Quoted message said:>>>>item weighs, you don't need to weigh each time.
>>>
>>>You would be surprised at the variability in weight (30-40%).
>>
>>Oh, sure. So a Big Mac can weigh anything from 4.68 ounces to 10.92
>>ounces. 40% under and over the spec weight of 7.8 ounces...
>
> The variability of each food item is less but add them together in a
> meal and the variability adds up, dear Bob.
I'm going to interpret that standard, evasive non-answer as a yes. Based
solely on your absolute record of never conceding error. So it would be
possible to get a Big Mac that weighed 4.68 ounces in the same bag that
had one that weighed 10.92 ounces? Or that a portion of fries would vary
by 40% up or down? Or their apple pies that come already packaged. Or
their chicken nuggets, or their yogurts or their milkshakes...
Of course, that's utter nonsense. Even if the employees tried, to cram
almost 11 ounces into a Big Mac bun would make it unwrappable with the
sheets they use and unclosable in their boxes. It would have to be
lettuce, tomato and sauce, since buns and patties come already
portioned. <LOL> Right...
The containers, into which they put unportioned products (salads,
milkshakes, etc.), are sized to prevent overportioning.
> Any scientist would have known this but then again, you are a cook and
> not a scientist.
<LOL> You keep trying to make "cook" into a bad word, trivialize it. And
you say it as though my 13 years at university level study never
happened. Poor guy can't make it on the facts, so do innuendo and
implications. A scientist in anyone who tests ideas against evidence.
Anyone can be a scientist. It's about how one does things, not about the
subject of what one does.
Any scientist or mathematician would understand "reversion to the mean"
in a series with variables. As you clearly do not.
I notice you snipped all the other foodservice companies with their
standards measured to the gram. I assume you did that because you have
no information that even distantly challenges their performance against
these standards except your *unprofessional* guesswork.
> If you weighed your **meals** from these restaurants,
Funny thing. I did when I was a consultant to Pepsico and visited
several different corporate franchises (Long John's, Pizza hut, etc.)
and performed surprise spot checks that included weighing prepared food
items. We found a variability of less than 3% from standard. And if you
permit tolerances to build in the same direction (a statistical
virtual-zero likelihood) and ordered 3 foods (the average from ala carte
menus), it would total less than 10% variation from spec.
I've also weighed foods and whole meals from other foodservice companies
to try to calculate their costs and their operating methods for the past
30 years. And all my operations had very stringently weighed portions.
> you would have observed this
Nah. I would have observed what I've already said would be the case.
My *professional* experience says your *amateur* guesswork is simply
wrong. In three decades of portioning by weight and consulting with
other foodservice operations that did the same, the variance from
defined and designed standard never exceeded 5% in surprise testing, and
that only in new-staff situations.
> but then again you are a food worshipper
What a profoundly stupid thing to say. Do you picture in your crabbed
little mind some altar with candles and incense burning to some
souffles? Does one kowtow to a plate of linguine? Or do happy maypole
dances around the meatloaf? How simply unintelligent an assertion.
For an alternative view of this fixation on food; one might be so
occupied with food as to constantly weigh and estimate weights and
impose on hosts with uniquely unsettling requests to weigh *one*
person's food at a dinner party. And that preoccupation makes one eat
only part of meals in restaurants and take the rest home to weigh and
subtract from that total already consumed today. That little notebook
(who can remember every little thing they've eaten all day and the exact
weight it carried except someone in the raging throes of full-blown OCD)
with the jottings of every dot and dittle consumed must run to
encyclopedic size in fairly short order.
> who has likely
> vowed never to weigh your meals per the 2PD-OMER Approach.
I don't do ill-conceived, unbalanced (in several ways) diets like yours.
They're just as stupid as your assertion that someone could "worship"
food. I don't vow not to do stupid things; I just don't do them.
> Iow, it would be contrary to your "religion."
This is merely hilarious in a chillingly bizarre way. As though religion
(Webster's Unabridged - belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers
to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the
universe.) could refer to an inert mass created by a "worshipper." What
a trivialization of an idea. Humpty-Dumpty Chunglish prostitution of the
language.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less."
"The question is, " said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so
many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty. "which is to be master-that's
all."
Chung is "master" of his words. They mean what he wants them to no
matter what anyone else says. Like Oxford and Webster.
Pastorio
