When is enough too much

Dave Hatfield · April 9, 2008

I've been following all of these recent posts about top, starred Paris restaurants and wondering to myself how people do it. Eat in one after the other of the top end places each night I mean.

I did a little rant about it on my blog, but them got to thinking more about the subject. As a result I came up with some questions:

? How does one do it? Without indigestion, being bloated and just plain into overload.

? Why do it? Why not spread the pleasure over a longer time period? Multiple visits to Paris?

? Is it really enjoyable to eat that much fine food in such a short period of time?

I really am interested in the answers. I'm not trying to be judgmental or anything. I just know from my own past experience that too many high end meals in a row turn me off.

I look forward to the replies.

edited for grammar.

Edited April 9, 2008 by Dave Hatfield (log)

John Talbott · April 9, 2008

Great question. My own answer is linked to the decade of my life, let me explain.

I've been following all of these recent posts about top, starred Paris restaurants and wondering to myself how people do it. Eat in one after the other of the top end places each night I mean.
I did a little rant about it on my blog, but them got to thinking more about the subject. As a result I came up with some questions:
? How does one do it? Without indigestion, being bloated and just plain into overload.

When one is young, one can eat in two such places a day and manage. As one ages, yogurt looks mighty good at lunch before a blowout dinner or a spot of cheese at night after a similar lunch.

? Why do it? Why not spread the pleasure over a longer time period? Multiple visits to Paris?

Not everyone lives in France or visits frequently; when I came once a year, it was do it all, who knows what would happen tmrw.

? Is it really enjoyable to eat that much fine food in such a short period of time?

At the time it seemed pretty cool.

I really am interested in the answers. I'm not trying to be judgmental or anything. I just know from my own past experience that too many high end meals in a row turn me off.
←

Bu Pun Su · April 9, 2008

Actually John already answered what I'm about to write. Anyway,

In my case ... It took me more than 12 hours to get to Paris

The effort to get there is quite troublesome, that's why I just want to maximise my time there since there are hardly world class restaurants in area where I live

In fact when I'm in Paris (or Europe in general) for dining, usually I only eat a proper meal once a day. For instance, a lunch at L'Ambroisie could last me until the evening and I just need to eat some snacks or sandwiches for dinner - this would "save some money" and the fact that I'm not that hungry (often still in the euphoria of having wonderful lunch meal).

It's true sometimes I may feel "tired and bored", but once I sit down in the restaurant I reserved, zip a glass of champagne, open the menu and so on - all of those boredom and tiredness replaced by the joy of the fact that I'm gonna have a great meal there.

HOLLY_L · April 9, 2008

Both John and Bu Pun Su have made many good points.

? How does one do it? Without indigestion, being bloated and just plain into overload.

Like Bu Pun Su, I pretty much do one big meal a day, with maybe a little snack here or there elsewhere.

But for those who are able to do more – including trip reports I have read here however, I say, more power to them and wish I could.

? Why do it? Why not spread the pleasure over a longer time period? Multiple visits to Paris?

I don’t have a 12 hour flight like Bu Pun Su, but my 7 hour fight is hardly negligible. Plus, once I get here, I can’t hit the ground running at least the first day due to jet lag. It’s not an inconsequential hit to my frequent flier miles or my wallet for the travel expense either. Plus, while I can take the time away to travel to Paris now, it’s not clear whether I will have this time next year or the year after – and no one knows what restaurants that I would have wanted to visit will shut down in the meantime.

I read your blog post, and your point about simple places where “ordinary French people” are dining is not without merit. But while I drop in on a few of those restaurants, they’re just not worth a seven-hour plane trip to me. Maybe not every Michelin-star place ends up being worth that either – but I don’t know that until I try, and some of them most certainly are. Plus, as for ordinary French people at the Michelin-starred restaurants, I do see a few such people (at least so they appear to me), and often they seem to be out for a celebration or to really enjoy themselves. That’s why I’m here on vacation too – not to experience everyday French life, but to really enjoy myself, even if it is somewhat decadent.

? Is it really enjoyable to eat that much fine food in such a short period of time?

Like Bu Pon Su, I will sometimes feel a little tired or bored, particularly while getting ready or making my way to the restaurant. But those feelings generally fade away once I’m at the restaurant (or sometimes not, if it turns out I don’t particularly like the restaurant – but that’s a learning experience too.)

From your blog post:

I guess that I'm just not there on this. Trophy restaurants? Oneupmanship back home? Whatever? Guess I'm getting old & grouchy, but maybe older & wiser a bit.

I don't know if I'll feel differently, but as a 31-year old, I'm doing this for absolutely fabulous experience you can have when a restaurant really gets it right. I'll never be able to visit Jamin back in the day, or any other restaurant that is no more or that is past its prime. I'm looking for the best experiences available now - and there are hits and misses - but to have a chance at that experience where the chef hits it out of the park, you have to try. Frankly, I doubt many of the people who are hitting a whole bunch of Michelin stars in one trip are doing it for trophies or oneupmanship - they're doing it because they're serious about this sort of dining, and want to have experience at many of the great restaurants as possible.

Edited to add: sometimes I do need a nap after I have lunch though - including today after a tremendous lunch at Les Elysees du Vernet - thanks to Julot for his advocacy on their behalf, because it's harder to find reliable info about the two stars!

Edited April 9, 2008 by HOLLY_L (log)

sethd · April 9, 2008

I have had numerous "doubles" in Paris over the last two years. All my meals consisted of the tasting menus. A couple of things: It is a lot easier to do big lunches followed by big dinners in the spring or summer rather than the winter. You must be well motivated and walk before and after the meals. Some of my classic combinations were Arpge and Guy Savoy; L'ambroisie and Le Bristol. ADPA and Guy Savoy.

Dave Hatfield · April 9, 2008

←

HOLLY, what a terrific & well thought out response to my post.

Well done!

Other responses well thought out as well. I think I'm beginning to understand your motivations better. Thank You.

nibor · April 9, 2008

I agree with all above (Except Dave - who may be spoiled from living in Rural France!). This thread makes me want to hop on a plane. We ate our way through Alcase Lorraine over the course of a week last year. We can only dream about that now that we are home eating, well, whatever.

Peter Green · April 9, 2008

Holly summed everything up as well as can be done.

If you've committed to that horrible time in a flying tube, then you want to optimize your time outside of the airborne cocoon as best you can.

And that means, if you're at all sensible, eating well.

I, of course, am a (an?) horrible wastrel.

But I do try to eat well, when I'm not in need of a nap.

:biggrin:

tupac17616 · April 9, 2008

Frankly, I doubt many of the people who are hitting a whole bunch of Michelin stars in one trip are doing it for trophies or oneupmanship - they're doing it because they're serious about this sort of dining, and want to have experience at many of the great restaurants as possible.

agreed

ameiden · April 9, 2008

I have also experienced that if you travel somewhere for the food, you want to make the most of the short space of time that you are there. That is why I usually go for both lunch and dinner, usually at multiple-starred places.

The other point is that after the third or fourth meal my body gets used to it and on the third day both stomach and liver are almost expecting the next three star meal. Happy days ...

Edited April 9, 2008 by ameiden (log)

John Talbott · April 10, 2008

The other point is that after the third or fourth meal my body gets used to it and on the third day both stomach and liver are almost expecting the next three star meal.
←

To avoid this unpleasant and jarring transition, my old food buddy, Atar, discovered several decades ago in NYC that if you ate sausages, potatoes and kraut at Zum-Zum before embarkment, you survived much better and in those days we would trek to midtown to test this theory - it worked!

julot-les-pinceaux · April 10, 2008

I think that Dave has a point that exceptional meals should stay special and that there is a law of decreasing returns (if that is indeed his point).

Of course I am very sympathetic to travellers trying to maximise the use they make of their short sojourn. But at the same time, in my experience, having two top meals too close to one another generally means I won't be able to fully enjoy both. As I'm writing that, I'm thinking of counterexamples in my experience and maybe I should raise the number to three. Or definitely endorse the no more than one a day rule (ah, the magic of sleep...) . But there are decreasing returns.

Now as John suggests (or does he?), there are physiological issues and diversity involved, and beyond that, I make it a rule to never disqualify anybody's pleasure or tell them what they should feel. So, good for you, anmeiden, ajgnet.

But most top meals, at least traditional ones are conceived as feasts, as exceptional parties. As we are a ridiculously abundant society (in general and in e Gullet in particular), we and others have come to have a more casual approach to exceptional meals and exceptional food.

Again, I don't want to go after anybody's pleasure. But at the same time, I believe that some restaurants' success is precisely due to the fact that they address overfed, blasé clients and mostly critiques. Places like Gagnaire or l'Astrance are actually designed for frequent top-restaurant goers -- the former because it is guaranteed to take you out ouf the boredom of excellent food every day, the latter because it is so light and subtle. Some address blasé brains, some tired stomachs. Both are ever changing. Barbot the other day told me he hates to make the same dish twice, and surely Gagnaire would agree.

Conversely (and that's a bigger deal for me), I think exceptional traditional places like Rostang or Bocuse tend to be overlooked because of our food habits --- old style food is better enjoyed when one is actually hungry. When was the last time that happened already?

Edited April 10, 2008 by julot-les-pinceaux (log)

HOLLY_L · April 10, 2008

Julot is no doubt right that something may be lost when many special dining experiences are forced into a relatively short time period. For example, I have found that details of certain restaurants or dishes may be lost or conflated in my memory.

That being said, I also think it’s possible that something may sometimes be added when one eats at a number of great restaurants in a short time period – a sort of forced distillation of opinions and an ability to see clearly which meals are truly exceptional, and which are not (which is itself a subjective evaluation to be sure). Thus, from my first trip to Paris last May, I remember my lunch at L’Ambroisie most clearly, and it fell right into the middle of my trip, and clearly did not suffer for its position. Whether the restaurants I ate at on either side of it suffered is a more difficult question.

I suppose the question is whether these distilled opinions or comparisons are more or less accurate than the opinions formed over visits to restaurants over a period of months or years. I suspect that the distilled opinions are most accurate when it comes to identifying what are (in one’s subjective view) the best experiences (or the “great” three stars or whatever as referenced in another thread), but that it may lead one to inaccurately discount the good but not excellent experiences at (again in one’s subjective view) the next tier (“good” three stars). (I also think the distilled opinions probably are pretty accurate in identifying any experiences that one dislikes (“bad” three stars). (Not that I limit my dining to three-stars only, just referring to the other thread specifically about three stars – there are of course, two-stars that I subjectively rate higher than some three-stars.))

At any rate, when we eventually develop Star-Trek-type transporter technology, I’m sure dining experiences, including of those eGulleters who are committed to this sort of dining, at great restaurants will be generally more spread out. But even then, here may still be a place for this sort of compressed dining schedule.

For example, when I am on vacation, I want maximum enjoyment and relaxation. Some people like to go to the beach for that, but for me, one of my favorite parts of vacation is the dining. So even if there were a transporter-option, my vacations would probably still feature a surplus of great dining restaurants – if not quite so many scheduled as I do currently.

As to julot's question re hunger, I find that my appetite is pretty much restored a day after one of these meals. I also think any restaurant is best enjoyed when one is hungry. But even with this sort of compressed schedule of dining, and even if I sometimes feel full beyond belief at the end of some of these meals, I am generally restored and hungry again by the time the next day rolls around. Again though, I personally do one big meal a day, generally just a little fruit or cheese or something otherwise. I can't manage the two blowout meals in a day.

Simon_S · April 10, 2008

I've done 2 "hardcore" food trips, both reasonably short (4 days), and I don't intend to do another for all the reasons you might expect. So here are my honest answers:

? How does one do it? Without indigestion, being bloated and just plain into overload.
←

As I discovered, I quite simply can't. I suffered indigestion, bloat, overload and general revulsion at food as the trips continued. I found myself fantasising about dinners containing only plain rice and the like. Munching back Zantak and Rennies like there's no tomorrow can't be good for you. Still, a glass of champagne does wonders for your appetite.

? Why do it? Why not spread the pleasure over a longer time period? Multiple visits to Paris?
←

Because time is not easy to come by. One of the trips I mentioned was to New York, my first visit there in 7 years. There were a *lot* of places that I wanted to sample, and by the time I got back to NY who knew if said places would still even be there.

Of course, there is an element of wanting to take in the big-hitters. It's like going to the Louvre and running up and down the corridors to see the 5 most famous paintings as quickly as possible, then leaving after 20 minutes. It's not the ideal situation, but if you've only got 20 minutes in the Louvre, what are you to do?

? Is it really enjoyable to eat that much fine food in such a short period of time?
←

Sometimes no, but sometimes yes, as it affords a unique ability to make comparisons and spot patterns in a way you wouldn't normally. For me, though, there's no doubt that I enjoy having such meals much more in relative isolation.

Si

Bu Pun Su · April 10, 2008

I have had numerous "doubles" in Paris over the last two years. All my meals consisted of the tasting menus. A couple of things: It is a lot easier to do big lunches followed by big dinners in the spring or summer rather than the winter. You must be well motivated and walk before and after the meals. Some of my classic combinations were Arpge and Guy Savoy; L'ambroisie and Le Bristol. ADPA and Guy Savoy.
←

How do you decide a good combination in 2 or 3-star "restaurants pairings"? Is it because one complemented the other or even go the opposite?

Julot, could you share more about Michel Rostang? How's it as of these days?

Edited April 10, 2008 by Bu Pun Su (log)

julot-les-pinceaux · April 10, 2008

I found myself fantasising about dinners containing only plain rice and the like.

You know that is not the worst thing from time to time...

Munching back Zantak and Rennies like there's no tomorrow

... but this is. :biggrin:

if you've only got 20 minutes in the Louvre, what are you to do?

I'm to focus on one room. Me.

julot-les-pinceaux · April 10, 2008

Julot, could you share more about Michel Rostang? How's it as of these days?
←

You know it is at the top of its game... for people who like it (I sure do). But I have no idea how appealing or enjoyable it can be for non-French. To me it feels like an extraordinary party, with tons of infinitely familiar yet excellent food. People are nice and generous, you feel looked after and taken care of. There something grandmother-ish about the place, with its huge common dish of Gratin Dauphinois for all tables, of which you ask as many refills as you want/can.

In terms of culinary style, this is pre-Bocuse. It makes you understand why/how Bocuse was nouvelle cuisine, with lightened preparations and clearer tastes. But it is delicious. The plates look more or less modern, but the repertoire is ancient. And dishes rotate quite often as Rostang reacts to the markets and try to make the best of it. Ingredients are top-notch, cooking is traditional (meaning more cooked than we care to) but precise. Big specialties include the Lobster, the quenelle de brochet (yum), the canard au sang.

The place is way too expensive for me at dinner. I would totally go with friends if I could. But I can't afford it. The lunch menu is great value and is by no way a subpar experience, so I really think this is the way to go.

I reviewed Rostang here

You should not expect a dazzling experience at Rostang -- but a warm, very generous, very homey yet fine dining one.

Bu Pun Su · April 10, 2008

Thanks for the reply Julot, learning new things about Michel Rostang

Just visit the website, the "lobster" menu is incredibly expensive given the fact that it's "only" 2-star and not that popular nowadays, The seasonal tasting menu are closed to L'Astrance surprised menu

What are your fav. 2-star in Paris at the moment? Rostang, Senderens, Bristol or Vernet?

Another "advantage" of having 3-star meal in a short period of time would be ... one could do a more direct comparison since you're more likely to remember mostly of what you just eat as well as the overall experience

sethd · April 10, 2008

I have had numerous "doubles" in Paris over the last two years. All my meals consisted of the tasting menus. A couple of things: It is a lot easier to do big lunches followed by big dinners in the spring or summer rather than the winter. You must be well motivated and walk before and after the meals. Some of my classic combinations were Arpge and Guy Savoy; L'ambroisie and Le Bristol. ADPA and Guy Savoy.
←
How do you decide a good combination in 2 or 3-star "restaurants pairings"? Is it because one complemented the other or even go the opposite?
Julot, could you share more about Michel Rostang? How's it as of these days?
←

Actually, I made the reservations over the course of a month or so. Really, no thought was put into the planning of my meals. All I knew was that I wanted to eat at the best that Paris had to offer. As mentioned, if I return to paris during the winter, when the food is heavier, I might change my plans. All I know is that Arpege, ADPA, Guy Savoy, and Ledoyen will always be on the list

robyn · April 10, 2008

Like most things - I think this question is personal. But my husband and I could never eat more than 1 "big deal" meal in a country like France or a city like New York every 2 or 3 days or even more. Without - at best - feeling bloated - or - at worst - getting sick (like head over the toilet sick - too much rich food can do that to you). And that was true even when we were a lot younger than we are now.

I have to say that there are some countries - like Japan - where one can eat "big deal" meals every day (if by "big deal" you mean excellent or exquisite food). That is because the cuisine is a lot lighter than most and the portions are small. You can have a whole kaiseki meal - lots and lots of courses - where there isn't an ounce of fat in the whole thing - maybe 900 calories for the whole meal - and be hungry for breakfast the next morning. It is the only vacation I've taken where I've eaten everything I wanted to eat (including wonderful sweets) - and came home a couple of pounds lighter than when I left. And feeling great. Curiously - if one eats traditional Italian meals in Italy (a salad - a bit of pasta - a roasted bird) - they are not as light as those in Japan - but they are pretty light compared to many in other countries - lighter than one would think.

Just FWIW - we will be in Paris for about 9 days this fall. Doubt we will have more than 2 or 3 "big deal" meals. Although I am sure we will eat well during the whole trip.

The answer to trying to cram everything into a short trip is travel more often. Or stretch out your time horizon from this year to the rest of your life. I am sure I have missed a whole lot over the decades because I like to "travel slow". But I have very much enjoyed most of what I've seen - done - and eaten. And if I only had 20 minutes to see the Louvre - I think I would go back and figure out why I done such a lousy job of planning my trip! Robyn

julot-les-pinceaux · April 11, 2008

Thanks for the reply Julot, learning new things about Michel Rostang
Just visit the website, the "lobster" menu is incredibly expensive given the fact that it's "only" 2-star and not that popular nowadays, The seasonal tasting menu are closed to L'Astrance surprised menu
What are your fav. 2-star in Paris at the moment? Rostang, Senderens, Bristol or Vernet?
Another "advantage" of having 3-star meal in a short period of time would be ... one could do a more direct comparison since you're more likely to remember mostly of what you just eat as well as the overall experience
←

BPS: As I wrote somewhere else, les Elysées was my favourite 2* restaurant, until now, as I think that chef Briffard is comparable to Pacaud or Passard.

I don't believe that close comparisons are a factor of objectivity. I think that, on the opposite, they are a source of distortion. A big part of the pleasure in a top restaurant, like with any cultural activity, needs to be processed over time. Often I don't really know what an experience was worth until a few days later. Of course I can judge some facts immediately -- was that fish fresh, overcooked, etc. But when it comes to the overall experience, I think that some memory and some distance are needed to consolidate it, that it make you closer to the truth.

Dave Hatfield · April 11, 2008

Again, thanks to all for their considered and considerate replies.

You've got me thinking about another somewhat related topic, but one which I'll make into another thread.

PhilD · April 12, 2008

When we moved from Paris last year we drew up a list of all the restaurants we had wanted to try, and those old favorites we wanted to visit before we left. By the time we got to the last week we had booked a full programme of dinners and a few lunches.

Even though we had physicaly working hard (prepareing a big apartment for packingpacking) we got two thirds of the way through the week and started to struggle to continue eating. We perseverd, but as a result I don't think we really enjoyed some of the restaurants as much as we should have.

We went to Spring early in week and really enjoyed it, but Senderens was towards the end and it hasn't resonated. It looked good, it felt good, it tasted good, but it isn't a meal I remember that fondly. My suspicion is that our critical senses were dulled, we had reached overload. What should have been a really good meal was "so so". I do plan to return because I feel it should be a great memory and I feel I have missed out (prompted by Julot).

I often read comments from people who haven't enjoyed restaurants that I have liked, often they have been made by people on eating marathons. I wonder if this is a factor? Should you ever trust a review in these circumstances?

julot-les-pinceaux · April 12, 2008

In general I think we can't trust a bad review unless it is based on facts -- say faulty cooking, ingredient or service. Moreover, I think that the one who enjoys a place is always more right than the one who does not.