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
Replies
-
jetsetcharm wrote: »I've been doing 4 Hour Body since 2012, and the only times I've failed is when I drink too much alcohol. Pretty cool, I got to meet Tim Ferriss on public transit in SF and personally thanked him for helping me lose 100 pounds. I don't have the patience for measuring much, and having a full cheat day each week helps me stick to it on a psychological level. Every body is different, so I say kudos to doing whatever works for each individual person!
https://hbr.org/2011/03/the-4-hour-body-not-so-much.html
Congrats on your weight loss!
You couldn't pay me enough to do this, though.7 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »jetsetcharm wrote: »I've been doing 4 Hour Body since 2012, and the only times I've failed is when I drink too much alcohol. Pretty cool, I got to meet Tim Ferriss on public transit in SF and personally thanked him for helping me lose 100 pounds. I don't have the patience for measuring much, and having a full cheat day each week helps me stick to it on a psychological level. Every body is different, so I say kudos to doing whatever works for each individual person!
https://hbr.org/2011/03/the-4-hour-body-not-so-much.html
Congrats on your weight loss!
You couldn't pay me enough to do this, though.
6 20-minute naps a day for sleep? I'm out!8 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »jetsetcharm wrote: »I've been doing 4 Hour Body since 2012, and the only times I've failed is when I drink too much alcohol. Pretty cool, I got to meet Tim Ferriss on public transit in SF and personally thanked him for helping me lose 100 pounds. I don't have the patience for measuring much, and having a full cheat day each week helps me stick to it on a psychological level. Every body is different, so I say kudos to doing whatever works for each individual person!
https://hbr.org/2011/03/the-4-hour-body-not-so-much.html
Congrats on your weight loss!
You couldn't pay me enough to do this, though.
6 20-minute naps a day for sleep? I'm out!
There are very divided chapters based on topic in the book. I don't need the sleep, sex, or "geek to freak" sections. I just focus on the food and kettlebells. He provides a blueprint, but it's completely customizable based on your body and preferences. I eat my fruits and starchy veggies on Sundays (my cheat day). Just made a tater tot casserole on Sunday for a BBQ and still down in weight two days later. ::shrug::
5 -
jetsetcharm wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »jetsetcharm wrote: »I've been doing 4 Hour Body since 2012, and the only times I've failed is when I drink too much alcohol. Pretty cool, I got to meet Tim Ferriss on public transit in SF and personally thanked him for helping me lose 100 pounds. I don't have the patience for measuring much, and having a full cheat day each week helps me stick to it on a psychological level. Every body is different, so I say kudos to doing whatever works for each individual person!
https://hbr.org/2011/03/the-4-hour-body-not-so-much.html
Congrats on your weight loss!
You couldn't pay me enough to do this, though.
6 20-minute naps a day for sleep? I'm out!
There are very divided chapters based on topic in the book. I don't need the sleep, sex, or "geek to freak" sections. I just focus on the food and kettlebells. He provides a blueprint, but it's completely customizable based on your body and preferences. I eat my fruits and starchy veggies on Sundays (my cheat day). Just made a tater tot casserole on Sunday for a BBQ and still down in weight two days later. ::shrug::
I'm glad you've been able to pick and choose the portions that work for you. I still don't think it would work for me, but that's the beauty of a flexible approach
0 -
Well you would be as long as you maintained a calorie deficit overall. Having tater tots or any other carb, don't suddenly make you gain weight.jetsetcharm wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »jetsetcharm wrote: »I've been doing 4 Hour Body since 2012, and the only times I've failed is when I drink too much alcohol. Pretty cool, I got to meet Tim Ferriss on public transit in SF and personally thanked him for helping me lose 100 pounds. I don't have the patience for measuring much, and having a full cheat day each week helps me stick to it on a psychological level. Every body is different, so I say kudos to doing whatever works for each individual person!
https://hbr.org/2011/03/the-4-hour-body-not-so-much.html
Congrats on your weight loss!
You couldn't pay me enough to do this, though.
6 20-minute naps a day for sleep? I'm out!
There are very divided chapters based on topic in the book. I don't need the sleep, sex, or "geek to freak" sections. I just focus on the food and kettlebells. He provides a blueprint, but it's completely customizable based on your body and preferences. I eat my fruits and starchy veggies on Sundays (my cheat day). Just made a tater tot casserole on Sunday for a BBQ and still down in weight two days later. ::shrug::
For me, I eat fruit everyday so, it wouldn't work if fruit is restricted. Good for you that you have found something that works for you.
8 -
the 4 hour body? lol what crap claims it has on its page. reverse permanent injuries? I guess I can reverse the rod and pin in my leg,gain 34lb of muscle in 28 days without steroids and only 4 hrs total of gym time? How to increase fat-loss 300% with a few bags of ice? LMAO wow not unless you are drinking ice water only for the next few weeks lol. and this makes it sounds even better than many keto site claims.10
-
And the same day, same journal https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2686146Those graphs were created by Stephan Guyenet (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/11/carbohydrate-sugar-and-obesity-in.html). Many issues with the graphs themselves which gives the illusion of a greater trend.
Looking at the graphs though, the participants self-reported (notoriously inaccurate) roughly 508 grams of carbs/day/person in 2000 vs ~470 grams/day/person in 2010. That is still a *kitten* ton of carbs, and only ~7.5% decrease (again self-reported). This is total carbohydrate grams mind you, not a percent of calories or ratio of the diet. Sugar intake went from ~110 g/day/person to ~94 g/day/person (~15% decrease). You can also see that the %obesity roughly doubled from 1980-2000 (20 years; 100% increase), yet from 2000-2010 %obesity went from ~30%-~37.5%, only 25% increase. One could argue the moderate (but significant if these numbers are based on the Makarem et al. 2014 Br J Nutrition paper) decrease in carbohydrate and sugar consumption altered the obesity trend for the better... If anything, its no wonder %obesity continues to climb.
I'll just leave this here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2686143
Both are essentially mini-reviews. A good read.0 -
I work in pharma and continually frustrated about this crap. It is meaningless. It was designed by authoritarians as a warning signal, but it does not warn anyone of anything. Just another excuse to prescribe drugs that don't address the root cause - eating less and moving more.
Note this is the only remedy to the curse of prediabetes - Eat less & move more.
This is why it is so important to find a doctor who will work with patients who want to address the root causes.
I was labeled "pre-diabetic" last August. Come February, my fasting BG was 180 mg/dL and my A1C was 7.3. So I, not the doctor, asked about Metformin and diet changes. I was already working out 4-6 days/week, but was eating crap. So he put me on 500mg/day Metformin and I saw the dietician at my local Joslin Diabetes Center. She wasn't expecting me when she got my data, 5'11" 265+ pounds. I was more broad than round, but my large chest and shoulders let me fool myself about the eating crap.
She gave me a diet of 2250 calories/day, no more than 225g carbs/day and no more than 60g carbs/meal. I rarely break out of those numbers. I self-adjusted them downward by 5% after losing 10% of my starting weight and did so again after close to another 10% as I'm down about 40 pounds from that 265+ starting number.
My A1C in May was 5.4 and I rarely have a fasting BG of over 110 mg/dL now. Doctor said I no longer needed the Metformin. So when what I have runs out, I will add an additional level of difficulty by trying to manage my BG by diet and exercise alone.
But...
If I go crazy, like I did last week on vacation, I can pop a fasting BG number in the 130s. So I can't just eat what I want.
But the difference is the interaction between the doctor and patient. The patient has to want to make changes and the doctor has to work with him/her to see if there is a course of action that the patient can take to do so.
Fortunately, my doctor is willing to work with me, and there is no big Pharma lobby for Metformin. I do imagine other doctors would prescribe more costly and more trendy meds to patients. Reasons can vary from influence by drug reps to fear of lawsuits if something goes wrong.
So I certainly understand the motivations a doctor would have in prescribing meds. It's a way out. The doctor can document an attempt to treat a condition. He advised the patient to address his diet, exercise more, and prescribed xYz drug. If it goes sideways after that, perhaps the patient didn't do their part, but the doctor has a documented treatment plan and avoids liability.
Keto isn't really needed. I doubt I ever have a day below 100g carbs/day. However, I can tell the difference if I'm at or above my 225g carbs/day target, or I'm over on my calorie target. I'll pop a BG number higher.
I just don't eat until I'm below 100mg/dL. Problem solved Probably didn't need to eat anyway as I'd over done it the previous day or meal. 5 -
And the same day, same journal https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2686146Those graphs were created by Stephan Guyenet (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/11/carbohydrate-sugar-and-obesity-in.html). Many issues with the graphs themselves which gives the illusion of a greater trend.
Looking at the graphs though, the participants self-reported (notoriously inaccurate) roughly 508 grams of carbs/day/person in 2000 vs ~470 grams/day/person in 2010. That is still a *kitten* ton of carbs, and only ~7.5% decrease (again self-reported). This is total carbohydrate grams mind you, not a percent of calories or ratio of the diet. Sugar intake went from ~110 g/day/person to ~94 g/day/person (~15% decrease). You can also see that the %obesity roughly doubled from 1980-2000 (20 years; 100% increase), yet from 2000-2010 %obesity went from ~30%-~37.5%, only 25% increase. One could argue the moderate (but significant if these numbers are based on the Makarem et al. 2014 Br J Nutrition paper) decrease in carbohydrate and sugar consumption altered the obesity trend for the better... If anything, its no wonder %obesity continues to climb.
I'll just leave this here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2686143
Both are essentially mini-reviews. A good read.
Guess how I know you didn't read the link provide by AnvilHead ??5 -
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?
Just want businesses to have the choice if they want to publish or not. None are forced to go to a restaurant, so if consumers wanted it, they would choose restaurants who publish.
A government that has the power to force someone else to do something has the power to force you to do something.
As a lover of freedom, I detest the idea that a restaurant owner would lose a bit of freedom by having the government force them to publish.
If the market signals that consumers want this, that is one thing. If government mandates it, that is antithetical to freedom and goes counter to the premise America was founded on, freedom.10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Actually, carbohydrate intake has decreased significantly over the last roughly 20 years....
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4175294/
Pretty difficult to reconcile the carb/obesity theory with those stats, isn't it?:
Those graphs were created by Stephan Guyenet (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/11/carbohydrate-sugar-and-obesity-in.html). Many issues with the graphs themselves which gives the illusion of a greater trend.
Looking at the graphs though, the participants self-reported (notoriously inaccurate) roughly 508 grams of carbs/day/person in 2000 vs ~470 grams/day/person in 2010. That is still a *kitten* ton of carbs, and only ~7.5% decrease (again self-reported). This is total carbohydrate grams mind you, not a percent of calories or ratio of the diet. Sugar intake went from ~110 g/day/person to ~94 g/day/person (~15% decrease). You can also see that the %obesity roughly doubled from 1980-2000 (20 years; 100% increase), yet from 2000-2010 %obesity went from ~30%-~37.5%, only 25% increase. One could argue the moderate (but significant if these numbers are based on the Makarem et al. 2014 Br J Nutrition paper) decrease in carbohydrate and sugar consumption altered the obesity trend for the better... If anything, its no wonder %obesity continues to climb.
I'm fine with disregarding self-reported numbers as long as we clarify what we're replacing it with. What numbers would you like to use to support your claim that carbohydrate consumption has "exploded"?
I didn't make that claim in my post, but some NHANES trend analysis suggest it is greater than in the 1970s. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4598942/pdf/nihms721969.pdf2 -
And the same day, same journal https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2686146Those graphs were created by Stephan Guyenet (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/11/carbohydrate-sugar-and-obesity-in.html). Many issues with the graphs themselves which gives the illusion of a greater trend.
Looking at the graphs though, the participants self-reported (notoriously inaccurate) roughly 508 grams of carbs/day/person in 2000 vs ~470 grams/day/person in 2010. That is still a *kitten* ton of carbs, and only ~7.5% decrease (again self-reported). This is total carbohydrate grams mind you, not a percent of calories or ratio of the diet. Sugar intake went from ~110 g/day/person to ~94 g/day/person (~15% decrease). You can also see that the %obesity roughly doubled from 1980-2000 (20 years; 100% increase), yet from 2000-2010 %obesity went from ~30%-~37.5%, only 25% increase. One could argue the moderate (but significant if these numbers are based on the Makarem et al. 2014 Br J Nutrition paper) decrease in carbohydrate and sugar consumption altered the obesity trend for the better... If anything, its no wonder %obesity continues to climb.
I'll just leave this here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2686143
Both are essentially mini-reviews. A good read.
Guess how I know you didn't read the link provide by AnvilHead ??
I have had it open on my computer. I am capable of reading both sides of the debate. I find both good reads. Crazy concept, I know. edited to remove a tad bit of snarkiness
3 -
tbright1965 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?
Just want businesses to have the choice if they want to publish or not. None are forced to go to a restaurant, so if consumers wanted it, they would choose restaurants who publish.
A government that has the power to force someone else to do something has the power to force you to do something.
As a lover of freedom, I detest the idea that a restaurant owner would lose a bit of freedom by having the government force them to publish.
If the market signals that consumers want this, that is one thing. If government mandates it, that is antithetical to freedom and goes counter to the premise America was founded on, freedom.
We all sacrifice a little freedom for the greater good of the many. It's the fundamental concept of societies.
I have no issues with chains larger than 20 meeting this requirement. It helps the many and full disclosure is never a bad thing. At that size, it is not an onerous requirement. Bear in mind that many of the health regulations that keep restaurants save also cause a "restaurant owner to lose a bit of freedom". Would you do away with that also?9 -
tbright1965 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?
Just want businesses to have the choice if they want to publish or not. None are forced to go to a restaurant, so if consumers wanted it, they would choose restaurants who publish.
A government that has the power to force someone else to do something has the power to force you to do something.
As a lover of freedom, I detest the idea that a restaurant owner would lose a bit of freedom by having the government force them to publish.
If the market signals that consumers want this, that is one thing. If government mandates it, that is antithetical to freedom and goes counter to the premise America was founded on, freedom.
We all sacrifice a little freedom for the greater good of the many. It's the fundamental concept of societies.
I have no issues with chains larger than 20 meeting this requirement. It helps the many and full disclosure is never a bad thing. At that size, it is not an onerous requirement. Bear in mind that many of the health regulations that keep restaurants save also cause a "restaurant owner to lose a bit of freedom". Would you do away with that also?
What freedom is sacrificed for the greater good of the many? If this is taken by force then it isn't freedom.
This is the definition of theft and oppression.13 -
tbright1965 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?
Just want businesses to have the choice if they want to publish or not. None are forced to go to a restaurant, so if consumers wanted it, they would choose restaurants who publish.
A government that has the power to force someone else to do something has the power to force you to do something.
As a lover of freedom, I detest the idea that a restaurant owner would lose a bit of freedom by having the government force them to publish.
If the market signals that consumers want this, that is one thing. If government mandates it, that is antithetical to freedom and goes counter to the premise America was founded on, freedom.
We all sacrifice a little freedom for the greater good of the many. It's the fundamental concept of societies.
I have no issues with chains larger than 20 meeting this requirement. It helps the many and full disclosure is never a bad thing. At that size, it is not an onerous requirement. Bear in mind that many of the health regulations that keep restaurants save also cause a "restaurant owner to lose a bit of freedom". Would you do away with that also?
What freedom is sacrificed for the greater good of the many? If this is taken by force then it isn't freedom.
This is the definition of theft and oppression.
My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.
(ETA I'm guessing that's something like what he means ) 2 -
And the same day, same journal https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2686146Those graphs were created by Stephan Guyenet (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/11/carbohydrate-sugar-and-obesity-in.html). Many issues with the graphs themselves which gives the illusion of a greater trend.
Looking at the graphs though, the participants self-reported (notoriously inaccurate) roughly 508 grams of carbs/day/person in 2000 vs ~470 grams/day/person in 2010. That is still a *kitten* ton of carbs, and only ~7.5% decrease (again self-reported). This is total carbohydrate grams mind you, not a percent of calories or ratio of the diet. Sugar intake went from ~110 g/day/person to ~94 g/day/person (~15% decrease). You can also see that the %obesity roughly doubled from 1980-2000 (20 years; 100% increase), yet from 2000-2010 %obesity went from ~30%-~37.5%, only 25% increase. One could argue the moderate (but significant if these numbers are based on the Makarem et al. 2014 Br J Nutrition paper) decrease in carbohydrate and sugar consumption altered the obesity trend for the better... If anything, its no wonder %obesity continues to climb.
I'll just leave this here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2686143
Both are essentially mini-reviews. A good read.
Guess how I know you didn't read the link provide by AnvilHead ??
I have had it open on my computer. I am capable of reading both sides of the debate thank you very much. I find both good reads. Crazy concept, I know.
When you read the abstract on the Ludwig paper, be sure to pay attention to the following (emphasis added):
"Beyond the type and amount of carbohydrate consumed, the CIM provides a conceptual framework for understanding how many dietary and nondietary exposures might alter hormones, metabolism, and adipocyte biology in ways that could predispose to obesity. Pending definitive studies, the principles of a low-glycemic load diet offer a practical alternative to the conventional focus on dietary fat and calorie restriction."1 -
tbright1965 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?
Just want businesses to have the choice if they want to publish or not. None are forced to go to a restaurant, so if consumers wanted it, they would choose restaurants who publish.
A government that has the power to force someone else to do something has the power to force you to do something.
As a lover of freedom, I detest the idea that a restaurant owner would lose a bit of freedom by having the government force them to publish.
If the market signals that consumers want this, that is one thing. If government mandates it, that is antithetical to freedom and goes counter to the premise America was founded on, freedom.
We all sacrifice a little freedom for the greater good of the many. It's the fundamental concept of societies.
I have no issues with chains larger than 20 meeting this requirement. It helps the many and full disclosure is never a bad thing. At that size, it is not an onerous requirement. Bear in mind that many of the health regulations that keep restaurants save also cause a "restaurant owner to lose a bit of freedom". Would you do away with that also?
What freedom is sacrificed for the greater good of the many? If this is taken by force then it isn't freedom.
This is the definition of theft and oppression.
Gimme a break. That whole line of reasoning is absurd. Name one societal regulation or law that someone doesn't see as being by force. We have a representative government structure that we elect to make laws and regulations for the common good. Some like it some don't. Some of those laws and regulations change and some don't.
What is exactly taken by force here? That larger chains should have to disclose their calories and nutrients in their recipes? They already have this info. It's the basis of their business model. A system of recipes and business practices that can be replicated. They know what is in every dish and what the amounts are, within a reasonable margin of error. They sell franchises or operate company stores on the basis of that tested system and if an operator. Their 2 biggest controllable variable are food cost and labor.
So, they have the info. It's just a matter of sharing it for the good of the consumer, who is part of society as a whole. I've also seen comments here about the inaccuracy of portions in chain restaurants. I think Arby's was mentioned. Just so happens I worked with a person who was previously a long time compliance and training person for Arby's. They preslice, pre portion and measure every item. If they are not getting the expected yield from a certain prep station, the trainer or manager will dig in and work at that station with every shift there until they figure out where the problem is. It's key to their staying in business and being profitable. And this is the same in all chains. They have operating guides complete with portion measurements and in many instances pictures.
To share this info for the good of consumers is not giving up any great freedom. To call it theft and oppression when referring to a restaurant chain of 20 or more is absurd.
For context: I was never a chef in a chain. But at one point sold a restaurant management technology to chains. This was prior to these regulations from the early 2000s in the Obama era. My customers included, Texas Roadhouse, Applebee's, Friday's, Chili's, Outback and the Darden Restaurants, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones and Red Lobster. They all new their portions, nutritional info and processed down to the penny!13 -
tbright1965 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?
Just want businesses to have the choice if they want to publish or not. None are forced to go to a restaurant, so if consumers wanted it, they would choose restaurants who publish.
A government that has the power to force someone else to do something has the power to force you to do something.
As a lover of freedom, I detest the idea that a restaurant owner would lose a bit of freedom by having the government force them to publish.
If the market signals that consumers want this, that is one thing. If government mandates it, that is antithetical to freedom and goes counter to the premise America was founded on, freedom.
We all sacrifice a little freedom for the greater good of the many. It's the fundamental concept of societies.
I have no issues with chains larger than 20 meeting this requirement. It helps the many and full disclosure is never a bad thing. At that size, it is not an onerous requirement. Bear in mind that many of the health regulations that keep restaurants save also cause a "restaurant owner to lose a bit of freedom". Would you do away with that also?
What freedom is sacrificed for the greater good of the many? If this is taken by force then it isn't freedom.
This is the definition of theft and oppression.
My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.
(ETA I'm guessing that's something like what he means )
A pretty good example. A few more, you can't go 80 in a school zone. You have to be 16 or 18 depending on state to buy tobacco. You can't have a loud party blasting music in a residential neighborhood after 11:00PM . I could go on and on but you get the idea......6 -
tbright1965 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?
Just want businesses to have the choice if they want to publish or not. None are forced to go to a restaurant, so if consumers wanted it, they would choose restaurants who publish.
A government that has the power to force someone else to do something has the power to force you to do something.
As a lover of freedom, I detest the idea that a restaurant owner would lose a bit of freedom by having the government force them to publish.
If the market signals that consumers want this, that is one thing. If government mandates it, that is antithetical to freedom and goes counter to the premise America was founded on, freedom.
We all sacrifice a little freedom for the greater good of the many. It's the fundamental concept of societies.
I have no issues with chains larger than 20 meeting this requirement. It helps the many and full disclosure is never a bad thing. At that size, it is not an onerous requirement. Bear in mind that many of the health regulations that keep restaurants save also cause a "restaurant owner to lose a bit of freedom". Would you do away with that also?
What freedom is sacrificed for the greater good of the many? If this is taken by force then it isn't freedom.
This is the definition of theft and oppression.
Gimme a break. That whole line of reasoning is absurd. Name one societal regulation or law that someone doesn't see as being by force. We have a representative government structure that we elect to make laws and regulations for the common good. Some like it some don't. Some of those laws and regulations change and some don't.
What is exactly taken by force here? That larger chains should have to disclose their calories and nutrients in their recipes? They already have this info. It's the basis of their business model. A system of recipes and business practices that can be replicated. They know what is in every dish and what the amounts are, within a reasonable margin of error. They sell franchises or operate company stores on the basis of that tested system and if an operator. Their 2 biggest controllable variable are food cost and labor.
So, they have the info. It's just a matter of sharing it for the good of the consumer, who is part of society as a whole. I've also seen comments here about the inaccuracy of portions in chain restaurants. I think Arby's was mentioned. Just so happens I worked with a person who was previously a long time compliance and training person for Arby's. They preslice, pre portion and measure every item. If they are not getting the expected yield from a certain prep station, the trainer or manager will dig in and work at that station with every shift there until they figure out where the problem is. It's key to their staying in business and being profitable. And this is the same in all chains. They have operating guides complete with portion measurements and in many instances pictures.
To share this info for the good of consumers is not giving up any great freedom. To call it theft and oppression when referring to a restaurant chain of 20 or more is absurd.
For context: I was never a chef in a chain. But at one point sold a restaurant management technology to chains. This was prior to these regulations from the early 2000s in the Obama era. My customers included, Texas Roadhouse, Applebee's, Friday's, Chili's, Outback and the Darden Restaurants, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones and Red Lobster. They all new their portions, nutritional info and processed down to the penny!
Maybe that’s the problem. If we have a nanny state, there is no incentive to become educated or to use logic and reason. Those who benefit from more and more regulation lobby for more and more, with dubious benefits to the general public.
So you give me a break. People do not need to give up freedom to live in a society. They need to give up the notion that others should be controlled and told what is best for them and others.
If they do not make good choices, let the consequences fall only on them. If they harm others, they are responsible to make those harmed whole.
If people want to know nutrition information, let them ask. It’s the slippery slope argument. Just because it is not your freedoms being infringed doesn’t mean freedoms are not at risk.
So if we are really interested in the greater good, we cannot discount and marginalize the loss of freedom just because the loser is not a popular entity.
I really see it no different than suggesting that women or people of color are not really losing freedoms.
The loss of freedom for one is the loss for all.
19 -
tbright1965 wrote: »tbright1965 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?
Just want businesses to have the choice if they want to publish or not. None are forced to go to a restaurant, so if consumers wanted it, they would choose restaurants who publish.
A government that has the power to force someone else to do something has the power to force you to do something.
As a lover of freedom, I detest the idea that a restaurant owner would lose a bit of freedom by having the government force them to publish.
If the market signals that consumers want this, that is one thing. If government mandates it, that is antithetical to freedom and goes counter to the premise America was founded on, freedom.
We all sacrifice a little freedom for the greater good of the many. It's the fundamental concept of societies.
I have no issues with chains larger than 20 meeting this requirement. It helps the many and full disclosure is never a bad thing. At that size, it is not an onerous requirement. Bear in mind that many of the health regulations that keep restaurants save also cause a "restaurant owner to lose a bit of freedom". Would you do away with that also?
What freedom is sacrificed for the greater good of the many? If this is taken by force then it isn't freedom.
This is the definition of theft and oppression.
Gimme a break. That whole line of reasoning is absurd. Name one societal regulation or law that someone doesn't see as being by force. We have a representative government structure that we elect to make laws and regulations for the common good. Some like it some don't. Some of those laws and regulations change and some don't.
What is exactly taken by force here? That larger chains should have to disclose their calories and nutrients in their recipes? They already have this info. It's the basis of their business model. A system of recipes and business practices that can be replicated. They know what is in every dish and what the amounts are, within a reasonable margin of error. They sell franchises or operate company stores on the basis of that tested system and if an operator. Their 2 biggest controllable variable are food cost and labor.
So, they have the info. It's just a matter of sharing it for the good of the consumer, who is part of society as a whole. I've also seen comments here about the inaccuracy of portions in chain restaurants. I think Arby's was mentioned. Just so happens I worked with a person who was previously a long time compliance and training person for Arby's. They preslice, pre portion and measure every item. If they are not getting the expected yield from a certain prep station, the trainer or manager will dig in and work at that station with every shift there until they figure out where the problem is. It's key to their staying in business and being profitable. And this is the same in all chains. They have operating guides complete with portion measurements and in many instances pictures.
To share this info for the good of consumers is not giving up any great freedom. To call it theft and oppression when referring to a restaurant chain of 20 or more is absurd.
For context: I was never a chef in a chain. But at one point sold a restaurant management technology to chains. This was prior to these regulations from the early 2000s in the Obama era. My customers included, Texas Roadhouse, Applebee's, Friday's, Chili's, Outback and the Darden Restaurants, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones and Red Lobster. They all new their portions, nutritional info and processed down to the penny!
Maybe that’s the problem. If we have a nanny state, there is no incentive to become educated or to use logic and reason. Those who benefit from more and more regulation lobby for more and more, with dubious benefits to the general public.
So you give me a break. People do not need to give up freedom to live in a society. They need to give up the notion that others should be controlled and told what is best for them and others.
If they do not make good choices, let the consequences fall only on them. If they harm others, they are responsible to make those harmed whole.
If people want to know nutrition information, let them ask. It’s the slippery slope argument. Just because it is not your freedoms being infringed doesn’t mean freedoms are not at risk.
So if we are really interested in the greater good, we cannot discount and marginalize the loss of freedom just because the loser is not a popular entity.
I really see it no different than suggesting that women or people of color are not really losing freedoms.
The loss of freedom for one is the loss for all.
Oh those poor downtrodden and oppressed masses of corporate restaurant chains that are forced to disclose nutritional information for the consumer! Yes, I see your point. It is just like women of color losing freedom. Now, where is that eyeroll icon.......???
Oh, and if the restaurants are not required to have it to provide, what good would it do for anyone to "just ask". Hint: it helps to know the subject before you jump on the white horse. How many years and in what capacities have you worked in the restaurant industry?21 -
tbright1965 wrote: »tbright1965 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?
Just want businesses to have the choice if they want to publish or not. None are forced to go to a restaurant, so if consumers wanted it, they would choose restaurants who publish.
A government that has the power to force someone else to do something has the power to force you to do something.
As a lover of freedom, I detest the idea that a restaurant owner would lose a bit of freedom by having the government force them to publish.
If the market signals that consumers want this, that is one thing. If government mandates it, that is antithetical to freedom and goes counter to the premise America was founded on, freedom.
We all sacrifice a little freedom for the greater good of the many. It's the fundamental concept of societies.
I have no issues with chains larger than 20 meeting this requirement. It helps the many and full disclosure is never a bad thing. At that size, it is not an onerous requirement. Bear in mind that many of the health regulations that keep restaurants save also cause a "restaurant owner to lose a bit of freedom". Would you do away with that also?
What freedom is sacrificed for the greater good of the many? If this is taken by force then it isn't freedom.
This is the definition of theft and oppression.
Gimme a break. That whole line of reasoning is absurd. Name one societal regulation or law that someone doesn't see as being by force. We have a representative government structure that we elect to make laws and regulations for the common good. Some like it some don't. Some of those laws and regulations change and some don't.
What is exactly taken by force here? That larger chains should have to disclose their calories and nutrients in their recipes? They already have this info. It's the basis of their business model. A system of recipes and business practices that can be replicated. They know what is in every dish and what the amounts are, within a reasonable margin of error. They sell franchises or operate company stores on the basis of that tested system and if an operator. Their 2 biggest controllable variable are food cost and labor.
So, they have the info. It's just a matter of sharing it for the good of the consumer, who is part of society as a whole. I've also seen comments here about the inaccuracy of portions in chain restaurants. I think Arby's was mentioned. Just so happens I worked with a person who was previously a long time compliance and training person for Arby's. They preslice, pre portion and measure every item. If they are not getting the expected yield from a certain prep station, the trainer or manager will dig in and work at that station with every shift there until they figure out where the problem is. It's key to their staying in business and being profitable. And this is the same in all chains. They have operating guides complete with portion measurements and in many instances pictures.
To share this info for the good of consumers is not giving up any great freedom. To call it theft and oppression when referring to a restaurant chain of 20 or more is absurd.
For context: I was never a chef in a chain. But at one point sold a restaurant management technology to chains. This was prior to these regulations from the early 2000s in the Obama era. My customers included, Texas Roadhouse, Applebee's, Friday's, Chili's, Outback and the Darden Restaurants, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones and Red Lobster. They all new their portions, nutritional info and processed down to the penny!
Maybe that’s the problem. If we have a nanny state, there is no incentive to become educated or to use logic and reason. Those who benefit from more and more regulation lobby for more and more, with dubious benefits to the general public.
So you give me a break. People do not need to give up freedom to live in a society. They need to give up the notion that others should be controlled and told what is best for them and others.
If they do not make good choices, let the consequences fall only on them. If they harm others, they are responsible to make those harmed whole.
If people want to know nutrition information, let them ask. It’s the slippery slope argument. Just because it is not your freedoms being infringed doesn’t mean freedoms are not at risk.
So if we are really interested in the greater good, we cannot discount and marginalize the loss of freedom just because the loser is not a popular entity.
I really see it no different than suggesting that women or people of color are not really losing freedoms.
The loss of freedom for one is the loss for all.
Well that's unnecessarily dramatic. It's fricken caloric information for those who want it. It's not like they are being required to weight the patrons as they enter and give them a menu based on BMI.21 -
tbright1965 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?
Just want businesses to have the choice if they want to publish or not. None are forced to go to a restaurant, so if consumers wanted it, they would choose restaurants who publish.
A government that has the power to force someone else to do something has the power to force you to do something.
As a lover of freedom, I detest the idea that a restaurant owner would lose a bit of freedom by having the government force them to publish.
If the market signals that consumers want this, that is one thing. If government mandates it, that is antithetical to freedom and goes counter to the premise America was founded on, freedom.
We all sacrifice a little freedom for the greater good of the many. It's the fundamental concept of societies.
I have no issues with chains larger than 20 meeting this requirement. It helps the many and full disclosure is never a bad thing. At that size, it is not an onerous requirement. Bear in mind that many of the health regulations that keep restaurants save also cause a "restaurant owner to lose a bit of freedom". Would you do away with that also?
What freedom is sacrificed for the greater good of the many? If this is taken by force then it isn't freedom.
This is the definition of theft and oppression.
Gimme a break. That whole line of reasoning is absurd. Name one societal regulation or law that someone doesn't see as being by force. We have a representative government structure that we elect to make laws and regulations for the common good. Some like it some don't. Some of those laws and regulations change and some don't.
What is exactly taken by force here? That larger chains should have to disclose their calories and nutrients in their recipes? They already have this info. It's the basis of their business model. A system of recipes and business practices that can be replicated. They know what is in every dish and what the amounts are, within a reasonable margin of error. They sell franchises or operate company stores on the basis of that tested system and if an operator. Their 2 biggest controllable variable are food cost and labor.
So, they have the info. It's just a matter of sharing it for the good of the consumer, who is part of society as a whole. I've also seen comments here about the inaccuracy of portions in chain restaurants. I think Arby's was mentioned. Just so happens I worked with a person who was previously a long time compliance and training person for Arby's. They preslice, pre portion and measure every item. If they are not getting the expected yield from a certain prep station, the trainer or manager will dig in and work at that station with every shift there until they figure out where the problem is. It's key to their staying in business and being profitable. And this is the same in all chains. They have operating guides complete with portion measurements and in many instances pictures.
To share this info for the good of consumers is not giving up any great freedom. To call it theft and oppression when referring to a restaurant chain of 20 or more is absurd.
For context: I was never a chef in a chain. But at one point sold a restaurant management technology to chains. This was prior to these regulations from the early 2000s in the Obama era. My customers included, Texas Roadhouse, Applebee's, Friday's, Chili's, Outback and the Darden Restaurants, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones and Red Lobster. They all new their portions, nutritional info and processed down to the penny!
No freedom sacrificed ever ends up as public good.
Can you cite one example to the contrary?
I have no experience in the food industry, but a great deal in regulatory and law enforcement. My concern with such laws and regulation are enforcement. How do you enforce such a law? What happens to those who break the law? What happens when the calories I post are proven wrong?
As a chef do you measure precisely with a scale?
My point is that this is quesswork at best. Chefs don't use food scales, but handfuls, pinches, etc. So that 800 calories posted is actually a best guess range from 700-1000 kcals. So what's the point?
This would be like enforcing speed limits where every speedometer holds an inherent 20% degree of error.10 -
tbright1965 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?
Just want businesses to have the choice if they want to publish or not. None are forced to go to a restaurant, so if consumers wanted it, they would choose restaurants who publish.
A government that has the power to force someone else to do something has the power to force you to do something.
As a lover of freedom, I detest the idea that a restaurant owner would lose a bit of freedom by having the government force them to publish.
If the market signals that consumers want this, that is one thing. If government mandates it, that is antithetical to freedom and goes counter to the premise America was founded on, freedom.
We all sacrifice a little freedom for the greater good of the many. It's the fundamental concept of societies.
I have no issues with chains larger than 20 meeting this requirement. It helps the many and full disclosure is never a bad thing. At that size, it is not an onerous requirement. Bear in mind that many of the health regulations that keep restaurants save also cause a "restaurant owner to lose a bit of freedom". Would you do away with that also?
What freedom is sacrificed for the greater good of the many? If this is taken by force then it isn't freedom.
This is the definition of theft and oppression.
Gimme a break. That whole line of reasoning is absurd. Name one societal regulation or law that someone doesn't see as being by force. We have a representative government structure that we elect to make laws and regulations for the common good. Some like it some don't. Some of those laws and regulations change and some don't.
What is exactly taken by force here? That larger chains should have to disclose their calories and nutrients in their recipes? They already have this info. It's the basis of their business model. A system of recipes and business practices that can be replicated. They know what is in every dish and what the amounts are, within a reasonable margin of error. They sell franchises or operate company stores on the basis of that tested system and if an operator. Their 2 biggest controllable variable are food cost and labor.
So, they have the info. It's just a matter of sharing it for the good of the consumer, who is part of society as a whole. I've also seen comments here about the inaccuracy of portions in chain restaurants. I think Arby's was mentioned. Just so happens I worked with a person who was previously a long time compliance and training person for Arby's. They preslice, pre portion and measure every item. If they are not getting the expected yield from a certain prep station, the trainer or manager will dig in and work at that station with every shift there until they figure out where the problem is. It's key to their staying in business and being profitable. And this is the same in all chains. They have operating guides complete with portion measurements and in many instances pictures.
To share this info for the good of consumers is not giving up any great freedom. To call it theft and oppression when referring to a restaurant chain of 20 or more is absurd.
For context: I was never a chef in a chain. But at one point sold a restaurant management technology to chains. This was prior to these regulations from the early 2000s in the Obama era. My customers included, Texas Roadhouse, Applebee's, Friday's, Chili's, Outback and the Darden Restaurants, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones and Red Lobster. They all new their portions, nutritional info and processed down to the penny!
No freedom sacrificed ever ends up as public good.
Can you cite one example to the contrary?
I have no experience in the food industry, but a great deal in regulatory and law enforcement. My concern with such laws and regulation are enforcement. How do you enforce such a law? What happens to those who break the law? What happens when the calories I post are proven wrong?
As a chef do you measure precisely with a scale?
My point is that this is quesswork at best. Chefs don't use food scales, but handfuls, pinches, etc. So that 800 calories posted is actually a best guess range from 700-1000 kcals. So what's the point?
This would be like enforcing speed limits where every speedometer holds an inherent 20% degree of error.
As to the first bolded, I cited several examples earlier. I ascribe to an orderly society point of view that sees a reasonable amount of regulation as being for the public good. You are obviously more libertarian. We disagree.
As far as the enforcement, I am not qualified to answer that. As I mentioned, my most intimate experience with chain restaurants was pre-disclosure regs. As someone previously mentioned, the recipes aren't independently tested. I will say that chain restaurant depend on good will and public perception of honestly. They have the information. I see no value to them to disclose it inaccurately. If this came to light it would only damage the value of their brand. They live night and day trying to build the positive perception of public trust for their brands in a very competitive industry. To suggest otherwise is a level a cynicism that is absurd. They gain no profit from false or inaccurate information.
As to the 2nd bolded, the answer is yes. I do use a food scale, as does everyone else I've ever known in the food industry and especially in chain restaurants. They get used all day every day.
You're perception that workers in chain restaurant kitchens are randomly just using a pinch of this and a dash of that is just plain wrong. The recipes and amounts are precise for the purposes of cost control and replication of guest experience. The margin of error is far less that the 20% you suggest, not just in chains but in any restaurant kitchen where staying in business matters. Food cost control is critical, as I previously stated. If you ever get the chance to walk through a chain restaurant kitchen, you will see portioning scales everywhere. it's a fundamental part of restaurant kitchen management.
As you said, your have no experience in the restaurant industry. Your comment make this very clear.17 -
tbright1965 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?
Just want businesses to have the choice if they want to publish or not. None are forced to go to a restaurant, so if consumers wanted it, they would choose restaurants who publish.
A government that has the power to force someone else to do something has the power to force you to do something.
As a lover of freedom, I detest the idea that a restaurant owner would lose a bit of freedom by having the government force them to publish.
If the market signals that consumers want this, that is one thing. If government mandates it, that is antithetical to freedom and goes counter to the premise America was founded on, freedom.
We all sacrifice a little freedom for the greater good of the many. It's the fundamental concept of societies.
I have no issues with chains larger than 20 meeting this requirement. It helps the many and full disclosure is never a bad thing. At that size, it is not an onerous requirement. Bear in mind that many of the health regulations that keep restaurants save also cause a "restaurant owner to lose a bit of freedom". Would you do away with that also?
What freedom is sacrificed for the greater good of the many? If this is taken by force then it isn't freedom.
This is the definition of theft and oppression.
Gimme a break. That whole line of reasoning is absurd. Name one societal regulation or law that someone doesn't see as being by force. We have a representative government structure that we elect to make laws and regulations for the common good. Some like it some don't. Some of those laws and regulations change and some don't.
What is exactly taken by force here? That larger chains should have to disclose their calories and nutrients in their recipes? They already have this info. It's the basis of their business model. A system of recipes and business practices that can be replicated. They know what is in every dish and what the amounts are, within a reasonable margin of error. They sell franchises or operate company stores on the basis of that tested system and if an operator. Their 2 biggest controllable variable are food cost and labor.
So, they have the info. It's just a matter of sharing it for the good of the consumer, who is part of society as a whole. I've also seen comments here about the inaccuracy of portions in chain restaurants. I think Arby's was mentioned. Just so happens I worked with a person who was previously a long time compliance and training person for Arby's. They preslice, pre portion and measure every item. If they are not getting the expected yield from a certain prep station, the trainer or manager will dig in and work at that station with every shift there until they figure out where the problem is. It's key to their staying in business and being profitable. And this is the same in all chains. They have operating guides complete with portion measurements and in many instances pictures.
To share this info for the good of consumers is not giving up any great freedom. To call it theft and oppression when referring to a restaurant chain of 20 or more is absurd.
For context: I was never a chef in a chain. But at one point sold a restaurant management technology to chains. This was prior to these regulations from the early 2000s in the Obama era. My customers included, Texas Roadhouse, Applebee's, Friday's, Chili's, Outback and the Darden Restaurants, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones and Red Lobster. They all new their portions, nutritional info and processed down to the penny!
No freedom sacrificed ever ends up as public good.
Can you cite one example to the contrary?
Mandatory auto insurance, health and safety regulations, environmental regulations, child labor laws, etc.I have no experience in the food industry, but a great deal in regulatory and law enforcement. My concern with such laws and regulation are enforcement. How do you enforce such a law? What happens to those who break the law? What happens when the calories I post are proven wrong?
I would imagine the same repercussions as those already in place for prepackaged foods. It's not as if we don't already have a precedent.As a chef do you measure precisely with a scale?
Quite often. Especially when baking or portioning meats. Chain restaurants are even more stringent.My point is that this is quesswork at best. Chefs don't use food scales, but handfuls, pinches, etc. So that 800 calories posted is actually a best guess range from 700-1000 kcals. So what's the point?
You already admitted that you have no experience in the food industry. So let's stop making assumptions based on what you see on the food network.
Speedometers have a margin of error as well.This would be like enforcing speed limits where every speedometer holds an inherent 20% degree of error.
14 -
tbright1965 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?
Just want businesses to have the choice if they want to publish or not. None are forced to go to a restaurant, so if consumers wanted it, they would choose restaurants who publish.
A government that has the power to force someone else to do something has the power to force you to do something.
As a lover of freedom, I detest the idea that a restaurant owner would lose a bit of freedom by having the government force them to publish.
If the market signals that consumers want this, that is one thing. If government mandates it, that is antithetical to freedom and goes counter to the premise America was founded on, freedom.
We all sacrifice a little freedom for the greater good of the many. It's the fundamental concept of societies.
I have no issues with chains larger than 20 meeting this requirement. It helps the many and full disclosure is never a bad thing. At that size, it is not an onerous requirement. Bear in mind that many of the health regulations that keep restaurants save also cause a "restaurant owner to lose a bit of freedom". Would you do away with that also?
What freedom is sacrificed for the greater good of the many? If this is taken by force then it isn't freedom.
This is the definition of theft and oppression.
Gimme a break. That whole line of reasoning is absurd. Name one societal regulation or law that someone doesn't see as being by force. We have a representative government structure that we elect to make laws and regulations for the common good. Some like it some don't. Some of those laws and regulations change and some don't.
What is exactly taken by force here? That larger chains should have to disclose their calories and nutrients in their recipes? They already have this info. It's the basis of their business model. A system of recipes and business practices that can be replicated. They know what is in every dish and what the amounts are, within a reasonable margin of error. They sell franchises or operate company stores on the basis of that tested system and if an operator. Their 2 biggest controllable variable are food cost and labor.
So, they have the info. It's just a matter of sharing it for the good of the consumer, who is part of society as a whole. I've also seen comments here about the inaccuracy of portions in chain restaurants. I think Arby's was mentioned. Just so happens I worked with a person who was previously a long time compliance and training person for Arby's. They preslice, pre portion and measure every item. If they are not getting the expected yield from a certain prep station, the trainer or manager will dig in and work at that station with every shift there until they figure out where the problem is. It's key to their staying in business and being profitable. And this is the same in all chains. They have operating guides complete with portion measurements and in many instances pictures.
To share this info for the good of consumers is not giving up any great freedom. To call it theft and oppression when referring to a restaurant chain of 20 or more is absurd.
For context: I was never a chef in a chain. But at one point sold a restaurant management technology to chains. This was prior to these regulations from the early 2000s in the Obama era. My customers included, Texas Roadhouse, Applebee's, Friday's, Chili's, Outback and the Darden Restaurants, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones and Red Lobster. They all new their portions, nutritional info and processed down to the penny!
No freedom sacrificed ever ends up as public good.
Can you cite one example to the contrary?
I have no experience in the food industry, but a great deal in regulatory and law enforcement. My concern with such laws and regulation are enforcement. How do you enforce such a law? What happens to those who break the law? What happens when the calories I post are proven wrong?
As a chef do you measure precisely with a scale?
My point is that this is quesswork at best. Chefs don't use food scales, but handfuls, pinches, etc. So that 800 calories posted is actually a best guess range from 700-1000 kcals. So what's the point?
This would be like enforcing speed limits where every speedometer holds an inherent 20% degree of error.
I was a kitchen manager at a fast service restaurant (which had more than 20 locations) while I was in college. We absolutely used a scale while preparing food. Meat and cheese portions were pre-weighed for faster prep, etc. When it came to the employees preparing food on the line, there wasn't much decision making involved and we were often checking the stuff they did get to decide on.
9 -
I was skeptical at first, but I thought I'd give it a try. I've been on it for three and a half months.
What I know personally about KETO:
* I have lost 28 pounds (not shabby for me)
* My husband, who usually shuns my diets, has lost over 50 pounds.
* My husband, who is diabetic, no longer needs his medications (per his doctor).
* My husband's doctor informed him he may be able to come off his BP meds if he keeps it up.
* My husband is biking and loving it! I would have never gotten him to do this a year ago.
* My IBS symptoms have disappeared. I'm not sure which food I eliminated was causing the severe IBS that caused me to get a colonoscopy a year ago, but whatever it is, I'm glad it is gone.
* It isn't always easy, but it works for us.
* I still have to stay near my recommended calorie totals. But, I stay on or around 20 carbs. I've never felt better.10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 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?
Just want businesses to have the choice if they want to publish or not. None are forced to go to a restaurant, so if consumers wanted it, they would choose restaurants who publish.
A government that has the power to force someone else to do something has the power to force you to do something.
As a lover of freedom, I detest the idea that a restaurant owner would lose a bit of freedom by having the government force them to publish.
If the market signals that consumers want this, that is one thing. If government mandates it, that is antithetical to freedom and goes counter to the premise America was founded on, freedom.
We all sacrifice a little freedom for the greater good of the many. It's the fundamental concept of societies.
I have no issues with chains larger than 20 meeting this requirement. It helps the many and full disclosure is never a bad thing. At that size, it is not an onerous requirement. Bear in mind that many of the health regulations that keep restaurants save also cause a "restaurant owner to lose a bit of freedom". Would you do away with that also?
What freedom is sacrificed for the greater good of the many? If this is taken by force then it isn't freedom.
This is the definition of theft and oppression.
Gimme a break. That whole line of reasoning is absurd. Name one societal regulation or law that someone doesn't see as being by force. We have a representative government structure that we elect to make laws and regulations for the common good. Some like it some don't. Some of those laws and regulations change and some don't.
What is exactly taken by force here? That larger chains should have to disclose their calories and nutrients in their recipes? They already have this info. It's the basis of their business model. A system of recipes and business practices that can be replicated. They know what is in every dish and what the amounts are, within a reasonable margin of error. They sell franchises or operate company stores on the basis of that tested system and if an operator. Their 2 biggest controllable variable are food cost and labor.
So, they have the info. It's just a matter of sharing it for the good of the consumer, who is part of society as a whole. I've also seen comments here about the inaccuracy of portions in chain restaurants. I think Arby's was mentioned. Just so happens I worked with a person who was previously a long time compliance and training person for Arby's. They preslice, pre portion and measure every item. If they are not getting the expected yield from a certain prep station, the trainer or manager will dig in and work at that station with every shift there until they figure out where the problem is. It's key to their staying in business and being profitable. And this is the same in all chains. They have operating guides complete with portion measurements and in many instances pictures.
To share this info for the good of consumers is not giving up any great freedom. To call it theft and oppression when referring to a restaurant chain of 20 or more is absurd.
For context: I was never a chef in a chain. But at one point sold a restaurant management technology to chains. This was prior to these regulations from the early 2000s in the Obama era. My customers included, Texas Roadhouse, Applebee's, Friday's, Chili's, Outback and the Darden Restaurants, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones and Red Lobster. They all new their portions, nutritional info and processed down to the penny!
No freedom sacrificed ever ends up as public good.
Can you cite one example to the contrary?
I have no experience in the food industry, but a great deal in regulatory and law enforcement. My concern with such laws and regulation are enforcement. How do you enforce such a law? What happens to those who break the law? What happens when the calories I post are proven wrong?
As a chef do you measure precisely with a scale?
My point is that this is quesswork at best. Chefs don't use food scales, but handfuls, pinches, etc. So that 800 calories posted is actually a best guess range from 700-1000 kcals. So what's the point?
This would be like enforcing speed limits where every speedometer holds an inherent 20% degree of error.
I was a kitchen manager at a fast service restaurant (which had more than 20 locations) while I was in college. We absolutely used a scale while preparing food. Meat and cheese portions were pre-weighed for faster prep, etc. When it came to the employees preparing food on the line, there wasn't much decision making involved and we were often checking the stuff they did get to decide on.
Exactly! This is the reality of what happens in most restaurants every day and most especially in the chains. Where people get this pinch of this, dash of that stuff is beyond me. This is restaurant business management not someone in their kitchen at home or, as johnslater said, the Food Network.11 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 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?
Just want businesses to have the choice if they want to publish or not. None are forced to go to a restaurant, so if consumers wanted it, they would choose restaurants who publish.
A government that has the power to force someone else to do something has the power to force you to do something.
As a lover of freedom, I detest the idea that a restaurant owner would lose a bit of freedom by having the government force them to publish.
If the market signals that consumers want this, that is one thing. If government mandates it, that is antithetical to freedom and goes counter to the premise America was founded on, freedom.
We all sacrifice a little freedom for the greater good of the many. It's the fundamental concept of societies.
I have no issues with chains larger than 20 meeting this requirement. It helps the many and full disclosure is never a bad thing. At that size, it is not an onerous requirement. Bear in mind that many of the health regulations that keep restaurants save also cause a "restaurant owner to lose a bit of freedom". Would you do away with that also?
What freedom is sacrificed for the greater good of the many? If this is taken by force then it isn't freedom.
This is the definition of theft and oppression.
Gimme a break. That whole line of reasoning is absurd. Name one societal regulation or law that someone doesn't see as being by force. We have a representative government structure that we elect to make laws and regulations for the common good. Some like it some don't. Some of those laws and regulations change and some don't.
What is exactly taken by force here? That larger chains should have to disclose their calories and nutrients in their recipes? They already have this info. It's the basis of their business model. A system of recipes and business practices that can be replicated. They know what is in every dish and what the amounts are, within a reasonable margin of error. They sell franchises or operate company stores on the basis of that tested system and if an operator. Their 2 biggest controllable variable are food cost and labor.
So, they have the info. It's just a matter of sharing it for the good of the consumer, who is part of society as a whole. I've also seen comments here about the inaccuracy of portions in chain restaurants. I think Arby's was mentioned. Just so happens I worked with a person who was previously a long time compliance and training person for Arby's. They preslice, pre portion and measure every item. If they are not getting the expected yield from a certain prep station, the trainer or manager will dig in and work at that station with every shift there until they figure out where the problem is. It's key to their staying in business and being profitable. And this is the same in all chains. They have operating guides complete with portion measurements and in many instances pictures.
To share this info for the good of consumers is not giving up any great freedom. To call it theft and oppression when referring to a restaurant chain of 20 or more is absurd.
For context: I was never a chef in a chain. But at one point sold a restaurant management technology to chains. This was prior to these regulations from the early 2000s in the Obama era. My customers included, Texas Roadhouse, Applebee's, Friday's, Chili's, Outback and the Darden Restaurants, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones and Red Lobster. They all new their portions, nutritional info and processed down to the penny!
No freedom sacrificed ever ends up as public good.
Can you cite one example to the contrary?
I have no experience in the food industry, but a great deal in regulatory and law enforcement. My concern with such laws and regulation are enforcement. How do you enforce such a law? What happens to those who break the law? What happens when the calories I post are proven wrong?
As a chef do you measure precisely with a scale?
My point is that this is quesswork at best. Chefs don't use food scales, but handfuls, pinches, etc. So that 800 calories posted is actually a best guess range from 700-1000 kcals. So what's the point?
This would be like enforcing speed limits where every speedometer holds an inherent 20% degree of error.
I was a kitchen manager at a fast service restaurant (which had more than 20 locations) while I was in college. We absolutely used a scale while preparing food. Meat and cheese portions were pre-weighed for faster prep, etc. When it came to the employees preparing food on the line, there wasn't much decision making involved and we were often checking the stuff they did get to decide on.
Thanks for the inside information @mmapags
Actually find this a bit fascinating and always discounted the accuracy of calorie estimation at restaurants considering there's a 20% degree of error in laboratory conditions I still imagine this is greater than 20% outside such environment.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3719184/
I question the value and impact of such an act - this should be left up to the market. People concerned about this will tend to go to restaurants that post calorie estimation or estimate themselves. Restaurants have the option of drawing in those customers or catering to those who don't. There is no need for government to get involved unless they first want to educate the masses on CICO and calorie counting, otherwise this is a useless measure.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 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?
Just want businesses to have the choice if they want to publish or not. None are forced to go to a restaurant, so if consumers wanted it, they would choose restaurants who publish.
A government that has the power to force someone else to do something has the power to force you to do something.
As a lover of freedom, I detest the idea that a restaurant owner would lose a bit of freedom by having the government force them to publish.
If the market signals that consumers want this, that is one thing. If government mandates it, that is antithetical to freedom and goes counter to the premise America was founded on, freedom.
We all sacrifice a little freedom for the greater good of the many. It's the fundamental concept of societies.
I have no issues with chains larger than 20 meeting this requirement. It helps the many and full disclosure is never a bad thing. At that size, it is not an onerous requirement. Bear in mind that many of the health regulations that keep restaurants save also cause a "restaurant owner to lose a bit of freedom". Would you do away with that also?
What freedom is sacrificed for the greater good of the many? If this is taken by force then it isn't freedom.
This is the definition of theft and oppression.
Gimme a break. That whole line of reasoning is absurd. Name one societal regulation or law that someone doesn't see as being by force. We have a representative government structure that we elect to make laws and regulations for the common good. Some like it some don't. Some of those laws and regulations change and some don't.
What is exactly taken by force here? That larger chains should have to disclose their calories and nutrients in their recipes? They already have this info. It's the basis of their business model. A system of recipes and business practices that can be replicated. They know what is in every dish and what the amounts are, within a reasonable margin of error. They sell franchises or operate company stores on the basis of that tested system and if an operator. Their 2 biggest controllable variable are food cost and labor.
So, they have the info. It's just a matter of sharing it for the good of the consumer, who is part of society as a whole. I've also seen comments here about the inaccuracy of portions in chain restaurants. I think Arby's was mentioned. Just so happens I worked with a person who was previously a long time compliance and training person for Arby's. They preslice, pre portion and measure every item. If they are not getting the expected yield from a certain prep station, the trainer or manager will dig in and work at that station with every shift there until they figure out where the problem is. It's key to their staying in business and being profitable. And this is the same in all chains. They have operating guides complete with portion measurements and in many instances pictures.
To share this info for the good of consumers is not giving up any great freedom. To call it theft and oppression when referring to a restaurant chain of 20 or more is absurd.
For context: I was never a chef in a chain. But at one point sold a restaurant management technology to chains. This was prior to these regulations from the early 2000s in the Obama era. My customers included, Texas Roadhouse, Applebee's, Friday's, Chili's, Outback and the Darden Restaurants, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones and Red Lobster. They all new their portions, nutritional info and processed down to the penny!
No freedom sacrificed ever ends up as public good.
Can you cite one example to the contrary?
I have no experience in the food industry, but a great deal in regulatory and law enforcement. My concern with such laws and regulation are enforcement. How do you enforce such a law? What happens to those who break the law? What happens when the calories I post are proven wrong?
As a chef do you measure precisely with a scale?
My point is that this is quesswork at best. Chefs don't use food scales, but handfuls, pinches, etc. So that 800 calories posted is actually a best guess range from 700-1000 kcals. So what's the point?
This would be like enforcing speed limits where every speedometer holds an inherent 20% degree of error.
I was a kitchen manager at a fast service restaurant (which had more than 20 locations) while I was in college. We absolutely used a scale while preparing food. Meat and cheese portions were pre-weighed for faster prep, etc. When it came to the employees preparing food on the line, there wasn't much decision making involved and we were often checking the stuff they did get to decide on.
Thanks for the inside information @mmapags
Actually find this a bit fascinating and always discounted the accuracy of calorie estimation at restaurants considering there's a 20% degree of error in laboratory conditions I still imagine this is greater than 20% outside such environment.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3719184/
I question the value and impact of such an act - this should be left up to the market. People concerned about this will tend to go to restaurants that post calorie estimation or estimate themselves. Restaurants have the option of drawing in those customers or catering to those who don't. There is no need for government to get involved unless they first want to educate the masses on CICO and calorie counting, otherwise this is a useless measure.
I'm skeptical it will do much to address obesity. People who want the information will use it. But we're a relatively small part of the population and we're already using common sense to estimate in situations where the information isn't available. Everyone else either doesn't care or doesn't understand how many calories they need.
It's also ignoring the context of the whole day. If I'm not counting calories and I don't understand how many calories are in my home-prepared breakfast and dinner, what good does it do me to know the calorie counts when I'm choosing a sandwich for lunch?
I've heard the argument that some people may get "sticker shock" when seeing the calorie counts for some meals and choose something else. I honestly think this will only apply in situations where an item that is generally considered to be "healthy" has a high calorie count (like 1,000+ calorie salads). If I'm going to Cheesecake Factory with my heart set on a giant platter of pasta, a sweet cocktail, and a piece of cheesecake, I already *know* what I'm doing even if I don't know the exact calorie count. I think for some people, seeing the calorie count in that situation is more likely to make them just throw in the towel and say "Whatever."
If someone isn't actively counting calories, I think knowing they're ordering a 2,000 calorie meal may backfire and make them give up, especially if there aren't appealing lower calorie options on the menu.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 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?
Just want businesses to have the choice if they want to publish or not. None are forced to go to a restaurant, so if consumers wanted it, they would choose restaurants who publish.
A government that has the power to force someone else to do something has the power to force you to do something.
As a lover of freedom, I detest the idea that a restaurant owner would lose a bit of freedom by having the government force them to publish.
If the market signals that consumers want this, that is one thing. If government mandates it, that is antithetical to freedom and goes counter to the premise America was founded on, freedom.
We all sacrifice a little freedom for the greater good of the many. It's the fundamental concept of societies.
I have no issues with chains larger than 20 meeting this requirement. It helps the many and full disclosure is never a bad thing. At that size, it is not an onerous requirement. Bear in mind that many of the health regulations that keep restaurants save also cause a "restaurant owner to lose a bit of freedom". Would you do away with that also?
What freedom is sacrificed for the greater good of the many? If this is taken by force then it isn't freedom.
This is the definition of theft and oppression.
Gimme a break. That whole line of reasoning is absurd. Name one societal regulation or law that someone doesn't see as being by force. We have a representative government structure that we elect to make laws and regulations for the common good. Some like it some don't. Some of those laws and regulations change and some don't.
What is exactly taken by force here? That larger chains should have to disclose their calories and nutrients in their recipes? They already have this info. It's the basis of their business model. A system of recipes and business practices that can be replicated. They know what is in every dish and what the amounts are, within a reasonable margin of error. They sell franchises or operate company stores on the basis of that tested system and if an operator. Their 2 biggest controllable variable are food cost and labor.
So, they have the info. It's just a matter of sharing it for the good of the consumer, who is part of society as a whole. I've also seen comments here about the inaccuracy of portions in chain restaurants. I think Arby's was mentioned. Just so happens I worked with a person who was previously a long time compliance and training person for Arby's. They preslice, pre portion and measure every item. If they are not getting the expected yield from a certain prep station, the trainer or manager will dig in and work at that station with every shift there until they figure out where the problem is. It's key to their staying in business and being profitable. And this is the same in all chains. They have operating guides complete with portion measurements and in many instances pictures.
To share this info for the good of consumers is not giving up any great freedom. To call it theft and oppression when referring to a restaurant chain of 20 or more is absurd.
For context: I was never a chef in a chain. But at one point sold a restaurant management technology to chains. This was prior to these regulations from the early 2000s in the Obama era. My customers included, Texas Roadhouse, Applebee's, Friday's, Chili's, Outback and the Darden Restaurants, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones and Red Lobster. They all new their portions, nutritional info and processed down to the penny!
No freedom sacrificed ever ends up as public good.
Can you cite one example to the contrary?
I have no experience in the food industry, but a great deal in regulatory and law enforcement. My concern with such laws and regulation are enforcement. How do you enforce such a law? What happens to those who break the law? What happens when the calories I post are proven wrong?
As a chef do you measure precisely with a scale?
My point is that this is quesswork at best. Chefs don't use food scales, but handfuls, pinches, etc. So that 800 calories posted is actually a best guess range from 700-1000 kcals. So what's the point?
This would be like enforcing speed limits where every speedometer holds an inherent 20% degree of error.
I was a kitchen manager at a fast service restaurant (which had more than 20 locations) while I was in college. We absolutely used a scale while preparing food. Meat and cheese portions were pre-weighed for faster prep, etc. When it came to the employees preparing food on the line, there wasn't much decision making involved and we were often checking the stuff they did get to decide on.
Thanks for the inside information @mmapags
Actually find this a bit fascinating and always discounted the accuracy of calorie estimation at restaurants considering there's a 20% degree of error in laboratory conditions I still imagine this is greater than 20% outside such environment.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3719184/
I question the value and impact of such an act - this should be left up to the market. People concerned about this will tend to go to restaurants that post calorie estimation or estimate themselves. Restaurants have the option of drawing in those customers or catering to those who don't. There is no need for government to get involved unless they first want to educate the masses on CICO and calorie counting, otherwise this is a useless measure.
I'm skeptical it will do much to address obesity. People who want the information will use it. But we're a relatively small part of the population and we're already using common sense to estimate in situations where the information isn't available. Everyone else either doesn't care or doesn't understand how many calories they need.
It's also ignoring the context of the whole day. If I'm not counting calories and I don't understand how many calories are in my home-prepared breakfast and dinner, what good does it do me to know the calorie counts when I'm choosing a sandwich for lunch?
I've heard the argument that some people may get "sticker shock" when seeing the calorie counts for some meals and choose something else. I honestly think this will only apply in situations where an item that is generally considered to be "healthy" has a high calorie count (like 1,000+ calorie salads). If I'm going to Cheesecake Factory with my heart set on a giant platter of pasta, a sweet cocktail, and a piece of cheesecake, I already *know* what I'm doing even if I don't know the exact calorie count. I think for some people, seeing the calorie count in that situation is more likely to make them just throw in the towel and say "Whatever."
If someone isn't actively counting calories, I think knowing they're ordering a 2,000 calorie meal may backfire and make them give up, especially if there aren't appealing lower calorie options on the menu.
Precisely - it's only sticker shock if you are already aware of your calorie budget. Without a basic understanding this is useless, further binds already stressed enforcement agencies, and will end up serving no public good.
2
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