Green chef calories

jaga13

My husband likes to order green chef meals (a few meals a month). The calorie counts are high for me. For instance, we have a pork and sweet potato meal this week and the recipe card says it's 980 calories a serving. I end up portioning half a serving for most of these meals.

But I was wondering why on earth a "healthy" meal has so many calories (and a lot of fat and sodium).....so I took the recipe card and inputted each ingredient/amount into the MFP recipe tool. I came up with about 700 calories a serving. I can't figure out where the difference is....maybe their unique sauce? Otherwise it's pretty simple (meat and veggies).

Just wondering if anyone has experience with Green Chef meals and any additional insight?

janejellyroll

"Health" doesn't mean low calorie. There are plenty of nutrient dense foods that are also calorie dense. And, of course, you can have large servings of nutrient-dense foods. Many people track calories for health reasons, but it would be a mistake to assume that something labeled as "healthy" is also low calorie.

It's too vague a term to be useful for weight management.

As far as the differences, it's possible that your calorie calculations are off (sometimes the recipe builder pulls in inaccurate database entries) or theirs are. There really isn't enough information here to tell what might be going on.

jaga13

I understand. But I disagree a bit....part of a healthy diet is eating sane and reasonable amounts of food. 980 calories a serving for a product advertised as "healthy" is a bit misleading. Plus the fat and sodium contents are through the roof. I'm just glad I looked!

janejellyroll

jaga13 wrote: »

I understand. But I disagree a bit....part of a healthy diet is eating sane and reasonable amounts of food. 980 calories a serving for a product advertised as "healthy" is a bit misleading. Plus the fat and sodium contents are through the roof. I'm just glad I looked!

980 calories would be a reasonable meal for certain active people or people who are doing IF. There's also the potential for people to eat just part of a serving.

I think this just illustrates how "healthy" is not a very helpful term when choosing food. It can mean any number of things, but it certainly isn't an assurance that a food is low calorie.

jaga13

Absolutely. I get all of that. But again, the fat and sodium content are insane considering it's pretty much just meat and veggies. So....there's something off there to me. But yes, it certainly reiterates the importance of doing my homework and looking up the information before I decide to eat something.

janejellyroll

jaga13 wrote: »

Absolutely. I get all of that. But again, the fat and sodium content are insane considering it's pretty much just meat and veggies. So....there's something off there to me. But yes, it certainly reiterates the importance of doing my homework and looking up the information before I decide to eat something.

I'm not sure which plan you're on, but when I look at some of the sample meals, it looks like many of them come with a pre-blended seasoning packet, stock concentrate, or a condiment like aioli. That's likely the source of the sodium -- if it was just meat and vegetables, you're right that it would be a concern.

goal06082021

jaga13 wrote: »

Absolutely. I get all of that. But again, the fat and sodium content are insane considering it's pretty much just meat and veggies. So....there's something off there to me. But yes, it certainly reiterates the importance of doing my homework and looking up the information before I decide to eat something.

Fat is not the enemy. Fat is a necessary macronutrient. Sodium is also a necessary micronutrient - too little sodium is also bad for you. Like janejellyroll said, the nutrient breakdown for this meal may not be unreasonable for someone with different nutrition/weight management goals than you have. It is good to be reminded to look at labels, though, so I'm glad you got that out of this experience.

janejellyroll

goal06082021 wrote: »

jaga13 wrote: »

Absolutely. I get all of that. But again, the fat and sodium content are insane considering it's pretty much just meat and veggies. So....there's something off there to me. But yes, it certainly reiterates the importance of doing my homework and looking up the information before I decide to eat something.

Fat is not the enemy. Fat is a necessary macronutrient. Sodium is also a necessary micronutrient - too little sodium is also bad for you. Like janejellyroll said, the nutrient breakdown for this meal may not be unreasonable for someone with different nutrition/weight management goals than you have. It is good to be reminded to look at labels, though, so I'm glad you got that out of this experience.

Another thing I noticed is that even several of the meals in the "Balanced Meal" plan are marked as keto, so at least a portion of the meals are high fat by design. Just another example of how different perspectives can lead to different evaluations of "healthy."

penguinmama87

Could some of the nutrition information be obscured due to trade secrets? They have to disclose the calorie information, but I don't think (depending on the law wherever these are made and sold) they would have to disclose exact amounts of every ingredient, for example.

zebasschick

"healthy" is basically a marketing term; anyone looking for truly healthy foods should be reading the labels.

cutting some "meals" in half can make them perfect for some who are watching calories or sodium or whatever. but cutting some meals in half can mean not enough protein - particularly if you work out - or still have too much sodium.

all meals aren't perfect for all people. for exammple, my husband is an active 6' 7" - he can eat a 980 calorie dinner with no weight gain. i'm 5' 3", and on non-workout days, 980 calories is most of my 1300 food budget for the day. also my non-workout days are recovery days, so i need large amounts of protein.

lemurcat2

I just looked at one of the meals, and it was 770 cals (which would be fine for me, since I IF, but if I wasn't I might eat only half and bulk it up with more veg). The sodium was 550 mg, which seems okay for 770 cals, and the fat on the high side (47% of cals), but it seems intended to be a lower carb meal (protein is good at 45 g). Sat fat is kind of high, but it's a pork chop with coconut milk and yogurt, so not a shock. Some added sugar in the curry. Overall it looked healthy.

A lot of the cals in those meals is going to be the prepared sauces, so I think it would be more likely correct to trust the calorie counts than try to re-create the ingredients if you are using the sauces.

I checked out another, peanut chicken with udon noodles, and it's 940 -- which does seem quite high unless you are doing something like 2 meals a day. But I suspect that one would be easy to half (and I realize you said this is what you do). If someone did that, the sodium would go from 1450 mg (which I agree is quite high) to half that, of course, and the fat (which is again 48% of the meal) to a much lower number (the sat fat in this one is 9, so half that shouldn't be an issue even for someone watching sat fat). The fat seems largely from peanuts, a peanut sauce, and sesame seeds, so good sources of it.

I looked at another which was higher cal and sodium, so it really depends on the meals one picks, and how much of one you eat. The one that was higher (1010 cals, 2000 mg sodium) was an enchilada, and it looked pretty huge.

The problem with basing healthiness on cal count is it really depends on someone's eating patterns and goals and size and activity level what a healthy number of cals is for dinner, especially since lots of people tend to eat a higher percentage of cals at dinner.

The supposed average daily cals is 2000 (although that is likely low for many men and even active women) and if one is eating at maintenance (and healthy doesn't mean diet), eating 1000 cals for dinner and 400 for breakfast, 600 for lunch wouldn't seem odd at all as a pattern. But absolutely, one should check the cals and adjust or choose accordingly to make sure it is healthy for you. I don't care for Lean Cuisines anyway, but also eating 2 of them per day would be super unhealthy for me even though they are low cal -- in fact, bc they are extremely low cal, and I wouldn't get nearly enough food or nutrients.

lemurcat2

penguinmama87 wrote: »

Could some of the nutrition information be obscured due to trade secrets? They have to disclose the calorie information, but I don't think (depending on the law wherever these are made and sold) they would have to disclose exact amounts of every ingredient, for example.

Even if the sauces are like other sauces sold (I would assume they would have to disclose ingredients for allergy type reasons), you couldn't figure exact cals, as you don't know the amounts. And the sauces look like they are probably quite caloric.

jaga13

lemurcat2 wrote: »

I just looked at one of the meals, and it was 770 cals (which would be fine for me, since I IF, but if I wasn't I might eat only half and bulk it up with more veg). The sodium was 550 mg, which seems okay for 770 cals, and the fat on the high side (47% of cals), but it seems intended to be a lower carb meal (protein is good at 45 g). Sat fat is kind of high, but it's a pork chop with coconut milk and yogurt, so not a shock. Some added sugar in the curry. Overall it looked healthy.

A lot of the cals in those meals is going to be the prepared sauces, so I think it would be more likely correct to trust the calorie counts than try to re-create the ingredients if you are using the sauces.

I checked out another, peanut chicken with udon noodles, and it's 940 -- which does seem quite high unless you are doing something like 2 meals a day. But I suspect that one would be easy to half (and I realize you said this is what you do). If someone did that, the sodium would go from 1450 mg (which I agree is quite high) to half that, of course, and the fat (which is again 48% of the meal) to a much lower number (the sat fat in this one is 9, so half that shouldn't be an issue even for someone watching sat fat). The fat seems largely from peanuts, a peanut sauce, and sesame seeds, so good sources of it.

I looked at another which was higher cal and sodium, so it really depends on the meals one picks, and how much of one you eat. The one that was higher (1010 cals, 2000 mg sodium) was an enchilada, and it looked pretty huge.

The problem with basing healthiness on cal count is it really depends on someone's eating patterns and goals and size and activity level what a healthy number of cals is for dinner, especially since lots of people tend to eat a higher percentage of cals at dinner.

The supposed average daily cals is 2000 (although that is likely low for many men and even active women) and if one is eating at maintenance (and healthy doesn't mean diet), eating 1000 cals for dinner and 400 for breakfast, 600 for lunch wouldn't seem odd at all as a pattern. But absolutely, one should check the cals and adjust or choose accordingly to make sure it is healthy for you. I don't care for Lean Cuisines anyway, but also eating 2 of them per day would be super unhealthy for me even though they are low cal -- in fact, bc they are extremely low cal, and I wouldn't get nearly enough food or nutrients.

Yes, agreed with all of this. It's got to be the sauces, since the rest is mostly meat and veggies. I'm halving the larger meals (the ones around 800-1000). We have another meal coming with shrimp that's around 600 calories. That's still a little high for me, but I'll take the total amount and divide it into 5 or 6 servings instead of 4 (it's supposed to serve 4). Still, the overall fat and sodium is a little unsettling to me, so I'm going to use a lot less of the sauce than recommended. Fortunately we only eat these meals a couple times a month, but it can definitely add up if I'm not paying attention to all of these factors.

jaga13

goal06082021 wrote: »

jaga13 wrote: »

Absolutely. I get all of that. But again, the fat and sodium content are insane considering it's pretty much just meat and veggies. So....there's something off there to me. But yes, it certainly reiterates the importance of doing my homework and looking up the information before I decide to eat something.

Fat is not the enemy. Fat is a necessary macronutrient. Sodium is also a necessary micronutrient - too little sodium is also bad for you. Like janejellyroll said, the nutrient breakdown for this meal may not be unreasonable for someone with different nutrition/weight management goals than you have. It is good to be reminded to look at labels, though, so I'm glad you got that out of this experience.

For sure. Fat is not the enemy. However, 71 grams of fat is a bit extreme for a serving. As is 60% of the daily recommended sodium in one serving. Yikes.

jaga13

penguinmama87 wrote: »

Could some of the nutrition information be obscured due to trade secrets? They have to disclose the calorie information, but I don't think (depending on the law wherever these are made and sold) they would have to disclose exact amounts of every ingredient, for example.

Bingo. They disclose exact type and amount of the protein and veggies. But I have no way of knowing what's exactly in the sauce. Evidently it's all salt lol.

westrich20940

jaga13 wrote: »

I understand. But I disagree a bit....part of a healthy diet is eating sane and reasonable amounts of food. 980 calories a serving for a product advertised as "healthy" is a bit misleading. Plus the fat and sodium contents are through the roof. I'm just glad I looked!

I think that this is an OK amount of calories for anyone who's decently active....I definitely would eat that for dinner on a day that I go for a run. Even with a decent sized breakfast and lunch (like 5-600 cals each). It depends on what your daily calorie amount is....on days I work out mine is definitely over 2,000 so this amount of calories in one meal is perfectly fine. And I don't really have a medical reason to worry about sodium and fat and whatnot....as far as any doctor has told me at least.

As for the difference...my roommate also uses those meal delivery things (sometimes Green Chef but lots of others too) and she also has Type I diabetes. She uses the nutrition info on the recipe card to input her carbs and give herself insulin and whatnot and I know she's had issues where she really feels like the calculations were not correct on the card. I mentioned to her to weight the produce it includes bc maybe that's where it differs. Like the meat is always weighed (and some other ingredients I know are weighed) but it'll have like 'One Sweet Potato'....but they are not weighing it....and a few ounces difference in one sweet potato vs another can add up to quite a significant calorie difference. So maybe that's it?? You could do a longitudinal study and get back to us, lol.

Edit: a note on the sauces...they definitely usually provide more sauce than what the recipe calls for if you measure it --- like if they say a certain measurement for the sauce, I've found that the packet of sauce is more than that if you just throw it in and don't measure it.