Could you order two appetizers instead of an entrée? Would that be a better choice?
The Short Answer
Often, yes. Appetizers are typically smaller portions with more variety. Two appetizers, especially if one is protein and one is vegetables, may provide a better-portioned, more satisfying meal than an oversized entrée. This approach gives you control over components and quantity without the awkwardness of leaving half an entrée uneaten or taking it home.
Something to Sit With
The entrée is default, but defaults aren’t laws.
The menu is a suggestion. What do you actually want, and in what quantity?
Learn More
The entrée problem. Restaurant portions have grown since the 1970s. Marketplace and restaurant servings exceed USDA standard serving sizes, some of them greatly: cookies 700% above standard, pasta 480%, muffins 333%.[1] The plate arrives and social pressure pushes toward finishing it, or you take home leftovers that rarely get eaten optimally.
Meanwhile, the entrée is typically a single protein preparation with starch and perhaps minimal vegetables. The composition is often designed for perceived value rather than health.
The appetizer advantage. Ordering from the appetizer menu offers several benefits:
Portion control built in. Appetizers are designed to be smaller. Two of them often total less than one entrée.
Component selection. You can construct a meal: protein appetizer plus vegetable-based appetizer. You’re eating what you actually want, not a default composition.
Variety without excess. Different flavors and textures without much of the overconsumption variety can bring[2], because the total quantity is controlled.
Psychological satisfaction. Two dishes can feel more abundant than one, even if the total volume is less.
What to choose. Effective appetizer combinations:
Protein-focused appetizer: Shrimp cocktail, grilled calamari, satay, meatballs, ceviche, smoked salmon. These provide the anchor.
Vegetable-focused appetizer: Salad, vegetable soup, grilled vegetables, Brussels sprouts, artichoke. These provide volume and nutrients.
Less effective: two starch-heavy appetizers (bread-based, fried items) that may satisfy less and digest quickly.
The social navigation. Ordering “just appetizers” can feel awkward. Responses to potential friction:
“I’m not very hungry but wanted to join you.” Simple, inarguable.
Order without explanation. Just tell the server what you want. No justification needed.
If questioned by companions: “This is how I eat best.” End of discussion.
Many people pay little attention to what others order; the anxiety is often more than the reality.
When this works best. The appetizer-as-meal strategy fits certain situations:
Restaurants with oversized entrées. American restaurants especially.
When you’re eating within a shorter window. Smaller meals fit better into time-restricted eating.
Social meals where presence matters more than food. You participate without overeating.
Cuisines with shareable appetizer traditions. Tapas, mezze, dim sum: appetizer-style eating is already normal.
When an entrée might be better. Sometimes the appetizer approach doesn’t fit:
The entrées are well-portioned and healthy. Some restaurants do this right.
The appetizers are all fried or heavy. If every starter is breaded and deep-fried, the entrée may be healthier.
You’re genuinely very hungry. A bigger meal might be appropriate.
The point isn’t that appetizers are always better: it’s that you have options beyond the default. Use them.
Further reading:
- Young LR & Nestle M, “The contribution of expanding portion sizes to the US obesity epidemic”[3] — American Journal of Public Health, 2002
- Rolls BJ, Morris EL & Roe LS, “Portion size of food affects energy intake in normal-weight and overweight men and women”[4] — American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2002
Written by AI, directed and approved by me. How this is made →