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!!!
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?
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandalinn82
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandalinn82
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandalinn82
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandalinn82
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandalinn82
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandalinn82
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ennay
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ennay
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, 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 ). 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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LLV
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".
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by almostheaven
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".
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).
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.
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.
). 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.
