Healthy restaurant= HIGH calories

124»

Replies

  • Windrunner666
    Windrunner666 Posts: 91 Member
    edited March 2017
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    What is wrong with 600 calories? Do that for three meals and you are still only at 1,800 calories.

    Some of us can eat 1200-1300 cals, makeing it half of our daily alowance. Just' sayin'
  • ccsernica
    ccsernica Posts: 1,040 Member
    edited March 2017
    AllOutof_Bubblegum wrote: »
    ccsernica wrote: »
    ashliedelgado wrote: »
    A rule of thumb a very fit pediatrician I work with shared with me - if the menu does not have nutrition information posted, she doesn't eat there. She figures in this day and age, if they aren't posting their nutrition information, they must be ashamed of it. I ran with it. So I look things up before going places to make my decision. It hasn't failed me yet.

    If you're going by the seat of your pants, the wraps, the grains, the dressings, and just pack with veggies and lean meat if you want it to be low calorie. Nothing wrong with the grains or wraps, they just add the number up.

    So much for local eating then. Or does she imagine local, family-owned restaurants can afford to pay a lab to evaluate calorie content every time they put a new dish on the menu?

    A freakin lab is required to determine the calorie content of food?? Well, I've been doing everything all wrong for years. :D

    Yes. It is.

    To be sure, you can approximate calories in a dish by counting the calories of the ingredients -- assuming you know that with any accuracy -- but that's inexact. The way this is now typically done is to analyze a food's macronutrients, and then use average values of kcal/g for each of them to total up the calories in a serving.

    Just adding them up might be fine for salads (assuming you have accurate data on the nutrients in the ingredients, which can vary by growing area) but cooking changes the macro composition of food, often in unpredictable ways. So yes, you need a lab if you want to be accurate. There are many labs that do this kind of work, and they're easy to find with Google.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    What is wrong with 600 calories? Do that for three meals and you are still only at 1,800 calories.

    Perhaps OP is short like me, or has an aggressive weight loss goal. 1800 cals is over my maintenance even now that I'm lifting again.

    Calories burned lifting are kind of meager anyway, but my point is that 600 calories is a fairly modest amount of calories. Even if it doesn't work for every meal, it is certainly a good number to shoot for for dinner. Given that the average person burns between 1600 and 2500 calories per day, 600 calories per meal is about right for most people.

    Presuming that OP is trying to lose weight - likely a safe bet ...

    Given that the average person burns between 1600 and 2500 calories per day, the average person would want to eat between 1200 and 2000 cals to lose a pound a week, which would not be an aggressive weight loss goal unless OP is close to her goal weight.

    That leaves some 'average people' on target with 600 cals x 3 meals = 1800 cals, and most not on target given a normal distribution.

    Not a stretch to think that OP didn't plan for 600 cals for that particular meal. Which was lunch and not dinner, though it doesn't really matter. OP had a general idea, at least, of how much she wanted to eat for a particular meal and unintentionally went over. That's cause for frustration - and for her to figure out that she may want to check calories before rather than after her meal.

    But why complain that "it isn't healthy" when 600 calories would fit very nicely into the goals of someone who isn't trying to lose weight?

    And by the way, there is a significant portion of the population who eat dinner at lunchtime rather than at suppertime.
  • ccsernica
    ccsernica Posts: 1,040 Member
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    And by the way, there is a significant portion of the population who eat dinner at lunchtime rather than at suppertime.

    But in that case, the time of day you call lunchtime is actually dinnertime. And if you eat dinner at suppertime, that's really dinnertime too. Either way you're missing a meal, and we're not even counting second breakfast and tea.

    Of course, only a madman eats dinner at teatime.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories