Eating at restaurants used to be fun, now it's kind of stressful.
Replies
-
One of my life's passions is travel. I try to take one or two big international trips per year, when I visit a new place, sample the foods, backpack around, and soak up local culture.
It would be silly for me to say, oh, I have to stay home now because that's where my food scale is.
I usually lose weight when I travel anyway, just because I'm out walking around all day instead of sitting at a desk. I am leaving on vacation for 2 weeks tomorrow and I plan to not log or track anything, and to just enjoy myself within reason. I'm sure I'll come back lighter.
Life isn't meant to be avoided. It's meant to be lived. After all, that's what most of us are losing weight for.
Totally agree with this!!!!
I guess they will be stuck at home, while we go out enjoy the things in life.
0 -
I think the hope with that law is that it will push restaurants to give more low calorie options. Which frankly is a good thing. And it's only for chains with more than 20 restaurants I believe.
My favorite restaurants are local/non chain places as well but I really wish they would clearly show the low calorie options on their menu. Often it's just sandwiches or salads with all kinds of nuts and cheeses or breaded chicken or fish and it's just tough to figure out what's 'safest' to eat. Then you have the other extreme where the 'light menu' is pretty much egg whites with veggies and fruit or plain oatmeal and you just want to ask them if really they have no option between 300 and 1000 calories.
So you want the government to take care of you then, right?
No responsibilities for what you eat.
0 -
jasonmh630 wrote: »jasonmh630 wrote: »Unfortunately everyone insisted on going to a local steakhouse no one had been to before for lunch. I got the smallest steak they offered because they said that they couldn't do the chicken without the sauce (I guess it must be premade and frozen that way?). I only took one bite of the garlic bread that they threw an entire loaf of on our plates and one small bite of the baked potato with butter. Ate all my salad, though. I can't do half at a restaurant unless I get kind of full. Honestly, I don't have that kind of willpower.
I still love to go to steak houses......I just tell them to please give me double steamed veggies (in lieu of Potato or Rice), and garden salad w/ a wedge of lemon (in lieu of salad dressing).......my motto is if your gonna have dressing on your salad then you may as well have french fries instead.
Then I'd suggest getting a new motto. I feel dumber for having read that... Salad dressing is NOT the equivalent of french fries, when consumed in moderation (about 1-2 Tbsp) and if you think that's bad, then you need to reevaluate your knowledge of what is healthy.
Enjoy that 350 Calorie Salad at The Keg bud!......or even better have the 660 Calorie 44g fat Chicken Caesar Salad at Chilli's, or better yet go to the Olive Garden and enjoy their Grilled Chicken Caesar Salad and all its 850 Calories w/ 64grams of fat. Maybe you should re-evaluate your knowledge of what is healthy, just because it has lettuce in it and is called a salad doesn't make it healthy.
https://au.prime7.yahoo.com/q1/lifestyle/health/galleries/g/6756677/15-worst-restaurant-meals/6756739/
You assume that I'd rather go to those places and eat those items, except I made no insinuation of that... When in reality, I'd rather make my own salads at home so I can control what and exactly how much goes into it. The only point any of us are trying to make is that salad dressing isn't "bad for you" when you use just a little bit. One TBSP or maybe two is plenty to put on a big salad and still get the satisfaction of the dressing.
Moderation is key, fella. I've got the 50 pounds GONE to prove it. My brother has got the 170 pounds GONE to prove it... Along with numerous people on MFP.
The point is... Just because you deem it unhealthy, doesn't inherently MAKE it unhealthy. People just need to make better decisions on how much to consume. THAT'S what makes people fat... not the foods themselves.
I think the point wasn't that Caesar salad is unhealthy, the way I feel about it, and not sure if this is what the other person mentioned, but when a salad has the same amount of calories as a burger an fries and I'm paying 10-12 dollars for either the burger or the salad, bet your butt I'ma go with the burger and fries over the salad! I think that's what the original point about a salad with dressing being the same as fries. But then again, I can't stand salads in the first place, so I'm biased off the bat :P
0 -
SkepticalOwl wrote: »It occurs to me that though many are saying that a government mandate to provide nutrition information is getting in the way of business, the mandate will actually make a free market in restaurant meals a possibility. The concept of the free market, and the idea of the "invisible hand" guiding it, presupposes perfect information on the part of the consumer. Arguing against people having more information on which to base their purchasing decisions is actually arguing against the most effective part of the capitalist system.
So arguing against government mandating calorie counts, is actually arguing against capitalism/the free market? Interesting
Can you please post where you got this idea?
Wouldn't it be something like, if consumers actually wanted this information they would stop buying from those establishments and if enough stopped purchasing the establishments would then give them the information they wanted ?
Your assumption that all consumers know what kind of knowledge they need to know to make informed decisions is adorable.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »We are lucky in Ontario Canada that law requires chains with more than15 or 20 restaurants to publish their nutritional information.
The downside is after reading what I am eating I don't at most of them any more. The upside is you find a few gems.
This is basically what will be the situation in the U.S. Soon. Knowledge and information. Always a good thing to have access to. Cheers
Yaaaaaaay unnecessary, government mandated costs, thrust upon business? For things that have already been shown to not change consumer behavior? This is something you encourage?
Yes. Ordering off a menu without calorie information is like ordering off a menu with no prices given. It costs them money to set, publish, and stick to a fixed price for their menu, but we expect that. And we wouldn't expect people to be able to stay out of debt and live within their means if nothing had a price tag on it just by following advice like "buy products that look cheap" or "buy half as much".
Having calorie estimates available for restaurant meals does change my behavior substantially. I think it should be published on menus, not just "available" e.g. on the web site or if you ask for it.
Who cares if it changes your behavior?it has repeatedly been shown not to change consumers at large behaviors.
And smoking bans were repeatedly shown not to work, until they did.0 -
SkepticalOwl wrote: »It occurs to me that though many are saying that a government mandate to provide nutrition information is getting in the way of business, the mandate will actually make a free market in restaurant meals a possibility. The concept of the free market, and the idea of the "invisible hand" guiding it, presupposes perfect information on the part of the consumer. Arguing against people having more information on which to base their purchasing decisions is actually arguing against the most effective part of the capitalist system.
So arguing against government mandating calorie counts, is actually arguing against capitalism/the free market? Interesting
Can you please post where you got this idea?
Wouldn't it be something like, if consumers actually wanted this information they would stop buying from those establishments and if enough stopped purchasing the establishments would then give them the information they wanted ?
Your assumption that all consumers know what kind of knowledge they need to know to make informed decisions is adorable.
So you feel all consumers are not smart enough to make decisions for themselves and need the government to handle everything for us?0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »We are lucky in Ontario Canada that law requires chains with more than15 or 20 restaurants to publish their nutritional information.
The downside is after reading what I am eating I don't at most of them any more. The upside is you find a few gems.
This is basically what will be the situation in the U.S. Soon. Knowledge and information. Always a good thing to have access to. Cheers
Yaaaaaaay unnecessary, government mandated costs, thrust upon business? For things that have already been shown to not change consumer behavior? This is something you encourage?
Yes. Ordering off a menu without calorie information is like ordering off a menu with no prices given. It costs them money to set, publish, and stick to a fixed price for their menu, but we expect that. And we wouldn't expect people to be able to stay out of debt and live within their means if nothing had a price tag on it just by following advice like "buy products that look cheap" or "buy half as much".
Having calorie estimates available for restaurant meals does change my behavior substantially. I think it should be published on menus, not just "available" e.g. on the web site or if you ask for it.
Who cares if it changes your behavior?it has repeatedly been shown not to change consumers at large behaviors.
And smoking bans were repeatedly shown not to work, until they did.
And what did smoking bans achieve? And how do you separate that from the confounder of ever increasing tobacco taxes?0 -
girlviernes wrote: »Like others, I just do my best when out to eat. Make a reasonable choice and log it the best I can. I don't find it actually stalls my weight loss although the water weight might make it look like that, but my weight has been going down a pretty steady clip when I average things out. I do think it would slow things down if I were eating out very regularly.
Because for me I am 100% on board with doing this for the rest of my life, I'm not too worried about weight loss slowing down (which isn't to say that I don't prefer to lose faster). But the truth is that I want to be able to enjoy myself while out with friends and family. I want to have that variety in my palate. I want to be able to travel. So I choose to be OK with doing my best in each moment, and there is no going off-plan - it's all part of the plan.
100% this. *applause*
0 -
SMH.
Another one of these.
Not that anyone will listen, as there will be two sides (per usual), one using science based data and following logic with dietary undertanding...and the other claiming McDonalds will make you fat and is "unhealthy".
Apparently my body didn't get the memo since I eat McDonalds 3-4 times/week (sometimes more) and am still losing weight steadiky, increasing strength, and have health markers coming back better than I've ever recorded and we'll cleaner than when I believed in "clean eating".
Funny how the "clean" diets are normally the most nutrient deficient and actually leave you at greater potential for health risks than those who aren't afraid to enjoy their diets.0 -
1) less smoking in public spaces and fewer new smokers. also, less morbidity and mortality in places where they've been in effect for yearsSabine_Stroehm wrote: »We are lucky in Ontario Canada that law requires chains with more than15 or 20 restaurants to publish their nutritional information.
The downside is after reading what I am eating I don't at most of them any more. The upside is you find a few gems.
This is basically what will be the situation in the U.S. Soon. Knowledge and information. Always a good thing to have access to. Cheers
Yaaaaaaay unnecessary, government mandated costs, thrust upon business? For things that have already been shown to not change consumer behavior? This is something you encourage?
Yes. Ordering off a menu without calorie information is like ordering off a menu with no prices given. It costs them money to set, publish, and stick to a fixed price for their menu, but we expect that. And we wouldn't expect people to be able to stay out of debt and live within their means if nothing had a price tag on it just by following advice like "buy products that look cheap" or "buy half as much".
Having calorie estimates available for restaurant meals does change my behavior substantially. I think it should be published on menus, not just "available" e.g. on the web site or if you ask for it.
Who cares if it changes your behavior?it has repeatedly been shown not to change consumers at large behaviors.
And smoking bans were repeatedly shown not to work, until they did.
And what did smoking bans achieve? And how do you separate that from the confounder of ever increasing tobacco taxes?
2) the taxes on cigarettes have always been high
0 -
SkepticalOwl wrote: »It occurs to me that though many are saying that a government mandate to provide nutrition information is getting in the way of business, the mandate will actually make a free market in restaurant meals a possibility. The concept of the free market, and the idea of the "invisible hand" guiding it, presupposes perfect information on the part of the consumer. Arguing against people having more information on which to base their purchasing decisions is actually arguing against the most effective part of the capitalist system.
So arguing against government mandating calorie counts, is actually arguing against capitalism/the free market? Interesting
Can you please post where you got this idea?
Wouldn't it be something like, if consumers actually wanted this information they would stop buying from those establishments and if enough stopped purchasing the establishments would then give them the information they wanted ?
Your assumption that all consumers know what kind of knowledge they need to know to make informed decisions is adorable.
Lol, you're right people are dumb. Government knows best.0 -
GiveMeCoffee wrote: »SkepticalOwl wrote: »It occurs to me that though many are saying that a government mandate to provide nutrition information is getting in the way of business, the mandate will actually make a free market in restaurant meals a possibility. The concept of the free market, and the idea of the "invisible hand" guiding it, presupposes perfect information on the part of the consumer. Arguing against people having more information on which to base their purchasing decisions is actually arguing against the most effective part of the capitalist system.
So arguing against government mandating calorie counts, is actually arguing against capitalism/the free market? Interesting
Can you please post where you got this idea?
Wouldn't it be something like, if consumers actually wanted this information they would stop buying from those establishments and if enough stopped purchasing the establishments would then give them the information they wanted ?
Your assumption that all consumers know what kind of knowledge they need to know to make informed decisions is adorable.
So you feel all consumers are not smart enough to make decisions for themselves and need the government to handle everything for us?
1) I think people who don't know what to ask for won't ask for it, re the post I originally responded to.
2) Haha, I'm out of this thread, if it's down to comments like that.0 -
1) less smoking in public spaces and fewer new smokersSabine_Stroehm wrote: »We are lucky in Ontario Canada that law requires chains with more than15 or 20 restaurants to publish their nutritional information.
The downside is after reading what I am eating I don't at most of them any more. The upside is you find a few gems.
This is basically what will be the situation in the U.S. Soon. Knowledge and information. Always a good thing to have access to. Cheers
Yaaaaaaay unnecessary, government mandated costs, thrust upon business? For things that have already been shown to not change consumer behavior? This is something you encourage?
Yes. Ordering off a menu without calorie information is like ordering off a menu with no prices given. It costs them money to set, publish, and stick to a fixed price for their menu, but we expect that. And we wouldn't expect people to be able to stay out of debt and live within their means if nothing had a price tag on it just by following advice like "buy products that look cheap" or "buy half as much".
Having calorie estimates available for restaurant meals does change my behavior substantially. I think it should be published on menus, not just "available" e.g. on the web site or if you ask for it.
Who cares if it changes your behavior?it has repeatedly been shown not to change consumers at large behaviors.
And smoking bans were repeatedly shown not to work, until they did.
And what did smoking bans achieve? And how do you separate that from the confounder of ever increasing tobacco taxes?
2) the taxes on cigarettes have always been high
Substantiate fewer new smokers was due to smoking bans and you should have a better control for taxes than they've always been high, which is one of the most ignorant statements ever.0 -
I think the hope with that law is that it will push restaurants to give more low calorie options. Which frankly is a good thing. And it's only for chains with more than 20 restaurants I believe.
My favorite restaurants are local/non chain places as well but I really wish they would clearly show the low calorie options on their menu. Often it's just sandwiches or salads with all kinds of nuts and cheeses or breaded chicken or fish and it's just tough to figure out what's 'safest' to eat. Then you have the other extreme where the 'light menu' is pretty much egg whites with veggies and fruit or plain oatmeal and you just want to ask them if really they have no option between 300 and 1000 calories.
So you want the government to take care of you then, right?
No responsibilities for what you eat.
Huh what?
And yeah, I don't go out as much anymore. I fail to see how it's a bad thing, at least I'm saving money, and when we went out it was just with my family when I was too lazy to cook anyway... I still enjoy a good meal out once in a while. Just not once a week anymore. It is a lifestyle change after all.
And people who mention traveling... it totally sucked when I was in vacations for a week and we had to eat out all the time, quite frankly! Ended up gaining two pounds because a lot of places didn't have any 'healthy' choice, and I was hungry.0 -
GiveMeCoffee wrote: »SkepticalOwl wrote: »It occurs to me that though many are saying that a government mandate to provide nutrition information is getting in the way of business, the mandate will actually make a free market in restaurant meals a possibility. The concept of the free market, and the idea of the "invisible hand" guiding it, presupposes perfect information on the part of the consumer. Arguing against people having more information on which to base their purchasing decisions is actually arguing against the most effective part of the capitalist system.
So arguing against government mandating calorie counts, is actually arguing against capitalism/the free market? Interesting
Can you please post where you got this idea?
Wouldn't it be something like, if consumers actually wanted this information they would stop buying from those establishments and if enough stopped purchasing the establishments would then give them the information they wanted ?
Your assumption that all consumers know what kind of knowledge they need to know to make informed decisions is adorable.
So you feel all consumers are not smart enough to make decisions for themselves and need the government to handle everything for us?
1) I think people who don't know what to ask for won't ask for it, re the post I originally responded to.
2) Haha, I'm out of this thread, if it's down to comments like that.
You make a condescending remark calling something adorable????
But yet I ask you a question and all your do is run out of the thread? I thought it was an honest question to your post.
You are saying people are too stupid to ask questions and that we don't know what we want.. so we need the government to regulate everything to save the stupid people... or at least that is how your comment comes across. Please elaborate if that is not what you meant.
0 -
I think the hope with that law is that it will push restaurants to give more low calorie options. Which frankly is a good thing. And it's only for chains with more than 20 restaurants I believe.
My favorite restaurants are local/non chain places as well but I really wish they would clearly show the low calorie options on their menu. Often it's just sandwiches or salads with all kinds of nuts and cheeses or breaded chicken or fish and it's just tough to figure out what's 'safest' to eat. Then you have the other extreme where the 'light menu' is pretty much egg whites with veggies and fruit or plain oatmeal and you just want to ask them if really they have no option between 300 and 1000 calories.
So you want the government to take care of you then, right?
No responsibilities for what you eat.
Huh what?
And yeah, I don't go out as much anymore. I fail to see how it's a bad thing, at least I'm saving money, and when we went out it was just with my family when I was too lazy to cook anyway... I still enjoy a good meal out once in a while. Just not once a week anymore. It is a lifestyle change after all.
And people who mention traveling... it totally sucked when I was in vacations for a week and we had to eat out all the time, quite frankly! Ended up gaining two pounds because a lot of places didn't have any 'healthy' choice, and I was hungry.
Your vacation sucked because you had to eat out and gained 2lbs.
Wow.0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »I think the hope with that law is that it will push restaurants to give more low calorie options. Which frankly is a good thing. And it's only for chains with more than 20 restaurants I believe.
My favorite restaurants are local/non chain places as well but I really wish they would clearly show the low calorie options on their menu. Often it's just sandwiches or salads with all kinds of nuts and cheeses or breaded chicken or fish and it's just tough to figure out what's 'safest' to eat. Then you have the other extreme where the 'light menu' is pretty much egg whites with veggies and fruit or plain oatmeal and you just want to ask them if really they have no option between 300 and 1000 calories.
So you want the government to take care of you then, right?
No responsibilities for what you eat.
Huh what?
And yeah, I don't go out as much anymore. I fail to see how it's a bad thing, at least I'm saving money, and when we went out it was just with my family when I was too lazy to cook anyway... I still enjoy a good meal out once in a while. Just not once a week anymore. It is a lifestyle change after all.
And people who mention traveling... it totally sucked when I was in vacations for a week and we had to eat out all the time, quite frankly! Ended up gaining two pounds because a lot of places didn't have any 'healthy' choice, and I was hungry.
Your vacation sucked because you had to eat out and gained 2lbs.
Wow.
So much this ^^^
If you go on vacation and come back upset because you had to eat out and enjoy some good tasting food...you really need to re-evaluable your relationship with food and nutrition.
It's suppose to be a part of your life...not dictate it.
If your diet is ruining your vacation, you're doing it wrong.
0 -
I think the hope with that law is that it will push restaurants to give more low calorie options. Which frankly is a good thing. And it's only for chains with more than 20 restaurants I believe.
My favorite restaurants are local/non chain places as well but I really wish they would clearly show the low calorie options on their menu. Often it's just sandwiches or salads with all kinds of nuts and cheeses or breaded chicken or fish and it's just tough to figure out what's 'safest' to eat. Then you have the other extreme where the 'light menu' is pretty much egg whites with veggies and fruit or plain oatmeal and you just want to ask them if really they have no option between 300 and 1000 calories.
So you want the government to take care of you then, right?
No responsibilities for what you eat.
Huh what?
And yeah, I don't go out as much anymore. I fail to see how it's a bad thing, at least I'm saving money, and when we went out it was just with my family when I was too lazy to cook anyway... I still enjoy a good meal out once in a while. Just not once a week anymore. It is a lifestyle change after all.
And people who mention traveling... it totally sucked when I was in vacations for a week and we had to eat out all the time, quite frankly! Ended up gaining two pounds because a lot of places didn't have any 'healthy' choice, and I was hungry.
Poor you omg you had to go on vacation with your family. You went out to eat.. and you had a temporary gain of 2 lbs the world is going to end. let me break out the little violin.
Just wow-2 -
IF POSSIBLE (and for us due to our jobs and such it really is not), keep it to a minimum but when you go, log the best you can and don't stress over the details. It'll be ok.0
-
SkepticalOwl wrote: »It occurs to me that though many are saying that a government mandate to provide nutrition information is getting in the way of business, the mandate will actually make a free market in restaurant meals a possibility. The concept of the free market, and the idea of the "invisible hand" guiding it, presupposes perfect information on the part of the consumer. Arguing against people having more information on which to base their purchasing decisions is actually arguing against the most effective part of the capitalist system.
So arguing against government mandating calorie counts, is actually arguing against capitalism/the free market? Interesting
Can you please post where you got this idea?
Wouldn't it be something like, if consumers actually wanted this information they would stop buying from those establishments and if enough stopped purchasing the establishments would then give them the information they wanted ?
The idea of imperfect information leading to market inefficiency is not a new one. Using government to regulate markets goes back to Adam Smith. LMGTFY.0 -
Well, if one eats high amounts of fat often and doesn't realize the high fat content they are consuming, yes it can be downright unhealthy for them.that some how because it's chalk full of delicious fat- it's unhealthy
They decide the quality and quantity of ingredients is what it means."they decide how unhealthy they are going to make it? what does that even mean??They aren't making healthy or unhealthy food- they are making food to sell- and hopefully it's delicious.
No, I am saying 'delicious' is not relevant to healthy or unhealthy food in the context in which I was discussing it. There is plenty of delicious things on both sides of the coin.So you're saying unhealthy food is not delicious?I just don't understand your fussiness with claiming it's "unhealthy" because it's got fat and sugar in it? or it's high calorie- or whatever it is that you're claiming unhealthy is (which can we narrow that definition down for me since you seem vague on that).
No, I never said high calorie equals unhealthy but that some dishes contain lots of hidden calories, fats, and sugars that the consumers would not be aware of, much like the macaroni salad of the the woman in this video who makes it with an entire jar of mayo, sweetened condensed milk and a heaping cup of sugar, which ends up being over 7000 calories and that *is* unhealthy, any way you slice it.
Tell that to people eating high fat keto diets to reduce seizures.
High fat is not inherently unhealthy.
You still haven't answered- what "they make it healthy or not healthy- nothing about the ingredients means it's inhereiently unhealthy- you can make the same stuff home- does that make it unhealthy if it's the same stuff prepared and consumed at home?
That's EXACTLY what you're saying- hidden calories- and high calorie is unhealthy- and IT"S NOT. Because otherwise what is your point of high calorie??
SERIOUSLY!!!????? YOU ARE NOT UNINFORMED.
If you were uninformed- this wouldn't be an issue- but you walk in there KNOWING you're getting a crap load of delicious butter on your steak.
again- you're whole point was what they feed you is in unhealthy- and the best you've got is "hidden calories" which isn't unhealthy.0 -
GiveMeCoffee wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »SkepticalOwl wrote: »It occurs to me that though many are saying that a government mandate to provide nutrition information is getting in the way of business, the mandate will actually make a free market in restaurant meals a possibility. The concept of the free market, and the idea of the "invisible hand" guiding it, presupposes perfect information on the part of the consumer. Arguing against people having more information on which to base their purchasing decisions is actually arguing against the most effective part of the capitalist system.
So arguing against government mandating calorie counts, is actually arguing against capitalism/the free market? Interesting
Can you please post where you got this idea?
Wouldn't it be something like, if consumers actually wanted this information they would stop buying from those establishments and if enough stopped purchasing the establishments would then give them the information they wanted ?
Your assumption that all consumers know what kind of knowledge they need to know to make informed decisions is adorable.
So you feel all consumers are not smart enough to make decisions for themselves and need the government to handle everything for us?
1) I think people who don't know what to ask for won't ask for it, re the post I originally responded to.
2) Haha, I'm out of this thread, if it's down to comments like that.
You make a condescending remark calling something adorable????
But yet I ask you a question and all your do is run out of the thread? I thought it was an honest question to your post.
You are saying people are too stupid to ask questions and that we don't know what we want.. so we need the government to regulate everything to save the stupid people... or at least that is how your comment comes across. Please elaborate if that is not what you meant.
No that's pretty much what I meant0 -
I think the hope with that law is that it will push restaurants to give more low calorie options. Which frankly is a good thing. And it's only for chains with more than 20 restaurants I believe.
My favorite restaurants are local/non chain places as well but I really wish they would clearly show the low calorie options on their menu. Often it's just sandwiches or salads with all kinds of nuts and cheeses or breaded chicken or fish and it's just tough to figure out what's 'safest' to eat. Then you have the other extreme where the 'light menu' is pretty much egg whites with veggies and fruit or plain oatmeal and you just want to ask them if really they have no option between 300 and 1000 calories.
So you want the government to take care of you then, right?
No responsibilities for what you eat.
Huh what?
And yeah, I don't go out as much anymore. I fail to see how it's a bad thing, at least I'm saving money, and when we went out it was just with my family when I was too lazy to cook anyway... I still enjoy a good meal out once in a while. Just not once a week anymore. It is a lifestyle change after all.
And people who mention traveling... it totally sucked when I was in vacations for a week and we had to eat out all the time, quite frankly! Ended up gaining two pounds because a lot of places didn't have any 'healthy' choice, and I was hungry.
Ohhhh poor you....
0 -
1) less smoking in public spaces and fewer new smokersSabine_Stroehm wrote: »We are lucky in Ontario Canada that law requires chains with more than15 or 20 restaurants to publish their nutritional information.
The downside is after reading what I am eating I don't at most of them any more. The upside is you find a few gems.
This is basically what will be the situation in the U.S. Soon. Knowledge and information. Always a good thing to have access to. Cheers
Yaaaaaaay unnecessary, government mandated costs, thrust upon business? For things that have already been shown to not change consumer behavior? This is something you encourage?
Yes. Ordering off a menu without calorie information is like ordering off a menu with no prices given. It costs them money to set, publish, and stick to a fixed price for their menu, but we expect that. And we wouldn't expect people to be able to stay out of debt and live within their means if nothing had a price tag on it just by following advice like "buy products that look cheap" or "buy half as much".
Having calorie estimates available for restaurant meals does change my behavior substantially. I think it should be published on menus, not just "available" e.g. on the web site or if you ask for it.
Who cares if it changes your behavior?it has repeatedly been shown not to change consumers at large behaviors.
And smoking bans were repeatedly shown not to work, until they did.
And what did smoking bans achieve? And how do you separate that from the confounder of ever increasing tobacco taxes?
2) the taxes on cigarettes have always been high
Substantiate fewer new smokers was due to smoking bans and you should have a better control for taxes than they've always been high, which is one of the most ignorant statements ever.
In public health, it's actually impossible to "substantiate" any action (to your satisfaction) if what you're looking for is a linear causal connection. Stuff like that is limited to correlation, because of the nature of the phenomena.0 -
GiveMeCoffee wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »SkepticalOwl wrote: »It occurs to me that though many are saying that a government mandate to provide nutrition information is getting in the way of business, the mandate will actually make a free market in restaurant meals a possibility. The concept of the free market, and the idea of the "invisible hand" guiding it, presupposes perfect information on the part of the consumer. Arguing against people having more information on which to base their purchasing decisions is actually arguing against the most effective part of the capitalist system.
So arguing against government mandating calorie counts, is actually arguing against capitalism/the free market? Interesting
Can you please post where you got this idea?
Wouldn't it be something like, if consumers actually wanted this information they would stop buying from those establishments and if enough stopped purchasing the establishments would then give them the information they wanted ?
Your assumption that all consumers know what kind of knowledge they need to know to make informed decisions is adorable.
So you feel all consumers are not smart enough to make decisions for themselves and need the government to handle everything for us?
1) I think people who don't know what to ask for won't ask for it, re the post I originally responded to.
2) Haha, I'm out of this thread, if it's down to comments like that.
You make a condescending remark calling something adorable????
But yet I ask you a question and all your do is run out of the thread? I thought it was an honest question to your post.
You are saying people are too stupid to ask questions and that we don't know what we want.. so we need the government to regulate everything to save the stupid people... or at least that is how your comment comes across. Please elaborate if that is not what you meant.
No that's pretty much what I meant
Ok though for real. Our bodies - our fat cells and metabolic systems and taste buds - are optimized to maximize our body fat because that helped us survive periods of famine. That's why we get fat and stay fat without some special commitment like daily calorie counting (which was a serious pain in the butt before e.g. mfp). That's why we love the kinds of things that make us fat. This happens without us really thinking about it.
Also, companies make money off of this fact. That's how they make a whack of profit, is by taking advantage of our fat cells and taste buds.
Calorie counting is a pain in the butt. Most people are ignorant of how to eat in a way that will help them not get or stay fat. Even when they know, it's hard, because body and mind fight it.
It's not that people are 'stupid', it's that 1) we have to fight a) our bodies and b) strong incentives by food manufacturers, advertisers and restaurants to not be fat, and 2) losing weight and keeping it off is really hard (not difficult, it's simple, but learning all the things you need to know to do it isn't easy and takes a lot of change for a lot of people).
So any help we can get, like governments forcing companies to make information available, is good
Because companies don't want us to think about how their food makes us fat. Because they make money off us not thinking about it.0 -
OP: welcome to MFP. yowsa.0
-
SkepticalOwl wrote: »SkepticalOwl wrote: »It occurs to me that though many are saying that a government mandate to provide nutrition information is getting in the way of business, the mandate will actually make a free market in restaurant meals a possibility. The concept of the free market, and the idea of the "invisible hand" guiding it, presupposes perfect information on the part of the consumer. Arguing against people having more information on which to base their purchasing decisions is actually arguing against the most effective part of the capitalist system.
So arguing against government mandating calorie counts, is actually arguing against capitalism/the free market? Interesting
Can you please post where you got this idea?
Wouldn't it be something like, if consumers actually wanted this information they would stop buying from those establishments and if enough stopped purchasing the establishments would then give them the information they wanted ?
The idea of imperfect information leading to market inefficiency is not a new one. Using government to regulate markets goes back to Adam Smith. LMGTFY.
The efficient market hypothesis had to do with financial markets, so does not apply in your example.
Go ahead and Google it and show that it dates back to Smith. I'll wait0 -
GiveMeCoffee wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »SkepticalOwl wrote: »It occurs to me that though many are saying that a government mandate to provide nutrition information is getting in the way of business, the mandate will actually make a free market in restaurant meals a possibility. The concept of the free market, and the idea of the "invisible hand" guiding it, presupposes perfect information on the part of the consumer. Arguing against people having more information on which to base their purchasing decisions is actually arguing against the most effective part of the capitalist system.
So arguing against government mandating calorie counts, is actually arguing against capitalism/the free market? Interesting
Can you please post where you got this idea?
Wouldn't it be something like, if consumers actually wanted this information they would stop buying from those establishments and if enough stopped purchasing the establishments would then give them the information they wanted ?
Your assumption that all consumers know what kind of knowledge they need to know to make informed decisions is adorable.
So you feel all consumers are not smart enough to make decisions for themselves and need the government to handle everything for us?
1) I think people who don't know what to ask for won't ask for it, re the post I originally responded to.
2) Haha, I'm out of this thread, if it's down to comments like that.
You make a condescending remark calling something adorable????
But yet I ask you a question and all your do is run out of the thread? I thought it was an honest question to your post.
You are saying people are too stupid to ask questions and that we don't know what we want.. so we need the government to regulate everything to save the stupid people... or at least that is how your comment comes across. Please elaborate if that is not what you meant.
No that's pretty much what I meant
Ok though for real. Our bodies - our fat cells and metabolic systems and taste buds - are optimized to maximize our body fat because that helped us survive periods of famine. That's why we get fat and stay fat without some special commitment like daily calorie counting (which was a serious pain in the butt before e.g. mfp). That's why we love the kinds of things that make us fat. This happens without us really thinking about it.
Also, companies make money off of this fact. That's how they make a whack of profit, is by taking advantage of our fat cells and taste buds.
Calorie counting is a pain in the butt. Most people are ignorant of how to eat in a way that will help them not get or stay fat. Even when they know, it's hard, because body and mind fight it.
It's not that people are 'stupid', it's that 1) we have to fight a) our bodies and b) strong incentives by food manufacturers, advertisers and restaurants to not be fat, and 2) losing weight and keeping it off is really hard (not difficult, it's simple, but learning all the things you need to know to do it isn't easy and takes a lot of change for a lot of people).
So any help we can get, like governments forcing companies to make information available, is good
Because companies don't want us to think about how their food makes us fat. Because they make money off us not thinking about it.
No companies didn't make us fat, government forcing companies won't make us skinny. Learning how to lose weight isn't difficult, people make it difficult, but it's not. Sticking with it can be hard, but doesn't have to be miserable.
We got fat because we eat way too much of everything, we drive most places, we don't even get up anymore to change channels we all have remotes for everything. We are lazy.
Calorie counting is very easy to me, enter it adjust slightly done. It works and if you keep it simple its actually easy.
If I go into a restaurant and know I want to stay around my goals for the day and I have the choice between grilled chicken or fettucine alfredo .. I can make an easy pick on which one will better fit my goals for that day. Now if I go in and just finished a long bike ride I can easily go with the alfredo.
The more government gets involved and takes control the less people think for themselves and the more excuses you give people for not controlling their lives, their health and deciding whats best for them.
We need to stop blaming food companies, sugar, restaurants, the government, or whatever and whoever else for our poor decisions0 -
1) less smoking in public spaces and fewer new smokersSabine_Stroehm wrote: »We are lucky in Ontario Canada that law requires chains with more than15 or 20 restaurants to publish their nutritional information.
The downside is after reading what I am eating I don't at most of them any more. The upside is you find a few gems.
This is basically what will be the situation in the U.S. Soon. Knowledge and information. Always a good thing to have access to. Cheers
Yaaaaaaay unnecessary, government mandated costs, thrust upon business? For things that have already been shown to not change consumer behavior? This is something you encourage?
Yes. Ordering off a menu without calorie information is like ordering off a menu with no prices given. It costs them money to set, publish, and stick to a fixed price for their menu, but we expect that. And we wouldn't expect people to be able to stay out of debt and live within their means if nothing had a price tag on it just by following advice like "buy products that look cheap" or "buy half as much".
Having calorie estimates available for restaurant meals does change my behavior substantially. I think it should be published on menus, not just "available" e.g. on the web site or if you ask for it.
Who cares if it changes your behavior?it has repeatedly been shown not to change consumers at large behaviors.
And smoking bans were repeatedly shown not to work, until they did.
And what did smoking bans achieve? And how do you separate that from the confounder of ever increasing tobacco taxes?
2) the taxes on cigarettes have always been high
Substantiate fewer new smokers was due to smoking bans and you should have a better control for taxes than they've always been high, which is one of the most ignorant statements ever.
In public health, it's actually impossible to "substantiate" any action (to your satisfaction) if what you're looking for is a linear causal connection. Stuff like that is limited to correlation, because of the nature of the phenomena.
So what are you using as the basis for your claims?0 -
SkepticalOwl wrote: »SkepticalOwl wrote: »It occurs to me that though many are saying that a government mandate to provide nutrition information is getting in the way of business, the mandate will actually make a free market in restaurant meals a possibility. The concept of the free market, and the idea of the "invisible hand" guiding it, presupposes perfect information on the part of the consumer. Arguing against people having more information on which to base their purchasing decisions is actually arguing against the most effective part of the capitalist system.
So arguing against government mandating calorie counts, is actually arguing against capitalism/the free market? Interesting
Can you please post where you got this idea?
Wouldn't it be something like, if consumers actually wanted this information they would stop buying from those establishments and if enough stopped purchasing the establishments would then give them the information they wanted ?
The idea of imperfect information leading to market inefficiency is not a new one. Using government to regulate markets goes back to Adam Smith. LMGTFY.
The efficient market hypothesis had to do with financial markets, so does not apply in your example.
Go ahead and Google it and show that it dates back to Smith. I'll wait
Actually, what I said was that regulation of markets goes back to Smith. The idea of using government specifically to address inefficiencies goes back to Mill and Brackenridge, though they did not use the term imperfect imformation. They applied it to externalities unrelated to financial markets, btw.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions