Study says restaurant meals are just as unhealthy as fast food
whmscll
Posts: 2,254 Member
Replies
-
All I get when I click is cute pictures of cute doggies!0
-
The link does not work.
0 -
That you for that.
Take out experience is lower cal?People tended to consume about 80 calories less when they ate restaurant food at home rather than dining in. That's because in-restaurant dining is more leisurely, social and relaxing, so people aren't as concerned with overeating,0 -
Thanks, tomatoey!0
-
I believe that. If you look up nutrition facts at most places the regular menu items are loaded with fat and sodium to get them tasty. Not uncommon for some meals to be well over 1200 calories. Most places do have healthier options in their menu though that are better. Thats usually what I try to stick with generally.0
-
I found it really interesting that restaurants add that much sodium. We all complain of water weight after eating out...here's proof that we're all correct, we're retaining water because of all the added salt.0
-
np & np
0 -
I've stayed away from those foods long enough now that biting into a typical restaurant or fast food burger actually feels like it burns my mouth from all that sodium.
0 -
Why did they only check for fat as the only macronutrient? I thought carbs were the booman?0
-
I believe that. If you look up nutrition facts at most places the regular menu items are loaded with fat and sodium to get them tasty. Not uncommon for some meals to be well over 1200 calories. Most places do have healthier options in their menu though that are better. Thats usually what I try to stick with generally.
I have learned that just because it appears to be healthy...it often isn't.
I ordered a small bowl of cucumber/tomato/onion dish...around 80 calories...thought it was a good choice...until...
I looked up the nutritional info when I got home and that little bowl of wonderful veggies had more than 500mg of sodium. That is a lot for someone that has to keep their sodium below 1500mg. Actually that is a lot for anyone.
0 -
This is dead on. I think what really makes it bad is the sodium. You will always see menu items which are advertised as healthy because they are under 600 calories or something like that. But the real problem with restaurant food is that it all has an excessive amount of sodium. This just, verifies that there is no healthier way to go than a home cooked meal.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »Why did they only check for fat as the only macronutrient? I thought carbs were the booman?
Because fat is still the devil. You know it makes you fat and eat more or something.0 -
I get that there are many people who need to restrict their sodium for medical purposes, but if you are not one of those people, then why is a restaurant meal "unhealthy" if it is higher in sodium?0
-
stevencloser wrote: »Why did they only check for fat as the only macronutrient? I thought carbs were the booman?
Maybe they recycled the article from the early 90s when fat was that bad macro!
0 -
I've stayed away from those foods long enough now that biting into a typical restaurant or fast food burger actually feels like it burns my mouth from all that sodium.
My favorite thing about eating low sodium is how...suddenly...I can taste things again. I remember when, a few years ago, a friend from the UK was visiting and we went out to dinner. She asked me why American food is so over-salted. I was so accustomed to salt that I couldn't discern it.0 -
So, food is the devil still. 'Unhealthy' is a relative term, isn't it? Fat isn't bad for you, sodium isn't bad for you (unless you have to avoid it for medical reasons), and everyone can eat a meal out now and then with no detrimental effects. And who is to say that a restaurant meal is any worse than what some people are cooking up at home?0
-
thankyou4thevenom wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Why did they only check for fat as the only macronutrient? I thought carbs were the booman?
Because fat is still the devil. You know it makes you fat and eat more or something.
Sorry but I would have to disagree. Fat is not the devil, will not cause people to over eat, and is not what makes people fat. Eating more calorie than what the body need in a day is what makes people over weight.0 -
thankyou4thevenom wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Why did they only check for fat as the only macronutrient? I thought carbs were the booman?
Because fat is still the devil. You know it makes you fat and eat more or something.
Sorry but I would have to disagree. Fat is not the devil, will not cause people to over eat, and is not what makes people fat. Eating more calorie than what the body need in a day is what makes people over weight.
The previous comment was sarcasm.0 -
In other breaking news water is discovered to be wet...
0 -
In other breaking news water is discovered to be wet...
Illogical post is illogical. Restaurants use the same ingredients as people use at home to make meals. Food. How much of that food you choose to eat, and how often you choose to indulge in that type of food, is up to you as the consumer. Blaming being unhealthy on restaurant food is ridiculous.0 -
I'll trade the 80 calories saved for someone else to do the dishes.0
-
Here's the full study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3695401/
I feel like conclusions are being drawn here that aren't actually supported by the study, although I need to read it more carefully. That it's recall-based and that restaurants differ so much are two things that come to mind immediately as problems with a study like this, and that I need to understand how they were addressed.
I also would need to understand what's considered "unhealthy."
For example, I don't like most fast food, but if I went to a fast food place, I'd choose my meal based in part on calories, and the calories really aren't huge if you stay to the smaller serving sizes. So if I got a small burger and fries the calories might not be that great. It would still be less "healthy" in my mind than my usual meal, because it has few veggies, lots of fats that aren't my favorites, not much protein for the size of the meal, etc. (Although obviously this varies based on what you order--I'm going by the fact that I'd get some sort of burger and fries or something similar.)
If I go to a restaurant for dinner, I assume the calories are going to be much higher and more out of line with the usual meal it's replacing. I also assume more fat--but usually from olive oil or butter, based on where I typically eat--and I choose meals that macro and micronutrient-wise are more like those I eat at home, including good amounts of protein and vegetables. The main difference is larger serving sizes (not at all places, but many), often more carb sides (like the bread on the table, rice and naan at an Indian place, larger servings of some sort of starch often at other places), but especially lots of fat including in the preparations where you wouldn't necessarily realize it if not sensitive to it and the sauces. Do they add lots more salt? Not so sure about this--I expect it differs place to place. (I also don't care about salt added during cooking, especially for one meal, much at all.)
Obviously, though, it depends. If I get a dessert that makes a difference. If I get some fried appetizer that makes a difference. If I go to a Mexican place like I did this weekend and eat freely from the chips and guac, that makes a difference.
Ultimately, though, higher calories and higher fat (and even, gasp! higher carbs) don't mean less healthy if you fit them into your day or week. I think of health as more about the overall context and also the micronutrient profile.
It also kind of depends on how often you go. One issue with fast food is that some people go all the time. If you go occasionally, I don't think it's unhealthy. Similarly, lots of nicer restaurants and local places are set up with the assumption that it's an occasional indulgence and thus indulgent. I got myself in trouble before by going a lot and not adjusting for the fact that indulging 2-3 times a week doesn't make sense. Now I am more conscious of this. But that one is overly indulgent doesn't mean the meals are "unhealthy" it means your approach to them is.
Finally, there are lots of lunch places (not sure if they count as fast food or not--I mean places like Pret) where you can get meals that to my mind are both similar in calories AND nutrient content/ingredients to stuff you'd make at home. Some additional sodium probably (I don't actually try to count sodium from home cooked meals), but the difference in the things I care about don't seem too dramatic at all. I wonder how these are counted or if they are in the study.0 -
thankyou4thevenom wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Why did they only check for fat as the only macronutrient? I thought carbs were the booman?
Because fat is still the devil. You know it makes you fat and eat more or something.
Sorry but I would have to disagree. Fat is not the devil, will not cause people to over eat, and is not what makes people fat. Eating more calorie than what the body need in a day is what makes people over weight.
The previous comment was sarcasm.
Thanks. I read that before my morning coffee, lol.
0 -
In other breaking news water is discovered to be wet...
Illogical post is illogical. Restaurants use the same ingredients as people use at home to make meals. Food. How much of that food you choose to eat, and how often you choose to indulge in that type of food, is up to you as the consumer. Blaming being unhealthy on restaurant food is ridiculous.
I never knew that restaurants use the same ingredients that people use at home. That's me set straight then.
It could be of course that restaurants, like most businesses, seek to maximise profits by driving consumption and do so by making food highly palatable and high in portion size which helps exceed maintenance calories...0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Here's the full study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3695401/
I feel like conclusions are being drawn here that aren't actually supported by the study, although I need to read it more carefully. That it's recall-based and that restaurants differ so much are two things that come to mind immediately as problems with a study like this, and that I need to understand how they were addressed.
I also would need to understand what's considered "unhealthy."
For example, I don't like most fast food, but if I went to a fast food place, I'd choose my meal based in part on calories, and the calories really aren't huge if you stay to the smaller serving sizes. So if I got a small burger and fries the calories might not be that great. It would still be less "healthy" in my mind than my usual meal, because it has few veggies, lots of fats that aren't my favorites, not much protein for the size of the meal, etc. (Although obviously this varies based on what you order--I'm going by the fact that I'd get some sort of burger and fries or something similar.)
If I go to a restaurant for dinner, I assume the calories are going to be much higher and more out of line with the usual meal it's replacing. I also assume more fat--but usually from olive oil or butter, based on where I typically eat--and I choose meals that macro and micronutrient-wise are more like those I eat at home, including good amounts of protein and vegetables. The main difference is larger serving sizes (not at all places, but many), often more carb sides (like the bread on the table, rice and naan at an Indian place, larger servings of some sort of starch often at other places), but especially lots of fat including in the preparations where you wouldn't necessarily realize it if not sensitive to it and the sauces. Do they add lots more salt? Not so sure about this--I expect it differs place to place. (I also don't care about salt added during cooking, especially for one meal, much at all.)
Obviously, though, it depends. If I get a dessert that makes a difference. If I get some fried appetizer that makes a difference. If I go to a Mexican place like I did this weekend and eat freely from the chips and guac, that makes a difference.
Ultimately, though, higher calories and higher fat (and even, gasp! higher carbs) don't mean less healthy if you fit them into your day or week. I think of health as more about the overall context and also the micronutrient profile.
It also kind of depends on how often you go. One issue with fast food is that some people go all the time. If you go occasionally, I don't think it's unhealthy. Similarly, lots of nicer restaurants and local places are set up with the assumption that it's an occasional indulgence and thus indulgent. I got myself in trouble before by going a lot and not adjusting for the fact that indulging 2-3 times a week doesn't make sense. Now I am more conscious of this. But that one is overly indulgent doesn't mean the meals are "unhealthy" it means your approach to them is.
Finally, there are lots of lunch places (not sure if they count as fast food or not--I mean places like Pret) where you can get meals that to my mind are both similar in calories AND nutrient content/ingredients to stuff you'd make at home. Some additional sodium probably (I don't actually try to count sodium from home cooked meals), but the difference in the things I care about don't seem too dramatic at all. I wonder how these are counted or if they are in the study.
^^ This. Nuff said.0 -
thankyou4thevenom wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Why did they only check for fat as the only macronutrient? I thought carbs were the booman?
Because fat is still the devil. You know it makes you fat and eat more or something.
Sorry but I would have to disagree. Fat is not the devil, will not cause people to over eat, and is not what makes people fat. Eating more calorie than what the body need in a day is what makes people over weight.
The previous comment was sarcasm.
Thanks. I read that before my morning coffee, lol.
Understandable.
0 -
In other breaking news water is discovered to be wet...
Illogical post is illogical. Restaurants use the same ingredients as people use at home to make meals. Food. How much of that food you choose to eat, and how often you choose to indulge in that type of food, is up to you as the consumer. Blaming being unhealthy on restaurant food is ridiculous.
I never knew that restaurants use the same ingredients that people use at home. That's me set straight then.
It could be of course that restaurants, like most businesses, seek to maximise profits by driving consumption and do so by making food highly palatable and high in portion size which helps exceed maintenance calories...
They may place a large portion in front of you, but you don't have to eat it. Many people choose to order together, and split an entree, or eat half, and get a take home box for the left overs.
choices.
0 -
In other breaking news water is discovered to be wet...
Illogical post is illogical. Restaurants use the same ingredients as people use at home to make meals. Food. How much of that food you choose to eat, and how often you choose to indulge in that type of food, is up to you as the consumer. Blaming being unhealthy on restaurant food is ridiculous.
I never knew that restaurants use the same ingredients that people use at home. That's me set straight then.
It could be of course that restaurants, like most businesses, seek to maximise profits by driving consumption and do so by making food highly palatable and high in portion size which helps exceed maintenance calories...
They may place a large portion in front of you, but you don't have to eat it. Many people choose to order together, and split an entree, or eat half, and get a take home box for the left overs.
choices.
Errr, yeah, that's blindingly obvious if you spend some time consciously assessing the way you structure your eating.
Many people do not and associate restaurants as somehow being "better" for you than fast food places. Information likes this helps people like that consciously consider their choices.
Of course, having well informed consumers is a terrible thing and must be stopped at all costs.
0 -
I guess when I go out to eat I take it as a luxury and a treat and really don't care too much about the calories/fat/carbs since I don't do it regularly. Unfortunately I know too many people who eat fast food/restaurant food 2-3 times a day and then wonder why they can't lose weight.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions