MoneySaving Poll: Should restaurant menus tell you the calories?

245

Comments

  • catalina66
    catalina66 Posts: 653 Forumite
    suicidebob wrote: »
    Counting calories is what makes people fat, so that's useless.
    Calories are only important when you're eating low quality food.
    Eat quality food and you can eat until you're satisfied.

    I'm losing weight really well by counting calories very simply. Difficult for everyone on different wage levels to always be able to afford everything, and just a simple calorie number on foods across the board can cover everyone.
  • suicidebob
    suicidebob Posts: 771 Forumite
    catalina66 wrote: »
    Yes, but I still think that a simple number on a menu makes life far easier for everyone.

    You're confused.

    100 calories of rubbish is not the same as 100 calories of real food is the same as burning 100 of calories through exercise.

    If you calorie count to lose weight it's only a matter of time until you're fat again.
  • catalina66
    catalina66 Posts: 653 Forumite
    beebware wrote: »
    Unless you have to work away from home for a few nights every month (or longer) - so you've got no choice but to "eat out". Last time, I had a choice of a Nandos (10 mile drive) or a Pizza Express - no other places seemed to offer calorie information (I would have gone for a McDonalds to be honest: yes, it's a lot of calories but at least I know *how* many!)

    I just don't understand why some "fast food" places (McDonalds, KFC, Pizza Hut) seem to be forced to put calorie/nutritional information (after all, some people *have* to avoid high-fat items) on their menus, but more "upmarket" places don't (and fish'n'chips places etc don't either). Seems double standards to me.

    I get what you're saying. If you're successfully following calories, and very used to that, it's better to stick with knowing the calorie value, rather than the hassle (and removing the hard work you've already done through tracking/exercising). Harder to make up for a treat than I'd realised myself. 2 weeks work can go down the pan, eek. Treats often not worth the hassle; only if they can be incorporated, through knowing the calorie values.
  • catalina66
    catalina66 Posts: 653 Forumite
    suicidebob wrote: »
    You're confused.

    100 calories of rubbish is not the same as 100 calories of real food is the same as burning 100 of calories through exercise.

    If you calorie count to lose weight it's only a matter of time until you're fat again.

    Not confused at all. Successfully lost and losing weight, through simple calorie/exercise tracking, very steadily. Without calorie-labelled foods, that would be very tough indeed to do. Dietician totally agrees with common sense plan.

    I know that quality of food has different effect, and count food and exercise calories perfectly clearly (activity tracker). Easy, clear and fun, and never fat unless choose to be.
  • WantToBeSE
    WantToBeSE Posts: 7,729
    I've been Money Tipped! Debt-free and Proud!
    Forumite
    No thanks, I'd rather know how many teaspoons of sugar was in a meal than how many calories.
  • tomtontom
    tomtontom Posts: 7,929 Forumite
    catalina66 wrote: »
    I get what you're saying. If you're successfully following calories, and very used to that, it's better to stick with knowing the calorie value, rather than the hassle (and removing the hard work you've already done through tracking/exercising). Harder to make up for a treat than I'd realised myself. 2 weeks work can go down the pan, eek. Treats often not worth the hassle; only if they can be incorporated, through knowing the calorie values.

    You're on a slippery slope to misery. Eat healthily and the odd meal out will not set you back two weeks, it shouldn't set you back at all unless the treats are too often. I'd focus more on a balanced diet and less on calories. After all, you're not intending to count calories forever more are you?
  • Prinzessilein
    Prinzessilein Posts: 3,257
    First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    I would like to see nutritional information available in restaurants...but not necessarily on the 'standard' menu...


    Also, I would prefer it not to be restricted to calories....some people are losing weight by controlling the amount of fat in their diet.


    I definitely want the information to be 'per portion' rather than per 100g! If someone is watching their weight then they want to know how many calories/grams of fat is on their plate...they do NOT want to have to ask how large the portion is and then round this up/down to the nearest 100g and then multiply by the given calorific/fat value!
  • wiggers
    wiggers Posts: 83
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    If you're counting calories you're doing it wrong. Calories are simply a measure of the heat from the exothermic reaction with oxygen, has very little to do with how your body metabolises different food types. Carbohydrates and fats are metabolised in different ways and both can give you energy. (cf ATP production) Carbs require insulin to be processed and excess consumption thereof leads to diabetes, obesity and metabolic syndrome. For over 150yrs it has been known that a Low-Carb-High-Fat diet (LCHF) is by far the most healthy. It is only the lobbying by the food processors that is preventing this message from being heard, spreading the 'fat is bad' lie. Also, Big Pharma love to sell drugs for problems created by consumption of high-carb processed food!
    If your outgoings exceed your income, your upkeep will be your downfall.
    -- Moe Howard of The Three Stooges explaining economics to brother Curley
  • Jennifer_Jane
    Jennifer_Jane Posts: 3,237
    Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    If I'm eating out, I simply want the best possible ingredients treated respectfully so that the meal tastes great. If I'm happy to add to my calorie count then I might have a dessert. If I want to keep my calories down, then I'll reduce my intake the following day. I don't want my choices - or the cooking - influenced by calorie misery when I'm out.
  • catalina66
    catalina66 Posts: 653 Forumite
    edited 5 January 2015 at 6:37PM
    tomtontom wrote: »
    You're on a slippery slope to misery. Eat healthily and the odd meal out will not set you back two weeks, it shouldn't set you back at all unless the treats are too often. I'd focus more on a balanced diet and less on calories. After all, you're not intending to count calories forever more are you?

    I'm not getting why people are reading into this that it's complicated and miserable. It's really fun and simple. Not miserable at all. Successfully lost 17 lbs so far, and I track in chocolate daily, lol. MyFitnessPal and Polar activity tracker watch; really easy to do. It's fine!
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 341.7K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.1K Spending & Discounts
  • 233.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 605.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.3K Life & Family
  • 246.7K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards