Study says restaurant meals are just as unhealthy as fast food
Options
Replies
-
In other breaking news water is discovered to be wet...
Illogical post is illogical. Restaurants use the same ingredients as people use at home to make meals. Food. How much of that food you choose to eat, and how often you choose to indulge in that type of food, is up to you as the consumer. Blaming being unhealthy on restaurant food is ridiculous.0 -
I'll trade the 80 calories saved for someone else to do the dishes.0
-
Here's the full study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3695401/
I feel like conclusions are being drawn here that aren't actually supported by the study, although I need to read it more carefully. That it's recall-based and that restaurants differ so much are two things that come to mind immediately as problems with a study like this, and that I need to understand how they were addressed.
I also would need to understand what's considered "unhealthy."
For example, I don't like most fast food, but if I went to a fast food place, I'd choose my meal based in part on calories, and the calories really aren't huge if you stay to the smaller serving sizes. So if I got a small burger and fries the calories might not be that great. It would still be less "healthy" in my mind than my usual meal, because it has few veggies, lots of fats that aren't my favorites, not much protein for the size of the meal, etc. (Although obviously this varies based on what you order--I'm going by the fact that I'd get some sort of burger and fries or something similar.)
If I go to a restaurant for dinner, I assume the calories are going to be much higher and more out of line with the usual meal it's replacing. I also assume more fat--but usually from olive oil or butter, based on where I typically eat--and I choose meals that macro and micronutrient-wise are more like those I eat at home, including good amounts of protein and vegetables. The main difference is larger serving sizes (not at all places, but many), often more carb sides (like the bread on the table, rice and naan at an Indian place, larger servings of some sort of starch often at other places), but especially lots of fat including in the preparations where you wouldn't necessarily realize it if not sensitive to it and the sauces. Do they add lots more salt? Not so sure about this--I expect it differs place to place. (I also don't care about salt added during cooking, especially for one meal, much at all.)
Obviously, though, it depends. If I get a dessert that makes a difference. If I get some fried appetizer that makes a difference. If I go to a Mexican place like I did this weekend and eat freely from the chips and guac, that makes a difference.
Ultimately, though, higher calories and higher fat (and even, gasp! higher carbs) don't mean less healthy if you fit them into your day or week. I think of health as more about the overall context and also the micronutrient profile.
It also kind of depends on how often you go. One issue with fast food is that some people go all the time. If you go occasionally, I don't think it's unhealthy. Similarly, lots of nicer restaurants and local places are set up with the assumption that it's an occasional indulgence and thus indulgent. I got myself in trouble before by going a lot and not adjusting for the fact that indulging 2-3 times a week doesn't make sense. Now I am more conscious of this. But that one is overly indulgent doesn't mean the meals are "unhealthy" it means your approach to them is.
Finally, there are lots of lunch places (not sure if they count as fast food or not--I mean places like Pret) where you can get meals that to my mind are both similar in calories AND nutrient content/ingredients to stuff you'd make at home. Some additional sodium probably (I don't actually try to count sodium from home cooked meals), but the difference in the things I care about don't seem too dramatic at all. I wonder how these are counted or if they are in the study.0 -
thankyou4thevenom wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Why did they only check for fat as the only macronutrient? I thought carbs were the booman?
Because fat is still the devil. You know it makes you fat and eat more or something.
Sorry but I would have to disagree. Fat is not the devil, will not cause people to over eat, and is not what makes people fat. Eating more calorie than what the body need in a day is what makes people over weight.
The previous comment was sarcasm.
Thanks. I read that before my morning coffee, lol.
0 -
In other breaking news water is discovered to be wet...
Illogical post is illogical. Restaurants use the same ingredients as people use at home to make meals. Food. How much of that food you choose to eat, and how often you choose to indulge in that type of food, is up to you as the consumer. Blaming being unhealthy on restaurant food is ridiculous.
I never knew that restaurants use the same ingredients that people use at home. That's me set straight then.
It could be of course that restaurants, like most businesses, seek to maximise profits by driving consumption and do so by making food highly palatable and high in portion size which helps exceed maintenance calories...0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Here's the full study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3695401/
I feel like conclusions are being drawn here that aren't actually supported by the study, although I need to read it more carefully. That it's recall-based and that restaurants differ so much are two things that come to mind immediately as problems with a study like this, and that I need to understand how they were addressed.
