Study says restaurant meals are just as unhealthy as fast food
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.
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 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
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.
Sorry but the point stands. The assumption when you prepare and present a meal for someone is that they are getting one "meal's" worth. That's how it works at home and that's how it used to work in most restaurants. The trend over the past few decades however, is for restaurants to overload their plates with too many calories - bigger portions, fried, drowning in butter and cream sauces, loaded with salt. So of course no one is forcing you to eat everything on your plate but unless you bring a food scale with you and quiz the chef on what ingredients he used, it's quite hard to know how much of a restaurant meal you should be eating.
The obesity epidemic in the First World no doubt has many causes. We're more sedentary, we eat out more, and we have drugs and better surgical procedures that keep us alive when obese. What hasn't changed is us: Homo Sapiens. We're no better or worse than our forebears and there's no reason to think that if people from 200 years ago were transplanted to today, they would not also become obese in the same ratios as everyone else. So I think it would be incomplete to say that the food supply, including restaurant food portions, plays no part at all in the problem. Is it the only cause? Of course not. Is it a contributing problem? Yeah, probably.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »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
Can you stop going off on a tangent. Thank you.
My point was not to stop business practices but rather increase information available to consumers on those practices so that they can make informed choices.
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...
A lot of restaurant food is loaded with hidden calories, and minimal (or worse, inaccurate) nutritional information. That makes it by definition "unhealthy" for someone tracking what they eat.
You can't make a choice to "eat in moderation" if you don't know - can't know - what you're eating, which is why I personally, I avoid the places.
Ironically, this is exactly what makes a place like McDonalds a plausibly healthier choice than many (most?) sit-down places - it may not be the most nutritious food on the planet, but their vertically integrated food factory approach pretty much guarantees you can know exactly what you're eating, and thereby have the tools to make informed choices.0 -
ehhhh. nah.0
-
peter56765 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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.
Sorry but the point stands. The assumption when you prepare and present a meal for someone is that they are getting one "meal's" worth. That's how it works at home and that's how it used to work in most restaurants. The trend over the past few decades however, is for restaurants to overload their plates with too many calories - bigger portions, fried, drowning in butter and cream sauces, loaded with salt. So of course no one is forcing you to eat everything on your plate but unless you bring a food scale with you and quiz the chef on what ingredients he used, it's quite hard to know how much of a restaurant meal you should be eating.
The obesity epidemic in the First World no doubt has many causes. We're more sedentary, we eat out more, and we have drugs and better surgical procedures that keep us alive when obese. What hasn't changed is us: Homo Sapiens. We're no better or worse than our forebears and there's no reason to think that if people from 200 years ago were transplanted to today, they would not also become obese in the same ratios as everyone else. So I think it would be incomplete to say that the food supply, including restaurant food portions, plays no part at all in the problem. Is it the only cause? Of course not. Is it a contributing problem? Yeah, probably.
Apparently you don't eat in many half decent restaurants, the trend at least that I've seen is to move towards smaller "sharing plates" and encouraging you to order a number of them. In the current restaurant boom, there aren't many places that I've seen open that "overload their plates with too many calories - bigger portions, fried, drowning in butter and cream sauces, loaded with salt".
Also no one ever has leftovers at home, a meal is prepared and that is that. No extras there0 -
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...
A lot of restaurant food is loaded with hidden calories, and minimal (or worse, inaccurate) nutritional information. That makes it by definition "unhealthy" for someone tracking what they eat.
You can't make a choice to "eat in moderation" if you don't know - can't know - what you're eating, which is why I personally, I avoid the places.
Ironically, this is exactly what makes a place like McDonalds a plausibly healthier choice than many (most?) sit-down places - it may not be the most nutritious food on the planet, but their vertically integrated food factory approach pretty much guarantees you can know exactly what you're eating, and thereby have the tools to make informed choices.
I would still not call that unhealthy. I would call it "challenging".
I am allergic to strawberries. Restaurants often use strawberries in their preparation. That is unhealthy for me, but it is not unhealthy for the vast majority of people dining there. Does that mean that the restaurant should stop serving strawberries? Of course not. I know perfectly well that sometimes spring mix salads have strawberries in their dressing, and that when a dessert says, "mixed berry cobbler" that I should ask if it includes strawberries and if it does, order something else. Similarly, I know that when counting calories, there is a margin of error with every type of meal, even those cooked at home, but more so with restaurant meals. I either allocate additional calories to account for the margin of error or adjust my expectations for what results I may see on the scale that week.
I still don't understand how this is the restaurant's fault that they want to provide a quality product in a quantity and price point that consumers have asked for.
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »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...
A lot of restaurant food is loaded with hidden calories, and minimal (or worse, inaccurate) nutritional information. That makes it by definition "unhealthy" for someone tracking what they eat.
You can't make a choice to "eat in moderation" if you don't know - can't know - what you're eating, which is why I personally, I avoid the places.
Ironically, this is exactly what makes a place like McDonalds a plausibly healthier choice than many (most?) sit-down places - it may not be the most nutritious food on the planet, but their vertically integrated food factory approach pretty much guarantees you can know exactly what you're eating, and thereby have the tools to make informed choices.
I would still not call that unhealthy. I would call it "challenging".
You can call it whatever you want, I'm still avoiding the places.Does that mean that the restaurant should stop serving strawberries? Of course not.
What on earth are you talking about? That has nothing to do with the conversation.
0 -
also, more often restaurant meals are more micro nutrient dense than fast food. possibly more calories but also more nutrients. i think it absolutely depends on the restaurant and the choices you make. if i go somewhere and have salmon with kale and sweet potatoes, it's not the same as having a double cheeseburger with cheese and bacon and a side of tater tots. obviously.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.
People who are ignorant enough to not realize that restaurants that have indulgent food, large sizes, lots of cheese and butter, etc. (and I think most people know about the butter and the sizes, at minimum, as well as knowing what they order and that restaurant salads are often enormously caloric) are unlikely to read this study.
And again "better" is a vague term here and depends on context.0 -
hehe also, i'm a classically trained chef. i've worked in restaurants all of my life. so the food i prepare at home is just as luxurious as the food i prepare at my restaurants
0 -
lemurcat12 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.
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.
People who are ignorant enough to not realize that restaurants that have indulgent food, large sizes, lots of cheese and butter, etc. (and I think most people know about the butter and the sizes, at minimum, as well as knowing what they order and that restaurant salads are often enormously caloric) are unlikely to read this study.
And again "better" is a vague term here and depends on context.
Eh? It's an article in the Huffington Post.
I I have seen a number of times people link to articles where the calorie count of some restaurants are cited and they are amazed at how high they are and frankly I am amazed sometimes myself.
I think if you go out on to the street and ask members of the public which they think is worse for them in a dieting sense most would go for fast food although the reality seems to me that many fast food places are "better" in terms of portion size and calorie count etc.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
WinoGelato wrote: »They should serve bland, low calorie food in small portions that is very expensive.
Isn't that what you do when you have a dinner party? I mean, not the cost part, but small portions, bland, you don't want the guests to overeat, after all!Of course it doesn't help that in most places, the 'vegetable' of choice with meals is French fries.
This really isn't true, IME. It depends on where you go. I agree that the calories are higher than what I make at home, but I tend to go to places that have lots of vegetables (and I think restaurants are a good place for people who hate veggies to maybe start trying to experiment with ways they might enjoy veggies, although again you can try to recreate them with fewer calories).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.
Very true, but if you've grown up eating restaurant portions of food and think it's normal, then you're not going to adjust. It was a shock to me after some research when I realized that what I thought was a normal portion of food really wasn't. It averaged two. So now, I know how to adjust what I eat, but that's been a long process of retraining my brain, and it still isn't over.0 -
Perhaps the problem lies in the quality of restaurant chosen. And also the assumption that everyone cooks better food and smaller portions at home than what's served at the typical chain restaurant.....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.
