Calories on a menu

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.

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.