Eating at restaurants used to be fun, now it's kind of stressful.
Options
Replies
-
Requiring individual restaurants to post calorie counts would be an infernal waste of time. Have any of you watched any cooking shows that go into the kitchens of restaurants, like Diners Drive Ins & Dives? They don't work off of recipes, they don't measure ingredients on a food scale, and they don't make the same things every day. Yeah, they usually pan fry the fish in 2 TBLs of butter, but if it looks a little dry they might add in more. They measure out biscuit dough by eyeballing it. They pour wine into the pan right out of the bottle.
The calories on chain restaurant menus are not accurate - they are estimates based on how a dish is typically prepared. What you get could be hundreds of calories off, either way.
If restaurant staff had to measure out every ingredient to match an advertised calorie count, it would take twice as long to get your food and would be more expensive.
Ultimately, if you eat out a lot, and your deficit is really tight, you have a problem. I don't have much to lose and I have a 250 cal deficit per day. I know that one or two restaurant meals a week can negate my whole week's deficit, so I try to avoid eating out for convenience sake. I eat out for socializing, and that is more important to me than losing 1/2 lb this week. Life is full of choices!0 -
Well, if one eats high amounts of fat often and doesn't realize the high fat content they are consuming, yes it can be downright unhealthy for them.that some how because it's chalk full of delicious fat- it's unhealthy
They decide the quality and quantity of ingredients is what it means."they decide how unhealthy they are going to make it? what does that even mean??They aren't making healthy or unhealthy food- they are making food to sell- and hopefully it's delicious.
No, I am saying 'delicious' is not relevant to healthy or unhealthy food in the context in which I was discussing it. There is plenty of delicious things on both sides of the coin.So you're saying unhealthy food is not delicious?I just don't understand your fussiness with claiming it's "unhealthy" because it's got fat and sugar in it? or it's high calorie- or whatever it is that you're claiming unhealthy is (which can we narrow that definition down for me since you seem vague on that).
No, I never said high calorie equals unhealthy but that some dishes contain lots of hidden calories, fats, and sugars that the consumers would not be aware of, much like the macaroni salad of the the woman in this video who makes it with an entire jar of mayo, sweetened condensed milk and a heaping cup of sugar, which ends up being over 7000 calories and that *is* unhealthy, any way you slice it.
I agree with you on all counts. Sorry but a 1300+ calories dish is not 'healthy' in my book.
Why isn't it healthy?? Just because it's high calorie??? What's the cut off for a healthy dinner than is it 600? 700? 800? what?? for me a 1300 calorie dinner is usually perfect because it's my large meal of the day.
Stop judging healthy by calorie count0 -
GiveMeCoffee wrote: »
Well, if one eats high amounts of fat often and doesn't realize the high fat content they are consuming, yes it can be downright unhealthy for them.that some how because it's chalk full of delicious fat- it's unhealthy
They decide the quality and quantity of ingredients is what it means."they decide how unhealthy they are going to make it? what does that even mean??They aren't making healthy or unhealthy food- they are making food to sell- and hopefully it's delicious.
No, I am saying 'delicious' is not relevant to healthy or unhealthy food in the context in which I was discussing it. There is plenty of delicious things on both sides of the coin.So you're saying unhealthy food is not delicious?I just don't understand your fussiness with claiming it's "unhealthy" because it's got fat and sugar in it? or it's high calorie- or whatever it is that you're claiming unhealthy is (which can we narrow that definition down for me since you seem vague on that).
No, I never said high calorie equals unhealthy but that some dishes contain lots of hidden calories, fats, and sugars that the consumers would not be aware of, much like the macaroni salad of the the woman in this video who makes it with an entire jar of mayo, sweetened condensed milk and a heaping cup of sugar, which ends up being over 7000 calories and that *is* unhealthy, any way you slice it.
I agree with you on all counts. Sorry but a 1300+ calories dish is not 'healthy' in my book.
Why isn't it healthy?? Just because it's high calorie??? What's the cut off for a healthy dinner than is it 600? 700? 800? what?? for me a 1300 calorie dinner is usually perfect because it's my large meal of the day.
Stop judging healthy by calorie count
^Agreed. Some people eat only 2 meals with or without snacks a day (and some might do one really large meal and then a couple smaller ones, etc). That meal is possible to fit in someone's meal plan and be fine.
Heathy food =/= the amount of calories (or lack thereof) in it.
0 -
If you want and can't make a decision when you go out .. go to the ones that give you nutritional info... if you can make decisions for yourself and go out to enjoy good food and company go anywhere you choose.
Also there has been studies done on the ineffectiveness of adding the calorie counts to fast food menus and people making lower calorie choices... so besides the fact that the counts are wrong anyway they are ineffective.0 -
What a sad, pathetic mindset some have. I go to restaurants a fair amount, they never ever have nutrition information, yet somehow I am able to lose weight when I need to.
Lol at only chicken or salmon are "safe"
Says the 32yo male whose goal is apparently 2300 calories net.
Moving on...
But what he said is true tho... what kind of life is it to live worrying about how many calories delicious food has at a restaurant? So much so that you would rather be a recluse and never go out to eat?
**Says the 35 yr old woman with 1490 net calories.0 -
Enjoy your time out at a restaurant if it isn't a typical habit!
I felt exactly this way about Mexican restaurants up until last Sunday. Most restaurants I go to publish their nutritional information, so I tend not to worry. Make alterations, log, and move on and stay within my budget. Mexican restaurants -- they are notorious for not publishing their information. In six months, I haven't had a "cheat" meal, so for the first time, I made the executive decision not to worry about it. It was one meal, and I rarely eat out. I wanted to enjoy my family. Needless to say, I indulged in the appetizers and my meal until I was full. It didn't take as much as it used to, but more than I probably should have. When I got home, I logged similar items and was still within maintenance. Sodium showed up on the scale, but it ended up being a really good boost to my metabolism. It's almost one week later, and I've lost just as much weight as I've averaged in every other week. 0 -
Most restaurants have their calories posted online and it's actually the law that restaurants have the nutrition contents available (that being said, how many follow it? I don't know). But I usually look up online before going to a restaurant and then choose what I want based on the calories.
0 -
Lasmartchika wrote: »What a sad, pathetic mindset some have. I go to restaurants a fair amount, they never ever have nutrition information, yet somehow I am able to lose weight when I need to.
Lol at only chicken or salmon are "safe"
Says the 32yo male whose goal is apparently 2300 calories net.
Moving on...
But what he said is true tho... what kind of life is it to live worrying about how many calories delicious food has at a restaurant? So much so that you would rather be a recluse and never go out to eat?
**Says the 35 yr old woman with 1490 net calories.
Who said 'never go out to eat'? I go out to eat about 3 times a month, but you bet that for most of those, calorie count *does* matter. So many times I don't know what to pick, and my choice would be so much easier if I knew how many calories is in each dish.GiveMeCoffee wrote: »
Well, if one eats high amounts of fat often and doesn't realize the high fat content they are consuming, yes it can be downright unhealthy for them.that some how because it's chalk full of delicious fat- it's unhealthy
They decide the quality and quantity of ingredients is what it means."they decide how unhealthy they are going to make it? what does that even mean??They aren't making healthy or unhealthy food- they are making food to sell- and hopefully it's delicious.
No, I am saying 'delicious' is not relevant to healthy or unhealthy food in the context in which I was discussing it. There is plenty of delicious things on both sides of the coin.So you're saying unhealthy food is not delicious?I just don't understand your fussiness with claiming it's "unhealthy" because it's got fat and sugar in it? or it's high calorie- or whatever it is that you're claiming unhealthy is (which can we narrow that definition down for me since you seem vague on that).
No, I never said high calorie equals unhealthy but that some dishes contain lots of hidden calories, fats, and sugars that the consumers would not be aware of, much like the macaroni salad of the the woman in this video who makes it with an entire jar of mayo, sweetened condensed milk and a heaping cup of sugar, which ends up being over 7000 calories and that *is* unhealthy, any way you slice it.
I agree with you on all counts. Sorry but a 1300+ calories dish is not 'healthy' in my book.
Why isn't it healthy?? Just because it's high calorie??? What's the cut off for a healthy dinner than is it 600? 700? 800? what?? for me a 1300 calorie dinner is usually perfect because it's my large meal of the day.
Stop judging healthy by calorie count
Why, just because you don't? For *ME*, it gets unhealthy when it's hard to fit in my calories. I could probably fit a 1300 calories meal, but not much more, so that's why *I* call it unhealthy. Stop telling me how I should think.0 -
GiveMeCoffee wrote: »If you want and can't make a decision when you go out .. go to the ones that give you nutritional info... if you can make decisions for yourself and go out to enjoy good food and company go anywhere you choose.
Also there has been studies done on the ineffectiveness of adding the calorie counts to fast food menus and people making lower calorie choices... so besides the fact that the counts are wrong anyway they are ineffective.
Or you can do both? When I eat out with friends we usually go to a Wetherspoons because they always have their nutritional information AND because it's all delicious. I really enjoy their food and I also enjoy knowing roughly how many calories is in what I'm eating - so that I cat fit it into my calorie needs for the day.
The main problem with your second statement was 'fast food'. Of COURSE putting nutritional information on fast food isn't going to make a difference! People who go into a fast food joint aren't looking for a bloody salad. They're going in to satisfy a loving for cheeseburgers, or whatever. So they're not going to care what the nutritional information says. If you look at a restaurant though, people from all walks of life go in there, and I think a fair few - me included - would avoid the chicken and rib combo in favour of the still delicious peppered chicken skewers for a few hundred less calories.0 -
-
MarziPanda95 wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »If you want and can't make a decision when you go out .. go to the ones that give you nutritional info... if you can make decisions for yourself and go out to enjoy good food and company go anywhere you choose.
Also there has been studies done on the ineffectiveness of adding the calorie counts to fast food menus and people making lower calorie choices... so besides the fact that the counts are wrong anyway they are ineffective.
Or you can do both? When I eat out with friends we usually go to a Wetherspoons because they always have their nutritional information AND because it's all delicious. I really enjoy their food and I also enjoy knowing roughly how many calories is in what I'm eating - so that I cat fit it into my calorie needs for the day.
The main problem with your second statement was 'fast food'. Of COURSE putting nutritional information on fast food isn't going to make a difference! People who go into a fast food joint aren't looking for a bloody salad. They're going in to satisfy a loving for cheeseburgers, or whatever. So they're not going to care what the nutritional information says. If you look at a restaurant though, people from all walks of life go in there, and I think a fair few - me included - would avoid the chicken and rib combo in favour of the still delicious peppered chicken skewers for a few hundred less calories.
So if it isn't going to make a difference on your choices in fast food why are they forced to put it on the menu? You don't think people of all walks of life go into a McDonalds or Wendys??
If I wanted chicken and ribs I'm ordering the combo long before I'm ordering chicken skewers.0 -
Lasmartchika wrote: »What a sad, pathetic mindset some have. I go to restaurants a fair amount, they never ever have nutrition information, yet somehow I am able to lose weight when I need to.
Lol at only chicken or salmon are "safe"
Says the 32yo male whose goal is apparently 2300 calories net.
Moving on...
But what he said is true tho... what kind of life is it to live worrying about how many calories delicious food has at a restaurant? So much so that you would rather be a recluse and never go out to eat?
**Says the 35 yr old woman with 1490 net calories.
Who said 'never go out to eat'? I go out to eat about 3 times a month, but you bet that for most of those, calorie count *does* matter. So many times I don't know what to pick, and my choice would be so much easier if I knew how many calories is in each dish.GiveMeCoffee wrote: »
Well, if one eats high amounts of fat often and doesn't realize the high fat content they are consuming, yes it can be downright unhealthy for them.that some how because it's chalk full of delicious fat- it's unhealthy
They decide the quality and quantity of ingredients is what it means."they decide how unhealthy they are going to make it? what does that even mean??They aren't making healthy or unhealthy food- they are making food to sell- and hopefully it's delicious.
No, I am saying 'delicious' is not relevant to healthy or unhealthy food in the context in which I was discussing it. There is plenty of delicious things on both sides of the coin.So you're saying unhealthy food is not delicious?I just don't understand your fussiness with claiming it's "unhealthy" because it's got fat and sugar in it? or it's high calorie- or whatever it is that you're claiming unhealthy is (which can we narrow that definition down for me since you seem vague on that).
No, I never said high calorie equals unhealthy but that some dishes contain lots of hidden calories, fats, and sugars that the consumers would not be aware of, much like the macaroni salad of the the woman in this video who makes it with an entire jar of mayo, sweetened condensed milk and a heaping cup of sugar, which ends up being over 7000 calories and that *is* unhealthy, any way you slice it.
I agree with you on all counts. Sorry but a 1300+ calories dish is not 'healthy' in my book.
Why isn't it healthy?? Just because it's high calorie??? What's the cut off for a healthy dinner than is it 600? 700? 800? what?? for me a 1300 calorie dinner is usually perfect because it's my large meal of the day.
Stop judging healthy by calorie count
Why, just because you don't? For *ME*, it gets unhealthy when it's hard to fit in my calories. I could probably fit a 1300 calories meal, but not much more, so that's why *I* call it unhealthy. Stop telling me how I should think.
Just because it's hard to fit into your day doesn't make it unhealthy. But labeling it unhealthy just because of calorie count is showing a warped relationship with food.
My typical dinners that I make at home are 900-1300 calories. They aren't unhealthy they are just larger meals.0 -
GiveMeCoffee wrote: »MarziPanda95 wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »If you want and can't make a decision when you go out .. go to the ones that give you nutritional info... if you can make decisions for yourself and go out to enjoy good food and company go anywhere you choose.
Also there has been studies done on the ineffectiveness of adding the calorie counts to fast food menus and people making lower calorie choices... so besides the fact that the counts are wrong anyway they are ineffective.
Or you can do both? When I eat out with friends we usually go to a Wetherspoons because they always have their nutritional information AND because it's all delicious. I really enjoy their food and I also enjoy knowing roughly how many calories is in what I'm eating - so that I cat fit it into my calorie needs for the day.
The main problem with your second statement was 'fast food'. Of COURSE putting nutritional information on fast food isn't going to make a difference! People who go into a fast food joint aren't looking for a bloody salad. They're going in to satisfy a loving for cheeseburgers, or whatever. So they're not going to care what the nutritional information says. If you look at a restaurant though, people from all walks of life go in there, and I think a fair few - me included - would avoid the chicken and rib combo in favour of the still delicious peppered chicken skewers for a few hundred less calories.
So if it isn't going to make a difference on your choices in fast food why are they forced to put it on the menu? You don't think people of all walks of life go into a McDonalds or Wendys??
If I wanted chicken and ribs I'm ordering the combo long before I'm ordering chicken skewers.
Because fast food comes under 'chain restaurants'... plus, they're not really forced. Here in the UK there's NO law requiring them to put nutritional info on. Yet McDonalds do it anyway. Why? Because it makes them look more responsible. And you never know, after seeing how much they're about to eat, a few people might be put off. And no, you don't see many calorie watching people going into those places unless they want something quick or just really want some goddamn chicken nuggets.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy food a lot. And if I can fit in 1100 calories of chicken and ribs into my day (unlikely unless I've not eaten, though I always make exceptions for birthdays or if I've gone swimming) then I'll have that. But if I've already eaten lunch and had a few drinks... I'm going for those tasty 500 cal skewers. They're pretty good anyway, I don't feel like I'm missing out. I feel like I'm making a more informed decision about my daily intake.
0 -
-
MarziPanda95 wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »MarziPanda95 wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »If you want and can't make a decision when you go out .. go to the ones that give you nutritional info... if you can make decisions for yourself and go out to enjoy good food and company go anywhere you choose.
Also there has been studies done on the ineffectiveness of adding the calorie counts to fast food menus and people making lower calorie choices... so besides the fact that the counts are wrong anyway they are ineffective.
Or you can do both? When I eat out with friends we usually go to a Wetherspoons because they always have their nutritional information AND because it's all delicious. I really enjoy their food and I also enjoy knowing roughly how many calories is in what I'm eating - so that I cat fit it into my calorie needs for the day.
The main problem with your second statement was 'fast food'. Of COURSE putting nutritional information on fast food isn't going to make a difference! People who go into a fast food joint aren't looking for a bloody salad. They're going in to satisfy a loving for cheeseburgers, or whatever. So they're not going to care what the nutritional information says. If you look at a restaurant though, people from all walks of life go in there, and I think a fair few - me included - would avoid the chicken and rib combo in favour of the still delicious peppered chicken skewers for a few hundred less calories.
So if it isn't going to make a difference on your choices in fast food why are they forced to put it on the menu? You don't think people of all walks of life go into a McDonalds or Wendys??
If I wanted chicken and ribs I'm ordering the combo long before I'm ordering chicken skewers.
Because fast food comes under 'chain restaurants'... plus, they're not really forced. Here in the UK there's NO law requiring them to put nutritional info on. Yet McDonalds do it anyway. Why? Because it makes them look more responsible. And you never know, after seeing how much they're about to eat, a few people might be put off. And no, you don't see many calorie watching people going into those places unless they want something quick or just really want some goddamn chicken nuggets.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy food a lot. And if I can fit in 1100 calories of chicken and ribs into my day (unlikely unless I've not eaten, though I always make exceptions for birthdays or if I've gone swimming) then I'll have that. But if I've already eaten lunch and had a few drinks... I'm going for those tasty 500 cal skewers. They're pretty good anyway, I don't feel like I'm missing out. I feel like I'm making a more informed decision about my daily intake.
Yes McDonalds is being forced to provide the information just like other chain restaurants. But again I ask if it isn't going to make a difference why is a law being made forcing the issue.
As for not seeing many calorie watching people eating there, you are mistaken. I know many people that count calories and eat at McDonalds and many other fast food restaurants. But you are back peddling now you said of course it wouldn't make a difference because fast food, now you are saying you never know it might.
If we look at your example of chicken & ribs vs chicken skewers... do I really need nutritional information provided to decide what I want or just read the description on the menu and know which one will best fit my goals for that day??
0 -
SkepticalOwl wrote: »It occurs to me that though many are saying that a government mandate to provide nutrition information is getting in the way of business, the mandate will actually make a free market in restaurant meals a possibility. The concept of the free market, and the idea of the "invisible hand" guiding it, presupposes perfect information on the part of the consumer. Arguing against people having more information on which to base their purchasing decisions is actually arguing against the most effective part of the capitalist system.
So arguing against government mandating calorie counts, is actually arguing against capitalism/the free market? Interesting
Can you please post where you got this idea?
Wouldn't it be something like, if consumers actually wanted this information they would stop buying from those establishments and if enough stopped purchasing the establishments would then give them the information they wanted ?0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »We are lucky in Ontario Canada that law requires chains with more than15 or 20 restaurants to publish their nutritional information.
The downside is after reading what I am eating I don't at most of them any more. The upside is you find a few gems.
This is basically what will be the situation in the U.S. Soon. Knowledge and information. Always a good thing to have access to. Cheers
Yaaaaaaay unnecessary, government mandated costs, thrust upon business? For things that have already been shown to not change consumer behavior? This is something you encourage?
Yes. Ordering off a menu without calorie information is like ordering off a menu with no prices given. It costs them money to set, publish, and stick to a fixed price for their menu, but we expect that. And we wouldn't expect people to be able to stay out of debt and live within their means if nothing had a price tag on it just by following advice like "buy products that look cheap" or "buy half as much".
Having calorie estimates available for restaurant meals does change my behavior substantially. I think it should be published on menus, not just "available" e.g. on the web site or if you ask for it.
Who cares if it changes your behavior?it has repeatedly been shown not to change consumers at large behaviors.
That is a terrible analogy of prices to calorie counts. Try again.0 -
I agree with you OP. Sometimes I just end up staying home because I can't find a restaurant that has something on the menu that doesn't look like it's going to be another 1000 calories... It's pretty disheartening.
Seriously??? This is about living life and using moderation. I would never stay home because of calories, thats silly. I have WAY more important things in life to worry about that if I went over by a few calories. You need to get out more!0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »I agree with you OP. Sometimes I just end up staying home because I can't find a restaurant that has something on the menu that doesn't look like it's going to be another 1000 calories... It's pretty disheartening.
Seriously??? This is about living life and using moderation. I would never stay home because of calories, that's silly. I have WAY more important things in life to worry about that if I went over by a few calories. You need to get out more!
0 -
MarziPanda95 wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »If you want and can't make a decision when you go out .. go to the ones that give you nutritional info... if you can make decisions for yourself and go out to enjoy good food and company go anywhere you choose.
Also there has been studies done on the ineffectiveness of adding the calorie counts to fast food menus and people making lower calorie choices... so besides the fact that the counts are wrong anyway they are ineffective.
Or you can do both? When I eat out with friends we usually go to a Wetherspoons because they always have their nutritional information AND because it's all delicious. I really enjoy their food and I also enjoy knowing roughly how many calories is in what I'm eating - so that I cat fit it into my calorie needs for the day.
The main problem with your second statement was 'fast food'. Of COURSE putting nutritional information on fast food isn't going to make a difference! People who go into a fast food joint aren't looking for a bloody salad. They're going in to satisfy a loving for cheeseburgers, or whatever. So they're not going to care what the nutritional information says. If you look at a restaurant though, people from all walks of life go in there, and I think a fair few - me included - would avoid the chicken and rib combo in favour of the still delicious peppered chicken skewers for a few hundred less calories.
Can I also get you to clarify your people from all walks of life go to restaurants... vs your people who go into fast food joint ? Are these different people? Please elaborate0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 944 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions