So tonight my husband took me out to Ruby Tuesdays and I was pleasantly suprised that they had the calorie count for some of their dinners.So I ordered a chicken breast dinner with 2 vegtables without any bread. The menu said it was 542 calories...when I got it the amount of chicken was huge! How close do they have to be?
If the veggies were steamed without butter, they had virtually no calories, which leaves 500 for the chicken. That could be a pretty decent sized piece of chicken.
If you don't eat out very often, it's not a bug deal: trust their number, and even if it's off by 100 or so, it won't make a big difference. People who eat out every day (like people who travel for work) have more to worry about, as systematic under counting is pretty possible.
This is actually one reason why I prefer fast food to sit-down food when dieting: fast food is very, very consistent: even if their calorie counts aren't perfectly accurate, at least they are the same every time. Sit down places vary a lot more depending on the cook.
If the veggies were steamed without butter, they had virtually no calories, which leaves 500 for the chicken. That could be a pretty decent sized piece of chicken.
If you don't eat out very often, it's not a bug deal: trust their number, and even if it's off by 100 or so, it won't make a big difference. People who eat out every day (like people who travel for work) have more to worry about, as systematic under counting is pretty possible.
This is actually one reason why I prefer fast food to sit-down food when dieting: fast food is very, very consistent: even if their calorie counts aren't perfectly accurate, at least they are the same every time. Sit down places vary a lot more depending on the cook.
By law the nutritional information has to be as accurate as possible. I'm sure because the veggie calories are before adding butter or anything, the chicken could have been over 500 calories all by itself.
Now, the Hungry Howie thing. I would challenge their calorie information depending on what salad you are talking about but also remember, salad calories are always before dressing is added even if it's always included unless you ask for it on the side.
This was the first sit down place that I have eaten at since counting calories and was a little edgy because I hate making an educated estimate on calories. So I added 300 calories in addition to the 542 to be "safe".I totally agree with Shemead and Lifeasme, I have eaten fast food three times since starting and I do love that I can look at the nutrional data before I order and everything is pretty much a set size.
Shemead, I think you have helped me with another question before. Thanks!
4 ounces of chicken is only 220 calories. Do you really think you ate 16 ounces of chicken? I don't. I think you way over-estimated. There's just no way you ate that much, you'd feel sick and there's also no way to buy a single chicken breast that is that big.
Well while the chicken might not have been alot of calories whatever sauce or whatever they put on it could be insane. So even though 4 ounces of chicken is only 220 calories it could easily be upwards of 500 as a dish.
idk what you got specifically but looking at their website all the chicken seem to have a sauce that could up the calories for sure.
I bet it was fairly accurate. I think I would have rounded up to 600.
I have read lots of articles where restaurants are not honest enough. Or because of it different cooks and such it can't really be that spot on. But like others said as long as you are just eating there once in a while and not all the time it being alittle bit off is probably ok.
True about the sauces but as the OP didn't say which chicken or if it had sauce, it is kind of hard to tell. I know our RT has a salmon that is not on the main menu, only on the "special diet" menu that is to die for and comes in under 500 calories for the whole meal.
Nutritional Accuracy
