Are calories on menus a good idea?

[Skeptisk]

We were going to a local pub last Saturday for an evening meal with friends. I had a Quick Look at the menu online in the afternoon. The food had a calorie count.

Firstly, wow. The daily recommended calorie intake for men is just 2500. The pie and mash alone was over 2,000. Have a normal three course meal and a couple of drinks and you could easily be consuming 3500 calories. No wonder so many of us are fat!

Having seen the calories I ended up going for the fish dish (1200) and a couple of pints. Which was nice but it didn’t hit the spot as much as a pie.

I can see that putting calories on menus perhaps helps us make healthier choices…yet it is a bit of a killjoy approach as it might make you choose something you don’t want (or make you feel guiltier for taking what you do want).

[iphonedyou]

I think it's a good idea. If I'm out, I'm out and don't worry too much - but it can be really helpful as a nudge towards something a little lower in calories. Every little helps.

Particularly good if out for a civilised work lunch. I don't want a 1200 calorie sandwich!

[mikey_b]

I think after a while you stop reading them, or at least stop thinking about them. When I visit Texas (at least once a year) all restaurants seem to list calories by every item, so presumably it's a state requirement to do so. Still a lot of fat people though.

[Greshamst]

Personally I appreciate it, it helps me to make informed decisions especially if the meal out isn’t a particular ‘treat’, so I don’t go wasting loads of calories unnecessarily.

If I’m out for a celebration or special occasion I’ll just ignore them.

I think it’s especially useful for foods that people don’t realise can be high in calories. Such as 1000+ calories for a salad due to the dressing, or 1000+ calories in a drink in Starbucks that people might not realise is the same as a meal. People should be informed of this.

[lufbramatt]

I often end up picking the dish with the most calories. Cos more = better.

Not sure I’m doing it right.

[Dave.]

lufbramatt said:

I often end up picking the dish with the most calories. Cos more = better.

Not sure I’m doing it right.

Value for money and as a Yorkshireman, I approve.

[Zolvaro]

No I hate them, I'm not fat but I do watch what I eat and I don't want to me made to feel guilty that my meal out is 1800 calories.

It should be an option for people who want it.

[John87]

lufbramatt said:

I often end up picking the dish with the most calories. Cos more = better.

Not sure I’m doing it right.

I do this because it seems better value if you can get a higher calorie meal for the same price as a lower calorie one

[thebraketester]

It’s not that helpful unless all the other nutritional info is included. Calories only tell a partial story.

[ATG]

I'm a "don't know".

It seems like a good idea ... but ...

There's little evidence that it actually changes obese or healthy people's behaviour, so little evidence that it actually does any real good.

There's a fear that it'll make people with eating disorders more neurotic. (There are 1.25 million people in the UK with eating disorders.)

And is the data actually accurate in the first place? Consider if you're some smallish restaurant where the food is cooked by hand. Are you actually weighing the amount of butter each portion is getting, or is it actually varying +/- 15% per customer? If you're serving fish and chips, is each fish exactly the same size with exactly the same amount of batter? I suspect the numbers are perfectly good as rough guides, but as quoted on the menu have completely meaningless precision. Do we really need to be told that a pile of pie and mash is more calorific than a fish dish? If we do, is the best way to do it with a pair of misleadingly precise numbers? Maybe it is. I don't know.

[J4CKO]

I find myself looking and rejecting something thats 1800 calories, then looking at something thats 800 and its not enough, my wife (who is slim) says that when you are going out, just have what you want, take it easy before you go, light breakfast, maybe skip lunch and likely wont be as hungry the next meal anyway.

Also, I look at some meals and wonder how they can possibly be that 1800 calories, a sliver of cheese pie, 10 chips and some veg, the calorie count seems very high for what you get in some cases, some places perhaps being a big stingy to keep margins up ?

Then theres the two or three pints, dessert and a starter, then the brandies

One thing I look at is, maybe its not the meal so much as the add ons, remember working out a Mcdonalds meal, was trying to lose weight but needed to eat, I had a Quarter pounder with a side salad and a diet coke, was only 450 ish calories, but if you add large fries and have a milkshake, thats another 800 calories.

[Lefty]

I think it’s a crap idea. If I ran a restaurant I wouldn’t do anything to put my customers off what they wanted to eat or drink.

It’s a black and white view I know but if people aren’t able to work out what’s a lot of calories and what isn’t then it’s their problem.

[kevinon]

In general I vote yes for transparency; as mentioned upthread, a 2000 calorie main meal is good data. Pie and mash don't sound like 80% of your daily needs.

In particular, this week I glanced at the menu board in 5 guys to check if a shake would be a good idea. (with my cheeseburger and fries). The info (600 calories ?) was enough to ask for a water cup. No downside to that quick switch really. The shake was cos my younger skinny friend suggested they are good; a curiosity, not a 'need'.

Looking this up, the standard shake would take an hour of swimming to use up. And it has more than the recommended daily saturated far. whew.

[dudleybloke]

Its handy to have but I still eat what i want.

[grumbledoak]

No. It's a stupid idea that only serves to reinforce the fallacy that calories are all that matter.

1000 kcals of steak and eggs is massively better for you than 1000 kcals of doughnuts.

Why are people encouraged to view them as "the same"? It's because one of them is way cheaper to produce than the other. And thus massively more profitable.

[Timothy Bucktu]

I think if you eat healthy day to day, and eating out is a treat then it's fine. But if you're going it regularly, it's worth checking the calories. The nicest meals you love are usually the worst

[vikingaero]

John87 said:

lufbramatt said:

I often end up picking the dish with the most calories. Cos more = better.

Not sure I’m doing it right.

I do this because it seems better value if you can get a higher calorie meal for the same price as a lower calorie one

I agree. A calorie is a measure of how good food tastes!

[wyson]

I think calories are meaningless for most. I’d like to see a correlation between marketing names and calories.

Cap 1 portion at 800 calories. So something like a KFC Mighty Bucket for One coming in at 1200 calories has to be called a Variety Sharing Box for example. Give people a nudge.

The ops pie and mash, have some sort of message on the Menu that it is a super size 3 portion meal.

Edited by wyson on Friday 9th August 13:01

[Hoofy]

Well, my B-i-L would always pick the biggest calorie item on the menue. It was always funny at the time. The funeral not so much.

I'm kidding, he's fine, just looks 7 months pregnant and enduring C25K.

[Dingu]

grumbledoak said:

No. It's a stupid idea that only serves to reinforce the fallacy that calories are all that matter.

1000 kcals of steak and eggs is massively better for you than 1000 kcals of doughnuts.

Why are people encouraged to view them as "the same"? It's because one of them is way cheaper to produce than the other. And thus massively more profitable.

In weight gain/loss terms they are identical, aside from whether one makes you fuller longer and therefore total calories in that day.

Nutritionally you are absolutely correct.

Allowing people to see what different food are isn’t really an issue. If you want to ignore it then do so. Most things are intuitive although definitely not everything on a menu.