Restaurant calorie count variations
Need2Exerc1se
Posts: 13,575 Member
We all know that calorie counts on restaurant websites are not exact, but I was just reading a recent comparison of menu calories vs measured calories. It was pretty eye-opening. One dessert at Red Lobster was on the menu for 700 calories but was actually 1200+. Variances of 200-400 calories were very common. Surprisingly they weren't all over either. Some were more than 300 calories less than advertised. But most were over.
2
Replies
-
Really all I'm wondering is what was the dessert? Because that's a hell of a difference. Did they throw a stick of butter on it before it left the kitchen?4
-
That's why I'm eating out less when I'm trying to lose weight. I only eat out during weekends and I try to exercise on the days when I'm eating out.2
-
Two of my sons work in restaurant kitchens while they are in school. Based on what they've told me, this finding doesn't surprise me a bit.2
-
@jruzer I’d like to hear what your sons have told you that makes this less shocking to you. 300-400 calorie difference seems ridiculous to me.
0 -
This doesn't surprise me at all. If you're working on a busy line, are you really going to take the time to measure out 1 teaspoon of oil or two tablespoons of Parmesan? And if you are just working for a paycheck, not for passion, do you really care if you're subverting the calorie claims of the restaurant chain by screwing up the measurements? You may get slapped on the wrist for using too much product, but not for making the customers chubbier... pretty sure TGI Fridays doesn't really care about that.
Just my opinion.6 -
A bigger (or smaller) portion of chips/fries than expected, a steak with a bigger band of fat, failing to drain fried food properly, I can see why it happens3
-
Good points. I don’t often use oils/dressings so I forget how quickly those calories can add up!0 -
The calorie counts on many menus only deal with the main entree and not the sides, condiments, or other things that come in the order.3
-
I tend to stick with the very large chains owned by conglomerates, as this decreases the probability of variations. As a former server and bartender all throughout college and grad school, I can tell you that the mega chains are far more meticulous about food costs in their kitchens, and as a result tend to weigh and measure everything with little variation (even when the employees order food). This is especially true among concept stores which are non-franchised and ran by corporate. Much of the food comes prepackaged from distribution centers already portioned. Their goal is to theoretically give a customer an identical experience if they were to order an entree in New York City or Texas. It's all about uniformity to them.8
-
When I eat out, I eat things I can easily dissect. All sauce and dressing goes on the side or is taken off. First of all, I don't like wet food. And, if it's on the side, I can control the calories and the flavor intensity. I have no problems eating out and losing weight by just making good choices. People have to be realistic about what they order and use their own calorie wisdom instead of just believing what a restaurant lists.
I worked in food service for a few years. Expensive items like meat and cheese were measured exactly. Carbs and veggies were measured carefully. Butter, oil, mayo, dressing and sauce weren't measured at all.1 -
I also select foods I can easily dissect and I cut the portion in half and put the other half in a to go box.When I eat out, I eat things I can easily dissect. All sauce and dressing goes on the side or is taken off. First of all, I don't like wet food. And, if it's on the side, I can control the calories and the flavor intensity. I have no problems eating out and losing weight by just making good choices. People have to be realistic about what they order and use their own calorie wisdom instead of just believing what a restaurant lists.
I worked in food service for a few years. Expensive items like meat and cheese were measured exactly. Carbs and veggies were measured carefully. Butter, oil, mayo, dressing and sauce weren't measured at all.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »We all know that calorie counts on restaurant websites are not exact, but I was just reading a recent comparison of menu calories vs measured calories. It was pretty eye-opening. One dessert at Red Lobster was on the menu for 700 calories but was actually 1200+. Variances of 200-400 calories were very common. Surprisingly they weren't all over either. Some were more than 300 calories less than advertised. But most were over.
I never order dessert for this reason it's just easier to go buy a mug cake and throw it in the microwave for a minute and enjoy it. But in all honestly when I go out to eat, I split all of my food. I will split it in half and eat the one half and put the other half in a to go box for tomorrow.
I use to think that restaurants gave you one serving of food until I started measuring and weighing (I was blind lmao), now I really realize what one serving is. They give you like 5 servings. It's insane to me how much calories I use to take in with just one meal. Even the appetizers!0 -
Has the rules on restaurants needed to have their calories on menus or available changed recently? I noticed that Cheesecake Factory has removed calories from their menu and took their nutrition guide down on line. I seem to be having a harder time finding restaurants with nutrition guides recently.0
-
Has the rules on restaurants needed to have their calories on menus or available changed recently? I noticed that Cheesecake Factory has removed calories from their menu and took their nutrition guide down on line. I seem to be having a harder time finding restaurants with nutrition guides recently.
With some that don't have the calories on it I look up the nutritional facts on google and normally they have it on the restaurants website. But I don't trust that either though.0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Really all I'm wondering is what was the dessert? Because that's a hell of a difference. Did they throw a stick of butter on it before it left the kitchen?
I think it was called Chocolate Wave.0 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »I tend to stick with the very large chains owned by conglomerates, as this decreases the probability of variations. As a former server and bartender all throughout college and grad school, I can tell you that the mega chains are far more meticulous about food costs in their kitchens, and as a result tend to weigh and measure everything with little variation (even when the employees order food). This is especially true among concept stores which are non-franchised and ran by corporate. Much of the food comes prepackaged from distribution centers already portioned. Their goal is to theoretically give a customer an identical experience if they were to order an entree in New York City or Texas. It's all about uniformity to them.
All the comparisons were from large chains.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »I tend to stick with the very large chains owned by conglomerates, as this decreases the probability of variations. As a former server and bartender all throughout college and grad school, I can tell you that the mega chains are far more meticulous about food costs in their kitchens, and as a result tend to weigh and measure everything with little variation (even when the employees order food). This is especially true among concept stores which are non-franchised and ran by corporate. Much of the food comes prepackaged from distribution centers already portioned. Their goal is to theoretically give a customer an identical experience if they were to order an entree in New York City or Texas. It's all about uniformity to them.
All the comparisons were from large chains.
Do you have a link to the article to which you're referring? It would be helpful for people who feel they have a need to argue about this to have the source of your info.
Personally, I can see where chain restaurant desserts and appetizers would have more variation from the official menu listing. These are items that are high profit margin items that are ordered by a smaller fraction of the customers than the entrees, and they're usually shared at the table. Even if the base item (cake, pie, etc) is well portioned, they're often covered in a lot of sugary sauce poured on at the time of service that isn't necessarily portion controlled.
I'd be more interested in seeing how much variation is in the mainline menu items, especially where the menu calls out "lighter" options. That's where people who are trying to watch their calories are going to rely most on the menu counts.4 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »I tend to stick with the very large chains owned by conglomerates, as this decreases the probability of variations. As a former server and bartender all throughout college and grad school, I can tell you that the mega chains are far more meticulous about food costs in their kitchens, and as a result tend to weigh and measure everything with little variation (even when the employees order food). This is especially true among concept stores which are non-franchised and ran by corporate. Much of the food comes prepackaged from distribution centers already portioned. Their goal is to theoretically give a customer an identical experience if they were to order an entree in New York City or Texas. It's all about uniformity to them.
All the comparisons were from large chains.
Do you have a link to the article to which you're referring? It would be helpful for people who feel they have a need to argue about this to have the source of your info.
Personally, I can see where chain restaurant desserts and appetizers would have more variation from the official menu listing. These are items that are high profit margin items that are ordered by a smaller fraction of the customers than the entrees, and they're usually shared at the table. Even if the base item (cake, pie, etc) is well portioned, they're often covered in a lot of sugary sauce poured on at the time of service that isn't necessarily portion controlled.
I'd be more interested in seeing how much variation is in the mainline menu items, especially where the menu calls out "lighter" options. That's where people who are trying to watch their calories are going to rely most on the menu counts.
I read it in a newspaper. The old fashioned kind on paper.
It probably is online though. I'll see if I can find it.0 -
It was the Brownie Overboard. It consists of 3 brownie triangles with a large scoop of ice cream, whipped cream, and chocolate sauce and caramel sauce drizzled. Are we really surprised that it has more than 700 calories?
I worked at Red Lobster for years... and I worked there while I consistently counted calories and ate there ALL the time (sometimes twice per day) and I lost weight--70 lbs. at that time, and since I stopped I've gained 50 back
--- They have healthy options.
I do agree that sometimes the calorie count on menus can be misleading... I typically do a comparison with other food that is just like it when I log. That same article also suggested that many restaurants overestimate calories- which you are leaving vital calories on the table that you could be eating if you are actually counting. So that sucks too.
I would be skeptical if you go out to eat. However, it's all about what you choose
Oh and the Chocolate Wave has like 2000 calories. Crazy.1 -
Oh ok, I can see how a dessert with two sauces and cream and ice cream could end up higher than advertised. There aren't a lot of places that do those sorts of desserts here in the UK, or at least not the places I eat (mostly independents, we have chains but on your local high street you'll find a lot of independents) so I forget that they're more prevalent in the US. And that's not an insult, just observation.0
-
I read a similar study a while back. In that one, the fast food chains fared better than the sit down restaurants, which makes sense to me. It doesn't surprise me at all, especially for foods containing cheese, sauces, or gravies. A lot will depend on the heavy handedness of the chef or cook.
1 -
AmandaEdwards1 wrote: »It was the Brownie Overboard. It consists of 3 brownie triangles with a large scoop of ice cream, whipped cream, and chocolate sauce and caramel sauce drizzled. Are we really surprised that it has more than 700 calories?
