Sawyers

[jetskier]

Hi all,

Speaking strictly from the consumer side, I think that consumers consider the value of restaurants based upon the following critera:

1. Experience - some restaurants are an experience and that is what the consumer is willing to pay for. This might be a view or ambience etc...
2. Quality - the quality of the food, not necessarily the quantity of the food.
3. Cost - the perceived value of what is being offered vs. what is being charged.

Having dined at Sawyers, it certainly does not rank in quality or cost.

Also note, that the consumer does not weigh the relative costs associated with running the business as eating out is a discretionary choice. We all have our biases...but restaurants that don't hit one or more of the aforementioned are likely to be temporary in a competitive market. Sawyers is really just an experience as we all remember it from our youth - they are only open during the summer, so that likely works for them.

Just my 2 cents.

Jetskier

[Mr. V]

Many restaurants focus now on serving food in small proportions.

In most cases it is pretty food, in small proportion, artfully conceiverd, prepared and plated.

This makes sense, at least if your target audience is concerned about calories and values ambiance and quality over getting a bang for their buck.

In LA, the beautiful people stay beautiful via both exercise and diet; they trade off quantity of food for a pretty plating / presentation and a creative touch to the cooking.

This allows them to savor their meal, not just inhale it.

Those who go to those places are not Ma and Pa Kettle types, that's for sure.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

Many restaurants focus now on serving food in small proportions.

In most cases it is pretty food, in small proportion, artfully conceiverd, prepared and plated.

This makes sense, at least if your target audience is concerned about calories and values ambiance and quality over getting a bang for their buck.

In LA, the beautiful people stay beautiful via both exercise and diet; they trade off quantity of food for a pretty plating / presentation and a creative touch to the cooking.

This allows them to savor their meal, not just inhale it.

Those who go to those places are not Ma and Pa Kettle types, that's for sure.

"the beautiful people in LA" ha, ha, ha!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by Biggd

"the beautiful people in LA" ha, ha, ha!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

I’m with you...snowflakes and boneheaded actors. Beautiful people my arse.

[Mr. V]

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

I’m with you...snowflakes and boneheaded actors. Beautiful people my arse.

Via diet, exercise and plastic surgery a lot of denizens in the LA area stay trim and good looking, unlike most of America.

Face it, many if not most Americans are lazy overeaters, and it shows.

I point out one way they get to enjoy dining out without shoveling in a massive amount of calories and I get flamed.

Heck, you people have a bit of LA in your backyard with Baygo's tapas restaurant: good quality, nice presentation, small quantity.

Isn't this how we should all be eating?

What is the point in pigging out, anyway?

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

Via diet, exercise and plastic surgery a lot of denizens in the LA area stay trim and good looking, unlike most of America.

Face it, many if not most Americans are lazy overeaters, and it shows.

I point out one way they get to enjoy dining out without shoveling in a massive amount of calories and I get flamed.

Heck, you people have a bit of LA in your backyard with Baygo's tapas restaurant: good quality, nice presentation, small quantity.

Isn't this how we should all be eating?

What is the point in pigging out, anyway?

"Plastic surgery", you forgot purging, now that's healthy! I guess there are no fat people in LA and they eradicated heart disease years ago. And no, I'm not fat but I do enjoy eating.

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

Via diet, exercise and plastic surgery a lot of denizens in the LA area stay trim and good looking, unlike most of America.

Face it, many if not most Americans are lazy overeaters, and it shows.

I point out one way they get to enjoy dining out without shoveling in a massive amount of calories and I get flamed.

Heck, you people have a bit of LA in your backyard with Baygo's tapas restaurant: good quality, nice presentation, small quantity.

Isn't this how we should all be eating?

What is the point in pigging out, anyway?

Oink! Oink!

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by PaugusBayFireFighter

You're so right!

There's no trick to dieting. There's no shortcuts and almost all the diet/workout information out there is a myth. Anyone who wants to lose weight can.

You're so right. I had been a yo yo dieter all my life since I was about 13 years old. I went to the Dr for a DOT check up to renew my CDL license when I was 47 and they told me to see my endocrinologist I had type 2 diabetes.

I immediately changed the way I eat to smaller portions and much less carbs and sugar in the process lost 115 lbs and have kept it off since. You can have your "cheat days" every now and then but reducing portions, sugar and carbs and ANYONE can lose weight. You just really have to want to lose the weight not just say it.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by PaugusBayFireFighter

Congratulations! You saved your own life. It's not a diet, it's a lifestyle!
Cutting sugar is hard but solves a lot of problems.
Here's the bottom line for anyone looking to lose weight.
In order to lose weight you need to have a caloric deficit. Period. You need to eat less calories than you burn. A daily 500 calorie deficit will cause you to lose ~2lbs a week. No matter what or how often you eat or what time of day you eat it.

Or move to LA where everyone is beautiful.

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by PaugusBayFireFighter

Congratulations! You saved your own life. It's not a diet, it's a lifestyle!

Cutting sugar is hard but solves a lot of problems.

Here's the bottom line for anyone looking to lose weight.

In order to lose weight you need to have a caloric deficit. Period. You need to eat less calories than you burn. A daily 500 calorie deficit will cause you to lose ~2lbs a week. No matter what or how often you eat or what time of day you eat it.

Forgot to mention after about 9 months my weight loss stalled then a began a very light exercise program to jump start my metabolism.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by PaugusBayFireFighter

The old 'plateau' myth! What happened wasn't your metabolism stalling. You were eating the same amount of calories that you were burning. Thus, maintaining your weight. This can happen when your body becomes lighter or you've added muscle. You burn less calories doing the same daily tasks because you're a more efficient machine. What once took great effort now takes less! When you started a light exercise routine you didn't jump start anything, you started burning more calories, putting yourself back in a deficit!

So many myths and so much BS out there.

Stay healthy!

I'll stop my rant...but it's good food for thought for anyone who is trying and having a hard time losing!

Very ironic we are talking about this in a thread for a restaurant that specializes in ice cream and fried food.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by joey2665

Very ironic we are talking about this in a thread for a restaurant that specializes in ice cream and fried food.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

But they reduced the size of their portions to keep everyone healthy from over eating.

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by Biggd

But they reduced the size of their portions to keep everyone healthy from over eating.

Very true!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Bigstan]

Originally Posted by Biggd

But they reduced the size of their portions to keep everyone healthy from over eating.

They just raised costs, quality remains meh, and those two things don’t add up to locals being enthused. I note nobody is raving about the place 😶

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by Bigstan

They just raised costs, quality remains meh, and those two things don’t add up to locals being enthused. I note nobody is raving about the place 😶

I guess you didn't get the sarcastic note.

[Macavity]

Originally Posted by PaugusBayFireFighter;
Here's the bottom line for anyone looking to lose weight.
In order to lose weight you need to have a caloric deficit. Period. You need to eat less calories than you burn. A daily 500 calorie deficit will cause you to lose ~2lbs a week. [B

No matter what or how often you eat or what time of day you eat it[/B].

This is your opinion and should be presented as such. Many medical conditions require a more informed and complex approach.

mac

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by PaugusBayFireFighter

I never said what someone should eat. Many medical conditions require a specific diet. Athletes require a specific diet.
The fact remains that the calories taken in MUST be less than the calories burned and that eating or burning ~500 calories will either add or remove ~2 lbs a week.
That's science, not my opinion.

500/day = 3,500/week = 1 pound.
The science (especially of losing fat vs. muscle) is, however, much more detailed--glycemic index of the food, timing, metabolism, etc. In fact, many people find they stay the same weight because their bodies go into conserve mode if they don't eat enough and often enough.

So, to lose weight safely and effectively, one should eat healthy(er) food split into five or six smaller portions while being mindful of the glycemic index (speed of digestion, sugars being the fastest, whole grains the slowest) of the foods.

THAT being said, if someone is very overweight (as, ahem, I am now), simply being mindful of eating and activity will result in weight loss.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

[Macavity]

Originally Posted by PaugusBayFireFighter

I never said what someone should eat. Many medical conditions require a specific diet. Athletes require a specific diet.
The fact remains that the calories taken in MUST be less than the calories burned and that eating or burning ~500 calories will either add or remove ~2 lbs a week.
That's science, not my opinion.

You did, in fact say no matter what was eaten or what time of day. That's pretty unequivocal and authoritative in tone. I'm just pointing out that there are many more nuances than that if you truly understand it.

I won't comment further if you wish to bluster on.

[SAMIAM]

Originally Posted by PaugusBayFireFighter

Congratulations! You saved your own life. It's not a diet, it's a lifestyle!
Cutting sugar is hard but solves a lot of problems.
Here's the bottom line for anyone looking to lose weight.
In order to lose weight you need to have a caloric deficit. Period. You need to eat less calories than you burn. A daily 500 calorie deficit will cause you to lose ~2lbs a week. No matter what or how often you eat or what time of day you eat it.

Exactly right. Every time I've gone to 1,500 daily calories I lost right around 2lbs weekly. You can work out for hours and you'll get in shape but still have the weight.
Cutting calories is the only thing that works

[jetskier]

How did this thread go from Sawyers to eating habits?

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by jetskier

How did this thread go from Sawyers to eating habits?

Part of the conversation was an issue with the price and portions for that price served by Sawyer’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[jbolty]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

Exactly right. Every time I've gone to 1,500 daily calories I lost right around 2lbs weekly. You can work out for hours and you'll get in shape but still have the weight.
Cutting calories is the only thing that works

I cut out nearly all carbs, tried to stay at or below 20g per day, and lost 60 lbs pretty fast and have kept most of it off so far. Once in a while now I'll eat a baked potato or slice of pizza and it feels like I consumed a brick.

[jbolty]

Originally Posted by mr. V

many restaurants focus now on serving food in small proportions.

In most cases it is pretty food, in small proportion, artfully conceiverd, prepared and plated.

This makes sense, at least if your target audience is concerned about calories and values ambiance and quality over getting a bang for their buck.

In la, the beautiful people stay beautiful via both exercise and diet; they trade off quantity of food for a pretty plating / presentation and a creative touch to the cooking.

This allows them to savor their meal, not just inhale it.

Those who go to those places are not ma and pa kettle types, that's for sure.

…………… ………..

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by jbolty

…………… ………..

Now that's presentation!

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by jbolty

…………… ………..

Sorry, But that would not be a “brioche bun” but rather “tranches de pain blanc”

[Outdoorsman]

Originally Posted by jetskier

Hi all,

Speaking strictly from the consumer side, I think that consumers consider the value of restaurants based upon the following critera:

1. Experience
   - some restaurants are an experience and that is what the consumer is willing to pay for. This might be a view or ambience etc...
2. Quality
   - the quality of the food, not necessarily the quantity of the food.
3. Cost
   - the perceived value of what is being offered vs. what is being charged.

Having dined at Sawyers, it certainly does not rank in quality or cost.

Also note, that the consumer does not weigh the relative costs associated with running the business as eating out is a discretionary choice. We all have our biases...but restaurants that don't hit one or more of the aforementioned are likely to be temporary in a competitive market. Sawyers is really just an experience as we all remember it from our youth - they are only open during the summer, so that likely works for them.

Just my 2 cents.

Jetskier

So this post will help you see the complex issues that restaurant owners face each and every day, here is my view on your list.

1. Cost - the perceived value of what is being offered vs. what is being charged.

[*]Quality - the quality of the food, not necessarily the quantity of the food.

[*]Experience - some restaurants are an experience and that is what the consumer is willing to pay for. This might be a view or ambience etc...