🚀 go-pugleaf

Elmo wrote:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
> 
>> Elmo wrote:
>>
>>> Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jag_Pop@Hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Elmo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>> (snip)
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> We're talking 3500 square foot (and larger) McMansions,
>>>>>> for people with two children at most, and who
>>>>>> themselves grew up in the 1950s and 1960s as one of
>>>>>> three to five children in a 1400 square foot house, and
>>>>>> consider their youths to have been idyllic.  Multiple
>>>>>> big-screen TVs (HD cable, of course) scattered
>>>>>> throughout the McMansion, when they may have had a 17"
>>>>>> black-and-white with rabbit ears antenna and perhaps
>>>>>> six broadcast channels available.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>> "six broadcast channels" ! ? !
>>>>>
>>>>> We only had three. And had to frequently bang the top
>>>>> or sides of the tv to improve reception.
>>>>> .
>>>>> My wife and I sat in a movie theater lobby recently and
>>>>> did some people watching. We love to people watch.
>>>>> .
>>>>> Have things changed radically overnight? Or do parks
>>>>> and outdoor cafes, bookstores, garden shops, hiking paths
>>>>> live theaters and museums have a different breed to watch?
>>>>> The movie theater lobby
>>>>> (a large one for a fourteen theater multiplex) was obese-city.
>>>>> The trim were few, very very few. The kids were mirror images
>>>>> of the parents. I saw kids with soda containers the size of
>>>>> Oktoberfest Bier steins - NO, BIGGER! (Oktoberfest! now there
>>>>> is people watching!). Disgusting and shameful display.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, "fourteen screen multiplex" tells you all you need to know.  
>>>> What kind of movies were they showing? I can tell you that it wasn't 
>>>> whatever today's equivalent of "My Dinner with Andre" or "Tampopo" 
>>>> might be (I don't go to the movies any more; can you tell?) No, they 
>>>> were showing Hollywood grind-em-out lowbrow fare, in most of which 
>>>> the star was Special Effects.
>>>>
>>>> I know just what you're talking about.  Movie theaters have for 
>>>> decades been among the most unholy temples of Americans' tendency to 
>>>> excess.  I remember seeing popcorn buckets that were big enough to 
>>>> bathe an infant, and I can only guess they've gotten bigger.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>> My theory is: SUV and Minivans. People that ride hogs
>>>>> are effected in appearance by it, why not SUV?
>>>>> Big fat, guzzling, selfish, view obstructing SUV. The family
>>>>> dog and the master look alike over time, why not SUV
>>>>> and rider?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But SUVs and minivans are symptoms, not causes.  They do go together 
>>>> in lockstep with all the other grossly excessive forms of consumption.
>>>>
>>>> There's a restaurant chain out here in California called Claim 
>>>> Jumper; don't know where else they might be.  This place is infamous 
>>>> for obscenely large portions.  Nothing is worse than some 
>>>> heart-attack-on-a-plate dessert they serve called the Chocolate 
>>>> Motherlode Cake, described on their website as "A 'Giant' Slice of 
>>>> our Six-Layer Chocolate Cake." The word "giant" in the description 
>>>> doesn't do it justice - it is Gargantuan.  One slice of this crap is 
>>>> more than enough to serve four adults generously, but I've seen some 
>>>> blowpig devour one by herself.
>>>>
>>>> This kind of restaurant is almost entirely a suburban phenomenon.  
>>>> You don't see them out in small towns, and you don't see them in the 
>>>> trendy, too-hip parts of big cities.  The really sad thing is, it 
>>>> exemplifies what far too many people think is The Good Life, but 
>>>> it's simply grotesque.  And it all comes down to what I earlier 
>>>> described as the American philosophy, summed up as a motto:  if a 
>>>> little of something is good, a lot must be great.  That belief 
>>>> simply is wrong, to the point of being immoral.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not kidding.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Portion sizes contribute to the problem by providing more calories than
>>> any reasonable individual should consume which interacts with the 
>>> ingrained
>>> edicts to "Clean Your Plate!" [1] and "It's a sin to waste." so that we
>>> consume more calories.
>>
>>
>>
>> People are not passive in this.  People choose to buy, and consume, 
>> the jumbo portions.  They choose them because they *want* them.  The 
>> "clean your plate" admonishment is *not* an exhortation to eat lots of 
>> food; rather, it is an attempt by mothers to get their children to eat 
>> the nutritious things that children often don't want to eat.  It *is* 
>> a sin, or at least a failing, to waste food.  Don't take too much in 
>> the first place.
>>
> 
> You're confusing yourself with the average obese slob.
> They don't think about what they eat.  That's why they're obese.

They don't think enough about the "what", but I believe 
they do think a lot about the "how much".  They 
*really* want huge portions.


> 
>>
>>> Where really upscale restaurants charge a lot for a
>>> plate containing a relatively small portion, carefully prepared and very
>>> carefully presented "for your dining enjoyment", it's more common to 
>>> see a
>>> family-oriented place providing much larger portions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Only because the greedy-gut people who go there *want* huge portions.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I think that some of
>>> it has to do with the economics of the restaurant business.  You need 
>>> to get a certain amount of money over and above what the cost of the 
>>> food to cover overhead -- building, heat, taxes, owner's profit 
>>> margin, etc.  If you're an upscale joint, your clientele is paying a 
>>> premium and knows it.  If you're a local beanery or a franchised 
>>> operation (like Friday at Applebee's
>>> in the Outback or Chili Tuesdays with Ruby etc.) your clientele needs 
>>> a more practical reason to part with more money than the food is 
>>> "worth" and if you give them a big portion they won't feel so bad 
>>> about paying for it. 
>>
>>
>>
>> But restaurant economics are the same the world over, yet you don't 
>> see Gargantuan portions in restaurants in France and Italy.  Not every 
>> French restaurant is a two- or three-star corner of culinary heaven; 
>> they have what are by their standards just average places, and they 
>> don't serve 24 oz. Porterhouse steaks in any of them.
>>
> 
> I've never seen a place where a 24 oz. Porterhouse is the only option.

Check out that Claimjumper chain I wrote about.  You 
can find their entrees at 
http://www.claimjumper.com/hypertext/menus_dinein_specialties.htm. 
  They do offer a couple of 8 oz. steaks, I imagine 
some people order them.  The two times I ate there - 
once on my own, once as part of a business group - I 
mostly saw the 12 oz. steaks and the 14 oz. prime rib 
plates being served.  Keep in mind that healthful 
eating guidelines specify 4 oz. of meat as the 
healthy-weight portion size.


> By the time someone gets to the stage where they would willingly ask for a
> 24 oz. steak, they're too far gone to matter.  But if they did, and they
> only ate that, it would be about the same calorie level as a 4 oz burger
> made from 20% fat ground beef on an oversized bun with a mound of fries,
> a salad loaded with mayonaise-based dressing, and a "free" sundae with
> whipped cream for desert.  And of course you'll want a Large Coke with
> that because the small one is priced so high that you get twice as much
> for less than 1/4 the price -- refills are free so drink up.
> 
>>
>>> So you load them up with low-cost calories in the side-dishes.  
>>> French Fries, pasta, nacho chips, and the like.  Price the individual 
>>> sides high but include 2 or 3
>>> with the platter specials at a price that's lower and you get people who
>>> buy the special and eat the extra calories.  Worse, they come to 
>>> accept that as a "normal" portion size.  And I don't even want to 
>>
>>
>> think about the
>>
>>> kind of specialty foods that you can buy at entertainment venues 
>>> (sporting events, fairs, and the like).  Huge funnel cake -- about 6 
>>> pancakes worth of batter fried in oil and dusted with sugar.  Deep 
>>> fried Twinkies (frozen, dipped in batter and deep fried) for Fud's 
>>> sake!  And Doughnuts!  How many workplaces
>>> have a Doughnut Day where when it's your turn you're supposed to 
>>> bring in
>>> 2 or 6 dozen of those delightful fat pills.  Oink! Oink! OINK!
>>>
>>>
> 
>