Calorie counts on menus?

rubadub · 08-02-2015 4:02pm

Alun wrote: »

I really pity the poor chefs having to work all this stuff.

I would be deeply concerned about eating in a place where a chef had trouble doing this, if they are that ignorant what other stuff are they ignorant about? food hygeine, cross contamination?

Chefs or other staff in restaurants would have to monitor ingredients they buy in and use already.

Calorie calculation is very easy, I even did it as a child. People do it all the time in the nutrition forums. People are going on like its rocket science or calculus or some black magic formula.

Restaurants are already doing it all around the world.

The reason I welcome it is so I will have a better idea of what to expect portionwise, and so will have a legitimate complaint if my 600kcal desert arrives and is 2 mouthfuls worth. Not everybody is trying to lose weight, even if they are they still might prefer to eat a small calorie dense item which is good value for the price.

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

Not as simple as that, alcohol will have less of an effect per calorie for most people, especially heavy drinkers. Peanuts were mentioned, a study did who ate peanut butter gave people more energy than eating peanuts. I lost fat while taking in more calories than most guidelines would say, since I was drinking a lot.

Drink a can of sweetcorn unchewed and see what comes out the other end, if you think you extracted the same amount of energy as if it was made into a liquidised soup then calories should be the least of your worries.

-If people are so upset about it you would think they would be calling for information to be removed from food packets too, for similar reasons. -or at least a call to remove the legal obligation.

Alcohol products need no nutritional information or calorie information at all, I read this is down to wine producer lobbyists who do not want to have to reveal what is really in their muck.

Mellor · 09-02-2015 5:53am

wonski wrote: »

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

Exact amounts on the plate aren't important. You are looking for a rough guide.

twowheelsonly wrote: »

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.

Not really as they've no idea whats in the recipe.
For example, I've pretty good idea of the calorie count of foods. I'd be able to estimate the calories in my dinner in a few seconds. Or could work it out exactly in a minute or two.
I also live in a counrty were calorie counts appear on a lot of menus. And sometimes, the counts are far greater than I would imagine. These random items are probably loaded up with sugar, butter or may just be large portions.

I don't get the complaints from people. If you don't care about the info, then ignore it. I personally like to see the little guide there.

traprunner · 09-02-2015 8:51am

runawaybishop wrote: »

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

I'd like to see the science behind that.

Are you mixing up that people refer to calories when they actually mean kilo calories?

Mellor · 09-02-2015 8:58am

traprunner wrote: »

I'd like to see the science behind that.

Are you mixing up that people refer to calories when they actually mean kilo calories?

It doesn't make a difference if he is talking of calories or kilocalories.
They are both units of energy.

traprunner · 09-02-2015 9:10am

Mellor wrote: »

It doesn't make a difference if he is talking of calories or kilocalories.
They are both units of energy.

It's the efficiency I was really questioning.

Mellor · 09-02-2015 9:50am

traprunner wrote: »

It's the efficiency I was really questioning.

Which is also independent of the I'mIts used.

The reason why was explained about. Out Bodies don't extract 100% of the energy from certain foods like corn, nuts, high fibre foods. Nor does alcohol energy get absorbed completely.

Although, I don't think it's really worth considering in your daily intake numbers.

traprunner · 09-02-2015 10:00am

Mellor wrote: »

Which is also independent of the I'mIts used.

The reason why was explained about. Out Bodies don't extract 100% of the energy from certain foods like corn, nuts, high fibre foods. Nor does alcohol energy get absorbed completely.

Although, I don't think it's really worth considering in your daily intake numbers.

That is true. E.G. it is not alcohol that gives the 'beer belly', it is the crap that is eaten with/after the drink. I wouldn't count it's calorific content when tracking my food/liquid intake.

But calories is as good a guide as is available to us at the moment. Everyone's portion size is different and most do not much they can consume before gaining fat. People need assistance in determining what to eat. The calorific content on menus will never be 100% accurate but they should be close enough.

runawaybishop · 09-02-2015 12:14pm

traprunner wrote: »

I'd like to see the science behind that.

Are you mixing up that people refer to calories when they actually mean kilo calories?

Not sure why this needs a detailed explanation tbh. We do not always process 100% of the calories- do you think your sh1te is bereft of calories or something? The ability to cook food and therefor extract more calories from it was one of the main reasons our species advanced.

JONJO THE MISER · 09-02-2015 1:20pm

God sake never heard such trash in my life, people are really being dumbed down by shows like operation transformation.

ynul31f47k6b59 · 09-02-2015 5:33pm

I think it's always good to know what you're eating, and this is from someone with lifelong food issues (aka in the words of Dolly Parton "I'm a damned hog") - but I think this is a bad idea.

I don't need to be babied. I know that if I'm watching my weight that I should probably go for a lean meat or fish, few carbs, lots of veg, no sauce. I know to stay away from creamy carbonaras and stick to tomato bases. I know not to eat the basket full of bread. I know that I should probably go for a sorbet dessert and not the big slice of bailey's chocolate cheesecake.

There's enough information out there at this stage to be able to make an informed decision without expecting restaurants to put every single kcal on a menu. It's not going to be accurate anyway, and no two dishes will be the same unless chefs start measuring and weighing to the letter - which is not going to happen.

I'm all for promoting healthy eating and awareness but I think this is pointless, not everyone who eats out is watching their weight or wants to be told how much calories are in their food.

I think this is being hailed as a great step forward in the battle against obesity and it's just smoke and mirrors. It will do nothing. There needs to be more focus on education - nutrition and exercise should be a compulsory module from primary school up.

MartyMcFly84 · 09-02-2015 6:13pm

I was listening to Newstalk earlier in the week. They were saying 3/4 of people don't pay any attention to the labelling on food.

However that means 1/4 do. If the information provided helps 1 million Irish people make better choices what is the harm in that? Many people are blissfully unaware of what healthy food choices are or how much they are actually consuming.

We should have as much information as possible. No one is obliging you to use it.

For a country that binges on takeaways I cannot see this in anyway being a bad idea. There is a serious issue in this country with obesity and the majority of food establishments are takeaways and fast food. I just don't see why anyone would have an issue with it to be honest.

JohnK · 10-02-2015 12:46am

I'm actually quite surprised at how much resistance there is around this. I can understand restaurants being pissed off as they'll have to do up new menus and invest in doing the calculations but I'm genuinely baffled why anyone else is opposed to it. Its not like high calorie foods are being banned - you can still order a heartkiller of a deep fried pizza topped with deep fried mars bars if you really want - you're just going to see on the menu that its several days worth of a recommended calorie intake.

shanna83 wrote: »

I'm all for promoting healthy eating and awareness but I think this is pointless, not everyone who eats out is watching their weight or wants to be told how much calories are in their food.

And there are plenty of people who do want to be told how many calories are in their food. Frankly I neither care nor want to know if a particular menu item is gluten free, vegetarian, vegan, contains nuts, or whatever but plenty of people do want to know, and in some cases need to know, so it tends to be on the menu and I can ignore it quite easily just like anyone else could ignore calorie counts. Now I'm not aware of any legislation that requires things like gluten free or vegetarian markers but I certainly wouldn't oppose or resist any legislation that wanted to make such markers mandatory on a menu even though its completely superfluous to me.

shanna83 wrote: »

There needs to be more focus on education - nutrition and exercise should be a compulsory module from primary school up.

Education has to start somewhere and putting it on the menu in front of everyone seems like a perfectly good place to me and means people have no excuse to say they didn't know. I do agree that there should be more focus on nutrition etc. in schools but there are a hell of a lot of people who've already moved well beyond the primary school stage of their life and theres no reason for them to be left out especially since its the adults of Ireland who'll be the ones putting food in front of todays children so if they're making bad decisions what chance do the children have?

Mellor · 10-02-2015 1:05am

shanna83 wrote: »

I know that if I'm watching my weight that I should probably go for a lean meat or fish, few carbs, lots of veg, no sauce. I know to stay away from creamy carbonaras and stick to tomato bases. I know not to eat the basket full of bread. I know that I should probably go for a sorbet dessert and not the big slice of bailey's chocolate cheesecake.

You are taking very simplistic view of the choices, obvious lean meat and veg beats carbonara. Take that away and you point falls apart. A lot of similar dishes can have very different calories.

also, some people liek to know how much they have eaten relative to a normal meal/day.
Here's some choices from a menu near me.
Care to have a guess at the calories in each? Or even how they rank verse each other?

Breakfast
Brekkie Hot Pot: Chorizo, bacon, mushrooms, napoli sauce, two poached eggs and toasted turkish bread.
Granola with skim milk, greek yoghurt and honey
Scrambled eggs, fresh herbs, cheese, cherry tomatoes, toasted ciabatta

Lunch
BLT Sandwich
Portugese Grilled Chicken breast served with a yoghurt sauce.
Grilled Ribeye with Red Wine Jus

It's not going to be accurate anyway, and no two dishes will be the same unless chefs start measuring and weighing to the letter - which is not going to happen.

That's irrelevant. If the menu says its 400 cals, its no big deal if the dich comes out as 380 cals, or 4120cals. The ballpark is right.

I'm all for promoting healthy eating and awareness but I think this is pointless, not everyone who eats out is watching their weight or wants to be told how much calories are in their food.

If they don't care about the calories, why should it bother them if the info is there?
And not everyone who is interested in the calories is watching their weight.

Carawaystick · 10-02-2015 10:46am

I still don't see how calories for meat can be calculated?
What if this piece of beef has some more marbeling than that piece?
How many calories are in stock?
How could a cook know how many calories are in a kilo of raw mussels? It would depend on the water in them.
How would they know how much calories are in wine to be used in a sauce? it's not labelled at the minute.

MartyMcFly84 · 10-02-2015 10:59am

I still don't see how calories for meat can be calculated
What if this piece of beef has some more marbeling than that piece?
How many calories are in stock?
How could a cook know how many calories are in a kilo of raw mussels? It would depend on the water in them.
How would they know how much calories are in wine to be used in a sauce? it's not labelled at the minute

.

Its very easy, pieces of meat from the same cut are lab tested for calorie content. An average is then used for the calories in 100 grams of said meat. Chicken breast, Sirloin steak, mussels etc. Its is not 100% accurate for each bite of meat you put in your mouth but that not the point .

A few calories here and there is not the issue. Its the hundreds and thousands of excess calories consumed on a daily basis that you should really be worrying about.

seamus · 10-02-2015 11:20am

Carawaystick wrote: »

I still don't see how calories for meat can be calculated?
What if this piece of beef has some more marbeling than that piece?
How many calories are in stock?
How could a cook know how many calories are in a kilo of raw mussels? It would depend on the water in them.
How would they know how much calories are in wine to be used in a sauce? it's not labelled at the minute.

Do you think that the labelling on food at present is accurate to the nearest 10 kcal?

Of course it's not. The amount of kcal on a box of cornflakes represents an average per serving as tested. It's a "best guess", but that's a million times better than "no idea".

Likewise it'll be with restaurant portions. The values displayed on the menu will represent a "best guess" for kcal based on the volume of ingredients used.

There will always be some outliers, so to take your mussels example, on rare occasions one with a very high water content will be 200kcal less than one with a very low water content, but by and large when a customer order the dish, it will land somewhere in and around the kcal value given. It's not like you're trying to control your arsenic intake - if the kcal value is 10% off what the menu says, it's not that big a difference.

Finding out how many calories are in the ingredient on average is a trivial exercise, it doesn't matter if the item isn't labelled.

And what you'll find is that commercial suppliers will start providing kcal values for their produce to assist restaurants.

Faith · 10-02-2015 10:26pm

I wonder if many of the people who don't see the point have ever tracked their caloric intake for a period, or have experience counting calories. I've tracked my calories on and off for years, and I'm still horrified by what certain dishes add up to. For instance, a restaurant portion of a pasta dish with chicken and a creamy sauce will have over 1,000 calories before adding Parmesan and garlic bread, most likely. Add Parmesan and a couple of good-sized slices of garlic bread, and you're looking at closer to 1,500.

A large portion of chicken wings, without any dip, could be 1,000 calories or more.

Here's a Canadian chain restaurant that publishes calories:

http://bostonpizza.com/en/nutrition/information

"Boston's Smoky Mountain Spaghetti and Meatballs", which sounds innocuous enough, packs in a whopping 1760 calories before anything else is included! "Crispy Chicken Pecan Salad" has 1170 calories. A burger with bacon and cheese has 1000 calories; fries are another 350 (or 710, if you get them as a side order) and don't forget that mayonnaise has about 100 calories per 15g.

So I think it's a great idea that they be included, just so people are aware of what they're eating. It's astonishingly easy to consume a whole day's worth of calories at a restaurant, particular if you're having soft drinks or alcoholic drinks with it. Something that people often forget is that restaurant portions are typically much larger than what you'd make at home. If it helps people be more aware of what they're taking in, then I think it's a great initiative.

runawaybishop · 10-02-2015 10:59pm

Faith wrote: »

I wonder if many of the people who don't see the point have ever tracked their caloric intake for a period, or have experience counting calories. I've tracked my calories on and off for years, and I'm still horrified by what certain dishes add up to. For instance, a restaurant portion of a pasta dish with chicken and a creamy sauce will have over 1,000 calories before adding Parmesan and garlic bread, most likely. Add Parmesan and a couple of good-sized slices of garlic bread, and you're looking at closer to 1,500.

A large portion of chicken wings, without any dip, could be 1,000 calories or more.

Here's a Canadian chain restaurant that publishes calories:

http://bostonpizza.com/en/nutrition/information

"Boston's Smoky Mountain Spaghetti and Meatballs", which sounds innocuous enough, packs in a whopping 1760 calories before anything else is included! "Crispy Chicken Pecan Salad" has 1170 calories. A burger with bacon and cheese has 1000 calories; fries are another 350 (or 710, if you get them as a side order) and don't forget that mayonnaise has about 100 calories per 15g.

So I think it's a great idea that they be included, just so people are aware of what they're eating. It's astonishingly easy to consume a whole day's worth of calories at a restaurant, particular if you're having soft drinks or alcoholic drinks with it. Something that people often forget is that restaurant portions are typically much larger than what you'd make at home. If it helps people be more aware of what they're taking in, then I think it's a great initiative.

This is exactly what is wrong with just showing calories. There is no context. What is wrong with eating 1000 calories? They should include macro breakdown.

Booze isn't a flat conversion either.

Mellor · 10-02-2015 11:09pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

This is exactly what is wrong with just showing calories. There is no context. What is wrong with eating 1000 calories? They should include macro breakdown.

Booze isn't a flat conversion either.

Did you check the menu? They gave full macro breakdown.
Even if they didn't, you should be able to get pretty close from the calories. A lot closer than guessing.

There's nothing wrong with eating 1000cals, once it's accounted for. But it's hard to do without the numbers. (And nobody goes there and has just a burger.)

runawaybishop · 10-02-2015 11:20pm

Mellor wrote: »

Did you check the menu? They gave full macro breakdown.
Even if they didn't, you should be able to get pretty close from the calories. A lot closer than guessing.

There's nothing wrong with eating 1000cals, once it's accounted for. But it's hard to do without the numbers. (And nobody goes there and has just a burger.)

If we as macro breakdowns that would be a start, but that won't be the case. Not all calories are equal with regard to effect on the body.

Mellor · 10-02-2015 11:48pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

If we as macro breakdowns that would be a start, but that won't be the case. Not all calories are equal with regard to effect on the body.

What won't be the case?
I'm saying you should be able to get the macros pretty close from the calories. I'm be pretty confidant that you'd be able to get pretty close.

I'm aware that not all calories are truely equal. But the impact of this is cumulative imo. Its pointless worrying the effect of the exact macros of a single meal, where we have a rough idea of its make up.
A 1000cals burger, prob has 50g protein*, the same in carbs, and the rest in fat, delicious delicious fat.

Depends on the burger size, you'd have a better idea if they called it 1/4lber, or 6oz etc

Faith · 11-02-2015 2:24am

runawaybishop wrote: »

What is wrong with eating 1000 calories?

Nothing, as long as a person is aware that that's what they're eating and it fits into their daily calorie goal. The problem is when somebody A) orders something they believe to be low calorie, and actually isn't, or

when somebody has absolutely no clue how many calories they're consuming in one sitting, and vastly overeats on a regular basis without realising.

It's best to provide all of the information, and let everybody make an informed decision. Those who don't care don't need to factor it into their ordering decisions.

papu · 11-02-2015 10:51am

Faith wrote: »

Nothing, as long as a person is aware that that's what they're eating and it fits into their daily calorie goal. The problem is when somebody A) orders something they believe to be low calorie, and actually isn't, or when somebody has absolutely no clue how many calories they're consuming in one sitting, and vastly overeats on a regular basis without realising.

It's best to provide all of the information, and let everybody make an informed decision. Those who don't care don't need to factor it into their ordering decisions.

When you eat 1000 calories you're going to feel full.... If you want to manage your weight , eat slowly , and stop when your full .. It really won't matter if the calories are listed beside the meal , going out for meals in restaurants and not counting those macros isn't what's causing the obesity epidemic in this country

runawaybishop · 11-02-2015 11:31am

Faith wrote: »

Nothing, as long as a person is aware that that's what they're eating and it fits into their daily calorie goal. The problem is when somebody A) orders something they believe to be low calorie, and actually isn't, or when somebody has absolutely no clue how many calories they're consuming in one sitting, and vastly overeats on a regular basis without realising.

It's best to provide all of the information, and let everybody make an informed decision. Those who don't care don't need to factor it into their ordering decisions.

How is it possible to drastically overeat without realising? Do you not think people will realise something is calorie dense because 1) they feel full or 2) they are getting fat.

It is best to provide all of the information though, I agree on that. But we aren't doing that. Instead we are providing a snippet of info that is easy to misunderstand and take out of context. That isn't a good thing.

traprunner · 11-02-2015 11:38am

Thirst can be mistaken for hunger and people eat as a result. Therefore, the addition of calories to menus will help them realise they are over eating.

JohnK · 11-02-2015 11:42am

runawaybishop wrote: »

How is it possible to drastically overeat without realising? Do you not think people will realise something is calorie dense because 1) they feel full or 2) they are getting fat.

Its quite easy to eat something and think its maybe 200 calories when its really 500. Do that today, tomorrow, the day after etc. and it really builds up. And speaking as a fat guy (formerly much fatter) it's easy not to notice extra weight going on when its happening over a period of time. Its not like you suddenly wake up one morning and are 20lb heaver than the previous day; its all tiny increments, day after day, that you dont really notice yourself. Throw vanity sizing into the mix and you dont notice you're buying bigger clothes either.

runawaybishop wrote: »

It is best to provide all of the information though, I agree on that. But we aren't doing that. Instead we are providing a snippet of info that is easy to misunderstand and take out of context. That isn't a good thing.

Having a full breakdown of everything would be brilliant but but we're not going to get that so this is better than nothing.

runawaybishop · 11-02-2015 11:45am

traprunner wrote: »

Thirst can be mistaken for hunger and people eat as a result. Therefore, the addition of calories to menus will help them realise they are over eating.

If they do not realise they are overeating when they are fat adding calories wont help. Do people really think a big bowl of icecream is low in calories or something?

traprunner · 11-02-2015 11:47am

runawaybishop wrote: »

If they do not realise they are overeating when they are fat adding calories wont help. Do people really think a big bowl of icecream is low in calories or something?

Not everyone is as tuned into their bodies or can just look at something and know that it is 600 kCal like you. People need assistance.

runawaybishop · 11-02-2015 11:47am

JohnK wrote: »

Its quite easy to eat something and think its maybe 200 calories when its really 500. Do that today, tomorrow, the day after etc. and it really builds up. And speaking as a fat guy (formerly much fatter) it's easy not to notice extra weight going on when its happening over a period of time. Its not like you suddenly wake up one morning and are 20lb heaver than the previous day; its all tiny increments, day after day, that you dont really notice yourself. Throw vanity sizing into the mix and you dont notice you're buying bigger clothes either..

Fair point but showing calories does not address the issues you mentioned. Adding counts without context is not useful.

runawaybishop · 11-02-2015 11:48am

traprunner wrote: »

Not everyone is as tuned into their bodies or can just look at something and know that it is 600 kCal like you. People need assistance.

Yes, they do - this isn't proper assistance. Its like telling someone to go exercise - its vaguely correct in general but not useful for that individual. If we are serious about tackling the issue we should be educating people.

Calorie counts on menus?

Comments