Have you tried GLP1 medications and found it didn't work for you? We'd like to hear about your experiences, what you tried, why it didn't work and how you're doing now. Click here to tell us your story

Healthy restaurant= HIGH calories

1235»

Replies

  • bpetrosky
    bpetrosky Posts: 3,911 Member
    annacole94 wrote: »
    Fine. I'll guess that they didn't get skinny on thousand calorie meals? Eating out is a minefield of trash food. That's my real point. You CAN eat well, but it requires an absurd amount of strategy and preparation. You don't get there by accident at Olive Garden.

    That's a bit overdramatic. It's not that hard to find lower calorie options at many restaurants without making a big production of it. Lean protein, vegetables, light or no sauces, easy on the breads or starches. Done. Even places like Olive Garden or Cheesecake Factory don't have to be a problem.

    Also, there's nothing stopping you splitting the dish and taking half home for lunch the next day.
  • Wynterbourne
    Wynterbourne Posts: 2,224 Member
    annacole94 wrote: »
    Wynterbourne wrote: »
    annacole94 wrote: »
    Fine. I'll guess that they didn't get skinny on thousand calorie meals? Eating out is a minefield of trash food. That's my real point. You CAN eat well, but it requires an absurd amount of strategy and preparation. You don't get there by accident at Olive Garden.

    So the point is that mindless eating is a bad strategy?

    Yup. And also that the health halo around certain brands is not going to get you a reasonable calorie count. If you've never been shocked by the calories in a restaurant meal, you're either a cynical *kitten* or you've been at this since birth.

    Actually, my point was that you just have to be mindful of your choices. I don't have to be a cynical *kitten* or have been dieting my whole life to *not* be shocked by restaurant calories. I just have to be knowledgeable of a few numbers, look at the ridiculous portion sizes many restaurants have, and do a little math. That's it. It's called mindful eating. If you can look at a half gallon bowl of spaghetti or a four inch tall wedge of cheesecake and actually be shocked it sounds like you might be in denial.
  • AllOutof_Bubblegum
    AllOutof_Bubblegum Posts: 3,646 Member
    ccsernica wrote: »
    ashliedelgado wrote: »
    A rule of thumb a very fit pediatrician I work with shared with me - if the menu does not have nutrition information posted, she doesn't eat there. She figures in this day and age, if they aren't posting their nutrition information, they must be ashamed of it. I ran with it. So I look things up before going places to make my decision. It hasn't failed me yet.

    If you're going by the seat of your pants, the wraps, the grains, the dressings, and just pack with veggies and lean meat if you want it to be low calorie. Nothing wrong with the grains or wraps, they just add the number up.

    So much for local eating then. Or does she imagine local, family-owned restaurants can afford to pay a lab to evaluate calorie content every time they put a new dish on the menu?

    A freakin lab is required to determine the calorie content of food?? Well, I've been doing everything all wrong for years. :D
  • annacole94
    annacole94 Posts: 997 Member
    Wynterbourne wrote: »
    annacole94 wrote: »
    Wynterbourne wrote: »
    annacole94 wrote: »
    Fine. I'll guess that they didn't get skinny on thousand calorie meals? Eating out is a minefield of trash food. That's my real point. You CAN eat well, but it requires an absurd amount of strategy and preparation. You don't get there by accident at Olive Garden.

    So the point is that mindless eating is a bad strategy?

    Yup. And also that the health halo around certain brands is not going to get you a reasonable calorie count. If you've never been shocked by the calories in a restaurant meal, you're either a cynical *kitten* or you've been at this since birth.

    Actually, my point was that you just have to be mindful of your choices. I don't have to be a cynical *kitten* or have been dieting my whole life to *not* be shocked by restaurant calories. I just have to be knowledgeable of a few numbers, look at the ridiculous portion sizes many restaurants have, and do a little math. That's it. It's called mindful eating. If you can look at a half gallon bowl of spaghetti or a four inch tall wedge of cheesecake and actually be shocked it sounds like you might be in denial.
    Lol, thanks for the concern. I'm within 5 lb of my goal weight, and I don't have most of the chains (including Olive Garden) in my city at all. I'm not in denial, love.
  • Wynterbourne
    Wynterbourne Posts: 2,224 Member
    annacole94 wrote: »
    Wynterbourne wrote: »
    annacole94 wrote: »
    Wynterbourne wrote: »
    annacole94 wrote: »
    Fine. I'll guess that they didn't get skinny on thousand calorie meals? Eating out is a minefield of trash food. That's my real point. You CAN eat well, but it requires an absurd amount of strategy and preparation. You don't get there by accident at Olive Garden.

    So the point is that mindless eating is a bad strategy?

    Yup. And also that the health halo around certain brands is not going to get you a reasonable calorie count. If you've never been shocked by the calories in a restaurant meal, you're either a cynical *kitten* or you've been at this since birth.

    Actually, my point was that you just have to be mindful of your choices. I don't have to be a cynical *kitten* or have been dieting my whole life to *not* be shocked by restaurant calories. I just have to be knowledgeable of a few numbers, look at the ridiculous portion sizes many restaurants have, and do a little math. That's it. It's called mindful eating. If you can look at a half gallon bowl of spaghetti or a four inch tall wedge of cheesecake and actually be shocked it sounds like you might be in denial.
    Lol, thanks for the concern. I'm within 5 lb of my goal weight, and I don't have most of the chains (including Olive Garden) in my city at all. I'm not in denial, love.

    And I'm down over 125 lbs, have chain restaurants near me, even eat at them occasionally, and am not surprised by their calories. Since I'm not cynical nor have been at this my whole life, I guess I'm an exception to your way of thinking regarding restaurants.
  • annacole94
    annacole94 Posts: 997 Member
    If you accept chain restaurant meals as "normal", then you may be the one in denial. This food is not (and never should have become) normal.
  • Wynterbourne
    Wynterbourne Posts: 2,224 Member
    annacole94 wrote: »
    If you accept chain restaurant meals as "normal", then you may be the one in denial. This food is not (and never should have become) normal.

    So did you not actually read the paragraph you quoted? What part of "ridiculous portion sizes many restaurants have" equates normal to you?
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    AllOutof_Bubblegum wrote: »
    ccsernica wrote: »
    ashliedelgado wrote: »
    A rule of thumb a very fit pediatrician I work with shared with me - if the menu does not have nutrition information posted, she doesn't eat there. She figures in this day and age, if they aren't posting their nutrition information, they must be ashamed of it. I ran with it. So I look things up before going places to make my decision. It hasn't failed me yet.

    If you're going by the seat of your pants, the wraps, the grains, the dressings, and just pack with veggies and lean meat if you want it to be low calorie. Nothing wrong with the grains or wraps, they just add the number up.

    So much for local eating then. Or does she imagine local, family-owned restaurants can afford to pay a lab to evaluate calorie content every time they put a new dish on the menu?

    A freakin lab is required to determine the calorie content of food?? Well, I've been doing everything all wrong for years. :D

    I'm guessing, but I'd bet that in order to publish calorie counts, it needs to be determined by a lab. :wink:
  • annacole94
    annacole94 Posts: 997 Member
    I could keep arguing (although I'm not even sure about what?), but I'm in the middle of a very difficult Super Mario Colour Splash level, and then it's time for the bedtime marathon.

    Good luck to all, and may the odds be ever in your favour.
  • endlessfall16
    endlessfall16 Posts: 932 Member
    I tend to get surprised by how few calories restaurants serve. Naturally I want to get the most food for my hard earned $$$. I usually think at this price I could easily make 3 quality meals at home. :)

    When I am at buffets I always try to eat as much as possible, obviously. Foods are good, are fuel and aren't free, if you are honest.

    I have lost all my overweight lbs.
  • Windrunner666
    Windrunner666 Posts: 91 Member
    edited March 2017
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    What is wrong with 600 calories? Do that for three meals and you are still only at 1,800 calories.

    Some of us can eat 1200-1300 cals, makeing it half of our daily alowance. Just' sayin'
  • ccsernica
    ccsernica Posts: 1,040 Member
    edited March 2017
    AllOutof_Bubblegum wrote: »
    ccsernica wrote: »
    ashliedelgado wrote: »
    A rule of thumb a very fit pediatrician I work with shared with me - if the menu does not have nutrition information posted, she doesn't eat there. She figures in this day and age, if they aren't posting their nutrition information, they must be ashamed of it. I ran with it. So I look things up before going places to make my decision. It hasn't failed me yet.

    If you're going by the seat of your pants, the wraps, the grains, the dressings, and just pack with veggies and lean meat if you want it to be low calorie. Nothing wrong with the grains or wraps, they just add the number up.

    So much for local eating then. Or does she imagine local, family-owned restaurants can afford to pay a lab to evaluate calorie content every time they put a new dish on the menu?

    A freakin lab is required to determine the calorie content of food?? Well, I've been doing everything all wrong for years. :D

    Yes. It is.

    To be sure, you can approximate calories in a dish by counting the calories of the ingredients -- assuming you know that with any accuracy -- but that's inexact. The way this is now typically done is to analyze a food's macronutrients, and then use average values of kcal/g for each of them to total up the calories in a serving.

    Just adding them up might be fine for salads (assuming you have accurate data on the nutrients in the ingredients, which can vary by growing area) but cooking changes the macro composition of food, often in unpredictable ways. So yes, you need a lab if you want to be accurate. There are many labs that do this kind of work, and they're easy to find with Google.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    What is wrong with 600 calories? Do that for three meals and you are still only at 1,800 calories.

    Perhaps OP is short like me, or has an aggressive weight loss goal. 1800 cals is over my maintenance even now that I'm lifting again.

    Calories burned lifting are kind of meager anyway, but my point is that 600 calories is a fairly modest amount of calories. Even if it doesn't work for every meal, it is certainly a good number to shoot for for dinner. Given that the average person burns between 1600 and 2500 calories per day, 600 calories per meal is about right for most people.

    Presuming that OP is trying to lose weight - likely a safe bet ...

    Given that the average person burns between 1600 and 2500 calories per day, the average person would want to eat between 1200 and 2000 cals to lose a pound a week, which would not be an aggressive weight loss goal unless OP is close to her goal weight.

    That leaves some 'average people' on target with 600 cals x 3 meals = 1800 cals, and most not on target given a normal distribution.

    Not a stretch to think that OP didn't plan for 600 cals for that particular meal. Which was lunch and not dinner, though it doesn't really matter. OP had a general idea, at least, of how much she wanted to eat for a particular meal and unintentionally went over. That's cause for frustration - and for her to figure out that she may want to check calories before rather than after her meal.

    But why complain that "it isn't healthy" when 600 calories would fit very nicely into the goals of someone who isn't trying to lose weight?

    And by the way, there is a significant portion of the population who eat dinner at lunchtime rather than at suppertime.
  • ccsernica
    ccsernica Posts: 1,040 Member
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    And by the way, there is a significant portion of the population who eat dinner at lunchtime rather than at suppertime.

    But in that case, the time of day you call lunchtime is actually dinnertime. And if you eat dinner at suppertime, that's really dinnertime too. Either way you're missing a meal, and we're not even counting second breakfast and tea.

    Of course, only a madman eats dinner at teatime.

Categories