Calories on a menu

davidm20

robinph wrote: »

Calories are a nonsense way of measuring the quantity of food that you are eating. It's a measure of energy in something, but has nothing to do with how good the food is for you or not.

There is 7000 calories in 1kg of coal, I'd personally rather each the pizza with extra topping though.

http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/coalequivalent.htm

Is it only me or does anyone else have a sudden urge to head home and lick some coal....I know I probably shouldn't but....

dudara

It definitely has an impact on day to day eating. It's stopped me from ordering the extra milky coffee in Starbucks on more than a few occasions, plus made me switch to a "lighter" sweet option.

End of day, we still have to take responsibility, but the calorie counts can help you choose. Ultimately though, if I want a big dirty bag of chips that bad, I'll still have them.

robinph

mariaalice wrote: »

But I didn't say anything about the quality or nutritional value of the food its about whether seeing calories on a menu prompts them to make a different decision about what they purchases.

I'd be more interested in the actual contents of the food in proper terms that mean something, like the carbs, protien etc.

Calories mean nothing on food. The calories of butter or bread or bacon or coke are all completely different so cannot be compared by such a measure.

DoYouEvenLift

robinph wrote: »

Calories are a nonsense way of measuring the quantity of food that you are eating. It's a measure of energy in something, but has nothing to do with how good the food is for you or not.

There is 7000 calories in 1kg of coal, I'd personally rather each the pizza with extra topping though.

http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/coalequivalent.htm

Lol, what? So give a better alternative? Calories can signify how good the food is for you when you choose to avoid foods that are higher in simple carbs than complex carbs and saturated and trans fats than healthy fats and protein content.

robinph

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Lol, what? So give a better alternative? Calories can signify how good the food is for you when you choose to avoid foods that are higher in simple carbs than complex carbs and saturated and trans fats than healthy fats and protein content.

Well that is the useful information to be listing then, not the calories which really mean nothing as far as food is concerned.

mariaalice

robinph wrote: »

Well that is the useful information to be listing then, not the calories which really mean nothing as far as food is concerned.

You see this is the bit where I go yawn and get turned off, its not good enough to list calories on menu they should have all that stuff as well and we should all be bringing calculators to with us and work it all out before we buy anything!!! I don't really think about what I eat but it did prompt me to make different choice when I realised how much calories was in what I was going to get, now I didn't feel deprived with my new choice it was just as tasty.

DoYouEvenLift

robinph wrote: »

Well that is the useful information to be listing then, not the calories which really mean nothing as far as food is concerned.

Yeah, like in the other post I made I'm all for it being on menus as long as detailed nutritional content is given but it's all relevant and goes together. Like if I have a set diet where I have x g's of carbs, y g's of protein and z g's of fats and they all add up to 2,500 calories per day but some days I can't be bothered counting my carbs/protein/fats so I just make sure I still hit my total calories for the day to maintain my goals in weight gain or loss.

mariaalice wrote: »

You see this is the bit where I go yawn and get turned off, its not good enough to list calories on menu they should have all that stuff as well and we should all be bringing calculators to with us and work it all out before we buy anything!!! I don't really think about what I eat but it did prompt me to make different choice when I realised how much calories was in what I was going to get, now I didn't feel deprived with my new choice it was just as tasty.

Eh, why would you need to bring a calculator to do simple maths?

Beefy78

robinph wrote: »

Well that is the useful information to be listing then, not the calories which really mean nothing as far as food is concerned.

How would you put that on a 100-item long menu though?

Calories are fine for the little nod towards discouraging an unhealthy lifestyle that this move is supposed to be helping with.

AndonHandon

If it looks nice but is low in calories I know it won't fill me. Chicken dishes are the worst for that; chicken is such an unsubstantial filler.

Dravokivich

I dont pay attentiin to the calories if provided on a menu. Im not on a strict quota that I have to adhere to. If yer eating out, enjoy it.

DoYouEvenLift

Beefy78 wrote: »

How would you put that on a 100-item long menu though?

Calories are fine for the little nod towards discouraging an unhealthy lifestyle that this move is supposed to be helping with.

Yeah, bigger menus would be impossible to have all the info but they could easily have the information available on their websites or leaflets on counters or tables.

robinph

mariaalice wrote: »

You see this is the bit where I go yawn and get turned off, its not good enough to list calories on menu they should have all that stuff as well and we should all be bringing calculators to with us and work it all out before we buy anything!!! I don't really think about what I eat but it did prompt me to make different choice when I realised how much calories was in what I was going to get, now I didn't feel deprived with my new choice it was just as tasty.

I need to know how many carbs are in everything I eat, but knowing the number of calories doesn't tell me anything useful at all.

coffee_cake

Tony EH wrote: »

1000 cals in a sandwitch?

What?

WTF was in it? A whole cow?

That's half your daily calorie count (if you're female).

I can't find where it was
It MAY have been the "all day eggworks" bagel
so
http://www.obriens.ie/pdf/obriens-calorie-counter.pdf
bagel 260
egg 120
dairy spread? 54
sausage 269
bacon 61
cheese 159

so that's 923 and im sure there's more i forgot

Dravokivich

robinph wrote: »

I need to know how many carbs are in everything I eat, but knowing the number of calories doesn't tell me anything useful at all.

Aye, all you are doing is giving a value for "x" but not showing what "x" is.

Beefy78

robinph wrote: »

I need to know how many carbs are in everything I eat, but knowing the number of calories doesn't tell me anything useful at all.

And other people don't.

Murray007

The only time I ate in a restaurant with calories on the menu I realised that my starter and mains choices where the first and second highest calorie count on the menu. I decided on a mid range main only and felt satisfied after the meal.

It works - I for one would vote for it to be compulsory on menu's.

Dravokivich

Beefy78 wrote: »

And other people don't.

Calories itself doesnt make sense though. If you want to lose weight, you need to watch your carb intake. If you want to increase weight, you should proiritise protein.

AlexisM

Sometimes you're better off not knowing. On holidays in the US I love eating in the Cheesecake Factory - but I discovered (it's unsurprisingly not listed on the menu...) that my favourite main course pasta had 2,200 calories!!! And that would be after a starter and the inevitable cheesecake...

barry181091

bluewolf wrote: »

I can't find where it was
It MAY have been the "all day eggworks" bagel
so
http://www.obriens.ie/pdf/obriens-calorie-counter.pdf
bagel 260
egg 120
dairy spread? 54
sausage 269
bacon 61
cheese 159

so that's 923 and im sure there's more i forgot

Bagels are f***ing cat for calories. I can't eat them, its like I am eating 10 slices of bread, mechanically compressed into a rough burger shape. Just seems to expand 10 times in my stomach and make me feel like sh1te!

AnonoBoy

Dravokivich wrote: »

Calories itself doesnt make sense though

It's a rough guide for us food thickos.

Baby steps.

barry181091

robinph wrote: »

Calories are a nonsense way of measuring the quantity of food that you are eating. It's a measure of energy in something, but has nothing to do with how good the food is for you or not.

There is 7000 calories in 1kg of coal, I'd personally rather each the pizza with extra topping though.

http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/coalequivalent.htm

No no no. 7000 kilocalories, so....

7000000 calories :pac: Get a few sandwiches for that

EDIT: Actually I could be wrong, apparently when we say calories we mean kcal's. I just thought coal would of had more. Huh.

DoYouEvenLift

Dravokivich wrote: »

Calories itself doesnt make sense though. If you want to lose weight, you need to watch your carb intake. If you want to increase weight, you should proiritise protein.

Can't forget the fats .


I think a lot of people are just confused by it all and don't fully understand but it only takes a minute to learn the basics of nutrition. If we had to choose to display one or the other then the best choice would be the content rather than simply shoving a calorie figure on the menu because that could put people off of foods that may otherwise actually be a healthy option for them. From a business point of view, especially actually healthy food outlets, it can also be the better option. Picture a food bar beside a gym that serves nicely cooked steak, chicken, turkey, tuna and eggs.

Tony EH

AnonoBoy wrote: »

It's a rough guide for us food thickos.

Baby steps.

Agreed. The more calories I take in, the more I store what I don't use up during the day.

It may not have the comprehensive guide to WHAT I'm actually putting into my mouth, but if I've had that 1500 calorie pizza earlier that day, I'd be looking to keep it sensible for a later meal and not sticking another 2000 calories on top of that.

robinph

Beefy78 wrote: »

And other people don't.

In which case if the carb content is irrelavent for them they can ignore it. The calorie value for a food item is of no use to anyone. It would be like saying that a pizza contains 254 Beefy78 units, but then never defining what a Beefy78 unit is in terms of nutritional content.

barry181091

robinph wrote: »

In which case if the carb content is irrelavent for them they can ignore it. The calorie value for a food item is of no use to anyone. It would be like saying that a pizza contains 254 Beefy78 units, but then never defining what a Beefy78 unit is in terms of nutritional content.

I would argue it is of great use. Its a unit of energy. A person knows not to exceed roughly X amount per day. So these quick units are a good guide for them.

Fine, might they might not be getting Xg of protein but at least they can be sure they won't be gaining 2 stone in the next month anyway :rolleyes:

Obviously totally no use to athletes or people in specific training or who have specific goals.

Beefy78

robinph wrote: »

In which case if the carb content is irrelavent for them they can ignore it. The calorie value for a food item is of no use to anyone. It would be like saying that a pizza contains 254 Beefy78 units, but then never defining what a Beefy78 unit is in terms of nutritional content.

I don't understand what you're talking about. I understand what a calorie is. I can process the concept and work with that. Many people are similar I'd say.

Beefy78

barry181091 wrote: »

I would argue it is of great use. Its a unit of energy. A person knows not to exceed roughly X amount per day. So these quick units are a good guide for them.

Fine, might they might not be getting Xg of protein but at least they can be sure they won't be gaining 2 stone in the next month anyway :rolleyes:

Obviously totally no use to athletes or people in specific training or who have specific goals.

Exactly.

EDIT - sorry I meant to edit this into my last post not to post again....

seenitall

Dravokivich wrote: »

Calories itself doesnt make sense though. If you want to lose weight, you need to watch your carb intake. If you want to increase weight, you should proiritise protein.

Not quite following, could you elaborate on this please?

Say for example, you want to lose weight, so you should ease up on bread and pasta. But if you want to increase weight, shouldn't you then be shovelling bread and pasta into ya?

I thought that protein rich, carb poor diet was actually conducive to weight loss.

Dravokivich

Beefy78 wrote: »

Exactly.

EDIT - sorry I meant to edit this into my last post not to post again....

I dont watch calories, carbs, proteins or fat intake. But if I want to watch my weight, its carbs id be looking at. Neither of the other 3.

Tokyo

seenitall wrote: »

Not quite following, could you elaborate on this please?

Say for example, you want to lose weight, so you should ease up on bread and pasta. But if you want to increase weight, shouldn't you then be shovelling bread and pasta into ya?

I thought that protein rich, carb poor diet is actually conducive to weight loss.

I'd imagine that he's referring to muscle mass, rather than just kgs