Study says restaurant meals are just as unhealthy as fast food
Replies
-
Nice try. If the two populations are "those who track vs. those who don't" then why did you say they "may well be two completely different populations"? You're defining them as separate populations. There would be no "may" to it if you weren't trying to change your argument midstream. Where's the cost/benefit upside to providing something those who don't track won't, by definition, care about?accidentalpancake wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
It's not irrelevant because providing and updating the information isn't without cost.accidentalpancake wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
If labels are largely ignored by the uncaring at grocery stores and at home, what makes you think they won't be largely ignored by the uncaring at restaurants? All the more so if restaurants are typically seen as more of a special meal than one cooked at home?accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »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.
So let's just pat everyone on the hand and tell them it's not their fault they're ignorant. It's the restaurants' fault. There, there, there.......
Way to miss the point. In no way does what I wrote directly say or even vaguely imply that.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I said "However, the information is almost always available for people who care to learn it" not "People will know it off the top of their head." It's a subtle difference, but I think we can work with it.accidentalpancake wrote: »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.
You do understand that there's a nutrition label on almost everything you can buy in a grocery store, right? If people don't care, people don't care. Whether the information is there or not.If the information were more readily available, it's likely that more people would care and pay attention.
We are specifically talking about restaurants.
I mean, you have actual empirical evidence about the usage, or not, of the information that you seem to want. Why would you ignore that evidence other than it doesn't fit your position?
Whether they do anything with the information is irrelevant, and your introducing a strawman by trying to equate what may well be two completely different populations. The complete absence of information is the problem. If it's not available, it can't be utilized, regardless of motivation. What's your issue with transparency?
I'm going to go out on a limb and surmise that the group of people who eat food from grocery stores substantially overlaps with the group of people who eat at restaurants. And I will state unequivocally that they aren't two different populations because I know people who do both.
See, pointing to the inefficacy of nutritional labeling in one context is not a strawman when discussing the potential inefficacy of nutritional labeling in another context. All the more so since your demographic of concern seems to be people not motivated enough to look for themselves. However, since you're keen on the idea of seeing a strawman, "What's your issue with transparency?" is one.
Happy to help.
The problem here is that you can't even keep the conversation straight. I'll say it once more, and then we're through since you can't seem to comprehend a simple line of discussion.
The two populations are those who track vs. those who don't. The strawman of nutritional labels introduced by you has no bearing on the current debate, as it is irrelevant to restaurant consumption.
And asking about your issues with transparency is directly relevant to the point at hand. The fact that you won't address it is a problem with your personal logic, and not a problem of logic.
Nutritional labels on other food is a strawman in a discussion about nutritional disclosure on restaurant food? That's really the tack you want to take?
Other than the fact that I never said, nor implied, that I have an issue with transparency, your attempt to strawman my position on transparency is spot-on.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.
I have some experience with PF Chang's kitchen. I promise you, the numbers for the plate that lands on your table are a lot different than the numbers for the plate that lands as a pretty picture on the website.
So... Is it your responsibility because you didn't figure out what they're doing, or is it their responsibility for delivering something other than what they led you to believe you'd be getting?
so... it's your assertion that PF Chang is deliberately deceiving consumers by giving false nutrition information on their website? Why aren't you blowing the whistle on that evil corporation?
Because (a) I didn't say that, and (b) I don't give a crap, because the food is terrible and I don't eat there.
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.
Ummm....I said we are responsible for the food we choose to eat.
Ok. And?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.
Ummm....I said we are responsible for the food we choose to eat.
Ok. And?
Well, what is your point?
My point is that it doesn't matter what foods a restaurant produces. In fact, in my opinion, it's not even relevant to the conversation.
There is nothing wrong with restaurant food. It's just...food. I make the choice of what I will eat and how much.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.
Ummm....I said we are responsible for the food we choose to eat.
Ok. And?
Well, what is your point?
That restaurants are responsible for their choices, and I'm responsible for my choices. Which is what I said in the post you responded to.My point is that it doesn't matter what foods a restaurant produces. In fact, in my opinion, it's not even relevant to the conversation.
Ok....There is nothing wrong with restaurant food.
I didn't say there was.It's just...food.
Ok...I make the choice of what I will eat and how much.
I said that, too.
So what exactly are you arguing about?
0 -
-
I have been reading this thread and finding it interesting but all I keep thinking is "deep fried steak sounds delicious". Just a flash fry, so that it is still red in the middle. Nom Nom.
Restaurants serve what the serve because they are responding to the market. If we wanted salads without dressing and were disgusted by anything else, that is what they would sell. We, as a society, created the beast that is the restaurant business, because we like delicious things.
I have seen people throw tantrums in restaurants if they do not get giant portions. They expect and demand giant portions and therefore, giant portions are delivered. Restaurants with tiny portions are not patronized.
Those of us who have educated ourselves, take half of it home or save up for the feast. We can only hope that for everyone else, the change and the interest in calorie counting will come at some point, but it is on them.0 -
As usual not really correct. McDonald's is more of a restaurant than burger joint if you look at their range of offerings compared to let's say 5 guys or in and out or umami burger. And as already stated some pretty fancy places deep fry steaks, why? 360 mailliard
https://youtu.be/I_tgxzXmpKQ
http://www.bonappetit.com/test-kitchen/how-to/article/clap-steak-ideas-in-food0 -
As usual not really correct. McDonald's is more of a restaurant than burger joint if you look at their range of offerings compared to let's say 5 guys or in and out or umami burger. And as already stated some pretty fancy places deep fry steaks, why? 360 mailliard
well, I guess generally we Europeans associate a "different experience" with the word "restaurant"
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions