Doggie Bags

[britcook]

The doggy bag is one of those things Europeans find amusing about America.

Why?

Because of the number of spurious reasons Americans will find to justify this habit in attempt to conceal the real reason which is fundamental greed. When a European goes out for a meal he or she will order/expect sufficient food to be served which will satisfy them for that meal (not that meal, the next and probably the two after that), not the typical American portion which would seem to be enough to satisfy two Sumo wrestlers who have been starved for three days. There is of course the European hangover of food shortages when clearing your plate was a sensible thing to do, there wasn't much on it and you were never quite sure what was going to be on the next one, if indeed there was going to be a next one. Waste not want not is an admirable philosophy, the European approach seems to be buy, serve and eat sufficient for keeping healthy, the American approach seems to be buy and serve big and then take whatever is left of a gargantuan portion home for later.

And of course there's the quality question. A decent piece of leftover steak can provide a decent meal in all sorts of ways but personally I find that the reheated remains of congealed leftovers is rather less than appealing, particularly if it has been plated and then scraped off into some kind of foil container.

[tommy]

since some people think that leftovers can be avoided, can they please tell me what the "correct" portion size would be at a restaurant?

just wondering.

Edited February 12, 2003 by tommy (log)

[s'kat]

Its not like I want to toss them.  They usually sit in the fridge for a while because I rarely like to eat the same thing for two meals in a row. 

My husband feels exactly the same way, and he almost always has leftovers.

I've never had a problem with leftovers, or re-using them either the next day or later in the week. I've always been somewhat suspicious of food that has been sitting in the fridge for too long, so I will often freeze my leftovers (if they are freezeable), and have them for a future lunch or dinner.

[Rosie]

" Zoes has been trying out different cookies. Only ate there once.

sorry rosie but two times and no cookies for us either time."

Well--I don't know the reason but perhaps they were trying out the cookies the night we were there and then decided not to serve them with the coffee. Problem is that when someone reports they ate something and there is a policy change it can cause hard feelings.

I'll get back to Zoes eventually as I thought the food was excellent and will let you know if any extras come with dessert. We ate everything and I don't remember the portions being small. One friend brought home a doggie bag.

[s'kat]

waste not want not is an admirable philosophy, the European approach seems to be buy, serve and eat sufficient for keeping healthy, the American approach seems to be buy and serve big and then take whatever is left of a gargantuan portion home for later.

When I was a wee, fresh-faced young lass of 18, I had the opportunity to spend three years in the Netherlands. I remember being shocked at the difference in not only meal sizes, but specifically, how small every beverage I ordered seemed. I couldn't believe that these hardy, tall Dutch folks subsisted on 'so little'.

It was even more taxing to go through reverse culture-shock when I had to return to the States. I suspiciously eyed the ridiculously enormous supermarkets and super shopping centers with distate. I was very annoyed when I ordered a beverage, and the smallest glass they could come up with was the size of a tennis-ball can. It took me years to get over it.

Unfortunately, I did, and now shop at Costco regularly.

[britcook]

To maintain regular weight for a healthy guy the average daily calorie intake should be in the region of 3000, slightly less for a woman. Now assuming that you eat out on a regular basis and not just once in a while as a "treat" then what you eat at any given meal should enable you stay within these limits. If your main meal is eaten out I would think that in total it should add up to no more than 2000 calories with a reasonable balance between carbs, proteins and fats. So a 12 ounce broiled sirloin would take half of that so the rest of your meal should add up to 1000 calories. There are many ways of achieving a "reasonable" diet, and I'm not talking "strictly follow the guidelines healthy" diet, but the start of this is to have reasonable portions which stay (more or less) within the RDA guidelines for calorie and fat intakes.

[tommy]

To maintain regular weight for a healthy guy the average daily calorie intake should be in the region of 3000, slightly less for a woman. Now assuming that you eat out on a regular basis and not just once in a while as a "treat" then what you eat at any given meal should enable you stay within these limits. If your main meal is eaten out I would think that in total it should add up to no more than 2000 calories with a reasonable balance between carbs, proteins and fats. So a 12 ounce broiled sirloin would take half of that so the rest of your meal should add up to 1000 calories. There are many ways of achieving a "reasonable" diet, and I'm not talking "strictly follow the guidelines healthy" diet, but the start of this is to have reasonable portions which stay (more or less) within the RDA guidelines for calorie and fat intakes.

OK. and what's the "correct" portion size for everyone at every meal? obviously a restaurant should serve this correct size.

[MsRamsey]

Yeah, and that take on it just sucks ALL the fun and joy out of eating in a restaurant.

[britcook]

As we all know there is no "correct" size for everybody, but in the steak example if you wanted to build something close to a balanced meal around a sirloin, 12 ounces would pretty much be as big as you should go. Many US restaurants I've been to don't serve a steak of any kind that weighs under 12 ounces. Unless you're on some kind of high protein kick a 24 ounce steak is clearly too big. I don't think anybody is disputing that in general US portions are, how shall we say this, over generous.

[tommy]

steak, i think, is a unique example as its totally quantifiable.

however, i'd say that restaurants most likely don't want to serve smaller steaks, as that means smaller profits. additionally, some people do actually eat 24 ounces of meat. if you are in a situation where people are leaving hungry, they ain't coming back.

it makes sense to serve enough to appease 95% of the public. it's a win-win.

[msp]

I have no idea where these numbers come from-- 3000 calories for a man and slightly less for a woman-- but unless the man and woman are extremely active, (or have the food-lover's dream metabolism) they will both gain weight eating that much.

Typically:

A 40 year old, moderately active 160-pound, 5'11" male needs 2330 calories to maintain his weight.

A 40 year old, moderately active 134-pound, 5'5" female needs 1751 calories to maintain her weight.

A 12-ounce steak for dinner is not, by any means, a healthful portion. To stay within RDA guidelines, one would typically consume 4-5 ounces (lean) cooked protein at dinner.

This is not necessarily what the many different factions in the "diet" community would say, but it is the current truth according to the USDA. Certainly, Atkins, Zone, Pritikin, and many others disagree...about portion size, about what foods are healthful, and about everything else. But no matter how crazy the diet scheme any of these guys promote, I believe if they were hooked up to a lie detector, they would grudgingly agree caloric intake can't go too much above the guidelines above. These diet-promoters will tell you their diets work for a million reasons, but ultimately, most would admit (perhaps under torture) that THEIR foods satisfy you so you consume fewer calories.

[tommy]

A 40 year old...160-pound, 5'11" male

[Suzanne F]

'Smatter, Big T, just get some sad news?

The points Britcook makes are mostly valid, at least regarding the ludicrously large portions in "average" restaurants here. But when one approaches those portions with the mindset of "I paid for it, it's ALL mine, I want my money's worth" then the result is either overeating or bringing the excess home. I'm for the latter, obviously. But I can usually determine before I start eating which bits will work better later, and so eat up the glommy stuff that won't be any good re-worked.

At any rate, nobody is forcing you to take anything home. Except, curiously enough, Ducasse, with the bag of lollipops and pastry for the next day. How do you explain that???

[Ron Johnson]

A 40 year old, moderately active 160-pound, 5'11" male needs 2330 calories to maintain his weight.

Is this a recently rescued POW, or a GQ model?

I am 5'11" and have never weighed 160 lbs at that height, and I am not overweight.

[tommy]

'Smatter, Big T, just get some sad news? 

no. in fact i found i that i'm apparently 8'3".

[msp]

'S OK, Tommy, you can get off that stretching rack. Based on BMI (Body Mass Index) projections, you can be anywhere up to about 180 pounds at 6-feet and still be under the dreaded 25% body fat. And at 5'9" you can be up to about 169 pounds. (the weights are approximate, give or take 2-3 pounds).

The 25% BMI is where the health issues start coming in to play.

I would much rather talk about food and wine than this, though.

[britcook]

I have no idea where these numbers come from-- 3000 calories for a man and slightly less for a woman-- but unless the man and woman are extremely active, (or have the food-lover's dream metabolism) they will both gain weight eating that much.

I did assume that the weights were higher and rounded up for simplicity. All the rest of your post I agree with, personally I tend to go for a 5 - 6 ounce filet as part of a meal and split a 10 - 12 ounce sirloin. My point was, and still is, restaurants put too much food on the plate. For a normal appetite doggie bags should not be necessary.

[tommy]

My point was, and still is, restaurants put too much food on the plate. For a normal appetite doggie bags should not be necessary.

define "normal" in the context of an appetite at a restaurant.

regards,

chubby.

[SobaAddict70]

Normal for me used to be going hog wild at "all you can eat sushi" places when I was in my early to mid-twenties.

Then I had an epiphany, so I've since recanted.

That said, I can still go hog wild but I'm not terribly interested in doing that anymore. Sort of like drowning in a sea of uni.

SA

[britcook]

My point was, and still is, restaurants put too much food on the plate. For a normal appetite doggie bags should not be necessary.

define "normal" in the context of an appetite at a restaurant.

If it's your regular mealtime and you've not been starving yourself or snacking (again!) then if you can eat all that is put in front of you and go away feeling comfortable, not stuffed and not hungry then that's normal. If the diners round you are doing much the same then you can figure the restaurant and you have got it right. This is not a "Plotnicki - esque" venture into definition to the nth degree, it may be difficult to place precisely but most people will have a fair idea of where we're at.

[tommy]

If it's your regular mealtime and you've not been starving yourself or snacking (again!) then if you can eat all that is put in front of you and go away feeling comfortable, not stuffed and not hungry then that's normal.

i fail to see how this could possibly be generalized.

or rather, more specifically, i fail to see how this could describe an amount of food that would bring everyone to that same feeling of comfort, not stuffed, and not hungry.

i present to you 201...

Edited February 13, 2003 by tommy (log)

[201]

Britcook - I understand that you're trying to make the argument that American portion sizes are too large, but it seems to me that you've somewhat eliminated relativity from the discussion.

Should a 13 year old boy going through a growth spurt be given the same portion as his 83 year old grandmother? Even if their weights may be the same, their appetites are going to differ. As MSP pointed out, 3000 calories seems pretty high for an average man, but it could conceivably be low for a very active weight-lifter. I have friends whose caloric intake was much higher and yet their body fat remained close to 8%.

The point is... why not give diners the benefit of the doubt in knowing when their hunger is satiated rather than telling them when it is? I feel it's much more sensible to give the larger portion size with the option of bringing any excess home (or giving it to the homeless) rather than simply telling a hungry diner, "well, you SHOULDN'T be hungry and therefore you're wrong".

Stomach sizes vary, activity levels vary, appetites vary, and it just makes good sense to cover the bases, doesn't it? In any case, I've never been to Britain, but I haven't eaten any meals in Germany, Austria, or the Netherlands which have been noticeably smaller than their American counterparts. Maybe I should've ordered more steaks.

[Bux]

There's the old cliche of the waiter in the fancy restaurant wrapping leftovers in foil, then forming the foil into the shape of a swan.  I know I've seen this in old movies.  Thus, it seems to me that it has been de rigeur for people to take leftovers home from fine restaurants for a very long time.

Let's not confuse "fancy" with "fine." I woudn't be surprised if some wouldn't describe a fancy restaurant as one where they wrap your leftovers in foil package resembling a swan and a fine restaurant as one where the clientele doesn't take home leftovers.

[britcook]

Britcook - I understand that you're trying to make the argument that American portion sizes are too large, but it seems to me that you've somewhat eliminated relativity from the discussion.

Well yes and er, no. Portions in the US always seemed to be geared to the active weight lifter rather than the 83 year old granny. I remember a meal in Buckhead, Atlanta when one of the dishes on offer which looked attractive consisted of "two 6 ounce filets" with some kind of sauce. I thought that at half the size it would just suit me (it's not that I'm a great steak fan, but all the other dishes looked too huge) and as it was two steaks I asked the waiter if I could just have a single 6 ounce steak. He thought I was from a different planet. I pointed out that I would only eat one and it would be a waste of good food to cook and serve two when one would be returned untouched (and I was flying out the following day on business so a doggie bag was out of the question). After a long discussion he finally agreed and I ate the single steak with pleasure, just enough with the rest of the meal to make a satisfying experience. Now that's my point, as it normally stands you have very little choice but to take the mega portion. Fine if that's what you want but it wouldn't hurt to at least have the option of smaller portions when the dish gave the opportunity. European portions? I've dined in most European countries and even in Germany, which seems to have the most generous servings, they were still smaller than their American counterparts.

As for leaving it to the diner to know when they are satiated, well the figures for obesity in the US tell their own story, and I'm far from a skinny person so I know how easy it is to overeat, even with smaller portions.

And back to doggie bags, we still find the habit amusing, but if you're all happy with it who are we to criticise, enjoy!

Edited February 13, 2003 by britcook (log)

[Jaymes]

...but if you're all happy with it who are we to criticise...