Lovebumps has put me on something similar. We have received conflicting info on Japanese, Turkish and Ethiopian cuisine. So I am allowed two orders when out:

green salad, dressing on the side
roast beef and vegies, no potatoes, no gravy.

Haven’t found a single place unable to do one or both. Everything from Meccabah to NGA Cafe, Babars to Southern Cross Club – just say you’re calorie counting when placing the order and everyone seems keen to help.

It depends on whether you are just doing low fat or also low carb or protein. Most Chinese, Vietnamese, Thai and a few other popular Asian cuisines’ dishes would be low fat. Especially if you choose the vegetarian options.

And Sushi? (Drool)

Surely most dishes at Au Lac Vegetarian restaurant in Dickson would be reasonably low fat and healthy?

Yep. Central Cafe in Queanbeyan.

Then run home.

Grilled barramundi at Mestral in Weston Creek is amazing!

Mee’s Sushi in Manuka

Sandman said :

Surely most dishes at Au Lac Vegetarian restaurant in Dickson would be reasonably low fat and healthy?

though – from taste – full of salt! the other faux meat restaurant in the corner of the square near sfoglia is much better, if that sort of thing turns you on.

as others have mentioned, sushi/sashimi is low fat. salads are usually good for this. and most decent restaurants will do you many of their meals sans fatty stuff (like cream sauces, etc) if you ask.

If you like Thai food, Thai Chang Rai at Kingston and Belconnen have Jungle Curry, which is a clear curry without any coconut milk. Both meat and vegetable versions – you’d be hard-pressed to find much fat in the veggie jungle curry.

Want to lose weight, get some exercise. All this talk about eating sushi and beans .. you can’t lose weight in the long term without doing some work.

Watson said :

It depends on whether you are just doing low fat or also low carb or protein. Most Chinese, Vietnamese, Thai and a few other popular Asian cuisines’ dishes would be low fat. Especially if you choose the vegetarian options.

While I agree with your thoughts on Vietnamese and Thai.. Chinese food is generally fairly oily.

You say you’ve been dieting pretty hard and just want a break from that for one night. If that’s the case, eat whatever you like. One meal will not hurt you, so enjoy it.

schmeah said :

Want to lose weight, get some exercise. All this talk about eating sushi and beans .. you can’t lose weight in the long term without doing some work.

Erm… yes you can. Weight loss is 80% nutrition, 20% exercise. And if people follow a high protein, low fat diet, no exercise at all is required.

matt31221, just order steak and vegies or chicken and vegies or fish and vegies, no sauces/butter and plainly cooked. You won’t get fat eating lean protein and fibrous vegies. Don’t order bread, rice, pasta or noodles.

niknak said :

schmeah said :

Want to lose weight, get some exercise. All this talk about eating sushi and beans .. you can’t lose weight in the long term without doing some work.

Erm… yes you can. Weight loss is 80% nutrition, 20% exercise. And if people follow a high protein, low fat diet, no exercise at all is required.

Absolutely this.
You have total control over what you eat, but most of your energy expenditure is involuntary.

Shurely shome mistake.

An adult with (presumably) all their faculties asks for the names of restaurants with ‘low fat options’?

Pretty much every restaurant that doesn’t have a drive-through has low fat options. A grilled steak or fish with veges, a vegetarian dish without cheese or cream (if included), most Japanese and Asian food, etc.

Anyway, if you pig out on carbs and sugar, you will still be overweight even if your fat intake is zero.

Strange post.

McDonald’s has plenty of low fat options.

Honestly, you should probably just read a book on nutrition and learn about food. It doesn’t take much to look at the descriptions on a menu and determine which options will be better for you, if you know what you’re looking for.

Thus, the populace has been convinced by general marketing that FAT is the great evil. They then ignore the energy content of SUGAR which is the other component of generally attractive food and wonder why they stay fat…

Tetranitrate said :

niknak said :

schmeah said :

Want to lose weight, get some exercise. All this talk about eating sushi and beans .. you can’t lose weight in the long term without doing some work.

Erm… yes you can. Weight loss is 80% nutrition, 20% exercise. And if people follow a high protein, low fat diet, no exercise at all is required.

Absolutely this.
You have total control over what you eat, but most of your energy expenditure is involuntary.

Sorry, but when I wanted to lose 15-20 kgs I didn’t do it by sitting on the sofa eating mung-beans. I joined a sports club and I started riding my bike.

Weight loss is actually pretty simple: energy in has to be less than energy out.

Exercise is important to stimulate your metabolism, build muscles (which burn energy much more quickly than fat) and to burn energy directly.

Diet is important to balance energy requirements with exercise levels, and to ensure you are getting appropriate nutrients.

Having dieting to lose weight previously, I’d say you need BOTH diet and exercise. But diet is the more effective side of the equation.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Weight loss is actually pretty simple: energy in has to be less than energy out.

Actually, this is not right. Its not energy per se, it is what kind of energy. A calorie (which is a measure of energy) is not just a calorie, because the body treats them differently. Just like the engine of a car treats 100 calories of sugar completely differently to 100 calories of petrol, although both inputs are 100 calories. Thus 100 calories of protein has a very different impact, weight wise, than 100 calories of carbs

Tom Naughton (google) has some good posts on this very issue.

Also, in terms of exercise, check out the doco called ‘Marathon Challenge” (a group of sedentary people that agreed to go from basically no physical exercise to making an attempt to run on the Boston Marathon). The fat people lost no weight despite running 50km+ per week.

Exercise has great benefits and should be done, but as a weight loss measure its not particularly good.

Not that it helps the OP. Low fat is better than many other food.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Weight loss is actually pretty simple: energy in has to be less than energy out.

Ah this old chestnut. I didn’t think anyone threw this around anymore but clearly it’s still doing the rounds.

Energy in/energy out is just not true. It’s the quality of the calories in the food that counts more than the sheer number. The quality of the calories (ie the food) is especially important if you’re expecting to use the food as fuel for exercise.

devils_advocate said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Weight loss is actually pretty simple: energy in has to be less than energy out.

Ah this old chestnut. I didn’t think anyone threw this around anymore but clearly it’s still doing the rounds.

Energy in/energy out is just not true. It’s the quality of the calories in the food that counts more than the sheer number. The quality of the calories (ie the food) is especially important if you’re expecting to use the food as fuel for exercise.

Ah, sorry. Entrophy says that the energy in / energy out balance IS true. However you’re correct about calorific quality. All food calories are not created equal. The technicalities however, don’t escape the laws of the conservation of energy.

Time for some science. Science journalist Gary Taubes has researched this topic for over a decade: http://garytaubes.com/works/

In simplistic terms, a good diet & weight loss/regulation etc is about eating to manage insulin response. I’ve heard it put as we should be eating hormonally, not “calorically”. Sugar/processed carbs in the diet leads to insulin spikes, storing the excess blood sugar as fat. This leads to gradual weight gain, but the rate depends on the sensitivity of each individual to sugar etc (so we get both fat and thin people). Eating fats doesn’t cause the same insulin response. “Low-carb” is probably the most common term for this now.

Disinformation said :

devils_advocate said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Weight loss is actually pretty simple: energy in has to be less than energy out.

Ah this old chestnut. I didn’t think anyone threw this around anymore but clearly it’s still doing the rounds.

Energy in/energy out is just not true. It’s the quality of the calories in the food that counts more than the sheer number. The quality of the calories (ie the food) is especially important if you’re expecting to use the food as fuel for exercise.

Ah, sorry. Entrophy says that the energy in / energy out balance IS true. However you’re correct about calorific quality. All food calories are not created equal. The technicalities however, don’t escape the laws of the conservation of energy.

Well, what I was getting at is that saying that “weight loss is simple” and then quoting the energy in/out theory indicates to the reader that this is all there is to it. Conservation of energy is all well and good but the important truth that it doesn’t capture is that eating a bag of sugar won’t give you the same effect as consuming the same amount of calories in steak and veg.

Giving someone incomplete information like the calories in/out statement is setting them up to fail.