steamed broccoli

donjtomasco
donjtomasco Posts: 790 Member
edited November 2024 in Health and Weight Loss
Just ordered grilled chicken and steamed broccoli at Texas Land and Cattle. MFP says broccoli is 388 calories. Just got my plate, the broccoli tastes of garlic and nothing else that could get it to 388 calories. General nutritional info for steamed broccoli is 91 calories for a cup.

I just can't believe this is true, even more, I can't believe that I am this OCD today that this would even concern me.

Replies

  • Psychgrrl
    Psychgrrl Posts: 3,177 Member
    edited March 2017
    Did you look up the restaurant-specific entry? Maybe the add a lot of oil/butter. Try the restaurant's website.

    ETA: Just looked--none of their nutritional content is available online. God, how I love living in CA and having all that info!
  • prattiger65
    prattiger65 Posts: 1,657 Member
    Would have to be floating in a river of butter to be that high. I can believe 88, not 388.
  • JeromeBarry1
    JeromeBarry1 Posts: 10,179 Member
    Check the TL&C site for their nutrition values.
  • schwich13
    schwich13 Posts: 31 Member
    I believe the entries can be entered by users as well, so I always look for more than one entry and kind of take an average or most often found number. I ignore the obvious outliers.
  • annacole94
    annacole94 Posts: 994 Member
    Yeah, that's crazy. I'd log it as the broccoli, plus a teaspoon of butter or oil if you want to be cautious. 300 calorie broccoli would have something obviously on it.
  • ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken
    ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken Posts: 1,530 Member
    edited March 2017
    856f1lspn5mz.jpg

    I assume they put something else in it or the MFP entry is dead wrong as usual. Perhaps contact the corporate office and ask for their nutritional info. Most places will provide this others will not. It's worth a try if you eat there regularly.
  • annacole94
    annacole94 Posts: 994 Member
    some of the other entries for that restaurant are also just wrong. The ribs and chicken entree is in there for 333 calories. LOL, no.
  • ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken
    ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken Posts: 1,530 Member
    annacole94 wrote: »
    some of the other entries for that restaurant are also just wrong. The ribs and chicken entree is in there for 333 calories. LOL, no.

    And THIS is likely a reason for the very common "What am I doing WROOOONG!?" complaint. I honestly don't know where people get the info they enter sometimes. If I went by what I find in this data base who knows where I would be in my progress right now.
  • annacole94
    annacole94 Posts: 994 Member
    ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »
    annacole94 wrote: »
    some of the other entries for that restaurant are also just wrong. The ribs and chicken entree is in there for 333 calories. LOL, no.

    And THIS is likely a reason for the very common "What am I doing WROOOONG!?" complaint. I honestly don't know where people get the info they enter sometimes. If I went by what I find in this data base who knows where I would be in my progress right now.
    It's really annoying that there's no effective way to correct some of this nonsense when it's found.
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/28622627

    And OP's find:
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/35080256
    Whatever that is, it's not broccoli.
  • donjtomasco
    donjtomasco Posts: 790 Member
    Yep, seems like people should be able to get a truly accurate total, message MFP and MFP make the change immediately after having done a little glancie to see that the replacement info is clearly an improvement.
  • ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken
    ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken Posts: 1,530 Member
    annacole94 wrote: »
    ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »
    annacole94 wrote: »
    some of the other entries for that restaurant are also just wrong. The ribs and chicken entree is in there for 333 calories. LOL, no.

    And THIS is likely a reason for the very common "What am I doing WROOOONG!?" complaint. I honestly don't know where people get the info they enter sometimes. If I went by what I find in this data base who knows where I would be in my progress right now.
    It's really annoying that there's no effective way to correct some of this nonsense when it's found.
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/28622627

    And OP's find:
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/35080256
    Whatever that is, it's not broccoli.

    Don't get me started! Those entries are crazy! They don't even put what the actual serving size is on the brocolli! I can only assume someone ordered 2-3 servings which had about a TBS of butter added to it. But we can never know because it isn't listed!

    When I went and did a search for that it did give me the option to correct the info. So at least it can be changed. But still... that entry is wrong in a lot of ways.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    donjtomasco wrote: »
    MFP says broccoli is 388 calories.

    Just to be pedantic, MFP says nothing, and certainly nothing about the calorie content of a specific dish made up of multiple ingredients. Some user input that, and since you don't know what that user was eating besides the broccoli, ignore it.

    If you don't have a restaurant specific entry, I'd use the USDA entry, estimate amount, and if it's from a restaurant add a TBSP of butter or olive oil to be safe.
  • mcraw75
    mcraw75 Posts: 99 Member
    All restaurants are required to have nutritional info handy if a customer requests it. Just ask to see it.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    mcraw75 wrote: »
    All restaurants are required to have nutritional info handy if a customer requests it. Just ask to see it.

    I don't think this is true. It's true in some states for restaurants with multiple locations, but if you're talking about the US I am unaware of any federal law that requires every restaurant -- of any size -- to have nutritional information on hand for customers.
  • PaulaWallaDingDong
    PaulaWallaDingDong Posts: 4,647 Member
    Kepplekakes wrote: »
    https://authoritynutrition.com/foods/broccoli/

    That link is trying to give my phone STDs.

    Also, authoritynutrition is generally an awful website. That doesn't mean they don't know about broccoli. It's just not a good source of info in general.
  • ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken
    ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken Posts: 1,530 Member
    edited March 2017
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    mcraw75 wrote: »
    All restaurants are required to have nutritional info handy if a customer requests it. Just ask to see it.

    I don't think this is true. It's true in some states for restaurants with multiple locations, but if you're talking about the US I am unaware of any federal law that requires every restaurant -- of any size -- to have nutritional information on hand for customers.

    Yes indeed. I have seen a lot of places that don't have this info. available at all! I usually put in my two cents of customer feed back asking them to make it available. If enough people ask they will eventually cave and post it in some way.
  • Rogstar
    Rogstar Posts: 216 Member
    edited March 2017
    The menu labeling and nutritional information posting rules are only required to be followed by chain restaurants with 20 or more locations. According to the FDA's website, the rules were finalized in Dec 2014 and restaurants (and vending machines!) were given 2 years to comply. So, the places that have to follow these rules should have implemented them by now. If you can't find the information easily on the menu, they are probably not required to provide it.

    https://fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/LabelingNutrition/ucm248731.htm


    So yeah, this isn't required for a lot of the places I frequent, but I appreciate it because I can use it to guess the information of what I'm actually eating!
  • Wynterbourne
    Wynterbourne Posts: 2,235 Member
    Rogstar wrote: »
    The menu labeling and nutritional information posting rules are only required to be followed by chain restaurants with 20 or more locations. According to the FDA's website, the rules were finalized in Dec 2014 and restaurants (and vending machines!) were given 2 years to comply.

    https://fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/LabelingNutrition/ucm248731.htm

    Link may or may not work...I suck at posting. But just hop on over to the FDA's site to read the requirements if you're so inclined! I find rules and regulations facinating....but that may just be me. :smile:

    So yeah, this isn't required for a lot of the places I frequent, but I appreciate it because I can use it to guess the information of what I'm actually eating!

    Last I heard it's been pushed back again to some time this year. It still hasn't been enacted yet.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited March 2017
    PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
    Kepplekakes wrote: »
    https://authoritynutrition.com/foods/broccoli/

    That link is trying to give my phone STDs.

    Also, authoritynutrition is generally an awful website. That doesn't mean they don't know about broccoli. It's just not a good source of info in general.

    Agreed! I'd also say that it's not a good source for the calories in broccoli from a restaurant.

    It may be okay for plain broccoli, but I can't see why anyone would choose it over the USDA information.
  • savithny
    savithny Posts: 1,200 Member
    If the entry is from the restaurant, I'd give it more credence. Assume that resaturant vegetables have tablespoons of oil or butter added to them make them more "indulgent." No matter what we say we want when we eat out, people think that restaurant meals are treats and want them to taste extra-special, and for broccoli, that means fat.
  • annacole94
    annacole94 Posts: 994 Member
    The entry names the restaurant, but that doesn't mean the restaurant made it. The entry (and the other one I linked) is nonsense. Steamed broccoli isn't over 300 calories. I think you could deep fry it and end up less than that entry.
  • Rogstar
    Rogstar Posts: 216 Member
    Wynterbourne wrote: »
    Rogstar wrote: »
    The menu labeling and nutritional information posting rules are only required to be followed by chain restaurants with 20 or more locations. According to the FDA's website, the rules were finalized in Dec 2014 and restaurants (and vending machines!) were given 2 years to comply.

    https://fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/LabelingNutrition/ucm248731.htm

    Link may or may not work...I suck at posting. But just hop on over to the FDA's site to read the requirements if you're so inclined! I find rules and regulations facinating....but that may just be me. :smile:

    So yeah, this isn't required for a lot of the places I frequent, but I appreciate it because I can use it to guess the information of what I'm actually eating!

    Last I heard it's been pushed back again to some time this year. It still hasn't been enacted yet.


    Ha, you're right! I knew the 2016 date was already later than originally proposed. I figured if the FDA pushed it back again, it would have been on their website! Now the deadline is sometime this year...but even that doesn't seem to be set in stone.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories