If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Consumerist)   Go big at a chain restaurant or go home with these 9 high calorie meals in a doggie bag   (consumerist.com) divider line 64
    More: Obvious, Red Robin, Aunt Jemima, CSPI, chain stores, spare tires, bow ties  
•       •       •

2442 clicks; posted to FarkUs » on 30 Jul 2014 at 12:55 PM (7 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-30 09:49:05 AM
Is there a single item in the 200-page manifesto that constitutes the menu at Cheesecake Factory that WON'T cause instant death from calorie/fat/sodium overload?
 
2014-07-30 10:48:05 AM
Hey, Consumerist,

Stop not liking what I like! If I want to have 4,000 calories at a single sitting with a bacon cheeseburger and bottomless steak fries, who are you to judge me? Fascists.
 
2014-07-30 11:02:42 AM
This is the same Consumerist that goaded attention whore pigs to get 60 shots of espresso to get the costliest "free" Starbucks drink.
 
2014-07-30 11:38:27 AM

tnpir: Is there a single item in the 200-page manifesto that constitutes the menu at Cheesecake Factory that WON'T cause instant death from calorie/fat/sodium overload?


Although, in fairness, 100 pages of that manifesto are ads for other stores in the mall.
 
2014-07-30 01:16:53 PM

tnpir: Is there a single item in the 200-page manifesto that constitutes the menu at Cheesecake Factory that WON'T cause instant death from calorie/fat/sodium overload?


A glass of ice water there has 150 calories and 20 grams of saturated fat.
 
2014-07-30 01:20:32 PM

Muta: tnpir: Is there a single item in the 200-page manifesto that constitutes the menu at Cheesecake Factory that WON'T cause instant death from calorie/fat/sodium overload?

A glass of ice water there has 150 calories and 20 grams of saturated fat Flavor Chunks™.

 
2014-07-30 01:24:31 PM

Theaetetus: tnpir: Is there a single item in the 200-page manifesto that constitutes the menu at Cheesecake Factory that WON'T cause instant death from calorie/fat/sodium overload?

Although, in fairness, 100 pages of that manifesto are ads for other stores in the mall.


Yet in further fairness, I would argue that eating a store in the mall would still likely cause death.
 
2014-07-30 01:31:07 PM
I think it's unfair to add the milkshake to the Red Robin burger. They don't do this for all offerrings; Chevy's assumes "you only drink water with this meal and don't gorge on the free chips and salsa at Chevys".

/not too fat, although a little bit around the midsection
/stupid office job
 
2014-07-30 01:31:12 PM
lupusuva1phototherapy.com
 
2014-07-30 01:33:09 PM
i love how these articles assume everyone wants to know the nutrition content of the food they eat, but just can't for the life of them figure it out without some breakthrough news piece.

/people who want to eat 4k calories/meal dont give a crap if its 4k calories/meal.
//was one of those people until june
///30 lbs lost in 6 weeks.
 
2014-07-30 01:37:52 PM

Teiritzamna: Theaetetus: tnpir: Is there a single item in the 200-page manifesto that constitutes the menu at Cheesecake Factory that WON'T cause instant death from calorie/fat/sodium overload?

Although, in fairness, 100 pages of that manifesto are ads for other stores in the mall.

Yet in further fairness, I would argue that eating a store in the mall would still likely cause death.


i see your instant fat manifesto and draw your attention to the salt lick that is p.f. chang's (notably a bowl of hot and sour soup, and its 7,980mg of salt)
 
2014-07-30 01:45:14 PM
As I've gotten older, I just can't take most restaurant food, especially franchise restaurants.

All I can taste at Red Lobster is salt and butter. It almost doesn't matter what  you order, because it all tastes like salt and butter. Applebee's is the same. Fast food joints...same.

I prefer to have some flavor in my food apart from those 2 flavors. I also find that I'm getting really bored with meat. Vegetables have more interesting flavors. I'm not going to be vegetarian anytime soon, but I definitely am eating less meat dishes.
 
2014-07-30 01:51:30 PM
Waitresses at the cheesecake factory never seem to be attractive.  shiat, even Chilis and Applebees get the occasional hottie with a bad complexion.  But cheesecake factory only seems to hire trolls and fatties.  Wonder why?
 
2014-07-30 01:52:33 PM

blacknite: i love how these articles assume everyone wants to know the nutrition content of the food they eat, but just can't for the life of them figure it out without some breakthrough news piece.

/people who want to eat 4k calories/meal dont give a crap if its 4k calories/meal.


People who don't want to eat 4k calories per meal may not realize that they're doing so. And frankly, no, I wouldn't have guessed some of those counts without the breakthrough news piece. 2400 calories for a plate of pasta? 2400 for a steak, even with potatoes?!
 
2014-07-30 01:55:33 PM

Theaetetus: blacknite: i love how these articles assume everyone wants to know the nutrition content of the food they eat, but just can't for the life of them figure it out without some breakthrough news piece.

/people who want to eat 4k calories/meal dont give a crap if its 4k calories/meal.

People who don't want to eat 4k calories per meal may not realize that they're doing so. And frankly, no, I wouldn't have guessed some of those counts without the breakthrough news piece. 2400 calories for a plate of pasta? 2400 for a steak, even with potatoes?!


if you cared you would ask for nutrition info.
 
2014-07-30 01:57:00 PM

Kevin72: This is the same Consumerist that goaded attention whore pigs to get 60 shots of espresso to get the costliest "free" Starbucks drink.


They sound like cool people. Anyone that can make attention whores harm themselves are win in my book.
 
2014-07-30 01:57:10 PM

blacknite: Theaetetus: blacknite: i love how these articles assume everyone wants to know the nutrition content of the food they eat, but just can't for the life of them figure it out without some breakthrough news piece.

/people who want to eat 4k calories/meal dont give a crap if its 4k calories/meal.

People who don't want to eat 4k calories per meal may not realize that they're doing so. And frankly, no, I wouldn't have guessed some of those counts without the breakthrough news piece. 2400 calories for a plate of pasta? 2400 for a steak, even with potatoes?!

if you cared you would ask for nutrition info.


only reason i put it that way is because (i think most chain restaurants anyway) they usually carry nutrition info in the restaurant.  if more people asked, maybe it would be on the menu by default.  some restaurants already do this, like Noodles and co.
 
2014-07-30 01:57:25 PM

blacknite: Theaetetus: blacknite: i love how these articles assume everyone wants to know the nutrition content of the food they eat, but just can't for the life of them figure it out without some breakthrough news piece.

/people who want to eat 4k calories/meal dont give a crap if its 4k calories/meal.

People who don't want to eat 4k calories per meal may not realize that they're doing so. And frankly, no, I wouldn't have guessed some of those counts without the breakthrough news piece. 2400 calories for a plate of pasta? 2400 for a steak, even with potatoes?!

if you cared you would ask for nutrition info.


"Oh, you didn't realize there was poison in your lunch? Had you cared, you would have asked."

The point is not that people don't care, the point is that people do care and make estimates that are wildly wrong, without knowing it.
 
2014-07-30 01:57:49 PM
Every one of those meals looks lousy.  The ribs have no bark, the pizza has ranch on it, the Mexican platter is on par with Taco Bell, the Joe's "Five Things Fried in the Same Vat" looks like Captain D's, and the steak is slathered in watery  vegetables.
 
2014-07-30 01:59:26 PM

airsupport: Waitresses at the cheesecake factory never seem to be attractive.


Except on TV...

img3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-07-30 02:03:10 PM

Theaetetus: blacknite: Theaetetus: blacknite: i love how these articles assume everyone wants to know the nutrition content of the food they eat, but just can't for the life of them figure it out without some breakthrough news piece.

/people who want to eat 4k calories/meal dont give a crap if its 4k calories/meal.

People who don't want to eat 4k calories per meal may not realize that they're doing so. And frankly, no, I wouldn't have guessed some of those counts without the breakthrough news piece. 2400 calories for a plate of pasta? 2400 for a steak, even with potatoes?!

if you cared you would ask for nutrition info.

"Oh, you didn't realize there was poison in your lunch? Had you cared, you would have asked."

The point is not that people don't care, the point is that people do care and make estimates that are wildly wrong, without knowing it.


Even the better informed of us do that. I try very hard to know what I'm eating and sometimes I'm still shocked.

One of my favorite things is that people are so focused on how bad fast food is for you "omg mcDonalds! fat!" they forget that the burger at their sit down restaurant chain is usually triple the calories.
 
2014-07-30 02:04:54 PM

Theaetetus: blacknite: i love how these articles assume everyone wants to know the nutrition content of the food they eat, but just can't for the life of them figure it out without some breakthrough news piece.

/people who want to eat 4k calories/meal dont give a crap if its 4k calories/meal.

People who don't want to eat 4k calories per meal may not realize that they're doing so. And frankly, no, I wouldn't have guessed some of those counts without the breakthrough news piece. 2400 calories for a plate of pasta? 2400 for a steak, even with potatoes?!


Potatoes aren't negative calories actually. But it came with sauce and two sausage links as well.

---

That Dave's Big Slab looks good btw.
 
2014-07-30 02:06:27 PM
blacknite:

i see your instant fat manifesto and draw your attention to the salt lick that is p.f. chang's (notably a bowl of hot and sour soup, and its 7,980mg of salt)

How on Earth do you make an eggplant side dish contain 1000 calories?
 
2014-07-30 02:07:57 PM
The Cheesecake Factory: Bruleed French Toast (with optional bacon)

That's the name of my new Tenacious D cover band.
 
2014-07-30 02:11:13 PM
Sodium: 7,610mg

There is no earthly reason for this number to be associated with sodium.

I'm pretty sure that's more than a year's supply of sodium for some nutjobs in this world.
 
2014-07-30 02:15:45 PM

spawn73: Kevin72: This is the same Consumerist that goaded attention whore pigs to get 60 shots of espresso to get the costliest "free" Starbucks drink.

They sound like cool people. Anyone that can make attention whores harm themselves are win in my book.


The pigs didn't actually drink the 60 shots mochafrapacino with caramel chocolate and whipped cream. They just got their greedy wasteful pic in Consumerist.
 
2014-07-30 02:21:00 PM

blacknite: blacknite: Theaetetus: blacknite: i love how these articles assume everyone wants to know the nutrition content of the food they eat, but just can't for the life of them figure it out without some breakthrough news piece.

/people who want to eat 4k calories/meal dont give a crap if its 4k calories/meal.

People who don't want to eat 4k calories per meal may not realize that they're doing so. And frankly, no, I wouldn't have guessed some of those counts without the breakthrough news piece. 2400 calories for a plate of pasta? 2400 for a steak, even with potatoes?!

if you cared you would ask for nutrition info.

only reason i put it that way is because (i think most chain restaurants anyway) they usually carry nutrition info in the restaurant.  if more people asked, maybe it would be on the menu by default.  some restaurants already do this, like Noodles and co.


Unlikely. Every time there's been a bill proposed requiring restaurants to add that info the menu, the chains fight it tooth and nail... mainly because they know that if they put "2400 calories" next to the pasta, no one is going to order it anymore.
 
2014-07-30 02:25:39 PM
I về given up on restaurants in San Francisco more or less. The $8 burritos admittedly are supersized so I always do "cut in half...half for here half to go". Same for Chinese. Same for Subway, why buy a 6 inch when it's only a few bucks more for two meals. Everything else is $10+. Thank God for Trader Joe's. And we don't even have any of those chains mentioned.
 
2014-07-30 02:26:08 PM

nocturnal001: Theaetetus: blacknite: Theaetetus: blacknite: i love how these articles assume everyone wants to know the nutrition content of the food they eat, but just can't for the life of them figure it out without some breakthrough news piece.

/people who want to eat 4k calories/meal dont give a crap if its 4k calories/meal.

People who don't want to eat 4k calories per meal may not realize that they're doing so. And frankly, no, I wouldn't have guessed some of those counts without the breakthrough news piece. 2400 calories for a plate of pasta? 2400 for a steak, even with potatoes?!

if you cared you would ask for nutrition info.

"Oh, you didn't realize there was poison in your lunch? Had you cared, you would have asked."

The point is not that people don't care, the point is that people do care and make estimates that are wildly wrong, without knowing it.

Even the better informed of us do that. I try very hard to know what I'm eating and sometimes I'm still shocked.

One of my favorite things is that people are so focused on how bad fast food is for you "omg mcDonalds! fat!" they forget that the burger at their sit down restaurant chain is usually triple the calories.


My favorite example of this was the McDonald's suit a few years back. If you remember, some fatty sued McDonald's for making him fat, and everyone had a good lawl. And the case was dismissed on summary judgement... but with a caveat: specifically, the judge said that if fatty could show that McDonald's food was unforeseeably worse than similar food elsewhere, that he'd have a case. For example, if fatty measured the same size burgers made at home, made at the local dinner, etc. and they had significantly fewer calories, less fat, less sodium, etc., then he had a legitimate complaint.

Before fatty could refile, McDonald's settled. Just to be clear - they won the case, got the complaint dismissed, and still paid him.
 
2014-07-30 02:26:41 PM

realmolo: I prefer to have some flavor in my food apart from those 2 flavors. I also find that I'm getting really bored with meat. Vegetables have more interesting flavors. I'm not going to be vegetarian anytime soon, but I definitely am eating less meat dishes.


Why do you hate America and freedom?
 
2014-07-30 02:32:27 PM
If you exercise regularly you don't really have to worry about this as much. Radical concept, I know...
 
2014-07-30 02:33:13 PM

thismomentinblackhistory: If you exercise regularly you don't really have to worry about this as much. Radical concept, I know...


If you're eating 2400 calories per meal, then exercising "regularly" isn't going to cut it. Radical mathematical concept, I know...
 
2014-07-30 02:34:04 PM

Theaetetus: nocturnal001: Theaetetus: blacknite: Theaetetus: blacknite: i love how these articles assume everyone wants to know the nutrition content of the food they eat, but just can't for the life of them figure it out without some breakthrough news piece.

/people who want to eat 4k calories/meal dont give a crap if its 4k calories/meal.

People who don't want to eat 4k calories per meal may not realize that they're doing so. And frankly, no, I wouldn't have guessed some of those counts without the breakthrough news piece. 2400 calories for a plate of pasta? 2400 for a steak, even with potatoes?!

if you cared you would ask for nutrition info.

"Oh, you didn't realize there was poison in your lunch? Had you cared, you would have asked."

The point is not that people don't care, the point is that people do care and make estimates that are wildly wrong, without knowing it.

Even the better informed of us do that. I try very hard to know what I'm eating and sometimes I'm still shocked.

One of my favorite things is that people are so focused on how bad fast food is for you "omg mcDonalds! fat!" they forget that the burger at their sit down restaurant chain is usually triple the calories.

My favorite example of this was the McDonald's suit a few years back. If you remember, some fatty sued McDonald's for making him fat, and everyone had a good lawl. And the case was dismissed on summary judgement... but with a caveat: specifically, the judge said that if fatty could show that McDonald's food was unforeseeably worse than similar food elsewhere, that he'd have a case. For example, if fatty measured the same size burgers made at home, made at the local dinner, etc. and they had significantly fewer calories, less fat, less sodium, etc., then he had a legitimate complaint.

Before fatty could refile, McDonald's settled. Just to be clear - they won the case, got the complaint dismissed, and still paid him.


I'm a pro-consumer protection guy but that was a frivolous lawsuit for sure. I have to say that I have zero problem with requiring calories to be listed on menus.
 
2014-07-30 02:51:57 PM

Theaetetus: thismomentinblackhistory: If you exercise regularly you don't really have to worry about this as much. Radical concept, I know...

If you're eating 2400 calories per meal, then exercising "regularly" isn't going to cut it. Radical mathematical concept, I know...


No shiat, Sherlock.
 
2014-07-30 02:58:25 PM

nocturnal001: I'm a pro-consumer protection guy but that was a frivolous lawsuit for sure.


Was it? McDonald's is well known for doing things like putting sugar in their buns and mayonnaise, something you wouldn't expect at the mom and pop diner down the road. Similarly, I doubt anyone would expect that PF Changs Hot and Sour soup to have 7 grams of salt in a single bowl.
If a product's qualities are expected by the typical consumer, then they can't really claim liability for meeting those qualities... but if the product's qualities are wildly different from what's expected?

I have to say that I have zero problem with requiring calories to be listed on menus.

Agreed. I think you can make a reasonable exception for non-chains, or even an exception that excludes daily specials that aren't repeated, due to the testing expense, but for the typical menu? Absolutely.
I also think that we should shift from the arbitrary "serving size"-based labeling to "container"-based labeling.
 
2014-07-30 02:58:46 PM

Two Dogs Farking: Hey, Consumerist,

Stop not liking what I like! If I want to have 4,000 calories at a single sitting with a bacon cheeseburger and bottomless steak fries, who are you to judge me? Fascists.


I was a bit worried when I saw that until I realized that they went out of their way to make it extra bad, like adding a second burger patty and a double milkshake. Was kind of a stretch on their behalf.
 
2014-07-30 03:15:12 PM

Theaetetus: nocturnal001: I'm a pro-consumer protection guy but that was a frivolous lawsuit for sure.

Was it? McDonald's is well known for doing things like putting sugar in their buns and mayonnaise, something you wouldn't expect at the mom and pop diner down the road. Similarly, I doubt anyone would expect that PF Changs Hot and Sour soup to have 7 grams of salt in a single bowl.
If a product's qualities are expected by the typical consumer, then they can't really claim liability for meeting those qualities... but if the product's qualities are wildly different from what's expected?

I have to say that I have zero problem with requiring calories to be listed on menus.

Agreed. I think you can make a reasonable exception for non-chains, or even an exception that excludes daily specials that aren't repeated, due to the testing expense, but for the typical menu? Absolutely.
I also think that we should shift from the arbitrary "serving size"-based labeling to "container"-based labeling.


I think so. I don't see their food as being any worse than the other bazillion fast food chains out there, and lower calorie than many actual restaurants.

Serving sizes are total BS. No adult is going to eat 3 oz of something as a serving.
 
2014-07-30 03:21:53 PM

Theaetetus: nocturnal001: I'm a pro-consumer protection guy but that was a frivolous lawsuit for sure.

Was it? McDonald's is well known for doing things like putting sugar in their buns and mayonnaise, something you wouldn't expect at the mom and pop diner down the road. Similarly, I doubt anyone would expect that PF Changs Hot and Sour soup to have 7 grams of salt in a single bowl.
If a product's qualities are expected by the typical consumer, then they can't really claim liability for meeting those qualities... but if the product's qualities are wildly different from what's expected?

I have to say that I have zero problem with requiring calories to be listed on menus.

Agreed. I think you can make a reasonable exception for non-chains, or even an exception that excludes daily specials that aren't repeated, due to the testing expense, but for the typical menu? Absolutely.
I also think that we should shift from the arbitrary "serving size"-based labeling to "container"-based labeling.


When my brother worked at Dominos, they poured table sugar into the dough while kneading it.
 
2014-07-30 03:42:47 PM

mcreadyblue: Theaetetus: nocturnal001: I'm a pro-consumer protection guy but that was a frivolous lawsuit for sure.

Was it? McDonald's is well known for doing things like putting sugar in their buns and mayonnaise, something you wouldn't expect at the mom and pop diner down the road. Similarly, I doubt anyone would expect that PF Changs Hot and Sour soup to have 7 grams of salt in a single bowl.
If a product's qualities are expected by the typical consumer, then they can't really claim liability for meeting those qualities... but if the product's qualities are wildly different from what's expected?

I have to say that I have zero problem with requiring calories to be listed on menus.

Agreed. I think you can make a reasonable exception for non-chains, or even an exception that excludes daily specials that aren't repeated, due to the testing expense, but for the typical menu? Absolutely.
I also think that we should shift from the arbitrary "serving size"-based labeling to "container"-based labeling.

When my brother worked at Dominos, they poured table sugar into the dough while kneading it.


You realize that in order for dough to rise, the yeast needs something to chew on and digest. That thing is Sugar. It can be in the form of honey, corn syrup, agave syrup, table sugar, etc.

ALL LEAVENED BREAD HAS SUGAR
 
2014-07-30 03:44:44 PM

Theaetetus: Was it? McDonald's is well known for doing things like putting sugar in their buns and mayonnaise, something you wouldn't expect at the mom and pop diner down the road.


Um, do a quick look and the mom and pop diner will most certainly have sugar in their buns. Even if they make the damn things in house. If you use yeast, you've gotta have sugar.
 
2014-07-30 03:45:20 PM

kidgenius: mcreadyblue: Theaetetus: nocturnal001: I'm a pro-consumer protection guy but that was a frivolous lawsuit for sure.

Was it? McDonald's is well known for doing things like putting sugar in their buns and mayonnaise, something you wouldn't expect at the mom and pop diner down the road. Similarly, I doubt anyone would expect that PF Changs Hot and Sour soup to have 7 grams of salt in a single bowl.
If a product's qualities are expected by the typical consumer, then they can't really claim liability for meeting those qualities... but if the product's qualities are wildly different from what's expected?

I have to say that I have zero problem with requiring calories to be listed on menus.

Agreed. I think you can make a reasonable exception for non-chains, or even an exception that excludes daily specials that aren't repeated, due to the testing expense, but for the typical menu? Absolutely.
I also think that we should shift from the arbitrary "serving size"-based labeling to "container"-based labeling.

When my brother worked at Dominos, they poured table sugar into the dough while kneading it.

You realize that in order for dough to rise, the yeast needs something to chew on and digest. That thing is Sugar. It can be in the form of honey, corn syrup, agave syrup, table sugar, etc.

ALL LEAVENED BREAD HAS SUGAR


Quick self-correction....all yeast leavened dough will have sugar.
 
2014-07-30 03:59:17 PM

kidgenius: mcreadyblue: Theaetetus: nocturnal001: I'm a pro-consumer protection guy but that was a frivolous lawsuit for sure.

Was it? McDonald's is well known for doing things like putting sugar in their buns and mayonnaise, something you wouldn't expect at the mom and pop diner down the road. Similarly, I doubt anyone would expect that PF Changs Hot and Sour soup to have 7 grams of salt in a single bowl.
If a product's qualities are expected by the typical consumer, then they can't really claim liability for meeting those qualities... but if the product's qualities are wildly different from what's expected?

I have to say that I have zero problem with requiring calories to be listed on menus.

Agreed. I think you can make a reasonable exception for non-chains, or even an exception that excludes daily specials that aren't repeated, due to the testing expense, but for the typical menu? Absolutely.
I also think that we should shift from the arbitrary "serving size"-based labeling to "container"-based labeling.

When my brother worked at Dominos, they poured table sugar into the dough while kneading it.

You realize that in order for dough to rise, the yeast needs something to chew on and digest. That thing is Sugar. It can be in the form of honey, corn syrup, agave syrup, table sugar, etc.

ALL LEAVENED BREAD HAS SUGAR


The Dominos dough comes frozen from corporate all ready to make into pies. This is additional sugar to sweeten it up.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-07-30 04:00:50 PM
I would eat the top five, but not all on the same day.
 
2014-07-30 04:02:46 PM

kidgenius: Theaetetus: Was it? McDonald's is well known for doing things like putting sugar in their buns and mayonnaise, something you wouldn't expect at the mom and pop diner down the road.

Um, do a quick look and the mom and pop diner will most certainly have sugar in their buns. Even if they make the damn things in house. If you use yeast, you've gotta have sugar.


Sorry - additional sugar. Significantly more than you would find in a standard recipe.
For example, from McDonald's nutrition calculator, a Big Mac bun has 6 grams of sugar and weighs 73 grams, or almost 10% sugar by weight.
Compare that to, say, this recipe, which uses 2 grams per bun and ends up around 5% by weight.
 
2014-07-30 04:07:27 PM
Theaetetus:
I also think that we should shift from the arbitrary "serving size"-based labeling to "container"-based labeling.

I'm with you until the container is huge, and then it becomes useless again. There does need to be realistic serving sizes instead of this 1 oz nonsense trying to hide it, but if I buy a bag of chips from costco, and it's the 5 gallon bag of doritos or whatever, the entire container listing is just as useless as the 1 oz. Maybe 1/4 bag or such. Same for a 2 liter, maybe half bottle?  But on most non-bulk items, absolutely 1 container = nutrition label.
 
2014-07-30 04:15:16 PM

kidgenius: If you use yeast, you've gotta have sugar.


And heart.  You gotta have heart.
 
2014-07-30 04:18:13 PM
I'm not sure how it's possible to put that many calories into that food. If you made it at home in the same portion size and tried your hardest, you coudn't get half of those calories crammed into those particular dishes. Especially the ribs and steak. What do they do, inject them with lard and sugar?
 
2014-07-30 04:26:39 PM
Once I started taking my weight loss seriously, I started looking up nutritional information for whatever restaurant we chose. I'd enter the numbers into MyFitnessPal and could see how my calorie and macro goals were affected. Your menu choices get much smaller when you do that kind of stuff.
 
2014-07-30 04:31:29 PM

ValisIV: Theaetetus:
I also think that we should shift from the arbitrary "serving size"-based labeling to "container"-based labeling.

I'm with you until the container is huge, and then it becomes useless again. There does need to be realistic serving sizes instead of this 1 oz nonsense trying to hide it, but if I buy a bag of chips from costco, and it's the 5 gallon bag of doritos or whatever, the entire container listing is just as useless as the 1 oz. Maybe 1/4 bag or such. Same for a 2 liter, maybe half bottle?  But on most non-bulk items, absolutely 1 container = nutrition label.


I think, once you get to the "bulk purchasing" stage, you're considered a savvy consumer. You know you're not buying it for consumption in a single sitting, so you're aware that you need to do some math.
 
2014-07-30 04:32:33 PM

airsupport: kidgenius: If you use yeast, you've gotta have sugar.

And heart.  You gotta have heart.


odorunara.files.wordpress.com
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report