Doggie Bags

[Gavin Jones]

does anyone know why there is such a difference in the portions in the UK and US?

I can tell you that it is generally considered to be a result of the rampant, healthy, hearty and wildly enthusiastic capitalism upon which our, thus far, fairly successful country was founded.

I am hugely intrigued by the differing portion size being down to capitalism.

1. The level of obesity and, separately, the wastage implicit in doggie-bagging suggest an inefficient use of capital.

2. Was there a significant increase in 'All-you-can-eat' restaurants in the UK during Mrs Thatcher's Friedmannesque activities.

3. Is the existence of the Pasta course down to Gramsci, Mussolini or, more sinisterly, P2?

4. Are their religious strictures enjoining Americans to doggie-bag?

[tommy]

1. The level of obesity and, separately, the wastage implicit in doggie-bagging suggest an inefficient use of capital.

gavin,

if eating the leftovers is implicit to the process, then surely waste can no be implicit to the process.

Edited February 14, 2003 by tommy (log)

[Ron Johnson]

Ron, can I move to your Europe?

No, apparently there is already a shortage of 2 stars as it is. Sorry.

[Miss J]

if eating the leftovers is implicit to the process, than surely waste can no be implicit to the process.

But even if eating the leftovers, are you not paying over the odds for your next-day's lunch?

[Gavin Jones]

Storage costs. Reheating. And I thought people earlier in the thread suggested that though they intended to eat the leftovers this didn't always happen.

And why is it called a doggie-bag when clearly it is a tommy-bag?

[tommy]

But even if eating the leftovers, are you not paying over the odds for your next-day's lunch? 

you haven't seen me eat lunch. clearly.

[tommy]

Storage costs. Reheating. And I thought people earlier in the thread suggested that though they intended to eat the leftovers this didn't always happen.

And why is it called a doggie-bag when clearly it is a tommy-bag?

gavin, surely you can't be suggesting that there's a notable cost involved in putting a container in the refrigerator and then in the microwave the next day.

as far as the habits of the food-obsessed people on this site re eating leftovers, it might be naive to think that they are representative.

i don't eat leftovers. so no, it certainly should not be called a "tommy bag." however, i'll assume that your comment was light-hearted and in a tone appropriate for this high-brow discussion.

[Ron Johnson]

Ok, we seem to have nailed down the reasons for obesity in america.

So, whats the excuse for all the fat Europeans? Clearly, its not portion size or leftovers.

[Miss J]

So, whats the excuse for all the fat Europeans?  Clearly, its not portion size or leftovers.

Goose fat. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Edit: Okay, speaking personally. But my weight has indeed started to creep up ever since I became a goose fat convert.

Edited February 14, 2003 by Miss J (log)

[Kikujiro]

So, whats the excuse for all the fat Europeans?  Clearly, its not portion size or leftovers.

It does seem that we're catching you guys up (along with the Germans, the Czechs, and Russian women).

Stats.

[Gavin Jones]

So, whats the excuse for all the fat Europeans?  Clearly, its not portion size

Their tiny portions leave them gagging for a big mac on the way home from the restaurant.

[Tonyfinch]

So, whats the excuse for all the fat Europeans?  Clearly, its not portion size or leftovers.

Drink.

[Ron Johnson]

So, whats the excuse for all the fat Europeans?  Clearly, its not portion size or leftovers.

Drink.

Well, if nothing else, at least the Europeans have their priorities in order.

[Charlene Leonard]

charlene, i see that you've mentioned "waste" several times in your posts.  that is indeed a fine issue with which to be concerned.  but i don't see how it fits very neatly into a thread that is essentially about taking food home and (hopefully) eating it later.

blimey, Tommy telling me to stay on topic

[tommy]

blimey, Tommy telling me to stay on topic

like i always say, never let the thread topic get in the way of a good argument.

[Nockerl]

You'll see that the article talks about how Americans spend 46% of their food dollars on meals outside the home, which includes to-go and prepared foods brought into the home.

i didn't doubt that a study said this. but don't think that this equates to 46% of meals eaten out of the home, or to-go, or take-out (away).

But Tommy it's been all over the media--the cover of major weekly news magazines, newspapers, etc. This link is but one recent report.

that doesn't mean that "It is generally accepted that the two largest contributing factors to the increase in obesity in the US in larger portion sizes (Supersizing of sodas, french fries, and restaurant meals) and lack of excersis."

what the above quote says is that people get fat because they eat too much and don't exercise. it doesn't say "people get fat because restaurants' portions are too big." there's a distinct difference there, and one which is important to this dicussion, if one thinks this discussion is important.

If lack of exercise and larger portions aren't the 2 largest contributors to obesity then what are? They are definitely among the top 5 I would think (and we are not even talking about other complications of obesity such as type 2 diabetes.).

Larger portions eaten at home and those from restaurants, take-away, etc. are major obesity contributors. Yes, we all have a choice as to the amount we take in but we are talking about the general public, many of whom are not well informed as to the correct portion size, the effect of exercise or lack their of on their weight and general health. SO that 46% of food dollars spent on meals out plays pretty substantially. Especially when you consider that meals out tend to be much higher in calories, fat (esp. sat fat) and sugar. The average diner is not eating out the way you or I might but is taking in meals at McDonald's, Burger King, Olive Garden, etc. Consider that a Big Mac has 590 Calories, 47 grams of carbs, 24 grams protein and a hefty 34g of fat(11g sat fat)(that's 53% of calories from fat). Combine that with a supersize fries (610 calories, 21 g fat, {5 sat fat} 46% cal from fat, and a supersize coke (410 calories) and you've got over a 1600 calorie lunch. That is over half of the daily calories for the average man and several days worth of fat. That type of meal is not contributing to obesity?

You said that you eat out on average of 10 times a week. Are you at your ideal body weight in medical terms. In other words is your BMI within the range of what would be considered normal for your body type (height, weight, etc)? YOu very well might be, but you are not the average American diner.

I know from personal experience, and I am an avid exercise enthusiast, that when I take in larger portions of food I gain weight. However, I know the consequences of these actions and try to eat moderate portions.

edited to point out that is is probably not on topice because it is addressing meal size and obesity rather than doggie bags.....ooops

edited to calm tommy down

Edited February 14, 2003 by Nockerl (log)

[tommy]

SO that 46% of meals out plays pretty substantially.

ugh. it didn't say "46% of meals are eaten out" you dimwit. it said "46% of food dollars is spent out."

i can't argue with you if you're going to infuriate me by ignoring the obvious.

...but i will...

If lack of exercise and larger portions aren't the 2 largest contributors to obesity then what are?

i didn't say that over-eating and lack of exercise aren't, in my mind, causes of obesity. where did i say that?

Edited February 14, 2003 by tommy (log)

[Nockerl]

[quote= you dimwit. 

i can't argue with you if you're going to infuriate me by ignoring the obvious. 

name calling is not very nice........I"m gonna tell my ombudsman on you

[Wilfrid]

Now, listen, assuming there are just over 100 2 stars in Paris, serving 150 covers per day each - an overestimate - that means 230,000...oh...

100x150 = 15,000

15,000 x 7 = 105,100

105,500 x 4 = 422,000

He said twice a month, remember. And half 422,000 is, er, about 230,000.

[Nockerl]

If lack of exercise and larger portions aren't the 2 largest contributors to obesity then what are?

i didn't say that over-eating and lack of exercise aren't, in my mind, causes of obesity. where did i say that?

i didn't say you said that. I was referring to the fact that you said they weren't the 2 most important factors. and here is the qoute where you said it (8:29 am EST)

that doesn't mean that "It is generally accepted that the two largest contributing factors to the increase in obesity in the US in larger portion sizes (Supersizing of sodas, french fries, and restaurant meals) and lack of excersis."

and that is what I was referring to. I wasn't saying you didn't think them factors.

Edited February 14, 2003 by Nockerl (log)

[Charlene Leonard]

that doesn't mean that "It is generally accepted that the two largest contributing factors to the increase in obesity in the US in larger portion sizes (Supersizing of sodas, french fries, and restaurant meals) and lack of excersis."

what the above quote says is that people get fat because they eat too much and don't exercise.  it doesn't say "people get fat because restaurants' portions are too big."  there's a distinct difference there, and one which is important to this dicussion, if one thinks this discussion is important. 

OK, we are all in agreement that in general people get fat because they eat too much and exercise too little. Tommy, you seem to be saying that this has nothing to do with large portions but what I am trying to say is that if some people are giving the opportunity to eat 'just one more mouthful' because it is there in front of them sometimes they are going to and this is going to result in obesity for some people. I am not, repeat not, saying that everyone who eats out is fat or that all Americans are fat but in my logical brain there has to be some connection.

[g.johnson]

Correlation is not causation. It strikes me to be just as likely that Americans expect big portions in restaurants because they eat big portions at home, as vice versa.

Edited February 14, 2003 by g.johnson (log)

[Nockerl]

that doesn't mean that "It is generally accepted that the two largest contributing factors to the increase in obesity in the US in larger portion sizes (Supersizing of sodas, french fries, and restaurant meals) and lack of excersis."

what the above quote says is that people get fat because they eat too much and don't exercise.  it doesn't say "people get fat because restaurants' portions are too big."  there's a distinct difference there, and one which is important to this dicussion, if one thinks this discussion is important. 

OK, we are all in agreement that in general people get fat because they eat too much and exercise too little. Tommy, you seem to be saying that this has nothing to do with large portions but what I am trying to say is that if some people are giving the opportunity to eat 'just one more mouthful' because it is there in front of them sometimes they are going to and this is going to result in obesity for some people. I am not, repeat not, saying that everyone who eats out is fat or that all Americans are fat but in my logical brain there has to be some connection.

Well put

and my point was that restaurant portions are definitely a contributing factor because so many food dollars are spent dining out. But the real culprits are over-eating (AT HOME OR OUT)and lack of exercise.

Famous last words "I'll just have one last bite......"

[tommy]

Correlation is not causation. It strikes me to be just as likely that Americans expect big portions in restaurants because they eat big portions at home, as vice versa.

and i'm sure some expect big portions because they're cheap bastards and want "their money's worth." although that might describe british more than americans.

[MsRamsey]

I happen to have the 2/7/03 issue of Science in front of me. The main subject of this issue is obesity. It's worth reading.

The articles and their intros:

"Cellular Warriors at the Battle of the Bulge: Researchers are picking apart the molecular signals the body uses to regulate its weight -- work that may lead to new antiobesity drugs"

"Obesity Drug Pipeline Not So Fat: Eating right and exercising be damned; the search is on for drugs that can control obesity"

"Obesity and the Environment: Where Do We Go from Here?" (This is the story that has been in the news for the past couple of weeks having to do with achieving "small changes in behavior, such as 15 minutes per day of walking or eating a few less bites at each meal.")

"A War on Obesity, Not the Obese: In their efforts to lose weight, obese individuals may be fighting a powerful set of evolutionary forces honed in an environment drastically different from that of today"

"A Clinical View of the Obesity Problem"