Study says restaurant meals are just as unhealthy as fast food
Replies
-
allbarrett wrote: »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
I like you.
One of the reasons I go to restaurants is to try new things which I promptly turn around and try to replicate at home. I don't have the time or inclination to go back to school for cooking (though I think it would be fun), so I steal ideas from magazines, restaurants, online, etc. I love cooking!
tbh I think culinary school is kind of useless. it is sort of a foot in the door, but that's it. get a little notebook and make notes on recipes or your own creations. the strengths and weaknesses, the exact procedures you used, etc. that will really help you improve super fast. also, if you haven't already, learn how to bake. all cooks hate baking, but a chef who can bake is unstoppable! happy cooking
0 -
Wait, are you saying you've never read all the journals where the scientist pull out their health meters and directly read health? Usually they measure it in kale-Volts / twinkie.LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »Umm, calories are unhealthy? Sodium is unhealthy? I'm pretty sure scientists wouldn't actually use that description.
And after looking at the study, I don't see the word "unhealthy" in there.
What a surprise that a media outlet would lie/sensationalize to get more hits. (But readers keep rewarding the behavior so they will continue to do it.)
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.
Tongue in cheek or serious?
If you're serious, your information is incorrect. An overabundance of food makes us fat, not fat itself.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.
Really? You're not saying that the restaurants are responsible for the food that we, as consumers, choose to eat....are you?
Why would anyone give their power over to a business who sells them meals, meals that you (you used in the general sense) ordered?
Everybody knows that restaurant meals generally contain more sodium and fat than if you made the same thing at home, and their nutrition information is generally around 20% more calories than reported, so why not just adjust and enjoy a meal out?
Eat the whole thing or put some in a takeout box, but either way enjoy the heck out of it.
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.
Really? You're not saying that the restaurants are responsible for the food that we, as consumers, choose to eat....are you?
Restaurants are responsible for the food they produce.
I'm responsible for the food I eat.
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.
Really? You're not saying that the restaurants are responsible for the food that we, as consumers, choose to eat....are you?
Restaurants are responsible for the food they produce.
I'm responsible for the food I eat.
Only to the point that they have to meet all the health codes. After that, the consumer makes all the choices. One does not even have to enter the establishment if one does not so choose; if one does, then one still decides what to order and how much of what was ordered to consume.0 -
Sure, restaurants are responsible for the food they provide.
But what does that even mean?
That Red Robin has a burger and fry combination that would likely double my maintenance calories does not affect my weight at all, because I choose not to eat them, or not unless it's a rare occasion when I can fit it into my week somehow and think it might be worth it (I have not had this happen yet, but you never know).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sure, restaurants are responsible for the food they provide.
But what does that even mean?
That Red Robin has a burger and fry combination that would likely double my maintenance calories does not affect my weight at all, because I choose not to eat them, or not unless it's a rare occasion when I can fit it into my week somehow and think it might be worth it (I have not had this happen yet, but you never know).
Red Robin. YUM!0 -
Endless steak fries. Oh my.0
-
WinoGelato wrote: »I get that there are many people who need to restrict their sodium for medical purposes, but if you are not one of those people, then why is a restaurant meal "unhealthy" if it is higher in sodium?
Sodium retains excess water. Also, it pushes up your blood pressure ...even if you are healty.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I get that there are many people who need to restrict their sodium for medical purposes, but if you are not one of those people, then why is a restaurant meal "unhealthy" if it is higher in sodium?
Sodium retains excess water. Also, it pushes up your blood pressure ...even if you are healty.
Temporarily, because it causes that water retention. Then your body passes the fluid and things return to normal.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.
Really? You're not saying that the restaurants are responsible for the food that we, as consumers, choose to eat....are you?
Why would anyone give their power over to a business who sells them meals, meals that you (you used in the general sense) ordered?
Everybody knows that restaurant meals generally contain more sodium and fat than if you made the same thing at home, and their nutrition information is generally around 20% more calories than reported, so why not just adjust and enjoy a meal out?
Eat the whole thing or put some in a takeout box, but either way enjoy the heck out of it.
As sad as it is, this assumption is not correct. Plenty of people have no idea that the portions and nutrient profiles are out of whack.0 -
However, the information is almost always available for people who care to learn it. Yes?accidentalpancake 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, 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.
