Calorie counts on menus?

MrWalsh · 11-02-2015 5:33pm

Agree hardCopy, in my own experience working in restaurants the changes are more to do with seasonal veg and tend to rotate the same way each year anyway.

There may be restaurants that have a different "special" daily but even that is within a range of a few different meals. Otherwise they'd be reprinting menus all the time and that costs money.

Mellor · 11-02-2015 11:59pm

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?

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!

This line of reasoning is bizarre. They don't have to physically make the dish to work out the calories. If the recipe has 200g chicken in it (or 1kg per 5 portions, or what ever way they make it) then they to make a portion to confirm that.

Working out the calories isn't difficult for any place that is anyway half organised. This is really standard here in Australia.
It's compulsory for chains, franchises, or places with more than a few locations (can't remember how many). Optional for standalone places.

I'd like to see it on fast food chains, cafes, and typical lunch time establishments. I don't think its as necessary on higher end restaurants.

Carawaystick · 12-02-2015 1:29am

seamus wrote: »

Do you think that the labelling on food at present is accurate to the nearest 10 kcal?

I'd expect it would be if the value labelled was <100kCal, as misleading advertising is a criminal offence

seamus wrote: »

Of course it's not. The amount of kcal on a box of cornflakes represents an average per serving as tested. It's a "best guess", but that's a million times better than "no idea".

Corn is a fairly homogenous ingredient, where each flake is more-or-less an ear. There will be low water content, to stop them going soggy, reducing variance.

seamus wrote: »

Likewise it'll be with restaurant portions. The values displayed on the menu will represent a "best guess" for kcal based on the volume of ingredients used.

If you're going to "guess" based on "volume" the the whole thing is a waste of time.

seamus wrote: »

There will always be some outliers, so to take your mussels example, on rare occasions one with a very high water content will be 200kcal less than one with a very low water content, but by and large when a customer order the dish, it will land somewhere in and around the kcal value given. It's not like you're trying to control your arsenic intake - if the kcal value is 10% off what the menu says, it's not that big a difference.

So we're +/- 10% on calorie counts now?

seamus wrote: »

Finding out how many calories are in the ingredient on average is a trivial exercise, it doesn't matter if the item isn't labelled.

I Mentioned stock in my previous post. as its trivial, tell us how many calories are in a pork stock, 2.5l of stock, the skin and bones of 3 pork shoulders and 4 crubeens.

seamus wrote: »

And what you'll find is that commercial suppliers will start providing kcal values for their produce to assist restaurants.

Will wine producers do this?

Mellor · 12-02-2015 2:24am

Carawaystick wrote: »

I'd expect it would be if the value labelled was <100kCal, as misleading advertising is a criminal offence

Of course it will over <100kCal, thats a huge margin.
I bet it wouldn't be withing 10kcals over say, a litre of fresh apple juice, or a ready made meal, or pre packed meat products from the butchers,

If you're going to "guess" based on "volume" the the whole thing is a waste of time.

Cornflakes are packed based volume, most products are. Do you think ever 1kg bag of potato weighs 1kg?

So we're +/- 10% on calorie counts now?

The allowable variation on food labels is +/- 20%
If its less than 5% of the mass, this rises to 30%. Vitamins have a greater tolerance -50%/+100%

I Mentioned stock in my previous post. as its trivial, tell us how many calories are in a pork stock, 2.5l of stock, the skin and bones of 3 pork shoulders and 4 crubeens.

The litre of water don't affect the calories.
There's variation in the size of a shoulder of pork, and a crubeen. As you know.
So an estimate is entirely that, an estimate. However, the variation is going to be insignificant over the 10 portions it will be divided into.

Will wine producers do this?

Do they need to? Why?
Are you referring to displaying to wine for cooking, or displaying calories on drinks?
Regardless, wines would fall into a narrow enough calorie rage depending on type.

Calories in wine aren't difficult to calculate btw. Alcohol has a set 7 calorie per gram. Sugar has 4.
During fermentation, as one goes up, the other goes down in uniform scale, equivalent to the energy ratio.
So the only thing that really affects the calories is the starting sugar the grapes, know as the Must weight. This will vary depending a grape/region/harvest. But I'd be confidant wine produces know the value.

pwurple · 12-02-2015 10:20am

Mellor wrote: »

It's compulsory for chains, franchises, or places with more than a few locations (can't remember how many). Optional for standalone places.

I'd like to see it on fast food chains, cafes, and typical lunch time establishments. I don't think its as necessary on higher end restaurants.

That would be a much more sensible way of implementing it. Good old aussies!

I don't like seeing impediments put in the way of starting new businesses, it's hard enough to get up and running in the first place. Having to bin your entire menu just to get going is another expense and barrier to entry.

rubadub · 15-02-2015 1:05pm

I wonder how it will be policed, will people send in complaints to get a place investigated or would it be random.

In the past I have seen gross underestimation of calories in takeaways.

This is on a chipper menu near me

1. Thick chips absorb less oil than thin ones, are high in fibre so our chunky chips are healthier
2. An average serving of chips contains more than double the amount of fibre found in an average serving of brown rice or a bowl of porridge
3. Get 1/3 of your daily vitamin C from our chips
4. Fish and Chips have only 595 calories in the average portion. An average pizza has 871 while a big mac meal has 888
5. Fish and Chips are the least processed takeaway food

I have weighed and estimated the chips alone as over 1000kcal, they are massive portions, if I got 595kcal worth of fish & chips I would never go back.

I have seen this gross underestimating in a noodle place and kebab shop too, I reckoned the kebab was at least twice the stated calories on their kebabs.

JohnK · 15-02-2015 3:36pm

Often in cases like that what you need to look for is the little astrix somewhere saying that it comprises of 2 or maybe even 3 portions. As you say some takeaways can tend to do that but I don't see how a sit-down restaurant could ever claim that a single plate they put in front of you should be counted as multiple portions.

rubadub · 15-02-2015 6:16pm

JohnK wrote: »

Often in cases like that what you need to look for is the little astrix somewhere saying that it comprises of 2 or maybe even 3 portions.

This was definitely not the case with the ones I mentioned, I can't recall ever seeing it like that in takeaways on items which are sold as seemingly individual portions, like a kebab, bag of chips, or noodle dish. I could imagine it like that for say a KFC family bucket, or chipper "family box", or a while ago mcdonalds had "family trays" of chicken nuggets.

It is one to watch for in supermarkets for sure. You see quotes for 1/4 or 1/2 of a pizza, of the size most people I know would eat all to themselves.

Breakfast cereal companies are big offenders. I would like to see them legally obliged to only have photos of the portions they state on the packet, and perhaps use some sort of scale in the photo to stop trickery, such as using tiny bowls in photos.

rubadub wrote: »

Alpen is 23.1% sugar.

http://www.tesco.ie/groceries/Product/Details/?id=254853655

If you are going to continue eating alpen then at least try weighing it once.

This guy did weigh out a recommended 45g serving.

I guess they used an egg cup on the box photo.

rubadub wrote: »

On the left is a typical quoted size on the side of muesli packets. The right is what people would typically pour out

typical on the front of a packet

When the half price chipper day was being advertised a spokesman said the average fish & chips was 800kcal, again I would not return to any chipper giving me that small an amount. People go on about feeling hungry soon after having a McDonalds, I put that mainly down to the fact they have relatively small portions. I have said before if that "supersizeme" documentary with its rules was done in a typical Irish hotel or restaurant he probably would have gotten bigger.

JohnK · 15-02-2015 10:34pm

Yeah those portion sizes are a bit nuts alright and the box gives a very different impression of what you can actually have. I've certainly noticed in some B&B's / small hotels who'd have those single portion boxes of cereal on their breakfast table that people would tend to take a few of them so peoples perception of a serving and what's advised as a serving in the small print are quite far apart.

rubadub wrote: »

This was definitely not the case with the ones I mentioned, I can't recall ever seeing it like that in takeaways on items which are sold as seemingly individual portions, like a kebab, bag of chips, or noodle dish. I could imagine it like that for say a KFC family bucket, or chipper "family box", or a while ago mcdonalds had "family trays" of chicken nuggets.

The particular place I was thinking of when I wrote that was actually Dominos in relation to their sides - if you look at their menu ( https://www.dominos.ie/menu ) and hover over some of the items you'll see things like calories per half portion etc. and to add more confusion into the mix their newest PDF guide ( http://corporate.dominos.co.uk/Media/Default/CSR/Food/Sides-Desserts-Nutrition-Sides-Desserts-PerPortion.pdf ) is listing some different values. If you take wedges for example, the calories per half portion in the menu shows 212kcal but the PDF lists a serving as being 167kcal so the question then becomes what exactly is a serving? Is it half a box or a third of a box?

rubadub · 16-02-2015 2:40am

JohnK wrote: »

If you take wedges for example, the calories per half portion in the menu shows 212kcal but the PDF lists a serving as being 167kcal so the question then becomes what exactly is a serving? Is it half a box or a third of a box?

The Irish menu might be including the average kcal of a dip, the pdf lists them separately. Very misleading that the pdf does not say its half portions.

A small chips in mcdonalds is 230kcal, they are tiny, I do not go to dominoes but am guessing most owuld polish the wedges easily if only that amount of calories.

The other things is the PDF is a UK menu. In most cases we are close to the UK sizes, or identical, but beware of online apps etc. I know a guy who was telling me regular onion rings were 900+kcal in KFC or BK, this was some international app, he was adamant, I was saying no way otherwise I would be buying this massive portion. Some people have no concept or common sense when it comes to this stuff. It could have been the other way around, eating a 900+kcal portion each day since his app said it was 250kcal (which the irish regular portion turned out to be, I still reckon he got some supersize value or it was a mistake in the app).

I would question the value of the wings in the PDF, 7 wings said to be 254kcal, sounds too low. Tesco have 4 cooked wings as 350kcal though it includes a sour cream dip

http://www.tesco.ie/groceries/Product/Details/?id=280302883

Mellor · 16-02-2015 3:15am

JohnK wrote: »

If you take wedges for example, the calories per half portion in the menu shows 212kcal but the PDF lists a serving as being 167kcal so the question then becomes what exactly is a serving? Is it half a box or a third of a box?

He menu price and calories are for wedges plus a dip. Which sounds about right with 45 extra.

rubadub wrote: »

I would question the value of the wings in the PDF, 7 wings said to be 254kcal, sounds too low. Tesco have 4 cooked wings as 350kcal though it includes a sour cream dip

I'd say it's listing calories per half portion. Probably justifying it on the grounds that's its a side shared between two people when sharing a pizza.

Which is nonsense really. People easily gobble a side and a whole pizza to thenselves.

rubadub · 16-02-2015 11:43am

Mellor wrote: »

I'd say it's listing calories per half portion.

If it is just the half then its purposely misleading in my opinion. Since it specifically says Chicken Wings (7)

If it just said chicken wings they could come up with the excuse.

I have been reading calories on packs since I was a kid so have an idea what they should be, the pizza ones still nearly catch me out, since the half pizza values are so high. I have spotted some mistakes on packets before too, miscalculations by the company, like the kJ and kcal were not in the right proportion.

MrWalsh · 16-02-2015 11:48am

rubadub wrote: »

I have spotted some mistakes on packets before too, miscalculations by the company, like the kJ and kcal were not in the right proportion.

Yes Ive seen this too.

The illustration above with the Alpen is a bit of an eyeopener! The photograph couldnt possibly represent a portion! Even the pic that says "The right is what people would typically pour out" I would consider small.

I usually eat porridge, youve me interested now to weigh my morning pour out and see how it compares to the portion size they give the info for on the box.

the beer revolu · 17-02-2015 1:25pm

MrWalsh wrote: »

I usually eat porridge, youve me interested now to weigh my morning pour out and see how it compares to the portion size they give the info for on the box.

I just did this.
My portion is 60g (I consider this to be a large bowl of porridge.)
Portion on pack is 40g
Id guess my wife's portion is about 50g
I'd estimate a hotel bowl of porridge is 40g - I always find them too small.

All in all, I think their portion size is fairly reasonable (Flahavan's)

runawaybishop · 17-02-2015 1:32pm

the beer revolu wrote: »

I just did this.
My portion is 60g (I consider this to be a large bowl of porridge.)
Portion on pack is 40g
Id guess my wife's portion is about 50g
I'd estimate a hotel bowl of porridge is 40g - I always find them too small.

All in all, I think their portion size is fairly reasonable (Flahavan's)

Tiny portions

What is this, a bowl for ants?

My portion of muesli is 120 grams.

the beer revolu · 17-02-2015 2:10pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

Tiny portions What is this, a bowl for ants?

My portion of muesli is 120 grams.

Muesli is not porridge.
I don't think you'd have a bowl big enough to fit 120g of dry porridge, when cooked. Try it sometime.

runawaybishop · 17-02-2015 2:22pm

the beer revolu wrote: »

Muesli is not porridge.
I don't think you'd have a bowl big enough to fit 120g of dry porridge, when cooked. Try it sometime.

Thanks for the info. Muesli recommended portion is also 40g. My porridge portion would greatly exceed 40g.

MrWalsh · 17-02-2015 2:23pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

Thanks for the info. Muesli recommended portion is also 40g. My porridge portion would greatly exceed 40g.

I actually thought about weighing my porridge portion this morning but my usual bowl was in the dishwasher so I used a different one and didnt want a skewed result! Will do so in the morning if I remember.

JohnK · 17-02-2015 3:53pm

Just on porridge, if you see the cardboard tubes they have these days you should find a little scoop inside to ensure you're getting pretty close to the actual serving size they recommend and of the two brands I've seen I think both give the nutritional details for making it with both water or semi-skimmed milk.

MrWalsh · 17-02-2015 4:03pm

JohnK wrote: »

Just on porridge, if you see the cardboard tubes they have these days you should find a little scoop inside to ensure you're getting pretty close to the actual serving size they recommend and of the two brands I've seen I think both give the nutritional details for making it with both water or semi-skimmed milk.

I buy cheapy LIDL porridge, they dont have the scoop. But himself gets a better brand of porridge so perhaps I could steal his scoop......

MrWalsh · 17-02-2015 7:33pm

So it turns out I pour out about 70grams of porridge, there is no portion size on the packaging.

I'm shocked that another poster thinks you wouldn't fit 120 grams of porridge in a bowl, the bowl I use is what I consider to be TINY and I only half fill it!

If I used one of our "normal" sized bowls is easily pour out 150g plays and not notice at all. We used bowls 3 times the size as kids for breakfast cereals!

Anyway, back to the point. I considered 70g small in the bowl so a 40g portion to me would be ridiculous. I see people in work eating porridge and their portion sizes are vastly bigger than mine too so I don't think I'm too far short of reality for most people.

Mellor · 18-02-2015 1:03am

the beer revolu wrote: »

Muesli is not porridge.
I don't think you'd have a bowl big enough to fit 120g of dry porridge, when cooked. Try it sometime.

I'd have 50g of porridge usual, in a small bowl. And its nowhere near full. Thats me being very aware of portion size
The bowls I used as a kid (prob free from Kelloggs, Odlums etc) were a lot bigger and would take 120g easily. I'd hazard a guess that a lot of people use bowls that size for breakfast.

A have one big bowl at home now. Will test it later. I'd guess it will take 150g or so

gsi300024v · 24-02-2015 1:41pm

pwurple wrote: »

What do we think of this? Great idea, or terrible idea?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/calorie-count-plan-to-have-devastating-impact-on-restaurants-1.2092770

I'm think it doesn't make sense for most of the places I eat, where the menu changes every couple of days, or daily sometimes. How is it going to be feasible to get the food tested in a lab for a daily special?

My sister is a chef, they don't send food to a lab, they've a computer program and just put ingredients and amounts in and it works it all out, yes menus change, but really do ingredients totally change, do they not also swap around dishes, so yes a dish might be off menu but back on a month later, so you really only have hassle at start.
But while I like it, there is tonnes of info out there and we still have issues with obesity etc. But for those who want it, it's good,
A waterspoons option had 2100 calories in it. Amazing, one meal and you 'd not have to eat the rest of the day.
I suppose to be considered is more than calories though, a lot of the low fat foods are low in calories but quite bad for you if you want to each good food and loose weight as they take out natural sugars or fats and put in man made ones your body can't handle. Like the spreads, butter is probably better for you on the whole.

meeeeh · 24-02-2015 4:36pm

I wouldn't bother with calories for seasonal food in restaurants but what could easily be done is putting calories on wine lists, bottles and price lists. And not per unit that actually nobody has a clue how small it is, per bottle because you get plenty of completely plastered people who are very happy with themselves that they managed to avoid late night trip to chipper. Or didn't have a desert.

gsi300024v · 24-02-2015 4:38pm

Good point meeeeh !! or that think red wine is good for their heart, if people actually knew the test done to prove this fallacy they might not drink so much, or maybe they're happy to find some way of justifying their actions.

Mellor · 25-02-2015 12:02am

Drinking a bottle of wine that adds up to 600 calories, isn't the equivalent to eating a 600 calories burger. Alcohol and and energy content is a special case. I think thats the logic behind no nutritional labels, they also possibly don't want to have a gram for gram alcohol comparison.

Faith · 25-02-2015 1:33am

Mellor wrote: »

Drinking a bottle of wine that adds up to 600 calories, isn't the equivalent to eating a 600 calories burger. Alcohol and and energy content is a special case. I think thats the logic behind no nutritional labels, they also possibly don't want to have a gram for gram alcohol comparison.

Not to go too far off topic, but why isn't alcohol equal to food calories? Do you absorb less from alcohol?

*Eyes up a nice cold pint*

Mellor · 25-02-2015 3:03am

Faith wrote: »

Not to go too far off topic, but why isn't alcohol equal to food calories? Do you absorb less from alcohol?

*Eyes up a nice cold pint*

There's probably a number of reasons at play. But there’s two that immediately come to mind.

Firstly the way we measure the energy contained in food. It’s basically burned until there is nothing left and the heat given off is the energy it contained. When this is a perfectly accurate measurement of energy from a physics point of view, our bodies aren’t 100% efficient pieces of lab equipment. Alcohol is obviously a flammable liquid, and burning will release all its energy, our bodies may not. This also applies to other food but it appears to be greatest with alcohol.
As an example, kerosene has very high calories per gram, purely due to its contained energy. Yet I don’t think drinking kerosene is going to make you fat.

Another reason that alcohol calories aren’t equal is due to the physical effect alcohol has. It raises body temp, and it’s also needs to be broken down, both of these actions require energy. Raising body temp increases your metabolic rate, so you burning more energy.
Hypothetically, imagine that calories contained in alcohol were all consumed by the increased energy it made you burn. In that case they could never cause weight gain. Sadly, it’s not as extreme as that, but it sort of dampens the calories from alcohol so the effect is less than the calculated 7 calories per gram. There’s be controlled diet studies were people were fed the same calories from food and beer, and the beer group put on less weight (or possibly lost weight, when the other group maintained)

Faith · 25-02-2015 4:54am

That's really interesting, and makes a lot of sense. Thank you!

meeeeh · 25-02-2015 9:57am

That is true and also not every alcohol is created equal. As far as I know beer tends to be worse than wine and spirits would be the least fattening. But unless you are alcoholic on liquid diet those are all supplements to food. Beer belly isn't called that for nothing and I think that a lot of people who drink at home couple of glasses 'to relax'do more damage than those going out for a meal every so often.

Calorie counts on menus?

Comments