Calorie counts on menus?

pwurple · 06-02-2015 12:39pm #1

What do we think of this? Great idea, or terrible idea?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/calorie-count-plan-to-have-devastating-impact-on-restaurants-1.2092770

I'm think it doesn't make sense for most of the places I eat, where the menu changes every couple of days, or daily sometimes. How is it going to be feasible to get the food tested in a lab for a daily special?

Alun · 06-02-2015 12:49pm

One more thing on an already cluttered enough menu to ignore, to be honest. I really pity the poor chefs having to work all this stuff.

Carawaystick · 06-02-2015 4:22pm

I can't see how it'll work for fried, let alone deep fried foods, or eggs
Unless a guestimate is allowed

Anyway we should be using SI units so kilojoules are the way to go!

Chemical Byrne · 06-02-2015 4:29pm

Its completely and utterly stupid. End of.

a) no 2 meals served consecutively will have the same calorie count, no matter how careful the preparation.

b) who is going to test each and every menu item a restaurant can produce?

c) menu writers will just pick random guestimate numbers that mean jack sh!t

d) the type of person who eats to excess and gets supermorbidly obese will do so regardless of what calorie information is on a menu

e) the type of person who is health and diet conscious will be so regardless of any calorie information on a menu.

Its a completely hair brained idea, no surprise it comes from "The Machine" that is Brussels. Regulations for the sake of regulations.

rawn · 06-02-2015 4:34pm

Terrible idea that only had uses in places like mcdonalds where everything prepared is basically the same as the one palpated prepared before it. It focuses the attention on calories instead of content. Plenty of high calorie foods are great, eggs, avocado etc. Low calorie doesn't mean healthy. .. take a look at the way the Rustic Stone writes their menus, not feasible for every food business but if you're gonna do something, do what they do!

traprunner · 06-02-2015 4:40pm

rawn wrote: »

Plenty of high calorie foods are great, eggs, avocado etc. Low calorie doesn't mean healthy.

Very true but people don't realise how many calories are in food and therefore end up over eating both healthy and unhealthy foods.

I think it is a good thing. It makes people think twice. I watch what I eat and do count calories. I was in Wetherspoons recently and I knew for the day I had x number of calories left before I went over my calories and I selected from the menu accordingly. I know it will never be 100% correct but if it's close then that's good enough for a meal out once in a while.

MartyMcFly84 · 06-02-2015 4:43pm

As mentioned above.

The emphasis is overly on the calorie content rather than the nutritional value of the dish.

High calorie nutritional food keeps you going for longer and provides essential nutrients as opposed to high calorie trans fat or sugar laden foods.

Big difference between eating an avocado and a chocolate bar with an equivalent calorie content.

The calories are never going to be exact but are I imagine to give you an approximate figure.

- I think its a good idea but not as good as it could be. The other day I was in Super Value looking at the pre prepared braised red cabbage when I noticed it had as much sugar as most fizzy drinks... I quickly made a choice to get fresh vegetables instead.

Skatedude · 06-02-2015 4:47pm

so how many calories did your home cooked dinner have last night and how would you calculate it because i dont know ?. and i bet most people including cooks and chefs wouldnt know either.

MrWalsh · 06-02-2015 4:48pm

I like it. Although I can see myself using it as a contest to beat my previous high score

I dont eat out all that often so I dont think itll affect me too much, but I can definitely see how it can be useful.

Agree with above comments re accuracy and places that change the menu regularly etc... Also wonder how it will work at a carvery or buffet - unless they display the amount per a particular weight?

Hopefully it wont be like food packaging where you are constantly misled with the number of calories written in big writing and then in tiny writing the PER field - with a hard to find weight on the packaging - only to discover after a search that the calorie count is per serving of 73 grams and the weight of the packet youve bought is 132 grams, requiring a calculator to work out the actual calories of the thing!!

MrWalsh · 06-02-2015 4:49pm

Skatedude wrote: »

so how many calories did your home cooked dinner have last night and how would you calculate it because i dont know ?. and i bet most people including cooks and chefs wouldnt know either.

I calorie counted for a while and weighed each bit of my dinner and used the internet to find the calories per for each thing. It wouldnt be hugely accurate, but good enough for me.

traprunner · 06-02-2015 4:52pm

MrWalsh wrote: »

I calorie counted for a while and weighed each bit of my dinner and used the internet to find the calories per for each thing. It wouldnt be hugely accurate, but good enough for me.

I do likewise.

JohnK · 06-02-2015 4:52pm

I'm torn on this one - I very much welcome the idea of calorie counts being available as I'm in favour of more information being given to the consumer; in fact I've pretty much stopped going to restaurants completely as I have no idea what I'm getting so this will make it far more likely that I'll go to a restaurant in future.

On the other hand I do realise it'll suck for a lot of restaurants who now will be more limited in what they can offer. I think a better option would have been to require a certain minimum percentage of the menu have the calorie count which would give people the information/choice but still free up the restaurant to try random things & have their daily specials without needing to do a lot of calculations.

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

d) the type of person who eats to excess and gets supermorbidly obese will do so regardless of what calorie information is on a menu

While true to an extent I think there are a hell of a lot of people who have absolutely no idea just how many calories are in some foods and showing them the just how high these foods are can only help in making a better decision. A prime example would be the likes of a salad which many people would eat thinking its the healthy option but by the time they've put the dressings on its worse than a burger & chips in some cases yet they now go about their day thinking they've been good and deserving of a treat along with their 800 calorie cup of coffee.

papu · 06-02-2015 4:53pm

Skatedude wrote: »

so how many calories did your home cooked dinner have last night and how would you calculate it because i dont know ?. and i bet most people including cooks and chefs wouldnt know either.

You get the amount of fat , protein and carbs in grams ,
1g fat is 9kcal
1g protein and carb is 4kcal.

If i go out for a meal I don't want to be thinking about the calories though.
If people are really fussed they can make a pretty decent estimate or just ordering something which is going to be inherently low in cals..

A_Sober_Paddy · 06-02-2015 4:57pm

Calorie counts on most things are pretty much just a guide line, they can vary on a number of factors...

I think its a good idea, but i think it should give a couple of highlights of other nutritional facts...

I'll take my Lentil Masala dish as an example

Red Lentil Masala served with Spinach
610 kCals
15g Fiber*
162g Magnesium(43% RDA)**
1614g Potassium(34% RDA)

*Fiber is something a lot of people ignore
**Second most common mineral deficiency in the developed world

badgerhowlin · 06-02-2015 4:58pm

WELL HOLY GOD.
I feel like having the ????????? OH no wait that has 562 calories
I better go for ???????? cause it only has 300 calories

I for one will not be looking at the calorie part of the menu, I dont really look at the price part either cause I only go out once in a blue moon.

wonski · 06-02-2015 5:00pm

MrWalsh wrote: »

I calorie counted for a while and weighed each bit of my dinner and used the internet to find the calories per for each thing. It wouldnt be hugely accurate, but good enough for me.

Why not to use a healthy. well balance diet in first place?

No offence but are you going to skip the meal if internet is ofline?

People are obese and unhealthy for many reasons. Those who are aware of the numbers (like you are) are not among them.

A_Sober_Paddy · 06-02-2015 5:00pm

Skatedude wrote: »

so how many calories did your home cooked dinner have last night and how would you calculate it because i dont know ?. and i bet most people including cooks and chefs wouldnt know either.

Combination of packaging and this http://nutritiondata.self.com/

I work out a lot of the stuff on eat on a regular basis so i know if i'm getting enought fiber, vitamins and minerals keeps me fairly healthy

MrWalsh · 06-02-2015 5:07pm

wonski wrote: »

Why not to use a healthy. well balance diet in first place?

No offence but are you going to skip the meal if internet is ofline?

People are obese and unhealthy for many reasons. Those who are aware of the numbers (like you are) are not among them.

How would I know if the meal was healthy and well balanced until I analysed it?

I actually have a little book that I consult when the internet is offline, but the internet was quicker for the most part plus I tended to record my results.

Really I wanted to get an overall weekly picture of my eating habits, in case I had an idea that some meals were fine but they were really very high calorie and I just hadnt realised.

I only really tend to have a cooking repertoire of about 12-14 different meals so once Id analysed them all I didnt continue to measure them - Id cook them using roughly the same ingredient set each time.

One thing that it did illustrate to me and which I corrected, was that the amount of rice in the Uncle Bens sachets was a two portion amount - Id honestly never realised - maybe that sounds silly but thats how it was.

There were few other surprises, one meal that I really liked was much lower calorie than I thought. Also I got some ideas of what makes a good substitute without changing the nutritional value of the meal.

I wouldnt just know what a healthy well balanced diet was unless I measured things in the first place!

trishasaffron · 06-02-2015 5:09pm

Yes it will be a pain in the butt for restaurants but I don't think 100% accuracy is required - they can easily enough have a range. 100 calories here or there isn't an issue but some meals are twice a person's recommended daily intake and that's by no means the fast food places only.

It will also have the effect of making chefs think more carefully about the construction of meals so that instead of lashing in loads of butter they can make something equally tasty with less butter (always some though - I'll never leave butter out!).

Also hopefully it will mean less of the sugary crap/corn syrup etc that's put in meals to bulk it up and make it "tasty".

We've got to get serious about what we eat - we are the 2nd fattest country in Europe and 8th fattest in the world http://listcrux.com/top-10-fattest-countries-of-the-world/

wonski · 06-02-2015 5:18pm

MrWalsh wrote: »

How would I know if the meal was healthy and well balanced until I analysed it?

I actually have a little book that I consult when the internet is offline, but the internet was quicker for the most part plus I tended to record my results.

Really I wanted to get an overall weekly picture of my eating habits, in case I had an idea that some meals were fine but they were really very high calorie and I just hadnt realised.

I only really tend to have a cooking repertoire of about 12-14 different meals so once Id analysed them all I didnt continue to measure them - Id cook them using roughly the same ingredient set each time.

One thing that it did illustrate to me and which I corrected, was that the amount of rice in the Uncle Bens sachets was a two portion amount - Id honestly never realised - maybe that sounds silly but thats how it was.

There were few other surprises, one meal that I really liked was much lower calorie than I thought. Also I got some ideas of what makes a good substitute without changing the nutritional value of the meal.

I wouldnt just know what a healthy well balanced diet was unless I measured things in the first place!

If you looked at my post again you would notice I know you are aware of the number of calories etc in meals.

100g rice in the restaurant is the same as the one you cook yourself.
So is the rest. People eat out to relax. That's what it should be.

The restaurant business is a tough one, so many regulations in place and now this:mad:

Just have a steak with vegs and don't ask for exact numbers:D

I have seen boxes of eggs marked with "contain eggs".
Let's be reasonable here.

MrWalsh · 06-02-2015 5:21pm

wonski wrote: »

If you looked at my post again you would notice I know you are aware of the number of calories etc in meals.

100g rice in the restaurant is the same as the one you cook yourself.
So is the rest. People eat out to relax. That's what it should be.

The restaurant business is a tough one, so many regulations in place and now this:mad:

Just have a steak with vegs and don't ask for exact numbers:D

I have seen boxes of eggs marked with "contain eggs".
Let's be reasonable here.

But you often dont know when you order out how large the portion size will be.

I remember once ordering ribs in a place on holidays and genuinely being shocked when they brought a portion the size of a computer keyboard - a big keyboard!

A_Sober_Paddy · 06-02-2015 5:26pm

wonski wrote: »

If you looked at my post again you would notice I know you are aware of the number of calories etc in meals.

100g rice in the restaurant is the same as the one you cook yourself.
So is the rest. People eat out to relax. That's what it should be.

The restaurant business is a tough one, so many regulations in place and now this:mad:

Just have a steak with vegs and don't ask for exact numbers:D

I have seen boxes of eggs marked with "contain eggs".
Let's be reasonable here.

Well when i eat out i generally go for steak and mash with veg...Mate of mine told me what exactly goes into this restaurants mash so i worked out the kCal load, on average 100g of my mash at home 126kcals, at the restaurant it was 210kcals because of the excess butter, now its creamy and nice, but not so much nicer than my own...

So if i get 200g of mash(which isn't a lot) its 168 extra kcals, it isn't a massive amount for me, but for someone 10kg lighter than me its a big difference

wonski · 06-02-2015 5:27pm

MrWalsh wrote: »

But you often dont know when you order out how large the portion size will be.

I remember once ordering ribs in a place on holidays and genuinely being shocked when they brought a portion the size of a computer keyboard - a big keyboard!

You don't have to eat all of it. You can also ask for smaller portion when ordering.

Honestly - we are adults here and we don't want the EU to control every single aspect of our lives, do we?

Their labelling system led all producers to print : "may contain any allergens" or " produced in a factory that seen some nuts in 1923 or later".

wonski · 06-02-2015 5:30pm

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

Well when i eat out i generally go for steak and mash with veg...Mate of mine told me what exactly goes into this restaurants mash so i worked out the kCal load, on average 100g of my mash at home 126kcals, at the restaurant it was 210kcals because of the excess butter, now its creamy and nice, but not so much nicer than my own...

So if i get 200g of mash(which isn't a lot) its 168 extra kcals, it isn't a massive amount for me, but for someone 10kg lighter than me its a big difference

But there is no guarantee whatsoever what amount of butter will be used for your portion. It is not McDonalds we are talking about.

twowheelsonly · 06-02-2015 5:38pm

Terrible idea. Right up there with the 'straight bananas'.

Another big stick for the bureaucrats to beat restaurants with. How long before we see someone dragged to court over this for failing to print the calorie count or for an incorrect count.

If I want a big meal, I'll eat a big meal. Likewise if I want a small meal.
People who already count and understand calories and nutrition and take notice of this stuff might benefit (a little) but in most cases they'll already have a ball-park idea of what they're eating. People who don't will just continue on their merry little way just the same as when people do their shopping.

IMO, it's making laws for laws sake.

Making pedometers mandatory would be better than this !!! :rolleyes:

MrWalsh · 06-02-2015 5:49pm

wonski wrote: »

Honestly - we are adults here and we don't want the EU to control every single aspect of our lives, do we?

Im not seeing how extra information on a menu controls any aspect of my life?

Alun · 06-02-2015 5:55pm

MrWalsh wrote: »

Im not seeing how extra information on a menu controls any aspect of my life?

It's just useless clutter. Clutter offends me. Just like all the same useless clutter on packaged foods that I never read, and have to hunt with a magnifying glass looking for actual useful information like how long for and what oven temperature to cook the damn thing at.

vienne86 · 06-02-2015 5:59pm

I think it's a really stupid idea. It's very difficult to estimate with any accuracy anyway, but people who watch their calories have a fair idea of how various dishes would score, and those who don't probalby don't care and won't be influenced by a calorie score anyway.

MrWalsh · 06-02-2015 5:59pm

Alun wrote: »

It's just useless clutter. Clutter offends me. Just like all the same useless clutter on packaged foods that I never read, and have to hunt with a magnifying glass looking for actual useful information like how long for and what oven temperature to cook the damn thing at.

Oh I agree food packaging is ridiculous but hopefully simply displaying a calorie count beside the meal on the menu will be reasonably unobtrusive.

hardCopy · 06-02-2015 6:13pm

Skatedude wrote: »

so how many calories did your home cooked dinner have last night and how would you calculate it because i dont know ?. and i bet most people including cooks and chefs wouldnt know either.

MrWalsh wrote: »

I calorie counted for a while and weighed each bit of my dinner and used the internet to find the calories per for each thing. It wouldnt be hugely accurate, but good enough for me.

traprunner wrote: »

I do likewise.

I've weighed and measured and compared my own recipes to pre-packed and restaurant meals.

There can be a massive difference in a seemingly similar dish depending on the chef's own recipe.

I could make a lasagne portion at home that comes to 450 kcal, a packaged one in the local convenience store could be 600-700 kcal and one served in a restaurant with a side of garlic bread and parmesan on top could be closer to 1000 kcal.

Any chef who can calculate his cost and profit margin on a meal can calculate the calories in that same meal. There are plenty of free apps to aid them if need be.

Restauranteurs are just afraid people will stop eating out when they see the numbers on the menu.

wonski · 06-02-2015 6:17pm

MrWalsh wrote: »

Oh I agree food packaging is ridiculous but hopefully simply displaying a calorie count beside the meal on the menu will be reasonably unobtrusive.

Maybe.

I do know how much extra work is needed to do it, and how little is offered in return. Most people don't care. Those who care might or might not believe the figures.

At the end of the scale are non-believers who will make it a hell.

I know how much work was done for ready meals, printing new packaging etc. People will buy these products regardless.

Same with restaurants - meal is a meal.

wonski · 06-02-2015 6:22pm

hardCopy wrote: »

Restauranteurs are just afraid people will stop eating out when they see the numbers on the menu.

No. They are not.
Do you really believe it?

It is an extra work that could drive their costs up. Not the additional calories.

Some supermarkets have put that information well before the law. Sales were not affected. And it was not just calories but sugar, fat etc printed on the labels

seamus · 06-02-2015 6:32pm

Lots of hysteria going on about this.

Working out the calorie content of an average dish is pretty straightforward if you have ten minutes, a calculator and access to the internet. This isn't going to add significant overheads to any business with the exception of reprinting menus.

I love how the restaurants association is complaining that it's unenforceable because there are so many restaurants.

Uh...so how does the FSAI do it, then?

wonski · 06-02-2015 6:35pm

seamus wrote: »

Lots of hysteria going on about this.

Working out the calorie content of an average dish is pretty straightforward if you have ten minutes, a calculator and access to the internet. This isn't going to add significant overheads to any business with the exception of reprinting menus.

I love how the restaurants association is complaining that it's unenforceable because there are so many restaurants.

Uh...so how does the FSAI do it, then?

But you are going to pay for this. And you will get nothing in return.

That is the point.

seamus · 06-02-2015 6:37pm

wonski wrote: »

But you are going to pay for this. And you will get nothing in return.

That is the point.

I will get the ability to make a more informed choice.

And any restaurant which increased prices to pay for this will find itself out of business pretty quickly.

The cost is minimal. They probably wouldn't even need to print new menus, just provide an additional datasheet.

wonski · 06-02-2015 6:50pm

seamus wrote: »

I will get the ability to make a more informed choice.

And any restaurant which increased prices to pay for this will find itself out of business pretty quickly.

The cost is minimal. They probably wouldn't even need to print new menus, just provide an additional datasheet.

Do you really go to the restaurant for it?

I doubt it.

Like I said this would affect businesses around Ireland and offer nothing in return to customer. You come for food, not for calories:D

The "more informed choice" is a b******t in my opinion.

Calories count is useless, anyway. Fat, Sugar and Salt are more important to me tbh. And, unless you test them, you can't be sure of the content.

A_Sober_Paddy · 06-02-2015 6:57pm

wonski wrote: »

Do you really go to the restaurant for it?

I doubt it.

Like I said this would affect businesses around Ireland and offer nothing in return to customer. You come for food, not for calories:D

The "more informed choice" is a b******t in my opinion.

Calories count is useless, anyway. Fat, Sugar and Salt are more important to me tbh. And, unless you test them, you can't be sure of the content.

Calories in and calories out, basic thermodynamics(hope thats the correct word) if we burn 2500 Kcals a day and consume 3000 kCals a day we'll gain weight. no matter how mush of it is sugar/fat/salt

runawaybishop · 06-02-2015 7:01pm

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

Calories in and calories out, basic thermodynamics(hope thats the correct word) if we burn 2500 Kcals a day and consume 3000 kCals a day we'll gain weight. no matter how mush of it is sugar/fat/salt

Except that 3k calories = 3k units of energy. Our bodies are not that efficient.

A_Sober_Paddy · 06-02-2015 7:04pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

Except that 3k calories = 3k units of energy. Our bodies are not that efficient.

but you've only burned 2.5k calories and thus have excess which our bodies will store, if this is done over a long period of time your'll get an nation of obese people...oh wait

wonski · 06-02-2015 7:05pm

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

Calories in and calories out, basic thermodynamics(hope thats the correct word) if we burn 2500 Kcals a day and consume 3000 kCals a day we'll gain weight. no matter how mush of it is sugar/fat/salt

Sounds legit.

blackvalley · 06-02-2015 7:07pm

JohnK wrote: »

along with their 800 calorie cup of coffee.

Eight Hundred Calorie cup of coffee :eek::eek:. Where , how, please explain.
Three cups of coffee could equal the total reccomended daily adult calorie intake

runawaybishop · 06-02-2015 7:08pm

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

but you've only burned 2.5k calories and thus have excess which our bodies will store, if this is done over a long period of time your'll get an nation of obese people...oh wait

Not the point i was making. Your body doesn't 100% convert calories into energy. You probably sh1te out 30% of peanuts, for example. You also dont process all booze etc etc.

wonski · 06-02-2015 7:12pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

Not the point i was making. Your body doesn't 100% convert calories into energy. You probably sh1te out 30% of peanuts, for example. You also dont process all booze etc etc.

I process all my booze, hell yeah:D:D:D

A_Sober_Paddy · 06-02-2015 7:16pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

Not the point i was making. Your body doesn't 100% convert calories into energy. You probably sh1te out 30% of peanuts, for example. You also dont process all booze etc etc.

Yeah the fiber, which doesn't have a calorie load

100g of peanuts
kCals 570
Carbs 21(21x4=84)
Fat 47(47x9=423)
Protein 25(25x4=100)

Totals is 607...oh wait there is fiber of 9g(9x4=36)

607-36=571 the same calorie load that is attributed to the nuts, the zero load of the fiber is already accounted for

runawaybishop · 06-02-2015 7:32pm

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

Yeah the fiber, which doesn't have a calorie load

100g of peanuts
kCals 570
Carbs 21(21x4=84)
Fat 47(47x9=423)
Protein 25(25x4=100)

Totals is 607...oh wait there is fiber of 9g(9x4=36)

607-36=571 the same calorie load that is attributed to the nuts, the zero load of the fiber is already accounted for

No, the bits you dont chew properly pass though. Proteins also take more energy to digest initially than say sugars. None is this is exactly new info or not widely known.

deathtocaptcha · 06-02-2015 7:59pm

It's a great idea as it creates more transparency and informs customers better about what they're eating...

The argument that this is an additional expense for restaurants is ridiculous... it's the cost of printing menus... hell you could even print calorie numbers out on an A4 page and stick them on top of existing menus...

It's easy to guesstimate the calorie count of food by looking at the calorie count of raw ingredients... i could do it if presented with ingredients... sure it's a bit of hassle initially but it would take maybe a day at most for a chef to come up with fairly good estimates of calorie counts for an entire menu.

Provided they're spot checked and within ~10% accuracy or so, nobody is going to complain.

MrWalsh · 06-02-2015 8:16pm

I thought they said on the radio that the additional expense for restaurants was that they had to have 5 of each dish independently tested (to take an average) and that they had to pay for the testing, as well as the 5 of each dish not being paid for. Then on top of that they had to reprint menus etc..

I don't see why they can't just put the calories on the menus and then have periodic inspections/calorie checks.

Alun · 06-02-2015 9:17pm

MrWalsh wrote: »

I thought they said on the radio that the additional expense for restaurants was that they had to have 5 of each dish independently tested (to take an average) and that they had to pay for the testing, as well as the 5 of each dish not being paid for.

For a fast food establishment that had a fixed menu that rarely changed maybe that could work, but for any half decent restaurant that had daily specials, based on whatever was in season and fresh in the markets that day, utterly impossible. If that's true then no wonder it's being challenged.

hardCopy · 06-02-2015 9:26pm

Alun wrote: »

For a fast food establishment that had a fixed menu that rarely changed maybe that could work, but for any half decent restaurant that had daily specials, based on whatever was in season and fresh in the markets that day, utterly impossible. If that's true then no wonder it's being challenged.

I don't think that bit is true

uberalex · 06-02-2015 9:30pm

One thing I find useful is to see the relative calorie value of things.
Like here http://www.jdwetherspoon.ie/pdf/irish_nutritional_leaflet_autumn_2014.pdf

Something to. One is the cost of things like honey and banana porridge, which has as many calories as a bacon roll, or the fact that the super food with salmon has nearly as many as the Lasagne. Yes you can argue until blue in the face about moderation, macros etc but it can be a useful guide. If I'm choosing between two dishes I might like, I might choose the lesser one. I might also avoid a trap, like a "healthy" option that's actually a calorie bomb.

JohnK · 06-02-2015 9:33pm

blackvalley wrote: »

Eight Hundred Calorie cup of coffee :eek::eek:. Where , how, please explain.
Three cups of coffee could equal the total reccomended daily adult calorie intake

Take a look at some of the drinks from the likes of Starbucks or Gloria Jeans - loads of them, though not all, can be far higher in calories than you'd think just by themselves and if you start getting extra pumps of random syrups it goes up even more. Then think of the number of people who get those virtually every day of the week.

http://globalassets.starbucks.com/assets/b603196b2292476199a5bc6ea65b2cd8.pdf

http://www.gloriajeanscoffees.com.au/Drink%20Menu%20-%20Nutritional%20and%20Ingredient%20Info.pdf

Calorie counts on menus?

Calories on menu 135 votes

Comments