I worked at Red Lobster for years... and I worked there while I consistently counted calories and ate there ALL the time (sometimes twice per day) and I lost weight--70 lbs. at that time, and since I stopped I've gained 50 back --- They have healthy options.
I do agree that sometimes the calorie count on menus can be misleading... I typically do a comparison with other food that is just like it when I log. That same article also suggested that many restaurants overestimate calories- which you are leaving vital calories on the table that you could be eating if you are actually counting. So that sucks too.
I would be skeptical if you go out to eat. However, it's all about what you choose
Oh and the Chocolate Wave has like 2000 calories. Crazy.
Oh right.
I found a link to a news report, which makes the whole thing seem a lot less dire than the newspaper article did. Other than the dessert all those mentioned here are < 100 over, which is completely understandable. Seriously how could you ever get it exact every time?
Surprisingly the differences under mentioned here are further off than those that were over (except for the dessert)
https://www.today.com/health/can-you-trust-calorie-counts-restaurant-menus-t1172700 -
@jruzer I’d like to hear what your sons have told you that makes this less shocking to you. 300-400 calorie difference seems ridiculous to me.
I think others have covered it. A few examples would be more or less cheese on a sandwich or wrap, more or less oil, larger or smaller sizes of side items, etc.0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Really all I'm wondering is what was the dessert? Because that's a hell of a difference. Did they throw a stick of butter on it before it left the kitchen?
No, they do that to the entrees. The butter is actually in the dish for desserts.0 -
I'd like to think that I've been logging enough to be able to at least have an inkling that a dessert's calories have been underestimated by almost 50%.
Qualitatively, a 700 calorie dessert is generally small enough that you think 'that looks pretty reasonable' when you get it. A 1200 calorie dessert is more along the lines of "oh yes, this is horrendously bad but will be so good".
And agreed with the rest of the posters on a 300-400 difference for entrees. That's totally expected considering that things like cooking oil and/or sauces aren't strictly measured during service, nor are cheaper sides like french fries (especially at more casual atmosphere chains like Red Lobster, Applebees, or the like).2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »I tend to stick with the very large chains owned by conglomerates, as this decreases the probability of variations. As a former server and bartender all throughout college and grad school, I can tell you that the mega chains are far more meticulous about food costs in their kitchens, and as a result tend to weigh and measure everything with little variation (even when the employees order food). This is especially true among concept stores which are non-franchised and ran by corporate. Much of the food comes prepackaged from distribution centers already portioned. Their goal is to theoretically give a customer an identical experience if they were to order an entree in New York City or Texas. It's all about uniformity to them.
All the comparisons were from large chains.
I can only speak from my personal experience. I worked for two different big restaurant conglomerates in my soul sucking existence in food service. The first was Carlson Companies when I was at TGI Friday's before they closed it my college town. The second was Darden Restaurants. I bounced around several of Darden's concepts in my tenure including Bahama Breeze, Red Lobster, LongHorn Steakhouse, and finally and mercifully Season's 52 before I graduated and got a "real" job.
Darden was incredibly anal about food costs and liquor costs. Shift managers had to sign and initial a log at the end of each shift and if they were off by too high a percentage it cut into their quarterly bonus. Because of this, and as you might expect, they were pretty third reich about food coming off the line "wrong". The shift managers would serve as "expo" during shifts, meaning they would work the line when plates of food came up from the kitchen and tray them up for us servers to run out to our tables. They would send items back to the kitchen if they were not to spec.
If you are getting a plate of food from a Darden concept that is dramatically off in calories from how corporate tested it before adding it online, it is a rare anomaly.3 -
I rarely go to restaurants that even have calorie counts when I go out to dinner, as where I live the smaller local ones that don't tend to be superior in food and dining experience. My joy in going to restaurants is the social experience and getting to try interesting (or ethnic) foods I don't have the ability to prepare the same way at home, as well as getting ideas, and to me that's always going to be worth some uncertainty in total calories.
I did buy lunch sometimes (Pret, Potbelly's, various other more local chains) when I was losing and I found it did not affect my loss at all, so I am personally willing to largely trust that kind of more standardized foods. (And total calories are less so likely error would presumably be lower just as a percentage thing.)0 -
@jruzer I’d like to hear what your sons have told you that makes this less shocking to you. 300-400 calorie difference seems ridiculous to me.
I used to work as a line cook...do you really think they're weighing out every little thing meticulously? Nobody would ever get their food. Little more oil or butter here or a little more of this or that there...
The fact that some restaurants provide nutritional information is basically for the warm and fuzzies...there's no way most of them are coming in accurately for what you're actually eating. Counts are probably closer for fast food though...3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions