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?

11314151719

Replies

  • Emmapatterson1729
    Emmapatterson1729 Posts: 1,296 Member
    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).
  • Five0Six
    Five0Six Posts: 110 Member
    mcfly216 wrote: »
    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.

  • mcfly216
    mcfly216 Posts: 13 Member
    Five0Six wrote: »
    mcfly216 wrote: »
    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.
  • Theoldguy1
    Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,495 Member
    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.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    mcfly216 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.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    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.
  • steveko89
    steveko89 Posts: 2,223 Member
    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-1.4251950
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,183 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    mcfly216 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.
  • kellyjellybellyjelly
    kellyjellybellyjelly Posts: 9,480 Member
    Phirrgus 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.

    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.
  • hotel4dogs
    hotel4dogs Posts: 72 Member
    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.

  • cayenne_007
    cayenne_007 Posts: 668 Member
    The last thing we need is additional legislation - what's wrong with expecting people to take responsibility for themselves?

    It's trickier in some restaurants but if you will use some common sense, it's doable. When buying groceries at the store - read the labels (including serving size). The information is out there but you have to want it.
  • cayenne_007
    cayenne_007 Posts: 668 Member
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    mcfly216 wrote: »
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    mcfly216 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.[/quote

    You can't help someone that isn't motivated to make a change - it has to be their idea. All the information is readily available but they have to do the work.

    I can't think of a single overweight friend that I have that doesn't know what they need to change to lose weight - it's just not important enough to them to stay consistent and do the work. One of my good friends is really heavy -she knows eating sugar and junk food doesn't help and yet she still does it because she enjoys it. I love her to pieces but there's nothing anyone else can do to help her - it's on her.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,091 Member
    hotel4dogs wrote: »
    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.

    A few? By definition, a half cup is 24 teaspoons.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    I ate 1/2 cup (measured by the gram weight) regularly (as in 2-3 times a week) while I was losing weight (I'd still be doing it, but for some reason I've lost my sweet tooth lately, I'm sure I will again). I thought it was a quite reasonable serving.

    No one consumes 4-5 servings (2-2.5 cups) thinking they are eating a serving. A pint of ice cream is 4 servings if a serving is .25 cups (apparently it is or will be changed to 1/3 cup, but I still would usually eat a half cup). Even when I was fat and didn't count cals I wouldn't normally eat a pint. I'd eat about half a pint and look at the back sometimes and do the math (2xcals for a serving). Or sometimes I wouldn't. Sure, I did occasionally eat a pint, it was an indulgence, but I knew that was overeating, not a serving. To eat 5 servings would be more than a complete pint. So no, I reject the claim that a "reasonable" portion size would be a whole pint or a pint + 1/4 pint. That's not even a restaurant size, and everyone knows restaurant sizes are very often huge and unrealistic.

    Also, it's extremely easy to see what a defined size is -- why try to normalize enormous and excessive portions by defining them as a serving? Bad idea!
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,091 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    I ate 1/2 cup (measured by the gram weight) regularly (as in 2-3 times a week) while I was losing weight (I'd still be doing it, but for some reason I've lost my sweet tooth lately, I'm sure I will again). I thought it was a quite reasonable serving.

    No one consumes 4-5 servings (2-2.5 cups) thinking they are eating a serving. A pint of ice cream is 4 servings if a serving is .25 cups (apparently it is or will be changed to 1/3 cup, but I still would usually eat a half cup). Even when I was fat and didn't count cals I wouldn't normally eat a pint. I'd eat about half a pint and look at the back sometimes and do the math (2xcals for a serving). Or sometimes I wouldn't. Sure, I did occasionally eat a pint, it was an indulgence, but I knew that was overeating, not a serving. To eat 5 servings would be more than a complete pint. So no, I reject the claim that a "reasonable" portion size would be a whole pint or a pint + 1/4 pint. That's not even a restaurant size, and everyone knows restaurant sizes are very often huge and unrealistic.

    Also, it's extremely easy to see what a defined size is -- why try to normalize enormous and excessive portions by defining them as a serving? Bad idea!

    A pint of ice cream is 8 servings if a serving is .25 cups. Did you mean .5 cup?
  • CipherZero
    CipherZero Posts: 1,418 Member
    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.

    I don’t buy the line of mom & pops places can’t list the calories. They know what’s going into what the make, otherwise they have no way operating at a profit of when to reorder product.

    A cheeseburger, chicken parm, and fritttas have an ingredient list, same as the food I make at home.