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
Replies
-
For the burger they probably are not including the bun and ketchup!0
-
Sorry trying again pressed the wrong button!
I am shocked, surprised and somewhat disappointed at the level of vitriol directed at this proposal on a forum about dieting, health and fitness.
It is voluntary - that means food manufacturers do not have to do it! They can still sell their mega calorie loaded extravaganza if that is what they want to do.
A classic tip for people dieting is to get smaller plates. I think there was a study - it was mentioned I believe in the video on YouTube on the AtoZ study ("is anyone winning at loosing") that gave people 20% smaller portions without them knowing and they were just as satisfied. Famously people will eat up stale popcorn until it is gone partly just because it is there!
Sure some people might eat more but if their big macs and ready meals contain 10%-20% fewer calories most will probably just eat 10%-20% fewer calories.
The arguments were used about taking salt out of processed food (on a voluntary basis) - it was said people will just add it back in and it is up to people to take responsibility. But it has proved successful in the UK and is saving thousands of lives a year and stopping people getting things like strokes which devastate their lives. http://www.actiononsalt.org.uk/UK Salt Reduction Programme/145617.html
A typical rhetorical device is to say what about other measures - education and personal responsibility, labelling.
It is not an either/or choice but a both/and choice.
The UK has some pretty good public education programmes Such as "one you" www.nhs.uk/oneyou and swapping out sugar campaign. And labelling is very good in supermarkets in the UK but could be better in chain restaurants and takeaways especially as regards availability.
I appreciate that many Americans feel that anything that smacks of big government is by definition bad but food is subject to many laws, rules and regulations as we want our food to be safe and hygienic.
If you saw someone being attacked by lions you might just grab a gun and shoot the lions.
If thousands of planes were falling out of the sky and killing and maiming millions then people would demand government action and regulation to make things safer.
We are being pursued by lions - it is just slowly and it is by excess weight.
Millions of people are dying early and suffering from heart disease because of being overweight.
Now clearly it needs a multi-prong approach.
But the evidence is give someone two identical looking meals - one with 10% fewer calories then they will feel just as satiated. The difference being if they eat 10% fewer calories they may well not become obese and then suffer from type 2 diabetes, heart attacks or strokes.
2 -
I think you have misrepresented what was said by omitting that it's voluntary and your title appears to be deliberately inaccurate just to create a reaction.
Setting targets isn't mandating what people are allowed to eat. Same as the (successful) salt reduction initiative - people are free to add their own if they wish.
It's perfectly easy to make lower calorie choices at restaurants and fast food outlets if people choose to. You don't need an accurate calorie count for that, just a bit of common sense.
That common sense isn't that common is the bigger problem.
2 -
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.
fwiw it is unaffordable, as well as poorly managed. Given the growth in treatment options available the cost base is perpetually growing. At some point I think we're likely to see a debate around what services should be free at the point of consumption and which aren't.
I'd also observe that preventive treatments are much more difficult to prescribe, and given the taxpayers equity dimension it becomes very difficult to argue that money should be spent in that way, when our public debate is simplistic.
1 -
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.
I'm interested in your supporting evidence for these assertions...3 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Source: I fricking live in the UK, and I know how government regulation works here.
But the point is not to have a grown up debate about this when one can have some foaming at the mouth ill informed reactionary rhetoric.
4 -
I am for regulating portion sizes. Some people are truly not aware about what a portion size should look like. In my country several US restaurants have been setting up and their portion sizes are fricking huge. Their serving plates are like flying saucers and drinks look like really tall buckets. Almost four regular sized cups of local soda can fit into the cup at Burger King. As this progresses there's gonna be a generation of kids who would think these giant sized portions are normal.3
-
This article was on the BBC this morning about the UK government setting targets to reduce the calories in fast food and ready meals.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40967300
Responses on Facebook were very negative with people feeling that this was too 'nanny-state' but I can see the benefits. It is difficult to make healthy decisions on convenience food when you only have an array of high calorie options. Bringing down he calories and portion sizes as a whole will help people make better decisions.
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.
What do you think?
For a start what doesn't help any informed debate is the suggestion that an advisory agency is " the government". Notwithstanding that HMG isn't a single entity, but rather a collection of mutually competitive fiefdoms, the role of PHE is to set guidelines. Given that both Tory and Labour party philosophies tend towards the interventionist the greater concern is the suggestion that if voluntary uptake isn't good enough then legislation will follow. Neither majority party will challenge the need for legislation, they'll fiddle round the edge of it gets to that stage.
Regardless, the guidelines do move the public health debate on from a very simplistic focus on single ingredients; salt, sugar etc. That in itself is a good thing, although I'd suggest that it doesn't move it in very far.
In the debate we've got two dimensions; quantity and quality. This recognises that quantity is a factor that needs to be thought about. Having that public debate is a good thing, but the nature of the debate is simplistic and nonsensical. Quality of media coverage is poor across the board. In terms of my own positioning, I'm an Economist reader...
From my own perspective I don't see the intervention as all that useful, although I do see some of these portion sizes as already quite small. I'll do a McDonald's breakfast after Parkrun and I'm only getting 550 calories out of a portion. Skimming 50 off that isn't going to have a huge impact on me. That said, I'm generally the only person in there in running kit, having just burned off 300 calories.
We do have a growing public health liability around obesity, and weight related chronic conditions. Given that we have a system of primary and acute care that is free at the point of consumption it's a legitimate debate to have. It becomes about where to place investment decisions, and how far upstream the public health system has a liability for investment.3 -
VintageFeline wrote: »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.
And you haven't commented on anything going on in the US?
Fact of the matter is, whether you think the service is broke or not, 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.
We see beginnings of this in the US as government is assuming a larger % of heathcare costs. Obesity is one of the biggest controllable drivers of health care costs. Naturally we are going to see pushes by government for more restrictive regulation on nutrient poor/high calorie foods as an effort to reduce these costs.
1 -
Given that both Tory and Labour party philosophies tend towards the interventionist the greater concern is the suggestion that if voluntary uptake isn't good enough then legislation will follow. Neither majority party will challenge the need for legislation, they'll fiddle round the edge of it gets to that stage
I think the bigger concern is that the governments of all descriptions don't deal firmly enough with the food industry and we are not talking legislation but backsliding from the food industry in agreements they have signed with the government. They are a powerful lobby and they want to protect their profits which is legitimate in a capitalist system but it does impact on public health.From my own perspective I don't see the intervention as all that useful, although I do see some of these portion sizes as already quite small. I'll do a McDonald's breakfast after Parkrun and I'm only getting 550 calories out of a portion. Skimming 50 off that isn't going to have a huge impact on me. That said, I'm generally the only person in there in running kit, having just burned off 300 calories
If someone is now eating 10% less - say for sake of argument 2000 cals is their maintenance and they are now eating that rather than 2200 then that is 20lbs less in weight in a year which might save someone from type 2 diabetes, strokes, heart disease.
Of course designing policies that affect potentially the whole population is a challenge - adding vitamins to foods for example. For example virtually all milk (99%) in the US is fortified with vitamin D but not in the UK.
But the reduction in salt saving thousands of lives shows what can be achieved voluntarily and not affecting all sectors and types of food.1 -
I don't know about regulating meals to be honest. I think ready meals designed for one should offer a good range of meals in whatever calories you need out of them.
I do however welcome smaller size chocolate bars and sweets because I am glutton!
ETA: I would love it if all chains could adopt calorie/nutrition information. Even the more home made/independent places can approximate calories accurately enough or give us the ingredients list to work out for ourselves.1 -
I'd be for this because at the end of the day, it's really still down to personal choice. It's not like the government are going to kidnap people and force them to eat less, it's just about reducing the amount of unnecessary calories in the meals we buy. If a ready meal is reduced from 800 calories to 500 calories, someone can still very much choose to buy two, or have something else with it. But for those who would still only eat one, it would be a great help towards them losing weight. Something has to be done about the obesity epidemic. We can't just sit here and do nothing. Education, too, is needed. I know a lot of obese people. They are my dearest loved ones. They are amazing people... but they are severely obese and this is down to them not understanding how much they are putting in their bodies. They blame medical issues and refuse to accept that most of their weight is their own fault. If the meals they ate were reduced for them in combination with education, I think they could be helped.
Denying people care on the NHS if they're obese is definitely not the answer, either. That's not what the NHS stands for. It's not like private health insurance. You aren't going to be denied because of a pre-existing health condition. The NHS is for everyone. Of course, it's not a case of 'everything you want can be done on the NHS'. You already can't get 'cosmetic' things done unless it's a severe issue (affects your physical or mental health). Regulating how many calories are in certain meals would go some way to taking off the pressure obesity puts on the service.1 -
What I think so far is that the author of the piece combined PHE and broad social policies with discussion of primary school feeding policies. For the broad social policy, I'm disinclined to confer credibility on an organization which prides itself on success at reducing salt intake. The science on salt intake is very ambiguous, and a government that chooses to elevate ambiguous science to political certainty is lacking in credibility. For the school feeding policy, on the other hand, the government can easily adjust the calories available to the student population in an effort to control their physical size. Whether they'll succeed or not is going to depend upon the families of the students and upon how those students are fed outside the school.2
-
Sorry trying again pressed the wrong button!
I am shocked, surprised and somewhat disappointed at the level of vitriol directed at this proposal on a forum about dieting, health and fitness.
I dislike it when people say things like this when in reality the supposed vitriol is only a poster or two. Why not address the specific comments you are thinking of, rather than have the rest of us wonder if our views or tone were misread?4 -
Almost four regular sized cups of local soda can fit into the cup at Burger King.
Is there just one size at BK in your country? I haven't been to a BK for ages, but the last time I went there were still multiple sizes and I would be shocked if that were not still the case. Buying a large or extra large and complaining it's too big seems odd.
Are the smalls still crazy big? They might be -- I know they are at a movie theater, since I was just at one. But you can ask for water or get a calorie free option like diet coke. I get giant iced coffees (cold brew), which have few calories (black), and I know they are way more than a serving. Does having larger sizes routinely affect our perception of what normal is? Yeah, I think so, but on the individual level we don't have to let it.1 -
I was curious, so I had a google, and I cannot find the nutritional info and serving sizes for BK in the UK at all on google, but I can for the USA. Maybe it's there, but it's not as easy to find.
It's almost as if there needs to be a push on the fast food industry in the UK...
Anyway, I then ran the drinks serving sizes through a converter (I'm English and under 40, I have no bloody idea what a fluid ounce is), and now I understand why US-based online discussions on weight loss centre around soda so much.
Enlightening. I love the internet! All the consciousness-expanding of overseas travel without the airfare.2 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »I was curious, so I had a google, and I cannot find the nutritional info and serving sizes for BK in the UK at all on google, but I can for the USA. Maybe it's there, but it's not as easy to find.
It's almost as if there needs to be a push on the fast food industry in the UK...
Anyway, I then ran the drinks serving sizes through a converter (I'm English and under 40, I have no bloody idea what a fluid ounce is), and now I understand why US-based online discussions on weight loss centre around soda so much.
Enlightening. I love the internet! All the consciousness-expanding of overseas travel without the airfare.
I just looked, it's there on their site, click on food, click on whatever category, click on specific product, click on nutrition. Sounds a lot of steps but it's not in reality.
Their basic hamburger is only 250 calories interestingly.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »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.
And you haven't commented on anything going on in the US?
Fact of the matter is, whether you think the service is broke or not, 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.
We see beginnings of this in the US as government is assuming a larger % of heathcare costs. Obesity is one of the biggest controllable drivers of health care costs. Naturally we are going to see pushes by government for more restrictive regulation on nutrient poor/high calorie foods as an effort to reduce these costs.
Not many policy decisions no. Certainly not things like healthcare beyond being against the insurance model because I just don't know enough. I may make a broad comment about something with caveats about my knowledge level. I know my limitations.3 -
Ah, I see. It works for the food, but I only tried clicking the drinks! And then gave up. Am I a muppet? Yes, yes I am.VintageFeline wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »I was curious, so I had a google, and I cannot find the nutritional info and serving sizes for BK in the UK at all on google, but I can for the USA. Maybe it's there, but it's not as easy to find.
It's almost as if there needs to be a push on the fast food industry in the UK...
Anyway, I then ran the drinks serving sizes through a converter (I'm English and under 40, I have no bloody idea what a fluid ounce is), and now I understand why US-based online discussions on weight loss centre around soda so much.
Enlightening. I love the internet! All the consciousness-expanding of overseas travel without the airfare.
I just looked, it's there on their site, click on food, click on whatever category, click on specific product, click on nutrition. Sounds a lot of steps but it's not in reality.
Their basic hamburger is only 250 calories interestingly.
Still want to know for sure what a large Cola in BK is here though. I'm guessing approx 500ml, but I don't know.
0 -
For all goverments these issues/health concerns boil down to $$$ issues and how to tax to get those $$$ to pay for our health failures regardless of the causes. Letting people die off rematurely does not solve the $$$ issue because they can suck up so much money in medical treatments near the end of their shortened life cycle.1
-
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
Ah, I see. It works for the food, but I only tried clicking the drinks! And then gave up. Am I a muppet? Yes, yes I am.VintageFeline wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »I was curious, so I had a google, and I cannot find the nutritional info and serving sizes for BK in the UK at all on google, but I can for the USA. Maybe it's there, but it's not as easy to find.
It's almost as if there needs to be a push on the fast food industry in the UK...
Anyway, I then ran the drinks serving sizes through a converter (I'm English and under 40, I have no bloody idea what a fluid ounce is), and now I understand why US-based online discussions on weight loss centre around soda so much.
Enlightening. I love the internet! All the consciousness-expanding of overseas travel without the airfare.
I just looked, it's there on their site, click on food, click on whatever category, click on specific product, click on nutrition. Sounds a lot of steps but it's not in reality.
Their basic hamburger is only 250 calories interestingly.
Still want to know for sure what a large Cola in BK is here though. I'm guessing approx 500ml, but I don't know.
You're right on the drinks, I didn't check those. I have just tried McDonalds and they don't give a volume amount, just the size, small,medium, large. The medium is 170 calories. But for drinks I think it is even more imperfect because with ice, without, how much ice vs soda has actually gone into the cup etc etc. I struggle to finish the medium with ice (but get diet so it's moot for me) so have no idea what the large looks like really, I think with ice it likely is around 500ml.0 -
I've seen some study where people will order whatever size they order (medium, say), regardless of what the actual sizes are, so when fast food restaurants sized up sodas (I believe that basically they discontinued the old small, made old medium "small" and so on), people stuck with the old size.
I always get water or diet so forget that significant portions of the calories in a meal can be soda, but that kind of thing can make a difference. And I know in movies I've gotten a bigger size than I wanted because they are all expensive but the large is such a better deal (just 5 cents more than medium or some such). And then regretted it because it's a trough I cannot finish and dislike holding.1 -
Satisfaction after a meal has a huge mental component, and that accords with other research showing that people don't notice minor reductions in serving size.lemurcat12 wrote: »I've seen some study where people will order whatever size they order (medium, say), regardless of what the actual sizes are, so when fast food restaurants sized up sodas (I believe that basically they discontinued the old small, made old medium "small" and so on), people stuck with the old size.
I always get water or diet so forget that significant portions of the calories in a meal can be soda, but that kind of thing can make a difference. And I know in movies I've gotten a bigger size than I wanted because they are all expensive but the large is such a better deal (just 5 cents more than medium or some such). And then regretted it because it's a trough I cannot finish and dislike holding.
I always order large myself, wherever I go, unless I'm really worrying about calories, because it's a better deal. I suspect that if I didn't, I would worry about not having enough to drink... This despite the fact I always come out of Subway or McDonalds (Burger King is the other side of town) with a partially full dispensing cup and have to finish it off on the walk home. Ridiculous of me, but there it is.
However, large here is generally 500ml at all the places I normally go, which is 17.6 (to 1 decimal place) fluid ounces, so drinks with occasional meals out don't have such a huge impact on my diet.
On the other hand, takeaway curry does. Swings and roundabouts.McDonaldsUK wrote:Our soft drinks machines are calibrated to deliver different sized servings depending on the size of drink that has been ordered and are as follows:
Small - 250ml
Medium - 400ml
Large - 500 ml
http://www.mcdonalds.co.uk/ukhome/whatmakesmcdonalds/questions/food/drinks/how-many-ml-are-in-your-small-medium-and-large-fizzy-soft-drinks.html
I'm fascinated by how large American soft drinks in restaurants are now, tbh. I wonder if Americans are, on average, much better hydrated than people in the UK!
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I've seen some study where people will order whatever size they order (medium, say), regardless of what the actual sizes are, so when fast food restaurants sized up sodas (I believe that basically they discontinued the old small, made old medium "small" and so on), people stuck with the old size.
I always get water or diet so forget that significant portions of the calories in a meal can be soda, but that kind of thing can make a difference. And I know in movies I've gotten a bigger size than I wanted because they are all expensive but the large is such a better deal (just 5 cents more than medium or some such). And then regretted it because it's a trough I cannot finish and dislike holding.
Saw this listing of drink sizes. Calories are for typical non-diet soda:
McDonalds
Kids 12 oz. — 120 calories
Small 16 oz. — 150 calories
Med 21 oz. — 210 calories
Large 32 oz. — 310 calories
Burger King
Value 16 oz. — 140 calories
Small 20 oz. — 190 calories
Medium 30 oz. — 290 calories
Large 40 oz. — 380 calories
KFC
Small 16 oz. — 180 calories
Medium 20 oz. — 230 calories
Large 30 oz. — 350 calories
Mega Jug 64 oz. — 780 calories
Not sure how they come up with some different calorie numbers between businesses for the same number of ounces. Expected ice allowance?
Way back in the day we would go to the Dairy Queen and get a large Coke after hay bailing. At that time the large Coke was humongous compared to the other sizes offered. It was either 16 or 20 oz. We were HS kids drinking it after 7-8 hours of moving 80-90 pound bales of hay around in 100+ degree temperatures.
Don't remember anyone in the group getting 2 because 20 oz wasn't enough and nobody was fat either.1 -
"Mega jug" Please tell me that's some sort of sharing option?2
-
VintageFeline wrote: »"Mega jug" Please tell me that's some sort of sharing option?
No, and that's the problem, people drink the whole thing. I believe some convenience stores call the 64oz the bladder buster.1 -
How?!Packerjohn wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »"Mega jug" Please tell me that's some sort of sharing option?
No, and that's the problem, people drink the whole thing. I believe some convenience stores call the 64oz the bladder buster.
That's 1.8 litres!
HOW?!
Thinking about it, I would expect someone to get through between 400ml to 1 litre of water over an hour of very intense exercise on a pleasantly hot summer's day. (25 degrees C/77 degrees F?)
1 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
How?!Packerjohn wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »"Mega jug" Please tell me that's some sort of sharing option?
No, and that's the problem, people drink the whole thing. I believe some convenience stores call the 64oz the bladder buster.
That's 1.8 litres!
HOW?!
Thinking about it, I would expect someone to get through between 400ml to 1 litre of water over an hour of very intense exercise on a pleasantly hot summer's day. (25 degrees C/77 degrees F?)
My wife shared an air conditioned office (sedentary job) with someone who brought in a 2L bottle of regular Coke every workday. She drank it all by herself before noon. She told my wife she drank a 2L before work also.
Meet one of the drivers of the obesity crisis.2 -
Another Brit here. Our Governments of either hew go on about the nation being obese yet they do not make policy decisions which enable people to be healthier, they continue to blame the population for their lack of current knowledge.
Years ago, in a highly sexist world of the 60's girls were taught to cook, boys had the good fortune to do wood or metal work and for the last school year one or two were permitted to join the girls for their cookery, but not the other way about, (gripe). Since then the system has failed to see any reason for a young person being given any instruction in basic cooking and nutrition skills. Few of their parents have those skills either either. Infant education makes great play of introducing children to proper food but when they are old enough to build a basic menue for themselves the opportunity is not there for them to learn.
Our Health Secretary seems to want to push the baby out with the bath water, in his attitude to the treatment of endocrine conditions, particularly those which impact on cardiac health, diabetes, respiratory issues, mental health, reproductive related issues, some cancers and many, many more conditions, he does this by simply refusing to permit the full evaluation of the endocrine system to ensure all of these glands and organs are working in harmony. NICE the organisation with control of the purse strings has its head in the very dark ages.
Under the current remit of the NHS there is no access to synthetic t3, thyroid hormone which some are incapable of making in the standard way. Whole swathes of us are unable to achieve better health without going private or doing our own research because we/our bodies do not conform to the UK accepted standard, left without the help we should be entitled to, dietary advice to enable conversion t4 to t3, advice on supplements to make up for dietary absorption issues and much more. As our health declines our measurements increase against the background of our constant dieting. Doctors took one look at me and told me with nothing more than a glance that I ate too much. My days food, a slice of dry toast for breakfast with 1 small banana, 2 rivita for lunch with 14g of cheese and salad leaves, a light evening meal, low carb veg, drinking water all day. Such damnable arrogance.
Until the Government opens it eyes to the research being done in modern hospitals mostly overseas because of the blanket ban on full endo, and t3 testing, holding on to the outdated food allergy and intolerance testing scheme, people will continue to be ill and fail to loose weight or respond to the restricted treatments which are permitted. I know all this from personal experience. There is so much advice given freely overseas which never sees the light of day over here. (I have accessed what I need with the help of a nutritionist and my life has changed completely in two years)
Until full evaluation of the endocrine system is permitted there will be an ever increasing need for coronary units, cancer treatments, diabetic clinics and many more health interventions which could be avoided including weight loss surgery. Enable the glands and organs of the endocrine system to work in concert over a full life time or what time is left and the NHS will not be faced with an increasing demand to repair people.
Rather than do the obvious, dietary and basic cooking education for the up to 18's and preventative testing for adults, the government prefers to go through the motions, will listen to people who want to tinker about with the calorific value of processed meals, thinking that every family lives on frozen meals, take outs or eats in restaurants or other outlets and snacks every day of their lives. They seem oblivious to the number of food banks around the country and charities supporting the poorly paid, not to mention those who have had their entitlement to additional financial help refused because there is a fear of fraud. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.6 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I've seen some study where people will order whatever size they order (medium, say), regardless of what the actual sizes are, so when fast food restaurants sized up sodas (I believe that basically they discontinued the old small, made old medium "small" and so on), people stuck with the old size.
I always get water or diet so forget that significant portions of the calories in a meal can be soda, but that kind of thing can make a difference. And I know in movies I've gotten a bigger size than I wanted because they are all expensive but the large is such a better deal (just 5 cents more than medium or some such). And then regretted it because it's a trough I cannot finish and dislike holding.
Saw this listing of drink sizes. Calories are for typical non-diet soda:
McDonalds
Kids 12 oz. — 120 calories
Small 16 oz. — 150 calories
Med 21 oz. — 210 calories
Large 32 oz. — 310 calories
Burger King
Value 16 oz. — 140 calories
Small 20 oz. — 190 calories
Medium 30 oz. — 290 calories
Large 40 oz. — 380 calories
KFC
Small 16 oz. — 180 calories
Medium 20 oz. — 230 calories
Large 30 oz. — 350 calories
Mega Jug 64 oz. — 780 calories
Not sure how they come up with some different calorie numbers between businesses for the same number of ounces. Expected ice allowance?
Way back in the day we would go to the Dairy Queen and get a large Coke after hay bailing. At that time the large Coke was humongous compared to the other sizes offered. It was either 16 or 20 oz. We were HS kids drinking it after 7-8 hours of moving 80-90 pound bales of hay around in 100+ degree temperatures.
Don't remember anyone in the group getting 2 because 20 oz wasn't enough and nobody was fat either.
I have a colleague who has recently come over from the US. She asked Starbucks if she could take a picture of their cups because she found them comically small.5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions