Dining out: It's a whole new game LA Times

Dining out: It's a whole new game LA Times

Going to a restaurant these days includes calorie-counting and trans-fat measuring before you order. How much is that hoagie in the window?



You can dig into that dulce de leche cheesecake, but you can no longer hide. With a California law now mandating that chain restaurants provide customers with nutrition information, consumers are coming face to face with the calorie, fat and sodium content of their favorite restaurant dishes — numbers they've only been able to guess at before.

That dulce de leche delight from the Cheesecake Factory? 1,010 calories per slice. A surely more prudent fajita fiesta pollo salad at Red Robin? A cool 1,000 calories with 62 grams of total fat and 1,408 milligrams of sodium — almost the recommended day's worth of salt for a middle-aged person.

We went to restaurants to see what the new law is revealing about the food (and, yes, of course, so that we could shriek at the numbers). And we did some digging to see what this new age of restaurant-transparency may mean. The numbers are eye-opening, for sure: Who would imagine a big slice of pie in many cases could do less calorie damage than a salad — a virtuous salad? But it's still an open question how we will respond to the nutrition news — as our interviews with diners and a survey of the science revealed.


Americans are eating out more and more: According to the National Restaurant Assn., 49% of every food dollar in the U.S. is now spent in restaurants, up from 25% in 1955.

What that means is we have less and less control over just what goes into our food — and the numbers, now available per California law, are sometimes shocking. Even healthful-seeming selections can pack a calorie-, fat-, salt- or sugar-laden punch.

Salads, long touted as a virtuous choice, are a prime example. At IHOP, the grilled chicken Caesar salad has 1,210 calories, far more than the patty melt, which comes in at 750 calories. At Baja Fresh, a chicken tostada has 1,140 calories and 14 grams of saturated fat.

If you figure that the average person needs 2,000 calories a day, it's sobering to learn that more than half that amount can easily be consumed in a restaurant breakfast alone. And don't forget sodium. The recommended daily limit is 2,400 milligrams a day (1,500 milligrams for those who are middle-aged, are in certain ethnic groups or have conditions such as high blood pressure). Many restaurant dishes contain more than you should have in a whole day.

Some chain restaurants have begun to create lower-calorie items or are highlighting their existing more-healthful items. Restaurant executives stress that this has been prompted by customer preferences and shifting dining trends, not by existing or pending menu labeling legislation. (Some nutrition experts suspect that new laws and the possible federal mandates waiting in the wings are more influential than companies want to admit.)

The Corner Bakery Cafe recently listed 100-plus combinations of menu items that come in at less than 600 calories, such as an Asian wonton salad and cheddar broccoli soup, or a tuna salad sandwich and Caesar salad.

Applebee's has its new "Under 550 Calories" menu, offering grilled shrimp and island rice, asiago peppercorn steak, and grilled dijon chicken and portobellos.

Starbucks lately began touting its "skinny" drinks, which are less than 100 calories, such as the skinny vanilla latte and the skinny cinnamon dolce latte, plus its new under-400-calorie hot panini sandwiches.

Cheesecake Factory has a few "weight management" dishes that are lower in fat and calories, and the company recently introduced a small plates and snacks menu, with smaller-portioned items such as mini corn dogs, shrimp scampi crostini, arugula salad and crispy fried cheese — not all of those, however, are low in calories.

Romano's Macaroni Grill chain was dinged by the consumer advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest years ago for its heavy sauces and fatty, meat-centric entrees, but since Chief Executive Brad Blum came on board in 2008, the chain has cleaned up its act.

Yes, the Alfredo is still there (the sauce alone is 610 calories and 31 grams of saturated fat), but so is a honey balsamic chicken at 540 calories and 3 grams of saturated fat (side dishes included) and a scallop and spinach salad at 360 calories and 4 grams of saturated fat that includes the dressing, and pollo caprese pasta at 550 calories and 5 grams of saturated fat. Some favorite dishes have slimmed down: eggplant parmigiana went from 1,270 calories to 800.

It's not clear what people are doing so far with the information or how that might change when calories and fat grams appear right in your face on the menus in 2011, when the second part of the California law takes effect. Many people, like Elizabeth Rubien, dining on a recent day at Coco's in Culver City, aren't very interested.

"I'm not going to study nutritional information when I go into a restaurant," she said, "and I already know pretty well what's healthy. I don't care how many grams of fat are in something. Grams of fat are not my life."

Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University, says the same attitude prevailed when food manufacturers put nutrition information on grocery store items, and yet shopping patterns did change with time.

"But the bigger benefit probably will be that restaurants will offer lower-calorie [dishes]," says Michael Jacobson, executive director of the consumer advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest. They may also decide to provide meals lower in salt and saturated fat, he says, and trim calories wherever they can from items already on their menus


You'd think, with the ugly truth at last laid out before them courtesy of the new labeling law, California's restaurant diners would alter their behavior. That's a no-brainer, right?

Certainly, health experts hope that clearly displayed nutrition facts will encourage folks to straighten up and order right. But the evidence so far is inconclusive.

It doesn't help that restaurant menu labeling is still fairly new — the first law went into effect in New York City in July 2008 — so the bulk of what's known comes from simulations that may not mirror real-life dining behavior.

Some of what we know:

• A study published in January in the journal Pediatrics reported that mothers made better choices for their children when provided with calorie numbers but didn't make those same decisions for themselves. In the randomized, controlled study, 99 parents of children ages 3 to 6 were given a McDonald's menu and asked to choose what they might order, just as if they were in the restaurant.

Parents who received menus with calorie information ordered an average of 102 fewer calories for their children than a control group not given that information. But there was no calorie difference between the two groups in what parents ordered for themselves.

"Anecdotally I know that people do want what's best for their children," says study author Dr. Pooja Tandon, a pediatric researcher from Seattle Children's Research Institute. So why don't they make better choices for themselves? Tandon isn't sure. "Maybe in other areas of health, like smoking, they may be more inclined to be healthier when they know it's going to affect their children."

• Researchers at Stanford University studied customer habits at some Starbucks locations in New York City from January 2008 to February 2009 (straddling the period when the city's menu labeling laws went into effect). Average calories per transaction decreased by 6% after the change, almost all of it related to food, not beverages. Food calories per transaction decreased 14%.

Of the calorie decrease, 75% came from buying fewer items and 25% from choosing lower-calorie items.

• Posting calories didn't seem to change the habits of fast-food-chain customers in New York City, according to a different study. Published online in October in the journal Health Affairs, it surveyed 1,156 adults eating at fast-food restaurants in low-income, minority New York City neighborhoods. About half of the people noticed the calorie labeling, and of those, almost 30% said the information influenced what they selected. Most said they made more healthful choices because of it.

But when researchers examined receipts, they detected no difference in calories compared with people surveyed in an area of New Jersey where the law didn't apply and nutrition information wasn't available.

• A study published online in December in the American Journal of Public Health found that, though nutrition labeling helps, it may not be enough. In the study, 303 people eating dinner were randomly assigned to choose from a menu that had no calorie information, one that had calories, or one that had calories plus prominently displayed information on the recommended daily calorie intake for an average adult.

Those in the two groups with calorie information ordered 14% fewer calories overall at dinner than those without it. But the group supplied with just the calorie information made up for being careful at dinner — they consumed more calories later in the evening and ended up eating as much as the no-calorie-information group.

Those who got information on daily recommended calorie intake as well, however, ate an average of 250 fewer calories during dinner and after than either of the other two groups.

Adding the daily calorie information was an eleventh-hour decision, says Kelly Brownell, one of the study's authors and director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University. "It occurred to me that people may not know what calories mean. If a burger is 800 calories, is that a lot or a little? We thought that if we provided some reference points, it might make a huge difference."


Californians have a rep, deserved or not, for being health conscious — asking for dressing on the side and meats that are grilled instead of fried. So are they leaping to devour the nutrition data now available in restaurants? And what surprises does the information hold?

To get a sense, we visited a few local eateries. At the places we went to, information was usually on the table or, if not, brought quickly when asked for — but we spotted very few patrons interested enough to check it out.

Sure, a few diligently study it. Some are only dimly aware of it. And others know about it but don't think they need it.

At a Hollywood Denny's, we found Los Angeles-based graphic designer Anthony Briggs, 58, having dinner with a friend. "I don't take it into account," he said of the nutrition facts sitting on the table with the condiments. He doesn't need to, he added: A heart attack 20 years ago made him aware of the cholesterol and saturated fat in what he eats — he navigates menus with care and leaves plenty on his plate.

He usually orders the same things. Tonight it was barbecued chicken (650 calories and 3 grams of saturated fat before factoring in the side dishes).

Briggs thinks the information should be available. "And I think people should pay attention, but I'm pretty sure they don't."

Where we found the information: on a brochure provided with the menus.

The good, bad and ugly: No one goes to Denny's expecting health food, but there are some decent choices, most under the "Fit Fare" label. The Fit Fare grilled chicken breast sandwich, which comes with fruit, is 450 calories. Cobble together a breakfast of two egg whites, four strips of turkey bacon, fruit and an English muffin with margarine for a reasonable 426 calories. Most of the hamburgers are what you'd expect — 940 calories for a bacon cheddar burger — and chicken strips will run you 560 calories without the sides. Beware the "Rock Star Menu," on which the Los Lonely Boys Texican Burger is 1,020 calories and 19 grams of saturated fat, and the Hooburrito is 1,430 calories and 15 grams of saturated fat.

At an IHOP in L.A.'s Miracle Mile district the next morning, 16-year-old Jasmine Gums of Inglewood was sitting with her mother, Margaret Mallard of L.A. Gums was eating an egg white omelet with spinach; her mother was halfway through her eggs, hash browns and sausage. Both approve of the law — Gums said she was startled when she saw the calorie counts for the first time at a Mimi's Cafe. She knows calories well enough to choose something healthful, she added, but still enjoys perusing the nutritional info.

Mallard says she occasionally peeks at the numbers, noting details such as the saturated fat. But it doesn't influence what she orders: "I'm just in general a bad eater. I knew I was going to have pancakes. My daughter looks at the menu and says, ‘This has too many calories,' But me," she adds, laughing, "I'll just get a Diet Coke to compensate."

Both thought the labeling law was a good idea: "Some people are health conscious," Gums said, "and they like to know what they're eating."

Where we found the information: written on the menu.

The good, bad and ugly: "IHOP for Me" is where you'll find the restaurant's under-600-calorie offerings for adults and kids, such as the blueberry harvest grain-and-nut combo for 570 calories and the tilapia hollandaise for 370 calories. Watch out for the quick two-egg breakfast at 850 to 890 calories (the bigger number indicates higher-calorie side dishes) and the chicken clubhouse super stacker sandwich at 1,080 to 1,490 calories. Beware the super-rich breakfasts, such as the New York cheesecake pancakes at 1,270 calories and the south-of-the-border burrito at 1,450 calories.

At Coco's Restaurant & Bakery in Culver City, friends and fellow retirees Elizabeth Rubien and Celeste Cass were having lunch, a weekly ritual.

Cass sometimes checks out the information passed out with the menus but said that she's generally careful about what she eats and figures she knows what's loaded with butter, salt and sugar and what's not. When she wants to splurge, she does.

Rubien isn't a fan of the law: "I don't think it's going to do that much good," she said. "I think there are very few people who are going to sit and study it. It's just another thing that's going to cost restaurants money, and, like other businesses, they can hardly stay open the way things are."

Where we found the information: on a laminated sheet that's provided when asked for.

The good, bad and ugly: The chain's "Fit and Lively" menu features a tomato, basil and egg-white omelet at 350 calories and a Southwest angus sirloin at 400 calories. On the regular menu, the Southwest chicken salad is 730 calories, and the Samuel Adams beer-battered fish and chips is 1,250 calories. Feel like something sweet? You may not, after finding out that a slice of cream cheese pie with cherry topping is 910 calories.

At a Starbucks on Melrose Avenue, Vince Weir was just polishing off a multi-grain bagel with cream cheese and an iced coffee. The L.A. actor and bartender was vaguely aware of the menu labeling legislation and knew Starbucks provided nutritional information in brochures stacked near the cream and sugar, although he'd never checked them out.

He did think providing the information was a good idea — in brochure form, anyway. On menus? Not so much. "If I'm about to have a steak, I don't want to see that it has 800 calories. No, I don't like that."

Where we found the information: brochures placed near the sugar and cream.

The good, bad and ugly: Starbucks limits calories-per-item to 500, but best bets are items like the spinach, egg white and feta wrap at 280 calories and the blueberry oat bar at 250 calories. Things start to add up when you add a beverage: A venti vanilla latte with 2% milk is 320 calories, and a grande hot chocolate is 300 calories. Breakfast becomes a hefty deal when you start with a blueberry scone at 460 calories or a slice of banana bread at 490 calories.

At the Cheesecake Factory in Sherman Oaks, friends Jackie Wise and Roberto Izarraras were sitting down to dinner. She had just perused the nutritional information, which was bound into a little book and placed on the table along with the menus. And she wasn't too happy about it.

"I was shocked," Wise said. "The calories you can kind of figure, but the sodium was unbelievable. I come here rarely, and it's usually to treat myself, but when I did look at some of the stuff — like the pizzas — if I were inclined to get one, I wouldn't, because of the calories and sodium." On this occasion, she ordered a grilled chicken tostada salad at 1,140 calories and 2,151 milligrams of sodium.

Izarraras' go-to favorite is the crispy chicken Costoletta, at 1,238 calories. Being on a diet steered him to something he hoped was better because it wasn't breaded — the teriyaki chicken. A good move? Maybe not. It had a fraction of the fat of the other dish — but the fact book clocked it in at 1,403 calories. Both diners said they take some part of their meal home with them. With the new info, "I'm more inclined not to go for those dishes every time, perhaps," Izarraras said. "Certainly for the cheesecake, I'd think twice."

Where we found the information: Before you even ask, the waiter plops it down on the table with the menus.

The good, bad and ugly: The Cheesecake Factory isn't known for being kind to diets, but there are a few things that are tolerable. The "Weight Management" dishes are lower in fat and calories than most menu offerings — 598 for grilled chicken. Some lunch dishes aren't bad, such as the grilled salmon at 484 calories. The chain's new "small plates and snacks" menu may have toned-down portions, but calories are still high on items such as onion rings. Most regular entrees are more than 1,000 calories and loaded with salt, and as for the cheesecake — if you have to ask, you can't afford the calories.