I also would need to understand what's considered "unhealthy."
For example, I don't like most fast food, but if I went to a fast food place, I'd choose my meal based in part on calories, and the calories really aren't huge if you stay to the smaller serving sizes. So if I got a small burger and fries the calories might not be that great. It would still be less "healthy" in my mind than my usual meal, because it has few veggies, lots of fats that aren't my favorites, not much protein for the size of the meal, etc. (Although obviously this varies based on what you order--I'm going by the fact that I'd get some sort of burger and fries or something similar.)
If I go to a restaurant for dinner, I assume the calories are going to be much higher and more out of line with the usual meal it's replacing. I also assume more fat--but usually from olive oil or butter, based on where I typically eat--and I choose meals that macro and micronutrient-wise are more like those I eat at home, including good amounts of protein and vegetables. The main difference is larger serving sizes (not at all places, but many), often more carb sides (like the bread on the table, rice and naan at an Indian place, larger servings of some sort of starch often at other places), but especially lots of fat including in the preparations where you wouldn't necessarily realize it if not sensitive to it and the sauces. Do they add lots more salt? Not so sure about this--I expect it differs place to place. (I also don't care about salt added during cooking, especially for one meal, much at all.)
Obviously, though, it depends. If I get a dessert that makes a difference. If I get some fried appetizer that makes a difference. If I go to a Mexican place like I did this weekend and eat freely from the chips and guac, that makes a difference.
Ultimately, though, higher calories and higher fat (and even, gasp! higher carbs) don't mean less healthy if you fit them into your day or week. I think of health as more about the overall context and also the micronutrient profile.
It also kind of depends on how often you go. One issue with fast food is that some people go all the time. If you go occasionally, I don't think it's unhealthy. Similarly, lots of nicer restaurants and local places are set up with the assumption that it's an occasional indulgence and thus indulgent. I got myself in trouble before by going a lot and not adjusting for the fact that indulging 2-3 times a week doesn't make sense. Now I am more conscious of this. But that one is overly indulgent doesn't mean the meals are "unhealthy" it means your approach to them is.
Finally, there are lots of lunch places (not sure if they count as fast food or not--I mean places like Pret) where you can get meals that to my mind are both similar in calories AND nutrient content/ingredients to stuff you'd make at home. Some additional sodium probably (I don't actually try to count sodium from home cooked meals), but the difference in the things I care about don't seem too dramatic at all. I wonder how these are counted or if they are in the study.
^^ This. Nuff said.0 -
thankyou4thevenom wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Why did they only check for fat as the only macronutrient? I thought carbs were the booman?
Because fat is still the devil. You know it makes you fat and eat more or something.
Sorry but I would have to disagree. Fat is not the devil, will not cause people to over eat, and is not what makes people fat. Eating more calorie than what the body need in a day is what makes people over weight.
The previous comment was sarcasm.
Thanks. I read that before my morning coffee, lol.
Understandable.
0 -
In other breaking news water is discovered to be wet...
Illogical post is illogical. Restaurants use the same ingredients as people use at home to make meals. Food. How much of that food you choose to eat, and how often you choose to indulge in that type of food, is up to you as the consumer. Blaming being unhealthy on restaurant food is ridiculous.
I never knew that restaurants use the same ingredients that people use at home. That's me set straight then.
It could be of course that restaurants, like most businesses, seek to maximise profits by driving consumption and do so by making food highly palatable and high in portion size which helps exceed maintenance calories...
They may place a large portion in front of you, but you don't have to eat it. Many people choose to order together, and split an entree, or eat half, and get a take home box for the left overs.
choices.
0 -
In other breaking news water is discovered to be wet...
Illogical post is illogical. Restaurants use the same ingredients as people use at home to make meals. Food. How much of that food you choose to eat, and how often you choose to indulge in that type of food, is up to you as the consumer. Blaming being unhealthy on restaurant food is ridiculous.
I never knew that restaurants use the same ingredients that people use at home. That's me set straight then.
It could be of course that restaurants, like most businesses, seek to maximise profits by driving consumption and do so by making food highly palatable and high in portion size which helps exceed maintenance calories...
They may place a large portion in front of you, but you don't have to eat it. Many people choose to order together, and split an entree, or eat half, and get a take home box for the left overs.
choices.
Errr, yeah, that's blindingly obvious if you spend some time consciously assessing the way you structure your eating.
Many people do not and associate restaurants as somehow being "better" for you than fast food places. Information likes this helps people like that consciously consider their choices.
Of course, having well informed consumers is a terrible thing and must be stopped at all costs.
0 -
I guess when I go out to eat I take it as a luxury and a treat and really don't care too much about the calories/fat/carbs since I don't do it regularly. Unfortunately I know too many people who eat fast food/restaurant food 2-3 times a day and then wonder why they can't lose weight.0
-
In other breaking news water is discovered to be wet...
Illogical post is illogical. Restaurants use the same ingredients as people use at home to make meals. Food. How much of that food you choose to eat, and how often you choose to indulge in that type of food, is up to you as the consumer. Blaming being unhealthy on restaurant food is ridiculous.
I never knew that restaurants use the same ingredients that people use at home. That's me set straight then.
It could be of course that restaurants, like most businesses, seek to maximise profits by driving consumption and do so by making food highly palatable and high in portion size which helps exceed maintenance calories...
Wait, you mean they want to offer consumers a tasty meal that is a good value for their money? How dare they! What kind of business are they running? They should serve bland, low calorie food in small portions that is very expensive. That's the ticket!
0 -
In other breaking news water is discovered to be wet...
Illogical post is illogical. Restaurants use the same ingredients as people use at home to make meals. Food. How much of that food you choose to eat, and how often you choose to indulge in that type of food, is up to you as the consumer. Blaming being unhealthy on restaurant food is ridiculous.
I never knew that restaurants use the same ingredients that people use at home. That's me set straight then.
It could be of course that restaurants, like most businesses, seek to maximise profits by driving consumption and do so by making food highly palatable and high in portion size which helps exceed maintenance calories...
They may place a large portion in front of you, but you don't have to eat it. Many people choose to order together, and split an entree, or eat half, and get a take home box for the left overs.
choices.
But even a small portion can be loaded with oil and butter. Your point isn't really valid, honestly. Plus I guess I'm a special snowflakes because 90% of the time, if I boxed half of my restaurant meals for later, I'd be hungry 2 hours later, if that...
Heck I've ordered some 'light' options for 550 calories that I could have made at home for 350.
But anyway, it's not really a surprise. Just look at nutrition info online. It's scary. I just don't understand the point of making a study out of it when it's obvious in the first place. Of course it doesn't help that in most places, the 'vegetable' of choice with meals is French fries.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »In other breaking news water is discovered to be wet...
Illogical post is illogical. Restaurants use the same ingredients as people use at home to make meals. Food. How much of that food you choose to eat, and how often you choose to indulge in that type of food, is up to you as the consumer. Blaming being unhealthy on restaurant food is ridiculous.
I never knew that restaurants use the same ingredients that people use at home. That's me set straight then.
It could be of course that restaurants, like most businesses, seek to maximise profits by driving consumption and do so by making food highly palatable and high in portion size which helps exceed maintenance calories...
Wait, you mean they want to offer consumers a tasty meal that is a good value for their money? How dare they! What kind of business are they running? They should serve bland, low calorie food in small portions that is very expensive. That's the ticket!
Are you being deliberately obtuse?0 -
In other breaking news water is discovered to be wet...
Illogical post is illogical. Restaurants use the same ingredients as people use at home to make meals. Food. How much of that food you choose to eat, and how often you choose to indulge in that type of food, is up to you as the consumer. Blaming being unhealthy on restaurant food is ridiculous.
I never knew that restaurants use the same ingredients that people use at home. That's me set straight then.
It could be of course that restaurants, like most businesses, seek to maximise profits by driving consumption and do so by making food highly palatable and high in portion size which helps exceed maintenance calories...
Does "highly palatable" have a definition other than delicious or something similar?
I've seen that phrase used to describe restaurant or fast food like its somehow nefarious to try to make food that tastes really good. When I cook, I try to make highly palatable food.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »In other breaking news water is discovered to be wet...
Illogical post is illogical. Restaurants use the same ingredients as people use at home to make meals. Food. How much of that food you choose to eat, and how often you choose to indulge in that type of food, is up to you as the consumer. Blaming being unhealthy on restaurant food is ridiculous.
I never knew that restaurants use the same ingredients that people use at home. That's me set straight then.
It could be of course that restaurants, like most businesses, seek to maximise profits by driving consumption and do so by making food highly palatable and high in portion size which helps exceed maintenance calories...
Wait, you mean they want to offer consumers a tasty meal that is a good value for their money? How dare they! What kind of business are they running? They should serve bland, low calorie food in small portions that is very expensive. That's the ticket!
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
I was going more for isosceles
0 -
In other breaking news water is discovered to be wet...
Illogical post is illogical. Restaurants use the same ingredients as people use at home to make meals. Food. How much of that food you choose to eat, and how often you choose to indulge in that type of food, is up to you as the consumer. Blaming being unhealthy on restaurant food is ridiculous.
This I can agree with.
While the ingredients aren't exactly the same (I prefer butter or other fats to vegetable oils, for example), the primary issue is the ridiculous portions people demand in the name of "value".
I'm a big guy, and almost every dinner portion I can order is excessive even for me.
In other news, who was under the impression that proper restaurants were any different than fast food joints?0 -
In other breaking news water is discovered to be wet...
Illogical post is illogical. Restaurants use the same ingredients as people use at home to make meals. Food. How much of that food you choose to eat, and how often you choose to indulge in that type of food, is up to you as the consumer. Blaming being unhealthy on restaurant food is ridiculous.
I never knew that restaurants use the same ingredients that people use at home. That's me set straight then.
It could be of course that restaurants, like most businesses, seek to maximise profits by driving consumption and do so by making food highly palatable and high in portion size which helps exceed maintenance calories...
Does "highly palatable" have a definition other than delicious or something similar?
I've seen that phrase used to describe restaurant or fast food like its somehow nefarious to try to make food that tastes really good. When I cook, I try to make highly palatable food.
Extra oil, salt, and butter are typically an easy and cheaper way of making food taste better.0 -
In other breaking news water is discovered to be wet...
Illogical post is illogical. Restaurants use the same ingredients as people use at home to make meals. Food. How much of that food you choose to eat, and how often you choose to indulge in that type of food, is up to you as the consumer. Blaming being unhealthy on restaurant food is ridiculous.
I never knew that restaurants use the same ingredients that people use at home. That's me set straight then.
It could be of course that restaurants, like most businesses, seek to maximise profits by driving consumption and do so by making food highly palatable and high in portion size which helps exceed maintenance calories...
They may place a large portion in front of you, but you don't have to eat it. Many people choose to order together, and split an entree, or eat half, and get a take home box for the left overs.
choices.
But even a small portion can be loaded with oil and butter. Your point isn't really valid, honestly. Plus I guess I'm a special snowflakes because 90% of the time, if I boxed half of my restaurant meals for later, I'd be hungry 2 hours later, if that...
Heck I've ordered some 'light' options for 550 calories that I could have made at home for 350.
But anyway, it's not really a surprise. Just look at nutrition info online. It's scary. I just don't understand the point of making a study out of it when it's obvious in the first place. Of course it doesn't help that in most places, the 'vegetable' of choice with meals is French fries.
Why is her point invalid? I think what mccindy is saying, and I agree with her, is that there is nothing inherently unhealthy about a restaurant meal, it may or may not be unhealthy for an individual consumer based on how they fit it into their overall lifestyle. If they have hypertension, then yes the sodium could be an issue. If they are regularly exceeding calorie goals, then yes, restaurant meals may make it difficult to stay within a calorie budget. But ultimately it isn't the food itself or the restaurant that should be labeled unhealthy. It is the person who is making those choices to exceed sodium, or calories, or fat, that is making unhealthy choices. That same person could do the same things when cooking at home though.
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »In other breaking news water is discovered to be wet...
Illogical post is illogical. Restaurants use the same ingredients as people use at home to make meals. Food. How much of that food you choose to eat, and how often you choose to indulge in that type of food, is up to you as the consumer. Blaming being unhealthy on restaurant food is ridiculous.
I never knew that restaurants use the same ingredients that people use at home. That's me set straight then.
It could be of course that restaurants, like most businesses, seek to maximise profits by driving consumption and do so by making food highly palatable and high in portion size which helps exceed maintenance calories...
They may place a large portion in front of you, but you don't have to eat it. Many people choose to order together, and split an entree, or eat half, and get a take home box for the left overs.
choices.
But even a small portion can be loaded with oil and butter. Your point isn't really valid, honestly. Plus I guess I'm a special snowflakes because 90% of the time, if I boxed half of my restaurant meals for later, I'd be hungry 2 hours later, if that...
Heck I've ordered some 'light' options for 550 calories that I could have made at home for 350.
But anyway, it's not really a surprise. Just look at nutrition info online. It's scary. I just don't understand the point of making a study out of it when it's obvious in the first place. Of course it doesn't help that in most places, the 'vegetable' of choice with meals is French fries.
Why is her point invalid? I think what mccindy is saying, and I agree with her, is that there is nothing inherently unhealthy about a restaurant meal, it may or may not be unhealthy for an individual consumer based on how they fit it into their overall lifestyle. If they have hypertension, then yes the sodium could be an issue. If they are regularly exceeding calorie goals, then yes, restaurant meals may make it difficult to stay within a calorie budget. But ultimately it isn't the food itself or the restaurant that should be labeled unhealthy. It is the person who is making those choices to exceed sodium, or calories, or fat, that is making unhealthy choices. That same person could do the same things when cooking at home though.
Ok I get the whole 'nothing is unhealthy' in moderation thing. But I don't feel like arguing semantics. My point is that 99% of restaurant meals will be more than half the calories of what the average 'non overweight' American should eat in a day.
And that's the problem, considering that people typically eat 3 meals a day. I will *never* buy the whole 'it's people's fault' argument. It's not entirely. When 99% of options in restaurants come with 400 calories of French fries or 300 calorie dressings, that's a problem too.
You'll never convince me otherwise, so might as well agree to disagree at this point.0 -
Unless gangs of restaurants are roaming the streets, beating people until they eat too many french fries, your position on whose fault something is lacks substance.WinoGelato wrote: »In other breaking news water is discovered to be wet...
Illogical post is illogical. Restaurants use the same ingredients as people use at home to make meals. Food. How much of that food you choose to eat, and how often you choose to indulge in that type of food, is up to you as the consumer. Blaming being unhealthy on restaurant food is ridiculous.
I never knew that restaurants use the same ingredients that people use at home. That's me set straight then.
It could be of course that restaurants, like most businesses, seek to maximise profits by driving consumption and do so by making food highly palatable and high in portion size which helps exceed maintenance calories...
They may place a large portion in front of you, but you don't have to eat it. Many people choose to order together, and split an entree, or eat half, and get a take home box for the left overs.
choices.
But even a small portion can be loaded with oil and butter. Your point isn't really valid, honestly. Plus I guess I'm a special snowflakes because 90% of the time, if I boxed half of my restaurant meals for later, I'd be hungry 2 hours later, if that...
Heck I've ordered some 'light' options for 550 calories that I could have made at home for 350.
But anyway, it's not really a surprise. Just look at nutrition info online. It's scary. I just don't understand the point of making a study out of it when it's obvious in the first place. Of course it doesn't help that in most places, the 'vegetable' of choice with meals is French fries.
Why is her point invalid? I think what mccindy is saying, and I agree with her, is that there is nothing inherently unhealthy about a restaurant meal, it may or may not be unhealthy for an individual consumer based on how they fit it into their overall lifestyle. If they have hypertension, then yes the sodium could be an issue. If they are regularly exceeding calorie goals, then yes, restaurant meals may make it difficult to stay within a calorie budget. But ultimately it isn't the food itself or the restaurant that should be labeled unhealthy. It is the person who is making those choices to exceed sodium, or calories, or fat, that is making unhealthy choices. That same person could do the same things when cooking at home though.
Ok I get the whole 'nothing is unhealthy' in moderation thing. But I don't feel like arguing semantics. My point is that 99% of restaurant meals will be more than half the calories of what the average 'non overweight' American should eat in a day.
And that's the problem, considering that people typically eat 3 meals a day. I will *never* buy the whole 'it's people's fault' argument. It's not entirely. When 99% of options in restaurants come with 400 calories of French fries or 300 calorie dressings, that's a problem too.
You'll never convince me otherwise, so might as well agree to disagree at this point.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions