Eating at restaurants used to be fun, now it's kind of stressful.
Replies
-
"...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 -
You sure?"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.
I've recounted several instances based on personal experience where the difference between what was planned and what was delivered could easily be off by 50%. I think having the faux data available will do two things.
Negatively impact creativity in the kitchen, and lull consumers into a false sense of security based on what they think is real nutritional information, which would be at best accurate only in best case scenario situations.
Yeah, you're right about the foie gras thing, they'd laugh me outta town if I did that.
0 -
my BF does all our steaks with butter- I pretend to not care- because I'm afraid of how much butter he uses LMAO.
seriously- it's quiet a bit of butter. And it's like a mouthgasm. So I don't care.
Try this sometime. Buy a steak, like a ribeye or a new york. Rub it in butter. Let it sit in the bottom of the fridge, covered with an inverted bowl or plastic container, for a week two 4 weeks. Then cook it.
Legit.0 -
I haven't worked up the nerve to do the aged steak.
I had one at Jacks in NYC- eehhhh something about it in my brain.
I'll talk him into it at some point.0 -
What I usually do is by a vac packed primal and age it for a while before cutting it out.
If I were doing a good knob of say a standing rib roast, I'd do precisely what I mentioned before.
I've also done that with a 2" porterhouse that I let age for 2 weeks. It get a lot smaller, but it was intense.0 -
interesting- how come it doesn't you know- rot?
-0 -
because magic.
Now you have to do this with decent beef, but it is rotting. You're using the rotting process to achieve greater flavor and better texture. As the meat "ages" (rots) the muscle tissue becomes more broken down by enzymes in the meat, and that results in a softer, finer texture. The reduced water content from the aging of the meat then concentrates the flavor.
The butter helps slow the drying process.0 -
This is why I hate kickstarter.0
-
Congratulations on your weight loss!GiveMeCoffee wrote: »
But life shouldn't always be a worry. It should be lived and enjoyed.
I'd hardly say that my life is a constant worry or not enjoyable. There is much more to life than food. The restaurant thing just kind of really sucks for those without many calories to work with. It is a much less enjoyable experience for me than it was before I changed my eating habits around around but that's life.
Would you consider losing 8 pounds a month instead of 9, if it meant you wouldn't need to be totally stressed out about going out to dinner 1-2x a month? Or even once a month?
If you enjoy dining out, this is something to consider.
0 -
That's how they make it taste so good and get the delicious crust on the outside!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.
0 -
I usually research the restaurant beforehand if I can, to see which choices are best- or I go the way of soup/salad... or just salad
0 -
I usually go online to look up the nutritional info of the restaurant I am going to and plan ahead for what I want. Also, I find sticking to things like grilled or rotisserie chicken, or some type of fish or seafood that is grilled helps a lot and of course starting with a salad but keeping most of the extras off of it and use very little salad dressings. Drinking a glass or two of water before hand will help you feel full faster and you will be less likely to overeat. Plus the water will help with any sodium you need to get rid of. Exercising after eating out helps as well. I use to get really upset about going out to eat (sometimes still do) but, anything you gain from it is most likely more water weight due to the sodium the put in everything. And one bad meal won't make you gain all your weight back over night. You lost it once, you will lose it again and no biggie unless you make it a routine habit.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions