Calories in takeaways- no wonder I was so fat!

rubadub · 02-01-2008 11:33am #1

Over christmas I went to my old chinese that I used to go to 1-2 times a week when I lived nearby. My usual was chicken balls, curry sauce, chips (I know not chinese!).

I got it and it weighed loads, always did. So I got home and weighed each to see what I used to be eating.
Chips- 520g (no joke! my scales is fine)
Chicken balls- 350g
Sauce- 200g.

I reckon the chips are ~250kcal per 100g, chicken ~300kcal/100g, sauce 150kcal/100g. Those are probably conservative figures, chicken balls are really just donuts, and sauce is probably loaded with oil.

So probably at least 2500kcal in all. Used to get them after a feed of pints, 500kcal of decent food would have probably done me fine, so 2000kcal of pure excess. Switching from that to a 500kcal meal once a week would mean ~0.5lb fat loss, or 0.5lb less put on if you are already overeating.

I knew there was a lot in them but would have guessed 1000-1500kcal. Most chinese dishes are in huge portions. I reckon a chowmein in my local would be 1200-1500kcal, never weighed it but it fills a bowl I have completely while a 500-600kcal microwave one half fills it.

Vegeta · 02-01-2008 11:48am

Christ that's a lot

I have a huge stomach, i can fit loads in it (I know it shrinks when eating smaller meals at regular intervals, thank feck). I have won several eating contests due to it.

Anyway when I was eating a chinese I used to get 2 meals, singapore fried rice, which is a main course on its own and usually chicken curry and boiled rice, mix em all up. I don't even know how many calories was in it. Was delicious though.

rubadub · 02-01-2008 11:58am

I would guess a standard foil tray of boiled rice would be at least 500kcal alone, possibly 700kcal. I know people who get boiled rice as a "healthy option", but it is white rice and a massive portion too.

ali.c · 02-01-2008 3:57pm

rubadub wrote: »

So probably at least 2500kcal in all.

Thats a whole lot of food :eek:i share takeways or end up throwing more than half of it out. Thanks for sharing the info, i rarely get takeaways these days and speaking of which recently when drunk i have been craving raw carrots?? no idea whats going on with that tbh but not complaining!

rubadub · 02-01-2008 4:07pm

ali.c wrote: »

Thats a whole lot of food :eek:i share takeways or end up throwing more than half of it out.

Yes, over a kilo! most ready meals are ~400g. It would do 2 people easily. I ate it over the course of a night.

The "meals for 2" you see on the back of chinese menus are meant to have enough for 4 hungry people.

when drunk i have been craving raw carrots?? no idea whats going on with that tbh but not complaining!

I have been eating peas! I come home drunk and they are easy to cook, wake up feeling fine too, must be easy on the stomach, and a horse couldnt eat 2500kcal of peas

Mellor · 02-01-2008 4:14pm

rubadub wrote: »

I reckon the chips are ~250kcal per 100g, chicken ~300kcal/100g, sauce 150kcal/100g. Those are probably conservative figures, chicken balls are really just donuts, and sauce is probably loaded with oil.

What are you basing those figures on?
I'm not questioning them, but just curious.

As for the comments on boiled rice, it is still probably the lesser of three evils, even if not great for you

rubadub · 02-01-2008 5:07pm

Mellor wrote: »

What are you basing those figures on?
I'm not questioning them, but just curious.

Packets in supermarkets. Fry chips were listed at up to 280kcal, and nugget things were up to 270kcal. Most curry sauces are around 150kcal, higher for high oil/cream content ones.

Most packs will underestimate the true value to appear lower in kcals. So the chicken balls are really greasy and thick like doughnuts, with a lower % of chicken in them than nuggets, which are around 50% chicken.

I probably underestimated them. Tescos is great for nutritional info, they have it on most packs, even beer & spirits, and fruit & veg. If you see no info on loose fruit/veg just look for a tesco brand similar item to get a value.

Mellor wrote: »

As for the comments on boiled rice, it is still probably the lesser of three evils, even if not great for you

True, the real problem is people not caring about portion size, eating massive amount of "healthish" food thinking they are fine. I used to eat ~800kcal bowls of museli before I weighed it

Mellor · 06-01-2008 2:26am

Its foods such as combinations of various ingredients that get me.
Like the chickenballs example.
I know chicken is about 150 kcal/100g when roated/boiled, and 210 if fried,
but the batter is awkward to quantify.

I'd also like to be able to rate various take away meals. For example, I imagine chicken ball meals (deep fried) are pretty bad, sweet and sour is probably full of sugar etc.
But which is the worst/best. Boiled rice is the best of the sides i'd imagine.

ApeXaviour · 06-01-2008 2:30am

Mellor wrote: »

Boiled rice is the best of the sides i'd imagine.

Your insulin and I would tend to disagree on that.

Mellor · 07-01-2008 3:12am

ApeXaviour wrote: »

Your insulin and I would tend to disagree on that.

Why? are you suggesting that fried rice or chips are better?
Im guessing you didn't read my post correctly.

rubadub · 07-01-2008 1:33pm

Mellor wrote: »

Its foods such as combinations of various ingredients that get me.
Like the chickenballs example.
I know chicken is about 150 kcal/100g when roated/boiled, and 210 if fried,
but the batter is awkward to quantify.

Well I compare like with like. The chicken balls there are quite low in chicken and high in batter, the batter is thick & doughy, so is more comparable to doughnuts so my estimate at 300kcal is probably a little lower (takeaway is jumbos in stillorgan if the gluttons are interested

).

Abras & mc-donalds now have nutritional info on display so could be used.

Mellor · 07-01-2008 3:40pm

rubadub wrote: »

Well I compare like with like. The chicken balls there are quite low in chicken and high in batter, the batter is thick & doughy, so is more comparable to doughnuts so my estimate at 300kcal is probably a little lower (takeaway is jumbos in stillorgan if the gluttons are interested ).

Abras & mc-donalds now have nutritional info on display so could be used.

The ones I get (rarely) are far more chicken than batter. Batter is very light, closer to chicken nugget than doughnut

ApeXaviour · 07-01-2008 5:48pm

Mellor wrote: »

Why? are you suggesting that fried rice or chips are better? Im guessing you didn't read my post correctly.

I read it fine.
Chips no. In terms of insulin though, fried rice is more amicable. The oil will slow your metabolism, meaning your blood sugar (and hence insulin) peak is much less sudden and dramatic, this is desirable. Technically it means fried rice has a lower GI. Plus there is also egg, with its great protein, and scallions, which are green so must be good.

The worst thing about fried rice is the amount of white rice that's in it, then the salt/msg, then the type of oil used: vegetable oil, far too much omega6 PUFAS (polyunsaturated fatty acids), that can oxidise at high frying temperatures.

My local does beansprouts as a side order iirc. If I had a menu in front of me, I may have been able to pick out a couple of other things slightly less pernicious than white rice.

As an aside:
Soup starters are very good usually as chinese soups tend to be watery.

rubadub · 07-01-2008 6:35pm

Mellor wrote: »

The ones I get (rarely) are far more chicken than batter. Batter is very light, closer to chicken nugget than doughnut

Yep, so you would adjust accordingly, maybe check what KFC is online. Fried chicken will be worse than roast.

I know the type you mean too, I know another chinese that does them with really thin batter like that.

Mellor · 08-01-2008 12:47am

ApeXaviour wrote: »

I read it fine.
Chips no. In terms of insulin though, fried rice is more amicable. The oil will slow your metabolism, meaning your blood sugar (and hence insulin) peak is much less sudden and dramatic, this is desirable. Technically it means fried rice has a lower GI. Plus there is also egg, with its great protein, and scallions, which are green so must be good.

The worst thing about fried rice is the amount of white rice that's in it, then the salt/msg, then the type of oil used: vegetable oil, far too much omega6 PUFAS (polyunsaturated fatty acids), that can oxidise at high frying temperatures.

My local does beansprouts as a side order iirc. If I had a menu in front of me, I may have been able to pick out a couple of other things slightly less pernicious than white rice.

As an aside:
Soup starters are very good usually as chinese soups tend to be watery.

I never said boiled rice was the best thing on the menu, I will admit there are fer better, soup being one. A sachet of soy sauce can't be too bad either

It was in relation to sides, I will also accept veg if available would be better, but it isn't available in most places. My comment was in relation to Chips, boiled rice, and fried rice.

I take your point in relation to GI, and the oil slowing meta down, but thats in isolation.
If you were to pick one option between all three standard sides. Which would you say is the best, in terms of overall health and nuitrition. Considering all things, in terms of insulation, Calories, fats, carbs, protein, greens, etc etc. Everything.
I never said any were "good", i'd prefere is mine did veg.

As for lower GI, if i get a chinese, i douse it in vinegar, so thats a help there I suppose

ApeXaviour · 08-01-2008 1:26am

Mellor wrote: »

As for lower GI, if i get a chinese, i douse it in vinegar, so thats a help there I suppose

Does it? How?

I don't like vinegar. I mean the taste is fine, but increasing the acidity* of your foods is usually a bad thing (for your bones mostly).

*Apart from fruit acids for some reason I don't fully grasp yet, fruits give you a net base pH. Lemon juice on salads ftw

Sugar Drunk · 09-01-2008 12:11pm

thats scary figures rubabdub confirms what I thought though. Portions form my local chinese are huge too (they are much smaller if you eat there rather than takeaway no idea why that is). I can never eat more than half of a takeaway order and was feeling wasteful but it really is too big for one person

Mellor · 11-01-2008 11:45am

ApeXaviour wrote: »

Does it? How?

I don't like vinegar. I mean the taste is fine, but increasing the acidity* of your foods is usually a bad thing (for your bones mostly).

*Apart from fruit acids for some reason I don't fully grasp yet, fruits give you a net base pH. Lemon juice on salads ftw

Its to do with metabolic impact of acetic acid. Maybe this is another acception as well as fruit. (it is formed form distillation of various fruits or grains)

Wikipedia* wrote:

Medicinal uses
Many remedies and treatments have been ascribed to vinegar over millennia in many different cultures. However, few have been verifiable using controlled medical trials and several that are effective to some extent have significant risks and side effects.

Cholesterol
A scientific study published in 2006 concluded that a test group of rats fed with acetic acid (the main component of vinegar) had "significantly lower values for serum total cholesterol and triacylglycerols", among other health benefits.

Blood glucose control and diabetic management
Small amounts of vinegar (approx. 20 mls or two tablespoons of domestic vinegar) added to food, or taken along with a meal, have been shown by a number of medical trials to reduce the glycemic index of carbohydrate food for people with and without diabetes. This has also been expressed as lower glycemic index ratings in the region of 30%

Diet control
Multiple trials indicate that taking vinegar with food increases satiety (the feeling of fullness) and so reduces the amount of food consumed. Even a single application of vinegar can lead to reduced food intake for a whole day.

More info here

I know wiki isn't a flawless source, but subjects with any science background are generally well policed, also all poiints are well referenced to external pages at the bottom.

McGinty · 14-01-2008 12:20am

Hi Op

I'm not suprised, since I joined unislim my eyes have really opened about takeaway foods and food served in restaurants, that is freshly cooked but laden, laden with calories and its no wonder we are getting fatter. I used to get the cantonese duck and chips, which I would estimate at the region of 2000 calories for that alone as the duck was deep fried (I shudder). The other day a friend of mine took me out to lunch, I was hungry but thought the seafood gratin platter sounded healthy enough, ha, ha, ha. I should have remembered gratin is french for cheese, there were about ten pieces of seafood in a gratin dish, smothered in a creamy white sauce, topped with potatoes (that were creamed with cream and butter) and a topping of cheese, that alone was in the region of 700-1000 calories alone, the wedges were another 1000 calories and the salad was smothered in oil and salad cream, I would estimate at 200 calories. So my lunch was in the region of 2000 to 2200 calories, I didn't eat it all but part of me wanted to, in future I'll stick to soup and brown bread. Food in public places are way too high in fat/sugar and salt at present.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 14-01-2008 1:57am

ApeXaviour wrote: »

The worst thing about fried rice is the amount of white rice that's in it, then the salt/msg, then the type of oil used: vegetable oil, far too much omega6 PUFAS (polyunsaturated fatty acids), that can oxidise at high frying temperatures.

So using basmati rice makes egg-fried rice ok? Sweeeet. What oil would you recommend? Currently using (a lot) of high quality olive oil.

BaZmO* · 14-01-2008 11:34am

Two things

1) Chicken Balls, Chips and Curry Sauce is not Chinese Food. (although I know you said takeaway!)

2) Are you really surprised that deep fried stodgy food like that has a ridiculously high calorie count, and therefore contributed to you being over weight?

rubadub · 14-01-2008 11:51am

BaZmO* wrote: »

Two things

1) Chicken Balls, Chips and Curry Sauce is not Chinese Food. (although I know you said takeaway!)

Actually I specifically said

I know not chinese!

, it is a pet hate of mine in fact, so many people think "chicken curry & fried rice" is a traditional chinese dish too.

BaZmO* wrote: »

2) Are you really surprised that deep fried stodgy food like that has a ridiculously high calorie count, and therefore contributed to you being over weight?

Yes, I was surprised it was SO high in calories, and from reading the other comments here most people were surprised too, questioning my (conservative) calculations. I doubt many would have guessed it was over 2500kcal, in the past I would have guessed 1500kcal. Really boils down to people main problem with food, portion size. I am just pointing out the extremes to which some portions come in, this was ~1kilo of food. Some would view a meal as a meal, oblivious to weight differences.

BaZmO* · 14-01-2008 12:18pm

Ah I know. I'm not having a go, I'm just surprised at how little people know about nutrition. I know I probably shouldn't be but there ya go.

I remember when I was really young I used to think that people that really really over weight had something wrong with their metabolisms or had big bones, etc. I was quite shocked when I realised that it was purely down to the amount that they ate, along with a lack of exercise.
Naive I know, but it was years ago and the amount of nutritional information available was at a premium. But that's not the case now, that's why I'm surprised at people's lack of knowledge.

ali.c · 14-01-2008 12:41pm

BaZmO* wrote: »

Naive I know, but it was years ago and the amount of nutritional available was at a premium. But that's not the case now, that's why I'm surprised at people's lack of knowledge.

I think part of the problem now is that there is too much contradictory information available and it can make your head spin trying to get a handle on it tbh. Add into that marketing schemes, lose weight quick schemes, nutritional information thats designed to make you think unhealthy food is actually healthy to get you to buy the product, in my mind its not too difficult to see why people struggle to get to their diets under control

As to not estimating nearly 3000kcal in a takeaway well when you think that there is no weight on the portion size, no nutritional breakdown and no notion as to what the ingredients are then its hardly surprising that most people dont know exactly how much they are eating.

BaZmO* · 14-01-2008 12:54pm

ali.c wrote: »

I think part of the problem now is that there is too much contradictory information available and it can make your head spin trying to get a handle on it tbh. Add into that marketing schemes, lose weight quick schemes, nutritional information thats designed to make you think unhealthy food is actually healthy to get you to buy the product, in my mind its not too difficult to see why people struggle to get to their diets under control

Very good point.

It's like the "90% fat free" thing you see on a lot of packaging. If an item is, and was always, 100g with 10g of it being fat it makes very clever, if not very deceptive, marketing sense to say that it's 90% fat free. It sounds very healthy that way.

It's like the way they started to market Sunny Delight as a health drink when it came out first.

rubadub · 14-01-2008 1:39pm

BaZmO* wrote: »

It's like the way they started to market Sunny Delight as a health drink when it came out first.

And all the kids started to turn orange! it has fecking vegetable oil in it too!

Ah I know. I'm not having a go, I'm just surprised at how little people know about nutrition.

No bother. I am often surprised too. I think of myself as being aware, I was reading nutritional info on packs when I was 10, I was always into maths and calculated stuff on a "per kilo" basis back then, and also spotted scams, like watering down foods etc. I was surprised they served up so much too, 1 kilo is a lot of food for that price.

Many complain about mcdonalds "not being filling", they give normal enough portions (unless you go supersize or in the US where a "small" is huge). They are high in calories of course but it would be hard to order a standar meal in mcdonalds and be served up 2500kcal. Mcdonalds is not filling compared to others since the others have huge portions.

I did know chinese portions are huge, I didnt manage to finish them a lot of the time. Thing is many people feel they should clean their plates. I used to fall for cooking big meals as it is more energy and time efficient. e.g. the oven is on, so cook loads and save some for the next day. Thing is I saved little or none for the next day!

Many people have no idea of calorie contents of foods or preconcieved ideas about what is "good". I find the food that shocks most is packs of instant noodles, I think one tescos one is around 650kcal per pack. Pizza is also very high, most packs quote the portion as 1/2, or 1/3 the pizza and many people miss this point, as the content for the half pizza is so high anyways.

ali.c · 14-01-2008 2:57pm

BaZmO* wrote: »

Very good point.

It's like the "90% fat free" thing you see on a lot of packaging. If an item is, and was always, 100g with 10g of it being fat it makes very clever, if not very deceptive, marketing sense to say that it's 90% fat free. It sounds very healthy that way.

It's like the way they started to market Sunny Delight as a health drink when it came out first.

there is a reason why marketing is a multi million dollar industry, the sure as hell dont spend that money for nothing. Equally the amount spent on marketing food products i would imagine is far in excess of the money spent promotin good nutrition and lifestly changes.

Take for example the boots change one thing guide, in principle it sound enough so just out of curiousity* i picked up there lose weight guide. Some the stuff in it was just ridiculuos i.e. replace your daily danish with a crossiant!

*I had no intention of following the advice just idle curiosity tbh

rubadub · 14-01-2008 4:06pm

ali.c wrote: »

replace your daily danish with a crossiant!

:eek:

thats like saying replace your mars with a snickers!

Crossiant could be a lot worse as people tend to lash jam & butter on them too. It is that sort of info that drives me mad, I can imagine some lad reading that and scoffing loads everyday now convinced they are eating healthfood, "but the chemist told me to eat 5 croissants a day, why would they lie"

ali.c · 14-01-2008 4:21pm

rubadub wrote: »

Crossiant could be a lot worse as people tend to lash jam & butter on them too. It is that sort of info that drives me mad, I can imagine some lad reading that and scoffing loads everyday now convinced they are eating healthfood, "but the chemist told me to eat 5 croissants a day, why would they lie"

Maybe they do have less calories than a danish but i cant see it being much of a difference tbh.

Had a bit of an eye opener the other day too, was in a chemist and a bloke say mid twenties was in enquiring about lipotrim. The guy was on the chubby side but obese certainly did not spring to mind, "sure no problem" was the answer he was given. I left the chemist without buying anything out of disgust tbh!

rubadub · 14-01-2008 4:42pm

ali.c wrote: »

Maybe they do have less calories than a danish but i cant see it being much of a difference tbh.

Yes, depends on the size and what is on them too, let alone the kcal per 100g. That is a big problem, people might read online that a croissant is X calories or X weightwatcher points, then go find the biggest badboy in the bakery and fool themselves that it is the same as what they read. I know people who do this, fooling themselves with weightwatcher points.

That story about the lipotrim is disgraceful, of course there are good pharmacists but some are only in it for the money, unfortunately many people view medical professionals as godlike, with only your interests in mind, and are never wrong.

rubadub · 03-03-2008 2:24pm

This is US food chains, but will give you a fair idea.

Calories in takeaways- no wonder I was so fat!

Comments