two thousand calories in a single meal

JoRocka

Mr_Knight wrote: »

JoRocka wrote: »

Mr_Knight wrote: »

One tablespoon of oil is ~13g -> 107 calories. That leaves about 60g of spinach, which is about two cups worth.

Anyway, the answers are all similar - it's basically all fat-calories from oil.

and I don't know anyone who measures out EXACTLY a tablespoon- I do my best to measure out my butter and oils- but 1 Tbsp just does NOT go that far.

Personally I would add a fudge factor to any number taken from PF Chang's official nutritional info.

A big fudge factor....

engineering factor of safety is a minimum of what 1.5- usually we use 2.0 or higher. LOL I stand by that for my guessing on food as well.

MagnumBurrito

High five!

Francl27

That article made me sad, honestly, lol. I used not to think twice when eating that stuff...

I still have 2000 calorie meals once in a blue moon though.

brianpperkins

TheWorstHorse wrote: »

from the new york times today, photos and descriptions of what two thousand calories looks like...

my favorite is the 2090 calorie shake from sonic. you read that right... a whole day's worth of calories in a single cup.

comparing the chain restaurant stuff to homemade meals is pretty strong support for the idea that the more often you cook at home, the less likely you are to be seriously overweight.

That isn't a full day of calories for me.

akboy58

Fascinating article, but also a sterling example of "How to Lie With Statistics." I ate most of my meals -- solid, healthy meals, mostly from scratch -- at home for twenty years, and somehow ended up 75 lbs overweight. I love the NYTimes, but there's ALWAYS more to a story than the popular press can (or will) tell you.

neanderthin

akboy58 wrote: »

Fascinating article, but also a sterling example of "How to Lie With Statistics." I ate most of my meals -- solid, healthy meals, mostly from scratch -- at home for twenty years, and somehow ended up 75 lbs overweight. I love the NYTimes, but there's ALWAYS more to a story than the popular press can (or will) tell you.

One really doesn't have much to do with the other.

acorsaut89

MMMMMMOlive Garden

Need2Exerc1se

akboy58 wrote: »

Fascinating article, but also a sterling example of "How to Lie With Statistics." I ate most of my meals -- solid, healthy meals, mostly from scratch -- at home for twenty years, and somehow ended up 75 lbs overweight. I love the NYTimes, but there's ALWAYS more to a story than the popular press can (or will) tell you.

The article did not say you couldn't gain weight by eating at home.

LolBroScience

I want the PB shake.

SomeNights246

SnuggleSmacks wrote: »

cwolfman13 wrote: »

This is one of the big reasons I tend to not eat out all that often...even with a relatively high maintenance number, I just can't do that too often and I'm for *kitten* about eating only 1/2 or whatever.

Also, if I know I'm going big like this I will generally eat smaller the rest of the day. I went out for brunch yesterday and I'm pretty sure it clocked in close to 1500 calories or maybe a bit more...skipped lunch, had a small snack in the afternoon and a good hardy stew in the evening.

Just eat at the right places and pick the right foods. I eat at Taco Bell quite often and I usually pick things that end up between 400 and 600 cals for the whole meal.

I eat out quite often, too. (College student, it's just easier than packing lunches every day) And generally, I can have meals between 300-600 calories very easily. You just have to go in prepared. Panera is my favorite place to eat at. Pretty easy to get a meal for about 500 calories with U Pick 2.