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.
That Keto is so hot right now
Options
Replies
-
tennisdude2004 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »aburrison1 wrote: »1. Most people find fat (and protein) satiating.
2. Carb cravings are reduced
3. If improves conditions related to insulin resistance like T2D, prediabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimer's, CVD; as well as some neurological problems.
4. Steadier energy from steadier BG
5. Improved lipid panels for most.
6. Possible gastrointestinal improvements or for other symptoms like migraines
7. Better skin and hair
8. It has been shown to be just as effective as any weight loss diet, and slightly better in those with IR.
9. Sustainability is just as good, if not better, than some other diets like low fat
10. It is quite complimentary to popular IF due to appetite suppression
11. Bacon
You are correct about this statement. Keto is actually a credible and sustainable way of eating. It does, in fact, facilitate with improved health. If you take a blood panel and compare before Keto and after you will notice improved results. I know personally because I have experienced it. Keto has improved my life and health. With Keto I also do intermittent fasting (IF). Using IF and Keto together facilities faster weight loss and a healthier body. In fact, when I have gone off Keto and IF my health deteriorated.
Not everyone finds lots of fat satiating and wish people would stop repeating this like it's nearly universal. I legitimately thought there was something wrong with me when I tried Whole 30 because low carb made me feel this weird combination of both stuffed and weak from hunger, I definitely wasn't satisfied. I need one reasonable portion of complex carbs in a meal and I am happy, full, and energetic for much longer.
Yes, this has been pointed out many times. Some find fats satisfying. Many do not. It's like a subtle form of propaganda. Trying to speak it into reality. For those that find fats satisfying, great. But many do not.
I love fat, find it satiating, and am not a volume eater. I still wouldn't want to do keto. I probably eat a higher percentage of fat than most but find if my carbs dip below 100g/day for any sustained period of time I get very cranky
Keto isn’t for everyone, that’s for sure, but it is definitely for many.
I personally like to keep my carbs around 100g to and I definitely like fat and protein ahead of carbs.
You're sentence can be applied to any diet really.
<INSERT_DIET> isn't for everyone, that's for sure, but it is definitely for many.
I don't even know why people make such a big deal with their diet, it's a tool, but yet people get all cultish and obessed by them. I guess it's human to cling on to something, whether it's religion, politics or even something silly like a diet.
^This all day.
I do understand have some sympathy, with the position of being passionate about a lifestyle that optimizes how you feel and wanting to tell everyone about it, particularly if that new lifestyle was a dramatic shift from your previous one.
What I don't understand is knowing how wonderful you feel, feeling that wonderfulness, and then needing some sort of validation by asserting that your lifestyle change will either work for everyone else, will do things it doesn't necessarily do, or put down other people's lifestyles since they didn't work for you.
I think it's great people find relief from cravings and health issues with keto.
I tried low carbing as a sedentary individual and found it wasn't sustainable for me. Now that I'm an active person. I find I cannot control calories and maintain a low weight without a hefty dose of high quality carbs in my day. I'm just not full and satisfied without them. Potatoes and oats work best. That's my lifestyle that has made an amazing difference for me. Just me. While I think everyone who is capable should do some kind of activity, I don't think what I eat would work for anyone else but me. Goodness, it doesn't even work for my own husband!10 -
annaskiski wrote: »LouisTamsi wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
What changed in the last few weeks?
Sorry I'm late replying, a part of Obamacare went into effect that makes restaurants with more than 10 locations post calorie counts for their menu items.
I love this so much. So much easier to make better choices.
I really don't understand why people fought this so hard. It's only large chains, and doesn't cost much for them to put the recipes in a calorie calculator.
The restaurants don't want you to know how calorific their foods are, that I understand. But why do consumers oppose it?
I think it's actually restaurants with 20 or more locations (that's what the articles I'm reading on it say). One reason that it isn't popular with business owners is that they can't just put recipes in a calorie calculator. They have to have the dishes analyzed nutritionally, so there is a cost associated with this policy change.
Edit: They apparently don't have to submit the dishes for outside analysis, they just have to be able to show how they calculated the calories.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »aburrison1 wrote: »1. Most people find fat (and protein) satiating.
2. Carb cravings are reduced
3. If improves conditions related to insulin resistance like T2D, prediabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimer's, CVD; as well as some neurological problems.
4. Steadier energy from steadier BG
5. Improved lipid panels for most.
6. Possible gastrointestinal improvements or for other symptoms like migraines
7. Better skin and hair
8. It has been shown to be just as effective as any weight loss diet, and slightly better in those with IR.
9. Sustainability is just as good, if not better, than some other diets like low fat
10. It is quite complimentary to popular IF due to appetite suppression
11. Bacon
You are correct about this statement. Keto is actually a credible and sustainable way of eating. It does, in fact, facilitate with improved health. If you take a blood panel and compare before Keto and after you will notice improved results. I know personally because I have experienced it. Keto has improved my life and health. With Keto I also do intermittent fasting (IF). Using IF and Keto together facilities faster weight loss and a healthier body. In fact, when I have gone off Keto and IF my health deteriorated.
Not everyone finds lots of fat satiating and wish people would stop repeating this like it's nearly universal. I legitimately thought there was something wrong with me when I tried Whole 30 because low carb made me feel this weird combination of both stuffed and weak from hunger, I definitely wasn't satisfied. I need one reasonable portion of complex carbs in a meal and I am happy, full, and energetic for much longer.
Yes, this has been pointed out many times. Some find fats satisfying. Many do not. It's like a subtle form of propaganda. Trying to speak it into reality. For those that find fats satisfying, great. But many do not.
I love fat, find it satiating, and am not a volume eater. I still wouldn't want to do keto. I probably eat a higher percentage of fat than most but find if my carbs dip below 100g/day for any sustained period of time I get very cranky
Keto isn’t for everyone, that’s for sure, but it is definitely for many.
I personally like to keep my carbs around 100g to and I definitely like fat and protein ahead of carbs.
You're sentence can be applied to any diet really.
<INSERT_DIET> isn't for everyone, that's for sure, but it is definitely for many.
I don't even know why people make such a big deal with their diet, it's a tool, but yet people get all cultish and obessed by them. I guess it's human to cling on to something, whether it's religion, politics or even something silly like a diet.
^This all day.
I do understand have some sympathy, with the position of being passionate about a lifestyle that optimizes how you feel and wanting to tell everyone about it, particularly if that new lifestyle was a dramatic shift from your previous one.
What I don't understand is knowing how wonderful you feel, feeling that wonderfulness, and then needing some sort of validation by asserting that your lifestyle change will either work for everyone else, will do things it doesn't necessarily do, or put down other people's lifestyles since they didn't work for you.
I think it's great people find relief from cravings and health issues with keto.
I tried low carbing as a sedentary individual and found it wasn't sustainable for me. Now that I'm an active person. I find I cannot control calories and maintain a low weight without a hefty dose of high quality carbs in my day. I'm just not full and satisfied without them. Potatoes and oats work best. That's my lifestyle that has made an amazing difference for me. Just me. While I think everyone who is capable should do some kind of activity, I don't think what I eat would work for anyone else but me. Goodness, it doesn't even work for my own husband!
Perfectly said!2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »LouisTamsi wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
What changed in the last few weeks?
Sorry I'm late replying, a part of Obamacare went into effect that makes restaurants with more than 10 locations post calorie counts for their menu items.
I love this so much. So much easier to make better choices.
I really don't understand why people fought this so hard. It's only large chains, and doesn't cost much for them to put the recipes in a calorie calculator.
The restaurants don't want you to know how calorific their foods are, that I understand. But why do consumers oppose it?
I think it's actually restaurants with 20 or more locations (that's what the articles I'm reading on it say). One reason that it isn't popular with business owners is that they can't just put recipes in a calorie calculator. They have to have the dishes analyzed nutritionally, so there is a cost associated with this policy change.
Are you saying there is a requirement for an outside source to verify the nutritional data? Coming from the restaurant industry but not chain restaurants, there are programs like ChefTech that give caloric and nutritional analysis that restaurants can use to derive this data themselves. It's time consuming but not difficult.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »LouisTamsi wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
What changed in the last few weeks?
Sorry I'm late replying, a part of Obamacare went into effect that makes restaurants with more than 10 locations post calorie counts for their menu items.
I love this so much. So much easier to make better choices.
I really don't understand why people fought this so hard. It's only large chains, and doesn't cost much for them to put the recipes in a calorie calculator.
The restaurants don't want you to know how calorific their foods are, that I understand. But why do consumers oppose it?
I think it's actually restaurants with 20 or more locations (that's what the articles I'm reading on it say). One reason that it isn't popular with business owners is that they can't just put recipes in a calorie calculator. They have to have the dishes analyzed nutritionally, so there is a cost associated with this policy change.
Restaurants don't have to have their dishes lab tested, but they do have to be able to show how they arrived at the calorie declarations. This is from the FDA website:https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm248731.htm#industry
A covered establishment must have a reasonable basis for its nutrient content declarations and take reasonable steps to ensure that the method of preparation and amount of a standard menu item adheres to the factors on which nutrient values were determined. Nutrient values can be determined by using nutrient databases, cookbooks, laboratory analyses, the Nutrition Facts Label on packaged foods, and other reasonable means.
The main objections from the restaurant industry had to do with the costs of compliance such as tabulating the results and keeping them current, redesigning menus and displays, how to handle situations like pizza where the potential combinations become unwieldy, etc. The other main concern were the potential liabilities if someone challenged their calorie declarations.
5 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »Blonde_Runner615 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Blonde_Runner615 wrote: »I really don't give a damn what other people are doing. I don't do keto because I took a college-level nutrition course that emphasized at least 150 g of carb daily for healthy adults so that our bodies don't go into ketoacidosis, which is not a healthy or natural state.
"Ketone bodies are three water-soluble molecules (acetoacetate, beta-hydroxybutyrate, and their spontaneous breakdown product, acetone) containing the ketone group that are produced by the liver from fatty acids[1] during periods of low food intake (fasting), carbohydrate restrictive diets, starvation, prolonged intense exercise,[2] alcoholism or in untreated (or inadequately treated) type 1 diabetes mellitus."
I'm not trying to adhere to a diet that induces similar physiological outcomes as starvation, alcoholism, and untreated type 1 diabetes mellitus. But that's just what's right for me. I would never tell anyone else how to live their lives.
The reason I eat carbs is the same reason I do cardio. What's happening inside my body is and will be more important than what's happening with my outer layers.
Any evidence to support the bolded part?
Please don't get me wrong, I'm no expert, and I won't debate anyone on this topic because again I don't give a damn what anyone else is doing. I am just recalling what I learned in Nutrition 101 and explaining why I avoid ketoacidosis.
I think we all want to avoid ketoacidosis.
This keto diet is about ketosis.
Obviously I am no expert!! The nutrition course cautioned against ketosis. It was a course I took as part of a nursing curriculum. Just a college course.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »LouisTamsi wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
What changed in the last few weeks?
Sorry I'm late replying, a part of Obamacare went into effect that makes restaurants with more than 10 locations post calorie counts for their menu items.
I love this so much. So much easier to make better choices.
I really don't understand why people fought this so hard. It's only large chains, and doesn't cost much for them to put the recipes in a calorie calculator.
The restaurants don't want you to know how calorific their foods are, that I understand. But why do consumers oppose it?
I think it's actually restaurants with 20 or more locations (that's what the articles I'm reading on it say). One reason that it isn't popular with business owners is that they can't just put recipes in a calorie calculator. They have to have the dishes analyzed nutritionally, so there is a cost associated with this policy change.
Are you saying there is a requirement for an outside source to verify the nutritional data? Coming from the restaurant industry but not chain restaurants, there are programs like ChefTech that give caloric and nutritional analysis that restaurants can use to derive this data themselves. It's time consuming but not difficult.
I am basing that on my understanding of the articles I read. I could be misunderstanding what was meant by "nutritional analysis" and I would defer to your real life experience.
This is one of the articles I read that gave me the impression that simply using a calorie calculator wouldn't meet the requirements of the law: https://www.eater.com/2018/5/7/17326574/calorie-count-menu-nutrition-fda-law1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »LouisTamsi wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
What changed in the last few weeks?
Sorry I'm late replying, a part of Obamacare went into effect that makes restaurants with more than 10 locations post calorie counts for their menu items.
I love this so much. So much easier to make better choices.
I really don't understand why people fought this so hard. It's only large chains, and doesn't cost much for them to put the recipes in a calorie calculator.
The restaurants don't want you to know how calorific their foods are, that I understand. But why do consumers oppose it?
I think it's actually restaurants with 20 or more locations (that's what the articles I'm reading on it say). One reason that it isn't popular with business owners is that they can't just put recipes in a calorie calculator. They have to have the dishes analyzed nutritionally, so there is a cost associated with this policy change.
Restaurants don't have to have their dishes lab tested, but they do have to be able to show how they arrived at the calorie declarations. This is from the FDA website:A covered establishment must have a reasonable basis for its nutrient content declarations and take reasonable steps to ensure that the method of preparation and amount of a standard menu item adheres to the factors on which nutrient values were determined. Nutrient values can be determined by using nutrient databases, cookbooks, laboratory analyses, the Nutrition Facts Label on packaged foods, and other reasonable means.
https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm248731.htm#industry
The main objections from the restaurant industry had to do with the costs of compliance such as tabulating the results and keeping them current, redesigning menus and displays, how to handle situations like pizza where the potential combinations become unwieldy, etc. The other main concern were the potential liabilities if someone challenged their calorie declarations.
Thank you for the correction. I edited my post above.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »LouisTamsi wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
What changed in the last few weeks?
Sorry I'm late replying, a part of Obamacare went into effect that makes restaurants with more than 10 locations post calorie counts for their menu items.
I love this so much. So much easier to make better choices.
I really don't understand why people fought this so hard. It's only large chains, and doesn't cost much for them to put the recipes in a calorie calculator.
The restaurants don't want you to know how calorific their foods are, that I understand. But why do consumers oppose it?
I think it's actually restaurants with 20 or more locations (that's what the articles I'm reading on it say). One reason that it isn't popular with business owners is that they can't just put recipes in a calorie calculator. They have to have the dishes analyzed nutritionally, so there is a cost associated with this policy change.
Are you saying there is a requirement for an outside source to verify the nutritional data? Coming from the restaurant industry but not chain restaurants, there are programs like ChefTech that give caloric and nutritional analysis that restaurants can use to derive this data themselves. It's time consuming but not difficult.
I am basing that on my understanding of the articles I read. I could be misunderstanding what was meant by "nutritional analysis" and I would defer to your real life experience.
This is one of the articles I read that gave me the impression that simply using a calorie calculator wouldn't meet the requirements of the law: https://www.eater.com/2018/5/7/17326574/calorie-count-menu-nutrition-fda-law
I wasn't sure because my experience is not with chains. We would use Chef Tech as much for food costing/ plate costing as nutritional data. Thanks to bpetrosky for clarifying.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »LouisTamsi wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
What changed in the last few weeks?
Sorry I'm late replying, a part of Obamacare went into effect that makes restaurants with more than 10 locations post calorie counts for their menu items.
I love this so much. So much easier to make better choices.
I really don't understand why people fought this so hard. It's only large chains, and doesn't cost much for them to put the recipes in a calorie calculator.
The restaurants don't want you to know how calorific their foods are, that I understand. But why do consumers oppose it?
I think it's actually restaurants with 20 or more locations (that's what the articles I'm reading on it say). One reason that it isn't popular with business owners is that they can't just put recipes in a calorie calculator. They have to have the dishes analyzed nutritionally, so there is a cost associated with this policy change.
Restaurants don't have to have their dishes lab tested, but they do have to be able to show how they arrived at the calorie declarations. This is from the FDA website:https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm248731.htm#industry
A covered establishment must have a reasonable basis for its nutrient content declarations and take reasonable steps to ensure that the method of preparation and amount of a standard menu item adheres to the factors on which nutrient values were determined. Nutrient values can be determined by using nutrient databases, cookbooks, laboratory analyses, the Nutrition Facts Label on packaged foods, and other reasonable means.
The main objections from the restaurant industry had to do with the costs of compliance such as tabulating the results and keeping them current, redesigning menus and displays, how to handle situations like pizza where the potential combinations become unwieldy, etc. The other main concern were the potential liabilities if someone challenged their calorie declarations.janejellyroll wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »LouisTamsi wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
What changed in the last few weeks?
Sorry I'm late replying, a part of Obamacare went into effect that makes restaurants with more than 10 locations post calorie counts for their menu items.
I love this so much. So much easier to make better choices.
I really don't understand why people fought this so hard. It's only large chains, and doesn't cost much for them to put the recipes in a calorie calculator.
The restaurants don't want you to know how calorific their foods are, that I understand. But why do consumers oppose it?
I think it's actually restaurants with 20 or more locations (that's what the articles I'm reading on it say). One reason that it isn't popular with business owners is that they can't just put recipes in a calorie calculator. They have to have the dishes analyzed nutritionally, so there is a cost associated with this policy change.
Restaurants don't have to have their dishes lab tested, but they do have to be able to show how they arrived at the calorie declarations. This is from the FDA website:https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm248731.htm#industry
A covered establishment must have a reasonable basis for its nutrient content declarations and take reasonable steps to ensure that the method of preparation and amount of a standard menu item adheres to the factors on which nutrient values were determined. Nutrient values can be determined by using nutrient databases, cookbooks, laboratory analyses, the Nutrition Facts Label on packaged foods, and other reasonable means.
The main objections from the restaurant industry had to do with the costs of compliance such as tabulating the results and keeping them current, redesigning menus and displays, how to handle situations like pizza where the potential combinations become unwieldy, etc. The other main concern were the potential liabilities if someone challenged their calorie declarations.
Panera seems to do a great job adding/subtracting ingredients. Pizza can’t be harder...
1 -
annaskiski wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »LouisTamsi wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
What changed in the last few weeks?
Sorry I'm late replying, a part of Obamacare went into effect that makes restaurants with more than 10 locations post calorie counts for their menu items.
I love this so much. So much easier to make better choices.
I really don't understand why people fought this so hard. It's only large chains, and doesn't cost much for them to put the recipes in a calorie calculator.
The restaurants don't want you to know how calorific their foods are, that I understand. But why do consumers oppose it?
I think it's actually restaurants with 20 or more locations (that's what the articles I'm reading on it say). One reason that it isn't popular with business owners is that they can't just put recipes in a calorie calculator. They have to have the dishes analyzed nutritionally, so there is a cost associated with this policy change.
Restaurants don't have to have their dishes lab tested, but they do have to be able to show how they arrived at the calorie declarations. This is from the FDA website:https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm248731.htm#industry
A covered establishment must have a reasonable basis for its nutrient content declarations and take reasonable steps to ensure that the method of preparation and amount of a standard menu item adheres to the factors on which nutrient values were determined. Nutrient values can be determined by using nutrient databases, cookbooks, laboratory analyses, the Nutrition Facts Label on packaged foods, and other reasonable means.
The main objections from the restaurant industry had to do with the costs of compliance such as tabulating the results and keeping them current, redesigning menus and displays, how to handle situations like pizza where the potential combinations become unwieldy, etc. The other main concern were the potential liabilities if someone challenged their calorie declarations.janejellyroll wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »LouisTamsi wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
What changed in the last few weeks?
Sorry I'm late replying, a part of Obamacare went into effect that makes restaurants with more than 10 locations post calorie counts for their menu items.
I love this so much. So much easier to make better choices.
I really don't understand why people fought this so hard. It's only large chains, and doesn't cost much for them to put the recipes in a calorie calculator.
The restaurants don't want you to know how calorific their foods are, that I understand. But why do consumers oppose it?
I think it's actually restaurants with 20 or more locations (that's what the articles I'm reading on it say). One reason that it isn't popular with business owners is that they can't just put recipes in a calorie calculator. They have to have the dishes analyzed nutritionally, so there is a cost associated with this policy change.
Restaurants don't have to have their dishes lab tested, but they do have to be able to show how they arrived at the calorie declarations. This is from the FDA website:https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm248731.htm#industry
A covered establishment must have a reasonable basis for its nutrient content declarations and take reasonable steps to ensure that the method of preparation and amount of a standard menu item adheres to the factors on which nutrient values were determined. Nutrient values can be determined by using nutrient databases, cookbooks, laboratory analyses, the Nutrition Facts Label on packaged foods, and other reasonable means.
The main objections from the restaurant industry had to do with the costs of compliance such as tabulating the results and keeping them current, redesigning menus and displays, how to handle situations like pizza where the potential combinations become unwieldy, etc. The other main concern were the potential liabilities if someone challenged their calorie declarations.
Panera seems to do a great job adding/subtracting ingredients. Pizza can’t be harder...
Sure it can. Remember, Panera is a large chain that has a lot of resources. A small regional pizza chain with just enough locations to be covered wouldn't have the same level of resources.
The way the new regulation was stated, add on ingredients had to be listed separately on a menu board, and I don't think they allowed for them to be supplied on a card. If you've got a list of 20 toppings, that can be added on 3 sizes, with 4 different styles of crust, that's over 180 combinations. That would crowd out a menu board fast.
To be clear, I don't think it's impossible to do a menu like this, but I think the new rules needed to be clearer for these types of situations, or allow for the information to be provided off the main menu boards.4 -
I remember they talked about it on a show and people were upset because they did not want to know much calories they were eating...basically they prefer going to a restaurant with their head in the sand. But for mfpers like us, it makes our job so much easier.4
-
I remember they talked about it on a show and people were upset because they did not want to know much calories they were eating...basically they prefer going to a restaurant with their head in the sand. But for mfpers like us, it makes our job so much easier.
I heard a lot of this myself (even from friends).
But, don’t look at the counts then?
0 -
annaskiski wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »LouisTamsi wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
What changed in the last few weeks?
Sorry I'm late replying, a part of Obamacare went into effect that makes restaurants with more than 10 locations post calorie counts for their menu items.
I love this so much. So much easier to make better choices.
I really don't understand why people fought this so hard. It's only large chains, and doesn't cost much for them to put the recipes in a calorie calculator.
The restaurants don't want you to know how calorific their foods are, that I understand. But why do consumers oppose it?
I think it's actually restaurants with 20 or more locations (that's what the articles I'm reading on it say). One reason that it isn't popular with business owners is that they can't just put recipes in a calorie calculator. They have to have the dishes analyzed nutritionally, so there is a cost associated with this policy change.
Restaurants don't have to have their dishes lab tested, but they do have to be able to show how they arrived at the calorie declarations. This is from the FDA website:https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm248731.htm#industry
A covered establishment must have a reasonable basis for its nutrient content declarations and take reasonable steps to ensure that the method of preparation and amount of a standard menu item adheres to the factors on which nutrient values were determined. Nutrient values can be determined by using nutrient databases, cookbooks, laboratory analyses, the Nutrition Facts Label on packaged foods, and other reasonable means.
The main objections from the restaurant industry had to do with the costs of compliance such as tabulating the results and keeping them current, redesigning menus and displays, how to handle situations like pizza where the potential combinations become unwieldy, etc. The other main concern were the potential liabilities if someone challenged their calorie declarations.janejellyroll wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »LouisTamsi wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
What changed in the last few weeks?
Sorry I'm late replying, a part of Obamacare went into effect that makes restaurants with more than 10 locations post calorie counts for their menu items.
I love this so much. So much easier to make better choices.
I really don't understand why people fought this so hard. It's only large chains, and doesn't cost much for them to put the recipes in a calorie calculator.
The restaurants don't want you to know how calorific their foods are, that I understand. But why do consumers oppose it?
I think it's actually restaurants with 20 or more locations (that's what the articles I'm reading on it say). One reason that it isn't popular with business owners is that they can't just put recipes in a calorie calculator. They have to have the dishes analyzed nutritionally, so there is a cost associated with this policy change.
Restaurants don't have to have their dishes lab tested, but they do have to be able to show how they arrived at the calorie declarations. This is from the FDA website:https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm248731.htm#industry
A covered establishment must have a reasonable basis for its nutrient content declarations and take reasonable steps to ensure that the method of preparation and amount of a standard menu item adheres to the factors on which nutrient values were determined. Nutrient values can be determined by using nutrient databases, cookbooks, laboratory analyses, the Nutrition Facts Label on packaged foods, and other reasonable means.
The main objections from the restaurant industry had to do with the costs of compliance such as tabulating the results and keeping them current, redesigning menus and displays, how to handle situations like pizza where the potential combinations become unwieldy, etc. The other main concern were the potential liabilities if someone challenged their calorie declarations.
Panera seems to do a great job adding/subtracting ingredients. Pizza can’t be harder...
Sure it can. Remember, Panera is a large chain that has a lot of resources. A small regional pizza chain with just enough locations to be covered wouldn't have the same level of resources.
The way the new regulation was stated, add on ingredients had to be listed separately on a menu board, and I don't think they allowed for them to be supplied on a card. If you've got a list of 20 toppings, that can be added on 3 sizes, with 4 different styles of crust, that's over 180 combinations. That would crowd out a menu board fast.
Totally agree. A large chain with franchisees and company stores can have a person or team in their compliance area that does this and disseminates it out to all locations. I believe that is why the line was drawn at 20 locations.
Labor cost is key to profitability. Smaller chains would find that kind of compliance burdensome.1 -
annaskiski wrote: »I remember they talked about it on a show and people were upset because they did not want to know much calories they were eating...basically they prefer going to a restaurant with their head in the sand. But for mfpers like us, it makes our job so much easier.
I heard a lot of this myself (even from friends).
But, don’t look at the counts then?
That's what I thought, what's funny is those who said that are those who should be on a diet to begin with.2 -
BrunetteRunner87 wrote: »So, do you think keto is just a craze, or is it here to stay?
I guess when/if the restaurant menus are required to show carbs, protein and fats too, it will be a sign it is here to stay?1 -
I came across a documentary on Netflix called the Magic Pill. I highly recommend it.
I thought is was about big pharma companies etc. It turns out it gives a lot of valid information on diet, keto, the environment, and our food production history.
All the gals in the office are talking about Keto and I have been waiting for my "rock bottom" moment to start yet another diet. So, I have been educating myself on Keto and I'm gonna drink the Koolaid. I think it is valid. Not any harder to follow than any other diet. It's hard to wrap your mind around eating more fat because if you are a product of the 80's and 90's you know that FAT is evil and will kill you. I'm embracing the healthy fat in my diet while trying to maintain a low calorie diet. So far so good. The scale isn't really showing results yet but I feel wonderful. Better than I have in years. I'm in!!29 -
domserlisa wrote: »I came across a documentary on Netflix called the Magic Pill. I highly recommend it.
I thought is was about big pharma companies etc. It turns out it gives a lot of valid information on diet, keto, the environment, and our food production history.
All the gals in the office are talking about Keto and I have been waiting for my "rock bottom" moment to start yet another diet. So, I have been educating myself on Keto and I'm gonna drink the Koolaid. I think it is valid. Not any harder to follow than any other diet. It's hard to wrap your mind around eating more fat because if you are a product of the 80's and 90's you know that FAT is evil and will kill you. I'm embracing the healthy fat in my diet while trying to maintain a low calorie diet. So far so good. The scale isn't really showing results yet but I feel wonderful. Better than I have in years. I'm in!!
And this is easier than just creating a calorie deficit? Why?4 -
Blonde_Runner615 wrote: »I really don't give a damn what other people are doing. I don't do keto because I took a college-level nutrition course that emphasized at least 150 g of carb daily for healthy adults so that our bodies don't go into ketoacidosis, which is not a healthy or natural state.
"Ketone bodies are three water-soluble molecules (acetoacetate, beta-hydroxybutyrate, and their spontaneous breakdown product, acetone) containing the ketone group that are produced by the liver from fatty acids[1] during periods of low food intake (fasting), carbohydrate restrictive diets, starvation, prolonged intense exercise,[2] alcoholism or in untreated (or inadequately treated) type 1 diabetes mellitus."
I'm not trying to adhere to a diet that induces similar physiological outcomes as starvation, alcoholism, and untreated type 1 diabetes mellitus. But that's just what's right for me. I would never tell anyone else how to live their lives.
The reason I eat carbs is the same reason I do cardio. What's happening inside my body is and will be more important than what's happening with my outer layers.
Ketosis and Ketoacidiosis are not the same.6 -
annaskiski wrote: »domserlisa wrote: »I came across a documentary on Netflix called the Magic Pill. I highly recommend it.
I thought is was about big pharma companies etc. It turns out it gives a lot of valid information on diet, keto, the environment, and our food production history.
All the gals in the office are talking about Keto and I have been waiting for my "rock bottom" moment to start yet another diet. So, I have been educating myself on Keto and I'm gonna drink the Koolaid. I think it is valid. Not any harder to follow than any other diet. It's hard to wrap your mind around eating more fat because if you are a product of the 80's and 90's you know that FAT is evil and will kill you. I'm embracing the healthy fat in my diet while trying to maintain a low calorie diet. So far so good. The scale isn't really showing results yet but I feel wonderful. Better than I have in years. I'm in!!
And this is easier than just creating a calorie deficit? Why?
It’s certainly easier than weighing food, calorie counting and still be hungry at the end of the day with no calories left - In my experience (although I just do LCHF), but the principles the same!
13
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions