Anonymous wrote:Calories are largely irrelevant. Focus on carbs.

hahahahahahahaha lolololol no.

Chickpeas and sweat potatoes aren't what make people fat or gain weight, despite their high carb count.

I have a pretty good idea of the general calorie count of many foods- can eyeball something and be in the ballpark on the calorie count. Because of this I absolutely do NOT trust the calorie information provided on those menus. It's laughable what a restaurant sometimes try to pass off as a "300 calorie sandwich". The bread alone is probably 200 calories...so no way what's on the sandwich is only 100 calories.

I believe them, generally.

I mostly use the information as a point of comparison between options rather than caring too much about the actual number posted. .

Anonymous wrote:Calories are largely irrelevant. Focus on carbs.

also wanted to add that restaurant calorie accuracy only really mattes if you eat out a lot. If you are trying to lose weight or prone to gaining weight it is always best to prepare most of your meals so you know what is going into them

I looked at the picture online and the salad looks pretty basic and lists the dressing in the description so i would say the calories are likely accurate. I would still keep an eye on the dressing though as that is where the vast majority of calories are usually added to salads.

Overall I add 20% over the calorie listed on menus.

Chopt doesn’t count their dressing in their posted calorie counts. Based on your example I would think the same is true of Sweetgreen because that sounds 200-300 short.

Some places are pretty regimented (think subway other than how they apply mayonnaise) and others we clearly running wild.

That sounds accurate. The kale, romaine, lime, and tomatoes have nearly zero calories. Not exactly zero, but still pretty negligible. The chicken's probably 100, maybe slightly less (unless it's a lot of chicken, but unlikely). So that leaves a 300 or so for the other stuff.

It's not going to be exact because some workers may give you more, but 405 doesn't sound terribly inaccurate.

I believe them and I sure hope restaurants take things seriously because my diabetic father also relies on posted nutritional information to figure out what and how much he can each of things at restaurants. The posted info can be life or death for people with allergies or diabetes or other conditions.

Calories are largely irrelevant. Focus on carbs.

It's all silly. In HS i worked at Quiznos and we used a paintbrush to put oil on the bread before it was stored for the day. Sometimes people put a loooot of oil on that bread. It's very much not standardized.

Some of them, yes; some of them, no. In your example, a small salad or one with a small amount of chicken, parmesan, etc. might be accurate. But I agree with you, it does sound implausible.

I was at sweetgreen for lunch today and noticed that their Kale Caesar is advertised as having only 405 calories. The ingredients are: roasted chicken, tomatoes, parmesan crisps, shaved parmesan, shredded kale, chopped romaine, lime squeeze, caesar dressing. I guess with the chicken, crisps and parmesan I would have guessed it's more than 405 calories. I don't know that anyone is independently confirming nutritional info on restaurant menus, but is there a rule of thumb for evaluating these things? Like, "add 200 calories?" Just curious because I recently lost 15 pounds while working from home and I have not been to a restaurant for lunch in a very long time.