CSPI info on weighty foods at chains

[rconnelly]

This is pretty sad! No wonder we do not eat at chain restaurants.

Chain Restaurants Charged With Promoting “X-treme Eating”

http://www.cspinet.org/new/200702233.html

www.cpisnet.org

[david coonce]

Yeah, these are pretty amazing. The sad thing is, a couple of them look like things I've eaten. Mostly in college and/or drunk, but still...

My favorite is the second one - mostly because it's called "Fresh Chicken and Broccoli Pasta" which implies some "healthy" or "low-fat" dish, and actually has 2040 calories and 128 grams of fat per serving. And it doesn't even look good!

[ludja]

^ The stats in the article are pretty amazing.

A 2,000-calorie appetizer. A 2,000-calorie main course. Another 1,700 calories for dessert. Those aren’t typos. It’s more like par for the course at Ruby Tuesday, On the Border, the Cheesecake Factory, and countless other top table-service chain restaurants. But since those chains make almost zero nutrition information available on menus, their customers don’t have a clue that they might be getting a whole day’s worth of calories in a single dish, or several days’ worth in the whole meal.

...

“Burgers, pizzas, and quesadillas were never health foods to begin with, but many restaurants are transmogrifying these foods into ever-more harmful new creations, and then keeping you in the dark about what they contain,” said Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).

...

Some other "extreme eating" examples in the article:

Ruby Tuesday’s “Colossal Burger.” 1,940 calories and 141 grams of fat (equivalent to ~ 5 Quarterpounders from McDonald's)

Uno Chicago Grill’s “Pizza Skins Appetizer 2,050 calories, 48 grams of saturated fat, and 3,140 milligrams of sodium

Ruby Tuesday’s “Fresh Chicken & Broccoli Pasta.” 2,060 calories and 128 grams of fat (The article says this is equivalent two 12-ounce sirloin steaks, two buttered baked potatoes, and two Caesar salads!)

Cheesecake Factory’s “Chris’ Outrageous Chocolate Cake.” 1,380-calorie It’s the (Equivalent to eating two Quarter Pounders plus a large fries—for dessert.)

And a fast food example that is surprisingly high in calories:

"A venti-sized White Chocolate Mocha and a blueberry scone from Starbucks" 1,100 calories It equivalent to a Burger King bacon double cheeseburger, medium fries, and medium Coke.

It is bizarre to me that each of these single dishes has nearly a days worth of calories in it. It is also particularly illuminating albeit stomach churning to see the equivalent amounts of other types of food that equal the calories and fat intake of these extreme chain restaurant dishes.

I don't think there is anyone that would guess at the amount of calories hidden in the Chicken and Broccoli Pasta Dish. A Colossal burger equaling five Quarter Pounders? Reading the article I almost felt like I was reading the script of a Saturday Night Live skit. And I love hearty diner food from time to time!

I have cut down on restaurant eating when I've wanted to lose weight and I don't typically eat at any of the places listed in the article, but I still found the numbers in this article pretty surprising.

To, "Eat food. Less of it. More leafy greens", courtesy of Michael Pollan, add "Severely limit your outings to (chain) restaurants."

Not all the items at chain restaurants are of the "extreme" variety but I think they almost always will clock in above the recommended calorie and fat amounts due to a combination of preparation method, ingredients and serving size.

Edited February 27, 2007 by ludja (log)

[christine007]

more and more often, I've notice that no matter what I order, I can't seem to finish it.. so this is not that surprising to me. the portions in the places around here are just off the hook.

Last time I ordered a rueben and fries, it took me three meal to eat it!

doggy bagged, of course.

[JohnL]

I wonder why they are not looking at the menus from say four star restaurants.

Seems to me the menus of most places are loaded with calories.

Why go after the so called chains only?

Also these folks are becoming pretty tiresome with their puritanical warnings of gloom and doom. For some reason if things are so bad--how is it that we are living far longer these days compared to a time when there were no chains? Listening to these people one would think we'd be tripping over dead bodies in the streets!

Not that we should not be aware of what we eat or practice moderation.

But enough already!

[ludja]

I wonder why they are not looking at the menus from say four star restaurants.

Seems to me the menus of most places are loaded with calories.

...

←

I think one major difference is that people typically eat a rich multicourse meal at a four star restaurant much less frequently than the type of chain restaurant meals described in the article. It is also much easier for someone to ascertain in a ball park way that they are eating a hugely caloric meal in the one case as opposed to the other. (In any case, I actually wonder if the calories and fat would be larger for a three course meal at a fine dining restaurant as opposed to the "Extreme Meals" offered at these places.)

I think it is more interesting to consider why restaurants would even serve a chicken and broccoli pasta dish that weighs in at 2060 calories and 128 g of fat? The calories for this meal are described as the equivalent of two 12-ounce sirloin steaks, two buttered baked potatoes, and two Caesar salads. Something seems off to me.

In terms of being tired of hearing or speaking about these things, I guess I'm glad to at least have an idea of the calories and fat hidden in these commonly available examples where a single course provides the entire amount of daily recommended calories and more than twice the fat. I don't know how one would even approach the concept of "moderation" in choosing off this type of menu.

The article also discusses movements in some places to require these types of chain restaurants to disclose the caloric load of these meals. Whether or not that is a good way to go is up for discussion and is similar to other ones we've already had on eGullet forums. If the calories and fat content of these "everyday" meal options at chain restaurants were disclosed maybe people would scratch their heads and wonder why these dishes are being served to them and their children.

[Busboy]

I wonder why they are not looking at the menus from say four star restaurants.

Seems to me the menus of most places are loaded with calories.

Why go after the so called chains only?

Also these folks are becoming pretty tiresome with their puritanical warnings of gloom and doom. For some reason if things are so bad--how is it that we are living far longer these days compared to a time when there were no chains? Listening to these people one would think we'd be tripping over dead bodies in the streets!

Not that we should not be aware of what we eat or practice moderation.

But enough already!

←

I think you're off base. Any time someone points out that ducks may not like getting grain tamped down their throat or that munching out on cheap chain food makes you fat and gives you heart disease or that advertising Lucky Charms to three-year-olds is immoral, their arguments are dismissed as the producted of clench-sphinctered meddlesome killjoys and gleefully buried beneath that slander by the wealthy purveyors of said nastiness. Hell, I did the same thing to the do-gooders that now prevent me from smoking in my favorite bars. Didn't make the do-gooders wrong, though (damn them).

Not to imply that you're in the pocket of TGI Fridays people, but they ought to buy you a round and some potato skins next time you drop by, for furthering their cause by shifting the argument away from the facts. Because in the broad debate about food and nutrition, the (admitedly clench-sphictered appearing) Center for Science in the Public Policy has a place. They should be out there talking about the crap people wolf down without thinking, as obesity rates climb, heart disease kills more people faster, and people with the build of a sumo-wrestler steal the armrest on your flight to the coast. We are, in case you haven't noticed, quite a bit fatter than we were before the chains. And, were it not for Lipitor, we might have shorter lifespans, as well.

It's an important public health issue. If a little gimmicky-yet-humorless education efforts aren't going to resolve it, they are at least a step in the right direction. Ignoring the problem, or pelting messenger is just going to make it worse.

And, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the last two multicourse, 4-star tasting menus I had the pleasure of plowing through -- not to mention a delightful three courses at Cashion's -- had fewer calories than the three-courser outlined in the article's lede.

[ludja]

...

And, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the last two multicourse 4-star tasting menus I had the pleasure of plowing through -- not to mention a delightful three courses at Cashion's -- had fewer calories than the three-courser outlined in the article's lede.

←

Remembering a recent and wonderful three course dinner at Canteen in SF, I'd be willing to make the same bet as well! The comparsion leapt to my mind after reading the previous comments.

Edited February 27, 2007 by Busboy (log)

[JohnL]

...

And, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the last two multicourse 4-star tasting menus I had the pleasure of plowing through -- not to mention a delightful three courses at Cashion's -- had fewer calories than the three-courser outlined in the article's lede.

←

Remembering a recent and wonderful three course dinner at Canteen in SF, I'd be willing to make the same bet as well! The comparsion leapt to my mind after reading the previous comments.

←

The truth is you don't know what the caloric or fat content of your "4-star tasting menus" was.

I have seen enough chefs "finish with butter" to be somewhat skeptical.

So to follow through--all menus should list fat and caloric information.

As for the center for Science in the Public interest. Well, I often wonder how otherwise intelligent people accept their dire warnings with no skepticism. Interestingly, these people are self professed-- public activists with a history of making claims that are often based on junk science. In fact, I wonder if you have looked at who is on their board and how they are funded.

The truth is, many of these groups are not dedicated to informing the public so that we can make our own choices based upon sound science and common sense. Rather, they are fear mongers who have an agenda that that goes far beyond information. Witness the myriad lawsuits and threats they are quick to enact. I would argue that these people are far from a group of concerned mainstream citizens and some of the comments they make and positions they take indicate clearly that they do not believe that you (we) are capable of making our own well informed choices.

So--once again. Is a lot of fast food over loaded with fats and calories--yes. remember fat tastes good--those four star chefs are finishing sauces and dishes with fat for a reason! Should we be aware of what we eat and the consequences--well that's a no brainer really.

I believe we should have choices and with that freedom comes a downside--somke will make bad choices--they will have to live with the consequences. I do nor want a world where some people with questionable ethics and motives eliminate choices for us through fear mongering and bans and prohibition (I suggest you look at the CSPI views on alcohol) and legal action. I have no problem if there are regulations based on open and accurate public forums and debate.

I also--suprise--have no problem with public interest groups--if they use good science and logic---and if they disseminate solidly supported information without screaming at me that my children will die if I don't listen.

That's just me though.

[rconnelly]

...

And, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the last two multicourse 4-star tasting menus I had the pleasure of plowing through -- not to mention a delightful three courses at Cashion's -- had fewer calories than the three-courser outlined in the article's lede.

←

Remembering a recent and wonderful three course dinner at Canteen in SF, I'd be willing to make the same bet as well! The comparsion leapt to my mind after reading the previous comments.

←

The truth is you don't know what the caloric or fat content of your "4-star tasting menus" was.

I have seen enough chefs "finish with butter" to be somewhat skeptical.

So to follow through--all menus should list fat and caloric information.

As for the center for Science in the Public interest. Well, I often wonder how otherwise intelligent people accept their dire warnings with no skepticism. Interestingly, these people are self professed-- public activists with a history of making claims that are often based on junk science. In fact, I wonder if you have looked at who is on their board and how they are funded.

The truth is, many of these groups are not dedicated to informing the public so that we can make our own choices based upon sound science and common sense. Rather, they are fear mongers who have an agenda that that goes far beyond information. Witness the myriad lawsuits and threats they are quick to enact. I would argue that these people are far from a group of concerned mainstream citizens and some of the comments they make and positions they take indicate clearly that they do not believe that you (we) are capable of making our own well informed choices.

So--once again. Is a lot of fast food over loaded with fats and calories--yes. remember fat tastes good--those four star chefs are finishing sauces and dishes with fat for a reason! Should we be aware of what we eat and the consequences--well that's a no brainer really.

I believe we should have choices and with that freedom comes a downside--somke will make bad choices--they will have to live with the consequences. I do nor want a world where some people with questionable ethics and motives eliminate choices for us through fear mongering and bans and prohibition (I suggest you look at the CSPI views on alcohol) and legal action. I have no problem if there are regulations based on open and accurate public forums and debate.

I also--suprise--have no problem with public interest groups--if they use good science and logic---and if they disseminate solidly supported information without screaming at me that my children will die if I don't listen.

That's just me though.

←

While the CPSI may be banging a loud drum and fear-mongering the point about four-star vs chain doesn't take into account that most folks don't eat four-star and many of those that do, don't do it on a daily basis.

All you have to do is spend one evening in foyer of a chain restaurant to see how many "average" Americans are filling the seats these places. When you have to wait an hour to eat at a chain restaurant, we have a problem.

This happens every day in every city in America and people believe they are getting a great deal because there is so much food and "reasonable" prices.

[JohnL]

My point re the four star joints is that the food police will not stop at fast food chains.

Also--fair is fair! If informing consumers about fat and calorie content in restaurants is a good thing then it is good regardless of the restaurant setting.

The real issue is should we be allowed to make our own decisions bad or good.

When you say "we have a problem" I have a problem. If people want to line up for fast food or four star food or good or bad or whatever that is their decision.

If MacDonald's offers so called healthy food and people do not order it then they have spoken.

I do not have a problem with regulating food offered in schools or establishing reasonable labeling laws etc.

Let's not be naive--we know what's bad for us and what moderation is--the CSPI have been screaming about calories in food for years--remember they were the people who said Chinese food and Mexican food were bad for us! The problem is when we make our choices they are not happy--that's not enough for them because they believe they know what is best for us.

By the way--wanna eliminate obesity? Why not go after white flour pasta--complex carbos are now though to be a problem let's ban Italian restaurants. This never ends.

The fact is the head of the CSPI is a vegetarian with views on eating that are well outside the mainstream. That's fine. But he is not someone I trust to tell me what I should or should not be eating. I simply question their "science" their motives and their methods. I know what Burger King is all about I can deal with them (remember moderation and exercise--works in most every food situation).

[ludja]

This link was available within the original article but here is the direct link to a pdf describing the extreme foods they spoke about in the article: click

I'm not as interested in what CSPI's agenda is in publishing this information. Apart from whatever agenda they have, I think the descriptions of the meals and the caloric and fat totals speak for themselves.

The Coldstone Creamery example is a very interesting one. They describe how, say 20-25 years ago someone might order a single scoop of ice cream in a regular cone. This type of serving then evolved to include waffle cones which hold much more than the old-fashioned one scoop. Then chocolate-dipped chocolate cones became an option. Now you can order a chocolate-covered waffle cone filled with multiple scoops of ice cream into which candies, chocolates, cake or cookies have been folded in. This type of concoction is equal to the amount of calories in 5 traditional single scoop ice cream cones!

A few points I found interesting in this article apart from the generally known facts that "fast food" is fattening.

A description of the obscene serving size and caloric and fat content of food being served not in "fast food" restaurants but in sit down chain "family restaurants" that a large number of people in the US patronize each and every week.

I thought they also did a good job in describing the caloric and supersize evolution of these dishes as in the Cold Stone Creamery example I paraphrased above.

I also thought they gave a great perspective in comparing what equivalent "real food" meals would match the calories and fat of the "Extreme" dishes. It was very illuminating to see that these extreme dishes are actually much higher in calories than regular "food" that would itself not be considered low calorie. (Eg: The chicken broccoli pasta single serving dish being equivalent to two sirloin steak dinners with baked potato and Caesear Salad.)

[munchymom]

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?

[JohnL]

Does anyone really believe that the people who order these "extreme" examples have no idea that they contain a lot of calories?

Suppose we list all the calories and the fats and whatever and people still order these items. Then what?

Would everyone be satisfied that the consumers have been adequately informed and are "aware." and drop the issue????

Some of the answers are in munchymoms great post.

I personally like the idea of providing information as to calories etc. But that is where it should end. Unfortunately, the good folks ay CSPI are, I fear, not going to be happy that they have done their job informing the public. I have a sneaking suspicion they are up to a bit more than just helping us make good decisions.

Edited February 28, 2007 by JohnL (log)

[munchymom]

Does anyone really believe that the people who order these "extreme" examples have no idea that they contain a lot of calories?

Suppose we list all the calories and the fats and whatever and people still order these items. Then what?

Would everyone be satisfied that the consumers have been adequately informed and are "aware." and drop the issue????

←

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.

[Busboy]

...

And, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the last two multicourse 4-star tasting menus I had the pleasure of plowing through -- not to mention a delightful three courses at Cashion's -- had fewer calories than the three-courser outlined in the article's lede.

←

Remembering a recent and wonderful three course dinner at Canteen in SF, I'd be willing to make the same bet as well! The comparsion leapt to my mind after reading the previous comments.

←

The truth is you don't know what the caloric or fat content of your "4-star tasting menus" was.

I have seen enough chefs "finish with butter" to be somewhat skeptical.

So to follow through--all menus should list fat and caloric information.

As for the center for Science in the Public interest. Well, I often wonder how otherwise intelligent people accept their dire warnings with no skepticism. Interestingly, these people are self professed-- public activists with a history of making claims that are often based on junk science. In fact, I wonder if you have looked at who is on their board and how they are funded.

The truth is, many of these groups are not dedicated to informing the public so that we can make our own choices based upon sound science and common sense. Rather, they are fear mongers who have an agenda that that goes far beyond information. Witness the myriad lawsuits and threats they are quick to enact. I would argue that these people are far from a group of concerned mainstream citizens and some of the comments they make and positions they take indicate clearly that they do not believe that you (we) are capable of making our own well informed choices.

So--once again. Is a lot of fast food over loaded with fats and calories--yes. remember fat tastes good--those four star chefs are finishing sauces and dishes with fat for a reason! Should we be aware of what we eat and the consequences--well that's a no brainer really.

I believe we should have choices and with that freedom comes a downside--somke will make bad choices--they will have to live with the consequences. I do nor want a world where some people with questionable ethics and motives eliminate choices for us through fear mongering and bans and prohibition (I suggest you look at the CSPI views on alcohol) and legal action. I have no problem if there are regulations based on open and accurate public forums and debate.

I also--suprise--have no problem with public interest groups--if they use good science and logic---and if they disseminate solidly supported information without screaming at me that my children will die if I don't listen.

That's just me though.

←

This may surprise you, but many people know enough about cooking and eating to recognize butter and cream and the like when it shows up in their food and can make a reasonable judgement regarding the difference between their dinner, fat-wise, and an alternate dinner of bacon-cheddar skins and death by chocolate.

Speaking of junk science, I'm curious to see your documentation of CSPI's junk science and tendencies and the evil sources underwriting their work (the vegans? The raisin bran lobby?). And the ethical lapses. A quick google didn't turn any up, but I'm willing to listen.

It's nice to believe in freedom. (How rare to find someone who claims to have taken that tough stand!) But information is good, too. In fact, the more iinformation you have, they freer you really are, on a philosophical level. The CSPI provides that, in a way calculated to catch your attention. Bully for them.

Regarding their anti-alcohol positioning: well towards the dry side of mine. But comparing their take on alcohol, which causes immense societal damage (which most of us are willing to risk/accept) in the course letting us all have a good time, and the freaky radicalism of organizations (and legal authorities) taking on the far more benign threat offered by high-quality chronic, the CSPI looks positively moderate.

The phenomenon they are documenting is real. Their facts, at least in this case, are solid. They have a point of view, one that's relatively benign compared to the points of view of many with more power and money than they and -- at times -- damn near enlightened. So do a lot of organizations. That would be freedom. I find them a little fussy, but I can never figure out why they make people so crazy.

[Kent D]

I'm a unabashed carnivore and eater of things that quite often are bad bad bad for me, but if those calorie numbers for those cited dishes are correct, then shame on those restaurants. I can't imagine 3000 mgs of sodium and 140 gms of fat on a plate, and wanting to eat it at one sitting, which I know from observation people DO.

But nutritional ratings or not, if you order 16 oz of fat-rimmed steak, smothered in barbecue sauce and cheese, with 3 servings of fries laying next to it and wash it down with a 25 oz. mango blush margarita, you should expect to get what you deserve.

[Gabriel Lewis]

I've actually had Ruby Tuesday's massive burger and I quite enjoyed it. I guess this must've been while they were still listing nutritional information on the menu, as I quickly discovered it weighed in at almost 2000 calories. It comes with a knife stuck through the middle to support itself.

Now this isn't something I'd consider normal for myself, but I was very hungry at the time, and I do have a large appetite. I was pretty increduolous that it contained almost 2k calories though.

Reading through this though I find myself agreeing with a lot of JohnL's points. I am more interested in the question of why eating trends have developed towards their current state in north america in the way that they have. Industry undoubtedly had some role in the emergence of these trends but I think it is ultimately market driven. There are people buying and enjoying these massive portions that didn't used to exist; it doesn't seem that they respond favorably to low calorie alternatives either.

These restaurants are providing these massive calorie dishes because there are people willing to buy them; if they weren't marketable they woudln't be on the menu. The anti fat craze and caloric approach to food has been around long enough for people to be atleast aware of what they are buying. I don't pay much attention to my caloric intake but have a rough handle on estimates. I don't know that I would've pegged Ruby Tuesday's colossal burger at 2k calories, but I can tell you that it is about 5 times the size of a quarter pounder. I can't really see these restaurants as evil in light of this.

I also have seen chefs and cooks finish with butter, and looking at the amount a lot of them use I wouldn't peg an a la carte meal with app, main, and desert or a tasting of menu of 5 much lower than the meals mentioned in this article. My experience in professional kitchens is relatively brief, but this seems to be the general trend from what I have seen.

I would agree that the availability of nutrition information is important but I am skeptical that it will make much difference.

[annecros]

How could any reasonable, rational, thinking human being not sit in front of a plate at the Cheesecake Factory, and not know that it is loaded with calories and fat and all that other stuff?

Honestly, do we need a nanny to hold our hands every time we walk out the front door?

Things are getting uncomfortably close to my fridge and pantry. Don't like it. I mean, are we as home cooks going to have to start labeling for meals we prepare for guests in our home in case they consume too many calories?

It is market driven, I agree Gabriel. People want food that tastes good, and they want a lot of it, and they will pay the price and wait in line for an hour to get it.

Edited March 1, 2007 by annecros (log)

[Andrew Fenton]

Honestly, do we need a nanny to hold our hands every time we walk out the front door?

How is it nanny-ism to provide information? Seems to me that it allows people to make informed decisions for themselves: that is, exactly the opposite of a nanny.

[annecros]

Honestly, do we need a nanny to hold our hands every time we walk out the front door?

How is it nanny-ism to provide information? Seems to me that it allows people to make informed decisions for themselves: that is, exactly the opposite of a nanny.

←

It's not like information is being held back from the public, is it? I think it is common knowledge that a pound of cheesecake is loaded with fat and calories. Do you know anybody who is ignorant of the fact that overeating is bad for you?

Fans of those particular places go for the large portions, knowing that they are going to be there an hour trying to finish a portion, then takeaway boxes of food.

Too much is being made of it, I think.

But that's just my opinion.

[Andrew Fenton]

It's not like information is being held back from the public, is it? I think it is common knowledge that a pound of cheesecake is loaded with fat and calories. Do you know anybody who is ignorant of the fact that overeating is bad for you?

Fans of those particular places go for the large portions, knowing that they are going to be there an hour trying to finish a portion, then takeaway boxes of food.

Sure, people know it's a lot of food. Do they know how much food it is? It has been shown repeatedly that people are lousy judges of portion size. Even something as simple as the size of the plate can throw perceptions off. So I'll ask again: what's the matter with giving people facts?

[annecros]

It's not like information is being held back from the public, is it? I think it is common knowledge that a pound of cheesecake is loaded with fat and calories. Do you know anybody who is ignorant of the fact that overeating is bad for you?

Fans of those particular places go for the large portions, knowing that they are going to be there an hour trying to finish a portion, then takeaway boxes of food.

Sure, people know it's a lot of food. Do they know how much food it is? It has been shown repeatedly that people are lousy judges of portion size. Even something as simple as the size of the plate can throw perceptions off. So I'll ask again: what's the matter with giving people facts?

←

Oh come on. I think everybody knows when they have a lot of food in front of them. If not, by the time they are half way through the portion they know.

People already have the facts. Printing a calorie count and fat content on the menu for each item? Not practical. Number one, I don't want an encyclopedia dropped in front of me that is punitive in "tone" at best, it's like scolding the customer. Number two, the best they can do is give an approximation, due to variations in the fresh ingredients and how closely the recipe is followed. Number three, what about a special? Who calculates the calories and fat in the super fantastic fish dish that the place is running on deal today and tomorrow?

There is nothing wrong with giving people information. My opinion, and it is only an opinion, is that just about everybody already knows what's good and bad for them. I don't want to be sent on a guilt trip every time I decide to treat myself to a dinner. It would make me grumpy. And I don't have any dietary restrictions and have never had to count calories. It has been my experience that those people who need to count calories can do so on their own, or just don't do it. Free country and all.

Now, informing the public that MSG or transfats are used in some dishes is fine. Just like letting people now that a dish is spicy, or contains nuts. It's in the public interest.

It's just a little overkill to expect a restaurant, even a chain, to print on its menus that this dish has a gazillion calories, and that dish has a gazillion and one calories, and that something contains less than 1% of the USDA's reccomended daily intake of iron.

Just my opinion.

[Carrot Top]

Though I can whole-heartedly agree with the notion of people being responsible for what they eat as individuals, and without undue interference, sometimes there are subtexts being played out in the acts of dining, particularly when dining out at chain restaurants where competition for the diner's dollar is paramount, and where marketing skills honed to strike the heart (perhaps in more ways than one, in the final analysis) are silently yet magnificently displayed. The appeals to "eat here" are made not upon quality or goodness, but rather upon a full-range of things that speak to the parts of us that want "more", "richer", "cheesier", "tastier". Is this wrong? Seems to me it is wrong in some ethical way, if our population is becoming more unhealthy because of it, because of burgeoning obesity and the health issues claimed by most authorities that go along with that.

The mention of the ice-cream places reminds me of the few times I've been to one of these upscale emporiums of sweet sticky marble massaged creamy delight. The lines were long, and and the people were mostly all obese, to a proportion of thirty to maybe three who were not. At risk of being blasted for not being "fair" to the happily fat among us, I must say that to see a human being with feet swollen and pushing out the edges of their shoes, puffing from the exertion of walking twenty feet or so while carrying two ice cream cones the size of the Empire State building worries me. Maybe its not my place to worry. To each, their own ways, their own pleasures in life.

But the fact is that if those portion sizes were not so widespread, so competitive, if the cheesey rich beefiness were not overflowing from the chain restaurants calling the names of those who can be struck to the core of their souls with a desire for this taste, this fullness, this "more"-ness, this bigness - it would be easier for many people to focus in on eating a different way if they chose to.

Even from these brief posts on this topic, it is apparent that not everyone is aware of the content of what they are eating when they do eat these things. To me, it would seem a kindness, to offer education in a form easily found, at the places that are selling these sorts of foods.

As far as recipes go, the development of a recipe for a usual "upscale" independent restaurant is built on a set of components that speak "taste and quality". That may include butter or cream or cheese, of course. The development of a recipe for a usual chain restaurant is not built on these components. The components are very different. Psychology is used in developing these recipes, with a focused intent of "exceeding sales goals".

Here is an interesting site:

Mindless Eating

The book is an excellent read. Whether one agrees with the idea that public health is being affected by these things or not, and whether anyone needs to be told anything more than what they already know, or not.

[munchymom]

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.