Atkins Dieters Kicked Out of Buffet

[ysabella]

From the AP Wire via Yahoo! News (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=816&e=1&u=/ap/20040423/ap_on_fe_st/booted_from_buffet) - By CHRISTIE L. HILL, Associated Press Writer

SALT LAKE CITY - A West Valley City couple on the Atkins Diet have a beef with a local restaurant after being booted from the buffet for eating too much meat.



Isabelle Leota, 29, and her husband Sui Amaama, 26, both on the no-carb diet, were dining Tuesday at a Chuck-A-Rama in the Salt Lake City suburb of Taylorsville when the manager cut them off because they'd eaten too much roast beef.

"It's so embarrassing actually," said Leota. "We went in to have dinner, we were under the impression Chuck-A-Rama was an all you can eat establishment."

Not so, said Jack Johanson, the restaurant chain's district manager.

"We've never claimed to be an all-you-can-eat establishment," said Johanson. "Our understanding is a buffet is just a style of eating."

The general manager was carving the meat, and became concerned about having enough for other patrons, Johanson said. So when Amaama went up for his 12th slice, the manager asked Amaama to stop.

Offended by the request, the couple argued with the manager, then asked for a refund. The manager refused, and when the couple refused to leave, he called police.

"I really feel like we were discriminated against, I feel like we were treated unfairly," said Leota.

The restaurant's roast beef is cooked overnight and takes between 12 and 14 hours to cook, Johanson said. Depending on the location, a Chuck-A-Rama may have only between one and five roasts each day.

But Johanson said the manager offered plenty of other buffet items for the couple to choose from.

The couple are finishing their second week of the Atkins Diet, which requires taking in little to no carbohydrates, and they eat at Chuck-A-Rama's $8.99 buffet at least twice a week because of its convenience.

"You can just go there and just eat meat," said Leota, a mother of two.

Johanson said there's no written policy for what patrons can or can't eat, or for the size of their portions. But the restaurant reserves the right to talk to patrons if they abuse the buffet — a rare occurrence, he said.

The couple said they won't return to the restaurant.

"I don't have any desire to go there ever again," said Leota.

"Little to no carbohydrates"? Uh, not exactly. Twelfth serving of roast beef?! Sounds like a little much! Did anybody - the people who got kicked out or the writer of the article - ever so much as glance at the book?

Sheesh. Still, kind of amusing.

[Elsah]

glance[/i] at the book?

Sheesh. Still, kind of amusing.

Well actually the first two weeks is very little and close to no carb if you are following the three cups of veggies a day rule making two of those lettuce. 12 slices of roast beef though? LOL sounds like a bit of over indulgence!

[patricia52]

When the Vancouver lo-carb group met for a buffet, I did feel sorry for the management, because we weren't filling up on rice and bread, but going straight for the goodies!
This reminds me of when my ex-husband took my teen-age son and 5 of his friends to an all you can eat sushi bar. They must have thought they'd been attacked by raw-fish-loving locusts.

[teresamay]

I agree with the management - 12 slices is an abuse of the buffet - especially if they are making it a habit, as it sounds like they were doing!

[MyJourney]

I just hate that they are blaming it on Atkins and giving the impression that all Atkins followers eat 12 slices of roast beef regularly.

[Rosie Real]

It's sort of hard to believe actually. I mean, any buffet I've been to, with the exception of Chinese, has salads. Who could eat a big salad (which they should have done) along with that much beef? Kind of sounds like they went there with the attitude that they'd show them.
I do think it's abuse of the buffet too, but most buffets are traditionally all you can eat, so they should have posted a maximum number of servings of the beef if they only had so much.
Either way, how humiliating. :lol:

[celestia]

12th slice?!??!?! Yes, they were abusing the buffet - and they caused a scene by asking for a refund! Hello! The definitely got their $8.99 worth! They went there often too, and I would say they should have been a little more understanding of the business's position here - there are other guests!

[Lisa N]

"We've never claimed to be an all-you-can-eat establishment," said Johanson. "Our understanding is a buffet is just a style of eating."

Hmm...it's always been my understanding that a buffet is a style of serving food, not a way to eat it. What people choose to eat from the buffet is usually up to them (as well as what style they use to eat it). :rolleyes:
12 slices does sound a bit excessive unless they cut the slices anything like the buffet style restaurants around here...paper thin and skimpy; a slice might weigh an ounce and for a hungry, good-sized male, that's not a terribly excessive amount. I've seen plenty of men who could scarf down a 12-16 oz. Porterhouse (with side dishes) without a problem if they were hungry.
Wonder if they've ever kicked anyone out for going back for too many desserts or rolls or excessive veggies? Probably not...those foods are relatively inexpensive and that's what they expect (hope) their patrons will fill up on instead of the more expensive protein offerings.
It's still a shame that once again, they make low carb sound like the "all roast beef all the time" diet and equally a shame that the wife is quoted as saying, "you can go there and just eat meat.". :rolleyes:

[potatofree]

Looks like they are the "something for nothing" types. It may not be a written policy (although after this, I suspect it WILL be) but common sense would tell you that 12 trips is excessive.

I wouldn't blame the author... these people were using Atkins to excuse bad behavior.

[Marge]

Lets talk about constipation that arises from 12 slices of beef. And the writer needs to look up more info about "NO-Carbs". I always get a kick when people get so concerned for me but I'm the one feeling much better.

[kyrie]

It looks like the manager approached them saying "I'm sorry, but we'll have to impose a limit on the servings of roast beef we provide, please help yourselves to anything else on the line," but the customers freaked out. I've worked in the service industry before, and I know the type. What do they expect for 8.99?

And yeah, I got out of the service industry. I'm not cut out for it. ;)

[kyrasdad]

12 slices is gluttonous, no matter how you look at it. If you eat that much, you're not doing Atkins right.

Sheesh.

[cc48510]

You have to consider the size they slice meats at most Buffets. They slice roast beef very small. Salmon is sliced into strips the width of a French Fry. Steak varies depending on the establishment. I've seen it cut almost as small as a single Sirloin tip before and as as big as 8 ounces. Most buffets tend to keep the meats behind the counter and carve them themselves. OTOH, they keep the Vegetables, Deserts, Fruits, Grains, etc...out where anyone can take as many as they want.

It also a matter of perception. Folks not on a LC Diet tend to perceive the amount of meat a LCer eats as excessive. The reason is simple...if you were eating Corn, Rice, Beans, Potatoes, Cake, Ice Cream, and all that other crap at the same time, it would be excessive. An 8 ounce Sirloin (precooked weight) actually has less Calories than a plate of Pasta with Sauce [which they put out on the Bar, where you can help yourself.] Yet, many folks tend to consider an 8 ounce Sirloin to be excessive, yet don't view the plate of Pasta, which actually has MORE Calories with the same opinion.

Before LCing I never had anyone say a word when I'd get a plate of Pasta or a plate full of Mashed Potatoes, or 2 or 3 Baked Potatoes, despite them being loaded with Calories. Yet, I've had them look at me funny if I come back more than once for meat...even if they cut it the size of single Sirloin Tip.

Its the whole LF lie. They've got people to a point where they no longer comprehend normal serving sizes. For them, 3 ounces of Steak is a Serving, but a plate of Pasta which has 2-3x the Calories is also one serving. So, when they see someone eating 8-12 ounces of Steak, they consider it excessive, even if they're scarfing down on a plate of Pasta which has more Calories.

I usually get my Buffet to Go, which is what some are offering now. You get a To-Go box and pay by the pound. I focus mostly on the meats and some Green Beans, and use my own Veggies at home. It works out cheaper than sitting down to eat, and they're willing to give you more. I've also found that if you go in there later at night, within an hour of closing, they'll give you as much as you want. Though, your choices may be Medium-Well and Well-Done. I can't seem to find Rare to Medium-Rare that close to closing.

Another thing I do is eat more than 1 meat. If they have Roast Beef, Chicken, and Salmon...I may eat all 3. Typically, this one Buffet has Steak and Salmon. They'll occassionally have Pork or Roast Beef also. I tend to eat all of them when they're available. I always get both Salmon and Steak when its available. They tend to accept it more when you get 2 smaller servings of 2 different meats than if you got 1 bigger serving of 1 meat. I also like the Shrimp Night...because they put the Shrimp out where you can take it yourself.

[cc48510]

12 slices is gluttonous, no matter how you look at it. If you eat that much, you're not doing Atkins right.

Sheesh.

12 slices x 1/2 ounce = 6 ounces. That's not Gluttonous. The problem is the size of the slices. 1/2 - 1 ounce is about all you get in most places. Now, if they were full-sized slices, like you get in some Restraunts, 2 would be sufficient. But, most of these places cut them thin and small. Also, Roast Beef is made from the leanest cuts of Beef. So, it is very low in Calories [1 oz. with Fat Removed = 48 kcal.] On top of that, most Buffets cut all the fat off and throw it away, which I consider a terrible waste. There's plenty of folks who would eat the meat with the fat still on it. The fat adds satiation, which makes people eat less of it. So, it would actually be in their interest not to remove the fat.

[Lisa N]

I have to agree with cc. To say that 12 slices was gluttonous assumes at least a couple of things; first that the slices were the size that you would slice for yourself if you were given the opportunity and second that the other person has an appetite similar to yours. Neither may actually be the case.
Since we don't actually know the weight in ounces of the meat that this gentleman ate, it does make it more difficult to make a judgement on whether or not the amount was excessive. The article implies that it was a lot, but that may or may not be a fact.
We often rail against the media for their inaccurate reporting regarding low carb eating, is it so unreasonable to think it possible that the facts may be a little slanted here as well?

[Grimalkin]

Hey, I can eat 12 slices of roast beef, and I have recently- at a buffet that cut the slices super-fine like that. Along with a nice salad with bleu cheese dressing. And a slice of roast pork. Veggies? I had some green beans, but the other veggies were all rice or corn or potato-based or were drenched in suspicious sauces. Yeah I was pretty full afterwards, but I'm sure most men can easily out-eat me. As a matter of fact I was sitting there, digesting, and wondering when something like this was going to happen somewhere.

I think they need to tell you up front about a policy like that. If the manager had cut me off that would have left salad and beans for me, I did not spend $9 for a plate of salad and beans. I would go elsewhere to eat if I knew of a policy like that. IMO running an "all-you-can-eat" is a gamble - if you take my money, you risk that I will eat the profit margin. If you don't tell me what I'm really paying for when I walk in the door, the sale is under false pretenses as far as I'm concerned.

[Rosie Real]

Well, the fact that the two of them both went back to that meat table 12 times is what caused the problem. I don't know if it was excessive or not, but the restaurant obviously did think it was, and if they were afraid they'd run out because of these two, then it seems the pieces weren't super small. JMO of course, but 12 trips just seems a bit much.
And when told it was enough by the restaurant, they could have had vegetables and salad to fill up if they really wanted to get their money's worth.

[Grimalkin]

12 trips is a lot - perhaps they could have done what I did, which is patiently stand in front of the server requesting more until I had 4-5 of those paper-thin slices on the plate at once. It saves trips. Usually they only give you one and hope you go away.

Alright, I'm not actually advocating total gluttony, and I have no idea how large the slices were to start with, so maybe the manager had grounds to be upset. But my point is that they should tell you in advance that there is a limit. Most of these business promise you literally "all-you-can-eat" and hope that most people will eat less than what they pay for. Most do, but some don't. If that's not ok then scrap the buffet and go with a menu. Don't promise me a feast, take my money and then cut me off leaving nothing but beans and greens. That's like bait-and-switch.

[Rosie Real]

That is true that they should have stated it was a limited amount of meat, but unlimited other items. I mean, if they only roast so many of the things, then they need sign saying "limit 2 trips" or something.

Of course, $8.99 doesn't buy much of a buffet around here, except at a place like Pizza Hut or something. Most dinner buffets are around 15.99 or more, so i think they probably got their moneys worth, even if the slices were thin.

[potatofree]

I don't see any implied promise in the original article...it'd be a whole different story if it was one of those places with a big "All you can eat!!!" banners, but buffet doesn't necessarily mean "go hog wild"...

I've served many family dinners buffet style, and I must say I'd be offended if someone ate half the turkey before everyone had been served.

Granted, a restaurant and a home situation aren't the same, but if I was in line behind the guy and got nothing while he was on his 12th trip, I'd be a little peeved.

[watcher16]

When these people die from eating to much I hope Atkins Diet doesn't get the blame!

[Lisa N]

buffet doesn't necessarily mean "go hog wild"...

No? Pay a visit to your local buffet restaurant (around here they're called Old Country Buffet), get a diet coke and a salad, seat yourself near the serving area for an hour or so and then quiety observe what people put on their plates, how much of it and how many times they return for more. Trust me...you will learn a new appreciation for the definition of "gluttony". :rolleyes:
Because buffet style restaurants do have the reputation for being "all you can eat" or "unlimited visits to the food bar", I agree that management should post a sign stating that they reserve the right to limit portions on the servings of meat that their customers can take (and I wouldn't be surprised if some do from now on) if they do not view themselves as an "all you can eat" establisment.
Of course, doing that may also decrease their business unless they're sneaky and don't post it up front where people pay and instead post it at the serving line where patrons can read it after they have paid for their meals.
There is an inherent gamble in running a buffet style restaurant; some people will be able to eat more than their money's worth of food, but most will not. Most will also go for the lower cost (and therefore higher profit margin) foods like potatoes and sweets. It's those that don't that drive the profit margins for the restaurant owner and this is the gamble they take; that at the end of the day, they will have had more customers that could not eat more food than they paid for than they had who could.
I doubt that the manager in this article was that concerned about having enough meat for his other customers so much as he was that these two were eating his profit margins. It's just not very good PR to say that you kicked someone out of your restaurant because they ate into your profit margins too much (pun intended). :rolleyes:

[ellemenno]

B goes to the Golden Corral here quite often and has never had a problem with how much meat he was allowed to eat (and he can eat a hefty amount). I've seen people go into restaurants like that who can eat a lot more than anything he's ever eaten though, probably even more than this couple (though we don't know what else they ate). I have to agree with cc and Lisa on this. Those slices of roast beef are not the huge hunks of beef that may be served up at home.

I never did care for buffet style dining. Quality is sacrificed for quantity and it all winds up being very wasteful. It also makes it easier to cheat. :p

[MyJourney]

I wonder if part of it was due to the peoples weight? I mean nothing mentioned how big the people were, but I feel that heavier peopled tend to get picked on more and targeted more. Expecially in situations like this. I wonder if it was an average to slim couple (assuming these were overweight) if it would have gotten the same type of reaction.

[Nancy LC]

I don't think I've ever been served 1/2 an ounce of meat at a buffet. I'd say its generally in the realm of 2-3 ounces.

[Breecita]

It's my opinion that if the slices had been so small that they needed 12 trips to make a serving, then this would be happening with more of the customers and would have become an issue before.

[potatofree]

LisaN-- yes, I understand the concept. I've worked in food service off and on most of my adult life. I also know a manager isn't going to step in and risk offending a customer unless their behavior is WAY out of line... The bad word-of-mouth wouldn't be worth it unless they were grossly abusing the "system".

Most people, even "big eaters" are not even a blip on the radar of the management, and I really don't think their size has much if anything to do with it. I'd bet a skinny teenager making a dozen trips to the meat area would have been treated the same way. When we ran a lunch buffet, we had a Mom offer to pay for an extra person when she brought her teenage son in for lunch. :lol: That kid could really pack it away! Of course, the boss declined, but the woman KNEW how hard he would be on the buffet, and I think it showed consideration for the restaurant, actually.

Atkins isn't about seeing how much you can hold, and IMO "getting your money's worth" is all relative. Just because you can choose your own foods in a buffet, I don't think it's license to gorge. 12 trips at even a paltry 2 or 3 oz serving size is still quite a bit more than most plans would call a "serving".

[Lisa N]

Atkins isn't about seeing how much you can hold, and IMO "getting your money's worth" is all relative. Just because you can choose your own foods in a buffet, I don't think it's license to gorge. 12 trips at even a paltry 2 or 3 oz serving size is still quite a bit more than most plans would call a "serving".

True enough, but how is it suddenly newsworthy to single out a man who likes meat and went back for more than the average person would take while other patrons, I'm sure, pack away far more food by volume than this gentleman did? Honestly, I've seen people in these places pack away 4 or 5 plates full of food and this guy is suddenly a glutton for eating maybe a pound of meat?
I agree that the objective of most plans isn't "eat as much meat as you can stuff down", however being still within the two week induction period where appetite may or may not be decreasing and given the directive to eat until you are satisfied but not stuffed, I'm a little amused at the number of people who are judging this man's appetite as inappropriate by their standards of what it would take for them to feel satisfied but not stuffed, especially not knowing (but rather assuming) how much meat this man actually ate.
As I've already mentioned I know plenty of guys who could eat that amount of meat WITH sides without a problem. I know I couldn't, but I also know that my husband could easily. I can cook a 3 pound roast and see it finished off at a meal with my DH eating the greatest portion, myself second and our two girls much smaller portions, and that's with a decent size serving of veggies and/or salad.
Of greater concern/note is that these two seem to think that low carb is all meat and made no mention of eating salads or other veggies during their trips to this restaurant.

[Elsah]

Quote: The restaurant's roast beef is cooked overnight and takes between 12 and 14 hours to cook, Johanson said. Depending on the location, a Chuck-A-Rama may have only between one and five roasts each day.

Perhaps it could have just been the restraunt covering it's butt if they only had one roast for the day. I mean really, how big could a serving be if they are slicing up one roast a day to feed a whole restraunt? I do think 12 trips is a bit much and it's not something I would ever do but still I think when a restraunt decides to be a buffet style restraunt they have to take into consideration that occasionally there will be someone who walks in the door that is gonna eat more than most and they need to be prepared for that.

[Marieshops]

I agree with Lisa N. If a restaurant is serving a buffet, that usually means all you can eat unless they state otherwise. I bet they don't care if you go back for 12 rolls or desserts. If they want to limit the number of trips, post it for all customers to see. I know the profit margin has gotten a lot smaller for our local all you can eat steak buffet since I went lc. Instead of filling up on the big basket of yeast rolls they bring to your table (hoping you will eat since it costs them so little) and the baked potatoes, pasta, etc. I am eatting the steak, fish, chicken, and fresh veggies and fruit instead. Do I feel guilty? No way. You don't see the restaurant wanting to give a discount to the person that just eats the cheaper stuff, but they are having a fit when someone is actually eatting as much as they paid for. Too bad. Also, when you read the article it does not say that both the husband and wife made 12 trips each for the roast beef. It just states that he did. As I mentioned on another thread on this same topic, he may have been getting some for his wife. My husband often does this for me. He will go get in line and get a steak for me. Then he goes back through and gets his own. Then later he goes back to get ds a steak. Then he might get himself or me a second. Good thing we weren't at this place since they would have thrown us out too!

Marie

[judyr]

I don't think I've ever been served 1/2 an ounce of meat at a buffet. I'd say its generally in the realm of 2-3 ounces.
I want to eat where ever you are going. I've gotten thicker, larger slices of packaged luncheon meat, than the slices of roast beef at any buffet I have been to in years. I usually ask for a second slice and then eat the chicken and fish that is offered also. I always count the Beef as less than an ounce (I have actually weighed it on a take out portion)

[CindySue48]

On the local news tonight they said the couple offered to pay more and were refused. They also said the couple was told to leave the beef alone and eat the chicken.

Here in the south, that chicken would be fried, so I'm not surprised they refused.

But.....it's still a different story....wonder what's the true story?

[potatofree]

We'll never know.... I guess I'll be waiting for the couple to sue for emotional trauma.

[Marie H]

The article did not say they made 12 TRIPS to get roast beef, but that they got 12 slices of roast beef -- frankly, not all that much meat at most places I've been.

I know when *I* was on induction, I sometimes packed away an enormous amount of meat. I don't like being hungry -- the fact that I can lose weight without being hungry is a big reason to do this!

I find it astonishing how many of you are willing to judge this couple as being inappropriately gluttonous.

If the establishment wants to set a limit on how much an individual can have of a specific item, they need to set that limit up front, so you know what you are paying for. Setting it after you get there is NOT OK. And if the couple did, indeed, offer to pay extra -- then the management was WAY out of line, and this clearly had to do with some perception on his part.

[idontno]

i got to know how many pounds were talking about not slices.
i can eat about one pound ha ha... slices sounds small. before i started atkins i could eat about two pounds. what ever close the place down, better yet sue em for false advertising. whatever dont blame atkins cause i eat too much ha ha.

[teresamay]

I still think they were abusing the priveldge - how long did the management put up with it - they say they were going twice a week, if they were making 12 trips up on each visit - of course I would be upset as a manager - especially if there were other food choices. I have been to buffets here in Edmonton - and the roast beef slices have always been generous - at LEAST 3-4 ounces per slice (as the roast isn't your typical small roast from the supermarket, it is normally a leg of beef), and typcially you get two at a time, unless you ask for more. So twelve trips is being completely gluttoness in my opinion. It wasn't like they were "humiliated publicly" -they were asked politely to eat other things or leave, and THEY were the ones who drew the attention to themselves, requiring a police escort out. I'm sorry, i just don't have any sympathy for them. If they like roast beef that much, perhaps they should cook it at home twice a week and then they can eat as much as they want.

[PoofieD]

Its funny, because after reading the thread I see judgements against the restaraunt ( by people that are not there and not management) and people judging the couple ( who were not there and didn't see what happens).
Judgement happens. There are valid points on both sides, but for those that pointed out we may never really know, are the most correct in any event.
For myself, if a manager felt the need to request that they eat other things ( and we all know there are OTHER things on Atkins besides BEEF) something had to have been up. Nobody needs bad publicity. But I could be wrong in assuming that.

[potatofree]

Exactly, Poofie....

If it wasn't grossly out of line, the management wouldn't risk the backlash.... Maybe they never found it necessary to POST a limit (until now!)

[Monika4]

We will never know whether the couple abused the buffet or the owner was rushed in his reaction - but something was bound to happen, since one thing is clear:

Eating low carb means eating the more expensive items at any buffet. We eat more meat, fish, veggies, and leave the cheap maccaroni and cheese and potatoes alone. And given that there may be 10% of the population on a LC diet, I think many buffets are having to make the choice of either increasing price or limiting the amount one can eat from certain items.

[Lisa N]

"We've never claimed to be an all-you-can-eat establishment," said Johanson. "Our understanding is a buffet is just a style of eating."

Funny...this article seems to state otherwise. http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2002/feat_2002-06-06.cfm

Perhaps their policy has changed since 2002, but even the Chuck A Rama manager interviewed is quoted as saying that "all you can eat means all you can eat" when talking about people who are what they refer to as "heavy hitters." :rolleyes:

[teresamay]

Excellent article LisaN - after reading that I have to obviously adjust my opinion slightly. I do still think that they were out of line and abusing it, however, obviously the management has been less than perfect if they were promoting all you can eat and then reneging on it.

[teresamay]

Here is another view - perhaps the management is considering the fact that they may be sued for contributing to the obesity of their clientele - it seems to be the "thing" these days with so many lawsuits against mcdonald's etc, I wonder if that is one of the triggers for the management? All in all, this is a strange situation.

[Nancy LC]

From what I've heard, none of those lawsuits for blaming a food establishment on your obesity has ever been won. There might have been one case where someone grossly misstated the # of calories in their smoothie drink, but I think that was it.

[Lisa N]

Here is another view - perhaps the management is considering the fact that they may be sued for contributing to the obesity of their clientele - it seems to be the "thing" these days with so many lawsuits against mcdonald's etc, I wonder if that is one of the triggers for the management? All in all, this is a strange situation.


Possibly, but the premise of the lawsuits against McDonalds was that McDonalds (and other fast food restaurants) promote their foods as "wholesome" and "healthy". As hard as it may be to believe for those of us who actually know something about nutrition, there are those that don't (apparently) believe that french fries and hamburgers are bad for your health when you eat a daily diet of them.
OTOH, it would be a lot harder to convince a judge and jury that you didn't know that stuffing yourself at an all you can eat buffet several times a week was going to make you gain weight. :rolleyes:

[Angeline]

I've been to plenty of buffets before and making 12 trips to get ANYTHING seems excessive to me. I don't care how small the slices of roast beef were. I am sure there was other things they could have eaten at the buffet. Either other types of meat or preferably vegetables. I would never in a million years get up 12 times to get food at a buffet, even less, the most expensive item in the place. That just seems really over the top and abusive. If I had done that and been called on it, I would have been mortified. I certainly would not have added insult to injury by demanding my money back. Sheesh. I am sure that owner is glad to be rid of those customers. I hope for their sake, their pictures didn't appear in the paper, because they will get strange looks whenever they go to a buffer from now on.

[Grimalkin]

Well, the article said twelve slices, not twelve trips. He might have gotten 3-4 at a time, and we don't know how big they were. Anyone ever go to Chuck-a-rama and know this?

Eating low carb means eating the more expensive items at any buffet. We eat more meat, fish, veggies, and leave the cheap maccaroni and cheese and potatoes alone. And given that there may be 10% of the population on a LC diet, I think many buffets are having to make the choice of either increasing price or limiting the amount one can eat from certain items.

I suspect we'll soon see more of both.

[ellemenno]

Today we went to the Golden Corral for lunch (or as B calls it, the GC). They have a sign on one of their table tents encouraging dieters of all types, including low carbers, to enjoy the buffet. They offered a rather large selection of foods, but still much of it was battered or sitting in some sweetened sauce. Pickings can be rather slim for finicky eaters (such as myself) but there's always something. Maybe this couple only liked beef and that was their only option. Maybe all the chicken available was fried. Maybe the manager was just caught on a bad day or the restaurant was about to run out of roast beef because they were ill-prepared. Maybe this guy was getting food for the table. Maybe he was just being a pig. It's difficult to say without really knowing the full story.
Funny...this article seems to state otherwise. http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2..._2002-06-06.cfm (http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2002/feat_2002-06-06.cfm) Does anyone know if the Chuck-A-Rama has signs now stating it is an all-you-can-eat buffet or that it's not? If not, it would be safe to assume that this manager should have checked himself before approaching his customers. Unfortunately, he probably didn't realize the amount of negative publicity his actions would generate.

[potatofree]

Considering the lack of facts avaiable, it's kind of interesting how we all have a different "take" on the situation. The TDC is even starting to call for picket lines... and that's usually my favorite, level-headed place.

Maybe it says more about us than it does about the actual story? <getting out flame-proof underwear>

[Lisa N]

Does anyone know if the Chuck-A-Rama has signs now stating it is an all-you-can-eat buffet

I think most people (and this may be the problem) assume that a buffet style restaurant IS "all you can eat" because most of them are.
If the restaurant manager does not see his establisment that way, it would be prudent for him to post a sign to that effect since it is common public perception that buffet = all you can eat. Case in point: the author of the article that I posted refers to Chuck A Rama and HomeTown Buffet as "all you can eat" establishments.
The question here isn't so much whether all of us think 12 slices of roast beef is gluttonous or not, but rather:
1) IS Chuck A Rama an "all you can eat" establishment...advertised or not.

AND

2) If Chuck A Rama is an "all you can eat" establishment, did the manager have the right to ask his customer to stop eating?

This link might be interesting regarding a lawsuit in a similar situation (the customer won). ;)
http://yesrick.com/rhvint2.htm

[Marieshops]

Thanks Lisa N for the great follow up articles. I think you have clarified this situation and made it much easier for everyone to focus on the issue versus labeling the people involved.

Marie

[Angeline]

This link might be interesting regarding a lawsuit in a similar situation (the customer won). ;)
http://yesrick.com/rhvint2.htm

Interesting and humorous article. They don't explain the judgement but my guess is that the law tends to take things literally. If an establishement is advertised as "all you can eat" then that's what it means.

If the management had put up a sign saying "the Management reserves the right to limit quantities on certain items", then the customer would have lost.

It's people like this who ruins it for the rest. There will always be someone out there to take advantage and the next thing you know, it's no longer avalaible.

[Azraelle]

Not once in all the replies have I seen mentioned what should be fairly obvious: Having eaten at Chuck A Rama twice, here in St. George (not a town thst should be known for it's superlative service, or restaraunts, it being little more than a 2-exit grease spot on I-15, from a traveler's perspective), I can attest that the place is busy with cars filling their parking lot almost all hours that it is open, not just at the usual peak times of lunch and dinner. SLC, Utah has more than a dozen exits, not including the suburbs. The point is that there are at least 50, more likely 100 or more people who cycle through the place every hour!! And the restaraunt manager was able to keep track of how many individual slices of beef that 2 customers out of a 100 or more had???? I don't think so--unless he's got a photographic mind, in which case why is he working for Chuck A Rama in the first place? Or was he singling those 2 out because they were singularly obese? Or was he just mouthing off a reasonable (to him) sounding figure, having noticed that they had paid the roast beef table a visit more than once? Do you think that they actually have a statistics puncher at the table?? Come on people. There was no way that manager could know how many slices they had had, even if he was doing all the serving himself. Did the couple actually have 12 slices, or was it 10, or 8, or maybe even 16? Sheesh! Any manager that concerned about how much each customer eats, throughout the day deserves any negative publicity that he got--I'll be surprised that he still has his job a month from now.

[scrapgirl]

Agreeing with alot of the posts here! It says "when 'he' came back for his 12th slice. They also had two children to feed. If they were younger children, dad may have been getting meat for them or the wife! And for a family of 4, twelve slices of meat is nothing. Atkins or not, we got to restaurants that serve us 12-16 oz+ steaks and no one blinks an eye. To me, if you serve it buffet, it is all you can eat....period. My grandma may pay her $8.99 and eat a salad and I may want 12 oz of roast beef. Give me a break! The manager was an idiot to persue it to the point that the cops were involved anyway. Who wants to go to a restaurant where big brother is watching and if you eat to much of a certain item, the cops get involved! They deserve the negative publicity and if they dont want to be all you can eat them provide a menu and a server!!!

IMHO...of course!:p

[Lisa N]

The point is that there are at least 50, more likely 100 or more people who cycle through the place every hour!! And the restaraunt manager was able to keep track of how many individual slices of beef that 2 customers out of a 100 or more had????

And the answer is....surveillance cameras. They're used primarily to catch people who steal food from the buffets (the policy is that you not take food off the premises but must eat everything you are going to there), but in this case could easily have been checked over a certain time period to see how many times one customer had been to a certain food station. Whether we realize it (or like it) or not, "big brother" is watching. :rolleyes:
Now, it's possible that the manager kept that accurate a track of how many times this man had visited the roast beef station, but it's more likely that whoever was monitoring the surveillance cameras tipped him off or that he requested that someone check once he noticed that this guy had been back a lot for more.

[Lisa N]

It's people like this who ruins it for the rest. There will always be someone out there to take advantage and the next thing you know, it's no longer avalaible.

In which case the management would be penny-wise and pound foolish. For every customer or two they have that can really pack away the food, they have a hundred or more who eat far less than they actually paid for.
In truth, these places lose far more money to people sneaking food out of the restaurant "for later" than they do to the few that come in and really chow down.

[gotbeer]

There is a Japanese buffet in downtown Dallas called "Aija" (pronounced a bit like "Asia", I think) on the 2nd floor of the Trammell-Crow building (between the DMA and the Belo Mansion on Ross Avenue) that offers to-go boxes. For $9.69, you can cram with box with beef, pork, chicken, sole, crab, shrimp, salad, and tender-crisp veggies for a wicked-good low-carb lunch feast. The sit-down version of the all-you-can-eat lunch is slightly more expensive.

Resist the sushi rolls and rice/noodle offerings, and avoid the desserts completely.

[Nancy LC]

From that one article it sounds like there are a lot of people trying to get every penny, and then some, out of what they spend at places like Home Town Buffet. It sounds like they get a real thrill out of figuring out ways to get more for their money... up to and including stealing.

I know my elderly parents love going to buffets. My Dad because he is a volume eater, it could all taste like the same thing he wouldn't care. My Mom because she can get what she wants.

[zedgirl]

I can’t handle (all-you-can-eat) buffet eating. The very nature of buffets with so much variety means it’s hard not to want to have a bit of everything even if it means forcing it down. I turn into some sort of food police and spend all my time watching people make complete pigs of themselves. The worst is the people that pile their plates with all the expensive seafood like prawns, crab and crayfish and the kids that go back for plate after plate of dessert items. I think what offends me the most is the speed at which people eat……like the food’s going to run out or something.

DH used to tell me some funny stories from his many trips in Asia. Visiting the salad bar was a real art form in Seoul. You were only allowed to go once so people had become very adept at piling food into their bowls. It was like watching the construction of a high-rise building. Firstly the lettuce leaves are laid down in such a way as to triple the width of the bowl. Then cucumber and tomato slices would be placed around the edges to fortify the foundations and from there it was a simple case of building layer upon layer of salad as high as you could get it. It appeared to him to be almost a part of the culture. Another thing he noticed was that in some places any food that was left uneaten on your plate was weighed and attracted a surcharge.

[CLASYS]

I have been following this thread in other net sites as well as here, and I think I can summarize a few things, then offer up some alternative points on this unfortunate incident:

1) The couple were on national TV [I think ABC television morning show] with their lawyer; the lawyer indicated that the combined weight of the twelve "portions" was 13.4 ounces, making this a quite meager total that is ludicrous to make an issue with by anyone in the buffet business! As some others have posted, this is the typical pathetic sized slice that is the hallmark of cheapskate food chains in Southern Utah and elsewhere.

2) Apparently, the manager was carving the roast beef himself, and thus had a better-than-usual way to "remember" what was happening. [What I mean is that this fixed number "twelve" may have NOT been what was on his mind, just that they went back to him for "too much" roast beef in his opinion.

3) Clearly the patron was discriminated against. I personally saw him on TV and he doesn't fit the look of your typical Utah resident: He is from American Samoa and is quite chunky as well as having let us say a "non-arian" look. Yes, I am suggesting that he WAS discriminated against because he is non-white, and clearly overweight, thus discriminated against several times because of race and origin and physical appearance.

The discrimination may have only been to the point that the manager was "monitoring" his food intake, but it's still discrimination. Additionally, he was discriminated against because he is an Atkins dieter, and was in the critical early days of the induction phase.

Even we here cannot judge him for his strict dietary intake, because he was actually doing an exemplary job of it. While for many, keeping at about 20 grams of carb is good enough to induce ketosis, for others, and there is every reason that this individual may be genetically at a disadvantage due to his race, insulin resistance may be so high that the ONLY way to get the diet jump-started is the total avoidance of carbs entirely! [I believe Atkins pointed out individuals in even WORSE shape who needed medication, perhaps including insulin injections, as well as carb avoidance, to get the diet started; in short we just don't know how insulin-resistant this individual is, but it's entirely possible he is an unusually problematic case, etc.]

Over the years, I have found that when the diet plateaus, the only way to get anywhere was to either fast or at least do the Stillman diet for three days, eating not much more than extremely lean meat [such as lean roast beef of perhaps smoked turkey breast] and not much else. Admittedly, this also includes lowering total caloric intake as well as no carbs as well as lowering fat intake; eating nothing but roast beef until you are full sounds to me like something that would work for someone who apparently was just coming off of the ABUSE he was doing to get himself as heavy as he currently is BEFORE recently starting the diet!

4) I want to point out some unpleasant things I have personally experienced in Utah; perhaps some of them bring some insight to what may have transpired:

a) I have traveled the entire US and parts of Mexico and Canada. I have never seen such CHEAPSKATES as are found in Utah! [I believe I saw a post on some forum from someone who had lived in the exact town this incident took place in, and he indicated my experiences are consistent with this lame town!]

I was once traveling on the highway that takes you primarily east-west in southern Utah and/or northern Arizona. There are few north-south intersections on this road, as its primary purpose is apparently a conduit for east-west travel, thus it doesn't afford many connections to the more-populated places in more-northern Utah, etc.

In point of fact, it would appear that a motel I stopped at was there primarily to serve tourists stopping there to travel to the nearby North rim of the Grand Canyon in Arizona. The cheapskates who ran the motel had a 9:00 am checkout time! But, it's worse than that, because in the late spring, Arizon time is an hour earlier. YES, they are aware of the fact that they are quite close to your likely destination in Az and want you out of the room by 8:00 am YOUR LOCAL time [Not THEIR local time which isn't relevant unless you are staying in their jerk-water town!]

b) At another point on my traveling journey, I stayed in another Utah motel. As a MOTEL GUEST, I was charged for ice! Yes, the cheapskate insisted that all I could have was ONE BUCKET OF ICE hand-leveled off [as opposed to overflowing]. He put the extra cubes back into the ice machine by hand! When I indicated I needed another bucket to prevent food spoilage, he charged me $3.00 for an additional leveled-off bucket [Note: these are 1983 prices; adjust accordingly for today's COLA.]

I also went to a buffet in St. George, Utah recently on a road trip from Arizona to Las Vegas. It was NOT to Chuck-a-rama, but I did get the impression that certain foods were less than ample compared to others. As some others who posted will not be surprised, these harder-to-obtain ingredients were the meats, while all of the high-carb stuff was available to excess. [You don't have to remind me to never again stop in this area on I-15; I will carry my own food which is easily obtained in Arizona, where local attitudes about food, meat, ICE, etc. are far more reasonable!]

I read some articles from links posted here, and indeed, it would appear that Chuck-a-rama wants it "both ways", to be thought of as all-u-can-eat, but then allow a cheapskate manager to gain brownie points by saving the management insignificant monies against the risk of negative publicity, which they deservedly have gotten.

To make matters worse, someone from this rube outfit tried to make a "corporate" statement of policy after-the-fact as a weaseling attempt to claim that the buffet aspect only applies to a "style" of food service and nothing more, even though there isn't present any form of procedural method to implement any such policy [no signs, fine print on menus, etc.] They seem to really know how to fan the flames!

As I am typing, I notice on the tube that Chuck-a-rama corporate has apologized to the couple and has invited them back. If I were them, I would follow-through on the lawsuit and make them suffer, even if the outcome was a paltry sum. The lawyer was extremely confident on TV that he had a good case; I suspect he will settle for a big-bucks sum to cover his fee/40-percent, etc.

cjl

[Azraelle]

Having been born here, moved away to grow up in Las Vegas, lived in Idaho, Michigan, Louisiana, Alabama, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kentucky for at least a year in each, and now back in Utah for the last 5 years (out of necessity, not choice), I concur wholeheartedly with what you have said. Utahns are also notoriously either low-, or no-tippers, and the wage scale in Southern Utah is 30-50% lower than in Las Vegas, some 110 miles west, for the same jobs! Additionally, the cost of living here is, if anything, higher than in Las Vegas. And they have the monumental GALL to call it Zion. You'd think, I suppose, that I am a Mormon-basher. Not so--but the antics of the Mormon business owners and managers do often make me ashamed of my religion.

A few other things that Utah is (in)famous for: It has the highest teenage pregnancy and suicide rate in the nation. Judging from my own experiences, and conversations with several other well-traveled temporary Utahns, they have the worst and most discourteous drivers here as well--they beat my previous worst experiences (drivers in the corridor between Birmingham and Atlanta) beat by a mile.

[kyrasdad]

From what I've heard, none of those lawsuits for blaming a food establishment on your obesity has ever been won. There might have been one case where someone grossly misstated the # of calories in their smoothie drink, but I think that was it.

The winning and losing are secondary. Even the infamous McDonald's coffee verdict was rolled back to less stupid levels. The cost is in the need to litigate and pay representation. Companies know they can win frivolous suits, but going to trial represents big bucks, even if you do win. Lots of the time on suits they strongly believe they'll win in front of a jury, they settle because it's less expensive. But win, lose or draw, the cost of litigation is a huge factor for business.

I happen to think a buffet is actually becoming a risky business. Think about it. Last year, Outback had to pay the victims of a drunk driver who was served alcohol in one of its steakhouses. If a 400-pound man is allowed to eat limitless cake and fried chicken at a buffet, from a legalistic standpoint, how is that different than a drunk getting served at Outback?

It's actually a risk because while not everyone can identify someone who has had too much to drink, everyone can say that the 400-pound man doesn't need that 4th slice of cheesecake. It's obvious to see that food was killing him, but they callously served him anyway.

We also have to remember that tobacco suits lost every single time for decades. Finally, they won and the floodgates opened. The food industry understands this, and so do the lawyers. These suits will continue, win, lose or draw, I think.

Scott (who thinks going after 12 slices is unreasonable, and who can eat a lot of meat but has never had twelve slices at one meal).

[Nancy LC]

It's not secondary at all. Lawyers don't take on cases on contingency they don't think they'll win or settle. In fact, the suit bringers might even be required to pay the legal fees of the person they're suing if the judge thinks its frivalous.

Last year, Outback had to pay the victims of a drunk driver who was served alcohol in one of its steakhouses. If a 400-pound man is allowed to eat limitless cake and fried chicken at a buffet, from a legalistic standpoint, how is that different than a drunk getting served at Outback?

I think the precedent for this is that there is an actual law, state law probably, that prohibits selling alcohol to someone obviously intoxicated. The difference is that a drunk driving a car is a danger to lots of people. I don't think the 400-pound man is a danger to anyone else.

[tamarian]

Chuck-A-Rama Apologizes to Exiled Couple
Thu Apr 29, 2004

By CHRISTIE L. HILL, Associated Press Writer

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040430/ap_on_fe_st/booted_from_buffet_1

SALT LAKE CITY - Chuck-A-Rama says it's still not an all-you-can-eat establishment, but the restaurant chain is serving up an apology to a low-carb couple cut off from eating beef after making one too many trips to the buffet.

Chuck-A-Rama officials made the public apology Thursday to Isabelle Leota, 29, and her husband, Sui Amaama, 26, who had dined at a Chuck-A-Rama in suburban Taylorsville April 20.

The eatery's general manager told Amaama he was cut off from the roast beef when he went up for his 12th slice. When the couple refused to leave until they got their money back, the manager called police and had them escorted out.

Leota said they were on the low-carb Atkins Diet and ate at that location at least twice a week because of its convenience.

The West Valley City couple said they had been embarrassed and treated unfairly, and argued that the buffet was all-you-can-eat.

Despite the apology, Moss reiterated that buffet-style means self-service, not all-you-can-eat. He added the company is "in the process of defining a system by which we can communicate this difference to our customers so our buffet-style dining is better understood."

Corporate management had been scheduled to meet Thursday night with the couple and their attorney, but they did not show up, a spokesman said. The company planned to try to get in touch with them Friday.

The couple didn't return calls seeking comment Thursday.

The company has offered the couple a gift certificate, though its amount was not immediately known.

"I'd like to be able to shake hands with them, invite them to come back as a great customer and hopefully we can move on with life," chief executive Duane Moss said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040430/ap_on_fe_st/booted_from_buffet_1

[Nancy LC]

DH used to tell me some funny stories from his many trips in Asia. Visiting the salad bar was a real art form in Seoul. You were only allowed to go once so people had become very adept at piling food into their bowls. It was like watching the construction of a high-rise building. Firstly the lettuce leaves are laid down in such a way as to triple the width of the bowl. Then cucumber and tomato slices would be placed around the edges to fortify the foundations and from there it was a simple case of building layer upon layer of salad as high as you could get it. It appeared to him to be almost a part of the culture. Another thing he noticed was that in some places any food that was left uneaten on your plate was weighed and attracted a surcharge.

LOL! This reminds me of going to a Mongolian BBQ. You're given a bowl with some sort of frozen meat and then you stack it up with veggies and pour sauce on top and they cook it for you. Well, it cooks down a lot, so of course you want to absolutely cram as much into the bowl as possible!

[CLASYS]

Just a little more:

I am a resident of Long Island, NY lifelong [either within or next to New York City] and really like to drive around North America [and really, really like to drive in Arizona!]. My wife and I recently vacationed flying from LI Islip Airport to Las Vegas then driving directly from LV to the Flagstaff/Sedona area, Grand Canyon, etc. [We purchased some cold cuts, drinks, pork rinds, etc. in a Sedona supermarket along with a styrofoam cooler kept cool by hotel-provided ice. The locals are EXTREMELY friendly there and proud of their beautiful area] Drove around Az, eventually hooking up with I-15 through portions of Utah to head back to LV for some gambling [where I actually won! net-net.] Only got this cheapskate attitude in St. George, although I didn't actually stop anywhere else in Utah. [I even avoided an overnight stay there by deliberately staying in Fredonia, Az just south of the border.] Everywhere else, people were friendly and clearly catering to tourism the proper way, etc. [And we NEVER broke the diet on a 10-day vacation :) ]

On my 1983 trip, as I left Utah and stopped in Colorado for a pitstop, I noticed people selling little plaques about their neighboring state. Here's two samples I can remember:

1) Eat, Drink, and be merry! For tomorrow you will be in Utah.

2) You are now entering Utah; please turn your clocks back 50 years.

cjl (It's a beautiful state, geologically speaking)

ps: I heard on the tube about some local problems in the St. George area about young girls sold into slavery by their families? The piece attempted to make a comparison to historical Mormon practices of polygamy and that these were "renegades" but I am not sure of exactly what their point was. Additionally, it implied that some of them owned certain local businesses; could this even include local area buffets? Can you shed any light?

cjl (who has seen the South Park episode about Joseph Smith - dumdumdumdumdum)

[CLASYS]

:idea: Some commentary imbedded below:

Chuck-A-Rama Apologizes to Exiled Couple
Thu Apr 29, 2004

By CHRISTIE L. HILL, Associated Press Writer

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040430/ap_on_fe_st/booted_from_buffet_1

SALT LAKE CITY - Chuck-A-Rama says it's still not an all-you-can-eat establishment, but the restaurant chain is serving up an apology to a low-carb couple cut off from eating beef after making one too many trips to the buffet.

Chuck-A-Rama officials made the public apology Thursday to Isabelle Leota, 29, and her husband, Sui Amaama, 26, who had dined at a Chuck-A-Rama in suburban Taylorsville April 20.

The eatery's general manager told Amaama he was cut off from the roast beef when he went up for his 12th slice.

:idea: Why would anyone go up for a 1 ounce slice? This sounds ludicrous; more likely he went for his 12th AND MORE slices having been there for some smaller number of trips that aggregated 11 slices, each about 1 oz. :idea:

:idea: Is it possible these cheapskates were making him waste his time going up to the carving table to obtain slices INDIVIDUALLY and indeed this was his twelth trip for an insignificent amount of food per trek to the table? :idea:

:idea: On a side note: I understand that in many buffet places, you aren't allowed to obtain food on an already used plate/must obtain a newly washed one. If the procedure is as presented, does this manager understand the notion of outright waste on dishwashing-related expenses? :idea:

When the couple refused to leave until they got their money back, the manager called police and had them escorted out.

Leota said they were on the low-carb Atkins Diet and ate at that location at least twice a week because of its convenience.

:idea: I think we established that these people were still in the induction phase of the diet, meaning that this was at most their fourth trip there; this report and other responses try to spin the people as parasites who did this regularly for a long time. :idea:

The West Valley City couple said they had been embarrassed and treated unfairly, and argued that the buffet was all-you-can-eat.

:idea: I think we all agree that unless it says otherwise, that's the default assumption. And that the company would have a hard time in court convincing a judge otherwise :idea:

Despite the apology, Moss reiterated that buffet-style means self-service, not all-you-can-eat. He added the company is "in the process of defining a system by which we can communicate this difference to our customers so our buffet-style dining is better understood."

:idea: Thus, an open admission of guilt. If it isn't in place, you are talking about the future which you have the right to change, not the present you are stuck with. :idea:

Corporate management had been scheduled to meet Thursday night with the couple and their attorney, but they did not show up, a spokesman said. The company planned to try to get in touch with them Friday.

The couple didn't return calls seeking comment Thursday.

The company has offered the couple a gift certificate, though its amount was not immediately known.

"I'd like to be able to shake hands with them, invite them to come back as a great customer and hopefully we can move on with life," chief executive Duane Moss said.

:idea: More likely he will shake hands with the process server with legal papers in his other hand :idea:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040430/ap_on_fe_st/booted_from_buffet_1

[tamarian]

Why doesn't any of our nearby members pay a visit to this place :idea:

Many here speculate that the guy took 12 trips, once for each slice, but none of the news reports said that, so we really don't know.

Is it possible that they only serve one slice at a time? Maybe in the assumption every customer will fill the rest of the plate with rice and pasta?

If that's the case, I would definitly need 12 small slices, as I'd avoid the rice/pasta/fries etc.

Keep in mind that for some tall, large frame guys a 1,000 calories per meal (well over 12 small slices) is not much, and is under their basal metablism/caloric needs. There's lots of pro low-calorie reactions to this story.

There's lots of angels/possibilities to this story, that I wish I could just go there and see for myself.

I'll ask in advance if I'm allowed to eat in accordance with my healthy caloric limits for a healthy meal, or if I'll be forced to eat posta, or be hungry (with a limit to 2 or 3 small slices). :)

Wa'il

[Turtle2003]

OK, I'll admit I don't have time right now to read this entire thread, so if someone has already pointed this out I'm sorry. The article did not say that he went back 12 times; it said he went back for his 12th slice. That may have meant only 2 or 3 times. Most of these places slice it very thin and give you 3 or 4 slices per serving, so I'm fairly sure he was only asking for 2 or three servings.

On the other hand, what kind of people get into this kind of dispute to the point where they have to call the police to get them out of the restaurant? They were apparently not embarrassed enough to leave when asked.

[Angeline]

Clearly the patron was discriminated against. I personally saw him on TV and he doesn't fit the look of your typical Utah resident: He is from American Samoa and is quite chunky as well as having let us say a "non-arian" look. Yes, I am suggesting that he WAS discriminated against because he is non-white, and clearly overweight, thus discriminated against several times because of race and origin and physical appearance

So it's a bad thing to assume that a person is a glutton because he is non-white, chunky and on Atkins (was he wearing an Atkins badge around his neck ?) but it's okay to assume the restaurant manager is a cheapskate because he's located in Utah. Hmmm bit of a double standard no ?

His color, race, nationality and prefered choice of food is irrelevant. Food buffet are operated with the idea that most people will choose from a variety of dishes and not concentrate exclusively on one especially expensive item.

Simple courtesy would dictate that this is a big no no. Would you go to a friend's reception and put half of the roast beef on your plate without any regards for the other guests ? Your friend, no doubt, assumed that people would take a little bit of everything so there would be enough for all. If your friend was to tell you that she is concerned about having enough, would you rudely tell her she should have made more ? Well what's different with a buffet. Because you pay for it ? Why is it assumed that paying for something gives you the right to be selfish. Courtesy is courtesy, no matter where you are.. in a buffet or at someone's house.

And even if there was plenty go go around, if everyone was to pile their plates with unlimited amount of the most expensive food, they simply could not continue to be in business and maintain their current prices. Fact of the matter is they didn't play by the rules. Who pays for rule breakers ? everyone else, as the restaurant either imposes limites, raises their prices or both.

I have zero respect for people who acts like that. They go to a buffet, load up on the most expensive item. When they are called on it, instead of being contrite, they are offended and ask for their money back. They refuse to leave and make a scene making everyone uncomfortable and forcing the police to intervene. After all this they have the gall to sue the restaurant ??? Have they no shame at all ? If someone should sue for emotional distress it's the restaurant manager, not them.

Just like they don't know when enough is enough food wise, they obviously don't know when to stop in everything else.

[MyJourney]

cjl (who has seen the South Park episode about Joseph Smith - dumdumdumdumdum)


ROFLMAO!!! that was too funny!

If I was there I would have picked up a plaque too. Those were great!

[Lisa N]

The couple were on national TV [I think ABC television morning show] with their lawyer; the lawyer indicated that the combined weight of the twelve "portions" was 13.4 ounces, making this a quite meager total that is ludicrous to make an issue with by anyone in the buffet business!

If that weight measurement is accurate, then I agree it was really ridiculous for the manager to make such an issue out of it. I've eaten steaks bigger than that. Not often, mind you, but it's not outside the realm of reason to think that a big guy could consume that much. Sheesh...my DH has been known to eat an entire rotisserie chicken at one sitting by himself.

Simple courtesy would dictate that this is a big no no. Would you go to a friend's reception and put half of the roast beef on your plate without any regards for the other guests ? Your friend, no doubt, assumed that people would take a little bit of everything so there would be enough for all. If your friend was to tell you that she is concerned about having enough, would you rudely tell her she should have made more ? Well what's different with a buffet. Because you pay for it ? Why is it assumed that paying for something gives you the right to be selfish.

The difference, as you already pointed out, is that in one situation you are a non-paying guest and in the other you are a paying customer in an establishment that allows you to serve yourself and being in the business that they are should be well aware of the fact that they are going to have customers occasionally with large appetites and plan their supply of entrees appropriately. Next, nowhere has it been said that this man consumed half of the restaurant's available meat for the night and if 13 or 14 ounces really was half their supply, someone should be fired for seriously undersupplying the buffet. Last, 13 ounces is a little over 3 servings of what most nutritionists would consider a serving (4 oz.). I'd hardly call that gluttonous, especially given that I'm sure many people here could easily consume a 12 oz. steak.
BTW...the typical roast beef on a buffet line is a Steamship Round that weighs between 30 and 50 pounds (hence the need to roast it overnight): http://www.beeffoodservice.com/Cuts/Info.aspx?Code=29
13 ounces out of a 40 pound roast still leaves over 39 pounds for the other customers. :rolleyes:

[Angeline]

I've eaten steaks bigger than that. Not often, mind you..

I doubt that you paid only $9 for it however. Where you can get 13 oz of roast beef with all the trimmings (he didn't want it but he could have them if he wished) for 8.99$.

The point I am trying to make is that if too many people start doing that, they will either have to raise their prices or impose limits, and that would make everyone else suffer. That's why I consider it being selfish and not playing by the rules.

I guess we think differentely. But but I never considered paying for something, a license to take advantage of it. When I pay my money I expect to get fair value in exchange. I don't like to feel I was cheated but in the same way, I wouldn't try to cheat in order to get more than what I paid for. I guess it's a sort of Ying/Yang. Fair play. Call it what you want. And let's say that for some crazy reason I did step outside myself and take advantage, and would be called on it....well I would be mortified, justly so. I certainly wouldn't go on National TV whinning about how unfair it was he wouldn't let me get my 13th slice of roast beef while at the same time hoping to make a quick buck suing the pants off him.

That's just plain wrong and I stand firm on that.

p.s.
I keep thinking. What would Ann Landers say :)

[Azraelle]

but it's okay to assume the restaurant manager is a cheapskate because he's located in Utah. Hmmm bit of a double standard no ?
I don't think that the post was implying that, just that it seemed to be strangely ironic that the restaurant manager in question was located in a state known by so many, including those unfortunates who live and work here, for its cheapskatedness.
The point I am trying to make is that if too many people start doing that, they will either have to raise their prices or impose limits, and that would make everyone else suffer. That's why I consider it being selfish and not playing by the rules. There are no rules when it comes to buffet style restaurants. Having eaten at a great many in my lifetime, I've come to the conclusion that it just doesn't pay to be too "nice" at such establishments--you will get elbowed out of the way every time. Apparently not the typical clientele a quebecois such as yourself is used to associating with. Sorry about that. What would Ann Landers say? I'd like to think that she'd be enough of a realist to point out that bell curves of statistical human behavior aren't based upon preconceived assumptions of the moral courteousness of individuals within the group, but upon statistical observations of group behavior as a whole. All businesses who base their business models upon statistical group behavior recognize that some risk is involved, and that some individuals will be near the outside of the curve, and make allowances for that. Chuck-A-Rama, being a national chain, has based it's current pricing scheme around acceptable risks, among which are the occasional person outside the norm. If the nation's eating habits have changed for the better (from a low-carber perspective), then perhaps Chuck-A-Rama should rethink their prices. But to tell me that I should modify my behavior there because of an increase in a national trend of low-carb eating to me is just plain wrong!

[CLASYS]

I don't think that the post was implying that, just that it seemed to be strangely ironic that the restaurant manager in question was located in a state known by so many, including those unfortunates who live and work here, for its cheapskatedness.

Actually, as the one making the original quote, I had NO preconceived notions in 1983; it was my first road trip West of Chicago and knew nothing of Utah and what I would face when I got there. However, all that I posted DID happen there [including some quite enjoyable time in the wonderful National Parks in the entire area such as Zion, Arches, etc. where nature isn't cheap about giving you a full portion of natural beauty.]

If someone here is complaining about something, perhaps I have awakened a nerve within them indirectly, and they somehow feel guilty about it.

As a NY resident, I have seen "all types" of people, and indeed some of all of them are cheapskates! I really don't see any form of trend, just bell-shaped-curved normality.

Some of the posts have to do with tipping: I have seen people who feel compelled to tip people they never even have contact with much less people who want a substantial tip for a dubious service such as doormen where I was perfectly capable of opening the door myself. Ever been to a roulette table in Las Vegas or Atlantic City or similar where bettors tip the dealer when they win?

I suspect from the posters reacting, that in their opinion, none of these situations I outline here are EVER fulfilled by residents of Arizona's immediate neighbor to the north.

cjl (The famous millionaire John D. Rockefeller was known for being a lousy tipper; was he ALSO from Utah?)

[CLASYS]

:idea: [May have to respond to a quote within a quote here ]
If that weight measurement is accurate, then I agree it was really ridiculous for the manager to make such an issue out of it. I've eaten steaks bigger than that. Not often, mind you, but it's not outside the realm of reason to think that a big guy could consume that much. Sheesh...my DH has been known to eat an entire rotisserie chicken at one sitting by himself.

:idea: On FNC I additionally heard reports that the manager was defending his policy because his target customer base was senior citizens presumbably having their "weekly event" of this great meal out, and as such, he wasn't prepared for someone who would eat more-than-miniscule portions.

I suspect that many senior citizens are actuallly the source of much of the profits for this place, since they likely eat FAR LESS value of food yet pay the same price as others.

While I'm certainly not against seniors, it's a rather pathetic argument to attempt to shame the patron that in effect he was "taking food out of the mouths of old people".

Was this manager having us believe that he could get away with having so little food available that a few more roast beef slices could interfere with his apparent "cash cow" (pun intended) business feeding itty-bitty slices to seniors one apiece? Or, is it more likely that in point of fact he just wasn't prepared to have anything out of the ordinary as he micro-managed his portion control and food reserves to OVERLY maximize profit on his expectations of patron demograophics? [And I didn't even mention he was cheap in this paragraph :) ] :idea:

The difference, as you already pointed out, is that in one situation you are a non-paying guest and in the other you are a paying customer in an establishment that allows you to serve yourself and being in the business that they are should be well aware of the fact that they are going to have customers occasionally with large appetites and plan their supply of entrees appropriately. Next, nowhere has it been said that this man consumed half of the restaurant's available meat for the night and if 13 or 14 ounces really was half their supply, someone should be fired for seriously undersupplying the buffet.

:idea: When I am a guest in someone's house that I have no control over, I either expect to eat at home before or after, because I always have low expectations about what, IF ANYTHING, I will be able to eat there.

I have a personal additional problem, allergies to fish and shellfish that limit my choices further :(

When I do have some control, I have been know to either ask for special treatment up front BEFORE the event, or perhaps bring my own food that can be quickly heated up and added to the table, etc.

In any case, all of this presupposes this is a SOCIAL event, not a meal in a restaurant I am paying for. I expect value for my payment, or I won't go there; it's that simple. It's not my problem if they aren't prepared to satisfy me within the guidelines of what's possible and reasonable for me, NOT for others OR their bottom line. I must abide by CLEARLY STATED rules, not value judgements imposed upon me by any who might either have an agenda, an incompetence, or prejudiced bias against me. :idea:

Last, 13 ounces is a little over 3 servings of what most nutritionists would consider a serving (4 oz.). I'd hardly call that gluttonous, especially given that I'm sure many people here could easily consume a 12 oz. steak.
BTW...the typical roast beef on a buffet line is a Steamship Round that weighs between 30 and 50 pounds (hence the need to roast it overnight): http://www.beeffoodservice.com/Cuts/Info.aspx?Code=29
13 ounces out of a 40 pound roast still leaves over 39 pounds for the other customers. :rolleyes:

cjl (As someone once said: If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I guess you don't run a restaurant without a kitchen, do you?)

[Angeline]

There are no rules when it comes to buffet style restaurants. Having eaten at a great many in my lifetime, I've come to the conclusion that it just doesn't pay to be too "nice" at such establishments--you will get elbowed out of the way every time

Guess that's just outside the scope of my experience. I've never been to a buffet where people didn't politely wait for you to finish and move away before serving themselves.

When my boyfriend went to Texas on business, he was warned away by the people there from going to buffets. They are troughs they said. I thought he was just exaggerating.

[cc48510]

Just a point about Roasts...I bought one a couple days ago [Sirloin Tip] at Super Wal-Mart, $2.68/lb, and it weighed about 2-1/2 pounds. I only paid about $7 for it. If I only paid $7, they sure as hell didn't pay anywhere near that much. They're probably paying under $1/lb with quantity discounts and wholesale prices.

On top of that, 12 ounce T-Bones frequently sell in restraunts [at least here in Florida] for about $9 pre-tax. A 16 ounce Porterhouse runs about $12 pre-tax. A T-Bone costs almost $10/lb and is NEVER put on sale in the store as compared to Round Roast which can be had [on sale] for $1.77/lb quite often. If Clock or Denny's can make a profit selling a meal with a T-Bone, Sides, etc...for only a few dollars more than it would cost in the store, then how come these folks can't make a profit selling Roast for $7 more than it would cost in the store ???

If Winn-Dixie and Wal-Mart can make a profit selling Round Roasts for $1.77-2.68/lb, then these folks should be able to make a profit selling it for $11/lb (13 ounces at $9 for the meal and assuming it was the only food they ate.) It says alot about a store/restraunt when the only way they can make a profit charging $9 a head is for everyone to only eat about 50 cents to a dollars worth of food.

[CLASYS]

My better half has just informed me that we are booked for a two-day "comp"-ed room in Atlantic City 4 weeks hence. At the famous Tropicana Hotel's Beachfront Buffet I fully expect to eat a "comp"-ed meal consisting of all I want [ignoring all of the carbs there]:

Unlimited roast beef, turkey breast, ham, all hand-carved. [btw, I direct the carver to make BIIIIIIG slices so I don't have to come back! He is glad to oblige.]

Breakfast sausages, bacon, eggs [any style if you wait for them, made as you watch, or unlimited scrambled with no waiting]

Good assortment of unlimited salad ingredients [I have to limit myself on quantity, but not quality] and cheeses.

Various forms of Chinese food, such as stir-fried beef and broccoli.

Infinite refills on any beverage. This includes changing our mind what you want. [My wife usually starts with diet soda, but ends with coffee.] Beer and wine are available at extra cost payable to the server when you want it. [We don't of course.]

I have seen people there take three plates at a time of crablegs and other things I cannot have, otherwise generally suitable for LC. My wife will grab a salmon or tuna steak as well.

NO ONE is ever rushed to get out of there; average meal time is over two hours. Tipping the table server is optional, but you do get your own food "buffet style" as that paragon of the food business, Chuck-a-rama, can testify to. Hours are between 09:00 am and 03:00 pm; stay the whole time if you want, but if you leave, you leave.

Dinner buffer is 04:00 pm to 09:00 pm or later [depends on day of the week] and costs more, but actually has less ingredients because they delete the breakfast portion and make that end of the place a second line with the same stuff to serve more people more quickly. [The brunch version is busiest at 09:00 am because that's when most of the seniors eat; by 10:00 am or so, it's thinned out quite a lot. We tend to arrive there around 12:00 or 01:00 when we finally wake up after an "active" night of various activities :) The dinner buffet is continously busy as most people make a big deal of it; seniors tend NOT to attend after 05:00 pm.]

Clearly, the expected food ingestion rate here is quite high, and no one would ever be bothered over any form of "excess" in any sense.

Gambling "properties" tend to try to outdo each other on this sort of food comp thing; the Trop is a great place to eat for LC people! [And literally anyone; the carb choices are also amazing, including infinite vanilla and chocolate ice cream I have seen kids go back for sixths and then cover them with chocolate or rainbow sprinkles, nuts, maraschino cherries, etc. They also offer about 25 desserts including cakes, puddings, pies, cheesecake, etc. and about 30 forms of baked bread and rolls, etc. Truly a test of LC mettle to be tempted but resist and just instead go get ANOTHER plate of meat!]

cjl (drool! (The meat, stupid!))

[adkpam]

The manager was wrong. Period.

IF they were abusing the buffet according to restaurant standards, it would have been acceptable to give a "head's up" to all restaurant personnel (and a Samoan in Utah has GOT to be rather recognizable) so that, the next time, the manager can discuss the situation before any money or food changes hands. No harm, no foul.

That said, I don't think the manager should even do that. Food is the cheapest part of what a restaurant offers. Even expensive food. Look at the negative publicity that has come out of what? A few bucks worth of meat? If they do show up constantly, and do abuse the buffet, then clearly state it is not all-you-can-eat and let them go elsewhere.

That was handled in the worst possible way which tends to moderate any wrongdoing on the part of the diners, if there was one.