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: »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.
You're assuming that prices wouldn't change or places like Subway wouldn't institute special deals specifically for customers who were seeking greater volume in the wake of such changes.
1 -
It's not the government's job to tell people what to eat. Vast overreach.5
-
Yes, I am assuming that. They would make more money and be able to blame the prices on the government. Win win for them.janejellyroll wrote: »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.
You're assuming that prices wouldn't change or places like Subway wouldn't institute special deals specifically for customers who were seeking greater volume in the wake of such changes.
1 -
Footlong subs are not going to be banned in the UK. I promise.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.
Source: I fricking live in the UK, and I know how government regulation works here.
In an alternate universe where they were banned, I'd fund the price increase with the money I save by only ever buying 500ml of Coca Cola per person when we eat out.
4 -
VintageFeline wrote: »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.
The simple definition for going broke for a business, government entity, family, individual, etc is their revenue (regardless of the source) is less than their expenses on a regular basis. You can do 3 things to fix this, bring in more revenue, reduce expenses or some combination of the 2. It appears GB is looking at the cost side with limits on portion sizes/calories.
0 -
If governments are hoping to reduce the obesity rates it would be more effective to put the time and money into a coordinated "Healthy You!" type campaign rather by going about it piecemeal, one negative element at a time. They won't make a dent in habits for the majority of the population any more than taxing soda or reducing fast food portions will make much difference for most (people will eat and drink what they want unless there's a reason that's compelling to them not to, such as developing diabetes or heart disease), but I think this type of program could reach a greater percentage of the minority.
Sound-bites that highlight a single component of healthy eating aren't useful to the majority of people, even those actively trying to manage their weight. Taxing soda (because sugar is bad) but not applying the same logic to candy bars and cake, monitoring fast food portion sizes without also monitoring restaurant servings doesn't teach people how to eat more nutrient-dense food in appropriate portions. Pointing people towards the current version of the "food pyramid" doesn't teach them how to incorporate the principles into their everyday meals (for instance, for the longest time I thought "eat 5-7 servings of fruits and 2-3 servings of fruit daily" meant actually eating 1 portion of 5 different vegetables and 2 different fruits, which was never going to happen).
I don't know where the money would come from, but I think the only kind of effective government-sponsored weight and health management program would have to involve a massive, multi-media campaign (internet, tv/radio. billboards) providing clear directions on how to access comprehensive support in those areas. Have the information available in printed form in places people tend to go anyway as well as online, like "pick up your guide to a healthy life at any post office or grocery store". Include detailed instructions on how to meal-plan and include the foods you like. How to work with chaotic schedules. How to avoid the "all or nothing" mindset by incorporating reasonable amounts of treats into daily life. Create "healthy living" centers providing individual support for both the short and long term. Make risk management and mitigation a required class in high school.
Note that I'm only laying out what I think I think it would take for a government-sponsored push to reduce obesity and the accompanying health costs. I'm not advocating for or against such a program, and have mixed feelings on the complications involved in funding in particular.
edits for spelling, grammar and punctuation1 -
No one ever imagined that 32ounce sodas would be banned in NYC either, but it happened.HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
Footlong subs are not going to be banned in the UK. I promise.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.
Source: I fricking live in the UK, and I know how government regulation works here.
In an alternate universe where they were banned, I'd fund the price increase with the money I save by only ever buying 500ml of Coca Cola per person when we eat out.
4 -
What if the revenue is being allocated to different areas, i.e. not the NHS, due to the ideological convictions of the decisionmakers and/or corruption?Packerjohn wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »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.
The simple definition for going broke for a business, government entity, family, individual, etc is their revenue (regardless of the source) is less than their expenses on a regular basis. You can do 3 things to fix this, bring in more revenue, reduce expenses or some combination of the 2. It appears GB is looking at the cost side with limits on portion sizes/calories.
Or simply spent poorly, on account of a neverending stream of false economies. For example, a minister tries to save money by cutting funding to coastal sea defenses. Severe flooding, to the value of much more than the cost of the coast defenses (hello, we are an ISLAND. The coast needs upkeep...) then happens along coastal towns...
P.S. This. Actually. Happened.
4 -
Ye gods. Did that reference go over your head?peckchris3267 wrote: »
No one ever imagined that 32ounce sodas would be banned in NYC either, but it happened.HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
Footlong subs are not going to be banned in the UK. I promise.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.
Source: I fricking live in the UK, and I know how government regulation works here.
In an alternate universe where they were banned, I'd fund the price increase with the money I save by only ever buying 500ml of Coca Cola per person when we eat out.
Dude. I was on that thread. I KNOW 32 ounce sodas were not banned in NYC. In fact, thanks to your outraged thread and the pushback on it, there are probably remote tribes in the Amazon who now know that 32 ounce sodas were never banned in NYC.
9 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
What if the revenue is being allocated to different areas, i.e. not the NHS, due to the ideological convictions of the decisionmakers and/or corruption?Packerjohn wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »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.
The simple definition for going broke for a business, government entity, family, individual, etc is their revenue (regardless of the source) is less than their expenses on a regular basis. You can do 3 things to fix this, bring in more revenue, reduce expenses or some combination of the 2. It appears GB is looking at the cost side with limits on portion sizes/calories.
Or simply spent poorly, on account of a neverending stream of false economies. For example, a minister tries to save money by cutting funding to coastal sea defenses. Severe flooding, to the value of much more than the cost of the coast defenses (hello, we are an ISLAND. The coast needs upkeep...) then happens along coastal towns...
P.S. This. Actually. Happened.
It's still going broke. Believe me, I live in Illinois, we're the definition of corruption, allocating money to other areas (huge pension mess), debt at close to junk bond status, etc.1 -
peckchris3267 wrote: »
Yes, I am assuming that. They would make more money and be able to blame the prices on the government. Win win for them.janejellyroll wrote: »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.
You're assuming that prices wouldn't change or places like Subway wouldn't institute special deals specifically for customers who were seeking greater volume in the wake of such changes.
I think that's a completely baseless assumption. Price is a major driver in fast food decision making and offering good deals is a way to get people in the door.2 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
What if the revenue is being allocated to different areas, i.e. not the NHS, due to the ideological convictions of the decisionmakers and/or corruption?Packerjohn wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »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.
The simple definition for going broke for a business, government entity, family, individual, etc is their revenue (regardless of the source) is less than their expenses on a regular basis. You can do 3 things to fix this, bring in more revenue, reduce expenses or some combination of the 2. It appears GB is looking at the cost side with limits on portion sizes/calories.
Or simply spent poorly, on account of a neverending stream of false economies. For example, a minister tries to save money by cutting funding to coastal sea defenses. Severe flooding, to the value of much more than the cost of the coast defenses (hello, we are an ISLAND. The coast needs upkeep...) then happens along coastal towns...
P.S. This. Actually. Happened.
This is very likely to happen in the US, since a lot of these taxes are local or state and go into the general fund earmarked for specific purposes. The funding can be diverted as deemed necessary by the government. I see these kinds of explicit taxes as cynical money-grabs and not an attempt to reduce obesity in the general population.0 -
peckchris3267 wrote: »
No one ever imagined that 32ounce sodas would be banned in NYC either, but it happened.HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
Footlong subs are not going to be banned in the UK. I promise.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.
Source: I fricking live in the UK, and I know how government regulation works here.
In an alternate universe where they were banned, I'd fund the price increase with the money I save by only ever buying 500ml of Coca Cola per person when we eat out.
Oh, no. This again?2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
What if the revenue is being allocated to different areas, i.e. not the NHS, due to the ideological convictions of the decisionmakers and/or corruption?Packerjohn wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »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.
The simple definition for going broke for a business, government entity, family, individual, etc is their revenue (regardless of the source) is less than their expenses on a regular basis. You can do 3 things to fix this, bring in more revenue, reduce expenses or some combination of the 2. It appears GB is looking at the cost side with limits on portion sizes/calories.
Or simply spent poorly, on account of a neverending stream of false economies. For example, a minister tries to save money by cutting funding to coastal sea defenses. Severe flooding, to the value of much more than the cost of the coast defenses (hello, we are an ISLAND. The coast needs upkeep...) then happens along coastal towns...
P.S. This. Actually. Happened.
It's still going broke. Believe me, I live in Illinois, we're the definition of corruption, allocating money to other areas (huge pension mess), debt at close to junk bond status, etc.
Here's a thought. Maybe, just maybe, those who live in the country where the NHS exists, who have friends and family who work in the NHS and are also politically literate, might know a bit more about it than someone in the USA?
This isn't a discussion about the NHS or whether it's going broke but about legislating portion sizes.10 -
peckchris3267 wrote: »
Yes, I am assuming that. They would make more money and be able to blame the prices on the government. Win win for them.janejellyroll wrote: »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.
You're assuming that prices wouldn't change or places like Subway wouldn't institute special deals specifically for customers who were seeking greater volume in the wake of such changes.
This is how it would work in the absence of competition.
And "I assume" isn't a great argument. Just saying.3 -
I think it's intellectually dishonest to conflate different issues, like mismanagement, corruption or prioritisation under "broke".Packerjohn wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
What if the revenue is being allocated to different areas, i.e. not the NHS, due to the ideological convictions of the decisionmakers and/or corruption?Packerjohn wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »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.
The simple definition for going broke for a business, government entity, family, individual, etc is their revenue (regardless of the source) is less than their expenses on a regular basis. You can do 3 things to fix this, bring in more revenue, reduce expenses or some combination of the 2. It appears GB is looking at the cost side with limits on portion sizes/calories.
Or simply spent poorly, on account of a neverending stream of false economies. For example, a minister tries to save money by cutting funding to coastal sea defenses. Severe flooding, to the value of much more than the cost of the coast defenses (hello, we are an ISLAND. The coast needs upkeep...) then happens along coastal towns...
P.S. This. Actually. Happened.
It's still going broke. Believe me, I live in Illinois, we're the definition of corruption, allocating money to other areas (huge pension mess), debt at close to junk bond status, etc.
I have plenty of money to feed and clothe my children each day as long as I make sensible decisions like a reasonable adult . However, if I spend an exorbitant amount of money on discretionary home improvements and renovations (a palatial bathroom, for instance- British readers may know where I'm going with this one), I won't. But would it be fair or justifiable for me to say, "I know it's my responsibility to care for my children, but they can only have one meal a day for the next five years because I'm broke. It's terribly unfortunate, but just not enough revenue has come in from my job to cover our expenses, and costs have to be cut somewhere"?
In my view, that would be totally wrong. I feel the same way about the underfunding of public services in my country at the moment.3 -
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.
In this hypothetical situation, I'm sure they'd find a way around it, like buy one, get a second for half price.
But OBVIOUSLY the US is not going to limit fast food portion sizes.
And the thing in the UK is about setting targets companies can voluntarily choose to meet.1 -
peckchris3267 wrote: »
Yes, I am assuming that. They would make more money and be able to blame the prices on the government. Win win for them.janejellyroll wrote: »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.
You're assuming that prices wouldn't change or places like Subway wouldn't institute special deals specifically for customers who were seeking greater volume in the wake of such changes.
If the goal was to make more money based on smaller sizes, they wouldn't have the giant sizes they do now. They clearly find it beneficial to be able to sell volume/value.1 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
Ye gods. Did that reference go over your head?peckchris3267 wrote: »
No one ever imagined that 32ounce sodas would be banned in NYC either, but it happened.HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
Footlong subs are not going to be banned in the UK. I promise.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.
Source: I fricking live in the UK, and I know how government regulation works here.
In an alternate universe where they were banned, I'd fund the price increase with the money I save by only ever buying 500ml of Coca Cola per person when we eat out.
Dude. I was on that thread. I KNOW 32 ounce sodas were not banned in NYC. In fact, thanks to your outraged thread and the pushback on it, there are probably remote tribes in the Amazon who now know that 32 ounce sodas were never banned in NYC.
Heh.2 -
NYC also banned trans fats from fast food restaurants.
So I never buy the argument that "it would never happen".2
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