Question about low carb menu item...

You have some options here.

1) skip another meal and bank some calories.
2) don't eat the entire meal.
3) eat only LC veggies during the day before going there. A nine oz bowl of
broccoli will kill hunger for a good while.

johnb41 wrote:
:: We have a "Max & Ermas" restaurant near us. (Similar to TGI Fridays,
:: etc.)
::
:: On the menu, they have a couple "low carb" choices. One of them is
:: called "Chicken Stack". I had it a few months ago and it's really
:: tasty: 2 thick chicken breasts smothered in cheese sauce & spices,
:: with a side of broccoli.
::
:: At the time i thought it was pretty guilt-free.
::
:: But i just read the nutrition label from:
:: http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/62543.html
::
:: Only about 4 net carbs.... but 823 calories. Wow!
::
:: Their "burger stack" (similar, but replaces chicken w/ 2 burger
:: patties) has over 1100 calories.
::
:: Now, i realze that low carbing means to not worry too much about
:: calories. But the high amount really got me thinking...
::
:: Next time i'm at this restaurant, should i ignore the fact that it's
:: very high calories? Or should I find a menu item that is still
:: "somewhat" low carb but fewer calories?
::
:: Thanks!
:: John

Eat half, bring the rest home for later. I find most restaurant meals are
more than I am comfortable eating at one sitting. That's what "doggie bags"
are for.

In news:[email hidden],
johnb41 <[email hidden]> stated
| We have a "Max & Ermas" restaurant near us. (Similar to TGI Fridays,
| etc.)
|
| On the menu, they have a couple "low carb" choices. One of them is
| called "Chicken Stack". I had it a few months ago and it's really
| tasty: 2 thick chicken breasts smothered in cheese sauce & spices,
| with a side of broccoli.
|
| At the time i thought it was pretty guilt-free.
|
| But i just read the nutrition label from:
| http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/62543.html
|
| Only about 4 net carbs.... but 823 calories. Wow!
|
| Their "burger stack" (similar, but replaces chicken w/ 2 burger
| patties) has over 1100 calories.
|
| Now, i realze that low carbing means to not worry too much about
| calories. But the high amount really got me thinking...
|
| Next time i'm at this restaurant, should i ignore the fact that it's
| very high calories? Or should I find a menu item that is still
| "somewhat" low carb but fewer calories?
|
| Thanks!
| John

x-no-archive: yes

FOB said:

Eat half, bring the rest home for later. I find most restaurant meals are
more than I am comfortable eating at one sitting. That's what "doggie bags"
are for.

That was my thought. Eating slowly enough, you'd be very satiated long
before you finished that monster meal.

Having them halve the cheese/sauce would help, too.

Susan

I would imagine it's not just the low carb at Max & Erma's that's so
high cal.

They don't even offer up nutritional info on the "regular" food.

I'd bet most of their entrees weigh in at over 800 cal.

Jennifer

johnb41 said:

We have a "Max & Ermas" restaurant near us. (Similar to TGI Fridays,
etc.)

On the menu, they have a couple "low carb" choices. One of them is
called "Chicken Stack". I had it a few months ago and it's really
tasty: 2 thick chicken breasts smothered in cheese sauce & spices,
with a side of broccoli.

At the time i thought it was pretty guilt-free.

But i just read the nutrition label from:
http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/62543.html

Only about 4 net carbs.... but 823 calories. Wow!

Their "burger stack" (similar, but replaces chicken w/ 2 burger
patties) has over 1100 calories.

Now, i realze that low carbing means to not worry too much about
calories. But the high amount really got me thinking...

Next time i'm at this restaurant, should i ignore the fact that it's
very high calories? Or should I find a menu item that is still
"somewhat" low carb but fewer calories?

Thanks!
John

In article <[email hidden]>,

johnb41 said:

We have a "Max & Ermas" restaurant near us. (Similar to TGI Fridays,
etc.)

On the menu, they have a couple "low carb" choices. One of them is
called "Chicken Stack". I had it a few months ago and it's really
tasty: 2 thick chicken breasts smothered in cheese sauce & spices,
with a side of broccoli.

At the time i thought it was pretty guilt-free.

But i just read the nutrition label from:
http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/62543.html

Only about 4 net carbs.... but 823 calories. Wow!

Their "burger stack" (similar, but replaces chicken w/ 2 burger
patties) has over 1100 calories.

Now, i realze that low carbing means to not worry too much about
calories. But the high amount really got me thinking...

Next time i'm at this restaurant, should i ignore the fact that it's
very high calories? Or should I find a menu item that is still
"somewhat" low carb but fewer calories?

Thanks!
John

Well, it depends. What are your goals? If you're trying to lose
weight, it's best to not eat at restaurants.

x-no-archive: yes

Luna said:

Well, it depends. What are your goals? If you're trying to lose
weight, it's best to not eat at restaurants.

Why not?

Susan

Thanks for the replies everyone! I was afraid you'd all say "it's low
carb, so don't worry!" Eventhough I watch the carbs, I still do try to
keep the total calories in a good range. About 1/2 the daily calories
in 1 meal is alot.

So from these replies, it seems that at the end of the day, calories do
matter.

When i had the chicken stack, it really wasn't all that filling. I'd
be starving if I ate only half! I'm really surprised that the meal has
so much fat in it (big reason why it's very high cal). The amount of
cheese really didn't seem like all that much. They must have cooked
the chicken in alot of oil. And the broccoli came dry... no butter.

On the other hand, i rarely eat at restaurants, so one very high cal
meal isn't gonna kill me. Plus I really don't need to lose more
weight... i'm actually now quite skinny! 🙂

Thanks again...
John

In article <[email hidden]>,

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes

Luna said:

Well, it depends. What are your goals? If you're trying to lose
weight, it's best to not eat at restaurants.

Why not?

Susan

The main reason is you never really know what's in the food. Even if
they provide nutritional information, individual locations in a chain
may cook things differently. For example, I saw a news program recently
about "diet" meals at restaurants, and the Atkins meal from one chain
had 4g of trans fat. In the brocolli.

The second reason is that portion sizes are usually huge, to make people
feel like they're getting a good value. If you do the trick of saving
half for later, that can help, but it can be pretty tempting to just eat
it all at one sitting. I mean, hey, you're out, probably with your
friends and/or family, to have a good time, and worrying about portion
sizes seems to put a damper on things. It's just psychologically
dangerous, imo.

Not to say one should never eat out, just that the ideal is to eat what
you prepare yourself. Most people fall short of the ideal, I mean we're
human after all, but knowing what the ideal is ups your chances of being
closer to it.

johnb41 wrote:
:: Thanks for the replies everyone! I was afraid you'd all say "it's
:: low carb, so don't worry!" Eventhough I watch the carbs, I still do
:: try to keep the total calories in a good range. About 1/2 the daily
:: calories in 1 meal is alot.
::
:: So from these replies, it seems that at the end of the day, calories
:: do matter.
::
:: When i had the chicken stack, it really wasn't all that filling. I'd
:: be starving if I ate only half!

If that's really true, it means your body burns a lot of calories for one
reason or other. In that case, eat more of it and don't worry.

I'm really surprised that the meal
:: has so much fat in it (big reason why it's very high cal). The
:: amount of cheese really didn't seem like all that much. They must
:: have cooked the chicken in alot of oil. And the broccoli came
:: dry... no butter.

Interesting. Frankly, as Luna said, It can be better to aviod eating out if
you're trying to lose weight. If you prepare meals yourself, you know for
sure what goes into them, so you don't have to wonder if the nutrition info
is correct.

::
:: On the other hand, i rarely eat at restaurants, so one very high cal
:: meal isn't gonna kill me. Plus I really don't need to lose more
:: weight... i'm actually now quite skinny! 🙂

No, one very high call meal isn't going to kill you. But keep in mind that
people generally only eat one meal at a time. So, if every "one" of your
meals is very high cal, you'll eventually drop dead.

🙂

Geez, I'm sorry to hear that. ;-)

--
Cheri

Roger Zoul wrote in message <[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

No, one very high call meal isn't going to kill you. But keep in mind

that

Quoted message said:

people generally only eat one meal at a time. So, if every "one" of

your

Quoted message said:

meals is very high cal, you'll eventually drop dead.

🙂

x-no-archive: yes

Luna said:

The main reason is you never really know what's in the food. Even if
they provide nutritional information, individual locations in a chain
may cook things differently. For example, I saw a news program recently
about "diet" meals at restaurants, and the Atkins meal from one chain
had 4g of trans fat. In the brocolli.

Okay, but there are ways to minimize troubles. I have to eat this way
for life, and I like eating out. So far, so good. I test my blood
glucose after eating, so I know it's possible to make safe choices even
in unfamiliar places.

Ordering the sauce and contents in an Italian restaurant, sans bread and
pasta almost always with a side of veggies works. No starch, sugar or
msg and nothing "crispy" at Chinese places works (with Hunan the best
style for low carb), I can have a couple of pieces of sushi with a
sashimi meal, etc...

Quoted message said:

The second reason is that portion sizes are usually huge, to make people
feel like they're getting a good value. If you do the trick of saving
half for later, that can help, but it can be pretty tempting to just eat
it all at one sitting.

We're all different, though. I feel full after an appetizer sized
portion; I take the rest home for lunch the next day.

I mean, hey, you're out, probably with your

Quoted message said:

friends and/or family, to have a good time, and worrying about portion
sizes seems to put a damper on things. It's just psychologically
dangerous, imo.

Or one can simply NOT worry about it, make the best choices in any given
situ, and enjoy herself no matter where she is. I've never been
psychologically imperiled by sharing a restaurant outing, attending a
lavish wedding, etc...

Quoted message said:

Not to say one should never eat out, just that the ideal is to eat what
you prepare yourself. Most people fall short of the ideal, I mean we're
human after all, but knowing what the ideal is ups your chances of being
closer to it.

I thought you were making a broad statement advising against eating out,
as an unsuitable practice for a low carber? I take issue with that. It
may be only your issue. Others may share it, but not most, once they
know how to work the plan.

Susan

In article <[email hidden]>,

Susan said:

I thought you were making a broad statement advising against eating out,
as an unsuitable practice for a low carber? I take issue with that. It
may be only your issue. Others may share it, but not most, once they
know how to work the plan.

Susan

I was making a broad statement that if a person is trying to lose
weight, it's best not to eat out. Not trying to say it's essential not
to eat out, just that it's best. Look at the hypothetical extremes:
eating out for every meal, or eating only meals you've prepared.
Statistically, which is more likely to lead to successful weight loss?
Whichever one is, that's the "best" option. So, knowing that, and
knowing that most people aren't going to be that extreme, the informed
person can then evaluate restaurant meals beyond whether or not the menu
says "low carb!" or "Atkins friendly!" The thought process of the
average low-carber may very well be "Oh, it says low-carb! I can eat it
all worry free, as often as I want."

(That generalization is based on two of the three people in my life who
claim to be doing Atkins. The first says he's doing Atkins because he
has diet soda with his fries, while the second says Atkins is why she
scrapes the icing off of her chocolate cake. Even if their ignorance is
rare, it still brings the average down)

Whereas the better informed one, the one who knows WHY it's best to
prepare your own food, may think "It says low-carb, but I should ask how
it's prepared just in case. And even if it is low-carb, that doesn't
mean this is a stuff-fest, and I'll save half for later."

Actually, eventually you'll drop dead regardless of what you do.

In news:[email hidden],
Roger Zoul <[email hidden]> stated

| No, one very high call meal isn't going to kill you. But keep in
| mind that people generally only eat one meal at a time. So, if every
| "one" of your meals is very high cal, you'll eventually drop dead.
|
| 🙂

x-no-archive: yes

Luna said:

I was making a broad statement that if a person is trying to lose
weight, it's best not to eat out. Not trying to say it's essential not
to eat out, just that it's best. Look at the hypothetical extremes:
eating out for every meal, or eating only meals you've prepared.
Statistically, which is more likely to lead to successful weight loss?
Whichever one is, that's the "best" option. So, knowing that, and
knowing that most people aren't going to be that extreme, the informed
person can then evaluate restaurant meals beyond whether or not the menu
says "low carb!" or "Atkins friendly!" The thought process of the
average low-carber may very well be "Oh, it says low-carb! I can eat it
all worry free, as often as I want."

Since statistics for weight loss generally show 95% failure or
recidivism, I'm not sure restaurant going is the issue! :-)

I guess it depends upon one's approach. I have to eat this way for
life, I have to make good choices no matter where I am, and I was able
to do so in restaurants, even picking off toppings from pizza, since day
one.

I don't know what % of folks have trouble doing this, though.

Quoted message said:

(That generalization is based on two of the three people in my life who
claim to be doing Atkins. The first says he's doing Atkins because he
has diet soda with his fries, while the second says Atkins is why she
scrapes the icing off of her chocolate cake. Even if their ignorance is
rare, it still brings the average down)

There's so much wrong with this, but it seems to have nothing to do with
dining out.

Quoted message said:

Whereas the better informed one, the one who knows WHY it's best to
prepare your own food, may think "It says low-carb, but I should ask how
it's prepared just in case. And even if it is low-carb, that doesn't
mean this is a stuff-fest, and I'll save half for later."

I think we are more typical than those so goofy and deluded that they
think they're doing Atkins by eating fries and scraping frosting off of
cake. Not much upon which to base a recommendation.

I don't get the recommendation, so I'll just agree to disagree.

Susan

FOB wrote:
:: Actually, eventually you'll drop dead regardless of what you do.

No, you can live forever if you do EVERY thing just right. 🙂

::
:: In news:[email hidden],
:: Roger Zoul <[email hidden]> stated
::
::: No, one very high call meal isn't going to kill you. But keep in
::: mind that people generally only eat one meal at a time. So, if
::: every "one" of your meals is very high cal, you'll eventually drop
::: dead.
:::
::: 🙂

On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 15:38:56 GMT, Luna
<[email hidden]> wrote:

|
|(That generalization is based on two of the three people in my life who
|claim to be doing Atkins. The first says he's doing Atkins because he
|has diet soda with his fries, while the second says Atkins is why she
|scrapes the icing off of her chocolate cake. Even if their ignorance is
|rare, it still brings the average down)

ROFL!

If only ...