Ontario Adds Calories to Restaurant Menus

They already to this in NY.

A lot of people don't like it, because "If I'm going to go out to eat I want to have a good time, not be reminded of how bad what I'm eating is for me."

As someone who counts calories, it's easier to go out to eat and quickly calculate what fits my goals, vs. logging after and ending up over vs. trying to look everything up on MFP and see what works.

Saw that at an Arby's in California. Reading the menu board left to right, the sandwich prices and calories rise together.

They have that in a lot of chain places here (Chicago), so much that I just expect it, there might as well be a law. (And isn't the US one in effect or soon to be?)

I like it, but I don't think it makes a difference except for those of us who pay attention anyway.

I actually just noticed this on the menu of some of the restaurants and bars I went to recently. Even McDonald's has it right next to the food item when you are ordering. I like it because I am bulking so it pushes me to pick a higher calorie item (which I probably wouldn't have chosen before).

I noticed yesterday that Mac's has calories posted right on the fountain soda dispenser. Now all they have to do is offer a diet caffeine free option ;-)

I noticed this at the movies yesterday. I was deciding on a burger, said to my son do I want pulled pork or a bacon cheeseburger and he replied well mommy the pulled pork is the least at 700 calories so get that. So clearly people are noticing and paying attention. Haha

lemurcat12 wrote: »

They have that in a lot of chain places here (Chicago), so much that I just expect it, there might as well be a law. (And isn't the US one in effect or soon to be?)

I like it, but I don't think it makes a difference except for those of us who pay attention anyway.

I agree. I would like it if they implemented something similar here, but I doubt it would make a significant impact on the eating habits of non-calorie-counters.

He probably had no idea, and should have told you that. I don't think there's any chance we are going to start demanding that local places (vs. chains) give that information.

Anyway, I don't think "I don't want it" necessarily means "it will change my behavior." As I said above, it's been quite common to chains (local and otherwise) in Chicago for some time, and when I was ignoring calories I'd simply avoid looking at it or thinking about it. Might be different in a sit-down place with a menu than a quick serve place with just a board on the wall), but again most such places wouldn't have it -- I almost never go to a chain for dinner, personally.

Where I think it is useful -- in addition to for calorie counters -- is that I think it does shame restaurants into having some lower cal choices, usually. (Or encourage them to have them as they will be popular with some, to put it more positively.)

Weirdly, I was talking to a friend of mine who has just started watching (not counting) calories and he mentioned going to Pret and getting a sandwich which I knew (since I go to Pret often) was one of the higher cal options. He then said "I checked later and it was a bad choice, should have checked before." I was dumbfounded and said "but it's next to the sandwich where you grab it -- Pret has all the calorie information right there!" He said he just didn't notice, it was crowded and he wasn't paying attention.

You really can't get easier to see than in Pret and he was in theory trying to see it, and yet still managed not to. People are kind of amazing that way.

Again, I'm still very much in favor of it -- it's great for those interested and I think leads to more lower cal options.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

He probably had no idea, and should have told you that.

Instead, he lied, probably under direction from his manager since he went back into the kitchen for a moment before coming back out with a wildly implausible number that a dieter would want to hear.

The point isn't the size of the restaurant, because sometimes people go into chains and still want to make informed decisions. The point is that in the absence of providing accurate facts, people are left to guess or make them up. More information is better than less information.

Buying stuff tends to fall into two categories: when my doctor prescribes a medicine for me and I buy it from a pharmacy, the responsibility for everything to be correct lies entirely with the people I've done business with. On the other hand if I buy a house the responsibility is explicitly mine, that's why I need to hire my own inspector. Most things are a bit more of a gray zone, which is why there are starting to be laws clarifying this, that it's a restaurant's responsibility to make this information available in some cases. I shouldn't be expected to "just know" how many calories are in a dish if I can't know the recipe or even the list of ingredients.

NorthCascades wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

He probably had no idea, and should have told you that.

Instead, he lied, probably under direction from his manager since he went back into the kitchen for a moment before coming back out with a wildly implausible number that a dieter would want to hear.

Yeah, agree, that might have happened. Not cool. Or he had no clue, asked, the chef said some random number that sounded good to him and the server repeated it not knowing it was wrong. Then the fault isn't the server's, but not cool of the chef, he should have said "don't know" or "none of your business" or whatever, not made up a number.

My point about the size of the restaurant is that they aren't currently and are not (IMO) going to require local non chain restaurants to give calorie information. Ontario's law doesn't do that.