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.
What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?
Replies
-
Unless you eat out a lot one meal should not sabotage your weight management. I seldom eat out so when I do I don't want to spend that time being upset because I don't know the calorie count. Eat what you think is a reasonable portion and then take the rest home with you for a meal or snack the next day.3
-
The only thing I’d ban is diet advertising.24
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »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.
How do you know the answer is no? You asked a factual question about hundreds of millions of people and then assumed the answer. I've for sure been making better choices since this information has been available to me.
You said people should take personal responsibility but doing so requires information. People should be making better, informed choices.
One legislative change I would like to see is harsher penalties for drivers who negligently injure cyclists and pedestrians. And more priority and resources to pursue these types of cases.21 -
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: 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
Well, you're kind of making my point here for me. I have zero issues with being 2-3, even 400 calories over here and there. But, given the real example I stated near the top of the thread, I'd like to have enough info to make a reasonable guess, such as within 2-300 or 400 calories.
To clarify - I'm only making the argument. I don't eat out enough to even think about, much less worry about it, but what about the millions of folks who do eat out multiple times a week? 500 or more calories 2-3 times a week can be a goal breaker, easily. Asking restaurants to make information available is not equal to ceding personal responsibility in any way. It is catering to a healthier mindset. What's wrong with that?7 -
availability of healthful foods everywhere (ex: there are "food desserts") and an affordable price. some of hte cheapest foods are very hit fat/sugar/cals. and harder to get the healthful foods and meal prep with little money and working 3 jobs.
a society that encourage and promotes more walking and alternatives to using cars. i don't have a car and let me tell you streets and places like strip malls are NOT safe to walk on for pedestrians half the time.
not sure this last one relates to laws but i look forward to restaurants offering a wider range of options.sure it's nice they show calorie but everything on the menu is 800+. i am thankful when i can at least "special order" bits and pieces to get something closer to 400-500.10 -
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.
I agree with you. I'm not sure how it would work either in any cost effective way. To your last point about why people don't make better choices I have at least a few observations. I know several people IRL that tried to take up jogging or evening walks and quit because of perceived safety reasons. They were either harassed by dogs or forced to walk in areas where traffic made them feel unsafe (like along the side of a road). Some of us here are hard-headed and determined to overcome these obstacles. Others need an easier pathway. I also believe there is some inertia to community fitness. When folks see others pursuing an active lifestyle they might also be more active. Conversely when we meet people who give up due to safety or inconvenience we are less likely to try activities.
"Being good" - as you put it shouldn't be unusual. Unfortunately we are labeled as "health nuts" by many. Policies and community activities that try to make these behaviors the norm are worthwhile. I think they will be costly. I think there will also be a fairly large time lag between implementation and measurable effect of the policies. It takes time to alter behaviors.11 -
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: 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
Well, you're kind of making my point here for me. I have zero issues with being 2-3, even 400 calories over here and there. But, given the real example I stated near the top of the thread, I'd like to have enough info to make a reasonable guess, such as within 2-300 or 400 calories.
To clarify - I'm only making the argument. I don't eat out enough to even think about, much less worry about it, but what about the millions of folks who do eat out multiple times a week? 500 or more calories 2-3 times a week can be a goal breaker, easily. Asking restaurants to make information available is not equal to ceding personal responsibility in any way. It is catering to a healthier mindset. What's wrong with that?
For the record I wasn't talking *at* you.
Nothing. And any restaurant in this day which chooses not to give at least an estimate of its calories is well within its rights to do so (or not do so.) That restaurant may alienate a tiny subset of the population by not doing so. So be it.
I just don't see how legislating mandatory calorie estimates is a good thing.
If you insist on only eating at restaurants with calorie guesses on the menu, you are voting with your wallet. It's the way it should be in a free economy. If that restaurant loses your business, I guess that is a choice it has made. I find calorie counts offensive, to be honest - and I've been on this site for 12 years, fully embracing calorie counting as The Way.
Not being forced by law to list calories also absolves the restaurant from "wrong" calorie counts and lawsuits.
I don't want the government any more up into my food than they already are. It's not necessary ::shrug::
This argument has played out in many threads over hundreds of pages and thousands of posts.
Do as you wish.
18 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »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.
The thing is there is all sorts of educational material out there. People just choose not to look at them or ignore the advice.
The information on Choose My Plate, if followed is really all that is needed for the vast majority to lose or maintain weight.
https://www.choosemyplate.gov/3 -
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: 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
Well, you're kind of making my point here for me. I have zero issues with being 2-3, even 400 calories over here and there. But, given the real example I stated near the top of the thread, I'd like to have enough info to make a reasonable guess, such as within 2-300 or 400 calories.
To clarify - I'm only making the argument. I don't eat out enough to even think about, much less worry about it, but what about the millions of folks who do eat out multiple times a week? 500 or more calories 2-3 times a week can be a goal breaker, easily. Asking restaurants to make information available is not equal to ceding personal responsibility in any way. It is catering to a healthier mindset. What's wrong with that?
Ah, but some of us do have a problem with it! A few hundred calories is kind of a big deal when your deficit is tiny to begin with
ETA but I'm not blaming the restaurants. I have enough practice logging to know, generally, when I need to add calories to whatever is stated on the menu. If it looks too good to be true, it probably is!7 -
cmriverside 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: 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
Well, you're kind of making my point here for me. I have zero issues with being 2-3, even 400 calories over here and there. But, given the real example I stated near the top of the thread, I'd like to have enough info to make a reasonable guess, such as within 2-300 or 400 calories.
To clarify - I'm only making the argument. I don't eat out enough to even think about, much less worry about it, but what about the millions of folks who do eat out multiple times a week? 500 or more calories 2-3 times a week can be a goal breaker, easily. Asking restaurants to make information available is not equal to ceding personal responsibility in any way. It is catering to a healthier mindset. What's wrong with that?
For the record I wasn't talking *at* you.
Nothing. And any restaurant in this day which chooses not to give at least an estimate of its calories is well within its rights to do so (or not do so.) That restaurant may alienate a tiny subset of the population by not doing so. So be it.
I just don't see how legislating mandatory calorie estimates is a good thing.
If you insist on only eating at restaurants with calorie guesses on the menu, you are voting with your wallet. It's the way it should be in a free economy. If that restaurant loses your business, I guess that is a choice it has made. I find calorie counts offensive, to be honest - and I've been on this site for 12 years, fully embracing calorie counting as The Way.
Not being forced by law to list calories also absolves the restaurant from "wrong" calorie counts and lawsuits.
I don't want the government any more up into my food than they already are. It's not necessary ::shrug::
This argument has played out in many threads over hundreds of pages and thousands of posts.
Do as you wish.
Ah now @cmriverside - please don't take it personally. It's the debate forum, and I'm not looking for points or to "win"...just chatting. Nothing personal at all.5 -
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: 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
Well, you're kind of making my point here for me. I have zero issues with being 2-3, even 400 calories over here and there. But, given the real example I stated near the top of the thread, I'd like to have enough info to make a reasonable guess, such as within 2-300 or 400 calories.
To clarify - I'm only making the argument. I don't eat out enough to even think about, much less worry about it, but what about the millions of folks who do eat out multiple times a week? 500 or more calories 2-3 times a week can be a goal breaker, easily. Asking restaurants to make information available is not equal to ceding personal responsibility in any way. It is catering to a healthier mindset. What's wrong with that?
Ah, but some of us do have a problem with it! A few hundred calories is kind of a big deal when your deficit is tiny to begin with
ETA but I'm not blaming the restaurants. I have enough practice logging to know, generally, when I need to add calories to whatever is stated on the menu. If it looks too good to be true, it probably is!
Yeah but You're tiny!!
It's a good point though. 0 -
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.
Okay I went back to your original premise.
So a few weeks ago I went to a local Taco place and had a small pork soft taco. I did not care the calories, I was hungry and just ordered it.
So as he was preparing it I mentally took notes. I left off a couple high-cal things like cheese and sour cream. I did a calculation in my head.
After I had already paid for it I noticed the little calorie numbers on the overhead menu.
I was off by less than 100 calories.
I'm able to do that because I've used a food scale for many years.
You can do the estimates in your head. Are Chimichangas fried? See, I rarely order fried food because you truly cannot get a good estimate. Fried food is a once per month treat for me. I take a guess, log it and move on. That's really all you can do with fried food.7 -
cmriverside wrote: »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.
Okay I went back to your original premise.
So a few weeks ago I went to a local Taco place and had a small pork soft taco. I did not care the calories, I was hungry and just ordered it.
So as he was preparing it I mentally took notes. I left off a couple high-cal things like cheese and sour cream. I did a calculation in my head.
After I had already paid for it I noticed the little calorie numbers on the overhead menu.
I was off by less than 100 calories.
I'm able to do that because I've used a food scale for many years.
You can do the estimates in your head. Are Chimichangas fried? See, I rarely order fried food because you truly cannot get a good estimate. Fried food is a once per month treat for me. I take a guess, log it and move on. That's really all you can do with fried food.
Yep, they're fried, and I'm willing to pay the price
I can see your years of experience being the difference here. I have months lol, and many others none, so sometimes it's literally a shot in the dark trying to guess accurately. That's all I'm getting at, but I'm glad you expanded your view a bit for me. I initially took it as a bit Laissez-faire. But I was wrong, sorry about that.7 -
Copper_Boom wrote: »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.
I think that's too burdensome, and the role that small local restaurants play in obesity is likely slight (and most such restaurants operate on a pretty thin margin and the failure rate is high).4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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.
Agree with this.
Also more focus on medical lifestyle interventions -- providing covered referrals to dietitians, therapy if it could be helpful, that sort of thing. It seems to me that often this sort of thing is provided to people electing to do WLS or who have a diagnosed eating disorder or (in some cases) already are diagnosed with a serious medical condition, but it should be more proactively available to people with weight issues.
Mostly what I think would help are cultural changes that I don't really think the gov't can do much about.6 -
Copper_Boom wrote: »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.
completely disagree. I think our government and lawmakers have more important things to argue over. People need to step up and take responsibility for themselves.
No law is going to make things easier. Cook your own meals, stop going out to eat, workout.12 -
Keto_N_Iron wrote: »Copper_Boom wrote: »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.
completely disagree. I think our government and lawmakers have more important things to argue over. People need to step up and take responsibility for themselves.
No law is going to make things easier. Cook your own meals, stop going out to eat, workout.
How different everyone’s lives are. It’s not unusual for me to go to restaurants 6 to 7 times in the course of a week (due to both my job and social life). Can I maintain doing this? Absolutely. Would it make it easier for me to validate my meal choices if all restaurants were required to post calories? Absolutely.
16 -
I agree with a more activity friendly infrastructure. We have a beautiful trail system here in Maine but it is only usable for a portion of the year. The town I live in only has sidewalks in the downtown area. It's treacherous running, walking or biking on the busy roads.
I'd love to be able to use medical reimbursement accounts to pay for gym memberships (with trackable attendance), dietician consultations, and food prepping courses.10 -
I recently finished a course in public health policy, and many of you are right on track: our communities are not designed for walkability, if there are parks they're often not safe, lack of education and access to fresh, healthful foods, etc.
One thing I'd like to see a lot more of is mobile produce trucks to bring healthful food choices to areas without access, combined with incentives to purchase healthful options (rather than taxes on junk food), as well as education.14 -
FireOpalCO wrote: »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.)
Sure.... Let's just print more money to pay for all of it....26 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »The information on Choose My Plate, if followed is really all that is needed for the vast majority to lose or maintain weight.
https://www.choosemyplate.gov/
You're assuming everyone has access to the materials you refer to or the internet. I can tell you without hesitation that the area my sister lives in WV has no wifi or internet service and the information is not readily available.8 -
Keto_N_Iron wrote: »Copper_Boom wrote: »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.
completely disagree. I think our government and lawmakers have more important things to argue over. People need to step up and take responsibility for themselves.
No law is going to make things easier. Cook your own meals, stop going out to eat, workout.
I actually lost my weight while continuing to eat out several times a week and I didn't exercise at all. It can be done (and in my case pretty easily), but a few years into maintenance now I do appreciate the calories info on signage at most restaurants, (this wasn't a thing back during my active weight loss phase). Usually I pre-look on restaurant's websites, but if we do an unexpected stop in it's nice to have the info right there.7 -
NorthCascades wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »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.
How do you know the answer is no? You asked a factual question about hundreds of millions of people and then assumed the answer. I've for sure been making better choices since this information has been available to me.
You said people should take personal responsibility but doing so requires information. People should be making better, informed choices.
One legislative change I would like to see is harsher penalties for drivers who negligently injure cyclists and pedestrians. And more priority and resources to pursue these types of cases.
Because the obesity epidemic continues to rise...that would indicate that it's not doing anything to curb obesity.
As I stated in the previous paragraph, it only really matters to people who are calorie aware which is a huge minority of people...you would be in the minority along with pretty much everyone else on MFP.
As far as personal responsibility goes, people know what is *kitten* and what isn't and deep down, people know what they should be eating from a nutritional standpoint...they just don't do it. I think most people know and understand that an apple is going to provide them with more nutrition...vitamins...minerals, etc than a candy bar...but they choose the candy bar anyway. You don't need to know a damn thing about calories to understand that eating a diet consisting largely of fast food and junk food isn't a good thing.10 -
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.4 -
cwolfman13 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.
9 -
FireOpalCO wrote: »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.)
Sure.... Let's just print more money to pay for all of it....
Single Payer Healthcare: It would actually be cheaper to tax employers & individuals to cover single payer healthcare than what is paid for health insurance. Especially for smaller employers (less than 10,000 employees)
Investment in mass transit - Would it take an increase? Probably, but mostly it's redirecting existing funds
Tax breaks - they get breaks for all sorts of stupid stuff, how about stuff that actually benefits their employees
% of open space - money comment makes no sense. This is about building permits and city design. Costs are passed on to the developers. Lots of cities & towns have requirements concerning providing public art, size of area that is public accessible, parking, skyline, green roofs, density, bike trail & waterway rights, etc.
Building Codes - again, money comment makes no sense. The cost would be for the developer and it's a building code change. Those happen all the time. When they change minimum number of parking spaces based on building size formula do you respond"let's just print more money to pay for it all"? It's a similar change.
23 -
Copper_Boom wrote: »cwolfman13 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...12 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »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.
How do you know the answer is no? You asked a factual question about hundreds of millions of people and then assumed the answer. I've for sure been making better choices since this information has been available to me.
You said people should take personal responsibility but doing so requires information. People should be making better, informed choices.
One legislative change I would like to see is harsher penalties for drivers who negligently injure cyclists and pedestrians. And more priority and resources to pursue these types of cases.
Because the obesity epidemic continues to rise...that would indicate that it's not doing anything to curb obesity.
As I stated in the previous paragraph, it only really matters to people who are calorie aware which is a huge minority of people...you would be in the minority along with pretty much everyone else on MFP.
As far as personal responsibility goes, people know what is *kitten* and what isn't and deep down, people know what they should be eating from a nutritional standpoint...they just don't do it. I think most people know and understand that an apple is going to provide them with more nutrition...vitamins...minerals, etc than a candy bar...but they choose the candy bar anyway. You don't need to know a damn thing about calories to understand that eating a diet consisting largely of fast food and junk food isn't a good thing.
Reality Check:
I live within walking distance of 3 well-stocked grocery stores and 1 weekly (year-round) farmers' market. I have a car and access to countless other supermarkets from discount to luxury, and more farmers' markets/local produce stands within a 15-minute drive. Competition is high and I have my pick of gorgeous produce and other healthful foods that stores place on loss-leader sales to get people in the door. I can buy whole grain bread, tortillas, and tofu still warm from being made today and produce picked this morning. It's easy for me to feed my family healthfully on a budget.
There are few if any grocery stores and farmers' markets in many low-income neighborhoods. Public transport in the U.S. is not optimized like in many other countries. Thus people are forced to depend on what is available to them: convenience stores, fast food, and places like Dollar General. Many work long hours and don't have the time to cook balanced meals from scratch every night. Just because people are eating foods you deem unhealthful doesn't mean that is the way they would choose to eat if better food was easily accessible.20 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Copper_Boom wrote: »cwolfman13 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 started typing a reply but then refreshed, and this is almost exactly what I was going to say.
Having it lab tested it is the only way to ensure accuracy. I've seen other people's food logs here, I wouldn't trust a stranger to get the numbers right, and small restaurants are already struggling to make even the smallest profit and keep fully staffed. Whose responsibility would this be? The owner (who is often the cook)? They often tweak recipes as they go through the day, based on what they have left in the kitchen, should they be refiguring the calorie count every time a plate goes out?5 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Copper_Boom wrote: »cwolfman13 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.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions