Eating at restaurants used to be fun, now it's kind of stressful.
Options
Replies
-
Not to mention bathing a steak in butter add little calories to the final product, but for some reason people believe chefs then dump the pan of butter over the steak on the plate.....sorry that isn't why they do that. It's a french technique and considering the French have 6 times fewer heart attacks than the rest of europe and have single digit obesity, it just may be something else that makes Americans gain weight then a steak.BeginningAgainMay14 wrote: »Good grief. Anybody that worried about calorie counts should not be ordering anything fried, sauteed, or covered in sauce to begin with.
Once those are eliminated, it's really not hard to get reasonable guesses on the rest.
You would think so. But you can't really know because you can't see the food being prepared.
Most of us know the calorie count of a steak. But we don't know what was done to that steak before it reached us. I remember watching a Top Chef steakhouse competition and being appalled when one of the chefs literally bathed her steak in butter. She coated it with butter throughout the entire cooking time. She easily could have doubled the calories in the steak.
Why is that appalling? Buttering steak is a time honoured tradition and it's delicious.
But it emphasizes my earlier point - if you don't know how something is going to be prepared and you're worried about a reasonably accurate calorie count - don't order it! Yes, that means huge parts of the menu will be verboten, but nobody said running a deficit while eating out was going to be fun.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
double quoteBeginningAgainMay14 wrote: »Good grief. Anybody that worried about calorie counts should not be ordering anything fried, sauteed, or covered in sauce to begin with.
Once those are eliminated, it's really not hard to get reasonable guesses on the rest.
You would think so. But you can't really know because you can't see the food being prepared.
Most of us know the calorie count of a steak. But we don't know what was done to that steak before it reached us. I remember watching a Top Chef steakhouse competition and being appalled when one of the chefs literally bathed her steak in butter. She coated it with butter throughout the entire cooking time. She easily could have doubled the calories in the steak.
Why is that appalling? Buttering steak is a time honoured tradition and it's delicious.
But it emphasizes my earlier point - if you don't know how something is going to be prepared and you're worried about a reasonably accurate calorie count - don't order it! Yes, that means huge parts of the menu will be verboten, but nobody said running a deficit while eating out was going to be fun.0 -
Butter done right...
-1 -
-
goddessofawesome wrote: »
Again I am quite capable of looking at a menu and choosing the healthier option. I don't need someone to point it out for me nor do I need them to tell me how many calories are in it because I can figure it out myself. One can figure out whether or not their vegetables are drenched in butter or simply steamed plain.
Assuming they have veggies on the menu, which isn't always the case. I've been stumped more than once with absolutely no clue what the lowest calorie option was (no grilled food, just sauteed or battered, and choice of side fries, potatoes salad or coleslaw or something). I don't even care to know how many calories are in a dish, but a check mark or something for the healthier options would go a long way, and arguably would be easier for a restaurant than dealing with all the 'sauce on the side' requests or something (which isn't always possible either, I once ordered a sandwich with no dressing and they said they can't do it because they make the sandwiches in the morning).
0 -
goddessofawesome wrote: »
Again I am quite capable of looking at a menu and choosing the healthier option. I don't need someone to point it out for me nor do I need them to tell me how many calories are in it because I can figure it out myself. One can figure out whether or not their vegetables are drenched in butter or simply steamed plain.
Assuming they have veggies on the menu, which isn't always the case. I've been stumped more than once with absolutely no clue what the lowest calorie option was (no grilled food, just sauteed or battered, and choice of side fries, potatoes salad or coleslaw or something). I don't even care to know how many calories are in a dish, but a check mark or something for the healthier options would go a long way, and arguably would be easier for a restaurant than dealing with all the 'sauce on the side' requests or something (which isn't always possible either, I once ordered a sandwich with no dressing and they said they can't do it because they make the sandwiches in the morning).
Foods don't exist in a vacuum thus without knowing how they fit within the context of your total diet and in what amounts you cannot label ones "healthier" than others.
0 -
goddessofawesome wrote: »
Again I am quite capable of looking at a menu and choosing the healthier option. I don't need someone to point it out for me nor do I need them to tell me how many calories are in it because I can figure it out myself. One can figure out whether or not their vegetables are drenched in butter or simply steamed plain.
Assuming they have veggies on the menu, which isn't always the case. I've been stumped more than once with absolutely no clue what the lowest calorie option was (no grilled food, just sauteed or battered, and choice of side fries, potatoes salad or coleslaw or something). I don't even care to know how many calories are in a dish, but a check mark or something for the healthier options would go a long way...
This makes no sense. If you're in a place with no veggies, no grilled meat, everything sauteed or battered, there simply isn't anything on the menu to which this hypothetical "check mark" can be attached to.
If calorie counting is a high priority, having nutritional information isn't going to save you - you need to pick somewhere else to go to.
0 -
This thread is stressing me out. It's gone ideological.
The government enforces other types of reporting from private entities, like financial statements, standard weights and measures, and nutrition labels on foods.
Are we truly better off by removing all regulation?0 -
This thread is stressing me out. It's gone ideological.
The government enforces other types of reporting from private entities, like financial statements, standard weights and measures, and nutrition labels on foods.
Are we truly better off by removing all regulation?
The government is already too involved in our personal choices.
But restaurants are already regulated with health standards, building codes etc. We do not need the restaurant to be responsible for telling me what's healthy or not, we do not need their estimates on calories. We can make decisions for ourselves. If the people that can't make a decision without someone putting a happy face and a cutesy name cause it's lower calorie they can go to those restaurants that cater to them, but I do not want or need to see that at the restaurants I enjoy.0 -
"...the government is already too involved..." an ideological opinion shared by libertarians. Such a stand does not always hold up to reality however. The market crash in 1929 was triggered by a government deregulation exercise. Similarly the 2008 mortgage debacle in the US. Canada luckily did not follow suit on that one.
A nutrition label is not imposing a standard on the consumer is it? Consumers have the freedom to choose what they like, better informed. That's how it works in the grocery store now.
Restaurants here in Canada often voluntarily put a blue "heart healthy" symbol on some entrees. I find them handy.0 -
"...the government is already too involved..." an ideological opinion shared by libertarians. Such a stand does not always hold up to reality however. The market crash in 1929 was triggered by a government deregulation exercise. Similarly the 2008 mortgage debacle in the US. Canada luckily did not follow suit on that one.
A nutrition label is not imposing a standard on the consumer is it? Consumers have the freedom to choose what they like, better informed. That's how it works in the grocery store now.
Restaurants here in Canada often voluntarily put a blue "heart healthy" symbol on some entrees. I find them handy.
It's imposing an unfair burden on small business restaurants. If you want to go to a restaurant that has nutrition info, no one is stopping you. But don't stifle business and innovation because some people can't figure out their diet.
I eat out all the time. This really isn't that hard.0 -
"...the government is already too involved..." an ideological opinion shared by libertarians. Such a stand does not always hold up to reality however. The market crash in 1929 was triggered by a government deregulation exercise. Similarly the 2008 mortgage debacle in the US. Canada luckily did not follow suit on that one.
A nutrition label is not imposing a standard on the consumer is it? Consumers have the freedom to choose what they like, better informed. That's how it works in the grocery store now.
Restaurants here in Canada often voluntarily put a blue "heart healthy" symbol on some entrees. I find them handy.
2008 was caused by deregulation? What was SarbOx then? Took hundreds of hours of compliance and and millions to comply yearly.
Fannie, Freddie, expansion of the CRA act, Central Bank policies? Nah it was deregulation.
What ignorance
So however do consumers choose fresh fruit and veggies without nutrition labels, ahhhh0 -
"...the government is already too involved..." an ideological opinion shared by libertarians. Such a stand does not always hold up to reality however. The market crash in 1929 was triggered by a government deregulation exercise. Similarly the 2008 mortgage debacle in the US. Canada luckily did not follow suit on that one.
A nutrition label is not imposing a standard on the consumer is it? Consumers have the freedom to choose what they like, better informed. That's how it works in the grocery store now.
Restaurants here in Canada often voluntarily put a blue "heart healthy" symbol on some entrees. I find them handy.
It's imposing an unfair burden on small business restaurants. If you want to go to a restaurant that has nutrition info, no one is stopping you. But don't stifle business and innovation because some people can't figure out their diet.
I eat out all the time. This really isn't that hard.
I agree with Minx. You can't compare food sold in a grocery store to restaurant meals, unless they are the factory-type of establishments where assembly-line cooking is preferred. If those restaurants want to cater to constant calorie counters, kudos.
To me it is a turn-off, so I prefer to use my knowledge when picking from a menu. I don't grasp why everyone should be forced to be happy about the same things, when there could be room for both ways of thinking. "Librertarian" sounds like a curse word in this context as quoted above.
What on earth does "heart healthy" mean anyway?0 -
This thread is stressing me out. It's gone ideological.
The government enforces other types of reporting from private entities, like financial statements, standard weights and measures, and nutrition labels on foods.
Are we truly better off by removing all regulation?
I haven't seen anyone suggest that we should remove all regulation. I certainly did not. Can we discuss what's been said? (It appears to me that there are multiple positions against forcing local restaurants to provide calorie information, since some are also against having chains do so, whereas I don't mind the requirement that they do, but just think it's absurd to insist that all restaurants do. My view on that is because I think the burden is different. Plus, why? If you care so much you can go to a chain or one of the restaurants that already do it voluntarily. I often get lunch from a restaurant that has such information since I am fine with them as a quick lunch place. I'd be sad if the variety of interesting local restaurants where I live was diminished because some people think all that matters is calorie information being available.)0 -
"...the government is already too involved..." an ideological opinion shared by libertarians. Such a stand does not always hold up to reality however. The market crash in 1929 was triggered by a government deregulation exercise. Similarly the 2008 mortgage debacle in the US. Canada luckily did not follow suit on that one.
A nutrition label is not imposing a standard on the consumer is it? Consumers have the freedom to choose what they like, better informed. That's how it works in the grocery store now.
Restaurants here in Canada often voluntarily put a blue "heart healthy" symbol on some entrees. I find them handy.
This assumes that there is agreement on what's "heart healthy" and that there are meaningful standards that people understand. Lots of cereals claim to be heart healthy, but I personally don't think cereal is all that healthy (not unhealthy either, kind of neutral, but more carbs than I like for a breakfast), and would prefer some eggs with yolks or dairy, even with fat, which plenty of people might claim are not heart healthy. So this is why it makes more sense not to defer the decision to someone else, such as a "healthy" label by a restaurant which is silly without context.
For example, I think it was here that someone said that if they knew the burger and fries had the same calories as the salad they'd take the burger and fries always. That assumes health is determined by calories, but for me a priority is getting vegetables at my meals too. We all have somewhat different ideas about what we are looking for. That's why it's nice that there's a variety of restaurants and you can choose what features are important to you without insisting that others make the same choice.0 -
GiveMeCoffee wrote: »BeginningAgainMay14 wrote: »Good grief. Anybody that worried about calorie counts should not be ordering anything fried, sauteed, or covered in sauce to begin with.
Once those are eliminated, it's really not hard to get reasonable guesses on the rest.
You would think so. But you can't really know because you can't see the food being prepared.
Most of us know the calorie count of a steak. But we don't know what was done to that steak before it reached us. I remember watching a Top Chef steakhouse competition and being appalled when one of the chefs literally bathed her steak in butter. She coated it with butter throughout the entire cooking time. She easily could have doubled the calories in the steak.
Those of us in favor of calorie counts are NOT anti-personal responsibility. What we want is the opportunity to exercise our personal responsibility with the information that is important to us.
I would argue that the person boycotting a restaurant because they don't want to see calories on the menu is the person avoiding personal responsibility. Nothing like willfully burying your head in the sand because you don't want to acknowledge to yourself that yes, you just ate two days worth of calories in an hour and a half.
It's not burying your head in the sand when you actually understand nutrition and can make wise decisions without them giving you bogus nutritional information.
"Bogus", eh. Where laws for this exist, restaurants will have to do their best to be accurate. And even if they're off, they can't be more off than 80% of mfp users.
You'd think these Personal Responsibility MFPers wouldn't need to resort to digital scales, or refer to a massive database and the support of thousands of users.
Losing weight is easy, when you use your Personal Responsibility X-Ray Eyes. Amazing!
Where do I get those X-Ray Eyes?...Santa, I've been good...0 -
A few tricks I use:
1. Always order salad dressing on the side and use very sparingly.
2. Ask the server ahead of time to bring you a takeout box with your meal and save half of it right at the start - that way, you have the whole other half to enjoy without feeling like you're leaving good food on the plate.
3. Make healthier choices (obviously) - skip the bread and other filler carbs, and wait for your yummy steak instead.
4. Eat a small, healthy snack (high protein, low in calories) just before you go out with your coworkers or your family - that way you're not as hungry and are more able to have the willpower you need.
5. Suggest going for a walk right after the meal with your friends or coworkers - it'll help you feel lighter and get a bit more exercise in for the day.
Good luck! At the end of the day, it's just one meal, as everyone has said. Enjoy it - guilt certainly hasn't helped me get a better relationship with food, how about you?0 -
I stopped eating at one of my favorite restaurants since I can't get accurate calorie counts. With basic food it is easy enough to get in the ball park but sauces and preparation could be a shocker. Pancakes are a great example, if you go to a greasy spoon 1 pancake could easily be 3 servings. Sometimes its more important to enjoy yourself and accidentally forget to enter the meal.0
-
This thread is stressing me out. It's gone ideological.
The government enforces other types of reporting from private entities, like financial statements, standard weights and measures, and nutrition labels on foods.
Are we truly better off by removing all regulation?
The problem is where does it stop? I think that is really the gist of it, it's the slow erosion of freedoms, its the more and more "constraints" placed on businesses and in this instance restaurants to provide the individual specific calorie counts on food. In my opinion, any business having to submit to that much regulation limits the amount of creativity they can place in their product. When I cook, I experiment I try different things, I blend I don't always follow a "recipe" to the letter, I substitute that's part of the creative process of cooking. When one goes to a restaurant and tastes absolutely wonderful cooking, should you or do you really care that you may have gone a bit over "your" calorie count for that day. Maybe the chef tried something different maybe they added more butter, or changed something up just slightly ... do I care no I don't, I am more interested in the fact that I am tasting someone's creativity, the way they took parts and put it all together. With more government intrusion and regulation, it hinders more than it can help in this instance. This is where you have to say, I can take care of myself I can work this on my own, and if it's over then I need to make it up in exercise. If someone makes a splendid meal it has heart, and you should just enjoy it. I think we have all been to trying to convey it's the moment of sharing a great meal with friends, or family and enjoying the food with conversation, then it should be worrying over, calories.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 914 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions