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.
Is requiring posting calories of menu items going to help reduce obesity?
GaleHawkins
Posts: 8,159 Member
Replies
-
I think it’ll help, but I think a lot happens at home as well. We already have a lot of caloric listings in restaurants yet our obesity epidemic is ridiculous5
-
Marginally, if any. The only people checking labels are people already engaged.34
-
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »
No. It will only make it easier for persons who're already disciplined enough to care.21 -
I get asked a lot of questions by people I know face-to-face and one of the most frequent suggestions I have to make is, "check labels".5
-
Having calorie information readily available and visible makes it easier for those who wish to watch their calorie intake to do so. However, a lot of people may not know how many calories they personally need so that information is not useful for weight management until they know that.
14 -
I doubt it will do very much to curb the obesity problem.
Most of the calories where already available online for many popular restaurants. The information was already there for those who wanted to see it
The only difference now is that it'll be posted in plain view.
Lets use a McDonald's hamburger meal with French fries and regular pop as an example.
Say the meal is 1500 calories for arguments sake.
I think most adults know that the fast food meal is higher calorie. I think some of those adults do not care though. They probably know it's a high calorie choice but just don't care. They may have not known the calorie amount before but they still probably knew it was high calorie.
As much as people claim it isn't- calories are taught in American schools. My kids had to make a list of all the food they ate for the weekend and then look up how many calories where in each food. ( They didn't use scales but learned round about how many calories where in each food)
They then learned about how many calories they burnt each day and added up how many calories they consumed to see if they met or exceeded their calorie goal.
They talked about what other options where better to help them not exceed their goal. Like one serving of chips instead of 3 servings.
The teacher showed them what proper portions looked like and gave examples like 12 chips equals around 130 calories. So one serving would be fine but 3 servings would be too much for most of the kids.
My point is that from very early on kids are taught about it in public schools.
It's up to them if they use the information or not.
So I don't think posting the calories will help a lot but it's certainly worth a try.
The flip side is that there's still so many people that fail to grasp that calories matter. There's countless threads here where people think that calories don't count. They believe all types of misinformation like if they are keto that they can eat at a calorie surplus and not gain weight. They really think that they defy science. Posting calorie amounts wouldn't help these people because they don't even believe that calories matter for weight control.17 -
100_PROOF_ wrote: »I doubt it will do very much to curb the obesity problem.
Most of the calories where already available online for many popular restaurants. The information was already there for those who wanted to see it
The only difference now is that it'll be posted in plain view.
Lets use a McDonald's hamburger meal with French fries and regular pop as an example.
Say the meal is 1500 calories for arguments sake.
I think most adults know that the fast food meal is higher calorie. I think some of those adults do not care though. They probably know it's a high calorie choice but just don't care. They may have not known the calorie amount before but they still probably knew it was high calorie.
As much as people claim it isn't- calories are taught in American schools. My kids had to make a list of all the food they ate for the weekend and then look up how many calories where in each food. ( They didn't use scales but learned round about how many calories where in each food)
They then learned about how many calories they burnt each day and added up how many calories they consumed to see if they met or exceeded their calorie goal.
They talked about what other options where better to help them not exceed their goal. Like one serving of chips instead of 3 servings.
The teacher showed them what proper portions looked like and gave examples like 12 chips equals around 130 calories. So one serving would be fine but 3 servings would be too much for most of the kids.
My point is that from very early on kids are taught about it in public schools.
It's up to them if they use the information or not.
So I don't think posting the calories will help a lot but it's certainly worth a try.
The flip side is that there's still so many people that fail to grasp that calories matter. There's countless threads here where people think that calories don't count. They believe all types of misinformation like if they are keto that they can eat at a calorie surplus and not gain weight. They really think that they defy science. Posting calorie amounts wouldn't help these people because they don't even believe that calories matter for weight control.
Co-signed. I was going to type a post with almost these exact points. What it would do is make it easier for those who do care to manage their calories because they can make split-second decisions without having to look things up.6 -
100_PROOF_ wrote: »As much as people claim it isn't- calories are taught in American schools
And always have been, one of the reasons I get amused by people that act like the calorie-in/calorie-out model is some kind of ground-breaking, cutting edge science.
4 -
Without reading the article my inclination is to say no. Having the calorie information available is nice kind of like having free apps like MFP is nice, but neither are the motivating factor for actually controlling your weight. I applaud the calorie information being shared, I do think it is useful...but I don't think it is the solution.6
-
It will only help if the person knows how many calories they need in a day, and how many calories they have already eaten. And in my experience, most people don't know either of those numbers.
Or they'll look at all the numbers and go, "Oh my god, everything has so many calories, this is why I can't lose weight!" and then they'll order the biggest plate of deep fried stuff they can find along with dessert because life isn't fair and it's probably all fattening anyway.
As others have said, it's nice for those of us who are already doing the work. We have had calorie info in chain restaurants in NY for some time, and I find it helpful to spot menu items that sound like a good choice but that calorie number clues you in that the description is misleading. It's also a nice little reality check when you're about to throw caution to the wind and then seeing that number and imagining it in my food log stops me in my tracks.12 -
That article is... interesting.Moreover, the researchers found, people usually put back on more weight than they'd lost. This cruel twist is due to the fact that a person's metabolic rate slows down to accommodate semi-starvation, but it doesn't bounce back, resulting in a stubbornly depressed metabolism. To maintain that weight loss, it appears a person must restrict calories for life — a state of deprivation that, as it turns out, few humans can sustain.
They're acting like cutting your calories to a reasonable level is some terrible burden, only achievable by herculean strength and monk-like levels of asceticism.
But yeah, requiring calorie information will help my obesity, but that's because I've already committed to paying attention to calorie information. For people who aren't already paying attention, this won't do much at all.35 -
That article is... interesting.Moreover, the researchers found, people usually put back on more weight than they'd lost. This cruel twist is due to the fact that a person's metabolic rate slows down to accommodate semi-starvation, but it doesn't bounce back, resulting in a stubbornly depressed metabolism. To maintain that weight loss, it appears a person must restrict calories for life — a state of deprivation that, as it turns out, few humans can sustain.
They're acting like cutting your calories to a reasonable level is some terrible burden, only achievable by herculean strength and monk-like levels of asceticism.
But yeah, requiring calorie information will help my obesity, but that's because I've already committed to paying attention to calorie information. For people who aren't already paying attention, this won't do much at all.
The article they cite for that section you quoted is from 1959! Couldn't they find any research a little bit more contemporary? lol6 -
As a hotel manager I can easily see the daily / weekly / monthly food sales analysis. And no, since the introduction of calories per portion on the a la carte menus we can see no changes. People go out for their meals to enjoy themselves and not to follow some sort of "diet". About 38 % of our food revenue is generated through various help yourself buffets: for breakfast, lunch, high tea, dinner and so far we have not noticed an increase of consumption in "healthier" options such as low carb salads, green vegetables etc. The general public still sees those items as garnish on their plates and generally also leaves that garnish uneaten on their plates. As an option we have introduced the choice of smaller plates - they are only used if the larger plate's pyramid food mountain is trying to collapse. We offer low sugar / added sugar free fruit jams and marmalade at our breakfast buffet and they are generally ignored. We offer low fat / fat free cold sauces, marinades and dressings on our salad buffet and they are also ignored: there is always a huge demand for mayonnaise and other high - fat salad dressings. We have noticed a small change of high sugar soft drinks: more people are now ordering low calorie / calorie free drinks. Humans eat with their eyes first and couldn't give a pea pod when "confronted" with a 25 meter long buffet....26
-
I think it will help, but it will take a while.
I ate out a lot this weekend, which I don't usually do, but my in laws were in town and they like to eat at chain restaurants. Twice they started to pick what seemed like a "healthy" entree - one was the salmon quinoa salad at O'Charlie's - and were shocked by the huge number of calories, so ended up picking something else. There's really no excuse for a petite salmon, quinoa, and kale salad with a marinara based dressing to be almost a thousand calories, got to be a lot of hidden added fats for flavor, which the restaurant thought they could get away with because no one would realize their healthy-sounding dish was a calorie bomb.
Give it two years and that sort of dish will not be nearly as common - sure, customers who don't care at all will still order whatever, and customers who really care a lot were looking the calories up online already. But modestly weight conscious people - people like my mother in law, who makes an effort to eat decently most of the time without obsessing about it - won't mistake 1000 calorie salads for low calorie choices. So restaurants will stop serving food with way more calories than it appears to have.12 -
Raise your hand if you didn't know a BIG MAC, Large Fries and a cup of coke that doesn't even fit in your cup holder is bad for you.
No takers?
Nutritional info does not matter if the person reading it can't understand what's written.
550 cals per 100g will put half of america in knots and nobody really knows how much 3.5 ounces mean.8 -
This content has been removed.
-
Having calorie information readily available and visible makes it easier for those who wish to watch their calorie intake to do so. However, a lot of people may not know how many calories they personally need so that information is not useful for weight management until they know that.
Agree with all this, and it makes me wonder if the same lawmakers that pushed to make the calorie counts on restaurant menus shouldn’t also start some sort of a marketing campaign to encourage people to understand their TDEE - a quick call out at the bottom of the menu or in other avenues to reach consumers and encourage them to figure out their individual calorie requirements would be a start. Right now there’s the 2000 cal disclaimer, and sure, most people don’t read the fine print - but if there was a “Know Your Own Numbers” campaign, with a link to a site (like Scooby but validated by NIH or something) to determine a starting point for those interested...
Would also need the disclaimer (and I will head it off at the pass before someone here says that no one can know their own CICO to the decimal point) that this is an estimate to start you out and your individual requirements may vary due to a number of factors.4 -
Raise your hand if you didn't know a BIG MAC, Large Fries and a cup of coke that doesn't even fit in your cup holder is bad for you.
No takers?
Nutritional info does not matter if the person reading it can't understand what's written.
550 cals per 100g will put half of america in knots and nobody really knows how much 3.5 ounces mean.
In Australia McDonalds has their nutrition information available and although it doesn't stop me buying McDonalds (I haven't had it in ages but for the purpose of this discussion it's not relevant) it does allow me to make a choice between a Big Mac (2180 kJ), Filet-o-fish (1420 kJ), Classic Crispy Chicken Burger (2730 kJ) or a Bacon Jam Angus Burger (3210 kJ) etc. Without the information available I probably would have guessed the chicken burger had less energy than a Big Mac -- and been way off in my guess.12 -
it could also potentially open the door for lawsuits - someone misreads the posted calorie count and gains weight...and therefore its the restaurants fault (oh wait - didn't that happen with Chipotle)1
-
deannalfisher wrote: »it could also potentially open the door for lawsuits - someone misreads the posted calorie count and gains weight...and therefore its the restaurants fault (oh wait - didn't that happen with Chipotle)
Couldn't that work the other way as well? "I assumed that the chicken burger was low in calories and you didn't tell me otherwise and I ended up fat.. wahhhh... you now owe me $1 million for pain and suffering"2 -
deannalfisher wrote: »it could also potentially open the door for lawsuits - someone misreads the posted calorie count and gains weight...and therefore its the restaurants fault (oh wait - didn't that happen with Chipotle)
Couldn't that work the other way as well? "I assumed that the chicken burger was low in calories and you didn't tell me otherwise and I ended up fat.. wahhhh... you now owe me $1 million for pain and suffering"
that is what i meant....
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/11/the-case-of-the-diet-burrito-customers-sue-over-misleading-nutrition-info/2 -
I see one potential positive coming out of this: some restaurants (not necessarily ones with an already established and standardized menu) may start making some of their dishes lighter.8
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »I see one potential positive coming out of this: some restaurants (not necessarily ones with an already established and standardized menu) may start making some of their dishes lighter.
this.
Otherwise, probably not. Most of the people who care about their weight have most likely already cut way down on eating out.2 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »I see one potential positive coming out of this: some restaurants (not necessarily ones with an already established and standardized menu) may start making some of their dishes lighter.
this.
Otherwise, probably not. Most of the people who care about their weight have most likely already cut way down on eating out.
Honestly, it's one of the reasons I'm more likely to do McDonald's or another Fast food restaurant than a sit down place. I can find reasonably accurate/consistent calorie/menu/nutritional info.
10 -
It will probably help a small section of the population, but in general I doubt it.
1 -
neugebauer52 wrote: »As a hotel manager I can easily see the daily / weekly / monthly food sales analysis. And no, since the introduction of calories per portion on the a la carte menus we can see no changes. People go out for their meals to enjoy themselves and not to follow some sort of "diet". About 38 % of our food revenue is generated through various help yourself buffets: for breakfast, lunch, high tea, dinner and so far we have not noticed an increase of consumption in "healthier" options such as low carb salads, green vegetables etc. The general public still sees those items as garnish on their plates and generally also leaves that garnish uneaten on their plates. As an option we have introduced the choice of smaller plates - they are only used if the larger plate's pyramid food mountain is trying to collapse. We offer low sugar / added sugar free fruit jams and marmalade at our breakfast buffet and they are generally ignored. We offer low fat / fat free cold sauces, marinades and dressings on our salad buffet and they are also ignored: there is always a huge demand for mayonnaise and other high - fat salad dressings. We have noticed a small change of high sugar soft drinks: more people are now ordering low calorie / calorie free drinks. Humans eat with their eyes first and couldn't give a pea pod when "confronted" with a 25 meter long buffet....
@neugebauer thanks for that eye witness account of the Ways Of Eating you see.
Locally McDonald's is introducing the touch screen self ordering computers with nice photo shots of the food items with associated calorie count. One reason for doing this it was reported on average a sale will increase by like $1.80 so it is like they are at a buffet except they are seeing marketing photos. I guess we eat with our emotional right brains and just ignore the left brain math part.
4 -
People need the education about what calories are, how many you need and how they affect the body first. It's amazing how many people still don't have that basic information. Combine that with the people that spread misinformation about how calories don't matter and things only get further complicated.
They need to know what they're looking at and why it matters in order for what they're looking at to even have a chance of affecting their choices.4 -
deannalfisher wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »it could also potentially open the door for lawsuits - someone misreads the posted calorie count and gains weight...and therefore its the restaurants fault (oh wait - didn't that happen with Chipotle)
Couldn't that work the other way as well? "I assumed that the chicken burger was low in calories and you didn't tell me otherwise and I ended up fat.. wahhhh... you now owe me $1 million for pain and suffering"
that is what i meant....
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/11/the-case-of-the-diet-burrito-customers-sue-over-misleading-nutrition-info/
See, reading the article, I don't see this as a frivolous suit. The signage was clearly confusing and counter productive. If it was clearer, it would be more helpful.
I like the idea of (accurate) calorie counts on menu boards, but don't think it will do much.12
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions