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
-
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.
Honestly, while I don't think it's that onerous for the chains to provide, I do agree with you that the impact will be limited and it's largely a symbolic gesture. I will say that the marketplace is far more attuned to it at this point and many of these chains would do it now even if they were not required to. So, I may see it as a bit of overregulation. I don't see it as some substantial freedom impingement.
The ground swell for this came before the legislation and now, it is just good marketing. Some customer will avoid chains that don't publish it. Just look around here at the "how do I log this meal from X restaurant that doesn't publish calorie data??" For these reasons, I don't think agressive enforment is necessary. It's a super competitive environment and many of these chains had this data on their websites before the legislation.
BTW, you credited me but quoted janejellyroll. Just an FYI.8 -
1
-
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.
Honestly, while I don't think it's that onerous for the chains to provide, I do agree with you that the impact will be limited and it's largely a symbolic gesture. I will say that the marketplace is far more attuned to it at this point and many of these chains would do it now even if they were not required to. So, I may see it as a bit of overregulation. I don't see it as some substantial freedom impingement.
The ground swell for this came before the legislation and now, it is just good marketing. Some customer will avoid chains that don't publish it. Just look around here at the "how do I log this meal from X restaurant that doesn't publish calorie data??" For these reasons, I don't think agressive enforment is necessary. It's a super competitive environment and many of these chains had this data on their websites before the legislation.
BTW, you credited me but quoted janejellyroll. Just an FYI.
I was trying to recognize both of you for correcting my misinformation from the phone
I don't think it's onerous. I think it's an over-reach of authority with limited capacity for good, but great capacity for corruption. Today it's chains over 20, next year it will be every restaurant and provide yet another hurdle in the path of entrepreneurs in favor of established and larger businesses.
There are so many laws on the books currently that enforcement is impossible. There needs to be a limit. You want a new law, strike an existing one. Any law needs to first prove key points - that it benefits society, that it can be enforced in an equitable manner, that it is just, etc. Symbolic gestures make for poor legislation. If you don't intend on locking someone up or applying punitive fines, then there's no point in legislation.3 -
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.
Honestly, while I don't think it's that onerous for the chains to provide, I do agree with you that the impact will be limited and it's largely a symbolic gesture. I will say that the marketplace is far more attuned to it at this point and many of these chains would do it now even if they were not required to. So, I may see it as a bit of overregulation. I don't see it as some substantial freedom impingement.
The ground swell for this came before the legislation and now, it is just good marketing. Some customer will avoid chains that don't publish it. Just look around here at the "how do I log this meal from X restaurant that doesn't publish calorie data??" For these reasons, I don't think agressive enforment is necessary. It's a super competitive environment and many of these chains had this data on their websites before the legislation.
BTW, you credited me but quoted janejellyroll. Just an FYI.
I was trying to recognize both of you for correcting my misinformation from the phone
I don't think it's onerous. I think it's an over-reach of authority with limited capacity for good, but great capacity for corruption. Today it's chains over 20, next year it will be every restaurant and provide yet another hurdle in the path of entrepreneurs in favor of established and larger businesses.
There are so many laws on the books currently that enforcement is impossible. There needs to be a limit. You want a new law, strike an existing one. Any law needs to first prove key points - that it benefits society, that it can be enforced in an equitable manner, that it is just, etc. Symbolic gestures make for poor legislation. If you don't intend on locking someone up or applying punitive fines, then there's no point in legislation.
Gotcha, just wanted to make sure her contribution was recognized as you intended.
I see this situation as mainly kind of a moot point. It doesn't really have much more impact that the marketplace would drive. It's superfluous legislation. But, I also see in the same light as most of the health department regulations, they spot check and attempt to make sure there is compliance but don't really enforce much. On the other hand, no restaurant want a food safety issue to hit the public. Very bad for business.3 -
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.
Honestly, while I don't think it's that onerous for the chains to provide, I do agree with you that the impact will be limited and it's largely a symbolic gesture. I will say that the marketplace is far more attuned to it at this point and many of these chains would do it now even if they were not required to. So, I may see it as a bit of overregulation. I don't see it as some substantial freedom impingement.
The ground swell for this came before the legislation and now, it is just good marketing. Some customer will avoid chains that don't publish it. Just look around here at the "how do I log this meal from X restaurant that doesn't publish calorie data??" For these reasons, I don't think agressive enforment is necessary. It's a super competitive environment and many of these chains had this data on their websites before the legislation.
BTW, you credited me but quoted janejellyroll. Just an FYI.
I was trying to recognize both of you for correcting my misinformation from the phone
I don't think it's onerous. I think it's an over-reach of authority with limited capacity for good, but great capacity for corruption. Today it's chains over 20, next year it will be every restaurant and provide yet another hurdle in the path of entrepreneurs in favor of established and larger businesses.
There are so many laws on the books currently that enforcement is impossible. There needs to be a limit. You want a new law, strike an existing one. Any law needs to first prove key points - that it benefits society, that it can be enforced in an equitable manner, that it is just, etc. Symbolic gestures make for poor legislation. If you don't intend on locking someone up or applying punitive fines, then there's no point in legislation.
Gotcha, just wanted to make sure her contribution was recognized as you intended.
I see this situation as mainly kind of a moot point. It doesn't really have much more impact that the marketplace would drive. It's superfluous legislation. But, I also see in the same light as most of the health department regulations, they spot check and attempt to make sure there is compliance but don't really enforce much. On the other hand, no restaurant want a food safety issue to hit the public. Very bad for business.
I would agree and don't see the need to act on moot points. There are higher priority problems to address than this.
This differs distinctly from health inspections as improper food handling and service can easily end up in disease and death, so there is a logical basis behind such standards and regulations.2 -
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.
Honestly, while I don't think it's that onerous for the chains to provide, I do agree with you that the impact will be limited and it's largely a symbolic gesture. I will say that the marketplace is far more attuned to it at this point and many of these chains would do it now even if they were not required to. So, I may see it as a bit of overregulation. I don't see it as some substantial freedom impingement.
The ground swell for this came before the legislation and now, it is just good marketing. Some customer will avoid chains that don't publish it. Just look around here at the "how do I log this meal from X restaurant that doesn't publish calorie data??" For these reasons, I don't think agressive enforment is necessary. It's a super competitive environment and many of these chains had this data on their websites before the legislation.
BTW, you credited me but quoted janejellyroll. Just an FYI.
I was trying to recognize both of you for correcting my misinformation from the phone
I don't think it's onerous. I think it's an over-reach of authority with limited capacity for good, but great capacity for corruption. Today it's chains over 20, next year it will be every restaurant and provide yet another hurdle in the path of entrepreneurs in favor of established and larger businesses.
There are so many laws on the books currently that enforcement is impossible. There needs to be a limit. You want a new law, strike an existing one. Any law needs to first prove key points - that it benefits society, that it can be enforced in an equitable manner, that it is just, etc. Symbolic gestures make for poor legislation. If you don't intend on locking someone up or applying punitive fines, then there's no point in legislation.
Gotcha, just wanted to make sure her contribution was recognized as you intended.
I see this situation as mainly kind of a moot point. It doesn't really have much more impact that the marketplace would drive. It's superfluous legislation. But, I also see in the same light as most of the health department regulations, they spot check and attempt to make sure there is compliance but don't really enforce much. On the other hand, no restaurant want a food safety issue to hit the public. Very bad for business.
I would agree and don't see the need to act on moot points. There are higher priority problems to address than this.
This differs distinctly from health inspections as improper food handling and service can easily end up in disease and death, so there is a logical basis behind such standards and regulations.
True. But the enforcement is not greater. I mean it's a once maybe twice a year inspection. but, we are in agreement that there are more important things than calorie counts on menus that should be addressed. It was just a political move to capitalize on a sentiment for popularity. That being said, I don't see it as much of "freedom" thing. More just kind of silly posturing really.1 -
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.
Honestly, while I don't think it's that onerous for the chains to provide, I do agree with you that the impact will be limited and it's largely a symbolic gesture. I will say that the marketplace is far more attuned to it at this point and many of these chains would do it now even if they were not required to. So, I may see it as a bit of overregulation. I don't see it as some substantial freedom impingement.
The ground swell for this came before the legislation and now, it is just good marketing. Some customer will avoid chains that don't publish it. Just look around here at the "how do I log this meal from X restaurant that doesn't publish calorie data??" For these reasons, I don't think agressive enforment is necessary. It's a super competitive environment and many of these chains had this data on their websites before the legislation.
BTW, you credited me but quoted janejellyroll. Just an FYI.
I was trying to recognize both of you for correcting my misinformation from the phone
I don't think it's onerous. I think it's an over-reach of authority with limited capacity for good, but great capacity for corruption. Today it's chains over 20, next year it will be every restaurant and provide yet another hurdle in the path of entrepreneurs in favor of established and larger businesses.
There are so many laws on the books currently that enforcement is impossible. There needs to be a limit. You want a new law, strike an existing one. Any law needs to first prove key points - that it benefits society, that it can be enforced in an equitable manner, that it is just, etc. Symbolic gestures make for poor legislation. If you don't intend on locking someone up or applying punitive fines, then there's no point in legislation.
Gotcha, just wanted to make sure her contribution was recognized as you intended.
I see this situation as mainly kind of a moot point. It doesn't really have much more impact that the marketplace would drive. It's superfluous legislation. But, I also see in the same light as most of the health department regulations, they spot check and attempt to make sure there is compliance but don't really enforce much. On the other hand, no restaurant want a food safety issue to hit the public. Very bad for business.
I would agree and don't see the need to act on moot points. There are higher priority problems to address than this.
This differs distinctly from health inspections as improper food handling and service can easily end up in disease and death, so there is a logical basis behind such standards and regulations.
True. But the enforcement is not greater. I mean it's a once maybe twice a year inspection. but, we are in agreement that there are more important things than calorie counts on menus that should be addressed. It was just a political move to capitalize on a sentiment for popularity. That being said, I don't see it as much of "freedom" thing. More just kind of silly posturing really.
I agree, but I speak from first principles. I fundamentally disagree with the notion that freedom sacrificed for societal good ever ends up doing good for society.
Now if freedom is exchanged by mutual agreement....that's an entirely different issue and generally works out rather well.1 -
I agree, but I speak from first principles. I fundamentally disagree with the notion that freedom sacrificed for societal good ever ends up doing good for society.
Now if freedom is exchanged by mutual agreement....that's an entirely different issue and generally works out rather well.
As long as their as a requirement for positive consent.
I.E. just because my grandparents voted for Social Security doesn't mean I gave up the freedom to decide if I want to be a part of it or not.
That's my problem with many of these so-called "for the greater good" ideas. We cannot say no to them if they are not for our individual greater good.
If you want to have Social Security, or the ACA or whatever, I'd never deny you the right to VOLUNTARILY participate in such a program.
However, to deny people the right to say no, I do not wish to participate is for that person to lose freedom. Being taxed to fund it is a form of participation. I'd never deny someone the right to contribute. However, non-beneficiaries should have the same right to say no, do not take from me to fund this program for others.
If I choose to not drive on public roads, there is no requirement for me to obtain car insurance. (Likewise, most states really have a fiscal responsibility law, so some can self-insure if they have sufficient assets.)
I can build on my property and race cars of any standard I choose on my private property. I can hire others to drive me and so on. There is no law that says I must have auto insurance simply because I ride in a car.
Anyway, enough of this threadjack
15 -
Why do these long debate threads always devolve into a debate about the proper role of government in public life?6
-
happytree923 wrote: »Why do these long debate threads always devolve into a debate about the proper role of government in public life?
Because this is one of the primary root causes of many problems.10 -
Because in today's society , no one wants to take responsibility for her/himselfhappytree923 wrote: »Why do these long debate threads always devolve into a debate about the proper role of government in public life?
19 -
Friendly reminder to not make this a political discussion. There are so many places where political debate goes on, we do want to try to keep our main forums free of it.
Not warning or removing but friendly reminding of guidelines. I will not be so chill if it keeps up though.15 -
Well, I'm doing keto for my epilepsy. My seizures have gone from weekly to every 2 months despite being on the same medications. I don't have any weight to lose. I wouldn't call it a craze and I will definitely stay on it. It's either that or end up back in the hospital with temporary partial paralysis again after grandmal seizures. Hmm... Such a hard decision lol.
6 -
KrazyKrissyy wrote: »Well, I'm doing keto for my epilepsy. My seizures have gone from weekly to every 2 months despite being on the same medications. I don't have any weight to lose. I wouldn't call it a craze and I will definitely stay on it. It's either that or end up back in the hospital with temporary partial paralysis again after grandmal seizures. Hmm... Such a hard decision lol.
its not a craze when it comes to seizures,Insulin resistance,PCOS and diabetes. its proven to help those things. but it is a craze for weight loss because weight loss was not the original use for the ketogenic way of eating. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1904957410 -
Keto_Vampire wrote: »
Because in today's society , no one wants to take responsibility for her/himselfhappytree923 wrote: »Why do these long debate threads always devolve into a debate about the proper role of government in public life?
AMEN!!!!! +1
I have been saying this for a good while. Common Sense and Critical thinking seem to be gone. And, ownership and personal accountability | responsibility lack terribly. But, who knows? Maybe I am just a bitter old man! LOL!8 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »KrazyKrissyy wrote: »Well, I'm doing keto for my epilepsy. My seizures have gone from weekly to every 2 months despite being on the same medications. I don't have any weight to lose. I wouldn't call it a craze and I will definitely stay on it. It's either that or end up back in the hospital with temporary partial paralysis again after grandmal seizures. Hmm... Such a hard decision lol.
its not a craze when it comes to seizures,Insulin resistance,PCOS and diabetes. its proven to help those things. but it is a craze for weight loss because weight loss was not the original use for the ketogenic way of eating. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19049574
Amen! I follow Keto. Because of high A1C. It seems to work well for me.
Now, mind you - as you so aptly stated - if I eat too many calories (this salad dressing saturation is becoming a thing for me!) then the scales yell at me in the morning. So, Keto is not some magic pill that allows you to do whatever the heck you want to do. Calories In vs. Calories Out is still "the magic pill" (I used that term here because it seems to me in today's world that everyone wants some magic pill.....so, let's package things the way that will appeal to them...I mean, I keep on telling people that I am smarter than I look!!!).6 -
LiftHeavyThings27105 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »KrazyKrissyy wrote: »Well, I'm doing keto for my epilepsy. My seizures have gone from weekly to every 2 months despite being on the same medications. I don't have any weight to lose. I wouldn't call it a craze and I will definitely stay on it. It's either that or end up back in the hospital with temporary partial paralysis again after grandmal seizures. Hmm... Such a hard decision lol.
its not a craze when it comes to seizures,Insulin resistance,PCOS and diabetes. its proven to help those things. but it is a craze for weight loss because weight loss was not the original use for the ketogenic way of eating. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19049574
Amen! I follow Keto. Because of high A1C. It seems to work well for me.
Now, mind you - as you so aptly stated - if I eat too many calories (this salad dressing saturation is becoming a thing for me!) then the scales yell at me in the morning. So, Keto is not some magic pill that allows you to do whatever the heck you want to do. Calories In vs. Calories Out is still "the magic pill" (I used that term here because it seems to me in today's world that everyone wants some magic pill.....so, let's package things the way that will appeal to them...I mean, I keep on telling people that I am smarter than I look!!!).
I wish many keto followers like you saw it this way. Every time I read people talk about keto, it's usually in the form "I tried CICO and it didn't work for me, keto made me lose weight". You kind of roll your eyes when you hear something so cringe worthy. It's great to hear that it helped someone, it's just the stuff that comes out of their mouth about keto is what makes me cringe because of the information they say about it is just wrong and it spreads the myth that keto is magical for weight loss to new followers who they spread the bad information to everyone else.2 -
LiftHeavyThings27105 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »KrazyKrissyy wrote: »Well, I'm doing keto for my epilepsy. My seizures have gone from weekly to every 2 months despite being on the same medications. I don't have any weight to lose. I wouldn't call it a craze and I will definitely stay on it. It's either that or end up back in the hospital with temporary partial paralysis again after grandmal seizures. Hmm... Such a hard decision lol.
its not a craze when it comes to seizures,Insulin resistance,PCOS and diabetes. its proven to help those things. but it is a craze for weight loss because weight loss was not the original use for the ketogenic way of eating. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19049574
Amen! I follow Keto. Because of high A1C. It seems to work well for me.
Now, mind you - as you so aptly stated - if I eat too many calories (this salad dressing saturation is becoming a thing for me!) then the scales yell at me in the morning. So, Keto is not some magic pill that allows you to do whatever the heck you want to do. Calories In vs. Calories Out is still "the magic pill" (I used that term here because it seems to me in today's world that everyone wants some magic pill.....so, let's package things the way that will appeal to them...I mean, I keep on telling people that I am smarter than I look!!!).
I wish many keto followers like you saw it this way. Every time I read people talk about keto, it's usually in the form "I tried CICO and it didn't work for me, keto made me lose weight". You kind of roll your eyes when you hear something so cringe worthy. It's great to hear that it helped someone, it's just the stuff that comes out of their mouth about keto is what makes me cringe because of the information they say about it is just wrong and it spreads the myth that keto is magical for weight loss to new followers who they spread the bad information to everyone else.
Yes, sir! If I might be terribly honest (I have a problem doing that.....or so I am told) then I would say that people want an excuse. Ownership does not seem to be part of people's makeup any longer. Or, personal responsibility | accountability.
There is nothing magical about any "diet". It is simply a way of eating that helps you maintain a caloric deficit (or, a caloric surplus....or, maintenance for that matter). Nothing more and nothing less. It seems to me that most want some magic solution...."take this green pill for 40 days and you will lose 40 pounds....no diet or exercise required" (now, that was an actual thing here in Winston-Salem, NC some two years ago....). Come on! Put in the work. Put in the effort. Why does everyone seem to want to take a shortcut on EVERYTHING?
Anyway, appreciate your kind words. I try to educate people who follow Keto (and those that do not). There is a ton of garbage out there (just like with everything else). :-(
4 -
LiftHeavyThings27105 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »KrazyKrissyy wrote: »Well, I'm doing keto for my epilepsy. My seizures have gone from weekly to every 2 months despite being on the same medications. I don't have any weight to lose. I wouldn't call it a craze and I will definitely stay on it. It's either that or end up back in the hospital with temporary partial paralysis again after grandmal seizures. Hmm... Such a hard decision lol.
its not a craze when it comes to seizures,Insulin resistance,PCOS and diabetes. its proven to help those things. but it is a craze for weight loss because weight loss was not the original use for the ketogenic way of eating. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19049574
Amen! I follow Keto. Because of high A1C. It seems to work well for me.
Now, mind you - as you so aptly stated - if I eat too many calories (this salad dressing saturation is becoming a thing for me!) then the scales yell at me in the morning. So, Keto is not some magic pill that allows you to do whatever the heck you want to do. Calories In vs. Calories Out is still "the magic pill" (I used that term here because it seems to me in today's world that everyone wants some magic pill.....so, let's package things the way that will appeal to them...I mean, I keep on telling people that I am smarter than I look!!!).
I wish many keto followers like you saw it this way. Every time I read people talk about keto, it's usually in the form "I tried CICO and it didn't work for me, keto made me lose weight". You kind of roll your eyes when you hear something so cringe worthy. It's great to hear that it helped someone, it's just the stuff that comes out of their mouth about keto is what makes me cringe because of the information they say about it is just wrong and it spreads the myth that keto is magical for weight loss to new followers who they spread the bad information to everyone else.
That's more of a semantics problem in many cases. Some people don't realize that CICO does not mean calorie counting or moderation in all things, which doesn't work for all people.
There are some out there that don't seem to understand that CO can change depending on the foods you eat, activity level, sleep/stress and health.ive had times in my life where I lose at 1800 kcal but then at other times I start gaining at around the same calories when my autoimmune issues act up, or I don't take care of my IR. I think some don't realize that TDEE varies between people, and even for one person at different times.
And then there are those who think they are eating more because of the hunger blunting effect that keto can cause. Unless you are counting calories you may not realize that you are full at only 1500 kcal when normally you eat over 2500 kcal.
In any case, giving people more information usually is helpful, especially if done without comments that make the poster defensive. (Not saying you do this but it is not unusual on MFP for a new and excited keto'er to feel like they are being mocked or taken down a peg. I think they are less likely to hear the message in that case.)13 -
All these fad diets I find to be annoying. I understand there are diets out there that are beneficial and make sense for some people (like, oh I don't know, DASH? Or something?) But most of the time people are following these diets just because it's the new "thing" and they want to make weight loss more complicated than it needs to be. I actually deleted my facebook app to remove the temptation because it's such a time-suck, but there is SOOO much diet and weight loss woo on there, I almost roll my eyes so hard I can see my brain.1
-
Most of the time when you pinpoint the actual reason, they're the ones usually refuting science. People in general (not keto) don't like to be told that they're wrong even when evidence proves it. It's human nature I guess.LiftHeavyThings27105 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »KrazyKrissyy wrote: »Well, I'm doing keto for my epilepsy. My seizures have gone from weekly to every 2 months despite being on the same medications. I don't have any weight to lose. I wouldn't call it a craze and I will definitely stay on it. It's either that or end up back in the hospital with temporary partial paralysis again after grandmal seizures. Hmm... Such a hard decision lol.
its not a craze when it comes to seizures,Insulin resistance,PCOS and diabetes. its proven to help those things. but it is a craze for weight loss because weight loss was not the original use for the ketogenic way of eating. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19049574
Amen! I follow Keto. Because of high A1C. It seems to work well for me.
Now, mind you - as you so aptly stated - if I eat too many calories (this salad dressing saturation is becoming a thing for me!) then the scales yell at me in the morning. So, Keto is not some magic pill that allows you to do whatever the heck you want to do. Calories In vs. Calories Out is still "the magic pill" (I used that term here because it seems to me in today's world that everyone wants some magic pill.....so, let's package things the way that will appeal to them...I mean, I keep on telling people that I am smarter than I look!!!).
I wish many keto followers like you saw it this way. Every time I read people talk about keto, it's usually in the form "I tried CICO and it didn't work for me, keto made me lose weight". You kind of roll your eyes when you hear something so cringe worthy. It's great to hear that it helped someone, it's just the stuff that comes out of their mouth about keto is what makes me cringe because of the information they say about it is just wrong and it spreads the myth that keto is magical for weight loss to new followers who they spread the bad information to everyone else.
In any case, giving people more information usually is helpful, especially if done without comments that make the poster defensive. (Not saying you do this but it is not unusual on MFP for a new and excited keto'er to feel like they are being mocked or taken down a peg. I think they are less likely to hear the message in that case.)
1 -
LiftHeavyThings27105 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »KrazyKrissyy wrote: »Well, I'm doing keto for my epilepsy. My seizures have gone from weekly to every 2 months despite being on the same medications. I don't have any weight to lose. I wouldn't call it a craze and I will definitely stay on it. It's either that or end up back in the hospital with temporary partial paralysis again after grandmal seizures. Hmm... Such a hard decision lol.
its not a craze when it comes to seizures,Insulin resistance,PCOS and diabetes. its proven to help those things. but it is a craze for weight loss because weight loss was not the original use for the ketogenic way of eating. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19049574
Amen! I follow Keto. Because of high A1C. It seems to work well for me.
Now, mind you - as you so aptly stated - if I eat too many calories (this salad dressing saturation is becoming a thing for me!) then the scales yell at me in the morning. So, Keto is not some magic pill that allows you to do whatever the heck you want to do. Calories In vs. Calories Out is still "the magic pill" (I used that term here because it seems to me in today's world that everyone wants some magic pill.....so, let's package things the way that will appeal to them...I mean, I keep on telling people that I am smarter than I look!!!).
but if you gain weight overnight. its not fat or actual weight its just a fluctuation either due to sodium,waste or what have you. yes keto has also been showed to help those with their A1C. its good if keto helps with a health condition. heck any way of eating that helps a health condition is great. for me its low fat,low cholesterol and high fiber.0 -
Most of the time when you pinpoint the actual reason, they're the ones usually refuting science. People in general (not keto) don't like to be told that they're wrong even when evidence proves it. It's human nature I guess.LiftHeavyThings27105 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »KrazyKrissyy wrote: »Well, I'm doing keto for my epilepsy. My seizures have gone from weekly to every 2 months despite being on the same medications. I don't have any weight to lose. I wouldn't call it a craze and I will definitely stay on it. It's either that or end up back in the hospital with temporary partial paralysis again after grandmal seizures. Hmm... Such a hard decision lol.
its not a craze when it comes to seizures,Insulin resistance,PCOS and diabetes. its proven to help those things. but it is a craze for weight loss because weight loss was not the original use for the ketogenic way of eating. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19049574
Amen! I follow Keto. Because of high A1C. It seems to work well for me.
Now, mind you - as you so aptly stated - if I eat too many calories (this salad dressing saturation is becoming a thing for me!) then the scales yell at me in the morning. So, Keto is not some magic pill that allows you to do whatever the heck you want to do. Calories In vs. Calories Out is still "the magic pill" (I used that term here because it seems to me in today's world that everyone wants some magic pill.....so, let's package things the way that will appeal to them...I mean, I keep on telling people that I am smarter than I look!!!).
I wish many keto followers like you saw it this way. Every time I read people talk about keto, it's usually in the form "I tried CICO and it didn't work for me, keto made me lose weight". You kind of roll your eyes when you hear something so cringe worthy. It's great to hear that it helped someone, it's just the stuff that comes out of their mouth about keto is what makes me cringe because of the information they say about it is just wrong and it spreads the myth that keto is magical for weight loss to new followers who they spread the bad information to everyone else.
In any case, giving people more information usually is helpful, especially if done without comments that make the poster defensive. (Not saying you do this but it is not unusual on MFP for a new and excited keto'er to feel like they are being mocked or taken down a peg. I think they are less likely to hear the message in that case.)
True. People do dislike being wrong. I do believe that how someone is corrected makes a big difference though. Probably the teacher in me coming out.1 -
I have noticed3
-
I never paid any attention to KETO but after seeing a documentary on it I thought I would give it a try. I was limiting my carbs anyway but was was still eating fries and sandwiches at times. It seems to be working so time will tell.10
-
I have a comment about keto. It's legit and I'd really like to hear from those in the know. I'm not one to pick on keto or ketoers. To each their own and I think people should talk about whatever eating style they want to talk about here, including elimination diets.
But when I first signed up on MFP 4+ years ago, keto was generally defined as 50 grams of carb a day or less. Over the years the keto definition has dropped about 10 grams of carb from the daily total every year.
Currently keto folk seem to define keto as 15 grams of carb a day. That's a far cry from 50 grams of carb a day. I've tried it and it feels completely different. It's the difference between eating two servings of fruit and two servings of non starchy vegetable a day to pretty much only having one serving of vegetable a day with no fruit at all or getting the 15 grams from small portions of dairy and nuts only.
I predict keto will eventually be defined as 5 grams of carb a day.
Why do the carb counts that supposedly define what is keto keep dropping?
My snarky answer would be that each of the diet gurus has to put his/her spin on it and thus the numbers differ... but I also know posters on these boards who reliably maintain ketosis at around 50g (or slightly more) of carbs a day with an active lifestyle and posters who have trouble when they get that high of a carb count, so it really is down to the individual and how their body responds to the process. From my understanding of the research the majority of people can reliably maintain ketosis at 20g of carbs and that may also be the reason for the drop in values.3 -
I have a comment about keto. It's legit and I'd really like to hear from those in the know. I'm not one to pick on keto or ketoers. To each their own and I think people should talk about whatever eating style they want to talk about here, including elimination diets.
But when I first signed up on MFP 4+ years ago, keto was generally defined as 50 grams of carb a day or less. Over the years the keto definition has dropped about 10 grams of carb from the daily total every year.
Currently keto folk seem to define keto as 15 grams of carb a day. That's a far cry from 50 grams of carb a day. I've tried it and it feels completely different. It's the difference between eating two servings of fruit and two servings of non starchy vegetable a day to pretty much only having one serving of vegetable a day with no fruit at all or getting the 15 grams from small portions of dairy and nuts only.
I predict keto will eventually be defined as 5 grams of carb a day.
Why do the carb counts that supposedly define keto keep dropping?
I have have the same question. Four years ago at the age of 63 I started keto keeping my carbs around 50 grams most days. When I checked with the $10 meter off eBay this morning I blew a .031 on the alcohol scale because these cheap meters read acetone levels as well.
Why anyone wants to go below 50 grams I am not sure but some do. I can not get below 50 and eat the keto WOE that I prefer because I eat a ton of chocolate and nuts but I know the high fiber foods is to offset the carb count but I just run with the gross carbs in food but typically to not track my calories from any source for years now.
I only do keto to try and slow down 40 years of health issues and after 4 years it is working better than I expected. Perhaps some have a need to cut out carbs well below the 50 gram level but it is not to get into or live in a state of Nutritional Ketosis from my experience or reading of research.
Some do keto at around 100 grams of carbs daily they claim. I have done that from time to time and still was in ketosis but just at a lower level. I am just an old man that found keto manages my arthritis pain almost totally after a hard forty years of pain so I plan to do it as long as I keep eating. The the weight loss and many other health improvements are just positive side effects. I have not found any negative side effects in my case. It did take about a year for me to get doing keto figured out and working the same way day after day and year after year.
12 -
I'm guessing that some people are talking about total carbs, and others net carbs maybe?3
-
annaskiski wrote: »I'm guessing that some people are talking about total carbs, and others net carbs maybe?
Some say fiber should only be subtracted from fresh fruits, vegetables and nuts to tally the net. Not from processed foods such as yogurts (including frozen) or manufactured protein/keto bars.
I would agree with that but is while I just go with the gross carb number.
My one and only one rule is to not eat/drink any food containing added sugar and or any form of any grain so that cuts out all highly processed foods.13 -
I always thought Keto diet was a fad and also thought the high fat content could be bad in the long run. All of that changed when I happened across, by chance, a documentary "The Magic Pill". It totally fascinated me. There was a line where the author asked "Why is it that every animal on earth can regulate its body weight except man or any animal cared for by man?"
It sealed the deal and got me to change my diet. I was already eating somewhat this way so all I need to do was reduce or give up bread (was 26g daily) and stop eating fries or chips with lunch. I just started and down 8 pounds so far.17
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions