True. Though if you’re paying for sit-down service anyway, the marginal cost of ingredients is relatively low, especially in places with pricey real estate or where tipped wage is higher than the federal minimum. Might as well pay a few extra bucks for the larger serving and have leftovers, IMO.

Last time I dined out, we noticed the smaller portions (mostly cutting out the potatoes or rice that always used to be served under each entree). What caused us to notice it? We had room for dessert afterward! (And yes, the restaurant made more money from us that way, too.)

> especially paired with a smaller bill

It won't be, at least long term.

At an expensive restaurant you're not paying for food, but for experience. Smaller portions let you eat more types of food and thus get more experience. If you want to pay for food, not experience, a grocery store is a better option.

I read an article lately claiming that supermarket shops were down by a fraction of a percent due to ozempic.

Way down the article it then considered that it may be due to the massively increasing cost of food

There's a restaurant chain in Texas called "Cheddar's" that doesn't (or didn't when I saw it last) have any nutritional or serving size information at all, not in restaurants and not online. Just expect all the salt, cream, tallow, HFCS, and heart attacks.

There aren't many restaurant choices around and none are any good.

Purely anecdotally, but we had a US team member visit us in the UK and his understanding of food quality was purely driven by size and not quality.

It didn't matter whether it was haute cuisine or grey sludge, if there was lots of it then it was the best meal in the world