Restaurant calorie count variations

Dnarules

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.

Need2Exerc1se

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-t117270

Jruzer

mae_bud wrote: »

@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.

DX2JX2

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.

DX2JX2

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).

JustRobby1

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.

lemurcat12

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.)

cwolfman13

mae_bud wrote: »

@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...