Hacker News Reader

Comment by eloisant | Hacker News Reader

Just start by giving smaller servings.

Really, the size of servings in US is ridiculous, who is supposed to finish that?

This is anecdotal but I was just in France recently and the portion sizes were comparable to most urban areas in the US that I have eaten at (obviously it is not comparable to the rural areas engorging Golden Corral).

The big difference is Europe seems to eat a lot less meat. The meat portions were much smaller but replaced with carbs and alcohol.

As an American I felt embarrassed that I could not finish half the Michelin star meals because they were so rich (albeit incredibly good).

IMO when it comes to food waste meat is the real culprit.

My experience of French food is exactly the opposite. Meat is central, with some vegetables on the side. There is a lot of fat in the form of oil and cheese. Carbs, such as bread, are side dishes at best.

In fact, I struggle to think of a French meal that isn't animal product-centred (I'm including fish, eggs, snails etc.)

The biggest difference is they have smaller portions and way fewer carbs. You won't go out for breakfast in France and be faced with a huge stack of pancakes with hash browns and toast.

As a French in the US for a few years now, I second with some nuance. First there would never be meat at breakfast in France for instance, forget the bacon strips and the eggs... Also, diner in my family was often "bread and vegetable soup", or "pasta and tomato sauce". So while the main "traditional" dishes have meat, we don't always eat meat.

Also, while traditional dishes have meat inside, what makes the French Cuisine is not tied to it: you can get most of the taste from some nice sauces, often based of wine.

Other than a salad, I'm not sure I really see "non animal-based" meal in the US either (unless going to an Indian restaurant, or a vegetarian one).

You are both right. French culinary traditions can vary wildly from region to region, town to town, even if they are a few miles apart. If you take a journey through the non-touristy areas you will see a dozen different macro diets (meat vs vegetable vs carb vs sauce heavy styles) and a million variations on the small details like spices.

Claiming that France has one way of proportioning meals is like saying that a Southern American potluck bbq is the same as a posh Michelin star restaurant in Manhattan.

Well I'm not French and I was just vacationing but this is what I saw:

* French eating/dining is extremely bakery heavy.

* Every meal bread is served and lots of it (most Americans think white bread is the worse thing you can eat)

* In the morning I witnessed both in Paris and Nice consumption of pastries and not meat for breakfast

* At lunch I saw most eating sandwiches. Sandwiches with tomato and cheeses. If there was meat it was sparingly and not the subway of america 2 pounds of meat style.

* I ate predominately in French bistros and taverns. Steak Frites in France is more like Frites with an elbow size piece of steak (compare this to any # of the steak houses in) America)

* There are many new renowned chefs that are pushing a more vegetable dining experience (France is still cutting edge for food) over the traditional French Cuisine.

* Going back to bread I saw many of the locals walking home eating baguettes that they just bought. I remember this vividly as my wife commented how you never see people walking home eating white bread in America (this was jovial observation not a jab at the culture).

I feel validated by the fact that somewhere in the world people walk home eating bread. The other night (at 03h30) I went into a 24-hour grocery and bought a ciabatta, ate it on the way home.

It crossed my mind that I had never once seen anyone do this, and by local standards it probably looked ridiculous.

I am French living in SF and oh damned I miss eating a fresh, still hot out of the oven Parisian baguette.

Subway uses meat pretty sparingly compared to a local sandwich place here.

You take the rest home and have it as a second meal.

I think it still causes people to overeat, though. Most people ask for a takeout box only after they stuff themselves really full and realize they won't be able to finish the serving.

But why? Why not just have smaller portions?

Food is cheap compared to the costs of prepping and cooking and serving it, so restaurants have an incentive to sell you more food to ensure you feel like you got a good deal.

One problem is that restaurants have no incentive to serve modestly sized, affordable meals. No one raves about a restaurant because it served "just enough to fill me up". No restaurant would ever advertise "reasonably sized plates".

Restaurants with small servings are focusing on quality and charging accordingly, or pushing 5+ courses.

Even if a restaurant charged two-thirds the price for appropriately sized meals, they still have the same transactional costs (staffing, equipment, production, etc).

There's a restaurant in Portland called Little Big Burger. It has $4 burgers that are fairly small, but are made of high quality ingredients you'd find in a fancier restaurant's big $10 burgers. And it's still enough food for a serving if you get fries with it.

It's be cool to see more places like that: small portions but using the extra cost savings for higher quality food.

I would love to find a restaurant with "reasonably sized plates." Most places serve ridiculous two-person portions, and out of some Catholic guilt-laden upbringing (kids are starving in Africa etc.) I feel compelled to not leave anything on the plate and have a bad time as a result. I would rave about a place that kept portion sizes down.

Another bonus is it would be more practical to also have dessert after the main course. In practice I usually just end up ordering an appetizer as the main course at the cost of some awkwardness with the server.

Another idea is that you order your meal and one option is to have 3/5ths on the plate and 2/5ths packaged to takeaway. No awkward "can I have a doggy bag?" for a container of the scraps you favoured least.

Even though many desserts are made ahead of time, in Australia they're often very expensive ($15-18) and so something I almost never order.

I disagree. I tend to eschew restaurants that serve too much, especially those that advertise the size of their portions.

I know the quality of the food will be meh. When I eat out, I want as good or better than what I can make.

I always thought it would be great to start a restaurant chain where you had smaller portions for a slightly smaller price, and if you wanted seconds of something, it'd be a reasonable add on fee. $2-3 maybe.

I'd probably call it "Seconds" too, and this is why I'm not in the restaurant business probably. :)

Size of serving vs actual serving sizes

In many countries they have smaller servings - but it's typical to eat 2-3 servings. In the US we often have larger servings (equivalent to 2-3 servings) but only eat the one.

Having traveled quite a bit, the largest discrepancy in serving sizes I've noticed is that the US really likes drinks. Especially sodas and especially 60oz sodas. Everywhere I go gives me a "kids sized" cup of water to down with my meal...

What? That's simply not true, I've traveled through almost all of Europe and even lived in some of those places and nowhere it was "normal" to get 2-3 servings.

Unless you get tapas in Spain. Or do a festive 15-plate all-day gluttony somewhere in France, where one of those is 2 oysters and the next 50g of steak with a potato and the next a piece of Camembert. That's not normal though, only for festivities. So.. one exception.

Maybe the parent comment is counting the salad, the soup and the dessert?

In Eastern Europe you often would get an entree (soup or salad), main dish and dessert.

True. Also in the USA and pretty much all Europe.

But these are not "servings" as the OP was talking about, i.e. for the same dish (main course) that you would get 2-3 servings, something we don't do normally in Europe (perhaps only in big celebrations like Christmas).

Not to do with serving sizes as listed on boxes, but I believe the amount of food that regularly winds up on a plate in the US is more than what we get elsewhere - especially at home. Or so I've been told.

Definitely true - it took me a while to realise that nobody expects you to eat an entire meal in the US - it's there to ensure you go hungry.

In Australia, going out to dinner usually means two or three of an entreee (starter), main and dessert.

Fast food portions are huge though - in the US my girlfriend and I would get a burger each and share a small chips and drink.

In the UK, when I go out to eat food, I'll occasionally have a starter before my main, and nearly always end up stuffed. It's a lot more food than what we eat at home.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com