[TotoMimo]

TUESDAY, 3RD JULY

TODAY'S DEBATE

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?

[Jake22]

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.

[MelissaJayne]

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!

[TotoMimo]

Parallels can certainly be drawn from the comments of American expats living in Australia and UK regarding McDonald's; " When you order a regular, they give you the kiddy size over here."

It's easy to dismiss it SOLELY as clever marketing, but just as a US citizen experiences in the UK, perhaps we too are susceptible to portion distortion...

[dani_1991]

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).

[TotoMimo]

VERDICT:

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...

[TotoMimo]

Wednesday 4th July

TODAY'S DEBATE:

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?

[dani_1991]

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!

[helen-a-ravenclaw]

I always always always taste my food before I add any seasoning to it!

I often do end up adding salt to my meal anyway, esepcially if it's at home as my dad hates salt so my mum never puts any in.

You need to taste a meal before adding any seasoning to it. Something that looks deceptively plain can be bursting with flavour which you have now just ruined by drowning it in salt and pepper.

It makes me wince every time I eat with my grandma who pours salt all over her food even though 'there's hardly any coming out'.

So yeah, always taste food before seasoning. People who don't cannot be enjoying their meal to it's full potential.

[lukas1051]

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.

[MelissaJayne]

I only add a touch of rock salt to certain meals, because it has a nice flavour that doesn't really get absorbed or take over the entire meal.

[TotoMimo]

Despite your OWN Preference though, do you believe the debate topic and the experiment is the norm; typical or not of today's habits, and why do you think this?

[MelissaJayne]

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.

Much like drugs. Yes, salt is a drug.

[ihaveyourcat]

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

[TotoMimo]

VERDICT:

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!

Good debate, guys.

[TotoMimo]

THURSDAY 5TH JULY

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-a-ravenclaw]

Okay it's a tough call between the fork and the spoon, because they cover a lot of the same uses and

This might be cheating or bending the rules slightly....but I vote that both are eliminated and the spork replaces them.

Best of both worlds! You can eat soup but still spear your chips!

[Riku]

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.

[TotoMimo]

NO COMPOUND CUTLERY, you bunch of cheats!

[skunky x]

Definitely the fork.

It's the same as the spoon in a lot of ways, and whilst you'd have to partake in the heinous crime of chopping up spaghetti/noodles you can certainly do without a fork.