Asking because I dined out recently at a restaurant with calorie counts on its menu: What do you think of this practice? Some restaurants/fast casual spots in the U.S. do it, and it’s required for many restaurants in the U.K.
Do you personally appreciate it or find it annoying/harmful, and why? Let me know. I’ll reserve my thoughts for the discussion.
I find calorie counts to be both interesting and triggering. They trigger me because I have the story that a meal "shouldn't" be more than 400 or 500 calories, which is kinda silly and only makes sense if a person is restricting calories. But when I move past the trigger, I find it super useful to see what the nutritional breakdown is.
I actually with more restaurants provided the nutritional info so that we could move beyond the kneejerk reactions of "holy cow, that's a lot of calories" or "I'm going to pretend that these listings don't exist." Currently, only national chains do it, and those places tend to have super high calories offerings. I think I'd get a better perspective if we could see, for example, what's the breakdown at a tapas restaurant or a local bistro. However, as a former chef, I also know that would be such a nightmare for the chef to input and that many of them would probably make it so roughly approximate as to be grossly inaccurate.
This is a really interesting point, that local restaurants (especially with changing menus or seasonal offerings) can't really have the same consistent nutrition breakdown as huge chains where the food is the same all the time in every storefront/made from frozen/etc.
I'm with you--I'm more interested at this point than bothered, like "Wow, they found a way to pack 1,200 calories into one salad?" I kind of approach it from a place of curiosity about what is in restaurant food and how different that can be from food I make myself.
Totally agree! I think the nutritional info would be more helpful (and probably less triggering) for a lot of people--but I also think you're right that it wouldn't be very accurate at places where the food isn't pre-portioned and made exactly the same, all the time.
I maybe use this the opposite of how it’s intended? I love little snacky things and meals with multiple components, so when I do look at the calorie counts it’s for the sake of “is this enough calories to be a full meal for me? nope? better add something else”
Really great point, Liz. I see this as a point in the "calorie counts can just be neutral, factual information" column--not always used to eat less, but just to know how much you ARE eating.
I think about this a lot re: what a "meal" is. Lately I've been eating six smaller meals throughout the day. Works for me with my workouts/hunger/trying to get a lot of protein, etc. Some of them are really just snacks. So yes, someone could look at my meal and think it's tiny, but I'm eating a bunch of them in total. I would totally eat a Lean Cuisine [if they didn't taste like crap] as one of my snack-meals, but it's not going to be only one of 2-3 I eat that day!
i absolutely hate it... calorie counts are so triggering for me because it gives me a more "concrete" sense of the food i'm eating. i used to be scared of anything over 100 calories and i've still got a long way to go, because anything over 400 still terrifies me, even if a lot of it is from protein. i don't think i'd be able to fully enjoy a meal knowing the calorie count, but somehow that anxiety goes away when those numbers aren't present (even if i know it's a higher calorie food). i guess "ignorance is bliss" would be an apt way of looking at calorie counts for me right now.
I understand! I think this is, of course, a very difficult thing for those of us who have struggled with disordered eating or a fixation on calories/food/"health"
I look at it as just another "cya" that companies engage in due to our litigious society and that's about it. To the normal person, living in reality, it doesn't make a difference as they're going to eat what they like, anyway. If we would pay more attention to portion control, we probably wouldn't need to count calories.
I was just reminded of when McDonalds got sued over someone spilling hot coffee in their own lap. I could see someone dragging a restaurant to court saying something like "Well, I didn't know how MANY calories were in this fast-food burger and it made me fat! I'm suing for damages." Just silliness like that. I could be overthinking it, though.
I understand that feeling. I try to look at it as pure data, like "Oh, interesting, this chicken dish that's very simple somehow has 900 calories in it." I end up eating what I want regardless, but it makes me cognizant of all that goes into restaurant food tasting the way it does. It's not easy to think of food in this neutral way, though. Sometimes it makes me feel nuts and upset.
I think it’s great and helps me understand how much energy I’m having in the day. If I go out for lunch and a meal is a calorie bomb, I usually just skip or have a light dinner.
I'm trying to get to a place where I let my hunger make those decisions for me, not how many calories I have left in my day, because I feel less insane that way. But if I eat some huge sugar-spiking meal at lunch, I'll probably feel ravenous again at dinner because of it, so... ugh
I find calorie counts to be both interesting and triggering. They trigger me because I have the story that a meal "shouldn't" be more than 400 or 500 calories, which is kinda silly and only makes sense if a person is restricting calories. But when I move past the trigger, I find it super useful to see what the nutritional breakdown is.
I actually with more restaurants provided the nutritional info so that we could move beyond the kneejerk reactions of "holy cow, that's a lot of calories" or "I'm going to pretend that these listings don't exist." Currently, only national chains do it, and those places tend to have super high calories offerings. I think I'd get a better perspective if we could see, for example, what's the breakdown at a tapas restaurant or a local bistro. However, as a former chef, I also know that would be such a nightmare for the chef to input and that many of them would probably make it so roughly approximate as to be grossly inaccurate.
This is a really interesting point, that local restaurants (especially with changing menus or seasonal offerings) can't really have the same consistent nutrition breakdown as huge chains where the food is the same all the time in every storefront/made from frozen/etc.
I'm with you--I'm more interested at this point than bothered, like "Wow, they found a way to pack 1,200 calories into one salad?" I kind of approach it from a place of curiosity about what is in restaurant food and how different that can be from food I make myself.
Totally agree! I think the nutritional info would be more helpful (and probably less triggering) for a lot of people--but I also think you're right that it wouldn't be very accurate at places where the food isn't pre-portioned and made exactly the same, all the time.
I maybe use this the opposite of how it’s intended? I love little snacky things and meals with multiple components, so when I do look at the calorie counts it’s for the sake of “is this enough calories to be a full meal for me? nope? better add something else”
Really great point, Liz. I see this as a point in the "calorie counts can just be neutral, factual information" column--not always used to eat less, but just to know how much you ARE eating.
Related! This is why “Lean Cuisine” &etc are so terrible. 300 calories is not enough for a meal for any adult!!
I think about this a lot re: what a "meal" is. Lately I've been eating six smaller meals throughout the day. Works for me with my workouts/hunger/trying to get a lot of protein, etc. Some of them are really just snacks. So yes, someone could look at my meal and think it's tiny, but I'm eating a bunch of them in total. I would totally eat a Lean Cuisine [if they didn't taste like crap] as one of my snack-meals, but it's not going to be only one of 2-3 I eat that day!
i absolutely hate it... calorie counts are so triggering for me because it gives me a more "concrete" sense of the food i'm eating. i used to be scared of anything over 100 calories and i've still got a long way to go, because anything over 400 still terrifies me, even if a lot of it is from protein. i don't think i'd be able to fully enjoy a meal knowing the calorie count, but somehow that anxiety goes away when those numbers aren't present (even if i know it's a higher calorie food). i guess "ignorance is bliss" would be an apt way of looking at calorie counts for me right now.
I understand! I think this is, of course, a very difficult thing for those of us who have struggled with disordered eating or a fixation on calories/food/"health"
I look at it as just another "cya" that companies engage in due to our litigious society and that's about it. To the normal person, living in reality, it doesn't make a difference as they're going to eat what they like, anyway. If we would pay more attention to portion control, we probably wouldn't need to count calories.
I wasn't even thinking of the litigious side of things...what would calorie counts protect businesses from?
I was just reminded of when McDonalds got sued over someone spilling hot coffee in their own lap. I could see someone dragging a restaurant to court saying something like "Well, I didn't know how MANY calories were in this fast-food burger and it made me fat! I'm suing for damages." Just silliness like that. I could be overthinking it, though.
Hate it. Just adds to the frustration of what I SHOULD eat. Do not need to be guilted more than we already are.
I understand that feeling. I try to look at it as pure data, like "Oh, interesting, this chicken dish that's very simple somehow has 900 calories in it." I end up eating what I want regardless, but it makes me cognizant of all that goes into restaurant food tasting the way it does. It's not easy to think of food in this neutral way, though. Sometimes it makes me feel nuts and upset.
I think it’s great and helps me understand how much energy I’m having in the day. If I go out for lunch and a meal is a calorie bomb, I usually just skip or have a light dinner.
I'm trying to get to a place where I let my hunger make those decisions for me, not how many calories I have left in my day, because I feel less insane that way. But if I eat some huge sugar-spiking meal at lunch, I'll probably feel ravenous again at dinner because of it, so... ugh
Yeah I get that but either way, I guess it’s just about what finding method what works best for you.