Study says restaurant meals are just as unhealthy as fast food
Options
Replies
-
im not surprised. Seasonings, fats, oils are used a plenty.0
-
Maybe this is just surprising because of how fast food has been demonized, like it and only it is the Satan of calories and nutrition.0
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.
Do you have a point?0 -
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?
0 -
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.
Lol
I wonder if any studies have been done to see if posted calorie counts change consumer behavior in a significant way. Hmmmmm0 -
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.
Lol
I wonder if any studies have been done to see if posted calorie counts change consumer behavior in a significant way. Hmmmmm
most people I know have only a vague idea of what a calorie even is...most people I know are pretty much all around ignorant when it comes to anything having to do with nutrition.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »peter56765 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »And here in Chicago, at least, like I said, almost all chains have it anyway, likely due to consumer demand. It's nice, but I don't think it's realistic or necessary or desirable to try to impose that on small local places or high end restaurants (where the customers have a lot of power to demand it if they care anyway).
Why is it not realistic? This is the information age and it's no longer all that difficult to find out nutritional contents of ingredients.
It's burdensome in an already tough market, especially for restaurants that change their menus a lot and focus on the best ingredients available. It also adds a cost to have it checked and all that, which is why the regs have focused on chains where the burden is less overall.
It's marginally burdonsome. It's about as difficult as creating a recipe here on MFP.We already have this information on pretty much everything at the grocery store (fruits and vegetables being the notable exception), even for food coming from small local bakeries. So far, this hasn't brought the food industry to its knees.
Not analogous.
Yeah, it is. If small bakeries can do it, why not restaurants?As to it being necessary: You don't think it's necessary for people to know what they're eating?
I don't think it's necessary for every restaurant to provide this information, no. I think restaurants need to answer customer questions about ingredients when asked. Beyond that, I think customers can decide how much they care by where they choose to go.
We're going to have to disagree on this point. Knowing what we're consuming is the first step to weight control. Hiding that information or making it a special request discourages people from finding out. I doubt most people even know that you can ask for nutritional info from chains. Before my weight loss, I certainly didn't know.Personally, even while using MFP and actively losing (I'm mostly in maintenance now), I would have always chosen as a dinner option an interesting local place with creative cooking or foods that I couldn't recreate at home over some chain with nutrition information, AND I think a lot of the places I chose were probably overall healthier (at least in how easy they were to fit in my day) than your average chain.
My experience was exactly the opposite. I stayed away from local restaurants because the uncertainty factor was too high. Weight loss is hard enough as it is. Who needs the added stress of wondering whether you've blown it by eating out? When I was losing weight, I researched the menu and calories before I went. Now that I'm in maintenance, I'm more willing to venture into the unknown.A lot of people who travel for work end up eating out as part of their job. How could they reasonably track their food unless they stick to bigger chains?
Stick to chains or places that have nutrition information on-line--the chains that have that information here aren't necessarily big and are some of the better lunch options. I suspect you could encompass hotel restaurants in this too, if there was some demand to do so, although there doesn't seem to be.
There isn't much demand, that's the problem. People who travel for a living are a small minority of workers. People who travel for a living and are trying to lose weight are an even smaller percentage. Hotels may cater to them but restaurants do not. In any case, if the information was readily and universally available, more people would avail themselves of it and maybe think twice.I'm not saying this is the only cause but it certainly is a contributing factor.
Seems highly unlikely as most Americans tend to go to chain restaurants, and I doubt those who go to the higher end places or the creative local places or ethnic places are particularly more likely to be overweight. Also, at least with the higher end places, as I said above, the customers have a great deal of power to demand that the restaurant provide that information if they wanted it--they don't, as it would probably interfere with the experience for many. And no one has to go to a restaurant like that anyway.
I'm talking about obesity and restaurants in general, not specifically local places. In my lifetime I have observed restaurant portions getting larger and larger but still being marketed as a single serving. It's a cultural shift and I really really doubt people are not consuming more because of it.0 -
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?0 -
peter56765 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »peter56765 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »And here in Chicago, at least, like I said, almost all chains have it anyway, likely due to consumer demand. It's nice, but I don't think it's realistic or necessary or desirable to try to impose that on small local places or high end restaurants (where the customers have a lot of power to demand it if they care anyway).
Why is it not realistic? This is the information age and it's no longer all that difficult to find out nutritional contents of ingredients.
It's burdensome in an already tough market, especially for restaurants that change their menus a lot and focus on the best ingredients available. It also adds a cost to have it checked and all that, which is why the regs have focused on chains where the burden is less overall.
It's marginally burdonsome. It's about as difficult as creating a recipe here on MFP.
Strongly disagree for the reasons stated before. Bakeries aren't dealing with constantly changing menus.As to it being necessary: You don't think it's necessary for people to know what they're eating?
I don't think it's necessary for every restaurant to provide this information, no. I think restaurants need to answer customer questions about ingredients when asked. Beyond that, I think customers can decide how much they care by where they choose to go.
We're going to have to disagree on this point. Knowing what we're consuming is the first step to weight control. Hiding that information or making it a special request discourages people from finding out. I doubt most people even know that you can ask for nutritional info from chains. Before my weight loss, I certainly didn't know.[/quote]
They aren't hiding it, and it's no difficulty to ask what's in the food. Most nicer restaurants have all sorts of information (like the farm it comes from, blah, blah) on the menu, IME.
In my town the chains generally have the information upfront when you order, but it's hardly tough to go on the internet.Personally, even while using MFP and actively losing (I'm mostly in maintenance now), I would have always chosen as a dinner option an interesting local place with creative cooking or foods that I couldn't recreate at home over some chain with nutrition information, AND I think a lot of the places I chose were probably overall healthier (at least in how easy they were to fit in my day) than your average chain.
My experience was exactly the opposite. I stayed away from local restaurants because the uncertainty factor was too high. Weight loss is hard enough as it is. Who needs the added stress of wondering whether you've blown it by eating out? When I was losing weight, I researched the menu and calories before I went. Now that I'm in maintenance, I'm more willing to venture into the unknown.[/quote]
So that's great. The market and all. Give your business to the restaurants that give you what you want and I'll give mine to the ones that give me what I want and ideally we will both continue to have options.
And again, a vast number of restaurants, including those the majority of Americans go to, have this information available. (That I have 0 interest in Cheesecake Factory or Olive Garden doesn't mean they aren't popular, after all.) If people choose not to avail themselves of it, that's their choice. (I also know there's some chain a friend brought me to in the 'burbs here that has that information on the menu and mostly has lower calorie meals--clearly it's meeting some demand. It was okay, but no more interesting than most chains of that sort, which aren't really my thing.)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?0 -
In other breaking news water is discovered to be wet...
Illogical post is illogical. Restaurants use the same ingredients as people use at home to make meals. Food. How much of that food you choose to eat, and how often you choose to indulge in that type of food, is up to you as the consumer. Blaming being unhealthy on restaurant food is ridiculous.
I never knew that restaurants use the same ingredients that people use at home. That's me set straight then.
It could be of course that restaurants, like most businesses, seek to maximise profits by driving consumption and do so by making food highly palatable and high in portion size which helps exceed maintenance calories...
TIL restaurants are evil because they want me to enjoy my food and they hope I get enough of it.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?0 -
peter56765 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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?
For chains--I think it's basically mooted by the federal regs.
And here in Chicago, at least, like I said, almost all chains have it anyway, likely due to consumer demand. It's nice, but I don't think it's realistic or necessary or desirable to try to impose that on small local places or high end restaurants (where the customers have a lot of power to demand it if they care anyway).
Why is it not realistic? This is the information age and it's no longer all that difficult to find out nutritional contents of ingredients. We already have this information on pretty much everything at the grocery store (fruits and vegetables being the notable exception), even for food coming from small local bakeries. So far, this hasn't brought the food industry to its knees.
As to it being necessary: You don't think it's necessary for people to know what they're eating? A lot of people who travel for work end up eating out as part of their job. How could they reasonably track their food unless they stick to bigger chains? And as someone upthread noted, most people already way underestimate their calorie intakes when left to guess. Combine that with restaurants doubling down on calorie dense ingredients and it's no wonder we have an obesity epidemic. And no, I'm not saying this is the only cause but it certainly is a contributing factor.
You realize that like 3% of people track their food, right? Not only that, but most people have no idea how much of anything they should eat, so telling them a meal has X00 calories doesn't provide real value. Even if it did, most people wouldn't track the meals they eat at home so they still have no perspective from which to view the calories of their Red Lobster meal.
I'm not saying having the info posted isn't good, as i love it and use it. But it's not nearly the magic bullet people think because most people just don't care0 -
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?
It's no one's. I'm a PF Chang's to enjoy a good meal. If the food tastes good and isn't double or triple the calories, we good. I want them to make sure my food is flavorful, not dole everything you with a measuring spoon for hyper accuracy.0 -
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.
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.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.
You are right. I should've said everybody should know this information.0 -
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.-2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions