Fifty years ago, the largest size of hamburger McDonald's offered (and a full meal portion) was their standard hamburger. Later, when fries were introduced and the "meal" was offered (hamburger and current "small size" fries) it was marketed as "For the HUNGRY man", considered a considerable quantity for one sitting.
So why is it today the current consumer considers this combination of hamburger and fries, at the same weight as fifty years ago, paltry? Evolving hunger, marketing genius, or otherwise?
I doubt that the standard hamburger and small fries was actually considered as a large quantity for one sitting. I think that was down to their own marketing and the fact that one of the keys to their initial success was using so little meat in their products. Think about it - a big mac and fries is meant to be a 'big meal' but it really isn't - those two patties are about the size of a normal burger you would make at home and the extra piece of bun and salad just make it look bigger. The food does seem fairly filling but I think that this is down to the combination of fat and very sweet bread. Quarter pounders have been around for a long time and even fifty years ago - food was relatively abundant and cheap in the US.
Obviously, consumer food has steadily got cheaper, more available and more diverse and the marketing industry surrounding it has cottoned on with great aplomb.
Okay, this one is a tricky. The only thing I can say is, as I got bigger, the hamburgers SEEMED smaller...As a seven year old girl, the burger would be a struggle to pick up in my hands, now, I want the same problem again!
I know I've missed the day, but just to add, with the 'Big Mac' and super sizing now in play, as well as the size of meals offered elsewhere, I think the Hamburger has just fallen victim to greed of consumers. Do we actually NEED that much? Or is it just comparatively it seems as though we should have more, 'I can get more for my money elsewhere' (though I don't really need it).
Through a mixture of consumer denial, clever marketing and distorting, evolving viewpoints distorting the "normal portion size", TSR speculates the issue has a number of factors. Whether it be the increased hunger, search for value for money, or the changes made by McDonald's to encourage overeating, it is a compound issue which will likely only get worse as the economic climate shifts to goad consumers into getting most bang for buck. Is the hamburger meal REALLY too small, or have you been conditioned to believe as such? At 315g of food it is comparable to a normal ready meal, but with more fat and calories, yet there will always be the denial it us not a "real meal" in the current age...
A London university conducted an experiment across fifty people eating a standard lunch in a restaurant environment. Of the fifty, thirty-nine of them added salt and pepper liberally to their meal without tasting it first. When asked why they did this, over half "didn't realise" and a quarter "knew it would need it without tasting".
Taking this and your own knowledge and experience into account, are we too liberal/frivolous with the humble salt and pepper?
Yes! A thousand times yes! I can't tell you how many people I see adding an ocean of salt to their meal! Taste it first!!! And who knows, they may have already added s&p FOR you! Especially at restaurants where chefs are paid to season your food to perfection. Enough with the super seasoning already!
Compared to people who salt everything, I'm pretty good, I don't tend to add salt to food much. However there are certain foods I always salt because I know they'll be bland otherwise, such as mashed potato, I think I do it subconsciously now. So yes I do think we are too liberal with seasoning and it's probably a good idea to discourage it in children so it doesn't become a subconscious thing.
Yes, I think too many people add salt to frequently to food. It's quite offensive when you cook a meal for someone and they add it before tasting it. If you put salt on something, the dish then tastes of salt. Is my original dish not tasty enough without this? Plus, if we have salt all the time, we'll probably lose our senses to it and then need to add MORE salt just to get that salty kick.
I used to be pretty bad with pepper whilst living in catered halls. I'd add pepper to literally every meal without tasting it properly first
In general though I think people are too liberal with salt but I think it can be a pretty tough habit to break
TSR STANDS UNANIMOUS. THROUGH AN UNINTENTIONAL PSYCHOLOGICAL COMPULSION, IT IS A KNEEJERK HABIT TO APPLY SALT AND PEPPER AS OPPOSED TO TASTE. SOME TSR POSTERS DO ADMIT TO IT THEMSELVES FOR SPECIFIC REASONS - SUCH AS PRE EMPTING BLANDER FOODS LIKE MASH. OTHERS MENTION IT BEING A FOLLY OF THE ELDERLY, IMPLYING THE HABIT IS OLD FASHIONED AND GENERATIONALLY ADOPTED AS A HABIT OF PARENTAL SPECULATION.
BUT TSR DEEMS WE ARE TOO INDISCRIMINATELY LIBERAL WITH SALT AND PEPPER!
TODAY'S DEBATE: It is customary in Western culture to use the three staple types of cutlery; Knife, Fork and Spoon. However, if one was to be forever erased, which one would you regard most superfluous/erasable (and why)?
Helen beat me to it, the spork will rise! If it had to be one though, the fork, because pretty much anything can be (with some lesser or greater difficulty; spaghetti could get a bit tricky) eaten with a spoon, whereas have you ever tried lapping up the milk in your bowl of cereal with a fork? Yoghurt? That gorgeous custard in a crumble? I could go on.