By the way, a question that is usually not something that is bypassed, but somehow... is not raised, or something. If the "abundance" of the table in terms of the number of dishes is a common topic of controversy, then about the "share", so to speak, these dishes are somehow not remembered.
In the sense, to which category does it belong to the table, to light snacks or hearty, "greasy" dishes, after which - a serious heaviness in the body is felt?
I do not argue that we have a New Year's (and not only New Year's, but any festive) table very, very satisfying. This is a tradition. And she went, it seems, from the times when the main thing was to eat hearty. And on ordinary - not holidays - it was rarely possible.
Well, the church posts have played their part.
But a lot of time has passed since then, cultural traditions have also changed (evolved or degraded - everyone decides for himself), and culinary traditions have also changed. Moreover, they changed quite naturally - firstly, the transport network made available dishes from other regions, secondly, refrigeration and other equipment designed for storing food practically eliminated seasonality.
That is, we have no reason to fast for some time (unless you are, of course, a believer who observes the fasts), and then diligently eat meat, which, if we do not eat it, risks spoiling.
This is, roughly speaking, schematic.
Therefore, the practical meaning of the "greedy table" disappears. We are already well fed.
And let's be honest - organisms are protesting against the abundance of heavy festive dishes. They do not live in "cold-hunger" the rest of the time, they are worn out by the benefits of civilization (ulcers, pancreatitis, cholecystitis - in many).
so that the foreground, as for me, is the same light snacks that are prepared according to the principle "do not burst from gluttony, but eat, so that it is tasty, satisfying, but not hard."
Yes, not even snacks, but the rest of the dishes, as for me, the lighter the better.
What do you think?