Really? You're not saying that the restaurants are responsible for the food that we, as consumers, choose to eat....are you?
Why would anyone give their power over to a business who sells them meals, meals that you (you used in the general sense) ordered?
Everybody knows that restaurant meals generally contain more sodium and fat than if you made the same thing at home, and their nutrition information is generally around 20% more calories than reported, so why not just adjust and enjoy a meal out?
Eat the whole thing or put some in a takeout box, but either way enjoy the heck out of it.
As sad as it is, this assumption is not correct. Plenty of people have no idea that the portions and nutrient profiles are out of whack.
0 -
accidentalpancake 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, 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.
Really? You're not saying that the restaurants are responsible for the food that we, as consumers, choose to eat....are you?
Why would anyone give their power over to a business who sells them meals, meals that you (you used in the general sense) ordered?
Everybody knows that restaurant meals generally contain more sodium and fat than if you made the same thing at home, and their nutrition information is generally around 20% more calories than reported, so why not just adjust and enjoy a meal out?
Eat the whole thing or put some in a takeout box, but either way enjoy the heck out of it.
As sad as it is, this assumption is not correct. Plenty of people have no idea that the portions and nutrient profiles are out of whack.
Happens on prepackaged food at the grocery store, too. Lots of them have serving sizes that are less than the size of the package, even though the package is fairly small. (20 oz. bottle of soda, 2-3 oz bags of chips) But if the consumer takes the time to read the nutrition panel, the information is right there.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
However, the information is almost always available for people who care to learn it. Yes?accidentalpancake 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, 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.
Really? You're not saying that the restaurants are responsible for the food that we, as consumers, choose to eat....are you?
Why would anyone give their power over to a business who sells them meals, meals that you (you used in the general sense) ordered?
Everybody knows that restaurant meals generally contain more sodium and fat than if you made the same thing at home, and their nutrition information is generally around 20% more calories than reported, so why not just adjust and enjoy a meal out?
Eat the whole thing or put some in a takeout box, but either way enjoy the heck out of it.
As sad as it is, this assumption is not correct. Plenty of people have no idea that the portions and nutrient profiles are out of whack.
I'd argue no. It is frequently difficult to find nutritional information regarding restaurant dishes. Guesses, maybe, and some official numbers on the establishment website, but it's far from universal.0 -
accidentalpancake 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, 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.
Really? You're not saying that the restaurants are responsible for the food that we, as consumers, choose to eat....are you?
Why would anyone give their power over to a business who sells them meals, meals that you (you used in the general sense) ordered?
Everybody knows that restaurant meals generally contain more sodium and fat than if you made the same thing at home, and their nutrition information is generally around 20% more calories than reported, so why not just adjust and enjoy a meal out?
Eat the whole thing or put some in a takeout box, but either way enjoy the heck out of it.
As sad as it is, this assumption is not correct. Plenty of people have no idea that the portions and nutrient profiles are out of whack.
Happens on prepackaged food at the grocery store, too. Lots of them have serving sizes that are less than the size of the package, even though the package is fairly small. (20 oz. bottle of soda, 2-3 oz bags of chips) But if the consumer takes the time to read the nutrition panel, the information is right there.
That doesn't in any way compare to restaurant portions and content. I can't recall a single instance of being provided nutritional information along with my meal, misleading or otherwise.0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
However, the information is almost always available for people who care to learn it. Yes?accidentalpancake 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, 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.
Really? You're not saying that the restaurants are responsible for the food that we, as consumers, choose to eat....are you?
Why would anyone give their power over to a business who sells them meals, meals that you (you used in the general sense) ordered?
Everybody knows that restaurant meals generally contain more sodium and fat than if you made the same thing at home, and their nutrition information is generally around 20% more calories than reported, so why not just adjust and enjoy a meal out?
Eat the whole thing or put some in a takeout box, but either way enjoy the heck out of it.
As sad as it is, this assumption is not correct. Plenty of people have no idea that the portions and nutrient profiles are out of whack.
I'd argue no. It is frequently difficult to find nutritional information regarding restaurant dishes. Guesses, maybe, and some official numbers on the establishment website, but it's far from universal.
Isn't the information we are talking about here not precise calorie counts, but the fact that restaurant meals commonly have more fat and sodium than home cooked meals?
Yes, you'd have to be willfully ignorant to miss that if you cared at all.0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake 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, 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.
Really? You're not saying that the restaurants are responsible for the food that we, as consumers, choose to eat....are you?
Why would anyone give their power over to a business who sells them meals, meals that you (you used in the general sense) ordered?
Everybody knows that restaurant meals generally contain more sodium and fat than if you made the same thing at home, and their nutrition information is generally around 20% more calories than reported, so why not just adjust and enjoy a meal out?
Eat the whole thing or put some in a takeout box, but either way enjoy the heck out of it.
As sad as it is, this assumption is not correct. Plenty of people have no idea that the portions and nutrient profiles are out of whack.
Happens on prepackaged food at the grocery store, too. Lots of them have serving sizes that are less than the size of the package, even though the package is fairly small. (20 oz. bottle of soda, 2-3 oz bags of chips) But if the consumer takes the time to read the nutrition panel, the information is right there.
That doesn't in any way compare to restaurant portions and content. I can't recall a single instance of being provided nutritional information along with my meal, misleading or otherwise.
Really? I had Jason's Deli on Monday, and they have a nutrition calculator online that allowed me to pick my meal and then sub in or out various side items. La Madeleine has the same options available. Buffalo Wild Wings doesn't have theirs online, but they will email it to you if you request it. Seasons 52 has a PDF of their nutrition information as does PF Changs.0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake 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, 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.
Really? You're not saying that the restaurants are responsible for the food that we, as consumers, choose to eat....are you?
Why would anyone give their power over to a business who sells them meals, meals that you (you used in the general sense) ordered?
Everybody knows that restaurant meals generally contain more sodium and fat than if you made the same thing at home, and their nutrition information is generally around 20% more calories than reported, so why not just adjust and enjoy a meal out?
Eat the whole thing or put some in a takeout box, but either way enjoy the heck out of it.
As sad as it is, this assumption is not correct. Plenty of people have no idea that the portions and nutrient profiles are out of whack.
Happens on prepackaged food at the grocery store, too. Lots of them have serving sizes that are less than the size of the package, even though the package is fairly small. (20 oz. bottle of soda, 2-3 oz bags of chips) But if the consumer takes the time to read the nutrition panel, the information is right there.
That doesn't in any way compare to restaurant portions and content. I can't recall a single instance of being provided nutritional information along with my meal, misleading or otherwise.
There are a wide variety of restaurants that now provide nutritional information online, accessible via smartphone. I've also been to several that have at least the calories printed on the menu.0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »I can't recall a single instance of being provided nutritional information along with my meal, misleading or otherwise.
Also, what auddii said.
Yes, if I go to a local place or a high-end restaurant or the like I don't get a calorie count. (And I don't expect one and I still have a good sense of what's in the meal and how it compares to home cooked foods--I ate these on average 1-2 times/week while losing weight and did not have a problem.) Most likely people who go to these kinds of places often are more sophisticated about the restaurant thing.
But if I go to a chain--which is what the largest percentage of restaurant customers in the US are doing--the calories are easily available. Heck, if I go to any of the lunch places I normally would consider going to, the calories are printed where the food is listed. This is true for pretty much EVERY chain restaurant in the downtown area I work in. (And there are a huge variety of options.)0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake 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, 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.
Really? You're not saying that the restaurants are responsible for the food that we, as consumers, choose to eat....are you?
Why would anyone give their power over to a business who sells them meals, meals that you (you used in the general sense) ordered?
Everybody knows that restaurant meals generally contain more sodium and fat than if you made the same thing at home, and their nutrition information is generally around 20% more calories than reported, so why not just adjust and enjoy a meal out?
Eat the whole thing or put some in a takeout box, but either way enjoy the heck out of it.
As sad as it is, this assumption is not correct. Plenty of people have no idea that the portions and nutrient profiles are out of whack.
Happens on prepackaged food at the grocery store, too. Lots of them have serving sizes that are less than the size of the package, even though the package is fairly small. (20 oz. bottle of soda, 2-3 oz bags of chips) But if the consumer takes the time to read the nutrition panel, the information is right there.
That doesn't in any way compare to restaurant portions and content. I can't recall a single instance of being provided nutritional information along with my meal, misleading or otherwise.
Really? I had Jason's Deli on Monday, and they have a nutrition calculator online that allowed me to pick my meal and then sub in or out various side items. La Madeleine has the same options available. Buffalo Wild Wings doesn't have theirs online, but they will email it to you if you request it. Seasons 52 has a PDF of their nutrition information as does PF Changs.
Any other cherries you'd like to pick?0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake 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, 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.
Really? You're not saying that the restaurants are responsible for the food that we, as consumers, choose to eat....are you?
Why would anyone give their power over to a business who sells them meals, meals that you (you used in the general sense) ordered?
Everybody knows that restaurant meals generally contain more sodium and fat than if you made the same thing at home, and their nutrition information is generally around 20% more calories than reported, so why not just adjust and enjoy a meal out?
Eat the whole thing or put some in a takeout box, but either way enjoy the heck out of it.
As sad as it is, this assumption is not correct. Plenty of people have no idea that the portions and nutrient profiles are out of whack.
Happens on prepackaged food at the grocery store, too. Lots of them have serving sizes that are less than the size of the package, even though the package is fairly small. (20 oz. bottle of soda, 2-3 oz bags of chips) But if the consumer takes the time to read the nutrition panel, the information is right there.
That doesn't in any way compare to restaurant portions and content. I can't recall a single instance of being provided nutritional information along with my meal, misleading or otherwise.
Really? I had Jason's Deli on Monday, and they have a nutrition calculator online that allowed me to pick my meal and then sub in or out various side items. La Madeleine has the same options available. Buffalo Wild Wings doesn't have theirs online, but they will email it to you if you request it. Seasons 52 has a PDF of their nutrition information as does PF Changs.
Any other cherries you'd like to pick?
So, you couldn't recall 'a single instance' and this poster gives you five, and that's cherry picking? you've been called out, methinks.0 -
The minutiae that gets argued here is really ridiculous. I'm not in any way arguing that restaurants are responsible for people overeating or not caring about the content.
However, it is not nearly as easy as it should be to track down basic nutritional info for most restaurants, and it's ignorant to say that everybody knows or is interested in the details. Facts.0 -
Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm only there once a year or so - but isn't IL trying to make it law that restaurants have to provide nutrition information on their menus?
I went to a BBQ place in IL that did it and it was awesome. I sat there and planned out a meal that was almost 1/2 what I was expecting to eat before I got there.
Also, Waffle Houses in MO are starting to add calorie counts to their menus.
Perhaps this will set a good presidence. And hey, even if they're not 100% accurate, this at least gives me a ballpark figure to work with, which is so much better than trying to guess.0 -
ManiacalLaugh wrote: »Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm only there once a year or so - but isn't IL trying to make it law that restaurants have to provide nutrition information on their menus?
I went to a BBQ place in IL that did it and it was awesome. I sat there and planned out a meal that was almost 1/2 what I was expecting to eat before I got there.
Also, Waffle Houses in MO are starting to add calorie counts to their menus.
Perhaps this will set a good presidence. And hey, even if they're not 100% accurate, this at least gives me a ballpark figure to work with, which is so much better than trying to guess.
There is a federal law for restaurants with 20 or more locations (so, large chains), and they must start complying by December 2016. I believe there are some states making it more strict for some smaller chains as well.
http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/LabelingNutrition/ucm248732.htm
ETA: I'm super excited about the requirement being extended to movie theater popcorn...0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake 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, 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.
Really? You're not saying that the restaurants are responsible for the food that we, as consumers, choose to eat....are you?
Why would anyone give their power over to a business who sells them meals, meals that you (you used in the general sense) ordered?
Everybody knows that restaurant meals generally contain more sodium and fat than if you made the same thing at home, and their nutrition information is generally around 20% more calories than reported, so why not just adjust and enjoy a meal out?
Eat the whole thing or put some in a takeout box, but either way enjoy the heck out of it.
As sad as it is, this assumption is not correct. Plenty of people have no idea that the portions and nutrient profiles are out of whack.
Happens on prepackaged food at the grocery store, too. Lots of them have serving sizes that are less than the size of the package, even though the package is fairly small. (20 oz. bottle of soda, 2-3 oz bags of chips) But if the consumer takes the time to read the nutrition panel, the information is right there.
That doesn't in any way compare to restaurant portions and content. I can't recall a single instance of being provided nutritional information along with my meal, misleading or otherwise.
Really? I had Jason's Deli on Monday, and they have a nutrition calculator online that allowed me to pick my meal and then sub in or out various side items. La Madeleine has the same options available. Buffalo Wild Wings doesn't have theirs online, but they will email it to you if you request it. Seasons 52 has a PDF of their nutrition information as does PF Changs.
Any other cherries you'd like to pick?
So, you couldn't recall 'a single instance' and this poster gives you five, and that's cherry picking? you've been called out, methinks.
None of those are instances of walking into a casual dining restaurant, which is the main focus of this entire conversation, and being offered the nutritional information about the meal you ordered.
I also never said that the information isn't available online or elsewhere for SOME restaurants. However, the vast majority of restaurants still don't have the information readily available, and that still doesn't take into account that you have to be specifically motivated to get that information.
The statement made that I am arguing against is that EVERYONE knows the nutritional content and portion appropriateness. That is patently false, and somewhat insulting to large portions of the population who were never taught to view food critically.0 -
Why aren't guesses and comparable dishes sufficient to put the restaurant-goer of average intelligence on notice as to potential issues? Does such a person really need a gram-by-gram breakdown of every dish for such an "obvious" concern?accidentalpancake wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
However, the information is almost always available for people who care to learn it. Yes?accidentalpancake 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, 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.
Really? You're not saying that the restaurants are responsible for the food that we, as consumers, choose to eat....are you?
Why would anyone give their power over to a business who sells them meals, meals that you (you used in the general sense) ordered?
Everybody knows that restaurant meals generally contain more sodium and fat than if you made the same thing at home, and their nutrition information is generally around 20% more calories than reported, so why not just adjust and enjoy a meal out?
Eat the whole thing or put some in a takeout box, but either way enjoy the heck out of it.
As sad as it is, this assumption is not correct. Plenty of people have no idea that the portions and nutrient profiles are out of whack.
I'd argue no. It is frequently difficult to find nutritional information regarding restaurant dishes. Guesses, maybe, and some official numbers on the establishment website, but it's far from universal.
How much do you think steak or shrimp or Ranch dressing or whatever varies from restaurant to restaurant that even a guess can't be used to realize that the 15-layer lasagna is carb and calorie packed?
0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake 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, 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.
Really? You're not saying that the restaurants are responsible for the food that we, as consumers, choose to eat....are you?
Why would anyone give their power over to a business who sells them meals, meals that you (you used in the general sense) ordered?
Everybody knows that restaurant meals generally contain more sodium and fat than if you made the same thing at home, and their nutrition information is generally around 20% more calories than reported, so why not just adjust and enjoy a meal out?
Eat the whole thing or put some in a takeout box, but either way enjoy the heck out of it.
As sad as it is, this assumption is not correct. Plenty of people have no idea that the portions and nutrient profiles are out of whack.
Happens on prepackaged food at the grocery store, too. Lots of them have serving sizes that are less than the size of the package, even though the package is fairly small. (20 oz. bottle of soda, 2-3 oz bags of chips) But if the consumer takes the time to read the nutrition panel, the information is right there.
That doesn't in any way compare to restaurant portions and content. I can't recall a single instance of being provided nutritional information along with my meal, misleading or otherwise.
Really? I had Jason's Deli on Monday, and they have a nutrition calculator online that allowed me to pick my meal and then sub in or out various side items. La Madeleine has the same options available. Buffalo Wild Wings doesn't have theirs online, but they will email it to you if you request it. Seasons 52 has a PDF of their nutrition information as does PF Changs.
Any other cherries you'd like to pick?
So, you couldn't recall 'a single instance' and this poster gives you five, and that's cherry picking? you've been called out, methinks.
None of those are instances of walking into a casual dining restaurant, which is the main focus of this entire conversation, and being offered the nutritional information about the meal you ordered.
I also never said that the information isn't available online or elsewhere for SOME restaurants. However, the vast majority of restaurants still don't have the information readily available, and that still doesn't take into account that you have to be specifically motivated to get that information.
The statement made that I am arguing against is that EVERYONE knows the nutritional content and portion appropriateness. That is patently false, and somewhat insulting to large portions of the population who were never taught to view food critically.
Au Bon Pain has it on their menu (and the signs for the bakery items have calorie counts) as does La Madeleine. It's definitely not common, but many places are starting to get signage to comply with the above referenced law. Many places haven't started yet because they still have over a year to get into compliance, but it's about to become very commonplace.0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake 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, 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.
Really? You're not saying that the restaurants are responsible for the food that we, as consumers, choose to eat....are you?
Why would anyone give their power over to a business who sells them meals, meals that you (you used in the general sense) ordered?
Everybody knows that restaurant meals generally contain more sodium and fat than if you made the same thing at home, and their nutrition information is generally around 20% more calories than reported, so why not just adjust and enjoy a meal out?
Eat the whole thing or put some in a takeout box, but either way enjoy the heck out of it.
As sad as it is, this assumption is not correct. Plenty of people have no idea that the portions and nutrient profiles are out of whack.
Happens on prepackaged food at the grocery store, too. Lots of them have serving sizes that are less than the size of the package, even though the package is fairly small. (20 oz. bottle of soda, 2-3 oz bags of chips) But if the consumer takes the time to read the nutrition panel, the information is right there.
That doesn't in any way compare to restaurant portions and content. I can't recall a single instance of being provided nutritional information along with my meal, misleading or otherwise.
Really? I had Jason's Deli on Monday, and they have a nutrition calculator online that allowed me to pick my meal and then sub in or out various side items. La Madeleine has the same options available. Buffalo Wild Wings doesn't have theirs online, but they will email it to you if you request it. Seasons 52 has a PDF of their nutrition information as does PF Changs.
Any other cherries you'd like to pick?
So, you couldn't recall 'a single instance' and this poster gives you five, and that's cherry picking? you've been called out, methinks.
None of those are instances of walking into a casual dining restaurant, which is the main focus of this entire conversation, and being offered the nutritional information about the meal you ordered.
I also never said that the information isn't available online or elsewhere for SOME restaurants. However, the vast majority of restaurants still don't have the information readily available, and that still doesn't take into account that you have to be specifically motivated to get that information.
The statement made that I am arguing against is that EVERYONE knows the nutritional content and portion appropriateness. That is patently false, and somewhat insulting to large portions of the population who were never taught to view food critically.
Au Bon Pain has it on their menu (and the signs for the bakery items have calorie counts) as does La Madeleine. It's definitely not common, but many places are starting to get signage to comply with the above referenced law. Many places haven't started yet because they still have over a year to get into compliance, but it's about to become very commonplace.
And once it becomes more universal, this issue with change completely. The current reality isn't so transparent.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Why aren't guesses and comparable dishes sufficient to put the restaurant-goer of average intelligence on notice as to potential issues? Does such a person really need a gram-by-gram breakdown of every dish for such an "obvious" concern?accidentalpancake wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
However, the information is almost always available for people who care to learn it. Yes?accidentalpancake 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, 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.
Really? You're not saying that the restaurants are responsible for the food that we, as consumers, choose to eat....are you?
Why would anyone give their power over to a business who sells them meals, meals that you (you used in the general sense) ordered?
Everybody knows that restaurant meals generally contain more sodium and fat than if you made the same thing at home, and their nutrition information is generally around 20% more calories than reported, so why not just adjust and enjoy a meal out?
Eat the whole thing or put some in a takeout box, but either way enjoy the heck out of it.
As sad as it is, this assumption is not correct. Plenty of people have no idea that the portions and nutrient profiles are out of whack.
I'd argue no. It is frequently difficult to find nutritional information regarding restaurant dishes. Guesses, maybe, and some official numbers on the establishment website, but it's far from universal.
How much do you think steak or shrimp or Ranch dressing or whatever varies from restaurant to restaurant that even a guess can't be used to realize that the 15-layer lasagna is carb and calorie packed?
Ask random people what they think the caloric content (don't confuse them with macros) of various restaurant dishes are. The vast majority will greatly underestimate.
Those who care to find comparable dishes to track their intake aren't the issue. It's the larger majority who are completely blind to the issue altogether. If the information were more readily available, it's likely that more people would care and pay attention.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