Portions

[Tonyfinch]

It may be that I'm just a fat greedy b.....d but in a couple of London restaurants recently I've been aghast at the tiny portions I've been served up. Scallops as a starter now seems to mean one scallop,or two at most. Two or three weeny slices of potato are normal with main courses. At a trendy North London eaterie the other day I could have placed all three courses on tablespoons and downed them in one.

I don't want huge portions in restaurants but I'm beginning to wonder if restaurants have cottoned on to the fact that 99% of people in the Western world obsess about their weight and are only too pleased to be served up tiny portions that won't bust their various diets.Helps keep costs down too.

[Simon Majumdar]

Tony, I think you are 100% correct, you are a fat, greedy b***ard.

Seriously though, I know what you mean

Lola's - the portions were Lilliputian and I suspect this is to compensate for how much they are paying jones. It is like a football team from the lower leagues splashing out all their cash on a star player but having to cut corners elsewhere to make up for it.

A recent visit to St John also saw my first indication that they were exercising portion control. Against the very spirit of the place, I would argue.

NY seems worse, unless you go to an ethnic restaurant, the food barely troubles to hide the pattern on the plate.

The only time I ( or to be truthful, Robin ) complained was at The Clerkenwell Dining Room, where the menu described the Suckling Pig as " three slices of....." What turned up was A slice..... When pointed out that there was a porcine paucity, more was brought without question, but I wonder how many people would have complained?

I think we are being gypped

S

[John Whiting]

I haven't encountered this except in London -- but "don' get around much any more". It could have to do with the fact (at least I think it's a fact) that London contains so many rich totally ignorant punters that practically any concept or anti-concept will sell, providing it's expensive enough.

[jaybee]

There are more than few places in New York that serve terrible food and such small portions too.

[Bux]

You're right jaybee. Truth is that when the food is great, I want small portions and a tasting menu so I can try many things. When the food's not so good, I may as well fill up on the bread, rice, potatoes or pasta. Big portions are like loud music. I don't go to a restaurant primarily to fill up. I'm not getting any more music when it's loud and I'm not getting any more dinner when the portions are gross. I don't need to leave a restaurant stuffed to the gills. When the portions are small, I tend to savor the bites I take and thus I feel smaller portions actually help me appreciate the food.

[Simon Majumdar]

I think there is a big difference between having a small portion of a number of dishes to allow you to try a variety of flavours and a tiny portion of your main dish of the evening.

I like the idea of "small plates" for example at Club Gascon. It allows you to sample a large number of dishes in one evening without breaking the bank of ordering too much.

But, ordering a main course and having it come out with a microscope is a different matter.

S

[JSD]

Recently in the news, health organizations have decried the "supersizing" of portions that have also supersized Americans. Not unrelated, is Southwest's announcement that supersized passengers will pay for the seats they occupy, two if necessary.

[Simon Majumdar]

Again there is a big difference between offering a fair portion of whatever it is people have ordered and "supersizing"

Doubling the amount of food ( and in the case of Fast Food, the fat, additives etc ) for a few $$ is one thing and, I would hazard at the root of many of the health scares amongst the more disenfrachised of western society.

What Tony is talking about is good old fashioned value for money.

I guess this is subjective, what I would consider a snack, some emaciated supermodel would consider a weeks worth of throwing up.

S

[Bux]

Simon, it is very subjective. I just thought I could shed some light on why I want smaller portions of good food and more of the bad.

[Wilfrid]

I may be a greedy bastard too. I have been peckish following a few multi-course tasting menus recently. Seriously, I think it may be because of the absence of starch/carbohydrate from many of these menus. Raw tuna does not fill much of a hole.

[Tonyfinch]

At Lola's,which Simon mentions above,I watched as two chain smoking stick thin women at the next table were served their starters. One might have just said something funny but I would bet money on the fact that their beaming smiles were due to the miniscule portions and the blissful realisation that they were not going to have to eat very much that night.

Seems these days some people would rather contract lung cancer than put on a couple of pounds in weight.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

...the fact (at least I think it's a fact) that London contains so many rich totally ignorant punters that practically any concept or anti-concept will sell, providing it's expensive enough.

Whiting, you are so very and depressingly right.

[jordyn]

I'm with Bux. I like small portions. If the food's good, this lets me eat lots of different things. If the food's bad, having a lot of bad food isn't any better than having a little bad food.

I far too often end up with too much food than too little, so maybe my appetite is just not hearty enough.

[mynamejoe]

Too many chefs in the US see pictures of these tiny portions of food, then seek to emulate that. When questioned they say it's based on "European-style" dining (Euro-style to them means a meal of many courses). That's fine if the plate in question is indeed part of many courses. However, when selling a plate a la carte, chefs should portion and price them so that they could stand alone as a meal. This can be done while maintaining profitability, at least I've always been able to do it.

Another problem is some chefs are greedy bastards, too. They know of the existence of the "totally ignorant punters", so they try to get away with what they can. I once worked for a chef that, before a new menu roll-out, costed out a venison dish based on a 6 ounce portion (170g). When it came time to butcher the meat, he told me to cut 4 ounce portions (114g). I said "yes, chef" and went back to cutting 6 oz portions after he left. Turns out he had costed the dish based on a poor estimate of what the venison would cost. He was trying to pass off the cost of his mistake on the customers.

As to the weight-obsession issue, the only time it enters into my mind is when I'm making a new menu. I make sure to include some dishes that would interest the health-conscious customer. However, if that means these dishes will have smaller portions, the pricing of the dish should reflect that.

[John Whiting]

In Spain, of course, there is the tapas -- the original menu degustation! Small portions with small prices. I love it! From each according to his agility, to each according to his greed.

[JSD]

I'm with Bux.  I like small portions.  If the food's good, this lets me eat lots of different things.  If the food's bad, having a lot of bad food isn't any better than having a little bad food.

I far too often end up with too much food than too little, so maybe my appetite is just not hearty enough.

Although I am a life long member of the Clean Plate Club, I feel a need to state the obvious: You do not have to finish everything served to you, good, bad or indifferent.

[jordyn]

I far too often end up with too much food than too little, so maybe my appetite is just not hearty enough.

Although I am a life long member of the Clean Plate Club, I feel a need to state the obvious: You do not have to finish everything served to you, good, bad or indifferent.

Indeed. I'm in the Clean Plate Club hall of shame, as I almost always leave something on the plate. In my mind, the "too much food" I referred to is the extra food that I don't eat but that I paid for. I'd rather have a smaller portion of good food that I actually eat than a whole lot of food that I don't eat.

[Jinmyo]

As Joe said, small portions are appropriate for multi-course or tasting menus. I would like to see these become more common, as that would be an indicator that diners are becoming more interested in exploring the experience of dining. Rather than small portions becoming more common, which would be an indicator of miserliness.

[JSD]

I grew up in a family where, when we went out to eat, we were NOT ALLOWED TO ORDER THE SAME DISH. That way, we could share our different dishes. One member of my family was pretty militaristic in enforcing this. But the up side was we got to taste a lot of different things. The down side was you didn't get a lot of what you ordered.

[Wilfrid]

I grew up in a family where, when we went out to eat, we were NOT ALLOWED TO ORDER THE SAME DISH.  That way, we could share our different dishes.  One member of my family was pretty militaristic in enforcing this.  But the up side was we got to taste a lot of different things.  The down side was you didn't get a lot of what you ordered.

Much the same eating with groups of eGulleters, I have found

Jinmyo, I would be more enthusiastic about the small portions for tasting menus if just one course could be a reasonably sized portion of fries, or mashed potatoes, or something similar - just so I don't have to raid the fridge when I get home.

[lizziee]

As Joe said, small portions are appropriate for multi-course or tasting menus. I would like to see these become more common, as that would be an indicator that diners are becoming more interested in exploring the experience of dining. Rather than small portions becoming more common, which would be an indicator of miserliness.

Jinmyo,

I completely agree.

I cited the article, "Gastronauts" by Daniel Zwerdling from Gourmet Magazine in the Molecular Gastronomy thread, but I think it is also apropos here.

"Many chefs (and gourmands) have known intuitively for centuries that when you eat too much of the same thing, you get palate fatigue, as they call it. So chefs serve sorbets between courses in an attempt to 'refresh' the palate. They serve 'tasting menus' to try to keep your taste buds on their metaphorical toes."

I do not think chefs are cheating their customers by offering small portions of many different tastes. Underlying this is the assumption, that the customer has not ordered one dish only. I would agree that a "tasting menu portion" is not appropriate if that is your only dish.

I agree with Thomas Keller's position that it is preferable to serve many small courses than one or two large ones. To quote Keller from The French Laundry Cookbook: "Most chefs try to satisfy a customer's hunger in a short time with one or two dishes. They begin with something great. The initial bite is fabulous. The second bite is great. But by the third bite --- with many more to come - the flavors begin to deaden, and the diner loses interest.....

Many chefs try to counter the deadening effect by putting a lot of different flavors on the plate to keep interest alive. But then the diner can't focus on anything because it's confusing.

What I want is the initial shock, that jolt, that surprise to be the only thing you experience. So I serve five to ten small courses, each meant to satisfy your appetite and pique your curiosity. I want you to say, 'God, I wish I had just one more bite of that.'"

For me, I much prefer a series of little bites than one super-size entree.

[mynamejoe]

There's no monetary reason for the skimping done with the starch portion of a meal, most of the time (truffled mashed potatoes being one of the exceptions). I think it's done to make the already miniscule portion of the protein on the plate at least appear as if it were more.

Wilfrid has a good point, though; diners should never leave an establishment hungry. Ever. I'll have to remember to include at least one rich, filling and decently portioned course in tasting menus whenever possible. Thanks for the tip, Wilfrid, I don't want to be the cook caught between Tony Finch and the food when he barges into the kitchen wondering where the rest of the meal he paid for is being held back! For the record, my eating habits are about the same as Tony's and my cooking and portions reflect that; perhaps I should move to London, where I would be assured at least one regular customer.