How many Calories in a Snackbox?

mariano rivera · 19-02-2012 5:26pm #1

El Snackbox.

2 pieces of southern fried chicken & a portion of chips

With new regulations coming to show how much calories in your food, I was wondering

How many calories in a snackbox?

electrobanana · 19-02-2012 5:29pm

Im gonna take a shot in the dark and say 1163

MickySticks · 19-02-2012 5:30pm

Bout 3 fiddy

John Doe1 · 19-02-2012 5:30pm

What an interesting question:rolleyes:

59 squidoo

suicide_circus · 19-02-2012 5:31pm

God I'd love a snackbox right now

chin_grin · 19-02-2012 5:31pm

One million.

Lando Griffin · 19-02-2012 5:32pm

About half the amount of the 10 pints you consumed before hand.

El Horseboxo · 19-02-2012 5:34pm

Around 1200.

The chips would be upwards of the 700 mark and the chicken would be around 250 or more.

pragmatic1 · 19-02-2012 5:35pm

Too many for you fatso.

Duckworth_Luas · 19-02-2012 5:37pm

According to KFC, two pieces of chicken and large fries is 855 calories.

The Uninvited Guest · 19-02-2012 5:38pm

Puddin' box is where it's at these days man

Biggins · 19-02-2012 5:39pm

mariano rivera wrote: »

El Snackbox.

2 pieces of southern fried chicken & a portion of chips

With new regulations coming to show how much calories in your food, I was wondering

How many calories in a snackbox?

For the record...

So far there is no new regulations coming in that I know of.

The Minster of Health Dr James Reilly stated on TV two weeks ago on RTE's "Operation Transformation" (and it was mentioned already in a previous thread) that he has asked for a code of behaviour in relation to such places willingly displaying calorie content on their menu.
Dr Reilly further stated that the response back from the food outlets was not good and that if they didn't respond better by the end of the year, AFTER THAT, he would then further consider introducing further statutory laws, legally forcing the food industry serving the public in cafes, etc in Ireland, to list calorie content.

They have till the end of the year to respond better with a voluntary system - if not, after that there might be further state laws introduced.
Dr Reilly also stated that he would then name and shame those businesses that was currently unwilling to inform the public about the content they are eating.

El Horseboxo · 19-02-2012 5:39pm

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

According to KFC, two pieces of chicken and large fries is 855 calories.

If it's a snackbox from a chipper it should be a bit higher given there's more chips and they are a bigger size. Suppose it all depends on portion size. Either way it's some amount of calories for one sitting. Riddled with salt too.

3hn2givr7mx1sc · 19-02-2012 5:40pm

I would mow through a snackbox right now.

stovelid · 19-02-2012 5:40pm

Just eat it, you puff.

Paddy Bateman · 19-02-2012 5:41pm

Grease factor also has an impact

copacetic · 19-02-2012 5:44pm

Paddy Bateman wrote: »

Grease factor also has an impact

It does, having the comp on TV and voting off the worst snack box every week is driving the obesity epidemic. Get Grease Factor off TV is what I say.

Auldloon · 19-02-2012 5:47pm

Supermacs snack box with garlic mayo, nearly worth moving back to Ireland for. Droooool
Damn you op

Sindri · 19-02-2012 5:47pm

Who cares?

Suffice it to say it is marketed as a triple bypass.

44leto · 19-02-2012 5:47pm

Billions there are even more in the trough box.

Sunnyisland · 19-02-2012 5:50pm

Not enough chicken on the chicken these days,Its hard to find a decent snack box around ;-(

biko · 19-02-2012 6:06pm

http://thisiswhyyourefat.tumblr.com/

Biggins · 19-02-2012 6:08pm

biko wrote: »

http://thisiswhyyourefat.tumblr.com/

Yum!

Damn you, I want some of them right now!

doughef · 19-02-2012 6:10pm

dont forget the bottle of coke too.....

mariano rivera · 19-02-2012 6:32pm

El Horseboxo wrote: »

Around 1200.

The chips would be upwards of the 700 mark and the chicken would be around 250 or more.

wow:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Fluorescence · 19-02-2012 6:35pm

I think the official statement of calories on a snackbox is: "A fucktonne"

Hope that answers your question :P

L'prof · 19-02-2012 6:35pm

723.56 in Supermac's

mattjack · 19-02-2012 6:44pm

What's in a snatch box ?

Dravokivich · 19-02-2012 7:09pm

Biggins wrote: »

They have till the end of the year to respond better with a voluntary system - if not, after that there might be further state laws introduced.
Dr Reilly also stated that he would then name and shame those businesses that was currently unwilling to inform the public about the content they are eating.

To fecking right to be fair. If it's gotta be on packaging for produce, why not in restuarants/fast food outlets?

People will be suprised at how much is in the food that typically gets eaten.

With regards to the OPs question, it's gonna be hard to give you an outright anwser, I've once read of it being around 1,700 (honestly not sure how accurate that is) and thats probably gonna depend on how stingy your chipper is when throwing in the chips.

Blatter · 19-02-2012 7:14pm

El Horseboxo wrote: »

Around 1200.

The chips would be upwards of the 700 mark and the chicken would be around 250 or more.

Talk about scaremongering :pac:

A snack box could be anywhere from 650 kCal to around 1200 kCal, it obviously depends on the portions. There is no real standard snack box, they vary far too much to give an accurate answer.

Dravokivich · 19-02-2012 7:15pm

L'prof wrote: »

723.56 in Supermac's

That's just for the drumstick and thigh, with chips that brings it up to 1075.

*according to their sheet.

Chuck Stone · 19-02-2012 7:17pm

Forcing eateries to put calorie counts on their stuff is another one of those stupid fuck ideas some pen pusher or ambitious cock of a medic or politician has come up with to raise their profile.

The large chains like McD's, BK, KFC et al will be delighted because they have rationalized their food servings and the cost of putting calories on menus will be proportionately tiny.

The costs to a local cafe in small town of this pathetic measure will be proportionately punitive and time consuming.

Useful fucking idiots for the corporate world.

cocoshovel · 19-02-2012 7:18pm

Id say well over half your daily recommended intake...............fat ass.

PseudoFamous · 19-02-2012 7:20pm

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

According to KFC, two pieces of chicken and large fries is 855 calories.

jesus, add in my usual oreo milkshake, and it's a wonder I'm not obese.

Fluorescence · 19-02-2012 7:21pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Forcing eateries to put calorie counts on their stuff is another one of those stupid fuck ideas some pen pusher or ambitious cock of a medic or politician has come up with to raise their profile.

The large chains like McD's, BK, KFC et al will be delighted because they have rationalized their food servings and the cost of putting calories on menus will be proportionately tiny.

The costs to a local cafe in small town of this pathetic measure will be proportionately punitive and time consuming.

Useful fucking idiots for the corporate world.

Everyone has the right to know what the hell they're putting into their mouths.

Mint Sauce · 19-02-2012 7:22pm

Chuck Stone · 19-02-2012 7:28pm

fluorescence wrote: »

Everyone has the right to know what the hell they're putting into their mouths.

That is usually achieved by eating with the lights on.

Biggins · 19-02-2012 7:33pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Forcing eateries to put calorie counts on their stuff is another one of those stupid fuck ideas some pen pusher or ambitious cock of a medic or politician has come up with to raise their profile.

The large chains like McD's, BK, KFC et al will be delighted because they have rationalized their food servings and the cost of putting calories on menus will be proportionately tiny.

The costs to a local cafe in small town of this pathetic measure will be proportionately punitive and time consuming.

Useful fucking idiots for the corporate world.

Calorie counts on menus is an idea that had been adopted by a number of countries.
Example:
* http://yourlife.usatoday.com/fitness-food/diet-nutrition/story/2011/07/Fast-food-calorie-counts-on-menus-prompt-cuts/49678316/1
* http://www.10news.com/news/26336322/detail.html

The people that were pushing for it was in a lot of cases, those that are involved in people health organisations and keeping people healthy.
Some politicians (even Obama) opposed it!
The politicians were lobbied the hell out of by big chain groups who didn't want the public better informed - for fear they might cut down and spend less!

The large chains actually opposed it in the States and a number of them are opposing it still here in Ireland (as I mentioned already, Dr Reilly said he will name and shame the still non-compliant ones after years end).

In actual fact, governments are just pushing for more information to be made available to the public so that they can then decide on their own without nanny-state interjection, what they further wish to eat.
Its about giving the people more information so they can make their own better informed choices, that's all.

The actual costs to local cafes and similar places will amount to them having to list on re-done menus, what a cup of coffee, tea or standard daily meal consists of.
Ink and paper is not free but its also not that expensive still in the long run.
Having a better informed public is never a bad thing I feel.

Fluorescence · 19-02-2012 7:37pm

Biggins wrote: »

Having a better informed public is never a bad thing I feel.

A frightening majority of people in Ireland have no idea of what manner of crap is in the food they eat. It's actually appalling how little the general public knows about nutrition. Schemes like this can only be a positive thing

Chuck Stone · 19-02-2012 7:43pm

Biggins wrote: »

In actual fact, governments are just pushing for more information to be made available to the public so that they can then decide on their own without nanny-state interjection

Do you see what's wrong with the sentence above?

Let's say calories on menus become a legal requirement. Small restaurants and cafés will have to waste time and money figuring out the calories on their menu. When the menu changes or a new meal is introduced they will have to reprint the menu and work out the calories all over again. AFAIA these small local businesses have very tight margins of profit so this will just be an added burden in time and cost.

Another thing. Who will enforce this if it becomes law? Will we have another office with PS bureaucrats on 40 to 60K a year making sure local cafés and one establishment eateries comply with a retarded nanny state rule?

I hate the idea. In fact when I go for a meal I don't want to know how many calories are in it. I just want to stuff myself guilt free. Isn't that what eating out is all about?

Jesus.

Edit: Maybe places with more than 200 employees or something but ffs leave the small indigenous businesses alone.

WoollyRedHat · 19-02-2012 7:57pm

biko wrote: »

http://thisiswhyyourefat.tumblr.com/

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l101h7hnm51qzvnxpo1_500.jpg

That's all sorts of wrong.

Biggins · 19-02-2012 7:57pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Let's say calories on menus become a legal requirement. Small restaurants and cafés will have to waste time and money figuring out the calories on their menu. When the menu changes or a new meal is introduced they will have to reprint the menu and work out the calories all over again.

How and when a menu changes will be up to individual businesses.
Any chef or cook worth their salt should via previous training know this stuff anyway!
Once the basics are known (and they should be anyway), its just a case of adding up the numbers and giving a approx show of info.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Another thing. Who will enforce this if it becomes law?

I assume (guess) the Dept of Health backed-up by statute law?
On ground level enforced by already hired health officials that inspect premises for already established breaking of health laws.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I hate the idea. In fact when I go for a meal I don't want to know how many calories are in it. I just want to stuff myself guilt free. Isn't that what eating out is all about?

So just because you don't want to read a calorie count, others who might wish to be informed of such things, should be denied their rights either, to such information?
Is one's willpower so weak that even though you might read a calorie count, you can't force yourself to ignore it?

don ramo · 19-02-2012 8:03pm

yay, now its gonna take long longer to order when your going out for dinner cause the fat cows are watching there figures;):D

tayto lover · 19-02-2012 8:19pm

I have a calorie counter fitted in my teeth. My new job is to visit takeaways and try out their food on behalf of the Govt. The food must be provided free of charge. Getting my little I.D. card made this week.

Chuck Stone · 19-02-2012 8:28pm

Biggins wrote: »

So just because you don't want to read a calorie count, others who might wish to be informed of such things, should be denied their rights either, to such information?
Is one's willpower so weak that even though you might read a calorie count, you can't force yourself to ignore it?

It's not the calorie count thing it's primarily because it will affect small businesses more. Big corporations love regulations because the more regulations there are the greater the difficulty of breaking into or staying alive in a particular market.

I'm not against all regulations, like cleanliness surveillance in restaurants for example, because it protects the public from becoming ill and at worst death. Nevertheless, regulations add cost - the more regulation added the more difficult it is to break into a market.

Also people who are prone to obesity will probably be those who will ignore this type of measure making it useless bureaucratic meddling in peoples lives and businesses.

I don't need some goofy jobsworth telling me that eating a big plate of battered cod and chips is high in calories and anyone who does need to be told this will probably have difficulty understanding simple concepts or not give a flying **** anyway.

Kxiii · 19-02-2012 8:48pm

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l101h7hnm51qzvnxpo1_500.jpg

That's all sorts of wrong.

Yeah your right...

Round Milky ways, who ever heard of such things.:D

Biggins · 19-02-2012 9:02pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's not the calorie count thing it's primarily because it will affect small businesses more. Big corporations love regulations because the more regulations there are the greater the difficulty of breaking into or staying alive in a particular market.

I'm not against all regulations, like cleanliness surveillance in restaurants for example, because it protects the public from becoming ill and at worst death. Nevertheless, regulations add cost - the more regulation added the more difficult it is to break into a market.

Also people who are prone to obesity will probably be those who will ignore this type of measure making it useless bureaucratic meddling in peoples lives and businesses.

I don't need some goofy jobsworth telling me that eating a big plate of battered cod and chips is high in calories and anyone who does need to be told this will probably have difficulty understanding simple concepts or not give a flying **** anyway.

Those that are concerned about their health, will with the voluntary (or by legal statute) adoption of calorie counts be able to make better informed decisions.
A lot of people are calling for more transparency in just as many areas that effect their lives.
At least the information will (should) be out there more so now.
After that, it can be quiet easy for individuals to decide what way to go in eating and choice.

As for "bureaucratic meddling" - its not in the long term. Its the opposite!
Initially the bureaucratic process will be used to (if need be) introduce such a better additional informative food system - then after that if most businesses do the right thing, the state and its supposed 'nanny-state' attitude, will step back and let the people themselves get on with making better informed decisions - on their own, just better informed with now more info.

You might not need a "goofy jobsworth" telling you what calories, etc might be in your food - but others would like to be informed by educated people what exactly is going down their throats!
At least now with a bit of help from business and initial prodding from the state, people will have that choice.
More choice (and information) - not less (and kept in the dark)!

Gummy Panda · 19-02-2012 9:05pm

I prefer protein bars!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3nA2zqeX5Q

Mmmm... bacon protein bar

Chuck Stone · 19-02-2012 9:16pm

Biggins wrote: »

others would like to be informed by educated people what exactly is going down their throats!

I'd imagine the few people genuinely interested in calories and saturated fats would have some idea about what to choose before they ever leave house.

Battered cod & chips with garlic mayo: bad.
Oven roasted fish with baked potato: not so bad.

I didn't even have to google that.

Gummy Panda · 19-02-2012 9:21pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'd imagine the few people genuinely interested in calories and saturated fats would have some idea about what to choose before they ever leave house.

Battered cod & chips with garlic mayo: bad.
Oven roasted fish with baked potato: not so bad.

I didn't even have to google that.

its handy for people who are tracking calories over the course of week/month. Also people will be surprised when they see the calories on some foods like caesar salad.

Biggins · 19-02-2012 9:28pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'd imagine the few people genuinely interested in calories and saturated fats would have some idea about what to choose before they ever leave house.

They should have a fair idea but if they are trying to stick to specialised diets (like the Atkins plan or Weight-Watchers system) then they will be able to make even better choices given menu's that good restaurant come up with with more specialised content.

How many Calories in a Snackbox?

Comments