it would be nice to know, but, its not like when i go out to a place like fuddruckers, i'm trying to eat healthy. if you want healthy, try cardboard. these restaurants want to actually sell good tasting food, and usually good tasting food is fattening.

btw, some people don't want to live to be 100 years old and while they are on this earth, want to spoil themselves with good tasting food.

Ha. I like Papa John's answer. It's basically a "if you have to ask, you can't afford it. (in calories)"

Magginao's Little Italy's response is excellent. I love relatively decent/cheery PR/CS people giving the bad news.

"Oh golly, I really hate to tell you this, and you seem like a really perfectly good, sweet person, and maybe we could even be friends if we met under different circumstances, but they said, and I quote: 'Screw you.'"

If McDonald's does it, you would think they could do it.

Add Texas Roadhouse to the list! How frustrating!

At least they responded. Quizno's outright ignores you. I googled the info and found out that many, many people have asked them for this info by using the email address provided on their site and they do not hear back from Quizno's at all.

mcdonalds does it because they don't want to be sued by fattys. lol.

@num1skeptic: It's not about that. It's about getting a fair idea of how many calories you are consuming.

Also, whether or not IHOP is "good tasting food" is debatable.

why are you eating at ihop if your concerned with calories? its already been proven that just because your eating a salad, doesn't mean its less calories than a big mac.

Ben, "focus group" is not a verb.

What's in Hooters' food? Silicone.

@num1skeptic: "If you want healthy, try cardboard." So you think that no healthy food tastes good? That's such a childish outlook. Let me guess, you don't eat any fruits or vegetables and the only way you want your meat cooked is fried? And the idea of wanting to "spoil [one's] self with good tasting food" is fine, but that doesn't mean one can only eat french fries, brownies, and fettucine alfredo. If you do it all the time, it's not "spoiling", after all....

I am backing away from this conversation now.

@num1skeptic: these restaurants want to actually sell good tasting food

Sure they want to. The thing is that most of it is frozen, pre-mixed, or pre-cooked. (Which makes it extra ridiculous that they can claim to not know the nutritional information.) To me, eating pre-processed chain crap is more like eating cardboard than fresh healthy food.

You think nutritional info is hard to get, try asking some chain restaurants about ingredients if you have a food allergy or intolerance. Some of their corporate lines *cough*Red Lobster's*cough* wipe their hands of the whole affair and flat out tell you they can't tell you anything at all about anything that may or may not be in their food. Since they buy some of it from food suppliers and don't know what they put in it. So their defense is that they honestly have no idea what they're buying except that it says "Sour Cream" on the side. Could be from a cow, could be from a moose... who knows?

At least Outback goes to the (minimal) trouble of developing a gluten-free menu and actually having half a clue what they're serving people.

So... is it safe to assume that, until we're told otherwise, all of the above restaurants are profoundly ashamed of what they are serving?

@vanillabean: outback only freezes the chicken fingers and ice cream. everything else is fresh.

outback's freezer is smaller than most people's closet. my cousin is the manager of the one in my city.

I don't see what the big deal is. You don't have the right to nutritional information, nor (in most of these restaurants) is it expected to be consistent. If you really need to know how many calories your meal has, eat elsewhere. Pretty simple.

They probably know that if they let consumers know how much fat and calories they are consuming their sales would drop.

@num1skeptic:

A salad can certainly have more calories than a big mac if it is covered in cheese, bacon and creamy dressings. This is why nutrional information is so important.

Luckily, I disagree with you about food needing to be fattening and unhealthy to taste good. I wouldn't eat this chain restaurant crap if you paid me.

@num1skeptic: Oh kiss my ass. Healthy food != cardboard. I'd go so far as to say that well prepared healthy food is in many cases better tasting than its less healthy counterparts. Good ingredients prepared with care don't have to be covered up with salt, extra fat, etc. to taste good. Crap ingredients prepared by a goon with a microwave (like at Applebee's, Fuddruckers, Chili's, etc) have to be pumped up with salt and fat so that they taste "good."

You know, plenty of restaurants prepare food with astronomical amounts of calories, salt, fat grams, etc in them and publish that information. People still buy that food. It's pure laziness (and a desire to trick people, imho) that these restaurants don't publish the nutritional information for the food they spew out.

Go buy a couple of the Todd Wilbur top secret recipe books if your dying for some of the chain food items. Then you actually KNOW what your eating and a relative idea of the calories your consuming. Bonus you don't have to sit for 40 minutes like cattle to get a table.

@num1skeptic: that is just awesome...yet another reason to go there...

beauty is in the eye of the beholder. good taste is in the holder of the tastebuds. maybe health food tastes good to you, and not me and were both right. ever think of that?

Fuddruckers gave my favorite response.

"Providing nutritional info would be "very extensive [sic] and timely."

They either deserve a second [sic], or a pat on the back for the best malapropism. Yes, Fuddruckers, providing nutritional information would be "timely." As in: It's about damn time you tell us what we're eating.

and my main arguement is that if your worried about calories, don't go out to eat at these restaurants. not what food does or does not taste good.

@FitJulie: maybe they are trying to employ their own version of "Don't ask. Don't tell."... I do know for a fact that when I cook at home and eat a very filling meal, I feel absolutely wonderful afterward because it was a healthy meal. It also usually includes one of a dozen different types of fruits...lovin' them apples lately...

@num1skeptic: seriously, are you like 12 years old? in what universe does chain restaurant slop qualify as tasty food?

@zarex42: In my view, it shows the businesses have no idea what they're serving customers and simply push out what the supplier sends them.

I have no idea if the food I cook at home is remotely healthy. I don't care about the nutritional value of restaurant food. I prefer it this way. I want my food cooked to taste good, and don't wanna know the gritty details (mmm, veal...) of what I eat. I eat what I like in moderation, and deal with whatever consequences there may be.

@erebusrat: The rest of us shouldn't have to suffer because of your desire for ignorance.

@num1skeptic: They get all of those vegetables fresh? Good for them. So, Outback is the only chain restaurant selling fresh food? Any others?

Hey the Original Road House in California does it you bastards. Granted it's a pdf and not as fancy as say Arbys where you can build a menu. but it's still there.

I think I will have steak tonight.

@zarex42: Yes, I definitely have no right to know the contents of the stuff I buy. That I paid money for. Especially not if it contains something dangerous like lead, GHB, or allergens. I applaud your logic.

If the "Unwrapped" (it was that or a similar show) I saw about Chili's is to be believed, that food is absolutely meant to be consistent throughout the chain. The "food scientists*" at Chili HQ go to great pains to make sure that the dining experience is consistent from restaurant to restaurant. If they can make the same mediocre burger or burrito taste the same here as it does at every other Chili's, they for damn sure can get nutritional analysis done on their foods.

* no really, they called them this. Not chefs, "scientists." Mmmmmmm, this burger tastes science-y!

@popeye_doyle: Neither is "Photoshop" (it's a proper name), yet it gets used as one. Languages change.

I don't think anyone is claiming that people have a "right" to know what's in the food they're purchasing. But, if businesses can't take the time to actually let you know what their ingredients are, it's pretty indicative of their level of concern for their customers. This also tells me they don't care if the food has been handled appropriately, was prepared safely, etc.

It's ludicrous for them to claim that they have no idea what's in the food they prepare for you. But, until they've proved otherwise, people who are concerned about such things should not patronize these businesses.

To those who claim that healthy food doesn't taste good, you can add enough fat, salt and sugar to just about anything to make it taste "good". Salt is often used to cover up poor quality ingredients, and fat is no exception. It's amazing how ignorant people can be about the things they're putting in their bodies.

@zarex42: Whether I have a right to know what's in my food depends whether we're talking about the law or what is right. With all the science that goes into developing food for chain restaurants, there's no way they don't know down the nutritional content of each dish down to the molecule.

And that's exactly why I don't eat in restaurants.

@DrGirlfriend: Quiznos has this info posted now, and I see why they dragged their feet on this, the damn sauces are high in fat/calories.

Nutritional info is good to have, but I'd be SO much more interested in just getting information on ingredients used, in detail. I'd much rather eat something that's higher-cal but made with decent ingredients than something that's light, but made with crap (which most of this food tends to be).

I think that probably most chain restaurants know exactly how much of each ingredient goes into their meals. They have weights and measurements pre-calculated for the most part, to reduce waste and maximize profits and keep things consistent with other locations.

In high school, I quickly realized this while working for Godfather's Pizza. Toppings are measured and weighed ("over a pound of cheese" = 16.5 oz, EXACTLY), dough is weighed, everything is spelled out precisely. A large pepperoni pizza has 40 slices of pepperoni, medium is 30, small is 20, etc. We had to count! (Interestingly though, a large with double pepperoni only has 60 slices and triple pepperoni is 80 slices. Go figure.)

@mbouchard: Wow, I thought that would never happen! Thanks for the heads-up.

I always figured that their sauces were high in fat and calories, but at least if I have one of their sandwiches, I'll know exactly what I'm doing to myself. :)

@DrGirlfriend: Not sure where it was originally reported (maybe here?) but Quizno's does have nutrition info on their website now. I was beyond flabbergasted to find out that a large tuna melt has 175 (that's one hundred seventy five) grams of fat.

Ah nevermind, mbouchard beat me to the punch.

The PR quotes are great, but the rest of this article is a waste of time. With a headline like "16 Things They Don't Want You to Know," the reader should actually KNOW those things by the time he's done reading the article.

Typical quote:

"Outback Steakhouse doesn't want you to know that the only nutritional information it provides is for its Tangy Tomato Dressing."

Really? That's the hot button info that this article has to offer? How about the nutritional info for that dressing? No? Hw about a run down of the menu? No? How about complete nutritional info on one dish? No?

Okay, then just give me two random sensationalist tidbits and move on to Fuddruckers.

Done: "An order of Outback's Aussie Cheese Fries has 2,900 calories, and its Ayers Rock Strip has 60 grams of fat."

The Papa John's one is weird. They've had nutrition information on their website for a while; I definitely remember looking at it at least over the summer, if not before that. It looks like the quote is just saying they're not planning on introducing "healthier" menu items which, I mean, I think it'd be great if they did, but I don't think they should have to. And at least they're being honest about it.

I guess they just don't take nutrition seriously.

175 grams of fat!!! Yikes! I was shocked enough to find out that a tuna fish sub at subway had 31 grams of fat, I thought that was bad. Fortunately they have other things on the menu to choose from, I don't think I will be eating another tuna sub again!

The United States government maintains a nutritional database of items served at Chain restaurants in the United States. Many websites such as [calorielab.com] and [calorieking.com] utilize this database and present it in a user friendly format.

I am not certain why the government has this data or if it is a requirement. All I know is that it is collected and is available.

I can't believe it has 175 grams of fat. You might as well go to McDonalds, The Cheesecake Factory, or bathe in fettuchini alfredo. Or how bout some of those Aussie Fries. At least there's more of a possibility you'll share them then a sandwich.
This sandwich shops make you think you're taking a healthful route (well, relatively so since you're eating in a food court) and all you end up doing is eating worse! Bah!