Fullness powder, possibly?

September 18, 2005 2:31 PM

This is totally bizarre, but: Do some restaurants put something on/in the food that makes you feel more full?

My wife and I often eat at a nice little bistro up the road from our home. The portions are normal or slightly smaller than normal sized, but when we get home we're always totally bloated to the point of, "Oh my God, why the hell did you let me eat that much?" The third or fourth time this happened I got suspicious. But I couldn't exactly ask the waitress, "Hey! You guys put some sort of bloating-agent in your food?"
So far I've had typical fare, nothing that would normally cause a feeling of over-fullness. Maybe they put some sort of protein-powder or something on the food?
Am I totally insane? Do I need tin-foil hat level protection?
Any mefite chefs around that could answer this?
Link to restaurant's website.

posted by Baby_Balrog to Food & Drink (22 answers total)

it's probably richer food than you're accustomed to, makes you feel fuller -- it takes longer to digest. also, restaurant kitchens cook food at a much higher temperature than your regular home kitchen
posted by matteo at 2:34 PM on September 18, 2005

What do you usually order? That may help with figuring it out. If you just get a piece of fish and a salad I doubt if you'd feel the same as after some of their pizza...
posted by bikergirl at 2:38 PM on September 18, 2005

Are you filling up on the bread and just not realizing it?
posted by vronsky at 2:39 PM on September 18, 2005

Do you drink beer at the bistro? Bistro beer begets bloating.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 2:41 PM on September 18, 2005

I think matteo's probably got it right. I can't imagine why a restaurant would deliberately try to make you feel more full, unless you're at an all-you-can-eat buffet.

Think about it: Restaurants are businesses. Assuming it's a la carte, the restaurant staff wants you to eat just as much of their food as you can, because more food = more money for them. So it would be antithetical to their best interests to make you feel more full.
posted by cerebus19 at 2:48 PM on September 18, 2005

It's because restaurants cook with a A LOT more fat (cream, butter, lard, beefstock, rendered kittens) which is tasty tasty tasty (keeps you coming back, doesn't it?!). But it's a lot more filling, even if the sandwhich looks smaller than one you'd make yourself. They also do the same with spices, espeically salt.

Eating out, regardless of what you eat, is the primary cause of the fattening of America. It's a two (or maybe three) part problem: First, it's much more fat and cholesterol than a meal you'd make yourself at home (cite, scroll a bit). Second, you're out and so you celebrate a bit (treat yourself to a second beer, a dessert, an indulgent fried appetizer). Third, the portions are huge. Restaurant plates have gone from 10" to 13" without anybody noticing. This last part of the problem doesn't apply to your bistro, but it DAMN sure applies to restaurant food in general. A bagel from 1970 had 100 calories. A bagel from 2005 can have upwards of 300. Same porportions for burgers, fries, pizza, etc (cite PDF, another PDF).
posted by zpousman at 2:56 PM on September 18, 2005

Restaurants tend to use, y'know, fatty, delicious ingredients. REAL cream and REAL butter and damn, it's bad for you, but it tastes better. I don't know about the US but in Canada restaurants have to use butter unless they tell you otherwise.
posted by Dipsomaniac at 2:58 PM on September 18, 2005

The fish they have pictured on their website is a sheepshead. Some folks eat them, but I don't. Don't order the sheepshead!
posted by wsg at 3:00 PM on September 18, 2005

MSG?
Growing up, I always heard that it did have some "fullifying" effect beyond the "flavor enhancer" that it is purported to be.
posted by misterbrandt at 3:07 PM on September 18, 2005

zpousman has it. I've worked in many restuarants throughout my life, and no matter how inured to it I became, I still could not get over the sight of watching a chef take a nice piece of salmon or chicken in a pan, and 'finish' the light pan sauce with a knob of butter about half the size of your fist. It's a common thing. It's why the food tastes so good. Fat carries flavor, and back there in the kitchen, cooks are very comfortable lading your food with amounts of fat you would never think to use in your own cooking. Honestly, you'd be amazed. Butter goes into or onto nearly everything: pastas, fish and meats, vegetable dishes. Often they'll ladle melted clarified butter over a dish just before serving to make it glisten.
posted by Miko at 3:07 PM on September 18, 2005

. A bagel from 1970 had 100 calories. A bagel from 2005 can have upwards of 300.


Although I absolutely accept the spirit of these findings - that portion sizes have increased -- I hate it when nutrition-information people use a bagel as an example. The reason a 'typical bagel' had 100 calories in 1970 is that they are referring to a crap Lender's bagel, which were always anemic and undersized. Real, bakery-made bagels were always large, even in the 70s. What we've seen over the past 30 years is mass-manufactured bagels gradually coming to more closely resemble a real bagel, which was always a meal-size item.

And this is only true of bagels. Other portion sizes have increased for no reason (Coke, candy bars). But bagels need to be cut a break. THey're supposed to be large.
posted by Miko at 3:11 PM on September 18, 2005

You know, about 80% of the time that I eat out at a restaurant, I look at the dessert options and think: ooh, I have to save some room for that. Then, once the main meal's done, there's no way I could even think about dessert. You'd assume that it'd be in a restaurant's best interest to leave you hungry enough for a (relatively expensive) dessert, but often instead they stuff you with free bread. On the other hand, that so-stuffed feeling usually makes me think I've gotten my money's worth, so I'm more likely to return.
posted by lisa g at 3:41 PM on September 18, 2005

From Kitchen Confidential, by Anthony Bourdain:

"Butter. I don't care what they tell you they're putting or not putting in your food at your favorite restaurant; chances are, you're eating a ton of butter. In a professional kitchen, it's almost always the first and last thing in the pan. We saute in a mixture of butter and oil for that nice, brown carmelized color, and we finish nearly every sauce with it (we call this monter au buerre); that's why my sauce tastes richer and creamier and mellower than yours, why it's got that nice, thick, opaque consistency. Believe me, there's a big crock of softened butter on almost every cook's station."
posted by stet at 3:41 PM on September 18, 2005

Actually, no, a nice proper classic New York (or Montreal!) bagel is not huge. Bruegger's-type bagels are and long have been, but a traditional bagel is smaller and will fight back when you bite it. But yes, a Coke would be a much better illustration.
posted by redfoxtail at 3:46 PM on September 18, 2005

nice proper classic New York (or Montreal!) bagel is not huge

It's certainly bigger than a Lender's though. I think you're talking about the same thing.
posted by grouse at 4:07 PM on September 18, 2005

It's because restaurants cook with a A LOT more fat (cream, butter, lard, beefstock,

About twenty people said it already, but my wife the chef says no problem making food taste really, really good with tons of fat. Just add half a stick of butter. Trick is making it taste good without all that fat. So yeah, butter.
posted by fixedgear at 4:13 PM on September 18, 2005

cream, butter, lard, beefstock
One of these things is not like the others (and I don't mean their deliciousness) - any fat on the stock is usually skimmed off.
posted by mimi at 4:19 PM on September 18, 2005

Actually, no, a nice proper classic New York (or Montreal!) bagel is not huge. Bruegger's-type bagels are and long have been, but a traditional bagel is smaller and will fight back when you bite it.

Grew up in the NY area getting our bagels from the city each weekend. I'm talking about the real NY bagels.
posted by Miko at 6:05 PM on September 18, 2005

Right-oh then. I wonder what the calorie difference is between the classic NY bagel and a Bruegger's puffball. Sorry for the digression.
posted by redfoxtail at 6:46 PM on September 18, 2005

And watch out for restaurants that use fat when they're not supposed to do so. I've caught a glimpse of my "steamed vegetables" coming out of a deep fryer at my formerly favourite Chinese restaurant. My grandmother, a heart patient, also ordered steamed veggies at a West Coast-style restaurant and they arrived swimming in oil.
posted by acoutu at 6:55 PM on September 18, 2005

yeah. it's called butter. as mentioned a butt load of times. and stock. butter and stock. you cannot make restaurant quality food without quality stock.
posted by spicynuts at 7:33 PM on September 18, 2005

Also, on a related note to the fat, there's the salt, which also contributes to post-meal bloat.
posted by desuetude at 6:10 AM on September 19, 2005