Frogleg wrote:
> On 22 Oct 2003 13:15:07 -0500, "Bob" > wrote:
>
>> JakeInHartsel wrote:
>>
>> One way to get the most out of your dining experience is to pace it
>> properly. Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of eating at Aqua
>> in Las Vegas. The portions were small, but the courses were
>> presented at just the right intervals. The effect this has is to
>> fill your stomach slowly, so that you feel full even though you
>> haven't eaten all that much. (Aqua's a great restaurant, by the
>> way: The food is wonderful and the service is world-class.)
>
> I find this interesting. Even a seeming proponent of moderate portions
> is waiting for a large cumulative amount of food to "feel full." I
> was with a group of previously unacquainted people a couple of years
> ago and listened to one rave about a new restaurant in town. She and
> fellow diners had had "huge plates" full of food. They'd all taken
> home enough for at least another meal. This woman talked glowingly for
> 15 minutes about the *quantity* of food, without ever mentioning the
> taste or what was offered/eaten.

I must amend a post I made on the subject then, concerning "homestyle
cooking" diners. I did mention I can get enough food (here we go with the
quantity) to eat for three days for about $8. But I did not mention, the
food is invariably delicious. But the OP was talking about pretty little
arranged pieces drizzled with some sauce for which some places would charge
$40 and make most people wonder, "What's for dinner?"

Thinking about it in more depth now, it's nothing new this concept of pacing
out what one is served in many courses. I never grew up such a scenario,
obviously. First an appetizer, perhaps a wine and cheese course, then a
soup course, then a salad course, then a main course, a dessert course and
fresh fruit, coffee and tea and brandy and cognac. But if you look in many
old cookbooks about *formal* dinner service, this is how it was. I'd be on
the couch snoozing after a couple of appetizers and a shallow bowl of soup


Jill