Weight Loss Support - Another example of the food industry trying to kill us! Now with pancakes!




Tara D
01-26-2007, 06:52 PM
There have been times in my life where I loved nothing more than going to Bob Evans for pancakes. I used to love their pancakes and thought they were out of this world. I recently saw their new commercials for their "stacked and stuffed" pancakes, and I just wondered what the nutritional info on something like that might be. There are three types, one of which is called "roasted caramel apple cream stacked and stuffed hotcakes." They all are stuffed with cream cheese, and others include ingredients such as bananas, pecans, chocolate chips, etc.

Well, Bob Evans has taken a completely reasonable meal of 3 pancakes for about 525 calories, and changed it to 2 pancakes with around 1500 calories, 50-70 grams of fat, and some grams of trans fats, too....And you know some people are ordering bacon and sausage with that!

Their pancakes have always been good! Why are they trying to kill us? Now even relatively non-fast food restaurants are getting into the bigger food battle...and it's killing us slowly. Now they've even done it with pancakes.

I know it's about money, but it just seems sooo unnecessary.


JayEll
01-26-2007, 07:11 PM
I think people have to be responsible for what they choose to eat--but most people don't know just how much they are eating with things like that.

Maybe restaurants ought to be required to put the calories and fat grams *right on the menu* along with the price for each item!

Jay

callystia
01-26-2007, 07:13 PM
I've actually thought that for years now; after all, it's just another illustration of the "price" you'll be paying, isn't it?


Meg
01-26-2007, 07:31 PM
I never thought of it that way, but you're absolutely right!! :)

cbmare
01-26-2007, 07:34 PM
I'm glad I don't like pancakes.

I'm also glad we don't have Bob Evans out here.

Cheryl14
01-26-2007, 07:43 PM
I have seen that commercial with those new hotcakes! Do you know that a few years ago I would have been one of the first to try BOTH kinds! I NEVER gave a thought to eating healthy, how many calories something has, whether the food had whatever kinds of fat or how much etc.

I think the mindset that I had was TOTAL DENIAL that any restaurant or company would offer a product that would have any defects of any kind!

Sometimes I think that when food was mentioned I would go into some kind of trance that would cause my brain to disengage as my mouth savored each bite!

I'm an educated person, but I was NOT educated about eating in a healthy way. I think a lot of people are in that same boat!

I was distressed to hear that our children's generation has a lower life expectancy than WE do due to all of the fats, sugars etc. in all the foods. Who needs war to kill people? Our food is doing the job very well!:(

Cheryl

ennay
01-26-2007, 08:29 PM
It is just amazing how much food places serve. dh and I if we do go to ihop (rarely - and usually only after I have just done a race) split an omelet with the grain and nut pancakes and still have leftovers.

Wildfyre
01-26-2007, 08:41 PM
1500 calories? TWO PANCAKES?!

Sweet llamas, that is insane. And just imagine how many people are ordering that with sausage, bacon, and eggs on the side. With extra whipped cream and drowning it in syrup. Ugh, my arteries are clogging just thinking about it.

On the rare occasion that I go anywhere like that, it's IHOP and I get a half omelet and eat it for 2 or 3 meals.

shoots-alot
01-26-2007, 08:59 PM
It is so true, I just joined fat chicks and really started looking at fat grams in some of the foods we eat and boy if your not careful you can add hundreds of calories wihout even knowing it, espeacily in take out food!!

BlueToBlue
01-26-2007, 09:46 PM
Maybe restaurants ought to be required to put the calories and fat grams *right on the menu* along with the price for each item!

I dream of the day when this is required!

It is shocking how many calories are in restaurant food. Unless I know otherwise, I just any entre, no matter how healthy it sounds, is 1000 to 1200 calories (which is close to my entire calorie budget for the day). Even salads are often times this high in calories. Given that most meals that I make are under 400 calories a serving, sometimes I wonder how they get the calories so high.

The food section in my local paper has run a couple of recipes lately that were 1200 calories per serving (at least they included the nutritional info). It just seems inexcusable, especially since it's the beginning of the year and a lot of people are trying to lose weight and eat healthier.

I also hate it when restaurants have one small section of "diet" entres that they try to make sound as unappealing as possible and only provide nutritional info for those dishes. Come on, 'fess up and give me the nutritional info for everything. And just because I'm trying to eat lower calorie/fat/sugar foods, doesn't mean I want my food to sound unappealling.

We don't eat out much anymore and this is definitely one of the reasons why.

SlimLindy
01-26-2007, 11:19 PM
I make homemade buttermilk pancakes using pumpkin instead of oil, ww pastry flour instead of white flour, and nonfat buttermilk. :stir: Super-healthy and my DH and DDs love them and refuse to eat pancakes anywhere but at home.

Honestly, the world is FULL of things that might feel good for a moment, but not for a lifetime. Recently I wrote myself a note and taped it to the mirror in my closet that says, "Nobody promised you EASY." It's to remind me when that inner voice is whining about how hard it is to give up a goody I'd like to eat or how tough it is to get up at 5am to work out, that it's not any easier overeating and gaining weight. Hey, nobody promised me 'easy' in this lifetime. Life IS HARD. We just get to pick which difficult route we want to take. For me, I'm choosing the fit, healthy, slim route. It's hard, but it's worth it. Screw the Bob Evans pancakes. :D

nelie
01-27-2007, 09:38 AM
Honestly, we are trying to kill ourselves and restaurants and food products are just trying to make money off of that desire. If those pancakes don't sell, then Bob Evans won't sell them. If oreos and twinkies didn't sell, then their manufacturers wouldn't make them. I really believe we need to be personally responsible for our nutrition.

I like pancakes but only without syrup. I think syrup makes them sickeningly sweet. I've always been like that though, as young as I can remember. I was always thought the strange kid/person for not wanting syrup with pancakes, waffles or french toast. I couldn't imagine these stuffed pancakes and how sweet they must be. I'm also glad that I don't like Bob Evans so it isn't some place I'd be going anyway.

rockinrobin
01-27-2007, 09:51 AM
I have really had to change my thinking in order to lose weight and to continue to lose weight. I no longer look at it as what I am giving up, the high-calorie, high fat and sugar content foods. I HAD to look at it as what I will be GAINING - a healthier, better, happier, hopefully longer, more active and productive life. It is amazing how quickly one can change their views on food and in turn change their lives around.

I haven't seen the commercial, but I assume in the past it would have intrigued me and made me want to eat it and now from the sound of it, it repulses me. I could honestly say that I have ZERO interest in eating that. It's like I've found a new religion and eating that would be a major sin. Totally unacceptable and not in the realm of possibility.

Tara D
01-27-2007, 10:39 AM
I guess the one positive thing is that Bob Evans made it very easy to find the nutritional information on their website...even if it showed 1500 calories per serving!

Cheryl14
01-27-2007, 10:40 AM
"It's like I've found a new religion and eating that would be a major sin."
-Robin

Wow, Robin! That's SOOOOOOO true! This weight loss thing IS like adopting a NEW RELIGION! A person's religion IS a series of beliefs and rules so to speak. Yeah, weight loss IS just like that!

Thanks for the interesting new way to think about the process!

Cheryl

midwife
01-27-2007, 11:00 AM
Hey SlimLindy, Could you please post the pumpkin pancake recipe?

They sound yummy.

Chestnutlass
01-27-2007, 12:34 PM
It can be so hard! I am only very recently trying to adopt the "healthy weight loss life" but the fact is that I am still not at the mind set I should be. But I will admit it. Those pancakes sound tasty. I am an educated person. I have read dozens of health and diet books. I adore 3FC. I have really been doing well in the past month. But I still want those pancakes. I wonder if I will ever think "creamy, nutty, sweet pancakes eww gross"


Mari

callystia
01-27-2007, 12:38 PM
Robin, you are awesome.

That's all. :)

aphil
01-27-2007, 01:16 PM
I am going to add another angle here...I don't think Bob Evans is trying to kill us. :)

Yes, they have 1500 calorie stuffed pancakes...but they also offer a fresh fruit plate-which is 100% fresh fruit, all sliced up and arranged real pretty-with a side of low fat strawberry yogurt. It is low calorie, and not highly processed, etc.

They serve a vegetable beef soup which I have also had (because the kids like Bob Evans, and we take them there occasionally.) and it is also low calorie/fat, and very good. They offer Egg Beaters/egg substitute instead of regular eggs, and other options as well.

It is just like if you go there and get a cup of coffee...they have sugar packets, and they have artificial sweetener. They are both there in front of you-but ultimately, it is YOUR choice which you choose.

They have plenty of healthy items on their menu, and plenty of non-healthy items. It is our decision. I think a lot of restaurants are actually trying to please everyone-Applebee's has a lower calorie menu, and many other restaurants are offering healthier fare-but they also have to offer the rich desserts, the humong-O steaks, and everything else-because there is clientele that wants that, too.

It is just like going to the grocery store-you cannot expect them not to sell Ben & Jerry's ice cream or Twinkies just because you are trying to lose weight. They sell chicken breast, produce, and other items that you can choose-but they have customers who want the "crap" as well.

It is a business, and they are trying to give options for ALL of their customers.

fiddler
01-27-2007, 01:43 PM
I agree completely with aphil.

Restaurants and supermarkets are fulfilling a demand. If people didn't want to eat that stuff, it wouldn't be available because it wouldn't be profitable.

And while it might be nice if restaurants posted the nutritional information on their menus, I really think anyone with an iota of nutritional knowledge should know that stacks of pancakes filled with cream cheese and caramel are not part of a healthy diet. Having the nutritional info about calories, exchanges, and grams of fat so that you can somehow try to fit it into the counting scheme of whatever diet plan you're on is not going to change that.

However, it would be a pretty boring world if the only thing we could find on restaurant menus was grilled chicken breast and salads. I like having choices--if I want to have an artery-clogging breakfast of pancakes smothered in gooey caramel and rich cream cheese once a year (which is about how often that sort of thing appeals to me), I don't want to be told that it's not available to me because other people aren't responsible enough to make healthy food choices.

Sorry if that sounded harsh :)

callystia
01-27-2007, 02:21 PM
Sorry if that sounded harsh :)


Maybe just a little. :)

Myself, I don't care who eats what, but I do ~seriously~ wish that restaurants were required to put the nutritional info on the menus--not just for the stuff that's obviously indulgent, but for everything. I hate going out to eat now that I'm more aware of nutrition, because I know that restaurants focus on making things taste good to the general public, so even the so-called "healthy" stuff is generally more fattening/has more sodium and fat than I personally want.

Unfortunately, sometimes things like business lunches or trips can't be avoided and we have to eat food prepared by others; I'd just like to know exactly what I'm putting into my body at those times.

NESunshine
01-27-2007, 02:23 PM
I dream of the day when this is required!

It is shocking how many calories are in restaurant food. Unless I know otherwise, I just any entre, no matter how healthy it sounds, is 1000 to 1200 calories (which is close to my entire calorie budget for the day). Even salads are often times this high in calories. Given that most meals that I make are under 400 calories a serving, sometimes I wonder how they get the calories so high.

Trust me I dream of this too... I spent a few years working in a 'casual dining' establishment (comparable to applebees or chilies) and spent some time behind the line and I can tell you even if the nutrition information was posted there is really no way to ensure that its correct. Its true that there are recipes and portion sizes that the cooks should follow but don't think for a second that when they get busy back there that that doesn't all go out the window and a fist full (gloved of course) becomes the new measuring scoop for things. As for how the calories get so high....well the portion sizes are usually 3-4 times and actual serving size, things are fried in oil, covered in heaps of sauce, even the 'healthy items' can rapidly become unhealthy.

It is very much a business and yes they are there to wait on you but just like any other business they are there to sell you something....Often someone would come in and order a steak and the goal would be to 'upsell' to increase your sales/check average so you would push the 16oz steak, someone would get mashed potatoes (processed, garlic, butter, cream etc. nothing good to start with really) and there is another upsell there cause then they're pushing to load it up with cheese an bacon....oh and the steamed broccoli with that...did you know we can smother that in cheese too... hey its low carb did you know that. We were trained to upsell on EVERYTHING because with every little addition that increased the size of the plate was another $.30 added to the bill, it was required of us to push the upsell no matter what the situation .....before you know it you've ordered a 2500 calorie meal with enough food to feed 3 people really. It was a real learning experience working in that industry for a few years.... I suppose the good thing that came out of it is for the most part I know how things are prepared and how to order things so they can come out as healthy as possible. For now... I've really just stopped going out to eat!
I do think Mass is going to follow suit as well banning the use of trans fats in restaurants... I'm not sure if there is a date that will take effect but maybe the next step will be available nutrition information on the menu. As for Bob Evans... I'm glad that I've never even heard of it!

LLV
01-27-2007, 04:37 PM
Just today while out and about I passed our local Bob Evans and saw the sign out front, "New! Stacked and Stuffed Pancakes!" and the first thing that came to my mind was yeah, and no doubt they're a nutritional nightmare.

lol

I agree with some of the others, it's about choice. Same with fast food places; you can go ahead and get that double cheeseburger, or, you can get a salad.

Just about any restaurant you walk into there will be something 'bad' for you on the menu. But most places these days also offer lighter, healthier foods. It's your choice.

I too would love to see nutrition information on the menus. Some places do (like Red Lobster, for example, they have a "lighthouse" menu) but I want to see nutrition information for everything they offer, not just the lighter suggestions.

ennay
01-27-2007, 04:48 PM
I do wish the nutritional info was required, not for stuff like the pancakes which is kin of a duh, but for the stuff that looks like it should be healthy but yet they manage to make it not be. I just want to know. I dont care even ifit is just an estimate

SlimLindy
01-27-2007, 05:19 PM
Pumpkin Pie Pancakes (or ww Pancakes)

1 egg
1 cup ww pastry flour
1 cup buttermilk (1 T vinegar and milk to make one cup)
1 Tbls brown sugar (I use 5 or 6 Splenda instead... no cals and sweeter)
1 cup canned pumpkin (not pumpkin pie filling, just pure pumpkin; you can use more if you want)
1 tsp baking powder
1/2 tsp baking soda
1/4 tsp salt
I also add a pinch of pumpkin pie spice or cinnamon, nutmeg, ground cloves, and ginger to taste.

I mix the dry ingredients together in one bowl and the wet in another. Then I whisk them together until there are no lumps. Let the batter sit for a minute or two. Cook on a griddle or as you do any pancakes. You may want to use a non-stick pan and/or cooking spray. I make small pancakes (about 3-4 inches in diameter) and one pancake is approximately 42 calories and 1.5 grams of fiber.

Also, if you put 2 tablespoons of oil in instead of the pumpkin, and omit the pumpkin pie spice, you'll have a really great buttermilk pancake (whole wheat) that is about 55 calories, 1 gram of fiber, and 2 grams of protein for the same size pancake. These are really yummy too, and a big hit around here!

midwife
01-27-2007, 08:37 PM
Thanks, Lindy. These sound great.

lilybelle
01-28-2007, 02:14 AM
I wish restaurants did add the calorie amts. on their foods. I am new to calorie counting ( only been doing it for 3 days now). It has been over 20 yrs. since I watched my calories. Hence, how I got to 234 lbs. For me, it's not a no-brainer. The only "diets" I've ever really done have been counting carbs (recently) or counting fat grams (13 yrs. ago) except a brief stint with WW over 25 yrs. ago. When I was in nursing school 25 yrs. ago, we got about 8 hrs. worth of nutritional teaching in class. After this many yrs. of sticking my head in the sand on what is nutritional, I could use the help.

My DD and I went to McDonald's today while shopping. I asked the clerk how many cal's was in their grilled chicken sandwich. She looked at me like it was a joke. Her and 2 other employees finally found their nutrition information. She said (I believe) 420 calories. I'm sure the people in line behind me weren't appreciating this scenario. I am literate, if it were posted on the wall or up on the menu, I could have read it for myself and not required a waste of their time. Anyway, the 420 is more than I wanted to spend on one meal, so I came home and had a PB and SF jelly sandwich with wheat bread for 210 cal's instead.

I don't at all have anything against food places putting whatever they want on the menu. I just want to be able to make an informed choice when I'm away from home. Obviously there are people that will love those pancakes. Heck, prior to losing wt. and trying to maintain it, I'd have eaten them and probably thought they were great. I am thankful that one of the maintainers has now told me that CalorieKing.com provides listing of nutritional info. for many Restaurants. I didn't know that and will try to use it in the future. Also, now without Fitday I'd be totally lost.

rockinrobin
01-28-2007, 07:08 AM
Robin, you are awesome.

That's all. :)

Cally, I'm not exactly sure what prompted this. But you my dear are very, very sweet and I thank you. Mwa.

Cheryl14
01-28-2007, 09:19 AM
SlimLindy!

Thanks so much for posting the Pumpkin Pancakes recipe! That sounds delicious!

Cheryl

meowee
01-28-2007, 09:26 AM
As mentioned by others -- There is a tiny (very tiny) glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. McDonalds now offers the choice of fries or a small side-salad as part of a "meal" and they even have a low-fat dressing for it.

I've noticed that quite a few fast food places are starting to offer more and more healthy choices.

Of course, the trick is to get people to make the better choice. :^: But that is really not the responsibility of the vendor, is it?

almostheaven
01-28-2007, 10:49 AM
Honestly, we are trying to kill ourselves and restaurants and food products are just trying to make money off of that desire. If those pancakes don't sell, then Bob Evans won't sell them. If oreos and twinkies didn't sell, then their manufacturers wouldn't make them. I really believe we need to be personally responsible for our nutrition.
I am going to add another angle here...I don't think Bob Evans is trying to kill us. :)

Yes, they have 1500 calorie stuffed pancakes...but they also offer a fresh fruit plate-which is 100% fresh fruit, all sliced up and arranged real pretty-with a side of low fat strawberry yogurt. It is low calorie, and not highly processed, etc.
Thank you both! I'm glad some people have pointed this out. I keep reading people talking about iHop, like they're great, yet downing Bob Evans...for putting out stuffed pancakes AFTER iHop invented the stuffed french toast. Anyone checked the nutrition on those bad boys?

I'd have run out years ago for either the stuffed french toast or pancakes too. And I've thought of trying them on occassion. I never have yet. I may one day, as a treat. But I no longer eat stuff like that on a daily basis.

And I can't understand this desire that they be forced to list the nutrition. Does anyone here REALLY think that someone who orders those believes they're not bad for them? Do you REALLY think they'll stop eating them just because they know they have 1500 calories? People who are eating them are eating them because it's what they like, it's what they're used to eating, and they don't have the desire to lose the weight that we might have. They'll STILL eat them even if the calories are posted.

Would anyone in here walk in and order one even WITHOUT the nutrition posted? Would you think it couldn't be bad? I'm sure ALL of us know not to eat stuff like that, whether we know the amount of calories in it beforehand or not. Something prompted the OP to look it up. Probably because they KNEW it wasn't good for them but wanted confirmation on what they already knew deep-down.

I go to Bob Evans (not for breakfast as I seldom eat breakfast out anyway). I get grilled chicken and fruit for the baby and I get salmon or grilled chicken or a salad...the possibilities are endless. And as been said, they're just filling supply and demand. They're out to make money. If enough of us don't go there and order their fruit, THEY'LL STOP SELLING IT. I'm already peaved that Ruby's no longer sells the Blueberry Delite (yogurt with almonds and blueberry's), that they've removed all their fruits from the salad bar and have only grapes now, their Smart Eating menu has shrunk and now you actually have to ASK to see the smart eating menu. Applebees hasn't shrunk their WW menu...yet, but they keep mucking with it. Why? Because people aren't ordering that stuff. We'll be our own worst enemies. We'll get upset with them for giving people what they want, stop going there, and when we DO break down and go, we'll get upset because they no longer offer the healthy fare...because we never went there and ordered it. :(

nelie
01-28-2007, 11:00 AM
Oh Ruby's mmmm I used to go there when I lived in California, but I don't remember a single healthy item on their menu. They used to have the best malts and shakes though and hamburgers. I remember ordering fries, a hamburger and a malt and feeling so stuffed I couldn't breathe.

When I first started losing weight, I didn't eat out at all for a couple months. It is easier if you control your own food.

jillybean720
01-28-2007, 11:24 AM
And I can't understand this desire that they be forced to list the nutrition.
I don't think it's a matter of wanting the nutritional info for the things (like these stuffed pancakes) that are obviously bad, but for things that seem good but are deceptively bad. I went to Uno's once, and I knew getting a pizza or a big pasta dish would be a disaster, so I moved my eyes over to the entree salads section of the menu. Now, I know when I'm being duped into a high-cal salad when you see that all of the toppings are things like cheese, fried tortiall strips, fried chicken, heavy dressing, etc., so I chose a salad that actually listed more veggies than junk (I believe it had lettuce/greens, onion, corn, black beans, tomato, possibly cucumber, etc.) and had a dressing that was actually mostly salsa-based and had grilled chicken instead of fried. I knew there was no need to eat the bread stick that came with the salad, so I gave it to my boyfriend, and I felt really good about my choice.

Well, lo and behold, that salad had something like over 700 calories according to their website. I'm not sure where they got all those calories (chicken grilled with oil? corn cooked in butter? I'm still not really sure...), but I know I didn't expect it to be that high, and I am well-versed in calorie counting. As it turned out, I could have had a much more indulgent meal for that amount of calories.

I'm not saying I personally feel all restaurants should be required to include nutritional info, but I can certainly understand why some people would wish for such.

And quickly, for what it's worth, I worked at Ruby Tuesday for a couple years. I can tell you right now that they used to list the calorie counts for almost everything on their menus at one time, and it was not good for business. They've since removed all traces of that information from their menus. Restaurants are in business to make money, plain and simple. They really, truly don't care if you're on a diet or if their food is unhealthy, as long as enough people keep buying it so they can turn a profit.

Meg
01-28-2007, 11:31 AM
Yep, I remember those nutritional facts on the Ruby Tuesday's menus - wow, were they an eye-opener! A turkey club had more calories than a bacon cheeseburger! Like Jill, I'm a professional calorie counter but I wouldn't have guessed that one.

I agree, we're all smart enough to stay away from the unhealthy choices but I still want the information so I can make the best choice, rather than just guessing. :)

rockinrobin
01-28-2007, 11:35 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if many people don't even want to know what the nutritional facts are. Or care. They like living in their own little dream worlds. (I used to be one of them.)

Look at the cigarette industry. Warnings are loud and clear on their labels, yup they are required by law to have them there, but yet millions and millions of people are still choosing to light up.

People are going to do what they are going to do. We all have to take responsibility for our health issues all across the board. No one else is going to do it for us. We have got to be our own best advocates.

improbable
01-28-2007, 11:45 AM
Still, not HAVING nutritional info available at all is really hard - it DOES cut off an entire segment of the population, albeit perhaps not a huge one. It certainly wouldn't hurt their popularity with the people who don't care - why would they ask to see it?

rockinrobin
01-28-2007, 12:01 PM
Oh no, I agree, I think there most absolutely SHOULD be nutritional info at restaurants. I don't think one can possible have too much information.

As a matter of fact Mayor Bloomberg of NYC is in the process of banning restaurants from using trans fats. Maing them illegal. I'm not at all sure of the details. Maybe he should jump on this band wagon as well.

jillybean720
01-28-2007, 02:30 PM
As a matter of fact Mayor Bloomberg of NYC is in the process of banning restaurants from using trans fats. Maing them illegal. I'm not at all sure of the details. Maybe he should jump on this band wagon as well.
I thought that had already been approved? And I also thought that, along with the banning of trans fats, any restaurant in NYC whose nutritional info is posted online must now also include the nutritional info in their menus (including fast food! McD's will have to put the nutritional info up on their menu boards behind the counter). I'm not sure when it all goes into effect, but I thought I had heard that it all passed and was approved.

almostheaven
01-28-2007, 03:46 PM
Oh Ruby's mmmm I used to go there when I lived in California, but I don't remember a single healthy item on their menu. They used to have the best malts and shakes though and hamburgers. I remember ordering fries, a hamburger and a malt and feeling so stuffed I couldn't breathe.

When I first started losing weight, I didn't eat out at all for a couple months. It is easier if you control your own food.
Oh yeah. Since they've stopped providing the Smart Eating guide, I don't bother going there anymore, unless I'm just in the mood for their salad bar, or turkey burger...that I know they still have. They used to have the turkey burger on a low carb wrap, grilled chicken, cajun grilled tilapia, and many others. They had the Blueberry Delite which was the healthiest desert they could have next to fruit, and the low carb cheesecake if one was a little more daring and didn't give a hoot about the 400 calories. And they have a variety of veggies, including creamy cauliflower, which they removed for awhile but it's made a comeback. I always cut the sodium in even these too, as I order the turkey burger on the low carb wrap with NO seasoning.

I'm on the go alot these days and so I do eat out frequently, but Bob Evans, Applebees, and Ruby's can get boring after awhile. I'm always afraid to try new places and find they have nothing that I would eat that's on MY approved menu. Though we did go with my family to TGI Fridays yesterday. I think I've found another place I like. ;) I've learned to never be afraid to change things, to special order. I have them leave things out of salads, and seasonings and sauces off foods.

ennay
01-28-2007, 04:03 PM
And I can't understand this desire that they be forced to list the nutrition. Does anyone here REALLY think that someone who orders those believes they're not bad for them? Do you REALLY think they'll stop eating them just because they know they have 1500 calories? :(

I disagree, I dont think anyone thinks they are healthy, but I doubt if you showed the plate to the average person and asked them to guess how many calories, they would not guess 1500. I'm pretty food aware, and I doubt that is what I would have estimated.

I bet 1500 might be enough to give pause and probably even discourage some people from getting them. Which is why the restaurants arent rushing out to put info on the menu.

There are times when I can afford to splurge a little. Lets say I stopped in at IHOP or Bob E after my half-marathon. I just burned around 1700 calories - minus about 2-300 for gu/gatorade. I am not going to be looking at the 400 calorie breakfast. If I thought that they were in the 900-1000 calorie range I might go for it (if the concept of a stuffed pancake had any appeal which it doesnt). 1500 probably not. Even for over the top food, there are times when nutritional info would be mighty handy.

Or even the other way. I went out to PFChangs the other night. It was a completely spur of the moment thing so I didnt get a chance to look online first. I ordered steamed shrimp dumplings and hot and sour soup.

Turns out I was way UNDER the calories I needed for the day, I could have gotten something more had I known what the choices were.

veggielover
01-28-2007, 04:12 PM
its about choice and the willingness to find the info.

I completely agree with what aphil said. Personal responsibility, I believe, should come first.

I find the word "kill" too harsh and wayyyyyy too exaggerated,,,

rockinrobin
01-28-2007, 04:13 PM
I thought that had already been approved? And I also thought that, along with the banning of trans fats, any restaurant in NYC whose nutritional info is posted online must now also include the nutritional info in their menus (including fast food! McD's will have to put the nutritional info up on their menu boards behind the counter). I'm not sure when it all goes into effect, but I thought I had heard that it all passed and was approved.

As far as I know, and I don't really know the facts like I said earlier, banning the transfats has been approved, though not in effect yet. Not sure when it will be. I haven't heard anything about restaurants having to post the nutritional info on their menus if they do so on line. That would be interesting to see how that plays out though.

Tara D
01-28-2007, 04:34 PM
Although creativity is great, I just have to say I think some of the foods that we are using that creativity to make are just ABNORMAL. People have been around for thousands of years, and we are getting farther and farther away from what our ancestors ate -- real food...And it's killing us. I don't think it's "normal" to eat processed pancakes stuffed with cream cheese, trans fats, and lots of other "unhealthy" ingredients stuffed in there and on the side.

I don't think that we should take personal choice away from people, but I do think that when we serve things to people, we have to think about if we are really SERVING them. It is supposed to be the food SERVICE industry. Just because you can make more money serving something clearly unhealthy doesn't mean you should. If a doctor prescribed a medication that made you feel really good, but would lead to an early death, people would say "Take it off the market!" and start suing! Food is just like medicine...you eat it, and it affects the way your body functions!

Perhaps the food industry should channel some of that energy to create new theme giant sized burgers with mayo into creating delicious things that people will love that are closer to what our bodies would like us to have.

Like I said, I'm all for creativity, and I don't want to stifle the chefs, but some of the foods we are eating now just don't seem very normal. We've kind of forgotten what food really is.

nelie
01-28-2007, 05:06 PM
Oh yeah. Since they've stopped providing the Smart Eating guide, I don't bother going there anymore, unless I'm just in the mood for their salad bar, or turkey burger...that I know they still have. They used to have the turkey burger on a low carb wrap, grilled chicken, cajun grilled tilapia, and many others. They had the Blueberry Delite which was the healthiest desert they could have next to fruit, and the low carb cheesecake if one was a little more daring and didn't give a hoot about the 400 calories. And they have a variety of veggies, including creamy cauliflower, which they removed for awhile but it's made a comeback. I always cut the sodium in even these too, as I order the turkey burger on the low carb wrap with NO seasoning.

I'm on the go alot these days and so I do eat out frequently, but Bob Evans, Applebees, and Ruby's can get boring after awhile. I'm always afraid to try new places and find they have nothing that I would eat that's on MY approved menu. Though we did go with my family to TGI Fridays yesterday. I think I've found another place I like. ;) I've learned to never be afraid to change things, to special order. I have them leave things out of salads, and seasonings and sauces off foods.

Ruby's has a salad bar?! Weird, I've never seen them with a salad bar or any healthy stuff. I remember going their in college and just eating hamburgers while friends would have "home style" dinner things of meatloaf or chicken fingers or what not.

One thing I do miss living on the East Coast now though is a salad place. Soup plantation/Sweet tomatoes (same chain) is awesome although you could fill up on their bread.

I never liked Applebees but Mimi's Cafe (west coast only I presume) was one of my favorite "regular" type restaurants I liked.

My favorite eating out places now include Baja Fresh (eat half a burrito), kabob places (usually eat half an entree or sandwich), a local traditional chinese place (pretty healthy stuff for the most part) or a local pizza chain which uses nonfat pizza crust and sauce. They have an awesome vegetarian pizza that has broccoli on it. DH and I used to go out to indian restaurants all the time but I think that contributed to a slight weight gain during our dating stage. I love saag which is oh so unhealthy.

MariaMaria
01-28-2007, 05:40 PM
As far as I know, and I don't really know the facts like I said earlier, banning the transfats has been approved, though not in effect yet. Not sure when it will be.

July 2007 (frying oils except for those used for donuts, spreads, ingredients except for those used in cake batters) and July 2008 (exceptions end, ban applies to all foods).

http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/cardio/cardio-transfat.shtml ;
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pr2006/pr114-06.shtml

Look at this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/11/nyregion/11fat.html?ex=1281412800&en=48292bdab493d5e2&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss . Interesting that only 30-60% of the restaurants use trans-fats to begin with.

And here's the link for the nutrional labelling: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pr2006/pr113-06.shtml . Starts March 2007. Again, interesting how little affect it would have, estimated only 10% of the restaurants in the city (mentioned here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/30/nyregion/30calories.html?ei=5088&en=c50e75643bbc03d5&ex=1319864400&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1170023785-9qeFVATtW6ZrRhQIn9WKpw ).

jillybean720
01-28-2007, 05:42 PM
Ruby's has a salad bar?! Weird, I've never seen them with a salad bar or any healthy stuff. I remember going their in college and just eating hamburgers while friends would have "home style" dinner things of meatloaf or chicken fingers or what not.
Maybe you're thinking of something else? I know when I say "Ruby's," I'm referring to Ruby Tuesday. For as long as I can remember (and I remember going there back in grade school), they've always had a salad bar. I can't say everything on the salad bar is healthy, but it's there, nonetheless ;) Maybe the California Ruby's were a little behind in the times?

nelie
01-28-2007, 06:47 PM
Oh phew! I thought I was going insane. Ruby's is a chain that I've seen out of California but rarely. They are kind of like a 50's diner type place. I always thought it was amusing that they had barbie doll waitresses. They all looked alike and I could never remember which one was mine.

When I was young, I used to go to Carl's Jr for their salad bar but I think Carls long got rid of it.

almostheaven
01-28-2007, 09:06 PM
Lets say I stopped in at IHOP or Bob E after my half-marathon. I just burned around 1700 calories - minus about 2-300 for gu/gatorade. I am not going to be looking at the 400 calorie breakfast. If I thought that they were in the 900-1000 calorie range I might go for it (if the concept of a stuffed pancake had any appeal which it doesnt). 1500 probably not.
Now if it were me looking for the 900-1000 calorie range after a marathon, I'd still be looking at something more substantial...some eggs, bacon, toast... I certainly wouldn't eat the stuffed pancakes, even if they were less than 1000 cals. I'd be wondering why I just put my body through that just to fill it back up with junk again.

almostheaven
01-28-2007, 09:13 PM
Oh phew! I thought I was going insane. Ruby's is a chain that I've seen out of California but rarely. They are kind of like a 50's diner type place. I always thought it was amusing that they had barbie doll waitresses. They all looked alike and I could never remember which one was mine.

When I was young, I used to go to Carl's Jr for their salad bar but I think Carls long got rid of it.
Ahhh, the light has been shed. LOL Yeah, I'm referring to Ruby Tuesdays. I didn't realize there was any other restaurant named Ruby's.

Depends on where on the east coast you're at, but Shoneys and Ruby's are all over here and they both have salad bars. Shoneys goes a bit further and loads their bar with meats and veggies...a mini buffet. But if you have the willpower you can order JUST soup and salad. That comes with the hot veggies, but without the meats. Ruby Tuesdays has a good bar with three kinds of lettuce and all fresh veggie choices.

LLV
01-29-2007, 11:30 AM
And I can't understand this desire that they be forced to list the nutrition.

The same reason food manufacturers are forced to list it on their labels.

Does anyone here REALLY think that someone who orders those believes they're not bad for them?

You'd be shocked at the number of people who think this.

Remember those days of assuming deep-fried vegetables were good for us simply because they were vegetables? I do and I'm sure a few others here can relate as well.

Do you know how many people order salads or grilled chicken sandwiches assuming they're ordering something healthy only to find out they just consumed over 800 calories?

Restaurant food is VERY deceiving. We think we're ordering something healthy when it turns out to have just as much fat and calories as the 'unhealthier' foods we're avoiding.

Just because a percentage of us are now 'smarter' about what foods to eat and what foods to avoid, it doesn't mean everyone out there is ;)

almostheaven
01-29-2007, 07:10 PM
Remember those days of assuming deep-fried vegetables were good for us simply because they were vegetables? I do and I'm sure a few others here can relate as well.
No. I never have thought that deep-frying was good, veggies or not. I don't know of anyone that did.

Do you know how many people order salads or grilled chicken sandwiches assuming they're ordering something healthy only to find out they just consumed over 800 calories?
Are these people who really don't know or people who are into deceiving themselves that hamburger buns are healthy? Shouldn't people be responsible in researching what is healthy and what isn't and making wiser choices for their own health?

Restaurant food is VERY deceiving. We think we're ordering something healthy when it turns out to have just as much fat and calories as the 'unhealthier' foods we're avoiding.

Just because a percentage of us are now 'smarter' about what foods to eat and what foods to avoid, it doesn't mean everyone out there is ;)
I dunno. I've never been deceived by them. Before, I could care less what was in it. I ate salads when on diets...which was leafy greens (no cheese, no bacon, no eggs, no foo foo junk) and a vinigarette dressing. And I had no internet back then and STILL knew that these were the lower calorie items. Now that I do watch what I eat, I've learned over the years. I know what is basically good and what isn't. If I want a down to the penny calorie count, I can go online and get the nutrition info to just about anything before heading out to eat. But generally I don't bother with all that. I know I can order the salad covered in bleu cheese, croutons, ranch dressing, chicken strips, bacon, etc. etc. etc. and lie to myself that it's low in calories, or I can order a green salad with a light dressing on the side and add just a touch myself and know I made a better choice.

LLV
01-29-2007, 07:47 PM
No. I never have thought that deep-frying was good, veggies or not. I don't know of anyone that did.

We had a thread here about it several months ago, on foods we USED to think were healthy but we now know that they're not. And deep-fried veggies and potato chips (because they happen to be a vegetable) were among the choices.


Are these people who really don't know or people who are into deceiving themselves that hamburger buns are healthy?

I don't know, you'd have to ask them.


Shouldn't people be responsible in researching what is healthy and what isn't and making wiser choices for their own health?

I think you missed my point, hon.


I dunno. I've never been deceived by them. Before, I could care less what was in it. I ate salads when on diets...which was leafy greens (no cheese, no bacon, no eggs, no foo foo junk) and a vinigarette dressing. And I had no internet back then and STILL knew that these were the lower calorie items. Now that I do watch what I eat, I've learned over the years. I know what is basically good and what isn't. If I want a down to the penny calorie count, I can go online and get the nutrition info to just about anything before heading out to eat.

Well yes, but not everyone has that option.


But generally I don't bother with all that. I know I can order the salad covered in bleu cheese, croutons, ranch dressing, chicken strips, bacon, etc. etc. etc. and lie to myself that it's low in calories, or I can order a green salad with a light dressing on the side and add just a touch myself and know I made a better choice.

I understand that, I do. But not everyone is as 'smart' as we are about these things.

I'm still in favor for nutrition info on menus, as are many others.

mandalinn82
01-29-2007, 08:13 PM
AlmostHeaven - what is your educational background? where did you grow up? What sort of nutrition/food education did you receive?

Not everyone knows the basics of nutrition. My friend is a kindergarten teacher, and she has parents who send their kids into school with a bag of cheetos and a soda. Now, the parents might know that this isn't "good", but they don't know quite HOW BAD it is.

That is another distinction...there is a difference between saying "this isn't healthy" and "this is BAD for me". There are definite misconceptions about how many calories are in restaurant meals. If you ask people to estimate the calories in their meals, they will routinely underestimate by over 37-50% depending on their level of nutrition info - in study after study of random subjects from the general population or selected groups. This basic study has been repeated ad nauseum...America's population just doesn't have a clue of the calorie content of the things they are eating. We aren't talking about "penny" calorie counting either...50% (the average amount that the average American diner underestimates the calories in what they are eating) means that you think you're eating something that is 600 calories (a big meal, but certainly fitable into the day) and 1200 calories (hard to fit into your day unless you don't eat anything else). The standard restaurant meal is something like 1500 calories. That means that people eating it estimate it, on average, at 750...a difference of 750 calories. That means that every five meals that the average diner underestimates their calories on by an average amount, they get enough unaccounted-for calories to gain more than a pound.

A fried onion blossom is 2000 calories for just an appetizer. People may all know that it isn't a good choice. How many, though, before they have researched, would guess it to be THAT BAD of a choice.

The study that found the 50% rate is summarized here: http://onhealth.webmd.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=63284

Even people who ARE educated are being duped. Nutritionists hit just about that same 40% mark, according to a study by NYU. These were dieticians, and they underestimated the calories in restaurant meals by 37% on average. This isn't a small difference. This is a HUGE difference. These are people with a ton of experience and tons of nutrition info at their fingertips, and they couldn't guess the correct calories...and they weren't actually eating the food, so its not like they were deluding themselves that things were healthier than they actually were, as they would have no motivation to do that.

There is some evidence that this underestimating has a lot to do with portion size, and that those who are overweight/obese tend to eat larger portions. Basically - more food on the plate doesn't, to the brain, necessarily equal tons more calories in the estimate. Check out this study in the Annals of Internal Medicine: http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/145/5/I-51

I think that most people are a lot less educated about what a "portion" is, and how restaurants cook their meals. You may be more educated, and that is fine. But, especially for non-chain restaurants, it is not as easy as "pick something with healthy ingredients" - and no nutrition information is available in most non chain restaurants in America. Even if you pick something that, by the menu, is full of healthy ingredients, it may or may not have tons of added oils, butters, and etc. to push up the calorie count.

Whether or not the restaurant industry is doing it purposefully, people who try to estimate the number of calories in a meal DO underestimate greatly, no matter how educated they are on nutrition.

ennay
01-29-2007, 08:15 PM
Now if it were me looking for the 900-1000 calorie range after a marathon, I'd still be looking at something more substantial...some eggs, bacon, toast... I certainly wouldn't eat the stuffed pancakes, even if they were less than 1000 cals. I'd be wondering why I just put my body through that just to fill it back up with junk again.

so would i, because I dont have a sweet tooth, but post marathon fueling is all about simple carbs. Its the one time where they are necessary. Actually, I would be looking for pancakes and eggs, but heck no on bacon. I'm not saying I would have chosen stuffed ,but what is wrong with giving people INFORMATION.

You keep saying people need to take charge --its a **** of a lot easier to take charge WITH information than without.

I cant see ANY bad side effects of providing the info (except to the food industry) and loads of benefits in providing it.

ennay
01-29-2007, 08:20 PM
Exactly mandalinn-

I went to dinner last night

i had grilled rockfish with shrimp, artichokes, mushrooms and red bell peppers.

I had steamed asparagus

I had boiled new potatoes with chives

And a salad with no croutons, no cheese and balsamic on the side.

All pretty damn healthy right?

If I had eaten the whole thing it would have been 1300 calories. And a whopping 64 grams of fat

I dont know HOW restaurants sneak in that much fat when we arent looking, but they do. I swear to god they have a magic fat injector that puts butter in the cells of the meat where you cant see it.

mandalinn82
01-29-2007, 08:22 PM
One more study (I'm a stickler for studies and hard data):
http://docs.schoolnutrition.org/newsroom/jcnm/05spring/conklin/index.asp

Basically, even in high school populations (known for eating lots of high cal foods, thinking they are immortal and don't need to take care of themselves, and known for being rebellious) - posting nutrition information results in a decrease in ordering of the highest calorie/fat dishes and an increase in ordering of the lowest calorie/fat dishes.

LLV
01-29-2007, 08:28 PM
If I had eaten the whole thing it would have been 1300 calories. And a whopping 64 grams of fat

I rest my case.

mandalinn82
01-29-2007, 08:38 PM
I had a friend who worked in the college cafeteria. He told me that the stuff in the salad bar was sprayed with pure starch to make the salads more filling, because salad was cheap and kept the costs down for the operation. Having not talked to him, I never would have guessed that everything I ate in the dining commons, even the SALAD in the SALAD BAR for heaven's sake, was full of extra starches.

EZMONEY
01-29-2007, 08:49 PM
Oh phew! I thought I was going insane. Ruby's is a chain that I've seen out of California but rarely. They are kind of like a 50's diner type place. I always thought it was amusing that they had barbie doll waitresses. They all looked alike and I could never remember which one was mine.

When I was young, I used to go to Carl's Jr for their salad bar but I think Carls long got rid of it.

That is correct Nelie ~ you probably went to the one at the end of the O'side pier or the one my daughter worked at one summer in Carlsbad. Ruby"s and Ruby Tuesdays are two different restaraunts

LLV
01-29-2007, 08:50 PM
I had a friend who worked in the college cafeteria. He told me that the stuff in the salad bar was sprayed with pure starch to make the salads more filling, because salad was cheap and kept the costs down for the operation. Having not talked to him, I never would have guessed that everything I ate in the dining commons, even the SALAD in the SALAD BAR for heaven's sake, was full of extra starches.

This doesn't surprise me one bit.

There are many people who are trying to make healthier choices. But as ennay said, what she thought was a healthy meal WASN'T.

This is why that information needs to be out there. Perhaps there would be less obesity if it were.

There ARE people who think deep-fried vegetables are healthy. There ARE people who assume a salad is a good choice as long as it's not covered in cheese. When really, many of the ingredients they choose really aren't much better.

Yes, it's a matter of choice and common sense. But again I bring up ennay's point that what we assume is healthy may very well not be.

EZMONEY
01-29-2007, 08:53 PM
Angie, the kids and I love Soup Plantation ~ when we go there Angie, my son and daughter in law and my daughter walk out eating healthy! Me, my nephew, step-daughter and future son in law walk out with ummm...well NOT that healthy of a dinner...it's all about choices ladies!!!

Meg
01-29-2007, 08:55 PM
So -- how about we make the information readily available for those of us who'd like to use it? Those who aren't interested or already know how to make the best choices would be free to ignore it, of course. Win-win, no? :)

mandalinn82
01-29-2007, 09:00 PM
I bet more people would want it than you'd think, too. I just looked at a couple more studies - across the board, people DO change their ordering habits in restaurants with nutrition info displayed at the point of service. Not hidden in the back, not where 10 people have to be asked before you get it.

I went to an Applebees once. I was looking at the new WW desserts (they were new then) and was wondering what they were sweetened with because I am allergic to certain artificial sweeteners (they make me itchy and nauseous). They couldn't even tell me if their food had a particular ingredient in it! Now, I know that Applebees food is basically re-heated from frozen, and I'm OK with that on certain occasions...but to not even be able to say what is IN it? Ridiculous.

BlueToBlue
01-29-2007, 09:34 PM
And I can't understand this desire that they be forced to list the nutrition. Does anyone here REALLY think that someone who orders those believes they're not bad for them? Do you REALLY think they'll stop eating them just because they know they have 1500 calories?

I want the nutritional information for myself, not for others. I don't really care what anyone else eats or how they decide what to eat. We're all adults and we can all make these decisions for ourselves. But for myself, I would like to be able to choose between everything on the menu, not be limited to one tiny section of 4-5 choices that all sound unappetizing (which is what most "lite" menu sections work out to be). Often times, there are other things on the menu I can eat, provided I limit myself to half of the entre, which is usually no problem given how large the portions are in these places.

Macaroni Grill (a chain out here in CA and other parts of the country) is a good example of this. They have some "lite" choices, but they don't appeal to me (the lite choices are something like an unseasoned chicken breast and unseasoned salmon--if I wanted that, I could make it myself at home). But they also offer a pasta with red sauce and Italian sausage that is only 840 calories for the lunch version. It's plenty of food, so I only need to eat half of it. 420 calories for lunch is a little high, but I can work it into my day fairly well and I enjoy my lunch a lot more than if I ate that stupid plain chicken or salmon. If Macaroni Grill didn't bother providing the calorie info for everything on their menu, not just the lite entres, then I would be limited to just the lite entres.

Or, maybe I want to splurge and order the stuffed pancakes or whatever from Bob Evans. It would still be great to know how many calories are in it, so that I'm at least making an informed choice when I decide to splurge. Or maybe I'll decide to splurge on something that is only 1,000 calories instead of 1,500. Or I'll decide to only eat half of it. In the end, it would be really nice to know the calories, even if I decide to eat it anyway.

As it is, when I go to chain restaurants, I always look up the menus in advance to see if they have nutritional info and sometimes even end up emailing the restaurant for more info. Then I make a decision about what I want to eat (or write the few choices available to me so I won't forget). By the time I get to the restaurant, I don't even need to look at the menu; I have the whole thing memorized with respective calorie counts. But, boy, it sure would be nice to be able to go to a restaurant, sit down, look at the menu and make a decision about what I want to eat at that time, just like anybody else, without having to do all this prep work.

almostheaven
01-29-2007, 11:20 PM
LLV, I understood your point, I just don't agree with it. I think people DO know when something is bad, whether they want to admit it to themselves or not.

AlmostHeaven - what is your educational background? where did you grow up? What sort of nutrition/food education did you receive?
High school, the hills of WV, none. Yet I still knew growing up that I could either buy the regular school lunch with all the calories and fried foods, or buy the chef salad with a light dressing. I usually stood in the salad line. It's not something I had to learn. I just KNEW that frying something in grease wasn't healthy. I mean, I'd seen it on TV, heard it talked about...it's out there. People can't go through life not knowing the basics on food IMO.

Not everyone knows the basics of nutrition. My friend is a kindergarten teacher, and she has parents who send their kids into school with a bag of cheetos and a soda. Now, the parents might know that this isn't "good", but they don't know quite HOW BAD it is.
Right. And that's my point. They HAVE to know it isn't "good". If they're concerned, they'd research to find out how bad it is. But they're not that interested or they'd send their kids with something they knew to be at least a little more on the healthy side.

That is another distinction...there is a difference between saying "this isn't healthy" and "this is BAD for me". There are definite misconceptions about how many calories are in restaurant meals. If you ask people to estimate the calories in their meals, they will routinely underestimate by over 37-50% depending on their level of nutrition info - in study after study of random subjects from the general population or selected groups. This basic study has been repeated ad nauseum...America's population just doesn't have a clue of the calorie content of the things they are eating. We aren't talking about "penny" calorie counting either...50% (the average amount that the average American diner underestimates the calories in what they are eating)
But the general American diner has no clue how many calories are in ANYTHING they eat, even those foods they purchase from the store with nutrition labels. They just don't pay attention to it. That is a big part of why they underestimate, because they're totally uninformed as to typical calories all around. They don't take the time to concern themselves with it. If they spent time reading the labels on food, they'd have a better idea of calorie content, so that the next time they estimated a meal in a restaurant, I bet they'd come a lot closer than they previously would have.

Even people who ARE educated are being duped. Nutritionists hit just about that same 40% mark, according to a study by NYU. These were dieticians, and they underestimated the calories in restaurant meals by 37% on average. This isn't a small difference. This is a HUGE difference. These are people with a ton of experience and tons of nutrition info at their fingertips, and they couldn't guess the correct calories...and they weren't actually eating the food, so its not like they were deluding themselves that things were healthier than they actually were, as they would have no motivation to do that.
Then that I don't understand, unless those people are fooling themselves. A nutritionist should have a better grasp on calorie content than that. A restaurant may add in calories, but you can always find that out. I do it all the time. I ask them what it's cooked in (what kind of sauce, seasoning, etc.). I ask for grilled chicken and ask that they put NO seasoning, no sauce, no marinade, etc. Just flame grill it and give it to me naturally. If I order it as is, I always up the calories double. I may be off a little either way, but I allow for it if I'm counting calories.

There is some evidence that this underestimating has a lot to do with portion size, and that those who are overweight/obese tend to eat larger portions. Basically - more food on the plate doesn't, to the brain, necessarily equal tons more calories in the estimate. Check out this study in the Annals of Internal Medicine: http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/145/5/I-51
Ahhh. I used to as well. But it wasn't because I fooled myself about portion sizes. It was because I didn't CARE about portion sizes. Never bothered to check into them. This time though, I spent a lot of time measuring out portions to where I got fairly adept at judging a size accurately. Every now and then I still measure to be sure. But I don't think it's a restaurant's fault if I'm not aware of what a true portion size is. I think that was my fault. And I finally remedied it.

I think that most people are a lot less educated about what a "portion" is, and how restaurants cook their meals. You may be more educated, and that is fine. But, especially for non-chain restaurants, it is not as easy as "pick something with healthy ingredients" - and no nutrition information is available in most non chain restaurants in America. Even if you pick something that, by the menu, is full of healthy ingredients, it may or may not have tons of added oils, butters, and etc. to push up the calorie count.
That's why I always ask them. I only learned this stuff by caring about it, by checking into it. I always KNEW butter was fattening. There's no one that could make me believe they never thought it was. I'll tell you what I DIDN'T know...was that substitutes aren't always better than the real thing. Sometimes it's best to go real, like the butter. You just have to learn to use it more sparingly. I used to have veggies swimming in it...because it's how I liked them. Not because I thought I was getting my veggies that way and it was healthy for me. But through research and learning as I went, I learned that the substitutes aren't always good for me. But I first had to CARE about it. I had to want to know.

so would i, because I dont have a sweet tooth, but post marathon fueling is all about simple carbs. Its the one time where they are necessary. Actually, I would be looking for pancakes and eggs, but heck no on bacon. I'm not saying I would have chosen stuffed ,but what is wrong with giving people INFORMATION.

You keep saying people need to take charge --its a **** of a lot easier to take charge WITH information than without.

I cant see ANY bad side effects of providing the info (except to the food industry) and loads of benefits in providing it.
Well without searching back through the posts, someone here mentioned one restaurant that did this (I believe Ruby Ts) and that it HURT their business. That's what's wrong with it. MOST people don't want that information. Those that do CAN find it if they want it is what I'm saying. If there's enough request for it, a restaurant will offer it up of their own accord without being forced into it. Sometimes I think we want to legislate way too much, and with legislating comes more legislating till we legislate ourselves into a corner sometimes. :(

I dont know HOW restaurants sneak in that much fat when we arent looking, but they do. I swear to god they have a magic fat injector that puts butter in the cells of the meat where you cant see it.
Example: RTs turkey burger wrap. It's supposed to come with mustard but often ends up with mayo and I have to repeatedly have them fix it. The low carb wrap they don't mess with. However, the burger....they coat it with dry onion soup mix. Check the cals on a package of that. That's what adds to the burger calories there. Same with chicken, they add sauces, greases, butters, etc. Veggies are usually swimming in a butter sauce. You can get the creamy cauliflower, then look at the bright yellow buttery center...at least a quarter stick of butter in there. :(

I'd have asked what goes on the fish and veggies. Those potatoes likely have more than just chives. And the asparagus may be steamed, but what are they putting on it after they pull it out of the steamer? I'm sure it wasn't bland and flavorless, right? So they're adding sauce (likely butter and sodium).

We could force every restaurant to break down their foods and supply all this information, even small mom and pop places that don't have the backup resources for this. We may succeed in putting a few of the latter out of business even. Or...we could ask what goes into the cooking so that we're aware ourselves of what we're ordering. We could be aware of the extra sauces and seasonings and order without if need be.

I'm just against forcing restaurants to adhere to this to the point that we give them no leeway for the reasons mentioned.

LLV
01-30-2007, 09:05 AM
LLV, I understood your point, I just don't agree with it. I think people DO know when something is bad, whether they want to admit it to themselves or not.

I understand what you're saying.

But I still think nutrition information would be helpful, for those of us who do know what's good and what's bad and then you go into a restaurant assuming you're ordering something healthy when it isn't.

I don't mean every single item on the menu. That wouldn't be feasible. Restaurants don't cook their dishes the exact same every time. When they're back there cooking and plopping food onto plates, they don't take the time to measure everything exactly. I know, I used to work in restaurants. I know how tough it would be to provide nutrition information for every meal. In some cases it would be nearly impossible. But maybe, like some restaurants already do, MORE restaurants could provide the nutrition information at LEAST for those dishes we assume are healthy.

For example (I may have mentioned this before) Red Lobster has a "lighthouse" menu and they provide nutrition info for their lighter fare. I don't need to see the exact nutrition information for a plate of fried clams, for example, because I already know they're bad. But when I go off to find something a little healthier, as in searching for lighter alternatives, then yes, I'd like to see approximately how many calories I'm eating.

Again, I say approximately, because it's not going to be an exact science every time. Like the tilapia, for example; a 4 oz. fillet has about 100 calories. Is the fillet going to be exactly 4 oz. every time? Of course not. But it's a rough 'estimate'. The other information, especially, that I'd like to see for restaurant fare is fat grams. Calories I'm pretty good at figuring out, just by looking at a certain food. 2-1/2 years of measuring, weighing and counting has made me an expert (haha :lol:). I can look at something and tell you about how many calories it would be. But fat is another story. Yeah, that tilapia fillet is approx. 100 calories. But what did it soak in, if anything? Marinade? Butter? Sauce of any kind? That kind of thing.

So yep, nutrition info at least for the presumably healthy foods is what we need. I really do understand your point and it's a good one. Like McDonald's, for example - they've been afraid to switch to healthy frying oil (although I read yesterday they're finally considering the plunge) in fear they'd lose customers. Because let's face it, nobody goes to a fast food restaurant to eat healthy. People LIKE the way those trans-fat-laden french fries taste, they don't WANT anything to change. And I can understand McDonald's' reluctance to switch over. I'm sure they feel they're being forced by the health nuts who DEMAND healthier fries when half of these people probably would never set foot in a McDonald's anyway. And when people walk into a restaurant for dinner, excited over getting a yummy meal, and then sit down and realize that chicken and dumplings over mashed potatoes with biscuits is 10,000 calories, they're going to lose their appetite and probably decide against ordering it.

So yes, I understand your point. So maybe a compromise - provide information for the lighter fare - for those who CHOOSE to eat the healthier foods as opposed to a 10 oz. steak and a baked potato slathered in butter and sour cream - and leave the rest alone.

rockinrobin
01-30-2007, 09:15 AM
I would have known it was bad, I just wouldn't have known it was that bad.

LLV
01-30-2007, 10:24 AM
I would have known it was bad, I just wouldn't have known it was that bad.

Exactly ;)

rockinrobin
01-30-2007, 10:43 AM
Exactly ;)

Yup. It's really a no brainer. Why the heck NOT have the info? Why? Why? Why?

almostheaven
01-30-2007, 10:43 AM
So yep, nutrition info at least for the presumably healthy foods is what we need. I really do understand your point and it's a good one.
Yeah, I don't mind getting some info and having lighter menus. It's just the forcing all restaurants to provide it that bothers me.

Like McDonald's, for example - they've been afraid to switch to healthy frying oil (although I read yesterday they're finally considering the plunge) in fear they'd lose customers. Because let's face it, nobody goes to a fast food restaurant to eat healthy. People LIKE the way those trans-fat-laden french fries taste, they don't WANT anything to change.
LOL One (Burger King maybe?) changed years ago, changed the oil they fried the french fries in. Hubby used to always get a burger and fries. Now he only gets burgers. He lost his taste for fries after they "messed them up". :dizzy:

JayEll
01-30-2007, 11:11 AM
When I originally made the suggestion, I was thinking that only the big chains should be required to provide nutrition information on the menu. Smaller, local restaurants where they don't have a set menu would be hard pressed to come up with the information, and they have enough problems competing.

Yes, you can eat poorly at smaller restaurants as well--but the big chains are the ones making so much money from offering supersizes and "sabotage foods."

I agree--most of us know those foods are bad, but we don't really know HOW bad until we look. Like those small fries I mentioned at BK.

Jay

LLV
01-30-2007, 11:15 AM
Yeah, I don't mind getting some info and having lighter menus. It's just the forcing all restaurants to provide it that bothers me.

Well, that's true. I guess the only thing we can do is request it. But no, I don't believe they should be forced to do it.


LOL One (Burger King maybe?) changed years ago, changed the oil they fried the french fries in. Hubby used to always get a burger and fries. Now he only gets burgers. He lost his taste for fries after they "messed them up". :dizzy:

Not sure if they changed the oil or not, but I remember when they changed their fries. From regular fries to batter-dipped. But still, according to nutrition info, McDonald's fries are even worse.

A large BK fry has 500 calories and 28 grams of fat (trans fat 6).

A large McDonald's fry has 570 calories and 30 grams of fat (trans fat 8).

mandalinn82
01-30-2007, 11:41 AM
What about requiring that all restaurants be able to tell you the ingredients of the food? Anyone disagree with that? Not only for allergy purposes, but so we know that those potatoes were soaked in oil, or the "steamed" asparagus coated in a butter sauce. Even mom and pop outfits should be able to say what is in the food, and posting ingredients on menus would make it much easier to make substitutions or requests (ie - I see there is butter included in the asparagus - any way we could leave that out and serve it plain?)

I still think that people have no idea how much oil/butter goes into their food, but I realize that mom and pop operations don't have the funds or scientific resources so that they can run the calorie counts. So we compromise - we make it so there can't be any sneaky calorie sources in the food (like butter sauce on the steamed asparagus, or starch on the salad greens) by requiring a list of ingredients at the very least.

I mean, it took me three weeks (THREE WEEKS) to find out from applebees whether their WW desserts had aspartame or saccharine. We may not need to legislate that people need to know EXACTLY how many calories they are eating, but to allow restaurants to not have available, EVEN WHEN YOU ASK, the ingredients of a food item? I think its ridiculous.

LLV
01-30-2007, 11:41 AM
I agree--most of us know those foods are bad, but we don't really know HOW bad until we look. Like those small fries I mentioned at BK.

Just do like I do, steal a few of someone else's, lol.

LLV
01-30-2007, 11:44 AM
What about requiring that all restaurants be able to tell you the ingredients of the food? Anyone disagree with that?

Nope! I do that anyway.

Like one place we went for dinner had "special baked potato" that came with the fish and the rice, which was presumably healthy. I asked the waiter what made the potato so special and he said it was topped with bacon and cheddar cheese.

So much for it being special, lol.

healthytoad
01-30-2007, 11:46 AM
hmmm restaurants owners can't figure out how to use the internet to find out nutrition information in food?? The would have to if they put it in a bottle or box..why not on a plate? The information is free. The amounts they use can't vary that much or they would have no inventory control. I don't see how it would be such a burden for restaurant to offer cal, fat, carb, and protein information. They might have to say it is an aproximation, but then so are all nutrition labels. I run a small business. I know businesses are required to do all kinds of things that are far more expensive and time consuming and have far less benefit. Offering nutrition information would not put any restaurant out of business.

aphil
01-30-2007, 11:54 AM
I don't think that they are saying that small businesses CAN'T do it, but it is harder for them to. Also, lots of mom & pop restaurants and truck stop restaurants don't always have the same menu, like at McDonalds, so it isn't like they would have to calculate the info ONCE and be done with it.

mandalinn82
01-30-2007, 11:58 AM
There was a member on here who had calculated for the coffee shop she owned all of the nutrition information...I wish I remember who it was...but she talked about how hard it was to get information from her suppliers and etc...if your menu changes, it would be really difficult to keep up! I understand mom and pop restaurants not being able to do it...but they also could probably at least tell me WHAT is going into the food.

ennay
01-30-2007, 12:27 PM
but it would get easier with time too...if restaurants need to do it, then suppliers would. And I think there would be levels - mega chains might have to go the certified route, smaller places could go the software route. Nobody is saying wham do it instantly.

absolutely ingredients should be available

Luminous
01-30-2007, 12:31 PM
Chain restaurants aren't going to put nutrition information for all their items on their menus because, as seen in the Ruby Tuesday's situation, when the information IS public, people are shocked. Probably they thought "Wow, Ruby Tuesday's is really unhealthy. I'll go to T.J. McApplebee's instead," not considering that the T.J. McApplebee's menu would show similar counts.

Without being legislated to do so, any restaurant that puts full nutrition info in the menu is just sticking their neck out to be chopped off. I'm not normally a fan of legislating things like this, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to require chains/franchises to provide full nutrition information either on the menu or in booklet form that a patron can request. Mom and pops and even small/local chains could be left off the hook, so as not to overburden them. But Applebee's? **** yeah, I think they should HAVE to provide nutrition information in print form.

It's a public health issue, as much as cleanliness and freshness rules are.

nelie
01-30-2007, 12:37 PM
One thing I was shocked to learn recently is Red Robin doesn't provide their nutritional information anywhere. I really think that they should have it on their website but they don't. It is kind of scary since they are one of my favorite "regular" restaurants.

rockinrobin
01-30-2007, 02:18 PM
Aren't we supposed to be living in the information era? It might take some time to get the ball rolling, but it is doable and eventually, years down the road people and restaurants wouldn't think twice about it. It would just be "what's done". Imagine buying a packaged loaf of bread or a jar of peanut butter without the info on it? No, of course not. It would and could eventually be the same for restaurant items.

nelie
01-30-2007, 02:30 PM
Robin,
Go to another country and often they don't have the nutritional information on packaging, even products that have it here in the US like Coke. You might not even get an ingredients list. I think we are lucky that we do have the information printed.

Tara D
01-30-2007, 02:35 PM
I don't think it should be on the menu, because, let's face it, sometimes people DON'T want to know, and they should have that choice, too! However, a pamphlet that you could request and online access would be nice. I like the places that do that already.

rockinrobin
01-30-2007, 02:45 PM
Nelie, that's one of the reasons I choose to live here. ;) We have many things that other countries don't. We are the leaders of the free world. Along with that comes some higher expectations.

midwife
01-30-2007, 02:46 PM
I find that restaurants who do not post their info online probably have something to hide. Some people make different decisions armed with info. I had some tiramisu from Olive Garden at home once. I knew it was high calorie. I ate half the serving thinking that the whole serving might be 600-700 calores, so half of that worked into my day was okay.

Later I looked up the calories....Ummm, try 1500 calories per serving.

I'm fairly educated with nutrition, cooking, etc., but how in the world are 1500 calories packed into something that size? A chunk of butter would have been less.

Companies do not want the calories on the menu because it would turn people off. Some restaurants prepare food with methods and ingredients that would not be used by a household chef. Anyone who has read Fast Food Nation might recall the debacle that occurred when it was revealed that McDonald's fries were not vegetarian.

Companies will go as far as laws will let them...and sometimes the public's health is risked along the way.

Information is power...Not everyone has internet access (I know, shocking isn't it?).

rockinrobin
01-30-2007, 02:48 PM
I also don't need it on the menu,I could see where that would be a distraction to some. I think that it should be available upon request.

healthytoad
01-30-2007, 03:07 PM
Most menus list how much things cost.. I find that very distracting. :)

ennay
01-30-2007, 05:30 PM
I agree, and it would take a lot of space. I think it SHOULD be printed "nutrition information available, please ask your server" so that people know they CAN see it if they want to.

Having looked up a lot of website info, I have to say I like the manner in which domino's presents theirs. I've seen a lot of restaurants make it difficult to calculate what you actually eat or say stuff like "due to the number of combinations possible we only provide information for our most popular choices" Like they make the assumption that you will have the dish with cornbread and coleslaw even though you could have chosen salad and zucchini as sides.

Dominos lists everything separately. Crust choice X. Sauce and Cheese, each topping separately. Pick your poison and add them up.

almostheaven
01-30-2007, 11:15 PM
I mean, it took me three weeks (THREE WEEKS) to find out from applebees whether their WW desserts had aspartame or saccharine. We may not need to legislate that people need to know EXACTLY how many calories they are eating, but to allow restaurants to not have available, EVEN WHEN YOU ASK, the ingredients of a food item? I think its ridiculous.
I asked for info about something once, can't recall what, and the Applebee's waitress had no idea. She wasn't offering to find out either, so I made it a point that I needed to know. She had to (gasp!) go read the ingredients on the packaging. Yup, the nutrition and ingredients ARE on the packaging, just as they are in stores. You just have to be adamant about getting that info, MAKE them go look.

I just ordered the grilled chicken with garden veggies and a side salad at Bob Evans today. I asked if there was a sauce on the veggies. She swore there wasn't, but when I got them, there WAS a buttery sauce. Now, I COULD have requested it be corrected, another serving leaving off the sauce, but I had plenty of calorie room today and wasn't that worried about it. But if I truly wanted the butter off, I could have had it done. I can tell by the taste if there's something added or if they're plain cooked veggies.

I don't think that they are saying that small businesses CAN'T do it, but it is harder for them to. Also, lots of mom & pop restaurants and truck stop restaurants don't always have the same menu, like at McDonalds, so it isn't like they would have to calculate the info ONCE and be done with it.
Exactly. I used to go to a small place in Charleston called "Mose's Strand". They had specials every day, some items were a once in a while deal or a special occasion that they didn't have again, or at least not for a long time. And they didn't always use a recipe. The place was run by elderly women on social security...Mose would only hire those on SS to work as his cooks and waitresses. One was 92...Mrs. Smith...or Smitty as she was known. :) They cooked from scratch, the way grandma would do. They didn't measure. So coming up with the nutrition of "a pinch" or "a dash" would be near impossible and tax those poor lady's brains something awful. So yes, if it were required, I betcha Mose would've closed his doors before going to all that trouble. He was well past retirement anyway, he'd have sold off or something. But we'd have effectively put him out of business.

One thing I was shocked to learn recently is Red Robin doesn't provide their nutritional information anywhere. I really think that they should have it on their website but they don't. It is kind of scary since they are one of my favorite "regular" restaurants.
Never heard of the place, but was curious to see if I could find any of that info online somewhere. You're right, not only do they not provide it, but seems they avoid it. If you haven't seen this recent conversation, you'll probably enjoy the read: http://consumerist.com/consumer/complaints/red-robin-spins-bull****-when-pressed-to-reveal-nutritional-info-229376.php

Robin,
Go to another country and often they don't have the nutritional information on packaging, even products that have it here in the US like Coke. You might not even get an ingredients list. I think we are lucky that we do have the information printed.
WOW! I didn't know that. So now I'm wondering. WHY does the country that DOES list that info have the highest rate of obesity? There's something to ponder.

Most menus list how much things cost.. I find that very distracting. :)
LOL And then there's my brother, who went to Ruths Criss (sp?) and thought OH NO when he saw a menu with no prices, patrons in black ties and no kids. And here he was out for dinner with his wife and their new baby, in blue jeans. :D

mandalinn82
01-30-2007, 11:38 PM
I asked for info about something once, can't recall what, and the Applebee's waitress had no idea. She wasn't offering to find out either, so I made it a point that I needed to know. She had to (gasp!) go read the ingredients on the packaging. Yup, the nutrition and ingredients ARE on the packaging, just as they are in stores. You just have to be adamant about getting that info, MAKE them go look.

I WAS adamant! I asked to speak with a manager, and I asked to see the box food came in. I made a big fat stink about it and still no ingredients. So I don't know what else I might have done at that point, other than possibly storming the kitchen, fork in hand, and raiding the freezer.

sweet_talker
01-31-2007, 12:59 AM
My goodness, what a heated debate, and I really don't have too much to add except:

- I don't know about the U.S. (I live in Canada), but the Starbucks' here have pamphlets listing nutrition information inside the store. I know they don't exactly have a menu, but I like that its readily available but not in your face.

- I want to know the nutrition of foods in restaurants (especially chains) but I don't think it's fair to the restaurants to have to prominently display it in their menus. What I do think is fair (to the restaurant and its patrons) is that, like Starbucks, they have information pamphlets/brochure like thingys, that are readily available for the consumer. They could even make it like those daily special menus that some restaurants slip in. :halffull:

nelie
01-31-2007, 08:36 AM
Never heard of the place, but was curious to see if I could find any of that info online somewhere. You're right, not only do they not provide it, but seems they avoid it. If you haven't seen this recent conversation, you'll probably enjoy the read: http://consumerist.com/consumer/complaints/red-robin-spins-bull****-when-pressed-to-reveal-nutritional-info-229376.php


Red Robin is one of those comfort places for me because I have fond memories of going there with friends. I really like their salads and their burgers are good as well although I'm more careful about eating their burgers these days. They are in California, Colorado, Virginia and Maryland (and other places but those are the states I've actually eaten at their restaurants).

When I did search for their calories in a salad I ate, I searched and I found that website.


WOW! I didn't know that. So now I'm wondering. WHY does the country that DOES list that info have the highest rate of obesity? There's something to ponder.


I'm not sure since when we have had ingredients and nutritional information listed but it is legislated that we have to have it. I believe listing trans fats is the newest law in that regard and that is one reason that manufacturers are hurrying up to get rid of trans fats in their foods.

Also from visiting other countries, I can tell you why I think we have the highest rate of obesity. People walk more in other countries and people eat less in other countries. I was in switzerland and I decided to splurge on a coke (I love the taste of Coke in other countries), and I received an 8 oz glass of coke. When I finished it, that was it. There was no 20 oz glass in which I got unlimited refills. I swear every trip outside of this country ends up with me losing weight because my eating habits change as well as I end up getting in more walking than I normally do.

jillybean720
01-31-2007, 09:06 AM
mmm...Red Robin...:doh:

I love Red Robin's food (hate that it's always so darn loud in their restauratns and that I always seem to get sat at one of the way-too-close-together banquet tables, but that's another topic...). I know when I go into a Red Robin that I'm not going to have a perfectly healthy or low-cal meal. However, I would like to be able to figure out how many calories I'm saving by having their grilled chicken burger instead of beef, ordering a side salad instead of bottomless steak fries, ordering my sandwich without cheese, etc. I know it will still be higher in fat/calories than if I ate at home, but knowing what they use and how they prepare their food makes a difference. If they're grilling their chicken on a flat iron grill with a full ladle of butter, then it may not be any healthier than the beef patty, ya know?

Before reading this whole thread and the one to which almostheaven linked (http://consumerist.com/consumer/comp...nfo-229376.php (http://consumerist.com/consumer/comp...nfo-229376.php)), I was pretty much on the side of, "hey, personal responsibility--look it up and figure it out yourself," but the more I read and listen and think about it, the more I find myself leaning more toward wishing restaurants would provide their nutritional information (especially after reading Red Robin's total BS response to they guy who asked about nutritional info). I agree that it doesn't need to be right smack in the menus, but it should at least be available to those who request it. I've been to Red Robin multiple times in multiple states (Connecticut, Maryland, Virginia...), and honestly, their menus does not change drastically or frequently enough for them to not be able to figure out the nutrition facts.

I would understand not requiring the info for seasonal or "limited time" items. But for the regular stuff, even I figure out the nutritional info at home for recipes I make frequently. If I can do it at home, why would it be so hard for them to do it at a restaurant?

almostheaven
01-31-2007, 09:39 AM
I WAS adamant! I asked to speak with a manager, and I asked to see the box food came in. I made a big fat stink about it and still no ingredients. So I don't know what else I might have done at that point, other than possibly storming the kitchen, fork in hand, and raiding the freezer.
Hmmm, I dunno then. The waitress said she'd go check the packaging after I asked her to check with the cook/manager/etc. Can't recall if it was an ingredient or what I wanted to know, but she got me the info. You should check into a different Applebees...and complain on their website. Heck, I've complained numerous times on Ruby Ts (T added so we don't have that confusion again LOL) site about how they've mucked up their smart eating choices and salad bar when they removed all the fruits. No response yet. Maybe I'm the only one they're hearing from? :(

Red Robin is one of those comfort places for me because I have fond memories of going there with friends. I really like their salads and their burgers are good as well although I'm more careful about eating their burgers these days. They are in California, Colorado, Virginia and Maryland (and other places but those are the states I've actually eaten at their restaurants).
They sound like a Fuddruckers. I've lived in VA (VA Beach) and have family there, but I'd still never heard of the place. I'm a bit surprised at myself, I used to LOVE burgers, and I do still get one occasionally, but they don't seem to have the same effect. I used to eat them nearly daily. But I seem to prefer getting a turkey burger wrap than a regular hamburger these days.

I would understand not requiring the info for seasonal or "limited time" items. But for the regular stuff, even I figure out the nutritional info at home for recipes I make frequently. If I can do it at home, why would it be so hard for them to do it at a restaurant?
I've done this myself...once. It was waaaaaaaay more hassle than it was worth. I had to get the nutritional info from every ingredient (about 10), THEN figure them up by amounts used. If nutrition was listed for a tbsp, and I used a tsp, I had to go to the computer to figure out the conversion. I THINK I got it right, but I wouldn't swear on it.

ennay
01-31-2007, 12:05 PM
I would understand not requiring the info for seasonal or "limited time" items. But for the regular stuff, even I figure out the nutritional info at home for recipes I make frequently. If I can do it at home, why would it be so hard for them to do it at a restaurant?

I KNOW, I mean I do it for at least 8-10 recipes a month just for my own use. It isnt that hard with even a semi decent software package. I usually get all the recipes for the food coop done in one sitting. Maybe an hour for 8-10 recipes? And that is including if I have to look up a few ingredients on the web.

I dont even care if they put some kind of disclaimer (actual values may differ due to variations in supplier, cooking variations, etc.) to cover their legal butts. Just gimme a ballpark people.

Also from visiting other countries, I can tell you why I think we have the highest rate of obesity. People walk more in other countries and people eat less in other countries. I was in switzerland and I decided to splurge on a coke (I love the taste of Coke in other countries), and I received an 8 oz glass of coke. When I finished it, that was it. There was no 20 oz glass in which I got unlimited refills. I swear every trip outside of this country ends up with me losing weight because my eating habits change as well as I end up getting in more walking than I normally do.

YES you just dont get offered these kinds of portions sizes in Europe. A LARGE soda is 8 oz, and its an occasional treat, not an all day long thing. Lattes/Mochas are considered a large snack you would get once in a while, not an after dinner drink or something to drink all day. You go to a restaurant there and you'll actually be served 4-6oz portions of meat, not 24 oz ribeyes.

Things are changing over there, but hopefully they will learn from our bad example and not get as portion crazy

mandalinn82
01-31-2007, 12:11 PM
I've done this myself...once. It was waaaaaaaay more hassle than it was worth. I had to get the nutritional info from every ingredient (about 10), THEN figure them up by amounts used. If nutrition was listed for a tbsp, and I used a tsp, I had to go to the computer to figure out the conversion. I THINK I got it right, but I wouldn't swear on it.

There are plenty of us here who do this every day to get our calorie counts, and it isn't really all that hard when you get used to it.

Maybe I'll volunteer as a calorie counter for a mom and pop organization...give me your recipes, I'll give you approximate nutrition...after all, its something I do every single day for myself, and it really isn't all that difficult once you get some practice. :-)

jillybean720
01-31-2007, 12:16 PM
There are plenty of us here who do this every day to get our calorie counts, and it isn't really all that hard when you get used to it.
I agree...I would say I figure out a recipe's nutritional info at least once a week (I'm not much of an experimental cooker during the week, so I usually only have multi-ingredient recipes on weekends). It's not that difficult for me to jump into my Fitday, plug in the amounts of each ingredient, and then add them together. If the label of my ingredient doesn't match what Fitday says, then I just enter my ingredient as a Custom Food.

There are actually recipe calculators out there that will add it all up for you when you enter the amounts of each ingredient--I just am comfortable with Fitday, so that's how I do it.

rockinrobin
01-31-2007, 12:24 PM
There are plenty of things in life that are hard. Which makes them all the more worthwhile. Like weightloss. That aside, this is not all that difficult. It is very doable. And should be done. Eventually it would become second nature to the restaurant industry. Restaurants have to deal with the horrible task of keeping a clean kitchen (hopefully) and inspections. It's difficult, they do it. There's a whole slew of things that are difficult about running a restaurant or any business for that matter. You do what needs to be done and that's that. IMO ;)

AquaWarlock
01-31-2007, 01:34 PM
I agree with mandalinn's idea a few posts back that while non-chain restaurants shouldn't be obligated to provide nutritional information for all their dishes, they should at least be able to tell you what ingredients it contains and how the foods are prepared. Again, as voiced before, it's a serious concern for those with food allergies.

As I noted in another thread, chain restaurants prepare everything consistently in portions & ingredients used and therefore, able to (and SHOULD) provide pretty clear nutritional estimates of their dishes -- but mom 'n pop, non-chain places don't, particularly those that switch out their menus every so often (I know & LOVE a restaurant nearby where the chef makes a menu out of what she acquires from the local farmer's market that very day! Imagine if she has to spend hours mulling over the nutritional contents of obscure yet flavorful local ingredients instead of creating the unique dinner menu around them.)

QuilterInVA
01-31-2007, 01:39 PM
You are trying to kill yourself when you choose these. Bob Evans is following the trend of IHOP and Denny's - they sold well there so they are jumping on the band wagon. Restaurants quickly remove food that doesn't sell from their menu. Why do we continue to buy this stuff...we know it is bad for us. We demand it so we get it and now 60% of the population is overweight. We need to police ourselves, not expect restaurants and food suppliers to do it for us. They provide what sells. When they tried salads and fruit, most of it didn't sell for the fast food - people wanted bigger burgers and now we have the triple whopper!

nelie
01-31-2007, 01:50 PM
Quadruple whopper I believe :)

mandalinn82
01-31-2007, 02:31 PM
(I know & LOVE a restaurant nearby where the chef makes a menu out of what she acquires from the local farmer's market that very day! Imagine if she has to spend hours mulling over the nutritional contents of obscure yet flavorful local ingredients instead of creating the unique dinner menu around them.)

I don't know if anyone else has noted this, but after I eat a meal at a nicer restaurant, one that makes the menu every day from fresh ingredients and focuses on quality, I never really gain weight (much weight, at least, and none of it really if you take into consideration the water weight that flushes out in a day or two). I believe this is for a couple reasons...first, these meals are more "special" to me - good food, fresh food, prepared well means a special meal, and they generally cost more so they can't be an "everyday" option. And not only that, good quality food doesn't require a whole ton of extra "stuff" to make it tasty! Also, it takes a smaller portion of really good quality food to satisfy. Compare this to your average chain restaurant, which is probably not starting from whole, good quality foods (there are exceptions, of course) and need to add all kinds of crazy things to get the food to taste good and be satisfying.

Restaurants that use fresh, whole ingredients also tend to have smaller portions overall, and I've found they generally have healthy options that sound appetizing!

Still - I really don't think there is any excuse not to have ingredients available - and most mom and pops I've been to have been happy to provide them for me. It is the big chains where I've had the most trouble getting ingredient info, which is sad because they are the most likely to actually be able to have consist ingredient information.

MariaMaria
01-31-2007, 03:00 PM
Most of your Mom and Pops must speak fluent English. Mine don't. What's "some cornstarch, about that much" in Mandarin? In Hindi?

Mami
01-31-2007, 03:11 PM
I justed wanted to pipe in my two cents (or whatever its worth): I just do not see the difference between requiring nutritional information on labels and on restaurant food (though I can see the logic of mom & pop exemptions). Almostheaven, I'm curious whether you're glad you have the tools to do all this research to know what you're eating? In other words, are you glad that nutrition labels are required on food at the store? Wouldnt it save you tons of time and wasted calories on guessing to just have the calorie amount handy at the restaurant (whether on the menu or on a printed brochure that you can request?). Do you own shares in a fast food place or something? Or why are you so adamant that us consumers NOT know what we are eating?? Knowing what we are eating is actually the very HEIGHT of personal responsibility.

mandalinn82
01-31-2007, 04:08 PM
Most of your Mom and Pops must speak fluent English. Mine don't. What's "some cornstarch, about that much" in Mandarin? In Hindi?

I could tell you what it is in mandarin, or at least find out. Most likely, though, if you are in the US, the restaurant owner is probably speaking cantonese, not mandarin - that is what I've run into anyway in California. But boy, do I digress.

I don't think its unreasonable for restaurants to have to be able to tell you ingredients (not amounts, just ingredients), no matter what language they speak naturally. This isn't just a consideration for health issues...there are people out there with SERIOUS food allergies who literally cannot order anything without getting a list of ingredients first, so those restaurants have to have a way to handle it.

rockinrobin
01-31-2007, 04:15 PM
For the life of me I can't see what the big debate is about here. How in the world can anyone justify NOT being given simple information? We are talking about a few ingredients. That's all. Not asking anyone to give away some state secrets. No need to know anyone's ATM codes or anything like that. Just a few ingredients. You would think in this day and age it would be mandatory by now. Hopefully one day it will.

Mami
01-31-2007, 04:20 PM
LOL Robin! I find the "personal responsibility" libertarian types are often very against listing calories or ingredients on menus, but honestly if people are not educated about foods, or the restaurant hides calories (like butter or oil in our steamed veggies or grilled chicken), how in the world are we ever supposed to take the personal responsibility they so often speak of? We can only take responsibility when we are armed with all the pertinent information.

mandalinn82
01-31-2007, 04:25 PM
Oh and believe me, I am one of the "personal responsibility" people. But its exactly as Mami said - you can't take responsible actions if the information isn't available to you. Once the information is readily available, us "libertarian personal responsibility types" will have a leg to stand on in the argument that losing weight is about making better choices, and people are choosing not to do so. Right now, people aren't making an active choice either way...they are not CHOOSING to get more information, nor are they CHOOSING to ignore available information. The information isn't available. Now, if those same people saw that the information was available and CHOSE not to look at it or order according to it, well then that is a personal responsiblity issue...a conscious choice not to act on available information. No available information = no choice not to act on it.

There is no one "personal responsibility" libertarian type :-)

rockinrobin
01-31-2007, 04:36 PM
I am all for protecting people's rights and not overstepping boundaries. But I think in this instance, the rights of the public CLEARLY outweighs the rights of the restaurant owner. Again, we're not asking for state secrets. It food and potentially harmful food as well. Someone could argue that putting 1/2 cup of oil in a salad is indeed detrimental to someone's health. You're serving us the stuff, aren't we entitled to know exactly what it is we are being served? It is going into our bodies. We are eating it. It is going through our digestive system. If you take your child to the pediatrician for a vaccination and ask what's in it, the doctor will tell you. When you buy a bottle of shampoo the igredients are listed. Shampoo. Shampoo. Is it really so ridiculous to want to know what you're ingesting?

almostheaven
01-31-2007, 07:59 PM
Almostheaven, I'm curious whether you're glad you have the tools to do all this research to know what you're eating? In other words, are you glad that nutrition labels are required on food at the store? Wouldnt it save you tons of time and wasted calories on guessing to just have the calorie amount handy at the restaurant (whether on the menu or on a printed brochure that you can request?). Do you own shares in a fast food place or something? Or why are you so adamant that us consumers NOT know what we are eating?? Knowing what we are eating is actually the very HEIGHT of personal responsibility.
They help, but I could do it without them. I know the food pyramid, I know lean meats from fatty meats. Even if I didn't calorie count, I could eat better than I used to just by knowing the basics about food that I knew all along but never cared about before. Even when I started to lose weight, I didn't focus on the nutrition labels. I started buying skinless chicken instead of ground beef, more fish instead of steak, etc.

It would save time, of course, but at the expense of someone else for me to police my own diet? That's not me. If they WANT to give it, good for them. If enough people wanted it, they'd do it without being forced. That we have to force them should say something in itself. :(

No, I own no shares in anything, much less fast food. And I'm not adamant that we not know what we're eating. I'm adamant that we don't force business owners to provide us with all the details of what they're preparing that WE are ordering...of our own accord. What we like, what we order, is what they sell. We have no room to complain about it later. We can ask them for the info. They will either accomodate us or not. And we will either go elsewhere...or not.

MariaMaria
01-31-2007, 08:06 PM
The public has every right to cook for themselves.

Restaurant going is voluntary.

If you don't like the information X restaurant provides for you, don't eat there.

JayEll
01-31-2007, 08:57 PM
Hmmm, you're right, MariaMaria! It's all a matter of choice. And since we all seem to agree that we aren't going to go to Bob Evans and order those pancakes, maybe we're all worrying about those hypothetical "other people" out there... LOL!

I will say that I now know so much more about foods, having been visiting 3FC and getting so much information, and thinking about things differently.

Jay

RachelGoren
01-31-2007, 11:00 PM
Do you know why restaurants won't provide nutritional information? Because for most menus, the page would be blank. "Sorry, there is no nutrition in this crap!"

I thought about that the other day when I was trying to compile calorie and fat charts for my site, and went to Burger King's site and clicked on their "nutritional information" page. Nothing came up. I wondered if it was on purpose.

Seriously, I heard once that a restaurant (Applebee's? Red Robin? Chili's? One of those...) put nutritional information on their menu and suddenly their sales dropped dramatically. Once they took the calorie/fat count off, sales went back up. That tells you something, doesn't it?

jen1121
01-31-2007, 11:02 PM
that honestly should be illegal

veggielover
02-01-2007, 12:20 AM
The public has every right to cook for themselves.

Restaurant going is voluntary.

If you don't like the information X restaurant provides for you, don't eat there.



Yeah, restaurant going is optional. For anyone who is terribly paranoid about food, its usually recommended to bring your own food rather than to eat out. Although eating out is generally for enjoyment, places that sell items for CONVENIENCE usually have their info posted on the internet. I believe some even carry pamphlets. But if you're asking a small business type restaurant, they might not be able to calculate calories and such due to their limiting resources. McDOnalds could shell out the money to do that, but the small owners don't. Personally, I wouldn't ask anyone at the chinese food place what goes into the food, and for the italian places, unless you've got an allergy to something, I dont think it helps too much to ask. One lady asked before while I was at a top notch brick oven pizza place and the waiter suggested that she get something else if she was worrying about calories.

i guess I never really had a problem guessing calories- when I tasted anything fattening or too rich, I enjoy a little bit of it and take the rest home with me, if at a restaurant.

midwife
02-01-2007, 09:10 AM
I wouldn't equate a desire to be educated with being terribly paranoid. Chain restaurants that do not post their info are hiding something. Their profits go down when they are up-front with the consumer, as previously noted in this thread.

I suppose it boils down to whether you think obesity is a personal problem or a societal problem. Some people are able to grasp control of their weights, most seem to be unable to do so. This is shown by the vast number of obese people + the number of people who lose and regain. Do we leave this problem at the foot and the responsibility of the individual? Or do we look at social measures to educate and hopefully alter people's decisions?

I tend to be a more individual-responsibility minded person, but I also appreciate social interventions and how those affect health choices. Also, we must remember that obesity comes with a price tag. Who is paying for the sequelae of people's choices? In the US, we all are. Diabetes, htn, hyperlipidemia, we are paying for it through our taxes and our own increased medical insurance premiums.

We pay for people's other choices too...skin cancers, lung cancer, tobacco cessation courses, smokers' children's asthma and ear infections, drug rehab, Hep C treatment, and on ad nauseum.

If common sense were so common, we would not see many of these problems (yes I know there are multiple causes for each of these issues, including obesity).

How do we help stem the tide of obesity? Personal responsibility? I look around my city....ummm that approach is not working so well!

I don't have the answers, other than to repeat that knowledge is power and restaurants that hide their info are likely doing it for profits. At least they pay taxes, too, and will help the people shoulder the health care cost burden.

almostheaven
02-01-2007, 09:43 AM
The public has every right to cook for themselves.

Restaurant going is voluntary.

If you don't like the information X restaurant provides for you, don't eat there.
I think you've stated what I've been trying to say much better.

My grandpa is a clean freak. I mean, for as long as I've known him, the man BLEACHES his dishes before he washes them....and PUTS THEM IN THE DISHWASHER! :dizzy: :dizzy: :dizzy:

"Did you warsh?" is a favorite saying at his house. You will "warsh" at least 50 times before you leave there. If you sit on the couch for 5 minutes and don't touch anything then get up and go towards the kitchen, he's on you like white on rice.

For this reason, he doesn't eat at many restaurants. He's VERY particular about which ones he'll eat at, and he's NEVER ordered any buffet where other people have had their hands.

Now I guess he could ask that we require restaurants to make sure that ALL customers wash their hands, to do a sniff test (like he does with us LOL) on every employee that comes back from the rest room, to force their employees to wash again everytime they touch a counter or pick up someone's dirty plate from their table or whatever...or...grandpa can do like he's done for over 60 years...not eat there. If he doesn't like their cleanliness, he's free to go somewhere else, and he does. This is how he makes his wishes known. Some people though don't care that much on the cleanliness and still go there, that's why some of those places can remain in business. Some people don't care about their nutrition. That's why places that don't provide it are still in business.

rockinrobin
02-01-2007, 09:58 AM
Having workers wash there hands after touching a counter is NOT a rational and reasonable request (sorry gramps). Knowing what one is putting down your throat and into your digestive tract IS.

nelie
02-01-2007, 10:04 AM
I would disagree slightly with restaurant going is voluntary. For many people who travel for business, it is a necessity. You are given a hotel room, usually without a fridge but you could get one if you wanted but a big part of being on a business trip is eating out unfortunately. You might be able to make due with breakfast in your room but the other meals are generally out. I usually get sick of restaurant food when I'm on a business trip but I try to make the best choices possible.

Beach Patrol
02-01-2007, 10:12 AM
All I know is that PORTION SIZES have gotten completely out of hand in the past couple decades. So anytime I go out to eat, I get a to-go box right away & put half of the meal in there. I rarely, if ever, have dessert (usually too full!) and rarely, if ever, have an appetizer or glass of wine. I almost always drink water w/lemon, & usually order a nice "healthy" fish or chicken meal.

So I may still be eating around 600 or so calories, but that's way better than 1500-2500 with a full meal, and it IS still healthy (I prefer some kind of baked fish, & steamed veggies) and I am a satisfied customer. I don't go out to eat that often, so I figure it is okay to treat myself once in a while.

I do watch calories & portions over-all. I have learned to stop BEFORE I feel "full". I just don't want to be my own food **** when I'm trying to have a nice meal out.

mandalinn82
02-01-2007, 12:09 PM
I would disagree slightly with restaurant going is voluntary. For many people who travel for business, it is a necessity.

I'll second that. Even with the best of planning, if you are meeting with a client at that client's offices and they take you out to lunch, you are eating what is offered. If you travel for business 2 or more times a month, that is a LOT of restaurant food! When I travel, I usually manage to eat breakfast at my hotel or find a healthy option on the way...after that, though, I am eating out at restaurants with clients and coworkers, and it would be threatening to my job to bow out of those types of meetings. I work in an industry where going out to dinner/drinks is an essential part of business negotiations, so restaurant going is DEFINITELY not an optional thing.

Beach Patrol
02-01-2007, 12:35 PM
I'll second that. Even with the best of planning, if you are meeting with a client at that client's offices and they take you out to lunch, you are eating what is offered.

... I work in an industry where going out to dinner/drinks is an essential part of business negotiations, so restaurant going is DEFINITELY not an optional thing.

Absolutely. However, what you CHOOSE to eat at any given restaurant is by definition, OPTIONAL. If nothing else on the menu is on anyone's given diet, there is always the good ol'faithful SALAD. Take your dressing on the side, & load it up with fresh cut veggies... dip your fork into the dressing, don't pour it over your salad - that's NEVER bad.

Then again, who do you know that wants to eat a salad every time they go out to eat, right? ;) Still - there are always options. It's the only thing that keeps me sane, yo! :D

jillybean720
02-01-2007, 12:55 PM
Then again, who do you know that wants to eat a salad every time they go out to eat, right? ;) Still - there are always options. It's the only thing that keeps me sane, yo! :D
And isn't it easier to choose a healthy option (with some variety) when the information is available to those who care to see it? Maybe you would see that some of the seemingly healthier salads are actually horrible for you (as has been my personal experience), or maybe you'll see that something that sounded absolutely off limits isn't really as bad as you'd feared. What's wrong with being able to make a more informed decision?

almostheaven
02-01-2007, 11:03 PM
I would disagree slightly with restaurant going is voluntary. For many people who travel for business, it is a necessity.
But it is voluntary on which restaurant you choose. If you want to know the nutrition and you know that Applebees has the WW menu with the nutrition listed, and that Ruby Ts will give you a Smart Eating Guide upon request, as well as others, why would you choose to go to say Red Robin, knowing they won't? Or stay once you've asked and they refuse?

callystia
02-01-2007, 11:49 PM
Actually, many times it is NOT voluntary; your company chooses the location for you. My husband just ran into that very problem, during a week-long stay in Long Beach, the poor baby.

mandalinn82
02-01-2007, 11:53 PM
But it is voluntary on which restaurant you choose. If you want to know the nutrition and you know that Applebees has the WW menu with the nutrition listed, and that Ruby Ts will give you a Smart Eating Guide upon request, as well as others, why would you choose to go to say Red Robin, knowing they won't?

Because your client picks the location, or your boss picks the location, or you ask for someplace in particular but get outvoted. It isn't always a choice.

ennay
02-02-2007, 12:47 AM
Thats why it should be required not optional. Restaurants who have the info might get hurt vs. restaurants that dont. So they should all have it (at least over a certain size chain.)

Lol, or you live way out in the middle of nowhere and your choice is extremely limited by "places within a 30 minute drive that has SOMETHING on the kids menu that my daughter will eat"

rockinrobin
02-02-2007, 06:24 AM
Thats why it should be required not optional. Restaurants who have the info might get hurt vs. restaurants that dont. So they should all have it (at least over a certain size chain.)

And if they were required to have it, I bet eventually the restaurants would really and truly come up with some heart healthy foods. Now of course no one would FORCE them to do that, but in order to save business they just might have to or want to. Including Bob Evans.

You think TaraD had any idea when she started this thread that it would get almost 130 replies? ;) I mean really who would have thunk it?

aphil
02-02-2007, 07:00 AM
130 replies...

Well, I think pretty much everything, and every point that could be made about it has pretty much been stated.

:)

Can we just let this thread die out now? :lol:

Tara D
02-02-2007, 08:17 AM
No, I didn't anticipate 130 replies, but I thought that it was an interesting topic, so I figured it would lead to a discussion with a variety of opinions. Like I said a couple of pages ago, food is basically a form of medicine. If a doctor/drug company provided a non-essential medication to you just because it made you feel good, but it had terrible side effects for your health, people would scream malpractice and sue. Food goes into your body and affects how your body functions, just like medicine! Thus, I think the food industry, just like the pharmaceutical/medical industry, has a responsibility to have some ethics, and stop trying to provide more and more things that are killing people!

Although creativity is great, I just have to say I think some of the foods that we are using that creativity to make are just ABNORMAL. People have been around for thousands of years, and we are getting farther and farther away from what our ancestors ate -- real food...And it's killing us. I don't think it's "normal" to eat processed pancakes stuffed with cream cheese, trans fats, and lots of other "unhealthy" ingredients stuffed in there and on the side.

I don't think that we should take personal choice away from people, but I do think that when we serve things to people, we have to think about if we are really SERVING them. It is supposed to be the food SERVICE industry. Just because you can make more money serving something clearly unhealthy doesn't mean you should. If a doctor prescribed a medication that made you feel really good, but would lead to an early death, people would say "Take it off the market!" and start suing! Food is just like medicine...you eat it, and it affects the way your body functions!

Perhaps the food industry should channel some of that energy to create new theme giant sized burgers with mayo into creating delicious things that people will love that are closer to what our bodies would like us to have.

Like I said, I'm all for creativity, and I don't want to stifle the chefs, but some of the foods we are eating now just don't seem very normal. We've kind of forgotten what food really is.

almostheaven
02-02-2007, 10:34 AM
Because your client picks the location, or your boss picks the location, or you ask for someplace in particular but get outvoted. It isn't always a choice.
It still is to an extent. You still go there. You could suggest somewhere else. And even there, everyone has salads. You can ask they leave off all the unnecessary gunk and just give you a plate of lettuce. You won't be eating out with clients who always pick the same restaurants every day.

Thats why it should be required not optional. Restaurants who have the info might get hurt vs. restaurants that dont. So they should all have it (at least over a certain size chain.)
And if they got hurt, they'd learn to start providing it...on their own, without needing to be forced into it through unnecessary legislation trying to run every aspect of everyone's lives.

I guess I'll make that my last reply. No one is going to change my outlook on it anyway. I'm sorry. I just never did believe in Big Brother.

aphil
02-02-2007, 10:49 AM
I agree with almostheaven on this topic 100%. Personal responsibility.

No, not everyone is as knowledgable about nutrition as we are here,but as Dr. Phil told a woman who was suing a fast food joint for her daughter being obese:

"You can't tell me you didn't know cheeseburgers were fattening!" :lol:

I am maintaining a very lighthearted approach about this-for one simple reason. Some people want to jog on their treadmills and eat salads with grilled chicken...other people would rather sit on their rears and eat the stuffed pancakes-no matter if they are 1500 calories or not. It is personal decision, and personal responsibility. There is a market out there for both types of people.

As with many issues, you are darned if you do, and darned if you don't. It is almost 100% likely, that whatever your thoughts are on a subject matter, that close to half of the population are not going to agree with you. :)

Let's just agree to disagree, okay? :)