Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Calorie counts on menus?

Options
12467

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


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


    It's a step in the right direction. Much better than not displaying calories and people eating the extra calories because they didn't realise that the dressing on the salad was so calorific.


  • Options
    #93
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    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.


    Totally agree about education and it needs to be from primary school. However, people like my parents just wouldn't get it so easily. Calories are a good indicator for them. Sometimes it is not possible to teach an old dog new tricks.


  • Options
    #94
    JohnK
    Registered Users Posts: 4,780 ✭✭✭JohnK


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Fair point but showing calories does not address the issues you mentioned. Adding counts without context is not useful.
    Well we'll have to agree to disagree there as I'm down 100lb purely by counting calories and ignoring everything else. Sure it might be better to fully contextualise everything but its not an absolute requirement.


  • Options
    #95
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,504 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    JohnK wrote: »
    Well we'll have to agree to disagree there as I'm down 100lb purely by counting calories and ignoring everything else. Sure it might be better to fully contextualise everything but its not an absolute requirement.

    Sure you can do it that way, you can also not count calories and eat less, you can consume more protein and lift and change body composition. Dropping calories from good sources indiscriminately is a bad idea however, for example:

    Say dinner A has 1.3k calories with the majority of them coming from good fats and lean protein. This is a better choice than dinner B which is 1.1k calories from mainly simple sugars. The proposed system takes no heed of this and actually pushes people to a poorer choice.


  • Options
    #96
    MartyMcFly84
    Registered Users Posts: 1,326 ✭✭✭MartyMcFly84


    If we need not have an obesity epidemic there would be no need.

    But the fact is we do. Loads of people don't have a clue. I regularly see parents giving their kids crisps and 500 ml bottle of coke, or babies apple or orange juice thinking its fine.

    One bottle or can of coke would be way way over the amount of sugar a kid should eat. It also develops tastes and eating habits for processed high sugar, carb and sodium foods , that can last a life time. Hence the massive rise diabetes and other weight associated illnesses.

    Its very difficult to get people who have been eating these kind of foods for decades to sit down to veg and fish or meat.

    In fact fewer and fewer people actually cook any more. Which in my opinion is a major contributor to the health problems the country is facing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    hardCopy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭hardCopy


    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?

    There could be quite a difference in calories between a bowl of ice cream and a bowl of sorbet printing calories helps people make that realisation.

    Calories alone aren't a perfect solution but given the opposition to this step from the hospitality industry, it'll be some time before we can convince them to print Carbs, Fat and Protein contents.

    The calorie count isn't the only number that matters but if you're only going to print one number then calories should be the priority.


  • Options
    #98
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,504 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    hardCopy wrote: »
    There could be quite a difference in calories between a bowl of ice cream and a bowl of sorbet printing calories helps people make that realisation.

    Calories alone aren't a perfect solution but given the opposition to this step from the hospitality industry, it'll be some time before we can convince them to print Carbs, Fat and Protein contents.

    The calorie count isn't the only number that matters but if you're only going to print one number then calories should be the priority.

    Yes, there are limited reasons why it is useful, I never said there were not. I have given a specific example where they are less than useful though. I don't think pushing a sh1te solution is a good idea.


  • Options
    #99
    MartyMcFly84
    Registered Users Posts: 1,326 ✭✭✭MartyMcFly84


    Yes, there are limited reasons why it is useful, I never said there were not. I have given a specific example where they are less than useful though. I don't think pushing a sh1te solution is a good idea.

    Is it ideal? no. But I think "****e" is harsh.

    If someone ate at a calories deficit and only ate doughnuts and the like they would loose weight. The simply fact they are not longer obese would move them out of the high risk bracket for a host of diseases.

    Would the be as healthy as they could be? probably not, but would certainly be less high risk than they were previously by paying attention to their calories intake if nothing else.

    I take it you are an active healthy person. So macro breakdown is more important than calories for the most part. But its not healthy active people who even know what macros are that this incentive is aimed at.


  • Options
    #100
    JohnK
    Registered Users Posts: 4,780 ✭✭✭JohnK


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Sure you can do it that way, you can also not count calories and eat less, you can consume more protein and lift and change body composition. Dropping calories from good sources indiscriminately is a bad idea however, for example:

    Say dinner A has 1.3k calories with the majority of them coming from good fats and lean protein. This is a better choice than dinner B which is 1.1k calories from mainly simple sugars. The proposed system takes no heed of this and actually pushes people to a poorer choice.

    Yes thats certainly true where the choice is between a relatively healthy item and a not so healthy item but very often the choice is between items that are equally unhealthy and in those cases choosing the one with the lower calorie count is going to be better in the long run. Its not a perfect system but its better than what's there now which is nothing. And if the only outcome from it is to encourage people in choosing smaller portion sizes of the crap they already eat then that's still a win in my books.


  • Options
    #101
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,504 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    MartyMcFly84 wrote: »
    Is it ideal? no. But I think "****e" is harsh.

    If someone ate at a calories deficit and only ate doughnuts and the like they would loose weight. The simply fact they are not longer obese would move them out of the high risk bracket for a host of diseases.

    Would the be as healthy as they could be? probably not, but would certainly be less high risk than they were previously by paying attention to their calories intake if nothing else.

    I take it you are an active healthy person. So macro breakdown is more important than calories for the most part. But its not healthy active people who even know what macros are that this incentive is aimed at.

    Someone that only ate doughnuts under their calorie requirements would indeed lose weight, and probably gain diabetes. You've given a pretty good example of why purely looking at the calorie count is bad. Even giving the macro breakdown without context is crap though - we lack education on nutrition at a fundamental level.
    JohnK wrote: »
    Yes thats certainly true where the choice is between a relatively healthy item and a not so healthy item but very often the choice is between items that are equally unhealthy and in those cases choosing the one with the lower calorie count is going to be better in the long run. Its not a perfect system but its better than what's there now which is nothing. And if the only outcome from it is to encourage people in choosing smaller portion sizes of the crap they already eat then that's still a win in my books.

    I do not believe that settling for "not as much of a ****-up as it could be" is what we should be aiming for.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    JohnK
    Registered Users Posts: 4,780 ✭✭✭JohnK


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    I do not believe that settling for "not as much of a ****-up as it could be" is what we should be aiming for.
    So whats the alternative? Do nothing? In an ideal world you'd have a populace who understands every aspect of nutrition and every menu and food item would have a complete breakdown allowing people to know and understand everything about it but we don't live in an ideal world so we have to start somewhere and this is it.


  • Options
    #103
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,504 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    JohnK wrote: »
    So whats the alternative? Do nothing? In an ideal world you'd have a populace who understands every aspect of nutrition and every menu and food item would have a complete breakdown allowing people to know and understand everything about it but we don't live in an ideal world so we have to start somewhere and this is it.

    The alternative would be education at a fundamental level. There are 2 example above as to why this is not only a poor implementation but potentially bad.


  • Options
    #104
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    Here's the calorie counting online calculator that the FSAI are providing for this.

    https://menucal.fsai.ie/Account/LogOn?ReturnUrl=%2f

    I've set up a dummy account for myself to see how it works. It's not too bad actually.

    You've got to weigh everything and do the calculations, so it's definitely at least one meal of whatever you are producing into the bin for calculation purposes. I'm not a fan of waste, especially food waste.

    I went to do a guessed portion of chips from my local chippy. 200g of chips, from raw spud. You choose your cooking method (deep-fried) and your oil for that (I picked suet). Came out as 240kcal.

    teyw6.jpg


    I'm wondering as well how this would work for delis or carveries. I mean, the fella who asks for 3 extra scoops of mash and an extra slice of meat is obviously going to be way off whatever they have calculated for the day. And a slice of meat can vary in weight by whoever is carving, or what part of the joint it is.


  • Options
    #105
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    pwurple wrote: »
    You've got to weigh everything and do the calculations, so it's definitely at least one meal of whatever you are producing into the bin for calculation purposes. I'm not a fan of waste, especially food waste.

    Could you not eat it after you'd weighed it?

    Carverys probably already follow guidelines on how much per plate, otherwise they'd have problems calculating for profit/loss. Maybe they can show the calories based on a "standard" plate?

    I'd be more concerned about buffets, unless the let people weigh each bit of food.


  • Options
    #106
    JohnK
    Registered Users Posts: 4,780 ✭✭✭JohnK


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    The alternative would be education at a fundamental level. There are 2 example above as to why this is not only a poor implementation but potentially bad.

    Ok, so where does this education take place? In schools? Brilliant, thats all todays kids sorted out but what about everyone else? Do you really think the typical adult is going to attend a nutrition course somewhere? Or maybe some online course at home? Of course they're not so something practical has to be done and this "poor implementation" is, at the very least, a place to start.

    This in no way stops proper education starting in schools or elsewhere and as those who then understand more around the nature of nutrition start to eat out and start purchasing their own food market pressure, or legislation, will encourage more detailed information being made available. But, as it stands, that extra information would be absolutely useless to most people and in fact could be more damaging as people would simply be turned off even trying to understand it which would no doubt lead to shouts of "see, this was all a waste of time!"


  • Options
    #107
    Alf Veedersane
    Registered Users Posts: 24,580 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    The alternative would be education at a fundamental level. There are 2 example above as to why this is not only a poor implementation but potentially bad.

    I agree with you.

    But I also think the calorie content is a start. It's not entirely useless. Of course it has it's limitations and in the examples you've given you've shown that it can potentially make people make bad choices.

    But in many restaurants, you're not going to be faced with choices like a dinner of good fats and lean proteins or a plate of chips with doughnuts on the side.

    Like I said, it wouldn't be my first choice as a starting point but it's the most likely starting point. There's not a hope in hell that nutritional education is going to be taught across the board anytime soon.


  • Options
    #108
    MartyMcFly84
    Registered Users Posts: 1,326 ✭✭✭MartyMcFly84


    Someone that only ate doughnuts under their calorie requirements would indeed lose weight, and probably gain diabetes. You've given a pretty good example of why purely looking at the calorie count is bad. Even giving the macro breakdown without context is crap though - we lack education on nutrition at a fundamental level.

    I do not believe that settling for "not as much of a ****-up as it could be" is what we should be aiming for.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

    The above is a good article on the subject. Overall moving out of the obesity bracket can save you from lots of weight related health problems and complications.

    Would having a vitamin and mineral deficiency and high sugar intake be healthy? No. But better than having the same and being grossly over weight also.

    I agree education on nutrition is outdated and lacking at a very fundamental level, but overall this is the step in the right direction. Every journey starts with a step.


  • Options
    #109
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    Could you not eat it after you'd weighed it?

    Well, I'd imagine in order to get it onto the menu, you have to do the calculations a bit in advance. T'would be a bit cold/congealed at that stage?


  • Options
    #110
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,504 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    JohnK wrote: »
    Ok, so where does this education take place? In schools? Brilliant, thats all todays kids sorted out but what about everyone else? Do you really think the typical adult is going to attend a nutrition course somewhere? Or maybe some online course at home? Of course they're not so something practical has to be done and this "poor implementation" is, at the very least, a place to start.

    This in no way stops proper education starting in schools or elsewhere and as those who then understand more around the nature of nutrition start to eat out and start purchasing their own food market pressure, or legislation, will encourage more detailed information being made available. But, as it stands, that extra information would be absolutely useless to most people and in fact could be more damaging as people would simply be turned off even trying to understand it which would no doubt lead to shouts of "see, this was all a waste of time!"

    Education isn't confined to schools and can take place simultaneously across many platforms. The fact that I don't have a fully working and detailed plan ready to rock doesn't mean i cant be critical of this proposal.

    Yes, it is place to start, even if it is not a very good one.


  • Options
    #111
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,504 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Alf Veedersane wrote: »
    I agree with you.

    But I also think the calorie content is a start. It's not entirely useless. Of course it has it's limitations and in the examples you've given you've shown that it can potentially make people make bad choices.

    But in many restaurants, you're not going to be faced with choices like a dinner of good fats and lean proteins or a plate of chips with doughnuts on the side.

    Like I said, it wouldn't be my first choice as a starting point but it's the most likely starting point. There's not a hope in hell that nutritional education is going to be taught across the board anytime soon.

    Given the increasing obesity issues we face as a society nutritional education is more and more likely to be placed higher and funded more as the costs to the health system increase.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Alf Veedersane
    Registered Users Posts: 24,580 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Given the increasing obesity issues we face as a society nutritional education is more and more likely to be placed higher and funded more as the costs to the health system increase.

    You would think so. But it takes so long to get these things up and running that I just wouldn't expect meaningful nutrition education to be in place in schools in the next 5 years anyway.

    And you would wonder who is going to be given the task of putting together what makes up the educational material...

    And I take your point that it doesn't have to be confined to schools but schools would be a core element.

    I do agree on the concept. My inner sceptic can't see anything meaningful happen in Ireland anytime soon annd the calorie count might be a useful tool in the interim.


  • Options
    #113
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,504 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Alf Veedersane wrote: »
    You would think so. But it takes so long to get these things up and running that I just wouldn't expect meaningful nutrition education to be in place in schools in the next 5 years anyway.

    And you would wonder who is going to be given the task of putting together what makes up the educational material...

    And I take your point that it doesn't have to be confined to schools but schools would be a core element.

    I do agree on the concept. My inner sceptic can't see anything meaningful happen in Ireland anytime soon annd the calorie count might be a useful tool in the interim.

    Probably sponsored by Mr Brennan :pac:


  • Options
    #114
    Alf Veedersane
    Registered Users Posts: 24,580 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Probably sponsored by Mr Brennan :pac:

    :D:D

    Brilliant.


  • Options
    #115
    norwegianwood
    Registered Users Posts: 1,252 ✭✭✭norwegianwood


    It's just not going to work in normal restaurants. Chain type places like McDonalds are different because all their food preparation is so standardized, but in most restaurants every chef is going to have a slightly different method of cooking. And how are they figuring out the calorie count in the first place? Probably guess work which is going to be way off. And really, most people only go to restaurants occasionally and I know personally when I do I'm not thinking about calories, I just want to enjoy the food. It's not what people do on special occasions that causes a problem, it's what they do everyday. I don't think this is going to help anything but I suppose it's a sign that people are getting more interested in health that it's going ahead at all which could only be a good thing.


  • Options
    #116
    Alf Veedersane
    Registered Users Posts: 24,580 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    norwegianwood wrote: »
    It's just not going to work in normal restaurants. Chain type places like McDonalds are different because all their food preparation is so standardized, but in most restaurants every chef is going to have a slightly different method of cooking. And how are they figuring out the calorie count in the first place? Probably guess work which is going to be way off. And really, most people only go to restaurants occasionally and I know personally when I do I'm not thinking about calories, I just want to enjoy the food. It's not what people do on special occasions that causes a problem, it's what they do everyday. I don't think this is going to help anything but I suppose it's a sign that people are getting more interested in health that it's going ahead at all which could only be a good thing.

    This is the elephant in the room. Sitting there with a calorie calculator in front of him/her and no opposable thumbs to use it.

    But it's also an illustration as to why education should be tackled. Those who wanted to would at least be able to determine which would be the healthier options on a menu.


  • Options
    #117
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    norwegianwood wrote: »
    It's just not going to work in normal restaurants. Chain type places like McDonalds are different because all their food preparation is so standardized, but in most restaurants every chef is going to have a slightly different method of cooking. And how are they figuring out the calorie count in the first place? Probably guess work which is going to be way off. And really, most people only go to restaurants occasionally and I know personally when I do I'm not thinking about calories, I just want to enjoy the food. It's not what people do on special occasions that causes a problem, it's what they do everyday. I don't think this is going to help anything but I suppose it's a sign that people are getting more interested in health that it's going ahead at all which could only be a good thing.

    Why will it not work in normal restaurants? Don't they have to calculate what they are using for ordering, profit/loss etc already? Won't they already be using a weighing scales for ingredients, or using packs that are marked by weight? They already order food in by weight. It'd be a pretty poor chef who was unable to calculate calories in a given meal tbh.

    I always think about calories when I eat out. And I eat out once a week or so. Some people eat out a number of times a week because they are entertaining clients. When I'm on holidays I eat out every day.

    I eat a takeaway about once every 2 months, largely because I've no idea how many calories are in it so I assume a large amount. Perhaps if it turns out not to be so bad I'd eat takeaways more often.


  • Options
    #118
    uberalex
    Registered Users Posts: 125 ✭✭uberalex



    I eat a takeaway about once every 2 months, largely because I've no idea how many calories are in it so I assume a large amount. Perhaps if it turns out not to be so bad I'd eat takeaways more often.

    http://www.safefood.eu/SafeFood/media/SafeFoodLibrary/Documents/Publications/Research%20Reports/What-s-in-your-Chinese-Takeaway-FINAL.pdf

    They can be incredibly variable, two- or three-to-one variation in calories for the same dish.


  • Options
    #119
    Faith
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 30,657 Mod ✭✭✭✭Faith


    pwurple wrote: »
    Well, I'd imagine in order to get it onto the menu, you have to do the calculations a bit in advance. T'would be a bit cold/congealed at that stage?

    You just have to do it once for it to be recorded, so it would just be a case of each dish being cooked one extra time. I'm sure some of the staff would be happy to make sure it didn't go to waste! :)


  • Options
    #120
    Melendez
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,645 ✭✭✭Melendez


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    hardCopy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭hardCopy


    Faith wrote: »
    You just have to do it once for it to be recorded, so it would just be a case of each dish being cooked one extra time. I'm sure some of the staff would be happy to make sure it didn't go to waste! :)

    No chef is going to throw something on the menu that they haven't even tried themselves. They can do all the portioning and weighing when they're experimenting with new recipes.

    The whole notion that chef's are making up new menus every day is being grossly exaggerated. Even those who change frequently tend to rotate the same items on and off or make small changes to a sauce. Nicer restaurants usually only have an 'example menu' on their website seemingly because it changes so frequently, in my experience this tends to be almost the same as what's on offer that day.


Advertisement