Eating at restaurants used to be fun, now it's kind of stressful.
Replies
-
Good grief. Anybody that worried about calorie counts should not be ordering anything fried, sauteed, or covered in sauce to begin with.
Once those are eliminated, it's really not hard to get reasonable guesses on the rest.
Ah, more tips to become a dream customer. Scrape the delicately and beautifully plated sauce all to one side and ignore the fact that it took several hours to reduce as well as season to perfection...
What does that have to do with what I posted?0 -
Good grief. Anybody that worried about calorie counts should not be ordering anything fried, sauteed, or covered in sauce to begin with.
Once those are eliminated, it's really not hard to get reasonable guesses on the rest.
Ah, more tips to become a dream customer. Scrape the delicately and beautifully plated sauce all to one side and ignore the fact that it took several hours to reduce as well as season to perfection...
What does that have to do with what I posted?
The sauce you mentioned
I was a bit sarcastic, not against you, but taking the poor sauce, which is an elaborate creation of art usually, and leaving it uneaten. Will make you really popular in the kitchen. 0 -
Good grief. Anybody that worried about calorie counts should not be ordering anything fried, sauteed, or covered in sauce to begin with.
Once those are eliminated, it's really not hard to get reasonable guesses on the rest.
Ah, more tips to become a dream customer. Scrape the delicately and beautifully plated sauce all to one side and ignore the fact that it took several hours to reduce as well as season to perfection...
What does that have to do with what I posted?
The sauce you mentioned I was a bit sarcastic, not against you, but taking the poor sauce, which is an elaborate creation of art usually, and leaving it uneaten. Will make you really popular in the kitchen.
Again, where did I say anything about scraping sauces, etc?
I said nothing of the kind...
0 -
I just wanted to post this here because it's on topic and interesting: http://www.nber.org/papers/w15648.pdf
Calorie Posting in Chain Restaurants
Bryan Bollinger, Phillip Leslie, Alan Sorensen
NBER Working Paper No. 15648
Issued in January 2010
NBER Program(s): HC HE IO
We study the impact of mandatory calorie posting on consumers' purchase decisions, using detailed data from Starbucks.0 -
That doesn't change the fact that it places an unnecessary burden and expense on the business, which is only further aggravated by the fact that most of their customers don't want the info in the first place.
I don't think there's evidence that customers don't "want".
There is plenty, however, that they really don't care much.
Fair enough.
I would still hypothesize (and I admit, it's a hypothesis), that if you asked customers at a fine dining, local business restaurant if they want to see the calories they would say no. Because, it's a treat. No one wants to go to a fancy restaurant and spend the money to censor themselves.
I live in New York, where we have had calories posted on fast food and chain restaurant menus for a while now, and all I hear is people complaining about how depressing it is to see how many calories are in what they are about to eat. They knew what they were going to order was more calories than they should be eating, seeing the number doesn't stop them from ordering it, it just makes them feel bad.
I just think it's a lot of work and bureaucracy for something that most people will ignore anyway. And I still think that there is so much variation in how an item is cooked and served on the fly that the numbers would be vague generalities anyway.0 -
how's that working out?
people still smoking themselves into an early grave.. it put a minor dent in the smoking population.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4843a2.htm
"An important accomplishment of the second half of the 20th century has been the reduction of smoking prevalence among persons aged greater than or equal to 18 years from 42.4% in 1965 to 24.7% in 1997, with the rate for men (27.6%) higher than for women (22.1%)"
Smoking has been reduced almost by half. That's huge. Yay us
kyta, forget it, this is an ideologically influenced conversation on a largely US site.-1 -
I just wanted to post this here because it's on topic and interesting: http://www.nber.org/papers/w15648.pdf
Calorie Posting in Chain Restaurants
Bryan Bollinger, Phillip Leslie, Alan Sorensen
NBER Working Paper No. 15648
Issued in January 2010
NBER Program(s): HC HE IO
We study the impact of mandatory calorie posting on consumers' purchase decisions, using detailed data from Starbucks.
Hmmm what happened during the study period? Oh yeah the recession. How any times that was mentioned? Zero0 -
how's that working out?
people still smoking themselves into an early grave.. it put a minor dent in the smoking population.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4843a2.htm
"An important accomplishment of the second half of the 20th century has been the reduction of smoking prevalence among persons aged greater than or equal to 18 years from 42.4% in 1965 to 24.7% in 1997, with the rate for men (27.6%) higher than for women (22.1%)"
Smoking has been reduced almost by half. That's huge. Yay us
kyta, forget it, this is an ideologically influenced conversation on a largely US site.
Oh boy. Here we go.
0 -
Good grief. Anybody that worried about calorie counts should not be ordering anything fried, sauteed, or covered in sauce to begin with.
Once those are eliminated, it's really not hard to get reasonable guesses on the rest.
Ah, more tips to become a dream customer. Scrape the delicately and beautifully plated sauce all to one side and ignore the fact that it took several hours to reduce as well as season to perfection...
What does that have to do with what I posted?
The sauce you mentioned I was a bit sarcastic, not against you, but taking the poor sauce, which is an elaborate creation of art usually, and leaving it uneaten. Will make you really popular in the kitchen.
Again, where did I say anything about scraping sauces, etc?
I said nothing of the kind...
I know you didn't and I haven't claimed so either. I simply took it off in a tangent, but for logic's sake I quoted the starting point, your comment.0 -
I make waitresses sad. Because of my reduced stomach, I typically only eat half of what is offered...and they NEVER understand why my beverage remains untouched. (Post surgery I have the choice of beverage or meal, but never both at the same time).
Believe me, it is simpler to take the offered water than to explain why I don't want it.0 -
I read some of the pages, not all, so i'm probably repeating what others have said...
Anyway, FWIW, I enjoy eating out, particularly when I travel overseas, because I get to try different foods that I wouldn't usually have at home. When I'm overseas, I accept that I don't have as much control over my cals but I figure that the increased walking I do will balance it out...and it usually does. I also use some judgement over my food choices because I have a general idea of the ingredients and calories. However, I won't turn down a specialty because it will be high calorie, instead I will enjoy it and leave some on my plate, or share it.
When I eat out at home, I will mostly use judgement in menu choices or the quantity I eat. I often have dessert but I always share it. If I'm planning a huge blowout with plenty of cocktails (mmmm lychee martins), I will eat no breakfast and a tiny lunch in preparation.
Eating out should be a pleasure IMO.0 -
GiveMeCoffee wrote: »Well, a few restaurant chains lost my business when they chose not to publish the nutritional content of their meals.
And that is your choice to make. Myself I think I might boycott a few of my restaurants if nutritional info was glaring at me when I was trying to decide cause sometimes I just don't care.
If I were a chef, such a customer would actually be a real horror to cross paths with. It's like going to the dentist and wanting to know all the components of a filling, or to the hair dresser and asking what all the stuff is in the shampoo etc. that she's using, including the watt of the dryer so you're certain she won't burn your hair.
It would be the worst! Just think about how such a regulation, and fear of litigation, would stifle innovation?
I know of one instant here in Denver where it already has ... we have a bar in our neighborhood that's lets people bring their dogs to an outside fenced area, it is a business model called The Bark Bar. The dogs get to mingle as do the owners, drink and socialize. They would like to add bar food to the inside bar area. Well the city, could not decide how to "classify" them, and was concerned over having dogs, drinking and food together? Ok if you have dogs and you bring them with you to socialize at a place that caters to you and your beloved furry friends, that's why you are going to that establishment right? So if you would like to wash your hands, have some appetizers with it, and say you are sitting outside with your dog and friends having a good time? Why would anyone think that needs to be regulated? If they passed all the initial hoop jumps, have their needed insurance, waivers etc. why does government have to quash a good idea simply because they don't know how to "classify" the business model, and add food into the mix? Anyways I am a bit off track it's just I think things tend to be over analyzed and over regulated, and it's just to the point of to much is to much.
0 -
Good grief. Anybody that worried about calorie counts should not be ordering anything fried, sauteed, or covered in sauce to begin with.
Once those are eliminated, it's really not hard to get reasonable guesses on the rest.
You would think so. But you can't really know because you can't see the food being prepared.
Most of us know the calorie count of a steak. But we don't know what was done to that steak before it reached us. I remember watching a Top Chef steakhouse competition and being appalled when one of the chefs literally bathed her steak in butter. She coated it with butter throughout the entire cooking time. She easily could have doubled the calories in the steak.
Those of us in favor of calorie counts are NOT anti-personal responsibility. What we want is the opportunity to exercise our personal responsibility with the information that is important to us.
I would argue that the person boycotting a restaurant because they don't want to see calories on the menu is the person avoiding personal responsibility. Nothing like willfully burying your head in the sand because you don't want to acknowledge to yourself that yes, you just ate two days worth of calories in an hour and a half.
0 -
BeginningAgainMay14 wrote: »Good grief. Anybody that worried about calorie counts should not be ordering anything fried, sauteed, or covered in sauce to begin with.
Once those are eliminated, it's really not hard to get reasonable guesses on the rest.
You would think so. But you can't really know because you can't see the food being prepared.
Most of us know the calorie count of a steak. But we don't know what was done to that steak before it reached us. I remember watching a Top Chef steakhouse competition and being appalled when one of the chefs literally bathed her steak in butter. She coated it with butter throughout the entire cooking time. She easily could have doubled the calories in the steak.
Those of us in favor of calorie counts are NOT anti-personal responsibility. What we want is the opportunity to exercise our personal responsibility with the information that is important to us.
I would argue that the person boycotting a restaurant because they don't want to see calories on the menu is the person avoiding personal responsibility. Nothing like willfully burying your head in the sand because you don't want to acknowledge to yourself that yes, you just ate two days worth of calories in an hour and a half.
Hear, hear.
Harping about "personal responsibility" wrt calorie counting, in the absence of actual nutritional information, is like advocating playing chess blindfolded. Why would you actually want that?
Someone else above said posting calorie counts "depresses" people... idk man, idk0 -
Because I do eat out often I am finding most places have one or more items that are "OK". Sometimes it may just be coffee or unsweetened tea but most have a salad that is doable and I can pay catch up at the next meal. For example Arby's side salad is like 7 carbs and the Buttermilk Ranch is like 2 grams of carbs so by going with two packets that is a 11 carb 500 calorie $2+ meal that will more than get me home. Not perfect but doable. Most seem to have low carb options but they seldom are on the printed menu.0
-
I went to a restaurant tonight, and after perusing the prixe fixe I asked what the calorie count was for the seared foie gras appetizer. They just laughed at me.
The government should shut them down!0 -
BeginningAgainMay14 wrote: »Good grief. Anybody that worried about calorie counts should not be ordering anything fried, sauteed, or covered in sauce to begin with.
Once those are eliminated, it's really not hard to get reasonable guesses on the rest.
You would think so. But you can't really know because you can't see the food being prepared.
Most of us know the calorie count of a steak. But we don't know what was done to that steak before it reached us. I remember watching a Top Chef steakhouse competition and being appalled when one of the chefs literally bathed her steak in butter. She coated it with butter throughout the entire cooking time. She easily could have doubled the calories in the steak.
Those of us in favor of calorie counts are NOT anti-personal responsibility. What we want is the opportunity to exercise our personal responsibility with the information that is important to us.
I would argue that the person boycotting a restaurant because they don't want to see calories on the menu is the person avoiding personal responsibility. Nothing like willfully burying your head in the sand because you don't want to acknowledge to yourself that yes, you just ate two days worth of calories in an hour and a half.
You were appalled at a chef basting a steak with butter and aromatics? LOL.0 -
how's that working out?
people still smoking themselves into an early grave.. it put a minor dent in the smoking population.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4843a2.htm
"An important accomplishment of the second half of the 20th century has been the reduction of smoking prevalence among persons aged greater than or equal to 18 years from 42.4% in 1965 to 24.7% in 1997, with the rate for men (27.6%) higher than for women (22.1%)"
Smoking has been reduced almost by half. That's huge. Yay us
kyta, forget it, this is an ideologically influenced conversation on a largely US site.
True. Imagine a conversation in Italy or France where the idea that all restaurants should have mandatory nutritional information was broached. There would be no end of laughing....
I personally think compelling smaller restaurants / fine dining restaurants to calculate and display calorie counts would ultimately reduce choice for all consumers (not the small percentage who use or care about calorie counting) as it will inevitably raise prices shunting consumers more towards large chains where the quality of ingredients and actual cooking are worse.
Edit: in addition it may influence consumers to consider eating out as something which should be done regularly rather than a move towards home cooking.0 -
BeginningAgainMay14 wrote: »Good grief. Anybody that worried about calorie counts should not be ordering anything fried, sauteed, or covered in sauce to begin with.
Once those are eliminated, it's really not hard to get reasonable guesses on the rest.
You would think so. But you can't really know because you can't see the food being prepared.
Most of us know the calorie count of a steak. But we don't know what was done to that steak before it reached us. I remember watching a Top Chef steakhouse competition and being appalled when one of the chefs literally bathed her steak in butter. She coated it with butter throughout the entire cooking time. She easily could have doubled the calories in the steak.
Those of us in favor of calorie counts are NOT anti-personal responsibility. What we want is the opportunity to exercise our personal responsibility with the information that is important to us.
I would argue that the person boycotting a restaurant because they don't want to see calories on the menu is the person avoiding personal responsibility. Nothing like willfully burying your head in the sand because you don't want to acknowledge to yourself that yes, you just ate two days worth of calories in an hour and a half.
When I make a steak at home I baste it in butter, and serve it with herb butter its delicious.
Now how is making a choice not to go to a restaurant that gives calorie counts avoiding personal responsibility?? Because I go I make choices based on what I want, I eat it and enjoy every bite as it was intended. I log it to the best of my ability and wow doing this for the past 2 years I've lost 127 lbs eating out at least once per week.
It's not burying your head in the sand when you actually understand nutrition and can make wise decisions without them giving you bogus nutritional information.
I don't often eat two days of calories in a meal, I have but that is not often again because I make a choice, and I own that choice which would be personal responsibility. Instead of oh no I ate this well let me blame the restaurant how dare you make me this delicious food and forced me to devour every morsel.0 -
Not sure why I'm jumping in at this point but just wanted.to comment that in addition to agreeing that its ridiculous to expect non chain establishments to provide this information, what would the average consumer do with the info without context or an understanding of caloric goals, etc. I don't have numbers but I would assume the majority of people don't count calories. Look how many people here every day have difficulty understanding the basic principles.of CICO and how their TDEE influences the equation. If you provided calorie info on restaurant meals, besides likely being inaccurate based on the way commercial kitchens operate, how would a diner use that other than a means of comparing two meals in that particular context?0
-
GiveMeCoffee wrote: »BeginningAgainMay14 wrote: »Good grief. Anybody that worried about calorie counts should not be ordering anything fried, sauteed, or covered in sauce to begin with.
Once those are eliminated, it's really not hard to get reasonable guesses on the rest.
You would think so. But you can't really know because you can't see the food being prepared.
Most of us know the calorie count of a steak. But we don't know what was done to that steak before it reached us. I remember watching a Top Chef steakhouse competition and being appalled when one of the chefs literally bathed her steak in butter. She coated it with butter throughout the entire cooking time. She easily could have doubled the calories in the steak.
Those of us in favor of calorie counts are NOT anti-personal responsibility. What we want is the opportunity to exercise our personal responsibility with the information that is important to us.
I would argue that the person boycotting a restaurant because they don't want to see calories on the menu is the person avoiding personal responsibility. Nothing like willfully burying your head in the sand because you don't want to acknowledge to yourself that yes, you just ate two days worth of calories in an hour and a half.
It's not burying your head in the sand when you actually understand nutrition and can make wise decisions without them giving you bogus nutritional information.
"Bogus", eh. Where laws for this exist, restaurants will have to do their best to be accurate. And even if they're off, they can't be more off than 80% of mfp users.
You'd think these Personal Responsibility MFPers wouldn't need to resort to digital scales, or refer to a massive database and the support of thousands of users.
Losing weight is easy, when you use your Personal Responsibility X-Ray Eyes. Amazing!0 -
BeginningAgainMay14 wrote: »Good grief. Anybody that worried about calorie counts should not be ordering anything fried, sauteed, or covered in sauce to begin with.
Once those are eliminated, it's really not hard to get reasonable guesses on the rest.
You would think so. But you can't really know because you can't see the food being prepared.
Most of us know the calorie count of a steak. But we don't know what was done to that steak before it reached us. I remember watching a Top Chef steakhouse competition and being appalled when one of the chefs literally bathed her steak in butter. She coated it with butter throughout the entire cooking time. She easily could have doubled the calories in the steak.
Those of us in favor of calorie counts are NOT anti-personal responsibility. What we want is the opportunity to exercise our personal responsibility with the information that is important to us.
I would argue that the person boycotting a restaurant because they don't want to see calories on the menu is the person avoiding personal responsibility. Nothing like willfully burying your head in the sand because you don't want to acknowledge to yourself that yes, you just ate two days worth of calories in an hour and a half.
Since you have watched a steak being made, I'm sure you caught the closing of the pores in the beginning, too. A steak isn't a sponge, so you can't squeeze all the butter into it, but it stays on the surface and what chemically happens to both meat and fat you can read more about in Harold McGee's McGee on Food and Cooking: An Encyclopedia of Kitchen Science, History and Culture.
Butter, when it melts, also has a tendency to look much more than its volume when hot in the pan. See for yourself when you fry with even half a tablespoon of it. While the Top Chef contestant might have chucked in as much as 50 grams of it, I'm sure you saw how much was left in the pan once the steak was done.
So if you combine your knowledge of the pores of the meat with this empirical research on the inner workings of butter, maybe you can agree with me that insinuating 50/50 of calories for meat/butter is absurd? I'm a crappy cook by the way, so these tidbits are what I've picked up by watching my mom at her stove as well as MasterChef and the like.0 -
Not sure why I'm jumping in at this point but just wanted.to comment that in addition to agreeing that its ridiculous to expect non chain establishments to provide this information, what would the average consumer do with the info without context or an understanding of caloric goals, etc. I don't have numbers but I would assume the majority of people don't count calories. Look how many people here every day have difficulty understanding the basic principles.of CICO and how their TDEE influences the equation. If you provided calorie info on restaurant meals, besides likely being inaccurate based on the way commercial kitchens operate, how would a diner use that other than a means of comparing two meals in that particular context?
comparing a higher number to a lower one, and choosing the lower one, is a move in the right direction.0 -
GiveMeCoffee wrote: »BeginningAgainMay14 wrote: »Good grief. Anybody that worried about calorie counts should not be ordering anything fried, sauteed, or covered in sauce to begin with.
Once those are eliminated, it's really not hard to get reasonable guesses on the rest.
You would think so. But you can't really know because you can't see the food being prepared.
Most of us know the calorie count of a steak. But we don't know what was done to that steak before it reached us. I remember watching a Top Chef steakhouse competition and being appalled when one of the chefs literally bathed her steak in butter. She coated it with butter throughout the entire cooking time. She easily could have doubled the calories in the steak.
Those of us in favor of calorie counts are NOT anti-personal responsibility. What we want is the opportunity to exercise our personal responsibility with the information that is important to us.
I would argue that the person boycotting a restaurant because they don't want to see calories on the menu is the person avoiding personal responsibility. Nothing like willfully burying your head in the sand because you don't want to acknowledge to yourself that yes, you just ate two days worth of calories in an hour and a half.
It's not burying your head in the sand when you actually understand nutrition and can make wise decisions without them giving you bogus nutritional information.
"Bogus", eh. Where laws for this exist, restaurants will have to do their best to be accurate. And even if they're off, they can't be more off than 80% of mfp users.
You'd think these Personal Responsibility MFPers wouldn't need to resort to digital scales, or refer to a massive database and the support of thousands of users.
Losing weight is easy, when you use your Personal Responsibility X-Ray Eyes. Amazing!
Packaged items already have a 20% margin of error, do you really think commercial kitchens will even be that close?
Your argument that personal responsibility doesn't mean using tools available is just grasping at straws. Losing weight is easy when you use common sense and that is what is lacking along with personal responsibility.0 -
Not sure why I'm jumping in at this point but just wanted.to comment that in addition to agreeing that its ridiculous to expect non chain establishments to provide this information, what would the average consumer do with the info without context or an understanding of caloric goals, etc. I don't have numbers but I would assume the majority of people don't count calories. Look how many people here every day have difficulty understanding the basic principles.of CICO and how their TDEE influences the equation. If you provided calorie info on restaurant meals, besides likely being inaccurate based on the way commercial kitchens operate, how would a diner use that other than a means of comparing two meals in that particular context?
comparing a higher number to a lower one, and choosing the lower one, is a move in the right direction.
What makes the lower calorie count a better choice? If that is how you judge the health of every food decision you make well good luck0 -
Not sure why I'm jumping in at this point but just wanted.to comment that in addition to agreeing that its ridiculous to expect non chain establishments to provide this information, what would the average consumer do with the info without context or an understanding of caloric goals, etc. I don't have numbers but I would assume the majority of people don't count calories. Look how many people here every day have difficulty understanding the basic principles.of CICO and how their TDEE influences the equation. If you provided calorie info on restaurant meals, besides likely being inaccurate based on the way commercial kitchens operate, how would a diner use that other than a means of comparing two meals in that particular context?
comparing a higher number to a lower one, and choosing the lower one, is a move in the right direction.
Why? The lower calorie option may not always be the best choice. Again, not every person has the same goals, and you don't know what else that person may have eaten that day.
0 -
Not sure why I'm jumping in at this point but just wanted.to comment that in addition to agreeing that its ridiculous to expect non chain establishments to provide this information, what would the average consumer do with the info without context or an understanding of caloric goals, etc. I don't have numbers but I would assume the majority of people don't count calories. Look how many people here every day have difficulty understanding the basic principles.of CICO and how their TDEE influences the equation. If you provided calorie info on restaurant meals, besides likely being inaccurate based on the way commercial kitchens operate, how would a diner use that other than a means of comparing two meals in that particular context?
comparing a higher number to a lower one, and choosing the lower one, is a move in the right direction.
Why? The lower calorie option may not always be the best choice. Again, not every person has the same goals, and you don't know what else that person may have eaten that day.
Have you heard the phrase "calories in, calories out"? The larger goal is to reduce obesity, yes?
But it's not up to me to tell people what to eat. That's their personal decision they take personal responsibility for. All I'm saying is they should have the information to make that decision.0 -
Not sure why I'm jumping in at this point but just wanted.to comment that in addition to agreeing that its ridiculous to expect non chain establishments to provide this information, what would the average consumer do with the info without context or an understanding of caloric goals, etc. I don't have numbers but I would assume the majority of people don't count calories. Look how many people here every day have difficulty understanding the basic principles.of CICO and how their TDEE influences the equation. If you provided calorie info on restaurant meals, besides likely being inaccurate based on the way commercial kitchens operate, how would a diner use that other than a means of comparing two meals in that particular context?
comparing a higher number to a lower one, and choosing the lower one, is a move in the right direction.
Hmm, this is where there is a fundamental difference in decision making. I would pick from the menu whatever my heart happens to desire in that moment, even if it means amuse-bouche (if the kitchen wants me to have one), entrée, main course, cheese plate, dessert, coffee and something sweet to nibble, whisky or cognac afterwards, and possibly palate cleansers in between as well. Not forgetting suitable wines to go with all the courses that would be enhanced by such a beverage. Food is art.0 -
GiveMeCoffee wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »BeginningAgainMay14 wrote: »Good grief. Anybody that worried about calorie counts should not be ordering anything fried, sauteed, or covered in sauce to begin with.
Once those are eliminated, it's really not hard to get reasonable guesses on the rest.
You would think so. But you can't really know because you can't see the food being prepared.
Most of us know the calorie count of a steak. But we don't know what was done to that steak before it reached us. I remember watching a Top Chef steakhouse competition and being appalled when one of the chefs literally bathed her steak in butter. She coated it with butter throughout the entire cooking time. She easily could have doubled the calories in the steak.
Those of us in favor of calorie counts are NOT anti-personal responsibility. What we want is the opportunity to exercise our personal responsibility with the information that is important to us.
I would argue that the person boycotting a restaurant because they don't want to see calories on the menu is the person avoiding personal responsibility. Nothing like willfully burying your head in the sand because you don't want to acknowledge to yourself that yes, you just ate two days worth of calories in an hour and a half.
It's not burying your head in the sand when you actually understand nutrition and can make wise decisions without them giving you bogus nutritional information.
"Bogus", eh. Where laws for this exist, restaurants will have to do their best to be accurate. And even if they're off, they can't be more off than 80% of mfp users.
You'd think these Personal Responsibility MFPers wouldn't need to resort to digital scales, or refer to a massive database and the support of thousands of users.
Losing weight is easy, when you use your Personal Responsibility X-Ray Eyes. Amazing!
Packaged items already have a 20% margin of error, do you really think commercial kitchens will even be that close?
Your argument that personal responsibility doesn't mean using tools available is just grasping at straws. Losing weight is easy when you use common sense and that is what is lacking along with personal responsibility.
Your argument that it's vitally important to refuse available tools, like information, is what's grasping here.
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
- 175.9K 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
- 96.3K 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