"The big fat calorie counting con"

WalkingAlong

I would think a side effect of posting the calories on menus would be that companies would try to reduce the calories in their food to make it more appealing, under the assumption people care (a big assumption). But Starbucks posts their calories and I'm pretty sure they don't bother reducing. Well, maybe they did and that 600 calorie drink used to be 700? I don't drink their stuff, I don't know.

I would be surprised if they didn't do a test market first and found that the calorie counts being posted affected overall sales almost not at all.

I think a lot of people are just not sensitive to numbers, based on the different pricing of items I see. You often have to do a little math in your head like, "That box is $4.99 for 24, this box is $5.99 for 36. Which is the better deal?" With food it'll be the same. Is a better 'calorie deal' the Happy Meal for 400 calories or the larger, more filling combo 1 for 800? If you want the combo 1 and you even look at the calories (and care) you could easily decide that it will make you more than twice as satisfied as the Happy Meal, and justify it. That's how my mind would've done it before learning a double-size meal doesn't satisfy me for twice as long.

Not that posting more info isn't a good thing. But people have weird logic surrounding their money and their food, often.

And someone may have no clue that 800 is probably too high for one meal, if you care about your weight and are not super active and eat at that level more than rarely.

Wheelhouse15

WalkingAlong wrote: »

I would think a side effect of posting the calories on menus would be that companies would try to reduce the calories in their food to make it more appealing, under the assumption people care (a big assumption). But Starbucks posts their calories and I'm pretty sure they don't bother reducing. Well, maybe they did and that 600 calorie drink used to be 700? I don't drink their stuff, I don't know.

I would be surprised if they didn't do a test market first and found that the calorie counts being posted affected overall sales almost not at all.

I think a lot of people are just not sensitive to numbers, based on the different pricing of items I see. You often have to do a little math in your head like, "That box is $4.99 for 24, this box is $5.99 for 36. Which is the better deal?" With food it'll be the same. Is a better 'calorie deal' the Happy Meal for 400 calories or the larger, more filling combo 1 for 800? If you want the combo 1 and you even look at the calories (and care) you could easily decide that it will make you more than twice as satisfied as the Happy Meal, and justify it. That's how my mind would've done it before learning a double-size meal doesn't satisfy me for twice as long.

Not that posting more info isn't a good thing. But people have weird logic surrounding their money and their food, often.

And someone may have no clue that 800 is probably too high for one meal, if you care about your weight and are not super active and eat at that level more than rarely.

I think you have a good point that a lot of people don't really care or would just feel that even an 400 milkshake...err Latte would be fine for them. Unless they are calorie counting they probably would think that they can make it up somewhere else or believe that it's ok to consume such a huge chunk of calories in one drink. I wonder if a typical woman realizes that 800 calories for one meal at McDonald's around half of what they need to consume in a day.

lemurcat12

I've told this story before, but I occasionally go to this chain called Potbelly's for lunch. My standard order was a turkey sandwich with swiss on multigrain bread, which apparently has 467 calories with my preferred toppings. So fine; I usually get it with thin cut bread now, which saves about 80-some calories, and sometimes without the cheese (which makes it 299 and I might add a veggie soup) but not a bad calorie total for lunch.

But then I'd get a cookie, and although the menu had the calorie count for the cookie right in front of me I wouldn't look, since I knew it would make me feel bad and I was getting the cookie to feel happy, after all, or often just to have an excuse to take a break and eat it later in the day. (I was under no illusion that the cookie was low calorie.)

Since starting to count, I look, and it's 420 for just the cookie. So just about as much as the sandwich, but I can't say I was unaware or not provided with the information.

For what it's worth, recently they've come out with a 100 calorie cookie option, but I suspect it's more because a lot of people who go there care about calories in general than that having to post the calories itself made a difference (they've posted the calories for ages, and the 100 calorie cookie is quite recent).

dbmata

GaleHawkins wrote: »

dbmata wrote: »

lol, have we figured out Gale is that weird troll that was posting the biology text book as evidence for his off the wall opinions, and was using that doctor's picture?

Not the same picture but a 'reduced' picture.

Actually this is just a link LolBroScience about the science of dieting in support of the validity of his user name.

Then I have you pegged for someone else. Carry on.
There was a troll here using some MD's picture and continually posting some text book as evidence of something... literacy I think.

dbmata

SnuggleSmacks wrote: »

Mr_Knight wrote: »

SnuggleSmacks wrote: »

herrspoons wrote: »

kelly_e_montana wrote: »

herrspoons wrote: »

kelly_e_montana wrote: »

I've only been able to maintain my weight since I've stopped counting calories. I counted since grade school and it led to a cycle of restriction and binging. Now I eat intuitively and move more and have stayed the same weight for the last year. I think it's a good tool if you have no idea about nutrition and calorie counts, but at some point it can become obsessive for some people (like I was).

I use MFP as a social site to connect with others who do the same sports. I always say "That's why it's called 'My Fitness Pal' instead of 'My Calorie Counting Pal.'" But that being said, people are all at different places in their journey and maybe calorie counting is a good training tool.

I agree with this if you're maintaining. A weekly weigh in will soon tell you if you're within your boundaries or not.

But for losing weight? No. Counting calories whilst eating reasonably is the only effective means of controlling the process.

I lost the first 35 and the last 15 of my 60+ pound loss without counting. I lost 10 pounds in the middle by counting. It is not the "only" effective means of controlling the process. It is a good means for many. Portion control is a an equally effective option for many who already have a good idea of general calorie counts. In fact, it's a better option for many who have a disordered relationship with counting. I was medically advised to stop counting to lose weight and it worked.

Edit: You'd have to expand to my previous comments for this post to make sense, readers.

Second Edit: I have lots of friends who know absolutely nothing about nutrition or calories, and I can see calorie counting as a good tool. However, as I said before, I started counting calories in GRADE SCHOOL. I knew how many calories were in an egg before I hit puberty.

I'd agree if you have a good idea of portion size, and were familiar enough with food to be able to make a good estimate of calorie content by looking at it, which I think you do.

For the general populace who don't? I'm not convinced that's going to work for the vast majority of them (if it did we wouldn't have an increasing obesity issue), although it obviously will for some.

I think the reality is that most people need spoon fed on nutrition and calorie content, at least until they've enough experience and knowledge to make good ad hoc estimates.

Fortunately, to a large degree, the FDA is giving us that spoon in the upcoming year by requiring restaurants and other food venues to list the calorie content of foods right on the menu.

Won't make any difference - the likes of McDonalds has been putting their nutritional content out there for ages and they just keep selling more.

Not everywhere. Here in NC we have to look online to track down the nutritional content of restaurants. It can be a pain to spend 10 minutes figuring out what you want to eat while using up your smartphone's data. If the calories were clearly marked on the menu where you have to see it when you order, I think it will have an impact. Obviously, not everyone will take advantage of it, but for many people it will make life much easier.

I can tell you, it will be a waste of ink.

My first career was as a cook. The variance from dish to dish, and hand to hand in a restaurant, even at a place like TGIAppleChilis will make those numbers wholly useless. Just thinking back to a few folks I would work with. Some would start every dish with a 1oz ladle of oil, and others with just enough for the dish. I think you'd get less variance at a higher level establishment, but they won't be providing that info, nor would they be required to.

I remember working at Houlihan's, and depending on the cook, each dish could have an extra 3-500 calories in it. When I worked as a sous at a steak house, the variance was much lower because we were a lot more precise with what went into each dish.

Mr_Knight

SnuggleSmacks wrote: »

Mr_Knight wrote: »

SnuggleSmacks wrote: »

There are few things that anyone could do aside from taking away people's choices which would have a major impact across the board.

Forget "across the board" - there's nothing short of "taking away people's choices" that will work with even a significant minority.

We're just not biologically wired for long term access to cheap, plentiful food. We'll get there eventually, probably, but it'll take a few generations for natural selection to start kicking in. When young men start dating young ladies based on what that woman's mom looks like...then we'll know we're making headway.

(And vice versa on the genders...)

So, in the meantime, as was previously stated, spoon feeding people the nutritional info is the next step...and my post was simply to inform that the FDA is enacting this step. It may not have a huge impact on the majority, but does that mean it shouldn't be done?

Drop the strawman - nobody suggested it "shouldn't" be done.

What was suggested is that it won't make much difference.

NikonPal

The article states: “…the research centres around the idea that two foods with exactly the same calorie content will be processed by the body differently. As a result, the calorie-equal foods will have different effects….” Dah!

I don’t know many people that believe there isn’t a difference between 200 calories of beef v. 200 calories of wine v. 200 calories of pizza – with regards to processing and nutrition (protein, carb, fat). I’ve never confused the fat in nuts with the fat in fish. Calorie counting for me is just one tool and part of the weight-loss solution.

snikkins

lemurcat12 wrote: »

snikkins wrote: »

Since beginning to calorie count, though, I am super glad it's there and required to be so. I think that it's worth it for ease of access for the people taking the first steps into calorie counting...

We've had it at all chains, including local ones, around here for a while, and although I ignored it pretty easily when I was not watching calories and didn't wish to know, it makes it so much easier, so if that's not the case many places I think the law will help people who care. I'm skeptical that it will affect mom & pops (or just regular restaurants with menus that change a lot and all that), as it is quite a hassle to include that information for them, and I don't really expect it ever when I go out to dinner given the types of restaurants I usually go to, but it's nice that I can buy something for lunch and have that information.

I am in favor of giving people information, but I agree with those saying education isn't really the issue--lots of times people know but just don't care. That was the case for me when I was at my fattest.

Yes, that was my point as well, though I think you said it better than I did! Same goes for me re: your later post about ignoring calorie counts. I saw them for sure since I was working there, but a lot of times, I didn't care. It goes for the customers as well. I'd watch customers get a non-fat, no whip white mocha, not knowing the calories in that drink comes from the white mocha sauce (60 calories per pump). Occasionally, they'd add white mocha pumps to their non-fat, no whip drinks.

(Note: I'm referring to the regulars at my store so I know it wasn't a one off treat. Also, the point of this is not to judge spendature of calories, just to point out that I don't think many people know where the calories in Starbucks drinks comes from so just a posted calorie count can be easy to ignore, especially if you think you're being "healthier" with non-fat, no whip.)

wamydia

GwynHannay wrote: »

Regarding animals and how they manage to maintain their own weight - I find that very confusing! As someone mentioned earlier, I also have two cats, and while one of them is tubby, the other one is thin as a rail. We increase their food, they eat more, their weights don't change. We decrease their food, they eat less, their weights still don't change.

The tubby one was starved when she was younger. We rescued her from an abusive and negligent home and she quickly fattened up in our care. But I have no idea how to get the weight off her. We're already feeding both cats according to their size and her tummy just doesn't budge.

I would like to say that I have a fair amount of knowledge regarding calories and macros and even the psychology of eating food for comfort to an extent, but the case study of my two adorable kitties confuses the whole weight loss issue for me.

Does anyone have any insight? (P.S. Totally off-topic, of course... :-) )

I know this is a late reply, but I wanted to mention that I bet your little cat never changes weight because, even when you give him more food, the big cat eats it. And the big cat may be gaining slowly and you just don't realize. I think it's harder to see weight gain in a cat that is already fat.

I've had a vet tell me that the only way to really get house cats to lose weight is to convince them to start playing again so they get some exercise (much easier said that done). Barring that, you have to closely restrict their food. If you check your food bag, there should be a chart on there that tells you how much to feed your cat if it weights 1lb less than it does right now. Feed the cat that much and sit there and watch to make sure there aren't any shenanigans going on where the big cat is eating the little cat's food. Then, after the cat loses some weight, reduce the feeding by another pound. And don't feed too many treats or any table scraps and make sure they drink plenty of water. Cats tend to not hydrate well and sometimes carry water weight for that reason. It is also worthwhile to consider switching to a high protein cat food if you can since some cats seem to lose easier on that type of food. I got both of my fat cats to lose weight by following this plan. Good luck!