Calories on a menu

hollypink

robinph wrote: »

100 calories could be made up of 25 g of carbs, or 25g of protien or 11 g of fat. Now what use is knowing the number of calories to you if you don't know how many carbs, protiens or fat is in that food?

I think for weight loss, its useful to know about the protein content at least. Higher protein content will make you feel fuller for longer, so its easier to stick to a calorie deficit. So if two items on a menu have similar calories, the one with higher protein is probably a better choice (imho)

Beefy78

robinph wrote: »

That was the point of the experiments he was doing on himself though, to show that 5000 calories of the right type of food were not equivalent of 5000 calories of another. What the food is made up of is far more important than the actual number of calories that might be recommended as a daily intake.

Far more important? Do you honestly think that?

I'm not equipped to argue that point, to be honest. "Far more important" surprises me though.

What is the weighting there? Is someone more likely to lose weight on 2,000 calories of the wrong food or 3,000 calories of the right food?

Kells...

robinph wrote: »

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.

People lose weight by eating less calories than they burn,it's simple.

If it's on the menu it will help people counting cals

Areyouwell

mariaalice wrote: »

Would calories on a menu make you change your choices.

Not in the least. Moderation is the key imo.

mariaalice

Areyouwell wrote: »

Not in the least. Moderation is the key imo.

So you would ask for a half a sandwich or half a steak instead? and don't you think knowing the calorie contend might help people with moderation.

mariaalice

Everyone seems to be assuming making different choices because of the calorie content on menus is about weight loss, often its not its about a prompt and an awareness of the calories in the food in general. I don't eat out all the time and when I do I am not poring over the menu looking for something with the least calories( what a joyless existence that would be ) however it does make you think.

robinph

Beefy78 wrote: »

Far more important? Do you honestly think that?

I'm not equipped to argue that point, to be honest. "Far more important" surprises me though.

What is the weighting there? Is someone more likely to lose weight on 2,000 calories of the wrong food or 3,000 calories of the right food?

You are better off on 3000 of the right food than 2000 of the wrong food.

The blog I linked to above, he was eating 5000 calories of the right food, which by all accounts should have had him piling on the weight... but he didn't. Then doing the same thing but eating the wrong type of foods, although it wasn't as wrong as big Macs all day long it was high carb content.
In one he was eating 10% carb, 50% fat and 40% protein and in the other test was 73% carb, 15% protein and 11 % fat. Both diets were the same calorie total, but quite clearly are going to result in vastly different nutritional value.

AudreyHepburn

I do see the good in this to a point but I'm also not a fan of making people obsess over and worry about what they're eating anymore than they already do.

I think people today worry too much about what they can and can't eat and how much they weight etc and I just worry that this will exacerbate that.

Whatever happened to just enjoying your food?

Tony EH

robinph wrote: »

You are better off on 3000 of the right food than 2000 of the wrong food.

True, but your body will still store the calories as fat, if you don't use them, regardless whether it's calories from carbohydrates or protein.

ShadowHearth

Beefy78 wrote: »

But these numbers aren't being put onto menus for the sort of people who would be on such a 5,000 calorie a day diet. They're for people who want to keep an eye on their consumption.

A mate of mine is a Doctor up in Belfast. He bangs on and on and on about how losing weight is as simple as burning more calories than you injest. I'm sure to people who understand nutrition or want to understand, or who are eating and exercising towards a specific goal there's more to is than that but to 90% of the population keeping it as simple as that works. And it is for that 90% that these numbers are being printed.

I could not agree more on this. Thats what I am doing right now and very successfully I might add.
In health and fitness forum there is a thread on how to calculate calories needed according to your own weight. Its a great start to losing weight. So yeah, Calories on menus do help. Same way like all the calories written on food that you get in supermarkets.

AndonHandon

mariaalice wrote: »

Everyone seems to be assuming making different choices because of the calorie content on menus is about weight loss, often its not its about a prompt and an awareness of the calories in the food in general. I don't eat out all the time and when I do I am not poring over the menu looking for something with the least calories( what a joyless existence that would be ) however it does make you think.

Sensational point if you reflect on it; We don't eat out for every meal so when we do it is annoying to be confronted with a judgemental calorie content figure.

/thread

Tar.Aldarion

robinph wrote: »

You are better off on 3000 of the right food than 2000 of the wrong food.

The blog I linked to above, he was eating 5000 calories of the right food, which by all accounts should have had him piling on the weight... but he didn't. Then doing the same thing but eating the wrong type of foods, although it wasn't as wrong as big Macs all day long it was high carb content.
In one he was eating 10% carb, 50% fat and 40% protein and in the other test was 73% carb, 15% protein and 11 % fat. Both diets were the same calorie total, but quite clearly are going to result in vastly different nutritional value.

Of course they have a different nutritional value, nobody said otherwise. What they do have is the same amount of calories. They will lose or gain the same amount of weight, just be healthier or unhealthier depending on the fuel they intake.

robinph

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Of course they have a different nutritional value, nobody said otherwise. What they do have is the same amount of calories. They will lose or gain the same amount of weight, just be healthier or unhealthier depending on the fuel they intake.

But that is the thing, they won't loose or gain the same amount of weight if all you are paying attention to is the calories number. A diet with 70% carbs is going to have you putting on more weight than one with 15% carbs even if the calories number is the same.

Tony EH

...if you're overeating.

Hence, the calorie count.

Talib Fiasco

The calories of all meals should be displayed as well as the macros!

Tiddlypeeps

robinph wrote: »

But that is the thing, they won't loose or gain the same amount of weight if all you are paying attention to is the calories number. A diet with 70% carbs is going to have you putting on more weight than one with 15% carbs even if the calories number is the same.

Since that outright breaks the laws of physics I'm going to have to ask you for a reputable source on that one. I'm afraid given the gravity of the claim "some guy on some blog claims to have lost weight" isn't going to cut it.

Tar.Aldarion

robinph wrote: »

But that is the thing, they won't loose or gain the same amount of weight if all you are paying attention to is the calories number. A diet with 70% carbs is going to have you putting on more weight than one with 15% carbs even if the calories number is the same.

But these disagree? (20 research papers) at a quick look, nothing I've seen says different.
http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-loss.html

And even if it was different there is in no way it would be significant to realise. The above 5k cals on either diet would not make somebody fat with one and say the same weight with another. The bodies engine may use macros differently but it is totally insignificant to amount of calories from all the content I've seen (apart form cases on extreme malnutrition illness). Be interested in reading some stuff to the contrary.


people don't lose weight on paleo diets due to meat being magic, they are simply eating less calories, same as any diet.

coffee_cake

You'd probably lose the same weight but have a different body composition because of losing more muscle than fat . It'd be harder doing it on mostly carbs i would think also due to less satiety and maybe energy

Talib Fiasco

Obviously reducing caloric intake is going to help you lose weight and fat but reducing the amount of carbs is equally important. When I am cutting I reduce calories just below my maintenance but drop carbs intake dramatically and increase the protein. After a few days of little to no carbs your body goes into a state of ketosis and your body begins to use the fat resources as energy. It's definitely the most effective way of losing fat for me.

Muahahaha

suicide_circus wrote: »

It does work but its annoying when you're going out to relax and enjoy some deliciousness and then you feel guilty for ordering what you want.

Agree with this. When you've eaten 1000 calories on a main course you're then a lot less likely to have that dessert as you know it will add a further 600 to your total and if you're having a few beers then its even more. To burn 600 calories for me is just over an hours cycling at a fast rate so you soon get thinking when faced with that choice on a menu.

Overall though I'd rather know than not know. I just gotta implement a policy of not eating rubbish during the week while getting exercise in and then when it comes to eating out I can have whatever I want and more or less ignore what calories it says on the menu as I'll have earned it

wendell borton

Does every aspect of life now have to be regulated, sometimes I think we'd all be better off living in caves, hunter gathering.

Talib Fiasco

wendell borton wrote: »

Those every aspect of life now have to be regulated, someone I think we all be better off living in caves, hunter gathering.

Repeat that could please you?

The Cool

It definitely does affect my choices, since KFC put all their calorie contents on their menu I very rarely go there. I used to eat from there maybe once a month but now I can't bring myself to eat 1000 calories at lunch, unless I know I'm going to be doing a lot that day to work it off.

I'm obviously glad that I know there's that many calories in what I'm eating but sometimes I want a dirty feed without feeling guilty!

To Elland Back

I wouldn't pay any particular attention to it myself. However, I do think we need to be educated, as a society, as to what is involved in our food. Obesity is becoming a problem and it might allow better choices be made.

My personal philosophy is to eat and drink what you like but work it off with exercise and being generally mobile

ghostdancer

i'd prefer if they put the protein/carbohydrate/fat breakdown instead tbh.


protein + fat FTW

osarusan

I get the argument that it doesn't mention nutritional content, and of course nutritional content is important but listing calories is a useful thing.

If I were offered a choice of two meals hidden under a serving lid, and asked to choose between the 650 and 850 calorie meal, I'd as to see them first, because in that case, I'd have nothing else to work with. Uncover the food and I can see that one is a steak with steamed vegetables for 850 cal and the other is a 650 cal sandwich of bargain basement sausages and white bread, I know which one to choose.

If we have nothing but calorie content to look at, it's not very useful, but we don't usually get our food like that.

Most people have a decent idea of what's good and bad for us, and if we see two sandwiches on the menu that have basically the same ingredients (and basically the same nutritional value), but one sandwich comes with crisps and is listed as 200 calories more, I think we can trust most people to understand why.

AndonHandon

ghostdancer wrote: »

i'd prefer if they put the protein/carbohydrate/fat breakdown instead tbh.


protein + fat FTW

Let's see those abs.

Shenshen

wendell borton wrote: »

Does every aspect of life now have to be regulated, sometimes I think we'd all be better off living in caves, hunter gathering.

The irony of reading this posted on an online forum is amusing.