Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wasted in San Francisco

ediblesanfrancisco.ediblefeast.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 62 posts

Re: Wasted in San Francisco

#41

Post by maxerickson »

agentgt wrote: post #33
cgh wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

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

Re: Wasted in San Francisco

#42

Post by PeterWhittaker »

prawn wrote: post #39
eloisant wrote: post #12

Just start by giving smaller servings. Really, the size of servings in US is ridiculous, who is supposed to finish that?

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,…

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.

Re: Wasted in San Francisco

#43

Post by foobarian »

prawn wrote: post #39
eloisant wrote: post #12

Just start by giving smaller servings. Really, the size of servings in US is ridiculous, who is supposed to finish that?

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,…

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.

Re: Wasted in San Francisco

#44

Post by marknutter »

brian-armstrong wrote: post #28
scaddison wrote: post #9

Paying more for scraps than for fresh food? Absolutely ridiculous. Leave it to SF hipsters to be into this kind of thing, especially while talking about how "green" and "eco-friendly" they are.

What's the definition of a hipster? Someone you disagree with?

There's one in every thread. Are all categorizations meaningless? Can you define what a "nerd" is, or a "jock", or a "goth"? Just because a categorization is fuzzy doesn't mean it can't be agreed upon by the majority of a population.

Re: Wasted in San Francisco

#45

Post by TylerE »

jkot wrote: post #3

Food waste is a huge problem in Africa (no joke). Seasonal food such as banana is not harvested fast enough: > [There’s] $4 billion (USD) equivalent of food losses in a year in the continent and if you can conceptualize what four billion can do to alleviate poverty in our various countries, then you can understand the waste and the economic deprivation that food loss is causing the continent, https://fsrn.org/2016/05…

I can't really. Africa has a population of 1.1B. That's not even $4/head.

Re: Wasted in San Francisco

#46

Post by brian-armstrong »

khedoros wrote: post #34
brian-armstrong wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the definition of a hipster? Someone you disagree with?

As an overly broad definition: Someone who is not only counterculture, but who wants you to know exactly how counterculture they are. It's a fuzzy word with a fuzzy definition, and it doesn't mean quite the same thing to everyone. I think you know that, though.

Your definition sounds like it could be inspired more by pop culture or caricatures rather than by actual human beings.

Re: Wasted in San Francisco

#47

Post by akiselev »

cgh wrote: post #31
agentgt wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Mic…

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…

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.

Re: Wasted in San Francisco

#48

Post by Fricken »

Boy, we're pretty bent out of shape about our food. Before we can legitimately ask ourselves 'how can we waste less food', we first need to ask 'What is food for?'

The simple answer is that food provides us with the energy and nutrition we need to survive; but of course, if you take a look around it's pretty obvious we dedicate a tremendous amount of time and energy to eating that extends well beyond basic sustenance. We have all sorts of complicated but erroneous aesthetic and cultural reasons for eating, which, in a first world country extends several levels of abstraction beyond merely serving basic needs.

I mean, if optimizing only for sustenance was the goal, we'd all be munching hamster pellets or choking down some Soylent like hydrated paste. We certainly wouldn't be interested paying premiums to have exotic, perishable fruits (which are mostly water) shipped in from other continents only to throw half that in the garbage.

Re: Wasted in San Francisco

#49

Post by jrnichols »

eloisant wrote: post #12

Just start by giving smaller servings. Really, the size of servings in US is ridiculous, who is supposed to finish that?

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. :)

Re: Wasted in San Francisco

#50

Post by batiudrami »

vertex-four wrote: post #20
Nadya wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" c…

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.

Post reply on HN