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?
Replies
-
Packerjohn wrote: »77% of the US population has smartphones. Can check on line if really care.
http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/
not everywhere has good internet and i put my phone away when eating out with friends.7 -
No. Just as the majority living in the Western world are in financial debt, the majority are going to be obese. It's the price of living with abundance.
It will help those who sacrifice their present for their future.
Exactly this.
And it warms my heart when public policy supports sensible behavior of people who are actually trying to do the right things (based on a view to not only the present but the future).
Maybe it's just that they're more publicized, but it seems like public polcies in this realm more often take forms like, say, a nanny ban on giant cups of sugary soda pop.
Will it help reduce obesity? Not very much. But it's a useful brick in the foundation for those who want to reduce their own.
7 -
Packerjohn wrote: »77% of the US population has smartphones. Can check on line if really care.
http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/
not everywhere has good internet and i put my phone away when eating out with friends.
So much this!!
When it's just my wife and I, frequently we'll keep our phones out as there are several games we play together while out-Like PoGo. But if there are other folks, the phones go away.3 -
Counting calories has certainly helped me to lose weight. I've lost 122 pounds being mindful of what and how much food goes into my body. Every time I go to a restaurant, I find the calorie count extremely useful in deciding what I will eat. "That burger is 1,350 calories!?! Nevermind, maybe I'll have this instead". Calorie content listings on menus actually make my life easier. I think every restaurant should list the calories on the menu, but that's just my two cents.
We have an obesity problem in this country not because of restaurants posting calories but because not many people these days seem to have a genuine interest in living a healthy lifestyle. We can't force someone to make a healthy change, they need to arrive at that conclusion on their own. We can preach about healthy living til we're blue in the face, but it won't do anything unless that person truly wants to change. We all have a choice to make, good or bad, and that responsibility is solely our own.6 -
Not as much as actually reducing portions in their meals would. I've gotten quite fond of some local cafes/restaurants that serve *gasp* properly portioned meals for a reasonable price. I just wish that mentality would spread to the chain restaurants that I used to love. Sometimes I just want a reasonable amount of chain specialty food, but that food doesn't work well for leftovers (like, say, anything with chips or seafood or other things), or I just don't want to have it again before the food goes bad.2
-
I mean, it’s definitely made me think twice a few times3
-
I find it to be helpful. But I'm already tracking. When I got to McDonald's, it's nice to know that a Medium Fry and Quarter Pounder is about 1000 calories. I log it, eat and enjoy it, get a stomach ache, but at least I have a rough estimate for what it's worth.3
-
Packerjohn wrote: »77% of the US population has smartphones. Can check on line if really care.
http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/
not everywhere has good internet and i put my phone away when eating out with friends.
Or you could check the menu of the place you're going before you meet your friends and decide what you want.3 -
TPackerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »77% of the US population has smartphones. Can check on line if really care.
http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/
not everywhere has good internet and i put my phone away when eating out with friends.
Or you could check the menu of the place you're going before you meet your friends and decide what you want.
Yes, you can decide what to eat but if it is not a chain restaurant most likely that the calories and/or macros will not be listed.3 -
No. It a regulation meant to kill business. It also harms many small businesses thatsell product into local restaurants thataddress part of chains. Among them, local microbreweries. Chains can't sell anything that doesn't have nutrition content labeled.
It costs over $100k to have just one type of beer analyzed for nutrition content. Budman can absorb that. You local microbrewery cannot.15 -
No. It a regulation meant to kill business. It also harms many small businesses thatsell product into local restaurants thataddress part of chains. Among them, local microbreweries. Chains can't sell anything that doesn't have nutrition content labeled.
It costs over $100k to have just one type of beer analyzed for nutrition content. Budman can absorb that. You local microbrewery cannot.
According to this, your $100k is off by a factor of 100. Is is a burden for a business, sure, but unless I'm really missing something, not to the extent mentioned.
http://www.nutridata.com/feeschedule.asp9 -
When I go to a restaurant and I'm choosing between options the highest calorie count will win. Calories are energy. I'm buying food to get energy. More calories; a better deal. Let's say, I'm looking at two sandwiches around the same price. The one with more calories is the one I will buy. I'll take half home and have a second meal out of it. That is the best bet for my diet and for my budget. It's better to have two meals for the price of one.9
-
marilynbeth2 wrote: »When I go to a restaurant and I'm choosing between options the highest calorie count will win. Calories are energy. I'm buying food to get energy. More calories; a better deal. Let's say, I'm looking at two sandwiches around the same price. The one with more calories is the one I will buy. I'll take half home and have a second meal out of it. That is the best bet for my diet and for my budget. It's better to have two meals for the price of one.
And what to you do/eat when the menu doesn't have the nutritional information?0 -
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? lol
Yeah, our genes and bodies have radically changed since then.
10 -
marilynbeth2 wrote: »When I go to a restaurant and I'm choosing between options the highest calorie count will win. Calories are energy. I'm buying food to get energy. More calories; a better deal. Let's say, I'm looking at two sandwiches around the same price. The one with more calories is the one I will buy. I'll take half home and have a second meal out of it. That is the best bet for my diet and for my budget. It's better to have two meals for the price of one.
That doesn't take into account that a higher calorie meal split into several meals would not be a good deal hunger-wise. If that was the case, everyone would be buying nothing but oil because it's the best deal for the money and no one would be buying vegetables because the price per calorie sucks.14 -
I remember running seven miles and my running app said I have burned 1000 calories. Later that day I was looking at a big Mac meal at 1500 calories. I walked out and never went back. So it may help but why not put pressure on major restaurants to post calories and leave the mom and pop ones alone. The big chains can easily be looked up and most of us can understand a chillie cheese burger with fries and a side of onion rings is probably not a diet dish. I say keep government regulations out of it.12
-
No. It a regulation meant to kill business. It also harms many small businesses thatsell product into local restaurants thataddress part of chains. Among them, local microbreweries. Chains can't sell anything that doesn't have nutrition content labeled.
It costs over $100k to have just one type of beer analyzed for nutrition content. Budman can absorb that. You local microbrewery cannot.
I can understand the argument that this has a negative impact on businesses, but *meant* to kill businesses? You mean that proponents of calorie values on menus don't actually care about obesity but instead want a covert way to destroy American businesses and have decide to start with chain eateries? Why?14 -
To the original question - yes and no. For some, it is helpful as you don't have to guess what calories are if you are serious about watching what you eat. Perhaps some people don't realize how many calories are in an item and this will help.
On the flip side, you think a Big Mac is 1000 calories and find out its about half as many (540 if I remember correctly, which I may not), you may start to think it's OK to eat a little more if you aren't seriously counting calories. You end up in a snowball of eating more "lighter calorie" items and as a result eat more than you would have if you were guessing because you aren't really counting your calories.
Ultimately, it will help those that are serious about fighting obesity (myself currently). To others (including myself in the past), it can end up being counter-productive.0 -
bigbandjohn wrote: »To the original question - yes and no. For some, it is helpful as you don't have to guess what calories are if you are serious about watching what you eat. Perhaps some people don't realize how many calories are in an item and this will help.
On the flip side, you think a Big Mac is 1000 calories and find out its about half as many (540 if I remember correctly, which I may not), you may start to think it's OK to eat a little more if you aren't seriously counting calories. You end up in a snowball of eating more "lighter calorie" items and as a result eat more than you would have if you were guessing because you aren't really counting your calories.
Ultimately, it will help those that are serious about fighting obesity (myself currently). To others (including myself in the past), it can end up being counter-productive.
It's not the Big Mac by itself but when you look up the "as a meal" they have to show the upper limit of the giant drink, Super size fries and the Big Mac. That was where my eyes bugged out.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »No. It a regulation meant to kill business. It also harms many small businesses thatsell product into local restaurants thataddress part of chains. Among them, local microbreweries. Chains can't sell anything that doesn't have nutrition content labeled.
It costs over $100k to have just one type of beer analyzed for nutrition content. Budman can absorb that. You local microbrewery cannot.
I can understand the argument that this has a negative impact on businesses, but *meant* to kill businesses? You mean that proponents of calorie values on menus don't actually care about obesity but instead want a covert way to destroy American businesses and have decide to start with chain eateries? Why?
Regulations are about doing someone somewhere some good. Sometimes it is more about the politician and his donors. It is a inevitable creep with the mindset the corporation is rich and can afford it. It is not done to kill businesses but that can be the result.3 -
I'm not out to make any big claims about this one way or another. I can see many sides to it.
BUT one thing I've noticed among my own friends/family is a LOT of younger people (teens and early 20s) making different choices just in the past few years since a lot more fast food/fast casual restaurants started posting calories. I know teenagers (male and female) who will never order a shake at Sonic because of the calories. Five or ten years ago, I guarantee most kids of that age did not know or care anything about that. I'm really inclined to believe it is making a difference sometimes. I am hearing some of these kids talking about calories in this vs. that, like "I'd much rather have six nuggets than a cherry pie if it's LESS calories". Maybe I'm biased because I was obese for 20 years and everything finally clicked for me with CICO, but I think it's a good thing.
I also think a lot of people in the 80s/90s really didn't understand how many calories & how much sugar were in regular cola/soda. I was among the uninformed and thought nothing of drinking 2 Dr. Peppers in a shift at my part-time job as a teen...but I wouldn't eat a Snickers bar because I thought that would be too much sugar and make me gain weight. I think people today of all ages have a slightly better handle on this stuff, due to its labeling. Of course a lot of people just don't care though, or don't have the first idea how many calories they actually need in a day. I know people who think 2,500 is necessary for all humans and I know people who think dieting for a 200 lb 30 year old woman should be around 600/day.10 -
marilynbeth2 wrote: »When I go to a restaurant and I'm choosing between options the highest calorie count will win. Calories are energy. I'm buying food to get energy. More calories; a better deal. Let's say, I'm looking at two sandwiches around the same price. The one with more calories is the one I will buy. I'll take half home and have a second meal out of it. That is the best bet for my diet and for my budget. It's better to have two meals for the price of one.
It depends on your goals. If you're trying to lose weight, you won't choose the higher calorie options.
Another difference between me and you is that I never buy two of anything at a restaurant. I get fast food as a stop gap option, expecting to get a real meal when I get home. So it's always very little, on the rare occasions I go.0 -
Not if you truly believe calories aren't the root cause of weight gain.2
-
marilynbeth2 wrote: »When I go to a restaurant and I'm choosing between options the highest calorie count will win. Calories are energy. I'm buying food to get energy. More calories; a better deal. Let's say, I'm looking at two sandwiches around the same price. The one with more calories is the one I will buy. I'll take half home and have a second meal out of it. That is the best bet for my diet and for my budget. It's better to have two meals for the price of one.
My sister once dated a guy who analysed everything he ate on a calorie per dollar basis
The more calories per dollar the better. 3 -
marilynbeth2 wrote: »When I go to a restaurant and I'm choosing between options the highest calorie count will win. Calories are energy. I'm buying food to get energy. More calories; a better deal. Let's say, I'm looking at two sandwiches around the same price. The one with more calories is the one I will buy. I'll take half home and have a second meal out of it. That is the best bet for my diet and for my budget. It's better to have two meals for the price of one.
My sister once dated a guy who analysed everything he ate on a calorie per dollar basis The more calories per dollar the better.
A whole generation of "dirtbag" climbers lived by this principle. Would eat loads of butter & bread and similar high calorie cheap foods.0 -
marilynbeth2 wrote: »When I go to a restaurant and I'm choosing between options the highest calorie count will win. Calories are energy. I'm buying food to get energy. More calories; a better deal. Let's say, I'm looking at two sandwiches around the same price. The one with more calories is the one I will buy. I'll take half home and have a second meal out of it. That is the best bet for my diet and for my budget. It's better to have two meals for the price of one.
My sister once dated a guy who analysed everything he ate on a calorie per dollar basis The more calories per dollar the better.
I can't imagine why he's not your current brother-in-law!
4 -
I don't think so..I can only speak for myself but when I am not in the zone (trying to lose weight) I don't even care about calories. If I want a big mac and large fries, at that moment I could care less about how many calories I am eating.1
-
I actually do adjust what I order by taking it into consideration. I like having it right there. But, I doubt it will work as a whole.1
-
Only if people care about the number of calories they eat.
How many even understand how many they need, on average, to simply maintain?
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/12/who-looks-at-menu-labels/383320/2 -
So the answer to the title of this thread is NO?
I can see that if only the non obesity are reading the menu posted calorie info to make sure they do not become obese then the info is not likely to change obesity rates.
Thanks for sharing the article.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.4K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 445 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions