4 ms·
It's pretty interesting to see this in picture form, but it wasn't a big secret that you could eat a days worth of calories in a single meal in most chain resta
by muaddirac 12y ago
It's pretty interesting to see this in picture form, but it wasn't a big secret that you could eat a days worth of calories in a single meal in most chain restaurants.
The comparison to home-cooked at the end is a little ridiculous. A 22oz steak will be a lot of calories whether you cook it at home or have it at a restaurant. They intentionally picked healthier options for the home meal, and always included large sugared drinks or milkshakes with the fast food options. It would be interesting to see the same article, but comparing each individual meal at a restaurant with a home-cooked version of the same meal (and I'd imagine you'd mostly be shaving off a couple hundred calories unless you're really messing with the ingredients.)
- dack 12y agoI agree with you it's a bit misleading - they do make it seem like "home cooked food" inherently has less calories when it obviously doesn't. I think the real point they were trying to make was that when you are actually cooking your food, you are more conscious of what you're eating and therefore more likely to choose lower calorie/healthier options. However, I am not sure I really agree with them. I can make a giant plate of spaghetti at home or eat several peanut butter sandwiches really easily - burning through 2000 calories without paying attention. And since some restaurants have calorie counts on their meals anyway - it's pretty easy for me to choose that if I want to be on a diet.
- Girgio31 12y agoIt`s actually 4 times average meal per day.
- lanna 12y agoI do not think the comparison is totally unfair. They are not comparing "similar meals", they are comparing "typical meals", what you would actually eat at a restaurant vs. what you eat at home. It is not just the cooking.