Diane and I were out at Chilis the other night to use up a gift card we received as a gift. As we went, I remembered seeing in a past issue of Nutrition Action a section titled Xtreme Eating 2009, highlighting some incredibly unhealthy meals out. Chilis was nominated for two, including their Chili's big Mouth bites when taken as an appetizer they provide you 1,580 calories, 28 grams of sat fat (over 1 1/2 days worth) and 2,930 mg of sodium! And that's before your entree! Needless to say we searched the menu and I ended up getting something off of the Guiltless Grill portion of their menu, the portion that guarantees no more than 750 calories, 25 grams of fat and 8 grams of sat fat. My choice was the Guiltless buffalo grilled chicken sandwich, served with steamed veggies and Parmesan cheese.. Can you believe its served with GRILLED chicken, LOW-FAT Ranch and its served on a WHOLE WHEAT bun? The funniest part was though, that feeling confident with my choice, I still felt awkward saying "I'd like the GUILTLESS buffalo chicken sandwich please" and when I ordered it, the waitress kindly told me that "the sandwich is kind of small, I brought it out to a guy earlier today and he yelled at me and told me it was too small, just warning you." Do we really need a 1/2 pound of beef to be content with our meal out? Needless to say I was plenty full finishing the meal, and although we would've still been healthier at home, it was a nice meal out.
So I still can't tell if these Guiltless type sections of menus really work. Does the name help or hinder the section? Will I feel "unmanly" if I order from the Guiltless menu? Its too bad that a section of the menu has to be focused on this stuff, instead of maybe providing LOW FAT ranch dressing and WHOLE WHEAT buns on all meals, just as a start? Would consumers really notice a taste difference? Not sure what the answer is but I look forward to the day when restaurants willingly post their nutritional info on ALL their menu items so we all can make more informed choices!
2 comments:
The name of something can definitely change your impression of food. We were just talking about this a few days ago: the Chilean Sea Bass used to be called the Toothfish, but that obviously wasn't very attractive. Having Guilt in the title isn't as bad as Tooth, but still. It is nice to see that Chilis is trying to do something for people who don't want to eat a huge dinner, though.
I still haven't figured out why most restaurants (particularly chains like Chilis) decide that all of their meals have to be so packed full of fat and calories. I have to imagine there are alternative ways to cooking the same foods. Matt, as I was looking more closely at the nutrition facts for all of Chilis' menu items, I noticed that your sandwich was pretty similar in calories and fat (if not better) than 3 of their flour tortillas. TORTILLAS! Not the entire fajita, just 3 tortillas! The other thing I noticed about these guiltless portions is that they are still pretty high in sodium (although definitely not as bad as some of the other entrees). I remember reading in the past (not sure where it was) about how many products or restaurants will promote low fat or low cal, only to have to pump it full of salt to retain their sense of flavor.
With regards to restaurants posting their nutrition information on the menus, I think it would be great. Even though I know what I'm about to eat is unhealthy, I would be much more likely to avoid it if I saw the numbers in front of me.
Post a Comment