What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?

Copper_Boom

Or prevent obesity?

From a maintenance perspective, I wish calorie disclosure would go further. I would like to see mandatory calorie counts for all restaurants and shops selling food items, regardless of number of locations. Not to the extent of sending food to a lab for measurement, but at least calculating calories for all the ingredients and dividing by their serving size.

cmriverside

I think we have enough laws already.

People just need to take some personal responsibility. Anyone who's made it past fourth grade should be able to figure this out.

Eat less. Take a walk. Ta Da.

ceiswyn

Seconded on calorie flippin' disclosure. I'm pretty good at guessing, but it's one reason I don't like to eat out often. Except at coffee shops that put that information front and centre.

Phirrgus

Calorie disclosure is all that really comes to mind for me. I've thought and read about initiatives to make healthier choices available, but that seems a bit of a dead end to me as when all is said and done, a person is going to choose what they want and not what someone else legislates/decides is good for a person.

I would just love to know what that awesome Chimichanga I plan on this weekend is going to cost me though.

kilobykilo

New to this and absolutely agree. I've just eaten sushi for lunch from the counter of my local supermarket.... No nutritional info attached. So, now I've guessed but would like to plan the calories in my dinner according to more than a guess!

lalalacroix

I would love for changes to take place in regards to food and drinks consumed by children. I see children drinking large, frozen drinks from Starbucks, for example. These drinks can be so caloric and easily be 1/3 or more of a child's daily caloric need. And obviously this isn't the only food and drink establishment that serves very high calorie products to kids, just one example.

I don't know if it's a matter of parents being unaware of calories in general or maybe thinking a frozen beverage is somehow less calories than an ice cream sundae.

I would love to see some type of literature/poster in places like Starbucks that illustrate caloric needs of children and what happens when they eat too high calories over a period of time. This could include information on diabetes and other illnesses typically caused by being overweight.

ceiswyn

Speaking of calorie disclosure, there is NO POINT in putting 'nutritional values per 100g' information on a snack pack that is clearly not 100g, and not telling me how big the snack pack is, I'm looking at you Starbucks.

(You can find the information on the website, but why not on the pack?!)

Ultimately, though, I don't think there's much you can do to legislate people's choices. You can only legislate to make some choices easier, or to make the choices more informed.

Phirrgus

cmriverside wrote: »

I think we have enough laws already.

People just need to take some personal responsibility. Anyone who's made it past fourth grade should be able to figure this out.

Eat less. Take a walk. Ta Da.

I responsibly ordered the healthy heart steak and veggies at a local hole in the wall because the menu stated it was "only" 1150 calories. The blasted steak was maybe 4oz, the salad was rather anemic...where was the 1150 coming from? Had to be oils/butters/dressings etc.

My point is, if that had not been labeled on the menu I would never have guessed more than 700 at absolute most just by looking at it. I'm pretty responsible, but guesstimating calories..well...we all know how that can work out.

MikePTY

I agree with calorie disclosures. Be happy for what you have in the US though. I live in a country with zero calorie disclosure requirements so I end up with a ton of guess work.

Also, pushing development of more park space with sports fields, outdoor exercise equipment, walking and biking space, etc. This helps everybody, but especially those who can't afford a gym. That's one thing I feel is done well in my country. Lots of freely available tennis courts, basketball courts, soccer fields, along with biking and running tracks. Most of the parks have outdoor exercise equipment as well.

Ultimately though, no amount of public policy or laws can man people eat healthy and choose to get fit. There always has to be individual initiative. But that doesn't mean that things can't be done to assist in that.

FireOpalCO

Single payer healthcare, including nurse visits and dietitians.
32 hour workweek.
Investment in mass transit systems over highways
Longer school day with mandatory % of time in recess/PE/sports
Tax breaks for companies that buy desk bikes/treadmills, provide a cafeteria, or pay for gym memberships or onsite doctor visits, transit cards, bike racks, etc.
Increase the percentage of open space, bike trails, etc. in development codes.
Building codes that require open staircases under a certain story height? (People are more likely to use the stairs if they are big and visible vs. hidden behind a door looking like they're for emergencies only.)

janejellyroll

I can't think of anything I would actually mandate, but I would love to see more areas focusing on increasing "walkability." I've lived in all types of places and I now live in an area where it is very easy and safe to walk. It makes a huge difference in my activity level.

sammidelvecchio

I think the only things that can be implemented at this point are with children. Keep physical activity class in schools, and help make school lunches healthier. And educate the children better. Even if their parents don't give them healthy food at home, it will ensure at least one meal a day is nutritious. Having the school health teacher offer free nutrition classes to families might help too. A lot of people don't understand that every person is different, and the same diet/exercise plan won't work universally. "Eat less. walk more" - what an insensitive post. It's not that simple for a lot of people. Genetics plays a huge role, and budget does too. Helping families understand affordable healthy alternatives, what packed lunches would be most healthy and nutritious could go a long way in creating lifelong healthy eating habits for children.

As for calorie counts on food and at restaurants, more and more research is proving that total calorie count is only one part of the equation. Other macros like fat, carbs, fiber, sugar, and protein, as well as WHEN you eat what, are equally as important.

I wouldn't want the job of the people trying to figure out this health/obesity epidemic right now. It is all just so complex. Best of luck to all trying!

FireOpalCO

lalalacroix wrote: »

I would love for changes to take place in regards to food and drinks consumed by children. I see children drinking large, frozen drinks from Starbucks, for example. These drinks can be so caloric and easily be 1/3 or more of a child's daily caloric need. And obviously this isn't the only food and drink establishment that serves very high calorie products to kids, just one example.

I don't know if it's a matter of parents being unaware of calories in general or maybe thinking a frozen beverage is somehow less calories than an ice cream sundae.

I would love to see some type of literature/poster in places like Starbucks that illustrate caloric needs of children and what happens when they eat too high calories over a period of time. This could include information on diabetes and other illnesses typically caused by being overweight.

A few times in summer I've seen a "mini" size for the frappucinos. Those should be available year round. It's a small enough size to be a decent treat for a kid (obviously a non-caffeinated one).

RowingBill

Full disclosure of calories for all edible foods. Aside from that no more soda for NYC. HA HA Joking.
Seriously, We do have too many laws already.

Phirrgus

RowingBill wrote: »

Full disclosure of calories for all edible foods. Aside from that no more soda for NYC. HA HA Joking.
Seriously, We do have too many laws already.

I was waiting for someone to bring that up

lalalacroix

ceiswyn wrote: »

Speaking of calorie disclosure, there is NO POINT in putting 'nutritional values per 100g' information on a snack pack that is clearly not 100g, and not telling me how big the snack pack is, I'm looking at you Starbucks.

(You can find the information on the website, but why not on the pack?!)

I agree. And let's take that one step further and call a product that is clearly one serving, one serving. For example, I picked up a tiny premade cheesecake to see if I could afford the calories. It was a little piece that probably most people would eat as a single serving. However, the nutritional info stated that it had 4 servings. To me the only purpose of that would be to appear to have less calories than it did.

Transparency and simplicity would be helpful.

janejellyroll

FireOpalCO wrote: »

lalalacroix wrote: »

I would love for changes to take place in regards to food and drinks consumed by children. I see children drinking large, frozen drinks from Starbucks, for example. These drinks can be so caloric and easily be 1/3 or more of a child's daily caloric need. And obviously this isn't the only food and drink establishment that serves very high calorie products to kids, just one example.

I don't know if it's a matter of parents being unaware of calories in general or maybe thinking a frozen beverage is somehow less calories than an ice cream sundae.

I would love to see some type of literature/poster in places like Starbucks that illustrate caloric needs of children and what happens when they eat too high calories over a period of time. This could include information on diabetes and other illnesses typically caused by being overweight.

A few times in summer I've seen a "mini" size for the frappucinos. Those should be available year round. It's a small enough size to be a decent treat for a kid (obviously a non-caffeinated one).

I believe Starbucks is always willing to sell you a smaller size than what is shown on the menus. I don't go often, but when I do I am always getting the very smallest and it's never listed an an option on the menu.

njitaliana

It's easy to know how many calories are in your food if you eat at chain restaurants, since they all have calories listed. Before I go to a restaurant, I check the restaurant meals' calories online at their nutrition website, and enter that into MFP. But, privately owned restaurants probably don't even have the money to hire someone to calculate all their food ingredients, especially when they change the menu frequently or have new specials each day. I stick to mostly chain restaurants for that reason. But, if I do eat at a privately owned restaurant on occasion, I just eat carefully. And I don't stress about it. I have 67 lbs off now, so it's working.

My bigger concern is insurance companies (specifically Medicare, which is for elderly and disabled people) not paying for obese people to see dietitians. Obesity is now considered a disease, yet they only want to pay for diet pills or surgery. It's disgusting to me that they won't pay for us to lose weight naturally and healthily with the help of a dietitian.

ceiswyn

lalalacroix wrote: »

ceiswyn wrote: »

Speaking of calorie disclosure, there is NO POINT in putting 'nutritional values per 100g' information on a snack pack that is clearly not 100g, and not telling me how big the snack pack is, I'm looking at you Starbucks.

(You can find the information on the website, but why not on the pack?!)

I agree. And let's take that one step further and call a product that is clearly one serving, one serving. For example, I picked up a tiny premade cheesecake to see if I could afford the calories. It was a little piece that probably most people would eat as a single serving. However, the nutritional info stated that it had 4 servings. To me the only purpose of that would be to appear to have less calories than it did.

Transparency and simplicity would be helpful.

Seconded. The number of times I've picked up a little pot of salad at the supermarket, perfectly sized for lunch, and discovered that it's actually supposedly two servings. Ahahaha, no. Please stop it with cheating on serving sizes so that you can pretend the calories are lower; if you want to list lower calories, maybe you could add less oil/mayo?

lalalacroix

FireOpalCO wrote: »

lalalacroix wrote: »

I would love for changes to take place in regards to food and drinks consumed by children. I see children drinking large, frozen drinks from Starbucks, for example. These drinks can be so caloric and easily be 1/3 or more of a child's daily caloric need. And obviously this isn't the only food and drink establishment that serves very high calorie products to kids, just one example.

I don't know if it's a matter of parents being unaware of calories in general or maybe thinking a frozen beverage is somehow less calories than an ice cream sundae.

I would love to see some type of literature/poster in places like Starbucks that illustrate caloric needs of children and what happens when they eat too high calories over a period of time. This could include information on diabetes and other illnesses typically caused by being overweight.

A few times in summer I've seen a "mini" size for the frappucinos. Those should be available year round. It's a small enough size to be a decent treat for a kid (obviously a non-caffeinated one).

My sister used to get her kids one small strawberry cream drink and have them split it into 2 cups. And my 11 year old daughter just gets the smallest size possible during the rare Starbucks visits. But we consider health and calories for our children. I think a lot of parents just somehow aren't aware.

garystrickland357

I think we have enough laws for the most part. As far as policy goes, I'd like to see communities develop infrastructure that promotes a healthy lifestyle. I live in a small rural community in Texas. The county road systems are wonderful for cycling and we have limited traffic - that's the good part. The flip side is our towns and cities are designed for cars - not people. I deal with loose (biting) dogs all the time because city ordinances aren't enforced. City streets have a lot of junk near the curb. We don't have bike lanes. You get the idea. Many folks just won't take a walk or ride their bike because they don't feel safe. We also need kinder neighborhoods where children (actually their parents) feel it's safe to be outside and play or ride a bike.

Edit: I know all of this is expensive. But what's the cost of obesity to our communities and our countries?

cwolfman13

There's enough government intervention. People need to take some personal friggin' responsibility. I don't want any mandates or laws. Required calorie disclosures for all restaurants would ruin some of my favorite local places...regardless of whether it's sent to a lab or not, it's time consuming and time is money so it's still going to be expensive.

Besides that, some of my favorite restaurants do not maintain a constant menu...One place I go has an ever changing dinner menu as they get everything from their own farm and other local farms, so what's on the menu is whatever is actually available fresh and local...then for the breakfast/brunch menu, they often invent dishes from food that is leftover from the previous nights dinner menu.

And look at it this way...there are already plenty of restaurants with stated calorie counts and pretty much everything you buy at the store requires a nutritional label...has it done anything to curb obesity? Nope...the only people who even really care are people who are calorie aware and/or actually counting calories which is a huge minority of the population.

Really, there needs to be more education, not more legislation.

kimny72

Personally, I don't think any public policies or laws will help much. It's actually not really that difficult right now. The tools are all there, people choose not to use them.

I don't know anyone IRL who pays attention to the calorie counts on menus, they say they're just depressed by the numbers and they don't really understand how it applies to them specifically anyway. Most people who ask me about calorie counting assume everyone should be eating 2000 calories, and if you exercise for an hour you're burning 500 cals because that's what all the video workouts advertise.

If smaller locations determined calorie counts themselves (rather than paying to send them out to a lab) I honestly wouldn't trust them anyway. How would I know that the person who did the math actually knew what they were doing? Or that they were even being honest? Even at chain restaurants, you have to assume the person doing the cooking is following the rules and cooking/serving the way they're supposed to. You still have to use critical thinking and your own experience when the plate is set down in front of you and you start to eat.

People want the most bang for their buck. They want the bigger size because it's a bargain. They want to buy their kid a sugary drink because it will keep them from crying in the store. They will fight you for that parking space so they don't have to walk those 15 extra steps.

I think the only things that would really make a difference are education and perhaps community agendas to get people moving and prioritizing a mindful diet. How exactly that would work, I have no idea. But more about convincing people to take responsibility for their choices and make it a priority, make it just a thing that everyone does. I get told all the time that I'm "being good" by bringing my lunch, not taking a second piece of cake, taking a walk on my break. People know what to do. For whatever reason, they don't do it.

My dad often tells me he doesn't want to think about or analyze his food, he just wants to enjoy it. A coworker always says she doesn't want to waste time at the gym, she wants to enjoy her life. If someone could figure out how to convince people those two things aren't mutually exclusive - that you can think about your diet and enjoy food, that being active and exercising can be enjoyable, that you don't need to be a "health nut" to live a fun & healthy life - they might solve the whole dang thing.

ceiswyn

I do get a bit annoyed by government guidelines that say women on average should be eating 2000 kcal per day.

I am a taller than average woman, and I get a lot of exercise. I would probably not gain weight on 2000...

pinuplove

Policy can only go so far. It could be that a seeing a generation or two dying of obesity-related causes will be what turns the tide.

shaf238

Putting aside for one minute that people need to take more responsibility for themselves, mandating that food suppliers, restaurants, etc have to provide nutritional information would be the one thing I'd like to see.

cmriverside

at thinking "nutrition counts" at restaurants are even in the ballpark.

Maybe at fast food places they may be close, but at any full service restaurant your actual portion could be off by several hundred calories depending on who prepared it and who your server is.

If they are human, they're going to be way off on the estimations. When I was a server I knew certain chefs were going to go heavy (or light) on things like butter, cheese, mayo, avocado, dressings and sauces. They prepare things the way they like them. Even if they are supposed to be using portion ladles, that isn't how it actually works. Same with salad dressings. I don't really use much salad dressing, so I would use the small bullet size dressing cups: which is what the calorie count and recipe said. Lots of servers would give their customers the ramekin size of dressing and extra croutons. Why? Because a lot of people are going to ask for more and it's better to give it to them pre-emptively than have to make another trip.

Ten extra croutons can be 50-70 calories. The difference between 2 ounces of dressing and 5 ounces is a couple hundred calories if you are getting Ranch or Bleu Cheese. An extra full ladle of bar be que or gravy sauce can be 100+ calories more than the posted amount.

Same with cheese on dishes. It's added by using shredded cheese. Most recipes are going to call for a half ounce of cheese but most dishes are going to come to your table with 2 ounces. That's nearly a 200 calorie discrepancy.

So don't assume that calorie count is even close. Sure, a restaurant with a diligent chef is going to keep an eye on this stuff for food cost reasons, but don't count on it.

This is a 2 ounce serving (bullet)


This is 5 ounces

janejellyroll

cmriverside wrote: »

at thinking "nutrition counts" at restaurants are even in the ballpark.

Maybe at fast food places they may be close, but at any full service restaurant your actual portion could be off by several hundred calories depending on who prepared it and who your server is.

If they are human, they're going to be way off on the estimations. When I was a server I knew certain chefs were going to go heavy (or light) on things like butter, cheese, mayo, avocado, dressings and sauces. They prepare things the way they like them. Even if they are supposed to be using portion ladles, that isn't how it actually works. Same with salad dressings. I don't really use much salad dressing, so I would use the small bullet size dressing cups. Lots of servers would give their customers the ramekin size of dressing and extra croutons. Why? Because a lot of people are going to ask for more and it's better to give it to them pre-emptively than have to make another trip.

Ten extra croutons can be 50-70 calories. The difference between 2 ounces of dressing and 5 ounces is several hundred calories if you are getting Ranch or Bleu Cheese.

Same with cheese on dishes. It's added by using shredded cheese. Most recipes are going to call for a half ounce of cheese but most dishes are going to come to your table with 2 ounces. That's nearly a 200 calorie discrepancy.

So don't assume that calorie count is even close.

This is a 2 ounce serving (bullet)


This is 5 ounces

This is why learning to estimate reasonably accurately for yourself is an important skill for weight management. There have been several times when I've been to a place with calorie counts, looked at what I ordered, and just known that it had to be higher.

cmriverside

janejellyroll wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

at thinking "nutrition counts" at restaurants are even in the ballpark.

Maybe at fast food places they may be close, but at any full service restaurant your actual portion could be off by several hundred calories depending on who prepared it and who your server is.

If they are human, they're going to be way off on the estimations. When I was a server I knew certain chefs were going to go heavy (or light) on things like butter, cheese, mayo, avocado, dressings and sauces. They prepare things the way they like them. Even if they are supposed to be using portion ladles, that isn't how it actually works. Same with salad dressings. I don't really use much salad dressing, so I would use the small bullet size dressing cups. Lots of servers would give their customers the ramekin size of dressing and extra croutons. Why? Because a lot of people are going to ask for more and it's better to give it to them pre-emptively than have to make another trip.

Ten extra croutons can be 50-70 calories. The difference between 2 ounces of dressing and 5 ounces is several hundred calories if you are getting Ranch or Bleu Cheese.

Same with cheese on dishes. It's added by using shredded cheese. Most recipes are going to call for a half ounce of cheese but most dishes are going to come to your table with 2 ounces. That's nearly a 200 calorie discrepancy.

So don't assume that calorie count is even close.

This is a 2 ounce serving (bullet)


This is 5 ounces

This is why learning to estimate reasonably accurately for yourself is an important skill for weight management. There have been several times when I've been to a place with calorie counts, looked at what I ordered, and just known that it had to be higher.

Exactly. Right back to personal responsibility and a food scale at home.

pinuplove

janejellyroll wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

at thinking "nutrition counts" at restaurants are even in the ballpark.

Maybe at fast food places they may be close, but at any full service restaurant your actual portion could be off by several hundred calories depending on who prepared it and who your server is.

If they are human, they're going to be way off on the estimations. When I was a server I knew certain chefs were going to go heavy (or light) on things like butter, cheese, mayo, avocado, dressings and sauces. They prepare things the way they like them. Even if they are supposed to be using portion ladles, that isn't how it actually works. Same with salad dressings. I don't really use much salad dressing, so I would use the small bullet size dressing cups. Lots of servers would give their customers the ramekin size of dressing and extra croutons. Why? Because a lot of people are going to ask for more and it's better to give it to them pre-emptively than have to make another trip.

Ten extra croutons can be 50-70 calories. The difference between 2 ounces of dressing and 5 ounces is several hundred calories if you are getting Ranch or Bleu Cheese.

Same with cheese on dishes. It's added by using shredded cheese. Most recipes are going to call for a half ounce of cheese but most dishes are going to come to your table with 2 ounces. That's nearly a 200 calorie discrepancy.

So don't assume that calorie count is even close.

This is a 2 ounce serving (bullet)


This is 5 ounces

This is why learning to estimate reasonably accurately for yourself is an important skill for weight management. There have been several times when I've been to a place with calorie counts, looked at what I ordered, and just known that it had to be higher.

There's a regional fast food taco place here that comes to mind for me. Yes, they have calorie listings on their website, but I don't believe for one minute that those include the amount of cheese they stuff into those taco shells (part of the reason I love it )

ceiswyn

It would be nice if we could change the general societal attitude that more==better.

I went to a cafe once, ordered a slice of their cake, and specifically asked for it to be small. They gave me the entire end of the loaf cake.

When I go to places that know me, they tend to give me the biggest portion of whatever I asked for, or to be generous with sides/extras. I know they're trying to be nice, but in actuality that is not nice at all.