munchymom

If we are eating in restaurants that refuse to disclose the nutritional content of the food they're serving, then we don't know exactly what the source of the problem is. (One could choose to eschew all restaurant food and only eat food prepared by oneself at home - that's not a route I was willing to take.) It's not intuitive which foods are healthier than other foods, nor is it obvious from a menu name which foods have more calories and which fewer. ("Chicken and Broccoli Pasta", anyone?) When I was doing Weight Watchers, I would sometimes eat at chain fast-food places (which provide info on their websites) instead of independent delis or whatever, because I wanted something "countable." Because even after studying all the materials and reading all the calorie guides, I couldn't guess from looking just how many calories were on that plate. And before doing the research and reading the materials, sometimes I made the wrong choices, thinking I was being healthier. Gee, I'd really like a hamburger and fries, but I'll get the salad with chicken because it's healthier, right? Oops - turns out the salad, once you include the oil in which the chicken was cooked, and the salad dressing, has more calories and fat than a burger and fries. Who knew? When many of us have posted in this thread about the difficulties we've had with this, to just keep repeating, "Duh. It's obvious. Everybody knows," well...it's kind of frustrating. That's what made me dig up all that research I posted upthread - I thought maybe I was the only one who couldn't accurately estimate the nutritional content of a restaurant plate. Turns out not to be the case.

That really does make for an ugly menu board- also possibly confusing to display numbers that are not the price. And presenting calorie count in isolation without additional nutritional information is of limited utility at best, and can be misleading. I give that plan a thumbs down. I like the way McD's does it now, with nutritional information printed on the obverse of the paper that goes on the tray. Easily accessible if you want it, but reasonably unobtrusive. If every restaurant had such a fact sheet available, I'd be thrilled.

So, if everybody already knows what's in the food they're eating, then what's the big deal about making the nutrition information available? Why resist it so hard? It's not about forcing people to not eat food that's bad for them, it's about being able to make an informed choice. Potato chips have a nutrition label on them - a nutrition label that makes it eminently clear that these things contain no nutrition and way more fat and calories than are good for you. Nonetheless, people buy them by the megaton. Either they don't look at the label, or they look at it and say, "Well, it's not good for me, but I like it, and I'm going to buy some." And some people who are watching their calories look at the label and choose not to buy them, or to have them only when they really want them as opposed to every day. Why should making choices in a restaurant be any different? Why hide the ball?

The whole point of all those studies I dug up is that we all have common sense when it comes to food - and it's wrong. When people use their common sense to guess how many calories are on a restaurant plate, they guess that there are half as many as there really are. When the information is provided, people change their behavior. It's not that people are making free, informed choices to eat a whole day's worth of calories on one plate. In the absence of accurate infomation, people guess - and they guess wrong. I think that part of the reason that even well-educated, well-informed people don't have the ability to instinctively guess the amount of food on a restaurant plate comes from a few places. Portion size is the first. If your food instincts evolved in an environment where you were served reasonable portions on home-sized plates, then when presented with a restaurant portion on a giant plate, the instinct is often still to "clean the plate". One of those old Weight Watchers truisms was that "it takes twenty minutes for the brain to realize that the stomach is full." That's twenty minutes in which one can do a lot of overeating - who here hasn't had that uncomfortable "oh, I ate too much" feeling? Secondly, people who use a reasonable amount of oil and sugar in their home cooking might not realize how much added oil and sugar is in a restaurant meal - it's a lot more than people who are concerned about calories would ever use at home. Also, some foods have become more caloric in the past few years - Ben & Jerry's ice cream tastes better than supermarket ice cream because it has less air and more fat in it, but if you grew up eating supermarket ice cream, you might not automatically realize that your cup of Ben & Jerry's is twice as caloric as that cup of supermarket ice cream you had every day when you were a kid. Figuring out how much food you're eating really isn't a matter of common sense. It's hard work to figure it out, and when restaurants refuse to even give ballpark estimates of the amount of calories on a plate, it makes it a lot harder.

I wanted to highlight one particular piece of one of the cites above as particularly germane to the original topic of this thread. (The others are more broadly toward the topic of "do people know what they're eating".) Attacking the Obesity Epidemic: The Potential Health Benefits of Providing Nutrition Information in Restaurants Scot Burton, Elizabeth H Creyer, Jeremy Kees, Kyle Huggins. American Journal of Public Health. Washington: Sep 2006.Vol.96, Iss. 9; pg. 1669, 7 pgs "Survey results showed that levels of calories, fat, and saturated fat in less-healthful restaurant items were significantly underestimated by consumers. Actual fat and saturated fat levels were twice consumers' estimates and calories approached 2 times more than what consumers expected. In the subsequent experiment, for items for which levels of calories, fat, and saturated fat substantially exceeded consumers' expectations, the provision of nutrition information had a significant influence on product attitude, purchase intention, and choice." (This post and the post above were both edited to close open parentheses. Open parentheses drive me nuts.)

Here are a few cites suggesting that portion size influences consumption, that people do not estimate the nutritional content of restaurant food correctly, and that people do not assess their own eating habits correctly. It's a lot to wade through but it's worth looking at if you care about these issues. (By the way, if you want to see for yourself what's being written on these topics, go to a library with access to ProQuest or Ebsco and search on "Restaurants" AND "Nutrition".) --------- Addressing Public Demand and Perceptions Lee T Murphy. American Dietetic Association. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. Chicago: Dec 2006.Vol.106, Iss. 12; pg. 1990 In relating packaging and portion sizes to consumption, it is well supported by Rolls and colleagues, as well as in other research, that the size of a package or container can increase intake, as can the size of serving portions in kitchens and in restaurants (3, 4 and 5). Such increases occur even when the energy density of the food or beverage is altered (3, 6 and 7). This suggests that the impact of portion size on intake may be related as much to perception as it is to physiological factors. For instance, over half of American adults generally claim that they attempt to eat until they “clean their plates” (8). For these individuals, there is a visual cue established, and they eat or drink until they reach that benchmark. It is also important to note that consistently being presented with larger portions can have a deceiving effect on energy intake even for those who do not regularly “clean their plates.” Individuals who instead intend to eat one half or three quarters of what they are served are also likely to over-consume if given a larger portion size at the outset (9). ------------- Copyright 2005 Gannett Company, Inc. USA TODAY October 19, 2005, Wednesday, FINAL EDITION SECTION: LIFE; Pg. 9D LENGTH: 426 words HEADLINE: Fast-food customers get a rude calorie surprise BYLINE: Nanci Hellmich DATELINE: VANCOUVER, B.C. In a study called "the McSubway Project," Brian Wansink of Cornell University and researchers at the University of Illinois intercepted 300 people as they finished their lunches at McDonald's or Subway. They asked them what they ate and how many calories they thought they had consumed. The scientists then calculated the number of calories the diners actually consumed by adding up the calories in the foods and subtracting the calories in their leftovers. Among the findings presented this week at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society, an organization of weight-loss professionals: *Customers at McDonald's consumed about 710 calories and estimated that they had eaten about 670 calories each. *Those at Subway each ate about 560 calories but estimated only 335. ------------------- Making Healthful Food Choices: The Influence of Health Claims and Nutrition Information on Consumers' Evaluations of Packaged Food Products and Restaurant Menu Items. Journal of Marketing; Apr2003, Vol. 67 Issue 2, p19-34, 16p, 3 graphs Kozup, John C., Creyer, Elizabeth H., Burton, Scot This study suggests that though some findings from prior research on labeling may apply to restaurant foods, unfavorable nutrition information does not have equivalent effects when presented in different consumption contexts. Although the positive effects of favorable nutrition information appear similar for food products in both packaged goods and restaurant contexts, the negative effects of unfavorable information are stronger for a menu item than for a packaged good. Furthermore, the provision of nutrition information for a menu item generally has stronger effects than nutrition information presented on a packaged food product. This implies that many consumers do not realize the unhealthiness of many foods prepared outside the home. ----------- Consumption of food group servings: People's perceptions vs. reality P P Basiotis, Mark Lino, Julia M Dinkins. Family Economics and Nutrition Review. Washington: 2002.Vol.14, Iss. 1; pg. 67, 3 pgs Conclusion People's perceptions of their food group consumption are very different from their actual consumption, based on diaries. Adults underestimated their consumption of servings of grains, as well as servings of fats, oils, and sweets. They overestimated their consumption of fruit; milk products; and meat, poultry, fish, dry beans, eggs, and nuts servings. The only exception was for vegetable servings by males. The difference between what people thought they ate and the number of servings they consumed may be the result of their not understanding what constitutes a serving. Nutrition education needs to focus on explaining to people what constitutes a serving for the various food groups and how to estimate the number of servings they eat. ---------- Attacking the Obesity Epidemic: The Potential Health Benefits of Providing Nutrition Information in Restaurants Scot Burton, Elizabeth H Creyer, Jeremy Kees, Kyle Huggins. American Journal of Public Health. Washington: Sep 2006.Vol.96, Iss. 9; pg. 1669, 7 pgs Abstract Requiring restaurants to present nutrition information on menus is under consideration as a potential way to slow the increasing prevalence of obesity. Using a survey methodology, we examined how accurately consumers estimate the nutrient content of typical restaurant meals. Based on these results, we then conducted an experiment to address how the provision of nutrition information on menus influences purchase intentions and reported preferences. For both the survey and experiment, data were analyzed using analysis of variance techniques. Survey results showed that levels of calories, fat, and saturated fat in less-healthful restaurant items were significantly underestimated by consumers. Actual fat and saturated fat levels were twice consumers' estimates and calories approached 2 times more than what consumers expected. In the subsequent experiment, for items for which levels of calories, fat, and saturated fat substantially exceeded consumers' expectations, the provision of nutrition information had a significant influence on product attitude, purchase intention, and choice. Most consumers are unaware of the high levels of calories, fat, saturated fat, and sodium found in many menu items. Provision of nutrition information on restaurant menus could potentially have a positive impact on public health by reducing the consumption of less-healthful foods.

So, on the one hand, food as an agricultural product is so wildly variable that any attempt to disclose the amount of calories, fat, etc. in the food is useless. On the other hand, somehow, "everybody" knows what's in the food they're eating. How can both these things be true at the same time?

No nutritional information is going to be perfect. I think it's a hell of a lot closer than "out of thin air" - these chain restaurants are very tightly controlled in the amount of stuff they put in, so they can control their costs, and they're very tightly controlled in the kind of ingredients they use, so they can maintain their vaunted consistency of flavor. Yeah, the cook might plop three more french fries on one plate than on another, that kind of thing, but a close estimate is reasonable to acheive.

I'm not buying the argument that "everybody knows" how much they're eating. I didn't, until I did the work to figure it out. The information's out there, but it's not always easy to find. (Many chain restaurants put nutrition information on their websites, and I bless them for it. The Cheesecake Factory is one which does not, and I think we can all guess why.) Chain restaurant portions are truly outsized compared to the amount of food in a healthy diet. Once again, I ask what the difference is between requiring labels on the food we buy in grocery stores and that we buy in restaurants? (Or do people think there should be no labels on grocery store food as well?) Once again, I also point to the example of Ruby Tuesday's, which shows that people do pay attention to the information if it's made available to them. I also don't buy the argument that it's burdensome for a restaurant to figure out the nutritional information in a recipe - especially a chain restaurant whose recipes are already calculated to the most minute detail. The computer software's out there to do it - they're already putting their recipes into the computer to figure out how many hundreds of thousands of gallons of corn oil they need to order - it would only take a couple of extra keystrokes to get the calories per serving. I wouldn't go so far as to require that the restaurant menu have the nutritional information printed on it. I think it would detract from the aesthetic experience of a restaurant meal. But I think it should be made available for people who want to know.

Short answer: Yes, I would be satisfied, but I don't know that everyone else would. Longer answer: I know that before I started Weight Watchers I had no idea how to estimate the calories in food. Yes, I knew that a plate of cheese fries wasn't healthy, but I didn't know that it contained a whole day's worth of calories. I never thought about how much ice cream a double scoop from Ben & Jerry's actually contained (close to a cup and a half; at Ben & Jerry's rates that's about 1200 calories.) I might have ordered something called "Chicken and Broccoli Pasta" under the impression that it was healthier than steak. (And when it showed up under a giant glob of cheese sauce, I'd probably have eaten it anyway.) I didn't think about what was in the food I was eating until I was already overweight. And when I wanted to find out what I was eating, sometimes it turned out to be pretty darn difficult. I think labeling requirements are appropriate for restaurant food just as they are for grocery store food. Again I point to the Ruby Tuesday's example - when people knew what was in the food, they didn't want to order it, and sales went down. If labeling were required at all restaurants, it might cause some downward pressure on the calorie counts and especially the portion sizes.

I thought it was interesting that Ruby Tuesday's got a few mentions. I get roped into going there every so often, because my son likes the salad bar, and so I got to watch the massive flop of their attempt to "do the right thing". A few years ago, they got the idea to add healthy food to their menus, and list the calories, fat, fiber and carb count of every dish (not just the healthy ones) directly on the menu. So if you ordered that plate of cheese fries, you knew you were getting 1200 calories and 80 grams of fat. I loved it at the time because I was doing Weight Watchers, and some of the healthy dishes they had were pretty good (I particularly liked a roast turkey wrap that weighed in somewhere around 400 calories or 8 Weight Watchers points.) However, I must have been the only person in the country who liked the "healthy and informative" menu, because not more than a few months after it came out, the information and healthy food began to dwindle. First they removed the nutrition listings from the menu and had them available on a card at the table. A few months later, they stopped listing the nutrition information for everything but the healthy dishes. A few months later, they stopped listing any nutrition information at all, and cut the healthy section to three dishes on the back of the menu. The last time I went in, no mention of anything related to health on the menu, and the healthy options were gone. I guess the people have spoken, and what they want is two thousand calories worth of glop on a plate, but they don't want to know about it. For those who oppose the availability of nutrition information at restaurants, do you also oppose nutrition labels on the food we buy at the grocery store? What's the difference?

In my opinion, those three letters are exactly what they deserve. When I moved down here, I tried one, once. Horrendously sweet. I can't imagine a whole wheat one would turn it around for them.

Naturellement! This one's a TV show:l "A loaf of bread, a container of milk, and a stick of butter."

Dr. Strangelove. How about this one: "Creme de la creme, a la Edgar"

Are you suggesting that coconuts migrate? I like "chicken fingers" and "buffalo wings" (yes, I know they're named for the city, but it still sounds funny...)

Haven't been there. My favorite restaurant in the Southpark area is Toscana, an Italian place that is traditional, but really terrific. (Why am I saying "but"? It's traditional AND really terrific.) I'm always struck by how good the sauces are there. One place in the Southpark region that gets consistently good reviews, and is upscale and inventive, is Barrington's. I haven't been there myself (it's not kid-friendly) but from all accounts it's quite good. Another Southpark-area place that gets high recommendations (but that I have no personal experience with) is Zebra.

My favorite place in town right now is Table. Their butter-poached lobster with braised short rib is one of my favorite things ever. Table is on the outskirts of town, in a suburban strip mall. If you want to stay in the downtown area, I like Arpa, a tapas place.

Not food but drinks...I have a print of a drawing that shows a martini with a few hummingbirds fluttering around it; the caption is "Happy Hour".

Yeah, like green only purple. I assume it tastes like broccoli, I'll find out tomorrow. ← I was dreadfully disappointed once when I bought some purple carrots - when I went to peel them before cooking, they were ORANGE underneath. I hope your purple broccoli isn't green in the middle. (Actually, purple and green might be a good combination...)

I rarely order cheese plates at restaurants, but I like to have them with special meals at home. My rule is: more than three cheeses are too many. For a three-cheese plate, one goat, one sheep, one cow, with at least one of those blue. I like to have contrasting textures as well - I wouldn't want a cheese plate that had three soft-ripened cheeses. I like to drink port with a dessert cheese plate, and I like to have nuts and dried fruit with it. A little bit of good-quality dark chocolate to finish, with the last bit of that port.

There was a boy from Carolina Who thought that there was nothing finah Than to eat ice cream cones And fried meat with no bones Till he shrieked like a badly trained mynah. There is a website called eGullet That knows how to keep readers full - it Gives every great cook marks, That's why in my bookmarks It's still #1, with a bullet.

Prodigal Summer by Barbara Kingsolver. It's not exactly *foodie* as such, nobody in it goes to a restaurant, but it talks a lot about food from the perspective of farming, gardening, nature and the food chain in general. And it's a wonderful book.

Do you make an exception for new restaurants opened by a trusted owner? The owner of one of our favorite restaurants here in Charlotte opened a new restaurant in our neighborhood - we were there less than a month after it opened. Both places are in the $150-200 total bill range (for dinner for two with drinks, tax and tip) - we have a dinner at that level maybe six times a year, so we do choose with some care and usually stick to a tried-and-true - but we had a really strong feeling that we would like the new place, and it was great. (Also, some of the service staff had come from the other restaurant, and they recognized us.)

They're really good for carrying along salad dressing when I take a salad for lunch.

They do in fact make organic Froot Loops (a different company and brand name, of course, but still sugary, multi-colored O's) if you're so inclined. Sweetened with cane sugar, dyed with natural vegetable dyes, made from organic whole grains. I know this because my son spotted them and asked for them at the natural food store. I still said no. I don't bother with organic milk, because nobody in the house drinks it and if we didn't get the ultra-pasteurized stuff, the quart I buy once a month to use in recipes would be useless. For eggs, I look at the Julian date printed on the cartons (or in some cases on the eggs themselves) and get the freshest. If I had a local, free-range source for either I would use it.