all the meals. Not one, or from one place0
-
Cooking at home is always your cheapest and best option.
Wrong.
Oh, sure, I understand what you're *trying* to say with this comment, but it's still wrong as is.
OK, I'm only an actuary so maybe these concepts are too complicated for me. Let's assume a restaurant can buy equivalent ingredients 10% cheaper. Even if they added no additional costs and charged only for ingredients, I'd have to pay a tip on top of that so it would cost just about what I pay at home. Except that restaurants pay rent, taxes, advertising, wages, utilities, and some profit for the owner. All of that is added into the cost of the food. Unless you're comparing the 80%-lean (that means 20% fat) burger from the shins of the cow on a crappy refined white-flour bun from McDonald's Dollar Menu with the one Iowa-cut pork chop that feeds both DH and me, I don't know how it can ever be cheaper to eat at a restaurant.
The issue was with using the absolute "always" and "best" being arbitrary.0 -
Cooking at home is always your cheapest and best option.
Wrong.
Oh, sure, I understand what you're *trying* to say with this comment, but it's still wrong as is.
OK, I'm only an actuary so maybe these concepts are too complicated for me. Let's assume a restaurant can buy equivalent ingredients 10% cheaper. Even if they added no additional costs and charged only for ingredients, I'd have to pay a tip on top of that so it would cost just about what I pay at home. Except that restaurants pay rent, taxes, advertising, wages, utilities, and some profit for the owner. All of that is added into the cost of the food. Unless you're comparing the 80%-lean (that means 20% fat) burger from the shins of the cow on a crappy refined white-flour bun from McDonald's Dollar Menu with the one Iowa-cut pork chop that feeds both DH and me, I don't know how it can ever be cheaper to eat at a restaurant.
Retail grocers also pay rent, taxes, advertising, wages, and utilities and hope for some profit from the owner. Only restaurants don't buy from retail grocers. And if you're buying that magic pork chop from a place like Whole Foods then you are paying a hefty premium. But go on with comparing the magic pork chop to McDonalds. Perhaps they don't teach cost accounting in actuary school?
^this...
...and this:The issue was with using the absolute "always" and "best" being arbitrary.
...and further, she didn't specify identical meals.0 -
I went to Olive Garden today and I budged everything. I looked at the low calorie menu and nothing appealed to me, what i really wanted was a plate of spaghetti and sausage and a salad.
Well the waiter referred me to the all you can eat menu and i said no thanks im watching portion control. More food for your money is not necessary the best idea for me.
so when this plate of spaghetti and 3 sausages came ($13.95 for all that) it was too much food.. I was starving so i thought i'd eat half.
All i could eat was 1/3. it fit my MFP numbers (except sodeium went a bit high).. but I was able to happily enjoy my large plate of food, how in the heck would i have eaten all you can eat salad???
so thats what I do to combat a lot of food today. i got what i wanted, but i was able to budget it. It was brave to eat at a place like Olive Garden, i love the food there really...
but wow looking at that plate of food was HUGE!!!!!0 -
one of the major factors in the "poor are heaver" phenomenon is cultural many folk that are brought up in a one parent house are not taught about nutrition or how to cook a healthy meal.
The home cooked meal is cheaper statement is true the food budget of a same sized household that eats 90% of meals at home will be lower than the one that eats 60% out. I have lived that dynamic.
in my house we like "back to healthy living" that means that we will be eating better meals.0 -
Leftovers!0
-
Also of note are what we've done to the produce grown today v. what was grown years ago. For example, look at the apples and strawberries. They're HUGE now compared to their ancestors.0
-
Also of note are what we've done to the produce grown today v. what was grown years ago. For example, look at the apples and strawberries. They're HUGE now compared to their ancestors.
Mother Nature is making us fat!
0 -
nationalistic thread is nationalistic.
i know it's popular in Europe to take potshots at the USA whenever and wherever possible, but just because you ate one meal in one restaurant and got a dumb explanation from one friend, does not mean that such an assertion (as found in your thread title) is universally true.
go to an expensive foo-foo restaurant in NYC and you'll find much smaller (and more expensive portions).
go to a pub in rural England and you'll find large portion sizes.
there is no government agency in either country that enforces a mandatory minimum portion size for restaurants. every restaurant and chef is different and has different standards.
Thank you for saying that!0 -
Yay, confirmation bias!0
-
...I don't know how it can ever be cheaper to eat at a restaurant.
Let's look at it in the limit: the $1 McDouble.
33g protein from beef
19g fat, mostly from beef
33g carbs, mostly from the bun
4oz of 80/20 ground beef will be just about right for the protein/fat. Note that's a cut above the "beef in a bag" crap they sell in tubes at Walmart. Sells for about $3/lb around here, sometimes cheaper, sometimes more. 4oz would be $0.75.
Cheapest buns from the supermarket bakery that I've noticed are about $1.50 for half a dozen, or $0.25/per.
That's a $1. Haven't included fuel costs to go to the store and back, or electricity/gas costs for doing the actual cooking.
I'd do an analysis on a $6 Papa Murphy's "fave" or a $5 Hot n Ready from Little Caesar, but I'm not sufficiently motivated.
0 -
...I don't know how it can ever be cheaper to eat at a restaurant.
Let's look at it in the limit: the $1 McDouble.
33g protein from beef
19g fat, mostly from beef
33g carbs, mostly from the bun
4oz of 80/20 ground beef will be just about right for the protein/fat. Note that's a cut above the "beef in a bag" crap they sell in tubes at Walmart. Sells for about $3/lb around here, sometimes cheaper, sometimes more. 4oz would be $0.75.
Cheapest buns from the supermarket bakery that I've noticed are about $1.50 for half a dozen, or $0.25/per.
That's a $1. Haven't included fuel costs to go to the store and back, or electricity/gas costs for doing the actual cooking.
I'd do an analysis on a $6 Papa Murphy's "fave" or a $5 Hot n Ready from Little Caesar, but I'm not sufficiently motivated.
Also you have the built-in cost of having to buy the entire packages and potential waste. And the condiments.0 -
The meals are larger because the market responds to what the consumers want,
Fat people with no control of appetite drive bigger portions then ? Self fulfilling prophecy.
Pretty much.
Absolutely correct.
I've lived in the US all my life and think it's hilarious that people are defensive about this. Of course there are places out of country that also serve large portions. And, yes, there are "gourmet" or "upscale" restaurants that serve tiny, overpriced portions, even outside of NYC. But yes, Americans are fat and our portions are big.
We are, in general, very food-centered and very spoiled and the common expectation to sit down at a restaurant and eat like pigs and leave with a doggy bag on top of it.
I went to breakfast with a friend a few weeks ago at a local cafe and he ordered a seven-egg, multi-meat, multi-cheese and veggie omelet, a large portion (roughly 3 cups) of hash browns with sausage gravy, two slices of buttered toast, a side of two bacon AND two sausage, and two roughly six-inch pancakes with butter and syrup. It was $9.95. This is not the biggest "regular item" on the menu. He also had several cups of coffee with 2 creams and two sugars per cup.
I had two fried eggs, a portion of hash browns that was only a little smaller, two sausage patties, and two pieces of buttered toast, and black coffee for $7.95. It was tiny compared to his and I couldn't eat it all. I gave it my best shot, though! lol
The point is, the place is packed every day and the portion sizes are the main reason. And I could name a couple of dozen places just in my town where you can get portions like that (although their prices are good at that place), without even resorting to fast food.
As for the McDonalds example, sorry that's incorrect. The portions are not the same - they are larger in the US.
The Big Mac referenced? A sandwich served in the US is 560 calories. The UK version has 490.
A large fry in the US is 500 calories. In the UK, it's 460 calories.
The large Coca-Cola to "wash it down with" - 280 calories in the US; 225 in the UK.
McDonalds answer to why is: "Thank you for your question. McDonalds is a global brand and each of the 122 countries we operate in all have different needs, cultures and expectations. Portion sizes may vary from each country as will menu items, interior restaurant)designs and packaging. In the UK we feel our portion size is great value for money and can be enjoyed as part of a balanced diet." (from McDonalds UK site) [read: Americans would riot; just ask Ruby Tuesdays]
And the UK isn't even the most glaring contrast. Nor is Japan, but they are a well-fed people and yet when we have had several visiting student and friends stay with us from there, they've never ceased to be amazed that the sheer size of our food. Whether it's a pizza served at a local restaurant or a box of cereal taken from the cupboard, the standard response is, "Oooohh! Big!" This is often accompanied by the taking of a picture with their hand next to it for size reference. They also start out very excited to politely try a tiny bit of every snack that makes its way around a get-together, only to end up a little green around the gills and apologetically declining as they realize they never end!
France, too....famous for its buttery croissants, wines, and cheese platters. Why aren't they all fat? Because they don't eat giant portions and they don't snack constantly!
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20030822/french-secrets-to-staying-slim
http://www.centives.net/S/2012/do-french-people-snack/
http://karenlebillon.com/2012/09/17/french-kids-dont-get-fat-why/
The portions are big and getting bigger, both in restaurants and at home:
http://www.today.com/id/38959769/ns/today-today_health/t/stuffed-weighty-truth-behind-restaurant-portion-sizes/#.UjSv1tJf3Z4
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20825325/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/any-other-name-its-still-supersize/ (fast food)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/a-fast-food-soda-is-six-times-bigger-than-it-was-60-years-ago/2012/05/24/gJQA23JxmU_blog.html
http://www.toledoblade.com/Food/2011/03/13/why-are-restaurant-portions-so-big.html
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-11-02/health/sc-health-1102-portions-20111102_1_food-prices-double-cheeseburger-food-costs
http://boingboing.net/2010/10/25/king-size-drinks-the.htmlWhat I found quite interesting after a recent trip to North America is how "in your face" all the fast food chain restaurant signs are! No avoiding dunkin donuts, Macdonalds, Wendy's etc etc...HUGE signs everywhere...it made even this non-junk food loving Brit's mouth water....honestly, imho, with such huge signs the average junk-food loving person dosnt stand a chance!!
Because signs have hands and grab you and force feed you food????? I'm sorry....I don't get the connection. Small signs, big signs, North America, Britain.....we all have free will and can choose what we eat.
I am firmly outside the "we don't have a choice" camp. We do indeed have the need and the responsibility to do so. But education is part of making that choice. And let's face it: there is such a thing as conditioning and these companies don't spend millions and millions of dollars on advertising because it doesn't work. The growth in what people view as a "standard" portion size is proof of that. Re-booting our individual thinking is part of achieving success.
I agree with this.0 -
Delete - reformulating.0
-
As an American who has traveled throughout Europe, and lived in the Caribbean for 5 years, I can say that this is very true. When you compare American restaurants and portion sizes they are MUCH larger than their counterparts in other parts of the world. A scoop of gelato ice cream in Italy is probably the equivalent of a child's scoop here in the US. I notice that also the meals take much longer, you are expected to linger, enjoy the food, not just wolf down huge portions and then have the waiter slap the check on the table before you even finish.
I remember going out to eat in various restaurants all over different countries in Europe, Italy, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, etc. They all serve smaller but good quality portions, the meals took a good 2 hours or more, you had to request the check, they don't bring it until you do.
I think it's alright to notice where we as Americans can take a lesson from other cultures, all criticism is not a bad thing if it brings a different or better light on matters.0 -
A scoop of gelato ice cream in Italy is probably the equivalent of a child's scoop here in the US.
While it's true that a scoop of gelato in Italy is a children's scoop here in the US, every single getlateria I visited both times I went to Italy had a two scoop minimum. They sold up to six scoop cones! All the pizza places served pizzas the size of our mediums at least as a single person's meal. Every non-breakfast meal I had there was absolutely huge, I gained a ton of weight each time. I guess it helps that everyone walks everywhere, because there wasn't a fat person to be found...0 -
it can be cheaper to go out to eat, i.e. at a fast food place. I can buy a Big mac meal and it may cost under $5.00. But if i make a meal at home, that i want more nutrition out of than what the Big Macmeal provides, it will cost me maybe $8.00. But the quality is far better than the Big Mac meal, for what nutrition that I want out of it.
If i go buy the products i want, i dont care about the price if its something i really want. In that way, what i want will cost me more but i sure will enjoy it a lot!
Or i can go to Subway and get a $5 footlong which is cheaper than anything I'd make at home... well except for my one-pot meals of meat and beans and tomatos and other goodies in it, and it will last a few days, and even though I dont count the cost, it most likely is cheaper than going out to eat (I save on the tip at least by eating in).0 -
...I don't know how it can ever be cheaper to eat at a restaurant.
Let's look at it in the limit: the $1 McDouble.
33g protein from beef
19g fat, mostly from beef
33g carbs, mostly from the bun
4oz of 80/20 ground beef will be just about right for the protein/fat. Note that's a cut above the "beef in a bag" crap they sell in tubes at Walmart. Sells for about $3/lb around here, sometimes cheaper, sometimes more. 4oz would be $0.75.
Cheapest buns from the supermarket bakery that I've noticed are about $1.50 for half a dozen, or $0.25/per.
That's a $1. Haven't included fuel costs to go to the store and back, or electricity/gas costs for doing the actual cooking.
I'd do an analysis on a $6 Papa Murphy's "fave" or a $5 Hot n Ready from Little Caesar, but I'm not sufficiently motivated.
Also you have the built-in cost of having to buy the entire packages and potential waste. And the condiments.
To add my specific issue - the second one you have to make as you burn the first one!0 -
I'm Australian, have been to the USA numerous times and have an american stepfamily. There is a massive difference in portion sizing between our two countries. Its not something to get cranky and defensive about. Its not 'america bashing' either, so calm yer tits, everyone.
Some personal experiences of portion differences:
- I ordered a 'small' meal at McDonalds in New York and the chips & drink were the equivalent of large size for Australia.
- We went to a cinema and the smallest popcorn was still massive. Normally called 'family sized' here.
- I ordered ribs at Planet Hollywood and was presented with a half-metre long rack.
- Appetizer pasta in USA = main pasta in Australia.
- My stepfather has complained so many times about how we don't have "Big Gulp" drink dispensers at our petrol/gas stations. You have to buy individual bottles/cans of pre-packaged Coke, either 390ml or 600ml. No 1.2L big gulps here.
So cranky Americans. Chill. Embrace your giant portions. Its good value for money. That giant plate of ribs cost me about $15-20 (can't remember!) --- here in Australia you'd be looking at $30 for 1/3 size.
edit: oh my god I forgot pizza. You guys do GIANT PIZZA
0 -
Which has put the USA in the #1 spot for obesity.......high five.The meals are larger because the market responds to what the consumers want,0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions