Calorie Counter

Message Boards Debate: Health and Fitness
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

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

13468928

Replies

  • The_EnginerdThe_Enginerd Member Posts: 3,898 Member Member Posts: 3,898 Member
    FireOpalCO wrote: »
    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.)
    I work in a two story building where the large, wide staircase is front and center when you enter. The elevators are behind it. Even though it takes longer, I still see able bodied coworkers take the elevator over the stairs by preference.
  • hesn92hesn92 Member Posts: 5,853 Member Member Posts: 5,853 Member
    I agree it would be nice if restaurants were required to post nutrition content on their menu's. That would be nice for me and other calorie-aware people, I'm not sure it would really do that much for helping obesity in general. Sure it would also be nice to increase the walkability of certain areas, but what are they supposed to do with a large suburb like where I live? I think if you want to live in a walkable area, then move to a walkable area. I hate big cities, but I am jealous of my sister who lives downtown because she can walk anywhere she needs to go, or take the train thing.
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Member Posts: 5,907 Member Member Posts: 5,907 Member
    hesn92 wrote: »
    I agree it would be nice if restaurants were required to post nutrition content on their menu's. That would be nice for me and other calorie-aware people, I'm not sure it would really do that much for helping obesity in general. Sure it would also be nice to increase the walkability of certain areas, but what are they supposed to do with a large suburb like where I live? I think if you want to live in a walkable area, then move to a walkable area. I hate big cities, but I am jealous of my sister who lives downtown because she can walk anywhere she needs to go, or take the train thing.

    There are suburbs where I am that are quite walkable (have a village center with a good walkable shopping area, have trains easily available within a walk from many homes) or have walkable areas, as well as great parks, bike paths, etc. There are also suburbs here that are not only not aren't very walkable, but even seem to discourage walking by not having sidewalks.

    We could make most non-walkable areas more walkable if we wanted.
  • Theoldguy1Theoldguy1 Member Posts: 1,405 Member Member Posts: 1,405 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    njitaliana wrote: »
    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.

    They don't NEED to pay for you to lose weight "naturally". You will "naturally" lose weight if you eat less. You don't need a dietitian for that. Just like you don't need a trainer to work out. If you want one, and can pay for it, okay...but it is not necessary. Even if you keep eating exactly the same food you eat now, if you eat less of it you WILL lose weight. Don't ask other people (taxpayers) to pay a dietitian to tell you what is pretty straightforward stuff.

    I will probably get flags, woos, and lots of nasty comments for this, but I don't care. I am going to give an honest opinion. You are "disgusted" that "they" (other people!) won't pay for YOUR dietitian? I am disgusted that you EXPECT other people to pay for something you can do yourself. Just eat less. If you really want to change WHAT you eat, there is plenty of free info online. This is part of being an adult.

    Spot on! Unless there is a specific medical condition,dietitian not needed.

    Eat less and/or move more.
    edited March 2019
  • Theoldguy1Theoldguy1 Member Posts: 1,405 Member Member Posts: 1,405 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    No law will help, but will make things monumentally worse.

    Removing laws on the other hand would have tremendous benefit over time.

    What laws, in your opinion, are driving obesity rates in the US?

    Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.

    What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?

    I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.



    I'm thinking penalties for speeding tend to slow down the traffic flow.
  • ccrdragonccrdragon Member Posts: 2,820 Member Member Posts: 2,820 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    No law will help, but will make things monumentally worse.

    Removing laws on the other hand would have tremendous benefit over time.

    What laws, in your opinion, are driving obesity rates in the US?

    Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.

    What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?

    I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.



    I'm thinking penalties for speeding tend to slow down the traffic flow.

    You obviously don't live in the same area of the country that I live in... most speed limits are taken as suggestions to be ignored around here.
  • Theoldguy1Theoldguy1 Member Posts: 1,405 Member Member Posts: 1,405 Member
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    No law will help, but will make things monumentally worse.

    Removing laws on the other hand would have tremendous benefit over time.

    What laws, in your opinion, are driving obesity rates in the US?

    Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.

    What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?

    I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.



    I'm thinking penalties for speeding tend to slow down the traffic flow.

    You obviously don't live in the same area of the country that I live in... most speed limits are taken as suggestions to be ignored around here.

    They are suggestions but the average speed of traffic would be much higher without threat of a penalty imposed .
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Member Posts: 24,310 Member Member Posts: 24,310 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    No law will help, but will make things monumentally worse.

    Removing laws on the other hand would have tremendous benefit over time.

    What laws, in your opinion, are driving obesity rates in the US?

    Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.

    What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?

    I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.



    I think I misunderstood what you wrote initially. When you said "Removing laws would have tremendous benefit over time" I thought you were referring to specific laws you'd like to see removed in order to address obesity. I think instead you were stating that there would be a general "tremendous benefit" to removing laws?

    More generally, if someone's desires are going to cause me harm, I consider it a success if a law makes it less likely they'll choose to fulfill that desire.

    Like the 18th Amendment?

    Interesting that your mind went there, but I was thinking more along the lines of laws against rape and assault. Someone choosing to have a beer, that's their business.

    In a discussion of policy shaping eating behavior (food and drug law) and you think of rape and assault (criminal law)?

    Someone choosing to eat surplus calories, that's their business...

    ...also their responsibility to manage the ramifications.

    I thought you were speaking about laws generally, not in relation to obesity. I asked what laws, in your opinion, were driving obesity rates and should be removed. You asked what laws have positively influenced human behavior and stated that they're a failure if they punish desire so I wrongly assumed you were speaking about your general philosophy of government.

    Overall, I would say that I am completely fine with punishing those who carry out desires to hurt others.

    The 18th Amendment has nothing to do with that. I understand that the part of the stated rationale of Prohibition was to prevent drinkers from hurting others, but the law already is capable of effectively addressing harmful behavior against others without a blanket ban on a substance.

    When you stated that removing laws would have a tremendous benefit in reducing obesity over time, what laws are you referring to?

    The point of criminal law isn't so much to prevent crime, but to limit bad actors within the system, hence the rational behind incarceration. There is little proof that laws prevent crime, but they are effective at identifying and containing individuals who violate law.

    There is little more foolish than to pass a law you cannot possibly enforce.

    The passage of laws limiting affluence have not objectively proven to be effective. As the number of laws have increased, obesity has increased - nearly in direct proportion.

    Removal of all "nanny state" laws has potential to positively influence behavior. These serve as nothing more than delayed ramification structures and window dressing.

    Asking what law can be passed is simply asking the wrong question.

    This requires change management on a global scale, which requires Vision, Skills, Incentives, Resources, and an Action Plan. Before any of this occurs there must be a recognized need and will. If history serves as any indicator the recognition will be in hindsight.

    I'm still confused as to what laws you think we should repeal. Do you have specific laws in mind?

    I get that you're generally opposed to "nanny state" laws, but what specific laws do you think are making people fatter?
  • cwolfman13cwolfman13 Member Posts: 38,204 Member Member Posts: 38,204 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    x
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    shaf238 wrote: »
    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.

    That's already required for the most part. It would be very burdensome for mom and pop establishments though and many of them would likely go out of business.

    Just curious- why would this be especially burdensome for Mom and Pop restaurants and put many of them out of business? They’re allowed to use the database method. It doesn’t have to be any harder than it is for us to fill out a recipe in MFP. It might actually help them to more accurately calculate the cost to make a portion when they look at the amount of each ingredient.

    For one thing, if actual legislation was enacted, I would have serious doubts as to them being allowed to use the data base method as that would be pretty loosey goosey for actual legislation. And really, what's the point of enacting legislation when databases are so full of absolute *kitten* for entries made by other users of the system? How much will they be allowed to be off? Would people even trust the stated calorie counts? I mean people already question the counts of restaurants who's food gets sent to a lab. Do they get fined for using bad entries to create their calorie counts? Do they get away with using entries that are erroneously low to make it appear that their menu is lower calorie? How is the FDA going to verify the calorie counts without that food going to a lab?

    Mom and pop restaurants already run on a very thin margin and many, if not most struggle to just stay open. As I stated in an earlier reply, this is extra time spent when owners of these establishments are already burning it at both ends, and time is money. It's irrelevant though because any such legislation would never allow for something so unscientific as using a random database to come up with calorie counts to assure the public of what they're getting. Having food sent to a lab is expensive and would put many of these places under.

    Beyond that, mom and pop restaurants are a pretty small % of the restaurant world and the overall food supply. I seriously don't think mom and pop restaurants are contributing substantially to the obesity epidemic. If you looked at it on a pie chart, mom and pop restaurants would be a tiny sliver of the overall food supply...why burden something so small with more bureaucracy? They already have to deal with a *kitten* ton of it already. The government doesn't typically enact legislation that makes things easier...

    I'm not sure where you are located, but this is already required in the U.S. for restaurants with 20 or more locations. The FDA website does state that they can comply using nutrient databases (USDA, cookbooks, etc.). No requirement to send food to a lab.

    Seemed pretty clear he was talking about "mom and pop" restaurants, which do not have 20 or more locations.

    Yes... my point was that the FDA doesn't require even the chain restaurants to send the food out for lab testing if they choose to use the nutrient databases, so why would they require it of the mom and pop restaurants.

    Even if they use the database method, it is done through a lab...the restaurant isn't getting on MFP to enter their stuff...they are still doing it through a lab.
  • CSARdiverCSARdiver Member Posts: 6,261 Member Member Posts: 6,261 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    No law will help, but will make things monumentally worse.

    Removing laws on the other hand would have tremendous benefit over time.

    What laws, in your opinion, are driving obesity rates in the US?

    Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.

    What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?

    I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.



    I'm thinking penalties for speeding tend to slow down the traffic flow.

    Capital punishment for doing so in the left lane.
Sign In or Register to comment.