Weight-Loss Applebee's WW menu, can it be trusted

Weight-Loss
R

reissue

New member
Has anyone eaten from the AB WW menu? They list the items as being very low cal yet the portion seemed huge to me, I know surprise surprise. I'm not doing the WW thing but I was curious about the low cal tally on their online WW menu so I figured I'd give it a whirl. According to the site the Cajun Lime Tilapia is 310 cal total, I had my doubts so I called the corp office. They assured me the restaurants are instructed to maintain strict portion control for the WW menu. I have a hard time believing 310 cal is half of a somewhat big filet on a bed of rice with a generous side of broccoli. I'm not about to go there and bust out a scale and I'm new to measured out portions so can someone who's eaten there with an eye for what that amount of food tell me their thoughts. One reason I want to know is if that's 310 cal of food I am eating much much less than I should be.


I know stupid thread but I really am curious.
 
Since they probably don't weigh and measure everything -i'd probabl add in some calorie bloat to it.. but in most restauants it's the copoius amounts of oil and butter they use for cooking grilled foods that pack on the calories... chicken breasts are very low in calories, the marinade is probably minimal.. it's probably a 1/2 cup of rice which isn't a lot and broccolihas minimal calories..

id' believe them.. and just enjoy the dinner
 
4 ounces of tilapia (which I have for lunch a lot, and 4 ounces on the postage scale is a big piece of tilapia) is ~100 calories. A cup of broccoli is 30 calories. A half-cup of rice is ~100 calories. (Having just looked at the picture online, I'd eyeball the fish at a bit more than 4 ounces, and the rice a bit less than half a cup, with some extra calories left for the carrots, which are more calorie-dense than broccoli.) Plus they say 6g of fat, and none of those foods contain a significant amount of fat, which means ~55 calories of fat added in cooking.

So it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
 
Cool thanks. I was curious enough to eat there again to see if another WW menu item looked as 'big' as the tilapia, the portobellos and steak looked much smaller and I have no doubt it was close to the 330 cal it said it was. I suppose this is a good and bad thing for me. I was less concerned about AB's portions than what I've been serving myself. The visual bulk of a plate full of fish, rice and broccoli had me thinking I wasn't eating enough for my big meals. I know eyeballing it isn't the way to go and this will be enough to stop eyeballing it and buy a scale. Evidentally I was better at eyeballing steak than fish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top