The blame game......
Options
jmule24
Posts: 1,404 Member
Replies
-
SNORT! Great picture!0
-
Liftng4Lis wrote: »SNORT! Great picture!
Why thank you!0 -
I hadn't seen that pic, but it's funny. It's so sad that we are the fat country now. It used to be Russia.
Were I less honest, I could call myself a Nutrition Coach, too. All you need to be one is to call yourself one. Anyone here - or anywhere - could say they were a nutrition coach. It means nothing.
When the guy has RD after his name, I'll listen to his nutrition advice. There really wasn't much (if anything at all) in the article that had anything to do with nutrition, though. It was just about weight loss and not even much helpful there, except the old "You can eat fast food and lose weight" thing that most people learned before they got to high school. That's more about weight loss and less about nutrition.0 -
I hadn't seen that pic, but it's funny. It's so sad that we are the fat country now. It used to be Russia.
Were I less honest, I could call myself a Nutrition Coach, too. All you need to be one is to call yourself one. Anyone here - or anywhere - could say they were a nutrition coach. It means nothing.
When the guy has RD after his name, I'll listen to his nutrition advice. There really wasn't much (if anything at all) in the article that had anything to do with nutrition, though. It was just about weight loss and not even much helpful there, except the old "You can eat fast food and lose weight" thing that most people learned before they got to high school. That's more about weight loss and less about nutrition.
Are you sure you read the article?0 -
I liked the article. All the food choices used to overwhelm me, but I have recently come to appreciate the abundance of possibilities our society offers. We don't have to starve, and we don't have to eat disgusting or unsafe food. All we have to do to eat well and be healthy, is to choose wisely. We can do that, if we want to.0
-
Eh... Sure, it's down to choice. But the average person doesn't know how many calories are in the average restaurant/fast food meal. Even if it's on the menu, it might not really alarm them if they have no idea how much they should be eating every day.
So choice, sure. But when people are misinformed, they can't make an informed choice, and that's the problem with those articles. Just look at the threads that pop up occasionally about how shocked people were by the calories in some items... it happens to all of us.0 -
You described uninformed, not misinformed. If the restaurant lies about the calories, that's one thing. If the eater doesn't know what calories mean, that's another.Eh... Sure, it's down to choice. But the average person doesn't know how many calories are in the average restaurant/fast food meal. Even if it's on the menu, it might not really alarm them if they have no idea how much they should be eating every day.
So choice, sure. But when people are misinformed, they can't make an informed choice, and that's the problem with those articles. Just look at the threads that pop up occasionally about how shocked people were by the calories in some items... it happens to all of us.
0 -
Eh... Sure, it's down to choice. But the average person doesn't know how many calories are in the average restaurant/fast food meal. Even if it's on the menu, it might not really alarm them if they have no idea how much they should be eating every day.
So choice, sure. But when people are misinformed, they can't make an informed choice, and that's the problem with those articles. Just look at the threads that pop up occasionally about how shocked people were by the calories in some items... it happens to all of us.
I call bs on the misinformed, can't make an informed choice thing. Virtually everyone who buys food has a computer in their pocket that let's them look up the nutritional value of foods. They could find it easily if they wanted to/cared.0 -
Eh... Sure, it's down to choice. But the average person doesn't know how many calories are in the average restaurant/fast food meal. Even if it's on the menu, it might not really alarm them if they have no idea how much they should be eating every day.
So choice, sure. But when people are misinformed, they can't make an informed choice, and that's the problem with those articles. Just look at the threads that pop up occasionally about how shocked people were by the calories in some items... it happens to all of us.
Wut????
1. Just about every fast food restaurant now POSTS THE CALORIES ON THE MENU.
2. Not being shown information is NOT misinformation
3. About the only valid part of your argument is the first sentence..... "Sure, it's down to choice." CORRECT!!!!
So you're trying to tell me that if ALL restaurants posted nutritional information that the US would somehow start losing weight as a whole?????? You REALLY BELIEVE THAT???????
0 -
Eh... Sure, it's down to choice. But the average person doesn't know how many calories are in the average restaurant/fast food meal. Even if it's on the menu, it might not really alarm them if they have no idea how much they should be eating every day.
So choice, sure. But when people are misinformed, they can't make an informed choice, and that's the problem with those articles. Just look at the threads that pop up occasionally about how shocked people were by the calories in some items... it happens to all of us.
Wut????
1. Just about every fast food restaurant now POSTS THE CALORIES ON THE MENU.
2. Not being shown information is NOT misinformation
3. About the only valid part of your argument is the first sentence..... "Sure, it's down to choice." CORRECT!!!!
So you're trying to tell me that if ALL restaurants posted nutritional information that the US would somehow start losing weight as a whole?????? You REALLY BELIEVE THAT???????
Ok yeah I meant uninformation. My bad.
And no, here only McDonald's posts calories on the menu, but it doesn't mean anything for most people because they have no clue how many calories they need.
I guess you didn't understand my point at all, as I clearly said that people are clueless about calories, so no, it wouldn't help them if restaurants posted the calorie information on their menu.Packerjohn wrote: »Eh... Sure, it's down to choice. But the average person doesn't know how many calories are in the average restaurant/fast food meal. Even if it's on the menu, it might not really alarm them if they have no idea how much they should be eating every day.
So choice, sure. But when people are misinformed, they can't make an informed choice, and that's the problem with those articles. Just look at the threads that pop up occasionally about how shocked people were by the calories in some items... it happens to all of us.
I call bs on the misinformed, can't make an informed choice thing. Virtually everyone who buys food has a computer in their pocket that let's them look up the nutritional value of foods. They could find it easily if they wanted to/cared.
They're still uninformed. Whether it's because they don't care or not.. they still have no clue of what their nutrition requirements are.
Ie, they can't make an informed choice. Ie, saying it's all 'down to choice' is BS. Sure, some people are informed and just don't care, I just don't think it's the case of everyone.0 -
And no, here only McDonald's posts calories on the menu, but it doesn't mean anything for most people because they have no clue how many calories they need.
Here most places (including quick serve or whatever places like Au Bon Pain, Pret a Manger, or Noodles, Etc. are called) have calories on the menu. You can certainly compare, and it's not hard to look up what reasonable calories for you would be if you care. But also if you can't assume someone knows what reasonable calories are for their meals, then why bother requiring chain restaurants to post calories -- people have to take responsibility at some point.
Anyway, I don't think being uninformed is really the issue. I've told the story before about how I used to get a sandwich and a cookie from a quick serve place called Potbelly's. The turkey sandwich I got is quite reasonable calories, around 300, I still get it sometimes, and the cookie was like 350. The 350 was posted right next to where you grab the cookie, at the register. I actively avoided looking at it, since I didn't want to feel bad about getting the cookie. I had no idea what my calories for maintenance were or what I should be eating, but I still knew 350 for a cookie at lunch when I wasn't even working out was not a good choice.0 -
Eh... Sure, it's down to choice. But the average person doesn't know how many calories are in the average restaurant/fast food meal. Even if it's on the menu, it might not really alarm them if they have no idea how much they should be eating every day.
So choice, sure. But when people are misinformed, they can't make an informed choice, and that's the problem with those articles. Just look at the threads that pop up occasionally about how shocked people were by the calories in some items... it happens to all of us.
Wut????
1. Just about every fast food restaurant now POSTS THE CALORIES ON THE MENU.
2. Not being shown information is NOT misinformation
3. About the only valid part of your argument is the first sentence..... "Sure, it's down to choice." CORRECT!!!!
So you're trying to tell me that if ALL restaurants posted nutritional information that the US would somehow start losing weight as a whole?????? You REALLY BELIEVE THAT???????
Ok yeah I meant uninformation. My bad.
And no, here only McDonald's posts calories on the menu, but it doesn't mean anything for most people because they have no clue how many calories they need.
I guess you didn't understand my point at all, as I clearly said that people are clueless about calories, so no, it wouldn't help them if restaurants posted the calorie information on their menu.Packerjohn wrote: »Eh... Sure, it's down to choice. But the average person doesn't know how many calories are in the average restaurant/fast food meal. Even if it's on the menu, it might not really alarm them if they have no idea how much they should be eating every day.
So choice, sure. But when people are misinformed, they can't make an informed choice, and that's the problem with those articles. Just look at the threads that pop up occasionally about how shocked people were by the calories in some items... it happens to all of us.
I call bs on the misinformed, can't make an informed choice thing. Virtually everyone who buys food has a computer in their pocket that let's them look up the nutritional value of foods. They could find it easily if they wanted to/cared.
They're still uninformed. Whether it's because they don't care or not.. they still have no clue of what their nutrition requirements are.
Ie, they can't make an informed choice. Ie, saying it's all 'down to choice' is BS. Sure, some people are informed and just don't care, I just don't think it's the case of everyone.
There isn't much anyone can do if "they don't care" though.0 -
Eh... Sure, it's down to choice. But the average person doesn't know how many calories are in the average restaurant/fast food meal. Even if it's on the menu, it might not really alarm them if they have no idea how much they should be eating every day.
So choice, sure. But when people are misinformed, they can't make an informed choice, and that's the problem with those articles. Just look at the threads that pop up occasionally about how shocked people were by the calories in some items... it happens to all of us.
Wut????
1. Just about every fast food restaurant now POSTS THE CALORIES ON THE MENU.
2. Not being shown information is NOT misinformation
3. About the only valid part of your argument is the first sentence..... "Sure, it's down to choice." CORRECT!!!!
So you're trying to tell me that if ALL restaurants posted nutritional information that the US would somehow start losing weight as a whole?????? You REALLY BELIEVE THAT???????
Ok yeah I meant uninformation. My bad.
And no, here only McDonald's posts calories on the menu, but it doesn't mean anything for most people because they have no clue how many calories they need.
I guess you didn't understand my point at all, as I clearly said that people are clueless about calories, so no, it wouldn't help them if restaurants posted the calorie information on their menu.Packerjohn wrote: »Eh... Sure, it's down to choice. But the average person doesn't know how many calories are in the average restaurant/fast food meal. Even if it's on the menu, it might not really alarm them if they have no idea how much they should be eating every day.
So choice, sure. But when people are misinformed, they can't make an informed choice, and that's the problem with those articles. Just look at the threads that pop up occasionally about how shocked people were by the calories in some items... it happens to all of us.
I call bs on the misinformed, can't make an informed choice thing. Virtually everyone who buys food has a computer in their pocket that let's them look up the nutritional value of foods. They could find it easily if they wanted to/cared.
They're still uninformed. Whether it's because they don't care or not.. they still have no clue of what their nutrition requirements are.
Ie, they can't make an informed choice. Ie, saying it's all 'down to choice' is BS. Sure, some people are informed and just don't care, I just don't think it's the case of everyone.
Sorry but your making excuses for people who make excuses to not choose to educate themselves. There is a wealth of FREE information on the Internet, libraries, communitie centers, etc......
It's as if there is a big pink elephant in the room that everyone just wants to ignore.
0 -
Eh... Sure, it's down to choice. But the average person doesn't know how many calories are in the average restaurant/fast food meal. Even if it's on the menu, it might not really alarm them if they have no idea how much they should be eating every day.
So choice, sure. But when people are misinformed, they can't make an informed choice, and that's the problem with those articles. Just look at the threads that pop up occasionally about how shocked people were by the calories in some items... it happens to all of us.
Wut????
1. Just about every fast food restaurant now POSTS THE CALORIES ON THE MENU.
2. Not being shown information is NOT misinformation
3. About the only valid part of your argument is the first sentence..... "Sure, it's down to choice." CORRECT!!!!
So you're trying to tell me that if ALL restaurants posted nutritional information that the US would somehow start losing weight as a whole?????? You REALLY BELIEVE THAT???????
Ok yeah I meant uninformation. My bad.
And no, here only McDonald's posts calories on the menu, but it doesn't mean anything for most people because they have no clue how many calories they need.
I guess you didn't understand my point at all, as I clearly said that people are clueless about calories, so no, it wouldn't help them if restaurants posted the calorie information on their menu.Packerjohn wrote: »Eh... Sure, it's down to choice. But the average person doesn't know how many calories are in the average restaurant/fast food meal. Even if it's on the menu, it might not really alarm them if they have no idea how much they should be eating every day.
So choice, sure. But when people are misinformed, they can't make an informed choice, and that's the problem with those articles. Just look at the threads that pop up occasionally about how shocked people were by the calories in some items... it happens to all of us.
I call bs on the misinformed, can't make an informed choice thing. Virtually everyone who buys food has a computer in their pocket that let's them look up the nutritional value of foods. They could find it easily if they wanted to/cared.
They're still uninformed. Whether it's because they don't care or not.. they still have no clue of what their nutrition requirements are.
Ie, they can't make an informed choice. Ie, saying it's all 'down to choice' is BS. Sure, some people are informed and just don't care, I just don't think it's the case of everyone.
There isn't much anyone can do if "they don't care" though.
^This. And there are a lot of people who actively don't care.
It's common sense which restaurant options are going to be more calorie friendly, too. Grilled meats, vegetables, salads with the dressing on the side. When I had dieted down to a reasonable weight in my 20's and was maintaining, this is how I ordered when I ate at restaurants. I ate only a portion of my food.
Dishes that are heavily sauced or fried? I'm sure people aren't thinking of trying to make a calorie-conscious choice when they order those.0 -
If people don't know how many calories they should be eating, posting them makes no difference. If people just don't care, all the information in the world doesn't matter. Fat people go through McDonald's drive-throughs all the time and order more than a day's worth of calories for one meal. It's posted right on the board. Even the ones who know what they're doing don't care.Eh... Sure, it's down to choice. But the average person doesn't know how many calories are in the average restaurant/fast food meal. Even if it's on the menu, it might not really alarm them if they have no idea how much they should be eating every day.
So choice, sure. But when people are misinformed, they can't make an informed choice, and that's the problem with those articles. Just look at the threads that pop up occasionally about how shocked people were by the calories in some items... it happens to all of us.
Wut????
1. Just about every fast food restaurant now POSTS THE CALORIES ON THE MENU.
2. Not being shown information is NOT misinformation
3. About the only valid part of your argument is the first sentence..... "Sure, it's down to choice." CORRECT!!!!
So you're trying to tell me that if ALL restaurants posted nutritional information that the US would somehow start losing weight as a whole?????? You REALLY BELIEVE THAT???????
Ok yeah I meant uninformation. My bad.
And no, here only McDonald's posts calories on the menu, but it doesn't mean anything for most people because they have no clue how many calories they need.
I guess you didn't understand my point at all, as I clearly said that people are clueless about calories, so no, it wouldn't help them if restaurants posted the calorie information on their menu.Packerjohn wrote: »Eh... Sure, it's down to choice. But the average person doesn't know how many calories are in the average restaurant/fast food meal. Even if it's on the menu, it might not really alarm them if they have no idea how much they should be eating every day.
So choice, sure. But when people are misinformed, they can't make an informed choice, and that's the problem with those articles. Just look at the threads that pop up occasionally about how shocked people were by the calories in some items... it happens to all of us.
I call bs on the misinformed, can't make an informed choice thing. Virtually everyone who buys food has a computer in their pocket that let's them look up the nutritional value of foods. They could find it easily if they wanted to/cared.
They're still uninformed. Whether it's because they don't care or not.. they still have no clue of what their nutrition requirements are.
Ie, they can't make an informed choice. Ie, saying it's all 'down to choice' is BS. Sure, some people are informed and just don't care, I just don't think it's the case of everyone.
Sorry but your making excuses for people who make excuses to not choose to educate themselves. There is a wealth of FREE information on the Internet, libraries, communitie centers, etc......
It's as if there is a big pink elephant in the room that everyone just wants to ignore.
You're right about people who want to know being able to find the info. It's out there. They don't care enough to bother. Even if you handed them a pamphlet, it wouldn't make a difference.
People who care will find the info. People who don't will not.
Yes, I read the article. It tells people they can lose weight and eat McDonald's. It tells people that there are a variety of foods one can eat. Nothing new there and nothing delving into real nutritional benefits of any foods. It doesn't suggest why people might wish to avoid fast food, the nutritional reasons for that. Just that they can make different choices. That's not news to anyone.
0 -
The purpose of the article wasn't to provide nutritional information.
The purpose of the article was to show that it's about choice and personal responsibility.
There's a misconception that something out of our control is to blame for obesity. The article attempted to address that.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »The purpose of the article wasn't to provide nutritional information.
The purpose of the article was to show that it's about choice and personal responsibility.
There's a misconception that something out of our control is to blame for obesity. The article attempted to address that.
^^^ THANK YOU ^^^^ You didn't try to use smoke n' mirrors to get a different agenda acroos or start another excuse driven arguement.
0 -
This is from the article and I think it's right on. The U.S. may be the fat country now, but we still have it great with all the choices and freedom.
If I might be so bold as to propose a more productive approach, assuming you live in the U.S., how about this? Instead of bitching about all the fast food companies out there, be grateful for the endless opportunities available to you. Be grateful that you have a nearly limitless, affordable supply of safe, healthy, affordable food choices. Be grateful that your eating options are only minimally determined by your government. And finally, be grateful that everything you need to be your greatest possible self, from information, to healthy food, to social support, are all within easy reach in this great nation we live in.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »The purpose of the article wasn't to provide nutritional information.
The purpose of the article was to show that it's about choice and personal responsibility.
There's a misconception that something out of our control is to blame for obesity. The article attempted to address that.
Aside from people who have physical problems, being fat is a choice. It's not really something I wish to dwell upon and I certainly don't want to point it out to people, "Hey, it's your fault that you're fat!" but I, of course, agree that people who don't have physical problems have become fat because they ate too much.
Nothing new there, either, though.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »The purpose of the article wasn't to provide nutritional information.
The purpose of the article was to show that it's about choice and personal responsibility.
There's a misconception that something out of our control is to blame for obesity. The article attempted to address that.
Aside from people who have physical problems, being fat is a choice. It's not really something I wish to dwell upon and I certainly don't want to point it out to people, "Hey, it's your fault that you're fat!" but I, of course, agree that people who don't have physical problems have become fat because they ate too much.
Nothing new there, either, though.
Oh the irony in your statement......0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions