Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Government control of portion sizes and calories
Options
Replies
-
peckchris3267 wrote: »
Well, let's see. Here are some of my past jobs;Packerjohn wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »What about those whose job involves hard physical labor and they require high calorie food? Are they going to have to buy two lunches now to get through the rest of the day just because others have no self control?
You realize how small a % of the population this involves in a developed country?
Forestry, managed forest and fought forest fires.
Airborne Ranger in the army.
Pipe fitter/pipe welder, new construction.
Prior to those I was a competitive triathlete. Completed 2 ironman triathlons,(2.4 mile swim, 112 mile bike, 26.2 mile run) and countless shorter ones over the course of 5 years while working in forestry and landscaping.
Those are just my experiences, how about professions like roofing?
I'm also an avid hiker doing day hikes as long as 20 miles. I want to be able to order as much food as I want after a hike like that.
You are the exception not the rule. I'm one of few friends who actively exercise. I have no-one with a manual labour job.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »
And if I want a double quarter pounder and large fries I should be allowed to buy it without government restrictions.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Quick serve (places like Pret a Manger, which is a UK based chain, I think) typically all have calories posted where I am (Chicago). I like that, since I think it results in them having a number of lower cal options.
Local places (non chains) don't, and I think that's fine -- too much burden for them as they change the menu more and nothing is standardized, and no one has to go there if seeing calories is a premium (and they will generally answer questions about how things are made in a way you don't get at a quick serve place).
The problem with giant serving sizes in many places is because of consumer demand -- people want "value." Does it make sense to basically say "in the current world it's not in your best interest since too many people are fat, sorry"? It rubs me the wrong way, but if the UK wants to experiment with it and see how it goes, I don't care.
This. I don't think the problem is that the portions are too large (there are smaller portion options available like a plain hamburger) or that the information isn't available, the problem is that people either don't care or don't know enough about energy balance to put it into use.
The GB challenge with this is the government pays 80%+ of healthcare costs and it's going broke. If someone is going to get services from an organization, it is probably that organization's right to make restrictions on things that impact its costs.
It's not going broke, it's underfunded. Vast difference. We have a predominantly right wing press in the UK and a conservative government at the moment who would love it if healthcare was privatised. Making the NHS look like it's failing is a nifty way to make it happen.11 -
However, I believe that at a less controversial move would simply be to provide the nutritional information so that customers can make an informed choice. Some restaurant chains in the UK do this but the vast majority do not. Then you can make people more aware of how many calories they are consuming but they are allowed to make their own choice in whether to overindulge.
I agree with this part. The US seems to be requiring chain restaurants to provide calorie counts on their menu items now. I find this incredibly helpful since I calorie count. I would hope even someone not as experience as me could at least be capable of using this info a little bit. For example, you may not know your exact calorie needs, but if you still look at the calories on the menu you may be able to pick up on the fact that "healthy" salad has 1500 calories while a steak with veggies on the side has 800 calories. These kinds of traps were eye opening to me when I first started, sometimes its easy to think you are making good choices without realizing you aren't.
The issue I have with restricting calorie amounts is based off such general calorie recommendations. There are alot of variables from person to person though, so are they really solving anything? I don't think so.2 -
peckchris3267 wrote: »
Well, let's see. Here are some of my past jobs;Packerjohn wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »What about those whose job involves hard physical labor and they require high calorie food? Are they going to have to buy two lunches now to get through the rest of the day just because others have no self control?
You realize how small a % of the population this involves in a developed country?
Forestry, managed forest and fought forest fires.
Airborne Ranger in the army.
Pipe fitter/pipe welder, new construction.
Prior to those I was a competitive triathlete. Completed 2 ironman triathlons,(2.4 mile swim, 112 mile bike, 26.2 mile run) and countless shorter ones over the course of 5 years while working in forestry and landscaping.
Those are just my experiences, how about professions like roofing?
I'm also an avid hiker doing day hikes as long as 20 miles. I want to be able to order as much food as I want after a hike like that.
Yup. My husband just moved out of sales and into a manual labour job. He can't believe how much food he eats now. He's even started throwing protein powder into a bottle of water to drink on his drive out to work (after eating breakfast!) to help keep him full and energized.
He's 6 feet tall and beanpole skinny, lol, and just packing the food away now like a bottomless pit.
I personally burned about 800 calories doing some hardcore early morning cardio and in a few hours I'll head to the gym where I end up burning 600 on average by the time I'm done.
If I want to eat a big ol burger today after that just tell me how many calories are in it and I'll make whatever choice I feel is appropriate for my current goals. You know, like a big girl with a functional mind of her own.5 -
peckchris3267 wrote: »
Well, let's see. Here are some of my past jobs;Packerjohn wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »What about those whose job involves hard physical labor and they require high calorie food? Are they going to have to buy two lunches now to get through the rest of the day just because others have no self control?
You realize how small a % of the population this involves in a developed country?
Forestry, managed forest and fought forest fires.
Airborne Ranger in the army.
Pipe fitter/pipe welder, new construction.
Prior to those I was a competitive triathlete. Completed 2 ironman triathlons,(2.4 mile swim, 112 mile bike, 26.2 mile run) and countless shorter ones over the course of 5 years while working in forestry and landscaping.
Those are just my experiences, how about professions like roofing?
I'm also an avid hiker doing day hikes as long as 20 miles. I want to be able to order as much food as I want after a hike like that.
You are a special snowflake in regard to active jobs. Only 20% of the US population has jobs that are considered moderately active.
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/less-active-at-work-americans-have-packed-on-pounds/?mcubz=0
From my understanding of the proposed regulation, they were looking at limiting the size/number of calories per serving, not the number of servings one could get if they were truly hungry.
Would you think that in most cases if they made a Big Mac meal 10% smaller, people would buy extra one?3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »
Well, let's see. Here are some of my past jobs;Packerjohn wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »What about those whose job involves hard physical labor and they require high calorie food? Are they going to have to buy two lunches now to get through the rest of the day just because others have no self control?
You realize how small a % of the population this involves in a developed country?
Forestry, managed forest and fought forest fires.
Airborne Ranger in the army.
Pipe fitter/pipe welder, new construction.
Prior to those I was a competitive triathlete. Completed 2 ironman triathlons,(2.4 mile swim, 112 mile bike, 26.2 mile run) and countless shorter ones over the course of 5 years while working in forestry and landscaping.
Those are just my experiences, how about professions like roofing?
I'm also an avid hiker doing day hikes as long as 20 miles. I want to be able to order as much food as I want after a hike like that.
You are a special snowflake in regard to active jobs. Only 20% of the US population has jobs that are considered moderately active.
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/less-active-at-work-americans-have-packed-on-pounds/?mcubz=0
From my understanding of the proposed regulation, they were looking at limiting the size/number of calories per serving, not the number of servings one could get if they were truly hungry.
Would you think that in most cases if they made a Big Mac meal 10% smaller, people would buy extra one?
Based on my personal experience of people with active jobs (warehouses, where some people were on their feet and lifting for the whole work day) even many of them were eating more than they needed to sustain a healthy body weight. This could be an exception, but if it isn't it's not like the 20% of the US population with active jobs would all be starving if portion sizes were reduced.5 -
Welcome to the Nanny State. Why is this a surprise to anyone that the UK proposes doing this. Their NHS has already rationed care to smokers and obese people. This is what you get when you have the Government pay to take care of you. Since they are footing the bill, they get to tell you what to do.9
-
jddudenhefer wrote: »Welcome to the Nanny State. Why is this a surprise to anyone that the UK proposes doing this. Their NHS has already rationed care to smokers and obese people. This is what you get when you have the Government pay to take care of you. Since they are footing the bill, they get to tell you what to do.
Strong first post. Thanks for the insight, I'm assuming you're not actually in the UK, in which case your opinion on the NHS doesn't hold much weight.9 -
VintageFeline wrote: »robm1brown wrote: »A bigger issue is a lack of choice. I spent 3 days at the F1 earlier this year. The only food available on site was shockingly high in calories. I could barely find a piece of fruit everything was fried, battered or smothered in cheese. I didn't need smaller portions of the crap I needed an alternative. It is the same in all sorts of concerts, festivals and such like.
But it's not like that's what you have to choose from every single day. Perspective. I am surprised though that there wasn't a vegetarian or vegan stand, every event I've been to has had one and the options there are generally a lot less calorie dense.
But back to the OP. There are pluses and minuses. Chocolate bars have already shrunk over the years due to profit margins. But other foods have crept up like the burgers etc. Fact of the matter though is that if someone wants to overeat, they will. Single bag of crisps too small? Well I'll just have two or add in another snack with it.
There's already a vast array of "healthy" choice alternatives in British supermarkets, from ready meals to desserts to snacks. If people aren't choosing those or eating them in appropriate quantities then neither will legislating for manufacturers to produce smaller serving sizes. And lots of people do still home cook so there's nothing to be done about that from a legislation point of view, unless they start asking how many people you're cooking for and only sell you that amount. Which is clearly bonkers.
They should be investing time and money in education instead in my opinion. And introduce a lot more PE as part of the school curriculum.
Urrgh not PE! Just kidding. Sort of. In all honesty I hated PE at school and it put me off exercise for a good few years after. I would rather follow a program at the gym or go for a run than always be in competition with others which stressed me out. But maybe that is the nature of teenagers rather than PE.
I hear that. I was uncoordinated (still am) and already the kid who everyone picked on. Being lousy at gym was just one more way to feel inadequate. When I got to CEGEP (Quebec junior college. 2-year program between high school and university), PE was mandatory, but there were something like 300 different options (Some of these were duplicates. Like there might have been 20 aerobics classes covering roughly the same exercises, but given at different times/days). My goal was to avoid team sports. I got by with fitness, aerobics, square/novelty dancing, and stress management (filed under 'PE—Theory'). These days, I walk and work out at home.3 -
Yes, we definitely need more and more government control.
We also need much,much higher taxes to fund our thought leaders.
I would say more on the subject, but I have a scheduled conference call with Vladimir Putin & Kim Jong-un.
Nobody wants to keep those two waiting, right?7 -
Some people see that the government will be involved and have a knee jerk reaction, like a trained monkey that can't help dancing when the organ grinder starts to play.9
-
NorthCascades wrote: »Some people see that the government will be involved and have a knee jerk reaction, like a trained monkey that can't help dancing when the organ grinder starts to play.
organ grinder music can be quite captivating; just sayin'.3 -
peckchris3267 wrote: »
Well, let's see. Here are some of my past jobs;Packerjohn wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »What about those whose job involves hard physical labor and they require high calorie food? Are they going to have to buy two lunches now to get through the rest of the day just because others have no self control?
You realize how small a % of the population this involves in a developed country?
Forestry, managed forest and fought forest fires.
Airborne Ranger in the army.
Pipe fitter/pipe welder, new construction.
Prior to those I was a competitive triathlete. Completed 2 ironman triathlons,(2.4 mile swim, 112 mile bike, 26.2 mile run) and countless shorter ones over the course of 5 years while working in forestry and landscaping.
Those are just my experiences, how about professions like roofing?
I'm also an avid hiker doing day hikes as long as 20 miles. I want to be able to order as much food as I want after a hike like that.
I'm sure no one is going to restrict the amount of food you can buy. I wouldn't waste energy worrying about it.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
From my understanding of the proposed regulation, they were looking at limiting the size/number of calories per serving, not the number of servings one could get if they were truly hungry.
Would you think that in most cases if they made a Big Mac meal 10% smaller, people would buy extra one?
That is actually a good question. It could go two ways, still buy one meal and get 90% of the original calories, or think "man that is small now I need 2" and eat 180% of the calories. I think it might depend on how noticeable the change in size of the food was.5 -
Couldn't be against it much more but providing the calorie information should already be happening. Luckily I live in the US. I don't think it's the Govt's place at all people should make informed decisions and live with it.
Companies only provide the information we need to make informed choices because it's required by law.
GMO is pretty controversial. A lot of them are probably harmless, some are even improvements. But you can't just make your own decision about whether to eat them or not, because you can't tell what's GMO and what isn't. Companies spend millions of dollars to fight legislation that would require them to label foods that use this technology so that people can't make informed decision about it for themselves. No matter what you think about GMO, it seems like letting people make their own decisions would be the right way to go. If people are to be able to make those informed decisions, it will only be because government passed a law requiring that information to be available.6 -
4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
From my understanding of the proposed regulation, they were looking at limiting the size/number of calories per serving, not the number of servings one could get if they were truly hungry.
Would you think that in most cases if they made a Big Mac meal 10% smaller, people would buy extra one?
That is actually a good question. It could go two ways, still buy one meal and get 90% of the original calories, or think "man that is small now I need 2" and eat 180% of the calories. I think it might depend on how noticeable the change in size of the food was.
It seems that we've tended to eat more as portion sizes have gone up, and our assumption of what's normal has increased. I actually found this when I started counting calories: I used to eyeball pasta and eat way more than a serving, but when I started measuring it out what seemed potentially small surprised me in how filling it is. Same with fast food -- I rarely get it, but when I have since calorie counting I've gotten a single or whatever (just the hamburger) and been surprised that it was reasonably filling. I've gotten small fries or just a larger burger, no fries -- total calories quite reasonable. That's not me eating a "diet" meal, that's me eating what WAS a normal portion for an adult back when the chains first begun or even into the '70s or '80s.
So I do suspect if portion sizes were decreased a little people would be fine and happy with them, for the most part.
However, I also think the reason they are big is that customers (certainly in the US, probably in the UK as well) like the idea of value, so these types of restaurants compete with each other by offering more for less, so the responsibility has been firmly in the hands of the customers, not the restaurants.5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
From my understanding of the proposed regulation, they were looking at limiting the size/number of calories per serving, not the number of servings one could get if they were truly hungry.
Would you think that in most cases if they made a Big Mac meal 10% smaller, people would buy extra one?
That is actually a good question. It could go two ways, still buy one meal and get 90% of the original calories, or think "man that is small now I need 2" and eat 180% of the calories. I think it might depend on how noticeable the change in size of the food was.
It seems that we've tended to eat more as portion sizes have gone up, and our assumption of what's normal has increased. I actually found this when I started counting calories: I used to eyeball pasta and eat way more than a serving, but when I started measuring it out what seemed potentially small surprised me in how filling it is. Same with fast food -- I rarely get it, but when I have since calorie counting I've gotten a single or whatever (just the hamburger) and been surprised that it was reasonably filling. I've gotten small fries or just a larger burger, no fries -- total calories quite reasonable. That's not me eating a "diet" meal, that's me eating what WAS a normal portion for an adult back when the chains first begun or even into the '70s or '80s.
So I do suspect if portion sizes were decreased a little people would be fine and happy with them, for the most part.
However, I also think the reason they are big is that customers (certainly in the US, probably in the UK as well) like the idea of value, so these types of restaurants compete with each other by offering more for less, so the responsibility has been firmly in the hands of the customers, not the restaurants.
I see that. But, I am the type of person who would be like hummm, its smaller now, and I am hungry. I will get two. And I tend to eat fast so would eat both before feeling full. Hence why I have weight to lose
.
ETA, but if they make the change small enough I don't notice then I would probably be tricked and eat fewer calories. Obviously you are trading off impact of the change though.2 -
I do not need the government to parent me and control my portion sizes. I am a grown A woman and I have self discipline. They should however post calorie counts because it is good information to have to make well informed decisions on what you want to eat or don't want to eat.4
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »
Well, let's see. Here are some of my past jobs;Packerjohn wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »What about those whose job involves hard physical labor and they require high calorie food? Are they going to have to buy two lunches now to get through the rest of the day just because others have no self control?
You realize how small a % of the population this involves in a developed country?
Forestry, managed forest and fought forest fires.
Airborne Ranger in the army.
Pipe fitter/pipe welder, new construction.
Prior to those I was a competitive triathlete. Completed 2 ironman triathlons,(2.4 mile swim, 112 mile bike, 26.2 mile run) and countless shorter ones over the course of 5 years while working in forestry and landscaping.
Those are just my experiences, how about professions like roofing?
I'm also an avid hiker doing day hikes as long as 20 miles. I want to be able to order as much food as I want after a hike like that.
I'm sure no one is going to restrict the amount of food you can buy. I wouldn't waste energy worrying about it.
Having to buy two meals instead of one large one costs quite a bit more.
At subway for example, a footlong BLT sub costs $7.96. If the government said they could no longer sell footlong subs because they have too many calories and I had to buy two 6 inch subs it would now cost me $10.18. That's $2.59 more.0 -
And what if I wanted to buy that footlong sub and split it with someone? Or eat half of it now and save the rest for later? Is the government going to make exceptions to that?peckchris3267 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »
Well, let's see. Here are some of my past jobs;Packerjohn wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »What about those whose job involves hard physical labor and they require high calorie food? Are they going to have to buy two lunches now to get through the rest of the day just because others have no self control?
You realize how small a % of the population this involves in a developed country?
Forestry, managed forest and fought forest fires.
Airborne Ranger in the army.
Pipe fitter/pipe welder, new construction.
Prior to those I was a competitive triathlete. Completed 2 ironman triathlons,(2.4 mile swim, 112 mile bike, 26.2 mile run) and countless shorter ones over the course of 5 years while working in forestry and landscaping.
Those are just my experiences, how about professions like roofing?
I'm also an avid hiker doing day hikes as long as 20 miles. I want to be able to order as much food as I want after a hike like that.
I'm sure no one is going to restrict the amount of food you can buy. I wouldn't waste energy worrying about it.
Having to buy two meals instead of one large one costs quite a bit more.
At subway for example, a footlong BLT sub costs $7.96. If the government said they could no longer sell footlong subs because they have too many calories and I had to buy two 6 inch subs it would now cost me $10.18. That's $2.59 more.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 982 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions