Calories on menus everywhere
Options
Replies
-
Try as they will, it's probably inaccurate information1
-
1RogueRunner1 wrote: »Try as they will, it's probably inaccurate information
That is a pretty negative attitude. If it is too inaccurate they will likely face lawsuits. I seem to remember that Chipoltes is/was facing one for misrepresenting the calories in an advertising campaign not that long ago. It will only take a little while for certain people to look, and see a possible way to make money if the calories listed are not within the 25% that is generally accepted as a margin of error. After a few successful law suits, or pay outs to make them go away, I am guessing recipes will be far more stringently enforced to keep the calories in line with what is printed.1 -
That would be wonderful. I'd love to eat out have a complete meal that states all the calories for it. Right now I'm not going out to eat. I did one night and felt awful I think my steak meal was full of sodium and msg. It tasted so good but boy did I feel bad afterwards. Not doing a repeat.0
-
I figure the calories are ballpark. If you look up recipes for similar food items, and check the calorie count of similar foods in other places, etc., the calorie counts at the restaurants I've encountered are pretty good.
Plus I've used them in my logs while I was losing weight ... and still steadily lost weight as expected. If the calorie counts were wildly off, I may not have lost my weight quite as regularly and steadily and predictably as I did.
1 -
I noticed in Calgary Ab Starbucks now lists their beverage calories (omg...)0
-
rileysowner wrote: »
That is a pretty negative attitude. If it is too inaccurate they will likely face lawsuits. I seem to remember that Chipoltes is/was facing one for misrepresenting the calories in an advertising campaign not that long ago. It will only take a little while for certain people to look, and see a possible way to make money if the calories listed are not within the 25% that is generally accepted as a margin of error. After a few successful law suits, or pay outs to make them go away, I am guessing recipes will be far more stringently enforced to keep the calories in line with what is printed.
Something to consider is this article. The general idea is that yes, many restaurant calorie counts are within 100 calories of what they state based on studies. Fast food ones being more accurate mostly because their food making is somewhat standard. A bun is a bun, a burger patty a burger patty. But when it comes to sit down restaurants, you might see more variation. Chefs can have some creative freedoms in their preparation and the standards aren't always standards, thus more or less calories than stated. More often more I would think.
"Roberts applauds quick serves for their mostly accurate calorie counts and theorized that full-service restaurants did worse in the study because their chefs tend to have more leeway in the kitchen. She also says the problems with accuracy are “very easily” fixable."
https://www.qsrmagazine.com/exclusives/are-your-calorie-counts-right
So I don't necessarily disagree that these counts might be inaccurate, I think we'd be a little remiss to "take them to the bank". The only way to know (more or less) for sure what you are consuming is to prepare it yourself.0 -
bexilashious wrote: »Only one place I know of doing it in the uk
Weatherspoons
I don't eat at 'spoons often but noticed it last time, it made me change my choice, but then they'd run out so changed my mind again anyway! Quite a lot of UK chains will have the counts on their website or an information sheet even if they don't do it on the menu0 -
Stella3838 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »
That is a pretty negative attitude. If it is too inaccurate they will likely face lawsuits. I seem to remember that Chipoltes is/was facing one for misrepresenting the calories in an advertising campaign not that long ago. It will only take a little while for certain people to look, and see a possible way to make money if the calories listed are not within the 25% that is generally accepted as a margin of error. After a few successful law suits, or pay outs to make them go away, I am guessing recipes will be far more stringently enforced to keep the calories in line with what is printed.
Something to consider is this article. The general idea is that yes, many restaurant calorie counts are within 100 calories of what they state based on studies. Fast food ones being more accurate mostly because their food making is somewhat standard. A bun is a bun, a burger patty a burger patty. But when it comes to sit down restaurants, you might see more variation. Chefs can have some creative freedoms in their preparation and the standards aren't always standards, thus more or less calories than stated. More often more I would think.
"Roberts applauds quick serves for their mostly accurate calorie counts and theorized that full-service restaurants did worse in the study because their chefs tend to have more leeway in the kitchen. She also says the problems with accuracy are “very easily” fixable."
https://www.qsrmagazine.com/exclusives/are-your-calorie-counts-right
So I don't necessarily disagree that these counts might be inaccurate, I think we'd be a little remiss to "take them to the bank". The only way to know (more or less) for sure what you are consuming is to prepare it yourself.
I believe I said the same thing in a previous post.0 -
rileysowner wrote: »
I believe I said the same thing in a previous post.
And I was adding to it.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »pebble4321 wrote: »There is a La Porchetta in Fremantle, though I don't eat there often. I know I've seem them in Vic and somewhere else, though I don't remember now. That's a good meal for 600 or so cals!
I usually use Brumbies (not sure if they are WA or national) for bakery items - like you, I think the products from other bakeries are going to be close.
Yeah, I copy Brumbies or Bakers Delight for bakery items. For Italian restaurants, I use La Porchetta's info as a 'close enough'.
I think that Australia has a lot less chain "family restaurants" than the US - we tend to have fast(er) food places or independent or smaller chain restaurants, not really a lot like the Applebees, Buffalo Wild Wings, Hooters, Outback Steakhouse, Dennys etc etc they have in the US, which are the big, sit down restaurants with locations all over the country. I think it has a lot to do with our (awesome) pub culture - there are bars in the US but nothing quite like a pub for dining at.
Can't compare to Australia, but we certainly do have pubs with dining and also gastropubs (different sort of menu) and a variety of that sort of thing. And how significant those kinds of big chain restaurants really depends where you are -- I'd have to go out to the 'burbs for most of them and they aren't places I'm used to people going, just because of my specific location. Other places, of course, they are common (often they are around malls).0 -
Just remember that even though calories are listed, it's probably not going to be exact. The calories are based on that entree prepared the exact way it's supposed to be prepared. Unless it's a frozen and microwaved product carefully measured the calories are always going to fluctuate. But, it's better than not knowing the calories at all and having to estimate because most restaurants will cook with tons of salt, oil, butter, etc. for flavor and it can easily double the calories of the items on your plate. Even a 6oz choice ribeye can vary in fat content, and instead of being 195-210 calories can easily be jacked up to 500 or more calories by being saturated in oil and butter while it's being prepared and served to you on a plate.
Still, it's great the calories are listed in Ontario, hopefully the US will follow that trend eventually. Currently the only items I see listed on a menu calorie-wise are the special items that are marketed as 'healthy' alternatives. Which is fine, I'll probably choose one of those anyway but still. I'd love to know what the calorie content of some of the other choices was, even if I know it to be somewhat inaccurate.2 -
candythorns wrote: »In Ontario they made it mandatory for all restaurants with 20 locations+ to display calories. Im in heaven! Anywhere else doing this.
I was actually wondering about this in sask! Ill have to pay more attention0 -
I figure the calories are ballpark. If you look up recipes for similar food items, and check the calorie count of similar foods in other places, etc., the calorie counts at the restaurants I've encountered are pretty good.
Plus I've used them in my logs while I was losing weight ... and still steadily lost weight as expected. If the calorie counts were wildly off, I may not have lost my weight quite as regularly and steadily and predictably as I did.
Pretty much this. I eat at a variety of restaurants including fast food and fast casual chains that have calorie counts, as well as local places bag don't. When I eat somewhere that doesn't have a calorie count listed I look in the database for reasonable equivalents (like a chain Italian or Mexican restaurant for example) or a comparable sounding dish (a lot of times you can find celebrity chef recipes recipes from Food Network or something that might be comparable - Ina Garten Beef Bouerginon for example) and log one of those, erring on the high side to account for extra butter used in restaurants.
I would never avoid eating out because of fear I couldn't log perfectly accurately. I enjoy going to restaurants and even when losing didn't avoid anything that I couldn't avoid forever (which is actually nothing...).
I lost weight at the pace I wanted and am currently maintaining easily so I would say the estimates are good enough.1 -
candythorns wrote: »In Ontario they made it mandatory for all restaurants with 20 locations+ to display calories. Im in heaven! Anywhere else doing this.
I was actually wondering about this in sask! Ill have to pay more attention
Just Ontario so far. I posted a link back on the first page where you can send an email to your Provincial MLA's and it will work for any province.
Oh, and the Riders suck (have to get that in there as a Bombers fan) 0 -
Spliner1969 wrote: »Just remember that even though calories are listed, it's probably not going to be exact. The calories are based on that entree prepared the exact way it's supposed to be prepared. Unless it's a frozen and microwaved product carefully measured the calories are always going to fluctuate. But, it's better than not knowing the calories at all and having to estimate because most restaurants will cook with tons of salt, oil, butter, etc. for flavor and it can easily double the calories of the items on your plate. Even a 6oz choice ribeye can vary in fat content, and instead of being 195-210 calories can easily be jacked up to 500 or more calories by being saturated in oil and butter while it's being prepared and served to you on a plate.
Still, it's great the calories are listed in Ontario, hopefully the US will follow that trend eventually.
We are, I think this is explained in the second or third post.
It depends where you live, though, because a lot of places in the US it's common already. (If you don't go to chains it is different, though -- I buy lunch sometimes and there are tons of places for me to choose from, but a dinner restaurant won't have any counts and wouldn't under the ON law or the new US law.)
Anyway, I've trusted calorie counts at places with them and estimated when going to places without them (which I did at least once a week when losing), and lost on schedule no problem.0 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »however, if you get grilled chicken and roasted vegetables that will be less calorie dense; why is the restaurants fault that people don't care to make that connection?
So you, as a customer, can tell how much oil was used to roast those vegetables? And how much oil/butter is on that grilled chicken? Sure, it's a lower calorie choice than the fettucini alfredo - but it may still be a 1000 calorie plate. Restaurants add a *lot* of hidden calories that are not obvious to the consumer. Requiring them to 'fess up to that is a good thing. Basically, it's a "truth in advertizing" argument.
Never said that..I just know what is going to be a heavy meal vs a light one. Do you really think adding the calorie count is going to make every meal magically equal what the calorie count is?
No, but it'll put it much closer to the right ballpark. And, for example, the requirement to publish nutritional information has shown me that there are zero reasonable choices for me at a particular chain that my kids like - even though some of the salads sound fine from the menu descriptions.
so you want to make every single restaurant post this information on their menus even though it wont make the calorie counts any more accurate, just because? So when you go to your restaurant and their menu prices go up 10% because they had to implement this ridiculous requirement are you going to be OK with that? What about high end restaurants that don't have a set menu? They would have to re-print their menu almost every day at tremendous expense.
If you don't want to go to a restaurant that chooses not to post the calorie counts, then vote with your wallet and don't go. But don't say that your standard should be imposed on every single restaurant in the country, just because it might make the calorie counts somewhat more accurate.
how about people use common sense for a change, and stop expecting big daddy government to help them in every single life decision they face...?2 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »however, if you get grilled chicken and roasted vegetables that will be less calorie dense; why is the restaurants fault that people don't care to make that connection?
So you, as a customer, can tell how much oil was used to roast those vegetables? And how much oil/butter is on that grilled chicken? Sure, it's a lower calorie choice than the fettucini alfredo - but it may still be a 1000 calorie plate. Restaurants add a *lot* of hidden calories that are not obvious to the consumer. Requiring them to 'fess up to that is a good thing. Basically, it's a "truth in advertizing" argument.
Never said that..I just know what is going to be a heavy meal vs a light one. Do you really think adding the calorie count is going to make every meal magically equal what the calorie count is?
No, but it'll put it much closer to the right ballpark. And, for example, the requirement to publish nutritional information has shown me that there are zero reasonable choices for me at a particular chain that my kids like - even though some of the salads sound fine from the menu descriptions.
so you want to make every single restaurant post this information on their menus even though it wont make the calorie counts any more accurate, just because? So when you go to your restaurant and their menu prices go up 10% because they had to implement this ridiculous requirement are you going to be OK with that? What about high end restaurants that don't have a set menu? They would have to re-print their menu almost every day at tremendous expense.
If you don't want to go to a restaurant that chooses not to post the calorie counts, then vote with your wallet and don't go. But don't say that your standard should be imposed on every single restaurant in the country, just because it might make the calorie counts somewhat more accurate.
how about people use common sense for a change, and stop expecting big daddy government to help them in every single life decision they face...?
Taking Ontario, and for that matter other districts I have seen this implemented in first thing to notice is it is not every restaurant. It is only those with 20 or more locations. Frankly, that pretty much counts out every high end restaurant I know of. They have one, or maybe two locations so they would not be required to do this. The second thing is that it will not cost 10% more. The cost for a restaurant that has a fixed menu, which more that have 20 or more locations have, to put together calorie counts for the foods they sell would be minimal. Even the printing of new menus, which they do already even when the changes in the menu are only a small number of items, would be small or they would be upping the price every time they bring out new menus which for some that I frequent is 2-3 times a year. You are simply putting up things that don't apply. Third, most of these restaurants with more than 20 locations already put together nutritional information, it was just not available on the menu, so the only added cost is the printing of a new menu which they do already at least once, and usually more than once a year. In other words, you are putting up a straw man of 10% increase in the price of food or the difficulty of single location restaurants to comply. I frankly think this is a step in the right direction. Many people have no idea how many calories (even if it is not exact) are in that entree they order. For example, the spaghetti and meatball entree I used to order without a thought thinking it was close to what my home made one was in terms of calories was twice the calories for what looked like a very similar serving size. I would not have known that if nutritional information was not available. At the very least this will bring a small amount of awareness of how many calories people are eating when they go out, at least when they go out to restaurants with more than 20 locations.1 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »
Given a choice between a burger joint with more than 20 locations, and the mom & pop burger joint, I prefer the smaller guys as I think the food is tastier. Probably more calories as well. I think that is all he meant.
This is my issue too. I would much rather eat at an independently owned restaurant pretty much any day over a chain place.0 -
Yes it won't be perfect, but it'll help people make more informed choices, like a muffin has almost as many calories as 2 hamburgers at McDonald's. Bet most people wouldn't realize that off the top of their head.1
-
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
- 401 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
- 990 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions