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
-
I really don't give a damn what other people are doing. I don't do keto because I took a college-level nutrition course that emphasized at least 150 g of carb daily for healthy adults so that our bodies don't go into ketoacidosis, which is not a healthy or natural state.
"Ketone bodies are three water-soluble molecules (acetoacetate, beta-hydroxybutyrate, and their spontaneous breakdown product, acetone) containing the ketone group that are produced by the liver from fatty acids[1] during periods of low food intake (fasting), carbohydrate restrictive diets, starvation, prolonged intense exercise,[2] alcoholism or in untreated (or inadequately treated) type 1 diabetes mellitus."
I'm not trying to adhere to a diet that induces similar physiological outcomes as starvation, alcoholism, and untreated type 1 diabetes mellitus. But that's just what's right for me. I would never tell anyone else how to live their lives.
The reason I eat carbs is the same reason I do cardio. What's happening inside my body is and will be more important than what's happening with my outer layers.7 -
Blonde_Runner615 wrote: »I really don't give a damn what other people are doing. I don't do keto because I took a college-level nutrition course that emphasized at least 150 g of carb daily for healthy adults so that our bodies don't go into ketoacidosis, which is not a healthy or natural state.
"Ketone bodies are three water-soluble molecules (acetoacetate, beta-hydroxybutyrate, and their spontaneous breakdown product, acetone) containing the ketone group that are produced by the liver from fatty acids[1] during periods of low food intake (fasting), carbohydrate restrictive diets, starvation, prolonged intense exercise,[2] alcoholism or in untreated (or inadequately treated) type 1 diabetes mellitus."
I'm not trying to adhere to a diet that induces similar physiological outcomes as starvation, alcoholism, and untreated type 1 diabetes mellitus. But that's just what's right for me. I would never tell anyone else how to live their lives.
The reason I eat carbs is the same reason I do cardio. What's happening inside my body is and will be more important than what's happening with my outer layers.
Any evidence to support the bolded part?
5 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »Blonde_Runner615 wrote: »I really don't give a damn what other people are doing. I don't do keto because I took a college-level nutrition course that emphasized at least 150 g of carb daily for healthy adults so that our bodies don't go into ketoacidosis, which is not a healthy or natural state.
"Ketone bodies are three water-soluble molecules (acetoacetate, beta-hydroxybutyrate, and their spontaneous breakdown product, acetone) containing the ketone group that are produced by the liver from fatty acids[1] during periods of low food intake (fasting), carbohydrate restrictive diets, starvation, prolonged intense exercise,[2] alcoholism or in untreated (or inadequately treated) type 1 diabetes mellitus."
I'm not trying to adhere to a diet that induces similar physiological outcomes as starvation, alcoholism, and untreated type 1 diabetes mellitus. But that's just what's right for me. I would never tell anyone else how to live their lives.
The reason I eat carbs is the same reason I do cardio. What's happening inside my body is and will be more important than what's happening with my outer layers.
Any evidence to support the bolded part?
Please don't get me wrong, I'm no expert, and I won't debate anyone on this topic because again I don't give a damn what anyone else is doing. I am just recalling what I learned in Nutrition 101 and explaining why I avoid ketoacidosis.2 -
Blonde_Runner615 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Blonde_Runner615 wrote: »I really don't give a damn what other people are doing. I don't do keto because I took a college-level nutrition course that emphasized at least 150 g of carb daily for healthy adults so that our bodies don't go into ketoacidosis, which is not a healthy or natural state.
"Ketone bodies are three water-soluble molecules (acetoacetate, beta-hydroxybutyrate, and their spontaneous breakdown product, acetone) containing the ketone group that are produced by the liver from fatty acids[1] during periods of low food intake (fasting), carbohydrate restrictive diets, starvation, prolonged intense exercise,[2] alcoholism or in untreated (or inadequately treated) type 1 diabetes mellitus."
I'm not trying to adhere to a diet that induces similar physiological outcomes as starvation, alcoholism, and untreated type 1 diabetes mellitus. But that's just what's right for me. I would never tell anyone else how to live their lives.
The reason I eat carbs is the same reason I do cardio. What's happening inside my body is and will be more important than what's happening with my outer layers.
Any evidence to support the bolded part?
Please don't get me wrong, I'm no expert, and I won't debate anyone on this topic because again I don't give a damn what anyone else is doing. I am just recalling what I learned in Nutrition 101 and explaining why I avoid ketoacidosis.
I think we all want to avoid ketoacidosis.
This keto diet is about ketosis.
15 -
There are two parts of this that are (a little bit) annoying to me. First, the dogma that some adherents claim regarding the "evils of carbs and sugar" etc. Second, the idea that I've seen espoused here and in other places that they can literally eat as much as they want because it's all about the carbz.
Like many here, I have nothing against keto as a part of the means to lose weight. It's the idea that this magically overrides energy balance that drives me nuts. If you lose weight on keto and not counting calories, then you are still operating under the laws of thermodynamics, physics, and chemistry. If you gain weight on keto, which is 100% possible, then you are still operating under the laws of thermodynamics, physics, and chemistry (and the rest of the sciences that apply). I still run across claims that people can eat as much of this or that that they want and never gain weight.
I actually had somebody approach after I had lost about 35 pounds asking me how long I had been doing keto. I reached over and grabbed my Coca Cola for a sip and said "not very long.......". He then told me that if I ditched the Coke, I'd lose weight faster because insulinz, carbs, etc; that my "diet" would never work. I should avoid processed foods and all that. Then he sat down at the meeting table and broke out his bag of about 2 cups worth of mixed nuts and ran through the whole bag during the meeting. Still asks how I do it...7 -
Ketoacidosis refers to diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and is a complication of type 1 diabetes mellitus. It’s a life-threatening condition resulting from dangerously high levels of ketones and blood sugar. This combination makes your blood too acidic, which can change the normal functioning of internal organs like your liver and kidneys. It’s critical that you get prompt treatment.
Ketosis is the presence of ketones. It’s not harmful. You can be in ketosis if you’re on a low-carbohydrate diet or fasting, or if you’ve consumed too much alcohol. If you’re in ketosis, you have a higher than usual level of ketones in your blood or urine, but not high enough to cause acidosis. Ketones are a chemical your body produces when it burns stored fat.
I have followed a Keto Diet for four years (very successfully) and I am not diabetic nor an alcoholic nor have ever suffered from Ketoacidosis. I do however stay is ketosis. I do NOT have a problem with my HDL/LDL levels and I choose healthy fats, not just any fat. I eat fruits and veggies EVERY DAY (even grow my own organic garden and can them). I sustain a keto based diet while traveling over 70% for work (restaurant food), and I exercise. Like any individual nutrition plan, balancing food is part of it.
Every person has their own unique genetic makeup, experiences, education and preferences. I have had more than one medical/nutrition class in collage. Even a CICO plan can go bad when the person doing it, lacks understanding and knowledge. I did my homework and found what works for me. I don't think it works for everyone in all situations and generalizing (putting everyone in the same pool of health & fitness) is the true danger of assumptions.11 -
Interesting point and question.
Keto is not going away because a "ketogenic diet" is not like any other "diet" out there, which normally proscribe what foods you can eat based on a variety of theories and in what amounts. "Keto" means being in a state of nutritional ketosis, which means that you are eating less than or equal to 20g of net carbs per day, and that your body has switched over from burning glycogen derived from carbohydrates (or sometimes protein) to burning ketone bodies, either from bodily or dietary fat.
But you're right - most people don't understand it very well!
Ketosis can occur between 20g and 50g depending on the person. A keto diet plan is actually a specific calculation based on current body weight, goal weight, time, calories and so on which equal your macros. However, I do agree with the rest of this content. Keto is very misunderstood. For example, are you following a keto plan (meaning in ketosis) or are you on a low carb plan (above 50g of carbs a day). When even at such a basic level people don't understand it, the mis-information can cause lots of bad press and bad conversation.5 -
"The SAD is known for the relative *lack* of whole grains, not an emphasis on them.[/quote]
And a lack of veg and fruit...[/quote]
I am Keto..again. I eat between 20 and 50 grams of carbs a day, and do not count the carbs from my vegetables (except corn and potatoes and those that are pretty starchy). I don't eat a lot of grains, I sub nut flour for a lot of my baking, and eat "a lot" of almonds and hazlenuts and pecans (a lot for keto, a few ounces a week). I have a more realistic expectation, but am pre-diabetic, so it's not a bad thing to reduce carbs. Some people take it to the extreme and it's simply not sustainable. I need to find some grains that I can eat that won't spike my sugar so much, but I do occasionally snack on full fat granola(once a week 1/4 cup, and I keep within my macros). Just starting keto again, because I was one of those "Zero-10 grams of carbs, no vegetables, etc" and it drove me nuts. Taking it slow and easy now. There are a lot of people that like to try the newest thing, so it'll be popular for a while and die down eventually.2 -
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.6 -
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?7 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »aburrison1 wrote: »1. Most people find fat (and protein) satiating.
2. Carb cravings are reduced
3. If improves conditions related to insulin resistance like T2D, prediabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimer's, CVD; as well as some neurological problems.
4. Steadier energy from steadier BG
5. Improved lipid panels for most.
6. Possible gastrointestinal improvements or for other symptoms like migraines
7. Better skin and hair
8. It has been shown to be just as effective as any weight loss diet, and slightly better in those with IR.
9. Sustainability is just as good, if not better, than some other diets like low fat
10. It is quite complimentary to popular IF due to appetite suppression
11. Bacon
You are correct about this statement. Keto is actually a credible and sustainable way of eating. It does, in fact, facilitate with improved health. If you take a blood panel and compare before Keto and after you will notice improved results. I know personally because I have experienced it. Keto has improved my life and health. With Keto I also do intermittent fasting (IF). Using IF and Keto together facilities faster weight loss and a healthier body. In fact, when I have gone off Keto and IF my health deteriorated.
Not everyone finds lots of fat satiating and wish people would stop repeating this like it's nearly universal. I legitimately thought there was something wrong with me when I tried Whole 30 because low carb made me feel this weird combination of both stuffed and weak from hunger, I definitely wasn't satisfied. I need one reasonable portion of complex carbs in a meal and I am happy, full, and energetic for much longer.
Yes, this has been pointed out many times. Some find fats satisfying. Many do not. It's like a subtle form of propaganda. Trying to speak it into reality. For those that find fats satisfying, great. But many do not.
I love fat, find it satiating, and am not a volume eater. I still wouldn't want to do keto. I probably eat a higher percentage of fat than most but find if my carbs dip below 100g/day for any sustained period of time I get very cranky
Keto isn’t for everyone, that’s for sure, but it is definitely for many.
I personally like to keep my carbs around 100g to and I definitely like fat and protein ahead of carbs.
You're sentence can be applied to any diet really.
<INSERT_DIET> isn't for everyone, that's for sure, but it is definitely for many.
I don't even know why people make such a big deal with their diet, it's a tool, but yet people get all cultish and obessed by them. I guess it's human to cling on to something, whether it's religion, politics or even something silly like a diet.
^This all day.
I do understand have some sympathy, with the position of being passionate about a lifestyle that optimizes how you feel and wanting to tell everyone about it, particularly if that new lifestyle was a dramatic shift from your previous one.
What I don't understand is knowing how wonderful you feel, feeling that wonderfulness, and then needing some sort of validation by asserting that your lifestyle change will either work for everyone else, will do things it doesn't necessarily do, or put down other people's lifestyles since they didn't work for you.
I think it's great people find relief from cravings and health issues with keto.
I tried low carbing as a sedentary individual and found it wasn't sustainable for me. Now that I'm an active person. I find I cannot control calories and maintain a low weight without a hefty dose of high quality carbs in my day. I'm just not full and satisfied without them. Potatoes and oats work best. That's my lifestyle that has made an amazing difference for me. Just me. While I think everyone who is capable should do some kind of activity, I don't think what I eat would work for anyone else but me. Goodness, it doesn't even work for my own husband!10 -
annaskiski wrote: »LouisTamsi wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
What changed in the last few weeks?
Sorry I'm late replying, a part of Obamacare went into effect that makes restaurants with more than 10 locations post calorie counts for their menu items.
I love this so much. So much easier to make better choices.
I really don't understand why people fought this so hard. It's only large chains, and doesn't cost much for them to put the recipes in a calorie calculator.
The restaurants don't want you to know how calorific their foods are, that I understand. But why do consumers oppose it?
I think it's actually restaurants with 20 or more locations (that's what the articles I'm reading on it say). One reason that it isn't popular with business owners is that they can't just put recipes in a calorie calculator. They have to have the dishes analyzed nutritionally, so there is a cost associated with this policy change.
Edit: They apparently don't have to submit the dishes for outside analysis, they just have to be able to show how they calculated the calories.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »aburrison1 wrote: »1. Most people find fat (and protein) satiating.
2. Carb cravings are reduced
3. If improves conditions related to insulin resistance like T2D, prediabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimer's, CVD; as well as some neurological problems.
4. Steadier energy from steadier BG
5. Improved lipid panels for most.
6. Possible gastrointestinal improvements or for other symptoms like migraines
7. Better skin and hair
8. It has been shown to be just as effective as any weight loss diet, and slightly better in those with IR.
9. Sustainability is just as good, if not better, than some other diets like low fat
10. It is quite complimentary to popular IF due to appetite suppression
11. Bacon
You are correct about this statement. Keto is actually a credible and sustainable way of eating. It does, in fact, facilitate with improved health. If you take a blood panel and compare before Keto and after you will notice improved results. I know personally because I have experienced it. Keto has improved my life and health. With Keto I also do intermittent fasting (IF). Using IF and Keto together facilities faster weight loss and a healthier body. In fact, when I have gone off Keto and IF my health deteriorated.
Not everyone finds lots of fat satiating and wish people would stop repeating this like it's nearly universal. I legitimately thought there was something wrong with me when I tried Whole 30 because low carb made me feel this weird combination of both stuffed and weak from hunger, I definitely wasn't satisfied. I need one reasonable portion of complex carbs in a meal and I am happy, full, and energetic for much longer.
Yes, this has been pointed out many times. Some find fats satisfying. Many do not. It's like a subtle form of propaganda. Trying to speak it into reality. For those that find fats satisfying, great. But many do not.
I love fat, find it satiating, and am not a volume eater. I still wouldn't want to do keto. I probably eat a higher percentage of fat than most but find if my carbs dip below 100g/day for any sustained period of time I get very cranky
Keto isn’t for everyone, that’s for sure, but it is definitely for many.
I personally like to keep my carbs around 100g to and I definitely like fat and protein ahead of carbs.
You're sentence can be applied to any diet really.
<INSERT_DIET> isn't for everyone, that's for sure, but it is definitely for many.
I don't even know why people make such a big deal with their diet, it's a tool, but yet people get all cultish and obessed by them. I guess it's human to cling on to something, whether it's religion, politics or even something silly like a diet.
^This all day.
I do understand have some sympathy, with the position of being passionate about a lifestyle that optimizes how you feel and wanting to tell everyone about it, particularly if that new lifestyle was a dramatic shift from your previous one.
What I don't understand is knowing how wonderful you feel, feeling that wonderfulness, and then needing some sort of validation by asserting that your lifestyle change will either work for everyone else, will do things it doesn't necessarily do, or put down other people's lifestyles since they didn't work for you.
I think it's great people find relief from cravings and health issues with keto.
I tried low carbing as a sedentary individual and found it wasn't sustainable for me. Now that I'm an active person. I find I cannot control calories and maintain a low weight without a hefty dose of high quality carbs in my day. I'm just not full and satisfied without them. Potatoes and oats work best. That's my lifestyle that has made an amazing difference for me. Just me. While I think everyone who is capable should do some kind of activity, I don't think what I eat would work for anyone else but me. Goodness, it doesn't even work for my own husband!
Perfectly said!2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »LouisTamsi wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
What changed in the last few weeks?
Sorry I'm late replying, a part of Obamacare went into effect that makes restaurants with more than 10 locations post calorie counts for their menu items.
I love this so much. So much easier to make better choices.
I really don't understand why people fought this so hard. It's only large chains, and doesn't cost much for them to put the recipes in a calorie calculator.
The restaurants don't want you to know how calorific their foods are, that I understand. But why do consumers oppose it?
I think it's actually restaurants with 20 or more locations (that's what the articles I'm reading on it say). One reason that it isn't popular with business owners is that they can't just put recipes in a calorie calculator. They have to have the dishes analyzed nutritionally, so there is a cost associated with this policy change.
Are you saying there is a requirement for an outside source to verify the nutritional data? Coming from the restaurant industry but not chain restaurants, there are programs like ChefTech that give caloric and nutritional analysis that restaurants can use to derive this data themselves. It's time consuming but not difficult.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »LouisTamsi wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
What changed in the last few weeks?
Sorry I'm late replying, a part of Obamacare went into effect that makes restaurants with more than 10 locations post calorie counts for their menu items.
I love this so much. So much easier to make better choices.
I really don't understand why people fought this so hard. It's only large chains, and doesn't cost much for them to put the recipes in a calorie calculator.
The restaurants don't want you to know how calorific their foods are, that I understand. But why do consumers oppose it?
I think it's actually restaurants with 20 or more locations (that's what the articles I'm reading on it say). One reason that it isn't popular with business owners is that they can't just put recipes in a calorie calculator. They have to have the dishes analyzed nutritionally, so there is a cost associated with this policy change.
Restaurants don't have to have their dishes lab tested, but they do have to be able to show how they arrived at the calorie declarations. This is from the FDA website:https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm248731.htm#industry
A covered establishment must have a reasonable basis for its nutrient content declarations and take reasonable steps to ensure that the method of preparation and amount of a standard menu item adheres to the factors on which nutrient values were determined. Nutrient values can be determined by using nutrient databases, cookbooks, laboratory analyses, the Nutrition Facts Label on packaged foods, and other reasonable means.
The main objections from the restaurant industry had to do with the costs of compliance such as tabulating the results and keeping them current, redesigning menus and displays, how to handle situations like pizza where the potential combinations become unwieldy, etc. The other main concern were the potential liabilities if someone challenged their calorie declarations.
5 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »Blonde_Runner615 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Blonde_Runner615 wrote: »I really don't give a damn what other people are doing. I don't do keto because I took a college-level nutrition course that emphasized at least 150 g of carb daily for healthy adults so that our bodies don't go into ketoacidosis, which is not a healthy or natural state.
"Ketone bodies are three water-soluble molecules (acetoacetate, beta-hydroxybutyrate, and their spontaneous breakdown product, acetone) containing the ketone group that are produced by the liver from fatty acids[1] during periods of low food intake (fasting), carbohydrate restrictive diets, starvation, prolonged intense exercise,[2] alcoholism or in untreated (or inadequately treated) type 1 diabetes mellitus."
I'm not trying to adhere to a diet that induces similar physiological outcomes as starvation, alcoholism, and untreated type 1 diabetes mellitus. But that's just what's right for me. I would never tell anyone else how to live their lives.
The reason I eat carbs is the same reason I do cardio. What's happening inside my body is and will be more important than what's happening with my outer layers.
Any evidence to support the bolded part?
Please don't get me wrong, I'm no expert, and I won't debate anyone on this topic because again I don't give a damn what anyone else is doing. I am just recalling what I learned in Nutrition 101 and explaining why I avoid ketoacidosis.
I think we all want to avoid ketoacidosis.
This keto diet is about ketosis.
Obviously I am no expert!! The nutrition course cautioned against ketosis. It was a course I took as part of a nursing curriculum. Just a college course.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »LouisTamsi wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
What changed in the last few weeks?
Sorry I'm late replying, a part of Obamacare went into effect that makes restaurants with more than 10 locations post calorie counts for their menu items.
I love this so much. So much easier to make better choices.
I really don't understand why people fought this so hard. It's only large chains, and doesn't cost much for them to put the recipes in a calorie calculator.
The restaurants don't want you to know how calorific their foods are, that I understand. But why do consumers oppose it?
I think it's actually restaurants with 20 or more locations (that's what the articles I'm reading on it say). One reason that it isn't popular with business owners is that they can't just put recipes in a calorie calculator. They have to have the dishes analyzed nutritionally, so there is a cost associated with this policy change.
Are you saying there is a requirement for an outside source to verify the nutritional data? Coming from the restaurant industry but not chain restaurants, there are programs like ChefTech that give caloric and nutritional analysis that restaurants can use to derive this data themselves. It's time consuming but not difficult.
I am basing that on my understanding of the articles I read. I could be misunderstanding what was meant by "nutritional analysis" and I would defer to your real life experience.
This is one of the articles I read that gave me the impression that simply using a calorie calculator wouldn't meet the requirements of the law: https://www.eater.com/2018/5/7/17326574/calorie-count-menu-nutrition-fda-law1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »LouisTamsi wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
What changed in the last few weeks?
Sorry I'm late replying, a part of Obamacare went into effect that makes restaurants with more than 10 locations post calorie counts for their menu items.
I love this so much. So much easier to make better choices.
I really don't understand why people fought this so hard. It's only large chains, and doesn't cost much for them to put the recipes in a calorie calculator.
The restaurants don't want you to know how calorific their foods are, that I understand. But why do consumers oppose it?
I think it's actually restaurants with 20 or more locations (that's what the articles I'm reading on it say). One reason that it isn't popular with business owners is that they can't just put recipes in a calorie calculator. They have to have the dishes analyzed nutritionally, so there is a cost associated with this policy change.
Restaurants don't have to have their dishes lab tested, but they do have to be able to show how they arrived at the calorie declarations. This is from the FDA website:A covered establishment must have a reasonable basis for its nutrient content declarations and take reasonable steps to ensure that the method of preparation and amount of a standard menu item adheres to the factors on which nutrient values were determined. Nutrient values can be determined by using nutrient databases, cookbooks, laboratory analyses, the Nutrition Facts Label on packaged foods, and other reasonable means.
https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm248731.htm#industry
The main objections from the restaurant industry had to do with the costs of compliance such as tabulating the results and keeping them current, redesigning menus and displays, how to handle situations like pizza where the potential combinations become unwieldy, etc. The other main concern were the potential liabilities if someone challenged their calorie declarations.
Thank you for the correction. I edited my post above.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »LouisTamsi wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
What changed in the last few weeks?
Sorry I'm late replying, a part of Obamacare went into effect that makes restaurants with more than 10 locations post calorie counts for their menu items.
I love this so much. So much easier to make better choices.
I really don't understand why people fought this so hard. It's only large chains, and doesn't cost much for them to put the recipes in a calorie calculator.
The restaurants don't want you to know how calorific their foods are, that I understand. But why do consumers oppose it?
I think it's actually restaurants with 20 or more locations (that's what the articles I'm reading on it say). One reason that it isn't popular with business owners is that they can't just put recipes in a calorie calculator. They have to have the dishes analyzed nutritionally, so there is a cost associated with this policy change.
Are you saying there is a requirement for an outside source to verify the nutritional data? Coming from the restaurant industry but not chain restaurants, there are programs like ChefTech that give caloric and nutritional analysis that restaurants can use to derive this data themselves. It's time consuming but not difficult.
I am basing that on my understanding of the articles I read. I could be misunderstanding what was meant by "nutritional analysis" and I would defer to your real life experience.
This is one of the articles I read that gave me the impression that simply using a calorie calculator wouldn't meet the requirements of the law: https://www.eater.com/2018/5/7/17326574/calorie-count-menu-nutrition-fda-law
I wasn't sure because my experience is not with chains. We would use Chef Tech as much for food costing/ plate costing as nutritional data. Thanks to bpetrosky for clarifying.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »LouisTamsi wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
What changed in the last few weeks?
Sorry I'm late replying, a part of Obamacare went into effect that makes restaurants with more than 10 locations post calorie counts for their menu items.
I love this so much. So much easier to make better choices.
I really don't understand why people fought this so hard. It's only large chains, and doesn't cost much for them to put the recipes in a calorie calculator.
The restaurants don't want you to know how calorific their foods are, that I understand. But why do consumers oppose it?
I think it's actually restaurants with 20 or more locations (that's what the articles I'm reading on it say). One reason that it isn't popular with business owners is that they can't just put recipes in a calorie calculator. They have to have the dishes analyzed nutritionally, so there is a cost associated with this policy change.
Restaurants don't have to have their dishes lab tested, but they do have to be able to show how they arrived at the calorie declarations. This is from the FDA website:https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm248731.htm#industry
A covered establishment must have a reasonable basis for its nutrient content declarations and take reasonable steps to ensure that the method of preparation and amount of a standard menu item adheres to the factors on which nutrient values were determined. Nutrient values can be determined by using nutrient databases, cookbooks, laboratory analyses, the Nutrition Facts Label on packaged foods, and other reasonable means.
The main objections from the restaurant industry had to do with the costs of compliance such as tabulating the results and keeping them current, redesigning menus and displays, how to handle situations like pizza where the potential combinations become unwieldy, etc. The other main concern were the potential liabilities if someone challenged their calorie declarations.janejellyroll wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »LouisTamsi wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
What changed in the last few weeks?
Sorry I'm late replying, a part of Obamacare went into effect that makes restaurants with more than 10 locations post calorie counts for their menu items.
I love this so much. So much easier to make better choices.
I really don't understand why people fought this so hard. It's only large chains, and doesn't cost much for them to put the recipes in a calorie calculator.
The restaurants don't want you to know how calorific their foods are, that I understand. But why do consumers oppose it?
I think it's actually restaurants with 20 or more locations (that's what the articles I'm reading on it say). One reason that it isn't popular with business owners is that they can't just put recipes in a calorie calculator. They have to have the dishes analyzed nutritionally, so there is a cost associated with this policy change.
Restaurants don't have to have their dishes lab tested, but they do have to be able to show how they arrived at the calorie declarations. This is from the FDA website:https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm248731.htm#industry
A covered establishment must have a reasonable basis for its nutrient content declarations and take reasonable steps to ensure that the method of preparation and amount of a standard menu item adheres to the factors on which nutrient values were determined. Nutrient values can be determined by using nutrient databases, cookbooks, laboratory analyses, the Nutrition Facts Label on packaged foods, and other reasonable means.
The main objections from the restaurant industry had to do with the costs of compliance such as tabulating the results and keeping them current, redesigning menus and displays, how to handle situations like pizza where the potential combinations become unwieldy, etc. The other main concern were the potential liabilities if someone challenged their calorie declarations.
Panera seems to do a great job adding/subtracting ingredients. Pizza can’t be harder...
1 -
annaskiski wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »LouisTamsi wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
What changed in the last few weeks?
Sorry I'm late replying, a part of Obamacare went into effect that makes restaurants with more than 10 locations post calorie counts for their menu items.
I love this so much. So much easier to make better choices.
I really don't understand why people fought this so hard. It's only large chains, and doesn't cost much for them to put the recipes in a calorie calculator.
The restaurants don't want you to know how calorific their foods are, that I understand. But why do consumers oppose it?
I think it's actually restaurants with 20 or more locations (that's what the articles I'm reading on it say). One reason that it isn't popular with business owners is that they can't just put recipes in a calorie calculator. They have to have the dishes analyzed nutritionally, so there is a cost associated with this policy change.
Restaurants don't have to have their dishes lab tested, but they do have to be able to show how they arrived at the calorie declarations. This is from the FDA website:https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm248731.htm#industry
A covered establishment must have a reasonable basis for its nutrient content declarations and take reasonable steps to ensure that the method of preparation and amount of a standard menu item adheres to the factors on which nutrient values were determined. Nutrient values can be determined by using nutrient databases, cookbooks, laboratory analyses, the Nutrition Facts Label on packaged foods, and other reasonable means.
The main objections from the restaurant industry had to do with the costs of compliance such as tabulating the results and keeping them current, redesigning menus and displays, how to handle situations like pizza where the potential combinations become unwieldy, etc. The other main concern were the potential liabilities if someone challenged their calorie declarations.janejellyroll wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »LouisTamsi wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
What changed in the last few weeks?
Sorry I'm late replying, a part of Obamacare went into effect that makes restaurants with more than 10 locations post calorie counts for their menu items.
I love this so much. So much easier to make better choices.
I really don't understand why people fought this so hard. It's only large chains, and doesn't cost much for them to put the recipes in a calorie calculator.
The restaurants don't want you to know how calorific their foods are, that I understand. But why do consumers oppose it?
I think it's actually restaurants with 20 or more locations (that's what the articles I'm reading on it say). One reason that it isn't popular with business owners is that they can't just put recipes in a calorie calculator. They have to have the dishes analyzed nutritionally, so there is a cost associated with this policy change.
Restaurants don't have to have their dishes lab tested, but they do have to be able to show how they arrived at the calorie declarations. This is from the FDA website:https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm248731.htm#industry
A covered establishment must have a reasonable basis for its nutrient content declarations and take reasonable steps to ensure that the method of preparation and amount of a standard menu item adheres to the factors on which nutrient values were determined. Nutrient values can be determined by using nutrient databases, cookbooks, laboratory analyses, the Nutrition Facts Label on packaged foods, and other reasonable means.
The main objections from the restaurant industry had to do with the costs of compliance such as tabulating the results and keeping them current, redesigning menus and displays, how to handle situations like pizza where the potential combinations become unwieldy, etc. The other main concern were the potential liabilities if someone challenged their calorie declarations.
Panera seems to do a great job adding/subtracting ingredients. Pizza can’t be harder...
Sure it can. Remember, Panera is a large chain that has a lot of resources. A small regional pizza chain with just enough locations to be covered wouldn't have the same level of resources.
The way the new regulation was stated, add on ingredients had to be listed separately on a menu board, and I don't think they allowed for them to be supplied on a card. If you've got a list of 20 toppings, that can be added on 3 sizes, with 4 different styles of crust, that's over 180 combinations. That would crowd out a menu board fast.
To be clear, I don't think it's impossible to do a menu like this, but I think the new rules needed to be clearer for these types of situations, or allow for the information to be provided off the main menu boards.4 -
I remember they talked about it on a show and people were upset because they did not want to know much calories they were eating...basically they prefer going to a restaurant with their head in the sand. But for mfpers like us, it makes our job so much easier.4
-
I remember they talked about it on a show and people were upset because they did not want to know much calories they were eating...basically they prefer going to a restaurant with their head in the sand. But for mfpers like us, it makes our job so much easier.
I heard a lot of this myself (even from friends).
But, don’t look at the counts then?
0 -
annaskiski wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »LouisTamsi wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
What changed in the last few weeks?
Sorry I'm late replying, a part of Obamacare went into effect that makes restaurants with more than 10 locations post calorie counts for their menu items.
I love this so much. So much easier to make better choices.
I really don't understand why people fought this so hard. It's only large chains, and doesn't cost much for them to put the recipes in a calorie calculator.
The restaurants don't want you to know how calorific their foods are, that I understand. But why do consumers oppose it?
I think it's actually restaurants with 20 or more locations (that's what the articles I'm reading on it say). One reason that it isn't popular with business owners is that they can't just put recipes in a calorie calculator. They have to have the dishes analyzed nutritionally, so there is a cost associated with this policy change.
Restaurants don't have to have their dishes lab tested, but they do have to be able to show how they arrived at the calorie declarations. This is from the FDA website:https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm248731.htm#industry
A covered establishment must have a reasonable basis for its nutrient content declarations and take reasonable steps to ensure that the method of preparation and amount of a standard menu item adheres to the factors on which nutrient values were determined. Nutrient values can be determined by using nutrient databases, cookbooks, laboratory analyses, the Nutrition Facts Label on packaged foods, and other reasonable means.
The main objections from the restaurant industry had to do with the costs of compliance such as tabulating the results and keeping them current, redesigning menus and displays, how to handle situations like pizza where the potential combinations become unwieldy, etc. The other main concern were the potential liabilities if someone challenged their calorie declarations.janejellyroll wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »LouisTamsi wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
What changed in the last few weeks?
Sorry I'm late replying, a part of Obamacare went into effect that makes restaurants with more than 10 locations post calorie counts for their menu items.
I love this so much. So much easier to make better choices.
I really don't understand why people fought this so hard. It's only large chains, and doesn't cost much for them to put the recipes in a calorie calculator.
The restaurants don't want you to know how calorific their foods are, that I understand. But why do consumers oppose it?
I think it's actually restaurants with 20 or more locations (that's what the articles I'm reading on it say). One reason that it isn't popular with business owners is that they can't just put recipes in a calorie calculator. They have to have the dishes analyzed nutritionally, so there is a cost associated with this policy change.
Restaurants don't have to have their dishes lab tested, but they do have to be able to show how they arrived at the calorie declarations. This is from the FDA website:https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm248731.htm#industry
A covered establishment must have a reasonable basis for its nutrient content declarations and take reasonable steps to ensure that the method of preparation and amount of a standard menu item adheres to the factors on which nutrient values were determined. Nutrient values can be determined by using nutrient databases, cookbooks, laboratory analyses, the Nutrition Facts Label on packaged foods, and other reasonable means.
The main objections from the restaurant industry had to do with the costs of compliance such as tabulating the results and keeping them current, redesigning menus and displays, how to handle situations like pizza where the potential combinations become unwieldy, etc. The other main concern were the potential liabilities if someone challenged their calorie declarations.
Panera seems to do a great job adding/subtracting ingredients. Pizza can’t be harder...
Sure it can. Remember, Panera is a large chain that has a lot of resources. A small regional pizza chain with just enough locations to be covered wouldn't have the same level of resources.
The way the new regulation was stated, add on ingredients had to be listed separately on a menu board, and I don't think they allowed for them to be supplied on a card. If you've got a list of 20 toppings, that can be added on 3 sizes, with 4 different styles of crust, that's over 180 combinations. That would crowd out a menu board fast.
Totally agree. A large chain with franchisees and company stores can have a person or team in their compliance area that does this and disseminates it out to all locations. I believe that is why the line was drawn at 20 locations.
Labor cost is key to profitability. Smaller chains would find that kind of compliance burdensome.1 -
annaskiski wrote: »I remember they talked about it on a show and people were upset because they did not want to know much calories they were eating...basically they prefer going to a restaurant with their head in the sand. But for mfpers like us, it makes our job so much easier.
I heard a lot of this myself (even from friends).
But, don’t look at the counts then?
That's what I thought, what's funny is those who said that are those who should be on a diet to begin with.2 -
BrunetteRunner87 wrote: »So, do you think keto is just a craze, or is it here to stay?
I guess when/if the restaurant menus are required to show carbs, protein and fats too, it will be a sign it is here to stay?1 -
I came across a documentary on Netflix called the Magic Pill. I highly recommend it.
I thought is was about big pharma companies etc. It turns out it gives a lot of valid information on diet, keto, the environment, and our food production history.
All the gals in the office are talking about Keto and I have been waiting for my "rock bottom" moment to start yet another diet. So, I have been educating myself on Keto and I'm gonna drink the Koolaid. I think it is valid. Not any harder to follow than any other diet. It's hard to wrap your mind around eating more fat because if you are a product of the 80's and 90's you know that FAT is evil and will kill you. I'm embracing the healthy fat in my diet while trying to maintain a low calorie diet. So far so good. The scale isn't really showing results yet but I feel wonderful. Better than I have in years. I'm in!!29 -
domserlisa wrote: »I came across a documentary on Netflix called the Magic Pill. I highly recommend it.
I thought is was about big pharma companies etc. It turns out it gives a lot of valid information on diet, keto, the environment, and our food production history.
All the gals in the office are talking about Keto and I have been waiting for my "rock bottom" moment to start yet another diet. So, I have been educating myself on Keto and I'm gonna drink the Koolaid. I think it is valid. Not any harder to follow than any other diet. It's hard to wrap your mind around eating more fat because if you are a product of the 80's and 90's you know that FAT is evil and will kill you. I'm embracing the healthy fat in my diet while trying to maintain a low calorie diet. So far so good. The scale isn't really showing results yet but I feel wonderful. Better than I have in years. I'm in!!
And this is easier than just creating a calorie deficit? Why?4 -
Blonde_Runner615 wrote: »I really don't give a damn what other people are doing. I don't do keto because I took a college-level nutrition course that emphasized at least 150 g of carb daily for healthy adults so that our bodies don't go into ketoacidosis, which is not a healthy or natural state.
"Ketone bodies are three water-soluble molecules (acetoacetate, beta-hydroxybutyrate, and their spontaneous breakdown product, acetone) containing the ketone group that are produced by the liver from fatty acids[1] during periods of low food intake (fasting), carbohydrate restrictive diets, starvation, prolonged intense exercise,[2] alcoholism or in untreated (or inadequately treated) type 1 diabetes mellitus."
I'm not trying to adhere to a diet that induces similar physiological outcomes as starvation, alcoholism, and untreated type 1 diabetes mellitus. But that's just what's right for me. I would never tell anyone else how to live their lives.
The reason I eat carbs is the same reason I do cardio. What's happening inside my body is and will be more important than what's happening with my outer layers.
Ketosis and Ketoacidiosis are not the same.6 -
annaskiski wrote: »domserlisa wrote: »I came across a documentary on Netflix called the Magic Pill. I highly recommend it.
I thought is was about big pharma companies etc. It turns out it gives a lot of valid information on diet, keto, the environment, and our food production history.
All the gals in the office are talking about Keto and I have been waiting for my "rock bottom" moment to start yet another diet. So, I have been educating myself on Keto and I'm gonna drink the Koolaid. I think it is valid. Not any harder to follow than any other diet. It's hard to wrap your mind around eating more fat because if you are a product of the 80's and 90's you know that FAT is evil and will kill you. I'm embracing the healthy fat in my diet while trying to maintain a low calorie diet. So far so good. The scale isn't really showing results yet but I feel wonderful. Better than I have in years. I'm in!!
And this is easier than just creating a calorie deficit? Why?
It’s certainly easier than weighing food, calorie counting and still be hungry at the end of the day with no calories left - In my experience (although I just do LCHF), but the principles the same!
13
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions