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?
Options
Replies
-
Oh and mandate all cities to provide better/safer walk/bike routes to school.
6 -
To clarify>>>I believe maintaining healthy weight starts with how we learn to eat as children. Hence my focus on children.3
-
magnusthenerd wrote: »I find it interesting the number of times in this thread people have expressed an interest that more place be required to label calories and that calorie accuracy should be higher. I think it is easy to see how it would help someone using MFP or any other calorie tracker, but I think it overestimates how much anyone makes calorie based food decisions.
I recall (and I should probably look up) a study that showed calorie counts don't seem to impact food decisions at restaurants. The suggestion was that the numbers are just to abstract. Instead, they found there was a difference in behavior when menus were required to color code foods - low calories had green for go, while high calorie options were in red, and in between had yellow - there was a much greater change in food behaviors. I wonder how much it would work in the long run, or if it people would slowly build up blinders.
I strongly suspect that most people don't know how many calories is a reasonable amount for a meal. They may know the general guidance of '2000 for women, 2500 for men' (which I think is too high, but that's another subject), but they've certainly never thought about how that would actually divide up into meals, snacks and drinks.
It probably doesn't help that restaurants seem to think that 'low calorie options' mean anything below 500/600 kcal. Whereas for most people, that's not low, that's about right...2 -
Isnt things like cal count displays what makes a restaurant stand out or chosen over eating somewhere else? Its called competition, stop medling. You want to spend OPP (other peoples property) to pass regulations to make life more convenient by having calories displayed on food?. Some people dont want their taxes wasted and can figure it out them selves so stop regulating and increasing costs. If you want a public policy that will work provide tax incentives for restarants that DO provide that health info, we already have ratings and labels and omg the regulations. Who in here actually reads the federal register daily and looks at what the rules n reg being passed say anyhow? Not to mention they pretty much ALWAYS have different meaning and far reaching implications if you actually read it (the entire thing including definitions) other than what you see or hear on TV or advertising media? Probably the corporate entity who hired a lobbyiest and can afford to keep up with all the mind boggling rediculous laws and regulations that do nothing more than cause small business and individuals confusion, cost, time, pain while guaranteeing more gov. paid employees and attnys to interpret, apply, monitor and follow these rediculously complex regulations.
You want to TRIM FAT? How about figuring out a way to incentivize government budgets to actually SAVE money, lower spending. In our gov. dept. every year its the same thing. "Hey we have x amount of dollars left in the budget this year, be sure to go out and buy everything you possibly can (figure out a way to justify it) because you know if you dont spend it all the city or state or fed dept. will reduce our budget and give it to some other dept. (oh hey how about the tax payers who are being robbed manipulated and used by our media for their own financial gains). This is why we have competition and private companies that actually look at spending, costs, bids and the bottom line. Regulating and taxing are NOT the answer in this pork belly broken gov. system we have.
Provide incentives, rewards, tax discounts, for people who voluntarily choose to eat well, post progress, join fitness communities, reg. work out, and contribute to society. And the fed agency can design these incentive programs (lower taxes for auto ins. co. who give discounts for people who reg. excercse, or restaurants that post cal. counts) then you need a health tax incentive bill that is tied to federal funds going to the state, for any state that adopts and impliments the federal example program.
Because as we all know from learning administrative law (which they should be teaching to kids at age 5+ instead of sex education) the fed gov and all our administrative dept. dont have power (thank god) under the constitution, it places limits to government control over our individual liberties and freedoms, (commerce clause) fed gov. cant pass or enforce a food, health, or water quality standard.
Those laws (Health and saftey) are left to the states to pass and enforce. (Why? Go learn constitutional law. So you can actually be w/in x miles of the actual door where you elect people, have meetings, and have more oversight and less cost and its good and healthy for people to socialize with their community IN REAL FACE TO FACE communication (read book "lost connections") and for people to be more involved in their own community, passing laws that make sense for that area, landscape and type of town, and taking care of each other locally. Point being, if the fed is is going to adopt a policy for food n health, fine, use incentives not regulations. Its not going to be enforceable or constitutional or required unless its adopted by a state volunarily as a condition to get some type of federal incentive or funding (same with water quality standards, air quality, education standards and all the pork belly administrative agencies we invented to do congresses job for them), then gave the agencies all three powers (judicial, legislative rule making, and executive enforcement) which totally adds layers of unneccesary costs, duplicates states responsibility in most cases, and violates the separation of powers provision if there is no right to appeal an admins decision to a REAL court of law.
So good luck with that 3000 page new rule your administrative agency is writing to pass new regulations and increase your deptartments spending so the budget isnt cut next year, its got to feel great knowing 50 gov. lawyers will have job security fighting over definitions, exemptions, how the rules effect other laws, all while, rest assured, it wont be adopted by most places unless the STATE that has constitutional power to regulate in that area actually adopts ur admin dept. 3000 page rule in their next general legislative session. INCENTIVES not regulations. You workout not to avoid a negative consequence (getting fat) but because of the incentives and rewards it brings you. Otherwise working out becomes mentally difficult, same with gov. policies. (Sorry not spell checked or with emphasis on gramatical correctness).13 -
janicejjanice wrote: »You want to spend OPP (other peoples property) to pass regulations to make life more convenient by having calories displayed on food?. Some people dont want their taxes wasted and can figure it out them selves
...they can? Accurately? How?8 -
Great, now I have that Naughty by Nature song running through my head. (Pretty sure it meant something different that could definitely not be written on MFP, however.)
Not really seeing why having calorie counts in chains is supposed to be hard to accomplish. Most chains around here already have calories available and it's great.1 -
Great, now I have that Naughty by Nature song running through my head. (Pretty sure it meant something different that could definitely not be written on MFP, however.)
Not really seeing why having calorie counts in chains is supposed to be hard to accomplish. Most chains around here already have calories available and it's great.
So you're not down with OPP then?
Yeah, chain restaurants have been required to post calories in NY for a number of years now, and I've never heard of any struggling to do it.
It is problematic for a lot of smaller businesses, which is why they are always (to my knowledge) excluded by theses laws.
I mean, I don't really think the calorie counts on menus are really helping fight the obesity epidemic, as either the numbers are meaningless to most folks I know or they are being willfully ignorant anyway and ignore them. They're great for those of us keeping track though <shrug>.4 -
Great, now I have that Naughty by Nature song running through my head. (Pretty sure it meant something different that could definitely not be written on MFP, however.)
Not really seeing why having calorie counts in chains is supposed to be hard to accomplish. Most chains around here already have calories available and it's great.
It isn't hard to accomplish at all. There are software programs that make it fairly simple. Cheftec for example, the one I worked with in the past when I managed a the flagship location of a small chain of restaurants. It's simple, you plug in the ingredients and amounts and is spits out the nutritionals. For chains that have a mostly stable menu with seasonal items and a few coming off and on the menu based on sales, it's pretty easy.
The thing is, as kimny pointed out, it hasn't really changed consumer behavior. The Cheesecake Factory has published their nutritionals for years. Their "Wellness Salad is" 840 calories. Their "Mushroom Burger is 1400 calories. Their "Pasta Napolitana" is 2470 calories. Their sales remain high and growing slightly (To be expected that the growth has slowed. They are a mature chain at this point) not dropping.
Plain fact is people don't really care. It proves the point that you can't legislate morality or personal judgement.
3 -
Great, now I have that Naughty by Nature song running through my head. (Pretty sure it meant something different that could definitely not be written on MFP, however.)
Not really seeing why having calorie counts in chains is supposed to be hard to accomplish. Most chains around here already have calories available and it's great.
It isn't hard to accomplish at all. There are software programs that make it fairly simple. Cheftec for example, the one I worked with in the past when I managed a the flagship location of a small chain of restaurants. It's simple, you plug in the ingredients and amounts and is spits out the nutritionals. For chains that have a mostly stable menu with seasonal items and a few coming off and on the menu based on sales, it's pretty easy.
The thing is, as kimny pointed out, it hasn't really changed consumer behavior. The Cheesecake Factory has published their nutritionals for years. Their "Wellness Salad is" 840 calories. Their "Mushroom Burger is 1400 calories. Their "Pasta Napolitana" is 2470 calories. Their sales remain high and growing slightly (To be expected that the growth has slowed. They are a mature chain at this point) not dropping.
Plain fact is people don't really care. It proves the point that you can't legislate morality or personal judgement.
I agree with this. What it does it make it easier for those of us who do care, and removes an excuse. (I do think it also sometimes leads to restaurants adding some lower cal options. I've seen that with some places, and it also helps you figure out whether a quick serve place like Pret a Manger or Potbelly's or whatever will have workable options. Both do, IMO.)
My argument (such as it is, I'm not really arguing) is NOT that it's some miraculous public policy that will solve the obesity crisis (like I said, calorie counts have been common around here for some time and people don't seem to have gotten thinner), but that it's not some hugely awful and burdensome thing.
I also would never suggest that the requirement should extend to all restaurants, and most of the restaurants I personally go to don't have them.3 -
Great, now I have that Naughty by Nature song running through my head. (Pretty sure it meant something different that could definitely not be written on MFP, however.)
Not really seeing why having calorie counts in chains is supposed to be hard to accomplish. Most chains around here already have calories available and it's great.
It isn't hard to accomplish at all. There are software programs that make it fairly simple. Cheftec for example, the one I worked with in the past when I managed a the flagship location of a small chain of restaurants. It's simple, you plug in the ingredients and amounts and is spits out the nutritionals. For chains that have a mostly stable menu with seasonal items and a few coming off and on the menu based on sales, it's pretty easy.
The thing is, as kimny pointed out, it hasn't really changed consumer behavior. The Cheesecake Factory has published their nutritionals for years. Their "Wellness Salad is" 840 calories. Their "Mushroom Burger is 1400 calories. Their "Pasta Napolitana" is 2470 calories. Their sales remain high and growing slightly (To be expected that the growth has slowed. They are a mature chain at this point) not dropping.
Plain fact is people don't really care. It proves the point that you can't legislate morality or personal judgement.
I agree with this. What it does it make it easier for those of us who do care, and removes an excuse. (I do think it also sometimes leads to restaurants adding some lower cal options. I've seen that with some places, and it also helps you figure out whether a quick serve place like Pret a Manger or Potbelly's or whatever will have workable options. Both do, IMO.)
My argument (such as it is, I'm not really arguing) is NOT that it's some miraculous public policy that will solve the obesity crisis (like I said, calorie counts have been common around here for some time and people don't seem to have gotten thinner), but that it's not some hugely awful and burdensome thing.
I also would never suggest that the requirement should extend to all restaurants, and most of the restaurants I personally go to don't have them.
Yes, we are in total agreement. Interestingly, down here in Oaxaca there are very few chain restaurants. so you just need to exercise your best judgement and make good choices. One thing that does stand out though is that the trend of huge portions is not a thing here as it really has become at many chains in the U.S. Some of those The Cheesecake Factory meals are enough for 2 or more people. I went to a BBQ place here yesterday afternoon and got beef ribs. 4 good size ribs with a side salad. It was a lot by Oaxaca standard but less that I would see in a typical U.S. BBQ place.1 -
Copper_Boom wrote: »As kind of a corollary to this topic, how do people feel about farm subsidies and the Farm Bill in the US? What would change if these did not exist?
Not a fan of farm subsidies either. However, I think the food stamp program is attached, so good luck getting rid of such subsidies.1 -
To the OP question, laws only work if people obey them. People can't follow simple traffic laws, don't know how any food consumption law would work.
1 -
tbright1965 wrote: »Copper_Boom wrote: »As kind of a corollary to this topic, how do people feel about farm subsidies and the Farm Bill in the US? What would change if these did not exist?
Not a fan of farm subsidies either. However, I think the food stamp program is attached, so good luck getting rid of such subsidies.
The school lunch program is also tied to it.1 -
I agree with other comments; I wish nutritional values and ingredient lists were more available for restaurants. We never eat out, because we like to know exactly what we're eating.
I remember, years ago, when some restaurants started putting calories beside the menu items, and people were shocked that the turkey burger (they'd been ordering because they thought it was lower calorie) was double the calories than the beef burger.
I also wish food labels went more in depth, like back to displaying potassium and magnesium, and clearer ingredient lists (get so sick of hidden ingredients on American food labels).2 -
Not a thing, we have enough laws and regulations as it is. Generally a restaurant is going to have a meal higher in calories than you can make at home. Humans managed thousands of years without being obese. No nuntrion labels, no macro counting they got by. If you can’t manage your weight (excluding medical reasons) that’s on you. One meal at a restaurant isn’t going to cause obesity.7
-
Not a thing, we have enough laws and regulations as it is. Generally a restaurant is going to have a meal higher in calories than you can make at home. Humans managed thousands of years without being obese. No nuntrion labels, no macro counting they got by. If you can’t manage your weight (excluding medical reasons) that’s on you. One meal at a restaurant isn’t going to cause obesity.
...no convenience stores, no chocolate bars, no cake or cookies, no ice cream, no restaurants, no modern fruits, vegetables and grains, no fatty meats, no food without walking miles to hunt or gather...
...sorry, what was your point again?12 -
Not a thing, we have enough laws and regulations as it is. Generally a restaurant is going to have a meal higher in calories than you can make at home. Humans managed thousands of years without being obese. No nuntrion labels, no macro counting they got by. If you can’t manage your weight (excluding medical reasons) that’s on you. One meal at a restaurant isn’t going to cause obesity.
...no convenience stores, no chocolate bars, no cake or cookies, no ice cream, no restaurants, no modern fruits, vegetables and grains, no fatty meats, no food without walking miles to hunt or gather...
...sorry, what was your point again?
The point is no one is forcing you to purchase those items. A rational thinking person knows that if they eat fried chicken everyday they will gain weight. On top of that nearly all of the things you listed have nutrition info available to a majority of the world.
7 -
The point is no one is forcing you to purchase those items. A rational thinking person knows that if they eat fried chicken everyday they will gain weight. On top of that nearly all of the things you listed have nutrition info available to a majority of the world.
This is true, but a lot of people aren't rational. They're food addicts, or grew up in a family with extremely dysfunctional eating, or have eating disorders, or any number of things. Health education is much better than saying "Just say no" - and is far more likely to have a long-lasting impact on a person who wants to change their food habits.
4 -
The point is no one is forcing you to purchase those items. A rational thinking person knows that if they eat fried chicken everyday they will gain weight. On top of that nearly all of the things you listed have nutrition info available to a majority of the world.
This is true, but a lot of people aren't rational. They're food addicts, or grew up in a family with extremely dysfunctional eating, or have eating disorders, or any number of things. Health education is much better than saying "Just say no" - and is far more likely to have a long-lasting impact on a person who wants to change their food habits.
I completely agree that health education is important. But outside of schooling those responsibilities fall on the individual or the parents. If one chooses to eat a restaurant, or get a cheeseburger from a food truck ect... that is their choice. They can make whatever meal it is at home and know exactly what is going into it. As far as a law goes unless you make it illegal to eat those foods people are still going to eat garbage. I wouldn’t be opposed to a law to help with childhood obesity as to charging the parents with child endangerment.
3 -
Not a thing, we have enough laws and regulations as it is. Generally a restaurant is going to have a meal higher in calories than you can make at home. Humans managed thousands of years without being obese. No nuntrion labels, no macro counting they got by. If you can’t manage your weight (excluding medical reasons) that’s on you. One meal at a restaurant isn’t going to cause obesity.
...no convenience stores, no chocolate bars, no cake or cookies, no ice cream, no restaurants, no modern fruits, vegetables and grains, no fatty meats, no food without walking miles to hunt or gather...
...sorry, what was your point again?
The point is no one is forcing you to purchase those items. A rational thinking person knows that if they eat fried chicken everyday they will gain weight. On top of that nearly all of the things you listed have nutrition info available to a majority of the world.
Nobody is ‘forcing’ anyone to purchase those items, but humans evolved to deal with food scarcity, not abundance. As a result we have all sorts of inbuilt mechanisms to try to make sure we eat enough (eg hunger) but no similar drives to avoid overeating tasty high-calorie food. And you just can’t willpower 24/7.
So once you’ve finished telling fat people that everything is their own fault, do you have anything to offer that’s actually helpful?13 -
Not a thing, we have enough laws and regulations as it is. Generally a restaurant is going to have a meal higher in calories than you can make at home. Humans managed thousands of years without being obese. No nuntrion labels, no macro counting they got by. If you can’t manage your weight (excluding medical reasons) that’s on you. One meal at a restaurant isn’t going to cause obesity.
...no convenience stores, no chocolate bars, no cake or cookies, no ice cream, no restaurants, no modern fruits, vegetables and grains, no fatty meats, no food without walking miles to hunt or gather...
...sorry, what was your point again?
The point is no one is forcing you to purchase those items. A rational thinking person knows that if they eat fried chicken everyday they will gain weight. On top of that nearly all of the things you listed have nutrition info available to a majority of the world.
Nobody is ‘forcing’ anyone to purchase those items, but humans evolved to deal with food scarcity, not abundance. As a result we have all sorts of inbuilt mechanisms to try to make sure we eat enough (eg hunger) but no similar drives to avoid overeating tasty high-calorie food. And you just can’t willpower 24/7.
So once you’ve finished telling fat people that everything is their own fault, do you have anything to offer that’s actually helpful?
To get back to the original post that started this thread. Forcing (law) restaurants, bakery’s and such to post calories and break downs of macros and such won’t change a thing. So yes barring a medical condition, it’s %100 the persons fault. I’m not perfect I’ve been overweight. But the problem was me, not companies providing these foods that I was consuming. And the point of this thread isn’t to be helpful, it’s to debate the topic.8 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Not a thing, we have enough laws and regulations as it is. Generally a restaurant is going to have a meal higher in calories than you can make at home. Humans managed thousands of years without being obese. No nuntrion labels, no macro counting they got by. If you can’t manage your weight (excluding medical reasons) that’s on you. One meal at a restaurant isn’t going to cause obesity.
...no convenience stores, no chocolate bars, no cake or cookies, no ice cream, no restaurants, no modern fruits, vegetables and grains, no fatty meats, no food without walking miles to hunt or gather...
...sorry, what was your point again?
The point is no one is forcing you to purchase those items. A rational thinking person knows that if they eat fried chicken everyday they will gain weight. On top of that nearly all of the things you listed have nutrition info available to a majority of the world.
Nobody is ‘forcing’ anyone to purchase those items, but humans evolved to deal with food scarcity, not abundance. As a result we have all sorts of inbuilt mechanisms to try to make sure we eat enough (eg hunger) but no similar drives to avoid overeating tasty high-calorie food. And you just can’t willpower 24/7.
So once you’ve finished telling fat people that everything is their own fault, do you have anything to offer that’s actually helpful?
Your firat phraae 'nobody is forcing anyone to purchase those items" is correct.
IMO, the rest of the post regarding evolution, etc pretty much excuses for lack of personal eesponsibility.
Not going to fix a problem if one does not admit one is there.
Well, in that case nothing anyone can do is gonna change a thing. If it’s 100% personal responsibility, might as well just let fat people be fat and stop any kind of efforts to help ‘em.8 -
No one is saying it's not possible for individuals to control their weight. But that's not the topic of the thread. The question in the OP is whether there are public policy things that could help with the societal obesity problem.7
-
The point is no one is forcing you to purchase those items. A rational thinking person knows that if they eat fried chicken everyday they will gain weight. On top of that nearly all of the things you listed have nutrition info available to a majority of the world.
I completely agree that health education is important. But outside of schooling those responsibilities fall on the individual or the parents. If one chooses to eat a restaurant, or get a cheeseburger from a food truck ect... that is their choice. They can make whatever meal it is at home and know exactly what is going into it. As far as a law goes unless you make it illegal to eat those foods people are still going to eat garbage. I wouldn’t be opposed to a law to help with childhood obesity as to charging the parents with child endangerment.
To get back to the original post that started this thread. Forcing (law) restaurants, bakery’s and such to post calories and break downs of macros and such won’t change a thing. So yes barring a medical condition, it’s %100 the persons fault. I’m not perfect I’ve been overweight. But the problem was me, not companies providing these foods that I was consuming. And the point of this thread isn’t to be helpful, it’s to debate the topic.
Back up a minute. You can't say that the nutrition information is available to the a majority of the world, state that health education is important, and then say we shouldn't force restaurants, etc to post calorie breakdowns and macros.
That health information available to a majority of the world is due to labeling laws. Our ideas on what is healthy is heavily influenced by government research. We've already determined in court & laws that consumers have the right to know what goes in their bodies. How are we supposed to use our health education unless we have data to use it?
Rather like "literacy is important, but you know, the government shouldn't do things like fund libraries and schools".
11 -
Not a thing, we have enough laws and regulations as it is. Generally a restaurant is going to have a meal higher in calories than you can make at home. Humans managed thousands of years without being obese. No nuntrion labels, no macro counting they got by. If you can’t manage your weight (excluding medical reasons) that’s on you. One meal at a restaurant isn’t going to cause obesity.
...no convenience stores, no chocolate bars, no cake or cookies, no ice cream, no restaurants, no modern fruits, vegetables and grains, no fatty meats, no food without walking miles to hunt or gather...
...sorry, what was your point again?
Obesity is a relatively new issue...it's really only the 80s and forward that it has been a real issue. In the 60s and 70s only about 13% of adults were obese. We had convenience stores, chocolate bars, cake and cookies and ice cream and restaurants and modern vegetables and grains and fatty meats long before obesity became an issue.4 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Saying people don't have the time to use existing information to get informed on nutrition is BS. Information is out there people just don't chose to access it. I would bet a higher % of the general population knows who was doing who on the latest episode of the Bachelor or Bachelorette than knows basic nutrition information like how many calories in a gram of protein, fat or carbohydrate.
And more people are willing to look at new pics & videos of their "friends" and rate them, than do a couple of Google searches and learn how to "rate" the info available and learn from it.1 -
The Canadian Province of Quebec has seen some success with the impact of restricting advertising of "unhealthy" foods to children since 1980. Certainly takes some time to make an impact on that level but I thought it interesting and befitting of this thread.
Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/health-canada-junk-food-advertising-1.42519503 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Not a thing, we have enough laws and regulations as it is. Generally a restaurant is going to have a meal higher in calories than you can make at home. Humans managed thousands of years without being obese. No nuntrion labels, no macro counting they got by. If you can’t manage your weight (excluding medical reasons) that’s on you. One meal at a restaurant isn’t going to cause obesity.
...no convenience stores, no chocolate bars, no cake or cookies, no ice cream, no restaurants, no modern fruits, vegetables and grains, no fatty meats, no food without walking miles to hunt or gather...
...sorry, what was your point again?
Obesity is a relatively new issue...it's really only the 80s and forward that it has been a real issue. In the 60s and 70s only about 13% of adults were obese. We had convenience stores, chocolate bars, cake and cookies and ice cream and restaurants and modern vegetables and grains and fatty meats long before obesity became an issue.
They have proliferated since the 60s and 70s. (I'm not blaming them for the obesity epidemic: Businesses respond to consumer demand.)
But as a person who was already adult in the 70s (and old enough to be aware in the 60s), there's no question in my mind that ready-to-eat, drive-up, prepared food, in larger portions, is more common and available in more locations during more hours of the day, than was the case in the 1970s. The statistics suggest that people rely more on those food sources, and less on home cooking, over the same period. The grocery aisles devoted to ready-to-eat or ready-to-heat foods have also expanded, and the aisles devoted to ingredients (flour, sugar, etc.) have shrunk, also in response to relative consumer demand.
So, PP (ceiswyn) is wrong, with respect to recent history, even though correct if one goes back far enough. But there has been a change in ubiquity of instant-gratification food options since the 1970s. Is it a cause, or an effect, of the obesity epidemic? Tougher question. Maybe just a synergy.4 -
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.
Where do you draw the line? Mom & pop restaurants aren't required to post the calories & a lot of the edible cookie dough brands (looked at a few brands online that I had wanted to try) & I assume most mom & pop sweet treat makers don't list the calorie info online or at their bakery.1 -
Sorry if someone already said this, but it would be really helpful if manufacturers were obliged to use REALISTIC portion sizes in the nutrition information.
One serving of ice cream, frozen yogurt, etc., is 1/2 cup. I actually measured it the other day, and it's downright laughable. It's just a few teaspoons full. I read somewhere, probably on MFP, that most people consume 4-5 servings of ice cream thinking that they're consuming one.
Same thing with cereal, some serving sizes are 1/2 to 3/4 cup. I wouldn't have been overweight in the first place if 1/2 cup of cereal filled me up. Same source (MFP?) said most people consume 2-3 servings of cereal, thinking it's one.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396.5K Introduce Yourself
- 44.2K Getting Started
- 260.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 449 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.3K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.5K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions