Displaying calories

Pixie Girl

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/independent-woman/health-fitness/a-chicken-wrap-can-save-time-on-the-treadmill-and-calorie-counts-show-it-3009209.html

The headline of this article is absolutely ridiculous but how do people feel about cafes and fast food places printing calorie amounts on menus?

I myself think it's a great idea and would love to see it done here in Ireland. A lot of people haven't a clue the amount of calories in their food and snack mindlessly, this might make them think twice before reaching for that chocolate muffin! I think it will also create a demand for healthier options in restaurants, what do ye think?

neilthefunkeone

Agree.. I think it would be very good and will make you think about what you order!
I'm currently tracking calories on an app for my phone.. And i've had a few surprises in what i thought was 'Healthy eating'!!

If they have to put all the nutritional information on packaged goods i dont see why they couldn't do it in restaurants/ cafes!

seamus

Oddly enough I proposed exactly thing kind of thing 4 months ago.

I'm starting to think that politicians are reading boards.ie and stealing my ideas

I actually think it's very important because even when people do understand the calories concept, they don't know what's in the food they're eating. I've seen people assume 200 calories in a chocolate muffin, or 500 in a bag of chipper chips.

The only real problem is regulation. A greasy takeaway will have no qualms about displaying calorie figures that are way below the actual ones.

I would call for legislation on it where a business can be instantly shut down if the figures displayed are more than 5% outside the actual figure.

BabyBirch

I think it's brilliant. I know some people don't care how many calories they're consuming, but if you are trying to keep track then this is a godsend. It's so hard to guess how many calories are in food you haven't prepared yourself, when the things that make meals calorific (lots of oil, butter, cream etc) aren't always mentioned on the menu.

rubadub

Lots of the big fastfood places have info, you can compare it to similar supermarket products too.

What really gets me is how alcohol products are exempt from having to display any info at all.

Stench Blossoms

I would really like to see this introduced as well.

Most people are blisfully unaware of the calorie content of their food.

I found it really handy while I was in the USA to know this info.

I would prefer if it was regulated as Seamus said as well.

Pixie Girl

seamus wrote: »

Oddly enough I proposed exactly thing kind of thing 4 months ago.

I'm starting to think that politicians are reading boards.ie and stealing my ideas

I actually think it's very important because even when people do understand the calories concept, they don't know what's in the food they're eating. I've seen people assume 200 calories in a chocolate muffin, or 500 in a bag of chipper chips.

The only real problem is regulation. A greasy takeaway will have no qualms about displaying calorie figures that are way below the actual ones.

I would call for legislation on it where a business can be instantly shut down if the figures displayed are more than 5% outside the actual figure.

That was a great post Seamus, I must have missed that thread.

Totally agree with you, most people completely underestimate their calorie intake... just last night I was at a starbucks (where they have all their calories displayed) with a friend and she was disgusted to see that a huuuge chocolate chunk shortbread cookie had over 500 calories in it... she was genuinely shocked and when I said yeah sure its full of butter and sugar she looked at me completely bewildered!

I can also see what you mean about regulation. Out of interest, how would a sit down restaurant go about putting a calorific value on their foods? I can understand that it is much easier for fast food chains where there is more consistency in the portion sizes and cooking procedures
but for a sit down place where chefs aren’t always using identical cuts of meat or pre-portioned ingredients how would it work?

Boulevardier

I have mixed feelings on this.

I am oveweight and in WW, so I would benefit considerably. On the other hand, I do not like all this pervasive health-correctness.

I would favour compulsory provision of one low-calorie dessert such as fresh fruit salad, on all menus. Have you ever noticed how most restaurants avoid doing this, perhaps so as not to make everyone feel they shouldn't order something naughty?

Stench Blossoms

Boulevardier wrote: »

I have mixed feelings on this.

I am oveweight and in WW, so I would benefit considerably. On the other hand, I do not like all this pervasive health-correctness.

I would favour compulsory provision of one low-calorie dessert such as fresh fruit salad, on all menus. Have you ever noticed how most restaurants avoid doing this, perhaps so as not to make everyone feel they shouldn't order something naughty?

Fruit has a lot of calories in it as well you know. That fresh fruit salad might be the healthier option but it might not be the lowest calorie option.

pinkypinky

I'm all for this plan but I don't eat in fast food takeaway places very often and when I do, it's a treat. The other night I had a chocolate malt in Eddie Rockets. I know there were a million calories in it but I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I actually eat in proper restaurants more often and they don't seem to be included in this idea.

I think it will make people stop and think more often but if you are the kind of person who eats that sort of takeaway more than once a week (or even more than twice a month), then you probably already know that's not good for you.

Stench Blossoms

pinkypinky wrote: »

I'm all for this plan but I don't eat in fast food takeaway places very often and when I do, it's a treat. The other night I had a chocolate malt in Eddie Rockets. I know there were a million calories in it but I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I actually eat in proper restaurants more often and they don't seem to be included in this idea.

I think it will make people stop and think more often but if you are the kind of person who eats that sort of takeaway more than once a week (or even more than twice a month), then you probably already know that's not good for you.

It's not just for fast food takeaways though. O'Brien's for example. Good few people could go there on their lunch. Most people would think a ceasar salad was healthy; not realising that the dressing on it would be high in calories.

saa

I want them to display every calories as they display every price and stop putting extra sugar, salt and god knows what into my food because they're cheaper ingredients, I'd rather eat less in that case.

Everyone has a certain amount they can spend in cash and a certain amount they can afford in calories, imagine if there were no prices anywhere it would really hard to keep track of things, and that's why I don't eat out dear Irish economy, I do not know what I'm eating really.

artyeva

i think it's a great idea, but would have reservations as to how it would be enforced.

for instance, there's a cafe/restaurant that myself and himself go to once every few months as a treat. all their food is locally sourced, most is organic, it's cooked fresh, and what some would deem ''healthy''. but their portions are massive and they use butter and sugar and cream as if it's going out of fashion - so it's definitely going to be really high in calories, no matter how gorgeous and flavoursome and downright yum it is what's to stop them artificially lowering the calorie content on their menus so they don't lose out on business from the local foodie community? just a thought.

i did the survey on the fsai website here. if you have an opinion on it now's yer chance to have yer say!

Bad idea for restaurants, in my opinion.

Ridiculously overweight myself, and trying to do something about it, but this kinda seems like now you won't even be able to enjoy a meal in peace.

Every now and again myeslf and a few friends go to a local indian place and get food. There's no way it's healthy for you and it probably has a million calories, but I'd rather be ignorant to approximate calorie counts and be able to just enjoy my food.


Unless you're fairly well off, eating out is usually a luxury, a treat, and not a regular occurrence for most people. I can see people now looking at the menu and thinking "oh that looks lovely, I'll have that!" and then seeing the calorie count beside it and thinking "Ah, on second thoughts I suppose I may get something else instead".

I'd rather be a happy fat bastard than be miserable and 'average weight'.


Fast food/takeaways I wouldn't care about though.

artyeva

Deleted User wrote: »

I can see people now looking at the menu and thinking "oh that looks lovely, I'll have that!" and then seeing the calorie count beside it and thinking "Ah, on second thoughts I suppose I may get something else instead".

i take your point, but what you've said above is exactly why i think there SHOULD be colorie content labelling! people need the right information to make the right choices for themselves, whatever that may be.

Birdie086

I am overweight myself here, used to post around here but lost my way........................anyhow the pounds are startin to slip away a little easier this time and by easier I mean slowly but I am forcing myself to double check myself each time I eat to see if I am actually hungry or not and double checking what it actually is I am eating. I suppose an actual real awareness of what and why I am eating is how it is working.

I think displaying the calorie count would be great, dead handy for those specifically counting calories, and those like myself who just need a little kick up the butt(a constant kick I might add). I was in KFC a few weeks ago and they had the values displayed on the big posters on the windows which although having a FKC itself isnt healthy at least it is mega clear the shocking amount of cals in their stuff.

Any smokers out there???????????? Do ye read the health warning on the the packs of cigs?????????? Cos I don't even see them anymore. (I know a smoker to boot) - my point is would the same just happen with the cal displays, would the people who really NEED them just stop seeing them after a while????????????

dearg lady

Deleted User wrote: »

Bad idea for restaurants, in my opinion.

Ridiculously overweight myself, and trying to do something about it, but this kinda seems like now you won't even be able to enjoy a meal in peace.

Every now and again myeslf and a few friends go to a local indian place and get food. There's no way it's healthy for you and it probably has a million calories, but I'd rather be ignorant to approximate calorie counts and be able to just enjoy my food.


Unless you're fairly well off, eating out is usually a luxury, a treat, and not a regular occurrence for most people. I can see people now looking at the menu and thinking "oh that looks lovely, I'll have that!" and then seeing the calorie count beside it and thinking "Ah, on second thoughts I suppose I may get something else instead".

I'd rather be a happy fat bastard than be miserable and 'average weight'.


Fast food/takeaways I wouldn't care about though.

I don't think that's fair, it's important for people to be able to make informed choices. Say if there was two dishes you were torn between and one was half the calories, wouldn't you prefer to know that?

There's no point burying your head in the sand. Allowing guilt free treats is fine, but you might as well know what you're eating.

BabyBirch

dearg lady wrote: »

I don't think that's fair, it's important for people to be able to make informed choices. Say if there was two dishes you were torn between and one was half the calories, wouldn't you prefer to know that?

There's no point burying your head in the sand. Allowing guilt free treats is fine, but you might as well know what you're eating.

I agree, and it's not all about choosing the lowest calorie option on a menu either. If I eat a higher calorie meal in a cafe for lunch, then I might like to be able to compensate and eat a lower calorie dinner that evening. I can only do that if I know what I'm eating

Mellor

Pixie Girl wrote: »

I can also see what you mean about regulation. Out of interest, how would a sit down restaurant go about putting a calorific value on their foods? I can understand that it is much easier for fast food chains where there is more consistency in the portion sizes and cooking procedures
but for a sit down place where chefs aren’t always using identical cuts of meat or pre-portioned ingredients how would it work?

In australia, fast food palces are required to display calorie amounts. It's mostly the chains that are forced to do it, and cafes and restuarents not really do it.

I think its good. It makes people think about ordering the new icedrak dessert drink form McDs when they see its got the same calories as a burger.

Pixie Girl

artyeva wrote: »

i did the survey on the fsai website here. if you have an opinion on it now's yer chance to have yer say!

Thanks a million for that link, I just did the survey and hope everyone else on this thread does it too!

BabyBirch wrote: »

I agree, and it's not all about choosing the lowest calorie option on a menu either. If I eat a higher calorie meal in a cafe for lunch, then I might like to be able to compensate and eat a lower calorie dinner that evening. I can only do that if I know what I'm eating

Yeah exactly, at least you can budget your calories then just as you would with money!!

Mellor wrote: »

In australia, fast food palces are required to display calorie amounts. It's mostly the chains that are forced to do it, and cafes and restuarents not really do it.

I think its good. It makes people think about ordering the new icedrak dessert drink form McDs when they see its got the same calories as a burger.

Is that the milkshake thing? 580 calories for the chocolate one :eek:

Mellor

Pixie Girl wrote: »

Is that the milkshake thing? 580 calories for the chocolate one :eek:

Yeah, chocolate with the cream on top. About 450-500 cals. Makes you stop and think

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

but I'd rather be ignorant to approximate calorie counts and be able to just enjoy my food.

...and that's exactly why people are overweight.

It's possible to know exactly what's in your food and enjoy it anyway. I know how many calories are in a Guinness, I know what damage alcohol does to my liver and brain, but by christ I love a good big creamy pint of Guinness and I don't feel the slightest bit guilty about it. I only feel guilty when I injure someone else. I have a natural right to injure myself all I like, so I feel no guilt about doing bad things to myself.

If someone feels guilty after eating something nice, then that's their own problem, most likely unrelated to the food. I would hazard a guess that if you think that something has a "million calories" then you probably feel guilty about eating it whether or not you know exactly how many calories are in it.

You're not going to be forced to sign a document confirming that you accept the calories the meal. It's a number that'll be written there, you can choose to ignore it.

syklops

Pixie Girl wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/independent-woman/health-fitness/a-chicken-wrap-can-save-time-on-the-treadmill-and-calorie-counts-show-it-3009209.html

The headline of this article is absolutely ridiculous but how do people feel about cafes and fast food places printing calorie amounts on menus?

I myself think it's a great idea and would love to see it done here in Ireland. A lot of people haven't a clue the amount of calories in their food and snack mindlessly, this might make them think twice before reaching for that chocolate muffin! I think it will also create a demand for healthier options in restaurants, what do ye think?

I was in the US last January on Business. I was trying to watch what I eat but the expenses paid steaks were hard to resist. Believe it or not over about 2 weeks I lost weight about 5kg.

Everywhere we went the calories were displayed so I could easily mix and match. One place I was in I was going to eat healthily and have a steak and salad until I realised the salad with dressing was 400 calories, almost as much as the steak and fries was :eek: which you wouldn't normally expect until you became aware of it.

I would absolutely be in favour of that here(Ireland) and everywhere else too. I know the calorie count is never exact, but it at least can give you an idea, and if you add up what you have had in a day and you are hitting your target, then you know you should have a light dinner.

I think the best way of bringing this in would be to write to your favourite restaurants and ask them to start doing this. Word it so they understand that you are more likely to go to a place where the calorie count is displayed than somewhere where it isn't.

Boulevardier

Just did that survey - its very biased, littered with statements supporting the calorie count idea but no statements critical of it.

seamus

Boulevardier wrote: »

Just did that survey - its very biased, littered with statements supporting the calorie count idea but no statements critical of it.

Well to be fair, you have the option of answering "no" to all of the questions and giving your criticism.

The proposal is to implement the idea, and the survey is to gather opinions about the proposal. It's not a scientific study which has to be unbiased.

Doctor_Socks

I'd be all for the idea of restaurants and fast food outlets having to provide calorie information for their meals. Subway and McDonalds do it here, Subway display it on their menus while McDonalds display it on the underside of the paper they place on their trays. They also provide a breakdown of the calories (Carbs, Fats, Protein along with salt and sugar) which is another great addition because if something is high in calories but most of it is protein I wouldn't mind eating it as I know i'll be full from it, unlike carbs which could have me hounding for more food an hour later!

I don't really understand the argument about wanting to keep food guilt free. If i'm going for a Chinese takeaway or something else along those lines, I know that its going to be very high in calories! I'd still like to know how much calories though just so I can be aware of it.

mloc

I have mixed feelings on this; I don't like the idea of introducing laws in general, unless they are very necessary, and I'm particularly sceptical of mandatory anything.

I think for fast food and casual dining there might be a benefit. I don't like the idea of forcing Michelin starred chefs to calculate calorie values for each course of a menu that changes daily, often with many courses. I think it's not so black and white.

saa

Pixie Girl wrote: »

Yeah exactly, at least you can budget your calories then just as you would with money!!

Is that the milkshake thing? 580 calories for the chocolate one :eek:

Absolutely agree, you only have a certain amount of calories to spend, I would even take a rough estimate for foods that vary in portion.

But if you think the Burger King milkshake is bad the Eddie Rockets one is
1000 calories........ I was eating that every so often with dippers and chips, I feel sick thinking about it, If I knew I think I would have ordered the smallest portions of everything with water, its the sure it doesn't matter attitude thats so dangerous.

Stench Blossoms

saa wrote: »

Absolutely agree, you only have a certain amount of calories to spend, I would even take a rough estimate for foods that vary in portion.

But if you think the Burger King milkshake is bad the Eddie Rockets one is
1000 calories........ I was eating that every so often with dippers and chips, I feel sick thinking about it, If I knew I think I would have ordered the smallest portions of everything with water, its the sure it doesn't matter attitude thats so dangerous.

How did you find out it was 1000 calories?

Pixie Girl

mloc wrote: »

I have mixed feelings on this; I don't like the idea of introducing laws in general, unless they are very necessary, and I'm particularly sceptical of mandatory anything.

It is necessary though.... obesity is a major health concern, Irish people are already the second fattest in Europe, it's time something was done about it.

mloc wrote: »

I think for fast food and casual dining there might be a benefit. I don't like the idea of forcing Michelin starred chefs to calculate calorie values for each course of a menu that changes daily, often with many courses. I think it's not so black and white.

I get your point but people paying Michelin prices for dinner aren't going to be overly worried about the heart attack inducing contents of their plate... The heart attack inducing contents of their bill will probably be more than enough stress.

saa wrote: »

Absolutely agree, you only have a certain amount of calories to spend, I would even take a rough estimate for foods that vary in portion.

But if you think the Burger King milkshake is bad the Eddie Rockets one is
1000 calories........ I was eating that every so often with dippers and chips, I feel sick thinking about it, If I knew I think I would have ordered the smallest portions of everything with water, its the sure it doesn't matter attitude thats so dangerous.

Oh my god.... 1,000 calories :eek: I knew it was bad but didn't think it was that bad... I used to always get a strawberry malt with my burger and chips too, jesus, no wonder I was overweight!

syklops

mloc wrote: »

I have mixed feelings on this; I don't like the idea of introducing laws in general, unless they are very necessary, and I'm particularly sceptical of mandatory anything.

I think for fast food and casual dining there might be a benefit. I don't like the idea of forcing Michelin starred chefs to calculate calorie values for each course of a menu that changes daily, often with many courses. I think it's not so black and white.

I think a Michelin starred chef would be able to estimate the calorie count of most things they cook with. It wouldnt be a lot of extra work. You dont need to measure the calories for each dish, just record the calories for the ingredients and add them together.

BostonB

I think its a great idea to put this on menu's.

Another one you wouldn't be aware of is the sauces and dressings.

On eddies there was this on WW points.
http://theskinnydollsjourney.blogspot.com/p/sweet.html

syklops

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

How did you find out it was 1000 calories?

Well according to their website it is 15 fluid Oz's which is about 480 ml, so about a half litre, and the main component in it is Ice Cream, so a half litre of Ice Cream before you add any flavours or colors is about a 1000.

My math is not scientific, but I reckon its pretty much on the money.

Pixie Girl

BostonB wrote: »

On eddies there was this on WW points.
http://theskinnydollsjourney.blogspot.com/p/sweet.html

syklops wrote: »

Well according to their website it is 15 fluid Oz's which is about 480 ml, so about a half litre, and the main component in it is Ice Cream, so a half litre of Ice Cream before you add any flavours or colors is about a 1000.

My math is not scientific, but I reckon its pretty much on the money.

1 pp = approximately 40 cals so yeah you are fairly spot on.

Stench Blossoms

Good to know. I wasn't doubting it I was just wondering if they had started putting up the calorie content online already.

saa

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

How did you find out it was 1000 calories?

It was on their old website but I have a feeling they have reduced the size of the milkshakes, I checked their site and it says nutrition facts coming soon, they've probably been coming soon for a good while.

syklops

saa wrote: »

It was on their old website but I have a feeling they have reduced the size of the milkshakes, I checked their site and it says nutrition facts coming soon, they've probably been coming soon for a good while.

I wonder if the reason they have changed the size of the milkshakes because they saw the calorie content and thought "Hey you know what? We dont need to be selling 1000 calorie shakes"

seamus

syklops wrote: »

I wonder if the reason they have changed the size of the milkshakes because they saw the calorie content and thought "Hey you know what? We dont need to be selling 1000 calorie shakes"

It's more likely that they thought, "Hey, you know what? We can reduce the size of our malts by 5% but keep the same glass and the same price and no-one will notice."

syklops

seamus wrote: »

It's more likely that they thought, "Hey, you know what? We can reduce the size of our malts by 5% but keep the same glass and the same price and no-one will notice."

That crossed my mind just as I clicked post.

ACProctor

I think this legislation is the most stupid idea yet from this government. When James Reilly threatened in the papers recently that it will be enforced, and that food outlets may be prosecuted, I thought he should return to something he's good at - assuming there is something.

If I go to a restaurant - which isn't often - then I want a treat; a good meal. I couldn't give a stuff about the calorific value. I come from a family of cooks and chefs, and I realise that if a chef wants to produce a "dish of the day", the last thing he needs is to send it off to some laboratory to get tested (which may take weeks).

Even if I go to a fast-food outlet, or a cafe, I certainly won't be taking any notice of the calorific value. In fact most people would probably be looking at the price instead.

There is a serious point here, though. It's not all about calories. Healthy food is NOT synonymous with low calories. I can imagine a day when food outlets start putting artificial replacements for the high-calorie components in their food, simply to enhance their mandatory labelling, and that's when I will stop eating out. How many people avoid, or at least fear, artificial sweeteners. If you don't then you should. What about salt? Remember all the arguments about MSG (Monosodium Glutamate) being routinely added to stuff as a flavour enhancer. They even used to put it in canisters of salt itself. Even now, if you get a hangover after a bad takeaway meal then it's likely that MSG is the culprit. Salt content is still routinely attacked but it's refined salt they should be talking about. Your body not only needs salt, but it needs a balance between sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium. Refined salt upsets this balance, whereas sea salt, or rock salt, is less of an issue.

What people really need is education about good food, and how to cook good food from fresh produce. It doesn't have to be expensive but you can easily produce a great meal from fresh meat and veg. Our parents and grandparents would take that for granted! Even when I used to live on my own, I could do this and hold down a full-time job so don't anyone give me the story about convenience, and there being no time available.

A doctor once told me 'avoid anything that's processed', and I totally agree with him. Quite recently, a food researcher interviewed on WLR commented on the government wanting to label all boxes of food with their calorific value by saying 'if you're eating out of a box then you're already eating the wrong stuff'.

Yes, I eat bacon. No, I don't cut the fat off pork (that's where the taste is). Yes, I eat real butter. etc. The important issue here is that your diet needs to be broad and balanced. Lots of stuff can be bad if you try and live off that alone. If you had a fried breakfast every day then you will eventually kill yourself. Think of it like "hedging your bets". Eat wisely, and enjoy the variety!!

Tony

BTW, my BMI is low-20's and my heart is "very healthy".

Stench Blossoms

^^^^

Just don't look at them.

boogle

I think it could be helpful, and certainly wouldn't do any harm to display the calories in outlets that serve fast food or has a menu that doesn't change and where foods are portioned. (These places are ideally best avoided anyway, but sometimes you get caught out and about with friends etc and don't have much of a choice!)

I have a problem with enforcing this legislation on sit-down restaurants that serve wholesome food. Example: my favourite local restaurant has a menu that changes every few months. Also, they have 2 or 3 different specials on any given night you go in. These specials are devised based on what fish was nice in the fishmongers that day, or some deal from the butchers on lamb/beef etc. All yummy stuff made from real wholesome ingredients. Now if they were forced to calculate the calories on every dish, they'd be weighing every knob of butter and spoonful of sauce. They'd say "feck this" and never bother changing their menu. Not what I want to happen!

rubadub

ACProctor wrote: »

If I go to a restaurant - which isn't often - then I want a treat; a good meal. I couldn't give a stuff about the calorific value....
Even if I go to a fast-food outlet, or a cafe, I certainly won't be taking any notice of the calorific value. In fact most people would probably be looking at the price instead.

What about people who are the opposite?, who rarely eat at home and are often eating out. Most people in supermarkets probably care more about price too, but I like to see values there and almost always read them. Would you like to see requirements for food sold in shops to be scrapped too?

One thing I don't think I have seen mentioned is using values as an indication of portion size -which can be seen as "caring about price". i.e. I would like the calories to be listed to give me an estimate of expected portion size. e.g. if I read a dessert was a mere 150kcal I might decide not to get it as it is probably poor value, a tiny portion. I know this is not the true intention behind it but I have used values like this before. If I paid €30 for a 1,000kcal dinner and got a tiny plate I could use the quoted value to bolster a complaint.

ACProctor wrote: »

the last thing he needs is to send it off to some laboratory to get tested (which may take weeks).

:eek:, no need for that, I used to calculate the calories of my meals in a few minutes. Load of people use online calculators.

ACProctor wrote: »

It's not all about calories. Healthy food is NOT synonymous with low calories.

Did anybody claim otherwise? This is similar to people saying BMI is useless, but I see you use it later in your post.

boogle wrote: »

I have a problem with enforcing this legislation on sit-down restaurants that serve wholesome food.

A bigger problem you would have is how to write this into the legislation. How do you define junk food or wholesome food. It is very difficult and any time they do make an attempt somebody twists it and finds loopholes.

You may remember the nonsense about how US congress "defined pizza as a vegetable", strangely they did this without ever mentioning the word pizza :rolleyes: but sure why ruin a good story with the truth.

ACProctor

rubadub wrote: »

What about people who are the opposite?, who rarely eat at home and are often eating out.

If you have to eat out then I sympathise but the same sentiment applies. Fast-food isn't a substitute for good food, although there may not be a good choice where you are.

During 2009-2011, I was contracted to work just outside San Francisco. I admit I did find it very hard to eat healthily out there because fast-food places were everywhere: pizzas, burgers, etc. There were a few upmarket restaurants but they were the other extreme, and not appropriate for daily sustenance - my expenses wouldn't cover them anyway. Everthing else seems to be "fries and burgers", and veg was especially hard to find on the plate.

Tony

Cardinal Richelieu

syklops wrote: »

I think a Michelin starred chef would be able to estimate the calorie count of most things they cook with. It wouldnt be a lot of extra work. You dont need to measure the calories for each dish, just record the calories for the ingredients and add them together.

Nope, most wouldn't have a clue.

I think this area is going to be a disaster waiting to happen.

• How will the enforce it?
• Will they take food samples for lab analysis to confirm what the establishment claims is correct? I have a funny feeling that some of the smaller food establishments rather than paying for a recipe software package or trawling through a copy of McCanice and Widdowson will just look nick the calorie counts from supermarket packaging or internet recipes for what they view as similiar products .
• What is the portion size they are asking the restaurants to calculate on? Go to the supermarket and they have have the calories calculated on various different portion sizes.

Mellor

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

Nope, most wouldn't have a clue.

I think this area is going to be a disaster waiting to happen.

• How will the enforce it?
• Will they take food samples for lab analysis to confirm what the establishment claims is correct? I have a funny feeling that some of the smaller food establishments rather than paying for a recipe software package or trawling through a copy of McCanice and Widdowson will just look nick the calorie counts from supermarket packaging or internet recipes for what they view as similiar products .
• What is the portion size they are asking the restaurants to calculate on? Go to the supermarket and they have have the calories calculated on various different portion sizes.

I don't think its necessary for restaurants personally, but cafes could do their customers a favour. A estiamte is all that required. A recipe software package is not needed. There are plenty of ways to do it for free. I do it regularly myself and its not difficult and takes seconds.

Choosing similar products from a supermarket is going to give a rough idea. If an Italian cafe takes values from supermarket products for pasta, mince and tomato pasta sauce, it will be roughly in line with their own spag bol.

The portion size is based on the portions they serve. That should be obvious.

There is legislation in Australia in regards to this. All fast food chains have to display it. Smaller places tend not to, its up to city council to enforce. Some cafes have started doing this out of courtsey.

zoobizoo

It can only be a good idea to give people info on what they consume.

Most people haven't a clue about calories, fat and sugar content.

I certainly think it would be great for snack foods - ie, people decide to have a muffin with their latte everyday. Knowing the number of calories that would amount to across a week might make them stop and think.

Or, it might help them to choose a less calorific option - which might in turn encourage coffee shops to bake muffins with less sugar and fat.

Also, even knowing that one's calorie intake should be X and then finding out that one meal is greater than that figure might encourage people to educate themselves.

rubadub

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

Nope, most wouldn't have a clue.

I can do it easily, looking in other threads loads manage it quite easily. I think a chef would pick it up easier than a layperson as they would be used to having to work with proportions & scales etc

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

I think this area is going to be a disaster waiting to happen.

Calories have been displayed on food in supermarkets for decades. What disaster will or has resulted from this?

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

[*]How will the enforce it?
[*]Will they take food samples for lab analysis to confirm what the establishment claims is correct?

Probably all the same as what they have done for decades with other foods. In know the tolerance on accuracy is fairly wide.

Mellor wrote: »

There is legislation in Australia in regards to this. All fast food chains have to display it.

Have you any idea how they define "fast food"?

One rule in Ireland was

A ‘standard’ food or drink item is a product that:
1) Is on sale for at least 30 days a year; and
2) Remains the same each time it is made. In this way,
calorie information calculated on these food and drink
items remains accurate

Which covers the likes of McDonalds. Though the "burger of the week" would be exempt.

more info here, there is a technical guidance link at the bottom http://www.fsai.ie/news_centre/press_releases/calories_on_menus_report/04072012.html


some other quotes from that link

A national consultation on putting calories on menus found
the vast majority of consumers in Ireland (over 95%) want
calorie information on menus

Nearly three in four food service businesses (73%) were in favour of calorie menu labelling in all or some food establishments. However, when considering the technical aspects of implementing such a scheme, the numbers of food businesses in favour of calorie menu labelling fell to just over 50%.

I'm sure most supermarket producers would do without the hassle if they had the option.

84% of consumers said calorie labelling of alcoholic beverages should apply in all or some outlets.

It still boggles the mind how booze is exempt from nutritional labelling.

El_Dangeroso

rubadub wrote: »

It still boggles the mind how booze is exempt from nutritional labelling.

I remember back when I was low carbing I was trying to find out how many carbs in a glass of red wine, seemingly noone knows for sure!

I'm against this legislation, for the same reason that I posted in the AH thread, it doesn't work, is likely to be highly inaccurate and causes extra admin headaches for an already struggling restaurant industry. Also what's to stop a restaurant massaging the figures, how will this even be correctly enforced?

An experienced calorie counter can tot up the cal count just as accurately as a restaurant can after asking a few questions, even I who has never calorie counted can get a rough amount of cals of something from the internet.

The people watching their weight should not eat out that often anyway! Restaurant food is designed to be highly rewarding, which in turn will cause an increase in hunger and calorie intake down the line, this is well established in the scientific literature.

We need to wean people from the idea that they can outsource their food sourcing and preparation with no adverse consequences.

Make ALL your food from scratch and I guarantee calorie reduction will happen on it's own for 99% of people.

Mellor

rubadub wrote: »

Have you any idea how they define "fast food"?

It was whether or not the place is part of a chain that defines the requirement. Based upon number of units statewide and/or nationwide. A restaurant chain, selling very healthy food not fast food, with 50 branches nationwide. They required to display the information. Which is fair. A lot of "healthy options", come in unhealthy portions.
It also applies to ready to eat food/meals in supermarkets. Thinks like cooked chickens, bakery items etc.

Cafes and restaurants aren't enforced to, but are encouraged.

The food that is required to be displayed;

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I remember back when I was low carbing I was trying to find out how many carbs in a glass of red wine, seemingly noone knows for sure!

That's a bit misleading.
Different wines have different sugar content, its not the case that nobody knows.

I'm against this legislation, for the same reason that I posted in the AH thread, it doesn't work, is likely to be highly inaccurate and causes extra admin headaches for an already struggling restaurant industry. Also what's to stop a restaurant massaging the figures, how will this even be correctly enforced?

It's been shown to work in other countries. By no means across the board, but any change is good. As mentioned above, in other countries doesn't apply to one off restaurants.

An experienced calorie counter can tot up the cal count just as accurately as a restaurant can after asking a few questions, even I who has never calorie counted can get a rough amount of cals of something from the internet.

Not really. Two dishes, could be near identical on the plate yet have very different values.
This isn't about counting calories, the experienced counter is irrelevant. It's not even about losign weight (so the rest is irrelevant) Its about the putting the information in the open when the general public can see it.
I've seen this first hand, having to grab something quick on the go, having the calorific value of a coke along side the burger and fries makes people think about the sugar in soft drinks. They even show things like;
"Go large +50c, +880kj*"


(*kilojoules are the default value in australia, calories are used sometimes, but kJ are always used.)

techsavysista

Think its a great idea if done right. It's in some places, select meals, like subway and lemon I think already?

for anyone with a smart phone I recommend downloading myfitnesspal. Great app for tracking calories. Losing or gaining weight and tracking exercise, water, sugar, salt and vitamin intake etc. Its pretty accurate because you can specify where you got your food (ie tesco muffin or starbucks muffin). Very handy. with this app i don't feel the need for calories to be displayed, but yeah sounds good!

Keeping in mind it's not about losing weight to everyone, for some its gainjng weight or keeping fit