Very true, but if you've grown up eating restaurant portions of food and think it's normal, then you're not going to adjust. It was a shock to me after some research when I realized that what I thought was a normal portion of food really wasn't. It averaged two. So now, I know how to adjust what I eat, but that's been a long process of retraining my brain, and it still isn't over.
Aye.
I think it is sometimes easy to forget in the world of MFP who the intended audience of these types of pieces are and what issues they face.0 -
peter56765 wrote: »The trend over the past few decades however, is for restaurants to overload their plates with too many calories - bigger portions,
Yes, although this varies from place to place serving size is an issue. This is the easiest thing in the world to see, though. I mean, it's ON YOUR PLATE. At a steak house (and many other places) it's on the menu too--for example, 14 oz steak. Great, that's multiple servings, obviously. Extra meals for me, yay. Or just don't eat it all. Restaurants don't try to trick you about this at all. They want you to know the servings are huge as in the US quantity tends always to be a selling point.fried
Hard to miss, not new.drowning in butter and cream sauces
Well, be aware of this. The sauces are hard to miss (and not new--read The Art of French Cooking). I've always known the secret ingredient in many restaurants is butter in everything, so I doubt this is news (and it's not new) either. (Heck, watch Top Chef!)loaded with salt.
The amount depends on the restaurant, I'm sure, but again adding salt in cooking isn't exactly some new-fangled thing or a trick.unless you bring a food scale with you and quiz the chef on what ingredients he used, it's quite hard to know how much of a restaurant meal you should be eating.
I don't think it's that hard to understand serving sizes. You just have to be willing to eat less of food that you may find to be delicious. And asking questions is generally a good idea if you care about such things.So I think it would be incomplete to say that the food supply, including restaurant food portions, plays no part at all in the problem. Is it the only cause? Of course not. Is it a contributing problem? Yeah, probably.
Yes, the fact that food is abundant and not scarce is the big issue, along with our lifestyles being much more sedentary. But this restaurant one is an easy one to take control over, so I find it weird that people want to blame restaurants for doing what people are in essence demand them to do, fulfilling their function, really.0 -
lemurcat12 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.
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.
People who are ignorant enough to not realize that restaurants that have indulgent food, large sizes, lots of cheese and butter, etc. (and I think most people know about the butter and the sizes, at minimum, as well as knowing what they order and that restaurant salads are often enormously caloric) are unlikely to read this study.
And again "better" is a vague term here and depends on context.
Eh? It's an article in the Huffington Post.
I I have seen a number of times people link to articles where the calorie count of some restaurants are cited and they are amazed at how high they are and frankly I am amazed sometimes myself.
I think if you go out on to the street and ask members of the public which they think is worse for them in a dieting sense most would go for fast food although the reality seems to me that many fast food places are "better" in terms of portion size and calorie count etc.
It probably depends on how sophisticated they are about restaurants.
And that in turn probably influences what restaurants they are thinking of and where they go.
I find it hard to believe that someone thinks McD's is significantly "less healthy" than Appleby's or Olive Garden or Cheesecake Factory or whatever, but who knows. (I think it's a wash and depends on context. The latter places are going to have more calories, probably.)
Someone who goes to lots of higher end restaurants is probably pretty aware of how many calories they can have, as well as the diversity that you find among them (and also probably able to make judgments based on the specifics).
Anecdotally, although I have in the past gained lots of weight in part due to higher end restaurants (I was being willfully blind and had never had to watch my weight before--I also became much more sedentary around the time I had the job that led me to go out to these places a lot), I also know lots of people who frequent these places, and on the whole they aren't particularly overweight--less so than the average American. So there's more to it than restaurant meals, obviously.0 -
fast food is cheap, salty candy. depending on the restaurant you are getting a lot more. I don't think you can say that something is healthier because it is in a smaller portion or lower calorie. cardboard is lower calorie than fresh vegetable, does that make it healthier?0
-
Yes, lets blame the restaurants for making us fat, they were the ones who put the food in our mouths, not us. Let's not take any responsibility for our actions.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions