Page 1 of 2

1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:38 pm UTC
by cheweytoo
Image

title text: "There's data suggesting that this model may apply to deep-dish/thin-crust pizza. I've designed a thorough multi-year study to investigate this personally, but funding organizations keep denying my grant requests."


This inflation certainly seems to apply to pizza sizes around here:
A "large pizza" is now routinely bigger than the plate it is being served on.
I'm not aware of any newly popular, smaller, pizza-replacing food item though…

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:10 pm UTC
by richP
My graph-related OCD is going nuts... the graph rotation is off by ninety degrees. Time is the dependent variable gosh darn it!

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:37 pm UTC
by moody7277
richP wrote:My graph-related OCD is going nuts... the graph rotation is off by ninety degrees. Time is the dependent variable gosh darn it!


Shame you're not an astronomer, they're used to axes going in weird directions.

On the pizza front, one wonders if the popularity of Detroit style pizza indicates we're at the end of branch 1 on the graph.

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:50 pm UTC
by cellocgw
richP wrote:My graph-related OCD is going nuts... the graph rotation is off by ninety degrees. Time is the dependent variable gosh darn it!


Naah, it's just a minor variation on waterfall and swimlane graphs. You must not be up on the latest Software Efficiency Methodologies(TM)

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:53 pm UTC
by orthogon
richP wrote:My graph-related OCD is going nuts... the graph rotation is off by ninety degrees. Time is the dependent variable gosh darn it!

I won't mention that panini is the plural, then. *twitch*

This phenomenon seems to run counter to shrinkflation, which affects goods sold in shops, as opposed to restaurants. Perhaps because you notice the size whilst you're still in the restaurant?

ETA Inb4: Yes, yes, panini is the plural in Italian, whilst in English, panini is singular. Descriptivism, etc. I just haven't let this one go yet. (I read an amusing column once, which said "'The spaghetti were delicious'? I don't think so.")

ETA2: Actually, spaghetti isn't as egregious, because it's Italian plural -> English mass noun, not Italian plural -> English singular. Italians would rarely have cause to refer to an individual spaghetto, whereas a panino is presumably a commonly ordered thing. But perhaps Italians never eat alone...

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:53 pm UTC
by RickLeePhoto
Also applies to cars.

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:24 pm UTC
by Hiferator
There was a similar development with laptop screen sizes and "subnotebooks" that snuck in between netbooks and ever growing notebooks.

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:26 pm UTC
by Pfhorrest
What I don't understand is the cell phone size trends.

I remember when tiny phones were what all the kids wanted. Smaller phones were better.

Now, bigger phones are better, and kids talk on tablets larger than their heads.

What caused the reversal?

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:29 pm UTC
by Hiferator
Pfhorrest wrote:What caused the reversal?


The ability/desire to display things other than numbers and contact names.

But yes, some phablets are ridiculous.

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:30 pm UTC
by orthogon
Pfhorrest wrote:What I don't understand is the cell phone size trends.

I remember when tiny phones were what all the kids wanted. Smaller phones were better.

Now, bigger phones are better, and kids talk on tablets larger than their heads.

What caused the reversal?

Smartphones. The small ones were great for phone calls, but sucked for doing the internets. Also, the kids that liked the small ones are now the square-oid parents of the ones carrying the Dom Jolly phones. Fashion was ever thus. (Edit: ninja'ed)

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:51 pm UTC
by ChakatFirepaw
orthogon wrote:
richP wrote:My graph-related OCD is going nuts... the graph rotation is off by ninety degrees. Time is the dependent variable gosh darn it!

I won't mention that panini is the plural, then. *twitch*

This phenomenon seems to run counter to shrinkflation, which affects goods sold in shops, as opposed to restaurants. Perhaps because you notice the size whilst you're still in the restaurant?


This trend applies more to singular food items that are the focus of the sale rather than 'bulk' items.

You can see shrinkflation in things like the McDonald's fry cycle:

They have regular and large.
Then regular, a slightly smaller large and supersize.
Then small, an again slightly smaller large and a not quite so supersize.
Then small, medium and a slightly larger than we started large.
Then back to regular and large.

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 7:06 pm UTC
by Reka
There's gotta be something like this going on with the concentrations of detergents, too. Otherwise, we'd have doubled the strength of detergent so many times by now that it'd dissolve its container and be classified as a hazardous substance. Or something.

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 7:18 pm UTC
by Godsguy
Hiferator wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:What caused the reversal?


The ability/desire to display things other than numbers and contact names.

But yes, some phablets are ridiculous.



Porn. Just say it. We (hetrosexual men) want to (sterotyipcally) see bigger boobies.

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 7:42 pm UTC
by Kewangji
This discussion reminds me that one time at 3AM at a tennis/club event (don't ask me why I was there) where the visitors outnumbered the population, my glucose levels were dangerously low and I encountered the only open sandwich shop in town, where I was sold a measly panino with nothing on it for the equivalent of about 15 dollars.

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:00 pm UTC
by somitomi
Hiferator wrote:But yes, some phablets are ridiculous.

The word "phablet" itself is ridiculous. Which, along with the emergence of things that are both laptops and tablets is why someday I will come up with a shorthand for "portable computer" and will use it for everything from smartphones to laptops from that day.
orthogon wrote:talians would rarely have cause to refer to an individual spaghetto, whereas a panino is presumably a commonly ordered thing. But perhaps Italians never eat alone...

What, do Italians never take an individual spaghetto out of the pack to chew it while cooking the rest of their pasta?

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:08 pm UTC
by yakkoTDI
somitomi wrote:
orthogon wrote:talians would rarely have cause to refer to an individual spaghetto, whereas a panino is presumably a commonly ordered thing. But perhaps Italians never eat alone...

What, do Italians never take an individual spaghetto out of the pack to chew it while cooking the rest of their pasta?


What kind of crazy person ever does this?


/me hides half chewed spaghetto

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:09 pm UTC
by Kewangji
somitomi wrote:The word "phablet" itself is ridiculous. Which, along with the emergence of things that are both laptops and tablets is why someday I will come up with a shorthand for "portable computer" and will use it for everything from smartphones to laptops from that day.

French has "portable" for this, if I'm not mistaken.

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:20 pm UTC
by sonar1313
cheweytoo wrote:I'm not aware of any newly popular, smaller, pizza-replacing food item though…


That would be a calzone.

Either that or it's time for those frozen pizza roll-up things to make a comeback.

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:50 pm UTC
by rmsgrey
orthogon wrote:This phenomenon seems to run counter to shrinkflation, which affects goods sold in shops, as opposed to restaurants. Perhaps because you notice the size whilst you're still in the restaurant?


A couple of examples of shrinkflation I've noticed particularly in the last year or two:

Toblerones with missing teeth.

Jaffa cakes have started appearing in packs of 10 rather than 12.

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:22 pm UTC
by Soupspoon
somitomi wrote:someday I will come up with a shorthand for "portable computer" and will use it for everything from smartphones to laptops from that day.

P.C.

8-)

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:46 pm UTC
by da Doctah
orthogon wrote:
richP wrote:My graph-related OCD is going nuts... the graph rotation is off by ninety degrees. Time is the dependent variable gosh darn it!

I won't mention that panini is the plural, then. *twitch*

This phenomenon seems to run counter to shrinkflation, which affects goods sold in shops, as opposed to restaurants. Perhaps because you notice the size whilst you're still in the restaurant?

ETA Inb4: Yes, yes, panini is the plural in Italian, whilst in English, panini is singular. Descriptivism, etc. I just haven't let this one go yet. (I read an amusing column once, which said "'The spaghetti were delicious'? I don't think so.")

ETA2: Actually, spaghetti isn't as egregious, because it's Italian plural -> English mass noun, not Italian plural -> English singular. Italians would rarely have cause to refer to an individual spaghetto, whereas a panino is presumably a commonly ordered thing. But perhaps Italians never eat alone...


Just popping in here to point out that the singular of tamales is not, as usually thought, tamale. It's tamal. Get it right, hombres.

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:18 pm UTC
by measure
somitomi wrote:
Hiferator wrote:But yes, some phablets are ridiculous.

The word "phablet" itself is ridiculous.

I can't not see "phallic tablet". Now neither can you. You're welcome.

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:31 pm UTC
by Pfhorrest
"Mobile device" seems to be the catch-all for term for "portable computer" in Business English, and in British English "mobile" is already short for "mobile phone", so I vote we just start calling all mobile information and communication devices (including mobile phones, tablets, laptops, etc) "mobiles".

Or we could say "portutor". Your call.

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:46 pm UTC
by Steve the Pocket
"Too large to eat comfortably", and the illustration of a Dagwood accompanying it, is putting it mildly. More like, "so overstuffed that you can't even pick it up without half the ingredients spilling onto the plate." I got a chicken po' boy from Sheetz one time because I had a coupon, and I had to pick out about half the chicken with a fork before I was confident that I could handle it. The gyros from EuroGyro have issues too.

I never got involved with the Great Sandwich Debate of 2017, but my favorite "definition" of a sandwich was something like "anything I can pick up and eat with my bare hands while playing cards with my fellow nobles in the Hellfire Club." This means anything too big to pick up, even with two hands, or too soaked through to keep my hands clean, is disqualified.

I'll make an exception if you want to explicitly call something a "knife and fork sandwich", because at least you're being honest even if it's kind of cheating.

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:00 pm UTC
by freezeblade
Steve the Pocket wrote:I'll make an exception if you want to explicitly call something a "knife and fork sandwich", because at least you're being honest even if it's kind of cheating.


or "Open Face Sandwich?"

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:31 am UTC
by StClair
moody7277 wrote:
richP wrote:My graph-related OCD is going nuts... the graph rotation is off by ninety degrees. Time is the dependent variable gosh darn it!


Shame you're not an astronomer, they're used to axes going in weird directions.


Speaking of, am I the only one who looked at this and thought of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram?

Re: 1940: "A hotdog is a taco"

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:24 am UTC
by Eternal Density
RickLeePhoto wrote:Also applies to cars.

Hey, that's what I came here to say!

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:10 am UTC
by pogrmman
StClair wrote:
moody7277 wrote:
richP wrote:My graph-related OCD is going nuts... the graph rotation is off by ninety degrees. Time is the dependent variable gosh darn it!


Shame you're not an astronomer, they're used to axes going in weird directions.


Speaking of, am I the only one who looked at this and thought of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram?


You're not.

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:51 am UTC
by orthogon
yakkoTDI wrote:
somitomi wrote:
orthogon wrote:talians would rarely have cause to refer to an individual spaghetto, whereas a panino is presumably a commonly ordered thing. But perhaps Italians never eat alone...

What, do Italians never take an individual spaghetto out of the pack to chew it while cooking the rest of their pasta?


What kind of crazy person ever does this?


/me hides half chewed spaghetto

I thought I was alone! Thing is, you do this when you're extremely hungry, and it's utterly unsatisfying. The dry pasta is just too hard, and unpleasantly so, rather than nicely crunchy. If you suck for long enough, the outside goes a bit soft and starchy whilst the inside remains hard. And it has no flavour. It's an act of desperation, like drinking seawater. And yet, I still do it.

(Is dry pasta even a thing in Italy?)

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:48 am UTC
by stopmadnessnow
What about those giant bourbon biscuits and custard creams? I can't see them being popular. For once, I think the usual size will be the best. Wagon Wheels for one became smaller.

I'm not sure which cookies you have in the US.

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:20 pm UTC
by jpers36
I think someone's been reading The Innovator's Dilemma.


Image

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:24 pm UTC
by Wee Red Bird
Soupspoon wrote:
somitomi wrote:someday I will come up with a shorthand for "portable computer" and will use it for everything from smartphones to laptops from that day.

P.C.

8-)

"What's a computer?" - Annoying kid in an Apple advert shortly before being beaten to death with the keyboard attached to her iPad

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:17 pm UTC
by GlassHouses
RickLeePhoto wrote:Also applies to cars.


As in "Jay Leno owns several Ferrari" vs. "my dentist just bought a Ferraro"...

Speaking of cars, I used to own a 1980 VW Golf, the one that was sold as the Rabbit in the U.S., i.e. the first series. According to a Wikipedia, the basic model of that series weighed 790 kg, while the basic model of the current series (the seventh) weighs 1351 kg, a 71% increase. How much bigger will it have to get before they start to feel the need to introduce a new, smaller model in their lineup?

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:38 pm UTC
by Eoink
GlassHouses wrote:
RickLeePhoto wrote:Also applies to cars.


As in "Jay Leno owns several Ferrari" vs. "my dentist just bought a Ferraro"...

Speaking of cars, I used to own a 1980 VW Golf, the one that was sold as the Rabbit in the U.S., i.e. the first series. According to a Wikipedia, the basic model of that series weighed 790 kg, while the basic model of the current series (the seventh) weighs 1351 kg, a 71% increase. How much bigger will it have to get before they start to feel the need to introduce a new, smaller model in their lineup?


If my quick Google is accurate, the VW Polo now weighs >1,000kg, so the model down is already larger than your early Golf. Indeed even the Up starts at >900kg, I wonder if a lot of that is down to safety measures.

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:46 pm UTC
by Soupspoon
GlassHouses wrote:Speaking of cars, I used to own a 1980 VW Golf, the one that was sold as the Rabbit in the U.S., i.e. the first series. According to a Wikipedia, the basic model of that series weighed 790 kg, while the basic model of the current series (the seventh) weighs 1351 kg, a 71% increase. How much bigger will it have to get before they start to feel the need to introduce a new, smaller model in their lineup?

Mini, classic and new…
Spoiler:
Image

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:24 pm UTC
by orthogon
jpers36 wrote:I think someone's been reading The Innovator's Dilemma.


Image

I can kind of see the point, but that chart really fails to make it. The solid blue and green arrows are parallel, so on the face of it the "Disruptive Offering" is always going to be worse than the "Established Offering". In practice the latter will probably plateau, allowing the former to overtake it, but the chart doesn't show that. Also, "by Conventionally Measure"?

GlassHouses wrote:
RickLeePhoto wrote:Also applies to cars.


According to a Wikipedia, the basic model of that series weighed 790 kg, while the basic model of the current [VW Golf]series (the seventh) weighs 1351 kg, a 71% increase. How much bigger will it have to get before they start to feel the need to introduce a new, smaller model in their lineup?

There's definitely size inflation, but AIUI a lot of the weight increase in cars, particularly since the VW Beatle/Mini Cooper/2CV days is down to things like Side Impact Protection, which was introduced in the 80s/90s. It's basically metal armour, and has a weight to match. Safety features take all the fun out of motoring...

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:57 pm UTC
by jpers36
orthogon wrote:
jpers36 wrote:I think someone's been reading The Innovator's Dilemma.


Image

I can kind of see the point, but that chart really fails to make it. The solid blue and green arrows are parallel, so on the face of it the "Disruptive Offering" is always going to be worse than the "Established Offering". In practice the latter will probably plateau, allowing the former to overtake it, but the chart doesn't show that. Also, "by Conventionally Measure"?


Ignore the chart flaws, I did a quick image search.

The disruptive offering is always going to be less functional by old standards than the established offering, but that will be offset by the disruptive offering being both less costly and usable in unforeseen ways. This brings a new market for the technology type. As the functionality of both offerings increase, the marginal utility of the established offering offers less actual value than the alternative benefits of the disruptive offering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator%27s_Dilemma

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:18 am UTC
by richP
somitomi wrote:The word "phablet" itself is ridiculous. Which, along with the emergence of things that are both laptops and tablets is why someday I will come up with a shorthand for "portable computer" and will use it for everything from smartphones to laptops from that day.

computini?
computo?
Sorry, I'm still stuck on the panini discussion, I guess...

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:26 am UTC
by GlassHouses
orthogon wrote:
GlassHouses wrote:
RickLeePhoto wrote:Also applies to cars.

According to a Wikipedia, the basic model of that series weighed 790 kg, while the basic model of the current [VW Golf]series (the seventh) weighs 1351 kg, a 71% increase. How much bigger will it have to get before they start to feel the need to introduce a new, smaller model in their lineup?

There's definitely size inflation, but AIUI a lot of the weight increase in cars, particularly since the VW Beatle/Mini Cooper/2CV days is down to things like Side Impact Protection, which was introduced in the 80s/90s. It's basically metal armour, and has a weight to match. Safety features take all the fun out of motoring...


The side impact protection and airbags and whatnot must have made a difference, but I'm not sure it's a significant factor compared to the overall size inflation.
Wikipedia only provides weight information for four out of the seven Golf series, but the resulting graph (of the low-end models vs. year of initial release) looks remarkably straight:

golf-weight.png

Re: 1940: "The Food Size Cycle"

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:50 am UTC
by Cougar Allen
cheweytoo wrote:This inflation certainly seems to apply to pizza sizes around here:
A "large pizza" is now routinely bigger than the plate it is being served on.
I'm not aware of any newly popular, smaller, pizza-replacing food item though…

They sell pizza by the slice nowadays.