Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Calorie counts to be added to restaurant food menus

1356

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,538 ✭✭✭flutterflye


    hardCopy wrote: »
    Eh what? You can't "just know" what to eat. You need some way to quantify it, how else can you be aware of what you're putting in your body?

    It's perfectly possible to get fat eating "healthy" foods, if you eat too much of anything you'll be fat.

    Yeah, well I already said about portion sizes.
    And I also already said that you read up on it all initially if you don't know.

    Do people actually not know all of this stuff?
    How to eat healthily, and how much to eat for you?
    It is different for each person depending on size, body shape, metabolism etc...

    God, no wonder there are so many overweight people if they are all completely uneducated on all of this.

    Instead, they read their magazines and count calories and start fad yo yo diets.

    Maybe we should have a national campaign to educate people so.


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Brayson Faithful Six-pack


    Yeah, well I already said about portion sizes.
    And I also already said that you read up on it all initially if you don't know.

    Do people actually not know all of this stuff?
    How to eat healthily, and how much to eat for you?
    It is different for each person depending on size, body shape, metabolism etc...

    God, no wonder there are so much overweight people if they are all completely uneducated on all of this.

    Instead, they read their magazines and count calories and start fad yo yo diets.

    Maybe we should have a national campaign to educate people so.

    flutter, the bolded things are pretty much the same thing...


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    It's like when you are in college and you need to read up on things - how do you know what to read?
    You find credible sources, and you read a few - not just one.
    You use your brain!

    It's the same as when you want to research anything - you use your brain and research skills.

    It's really very simple.

    You know that you need so much protein, dairy, whatever.
    You learn to listen to your body - stop eating when you've had enough.

    It is really all common sense.

    Calories does not come into losing weight at all.

    You eat healthy non processed food, you make your own sauces, you don't add a ton of salt etc etc etc...

    Seriously, why can you not understand any of this?
    It is very simple, and nothing to do with calorie counting!

    LMFAO! Best line of the thread.

    R u fur reelz?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    It's kind of ironic that the people who spend a lot of their time "watching their calories" are usually overweight.

    Ironic in the same way that the man trying to tell us that we need a calorie count on our menus is a fat bastard.

    I've tried to remain balanced on this issue, but in my honest opinion, if you don't know what foods are good or bad for you, then you're a fucking retard.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Calories does not come into losing weight at all.

    LOL, do you realise how silly that sounds? You say calories do not come into losing weight at all, and then go on to basically recommend consuming less calories than you use to lose weight. :confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Yeah, well I already said about portion sizes.
    And I also already said that you read up on it all initially if you don't know.

    Do people actually not know all of this stuff?
    How to eat healthily, and how much to eat for you?
    It is different for each person depending on size, body shape, metabolism etc...

    God, no wonder there are so many overweight people if they are all completely uneducated on all of this.

    Instead, they read their magazines and count calories and start fad yo yo diets.

    Maybe we should have a national campaign to educate people so.
    Yeah, and you should lead it, cos you're very good at conveying a coherent message


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    bluewolf wrote: »
    if WW were put in charge we wouldn't be allowed steak or butter but we'd have bowls of pure sugar put in front of us instead as "healthy"

    Think you might be allowed a slight bit of butter, barely cover a half slice of wheaten scone. What's the point? Your just teasing yourself!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    I've tried to remain balanced on this issue, but in my honest opinion, if you don't know what foods are good or bad for you, then you're a fucking retard.

    You say that as if it's news to you. Look at how many people smoke.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,144 ✭✭✭Scanlas The 2nd


    LordSmeg wrote: »
    No, you just read up on it all before you proceed.
    You don't begin anything without educating yourself and preparing yourself.
    Then once you know, you know, and it doesn't consume your every thought - simples.

    Can you please explain to me how calorie counting equates to healthy eating?
    It just doesn't!! Not in any way!

    You need to be aware of what you put into your body, but calorie counting doesn't come into this in the slightest!

    Read up on what ? Explain how you know what constitutes a healthy portion ? How does one derive the amount of food that makes up a healthy portion ?

    Explain that please and whats its based on ?

    A healthy portion is as much as you want of healthy food. Eat all the meat, fish, veg, eggs and fruit you want until you are full. Excercise vigourously occasionally and you will be in great shape.

    Don't jog endlessly, it's bad for you and releases stress hormones in your system. Lift weigghts and sprint instead for example.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,538 ✭✭✭flutterflye


    Calorie counting doesn't come into it though.
    I do see what you're saying bluewolf - that by reducing portion sizes, you are reducing calories, so yeah, I guess it is similar.
    But what my problem is, is the actual obsession with counting the calories all the time - it's not a healthy attitude.
    Whereas reducing your portion sizes, you just get used to putting so much on your plate.
    But you have to listen to your own body, and read up on how these things relate to you personally.

    Why is it though that everyone thinks about these things in relation to how many calories they've consumed or lost?

    Why don't people just eat what is good for them, and cut out what is bad?
    Calories don't come into it - it's about healthy eating, not about counting calories.
    Why is nobody getting it?!!

    What is it that is making my posts incoherent?
    They are all making perfect sense to me!!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    The proposal from the government at the minute is for a voluntary calorific content to be added to menus. The fears in the industry are, that if it is made mandatory, then there will be regulations put into place which will involve the lab testing of menus to determine the exact calorific content as opposed to an estimated one.
    Unfounded fears because such regulations could be easily challenged as being functionally unworkable.
    Two labs given a sample each would probably not arrive at the calorie content, probably just fairly close to eachother. Reason being that no two portions are identical (in any restaurant), so expecting restaurants to have their food lab analysed would be unworkable.

    Any regulations would just be a formalisation of the request that's been made - make a reasonable attempt to estimate the calorific content of an average portion of each of your dishes.

    These would then be checked by an inspector who would probably spot check a few items on the menu, make his/her own calculations and compare them to what the restaurant has printed. If they're within a certain tolerance (probably 10%), the restaurant can leave it, if they're way off the restaurant has to change it.

    It's always funny when people seem to think that when a government introduces a new law, they're going to go full draconian on it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 604 ✭✭✭tempura


    Seems a bit stupid to me. It's all well and good including calorie counts on the likes of McDonalds menus, which are rarely changed.. but it would be very difficult for a restaurant that alters its menu every few days or weeks.

    Making it even more difficult for businesses to operate at a time when many are already struggling to do so.. Well played Ireland

    Totally agree with this. Also have to say, if people don't have a rough idea about what foods their eating and what calories their consuming by now, their a bit thick. The media have been banging on about obesity for years now so to be honest you should have a rough idea as to whats fattening and whats not. If not, then just go and buy yourself a book on nutrition, why does everything have to be done for people these days, educate yourself for ****s sake. Its food, not rocket science !


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭hardCopy


    It's like when you are in college and you need to read up on things - how do you know what to read?
    You find credible sources, and you read a few - not just one.
    You use your brain!

    It's the same as when you want to research anything - you use your brain and research skills.

    It's really very simple.

    You know that you need so much protein, dairy, whatever. How much? How do I know how the macro nutrient breakdown of a restaurant meal? How do you know how big the portion size is? If I go into my butchers I can get small, medium, large or XL chicken breasts, in a restaurant they don't ask what size you want
    You learn to listen to your body - stop eating when you've had enough. Really?

    It is really all common sense. If it was common sense we wouldn't have an obesity epidemic

    Calories does not come into losing weight at all. It's not everything, but it's the most important thing

    You eat healthy non processed food, you make your own sauces, you don't add a ton of salt etc etc etc... In a restaurant? The content of sauces is actually the main reason this idea is important, a customer may think they know how much chicken they need but don't realise the impact of the mozzarella stuffing and mushroom (butter) sauce

    Seriously, why can you not understand any of this? Ditto
    It is very simple, and nothing to do with calorie counting!

    My comments in bold

    tempura wrote: »
    Totally agree with this. Also have to say, if people don't have a rough idea about what foods their eating and what calories their consuming by now, their a bit thick. The media have been banging on about obesity for years now so to be honest you should have a rough idea as to whats fattening and whats not. If not, then just go and buy yourself a book on nutrition, why does everything have to be done for people these days, educate yourself for ****s sake. Its food, not rocket science !

    But no two restaurants are the same, a chicken breast I cook at home could be half the size of what I get in a restaurant, I make a sauce with cottage cheese but the chef makes it with butter and cream, the customer has no way to gauge the difference between the two.

    It may only mean the difference between ordering a Big Mac and ordering a Plain Cheeseburger but at least it helps people have some concept of the impact of their food choices.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    It's kind of ironic that the people who spend a lot of their time "watching their calories" are usually overweight.

    Ironic in the same way that the man trying to tell us that we need a calorie count on our menus is a fat bastard.

    I've tried to remain balanced on this issue, but in my honest opinion, if you don't know what foods are good or bad for you, then you're a fucking retard.

    I agree, that said I can't eat out in restaurants any more. I'm Coeliac so can't eat gluten or wheat. I'll ask in a restaurant, is this gluten free? It is they say! But it isn't. Because they are lying ass sons of bitches. They don't have a clue what it takes to ensure gluten and wheat free food. So there so called "gluten free" dishes are prepared in the same space and on the same counter tops as all their gluteny foods.

    Then you have stuff like soups and sauces...soup you think. Gotta be good for you? But how much salt is in that thing, and oil? Plenty.

    A bit of honesty in the food industry is a good thing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,538 ✭✭✭flutterflye


    prinz wrote: »
    I think you are confusing yourself, you seem to be implying people calorie counting in the sense of someone eating two chocolate bars a day and nothing else, and then congratulating themselves that they only consumed 1,000 calories a day or some such.

    Yeah - I've seen people doing this so many times!!
    Infact most, if not all the people on these weight watchers diets that I've witnessed will do this - at least on weekends.
    Or they'll decide that they need to drink on a night out, so they'll just eat apples and celery all day so they can drink they're brains out that night without feeling too guilty!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,144 ✭✭✭Scanlas The 2nd


    Calorie counting doesn't come into it though.
    I do see what you're saying bluewolf - that by reducing portion sizes, you are reducing calories, so yeah, I guess it is similar.
    But what my problem is, is the actual obsession with counting the calories all the time - it's not a healthy attitude.
    Whereas reducing your portion sizes, you just get used to putting so much on your plate.
    But you have to listen to your own body, and read up on how these things relate to you personally.

    Why is it though that everyone thinks about these things in relation to how many calories they've consumed or lost?

    Why don't people just eat what is good for them, and cut out what is bad?
    Calories don't come into it - it's about healthy eating, not about counting calories.
    Why is nobody getting it?!!

    What is it that is making my posts incoherent?
    They are all making perfect sense to me!!

    Completely agree with this, I get the impression some people think 500 calories of vegetables is no better for you than 500 calories of chocolate.

    I can't stand hearing about portion sizes. Just eat as much healthy food as you want. When you eat healthy food your hormones are working properly and tell you are full when they are supposed to.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    It's kind of ironic that the people who spend a lot of their time "watching their calories" are usually overweight.

    Well actually (a) you just made that up, and (b) people who are not overweight don't need to worry about it, so obviously they don't have to "watch their calories"! Once they start gaining weight, then they tend to start worrying about it again...
    I've tried to remain balanced on this issue, but in my honest opinion, if you don't know what foods are good or bad for you, then you're a fucking retard.

    It's not about good or bad... Assuming a generally balanced and healthy diet, it's calorie/portion control that's the overriding factor in weight gain/loss, and it's difficult to accurately quantify your caloric intake for various different meals. Research shows that we underestimate significantly. Doesn't make the person a retard.

    Yes, if you don't know that eating a tub of lard is bad, then you're a retard...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭Scioch


    Calorie counting doesn't come into it though.
    I do see what you're saying bluewolf - that by reducing portion sizes, you are reducing calories, so yeah, I guess it is similar.
    But what my problem is, is the actual obsession with counting the calories all the time - it's not a healthy attitude.
    Whereas reducing your portion sizes, you just get used to putting so much on your plate.
    But you have to listen to your own body, and read up on how these things relate to you personally.

    Why is it though that everyone thinks about these things in relation to how many calories they've consumed or lost?

    Why don't people just eat what is good for them, and cut out what is bad?
    Calories don't come into it - it's about healthy eating, not about counting calories.
    Why is nobody getting it?!!

    What is it that is making my posts incoherent?
    They are all making perfect sense to me!!

    Nobody is getting it because it makes no sense. Reducing the portion size is done for no other reason than to reduce the amount of calories you are eating. If calories dont come into it you would have no reason to reduce your portion size.


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Brayson Faithful Six-pack


    Why don't people just eat what is good for them, and cut out what is bad?
    Calories don't come into it - it's about healthy eating, not about counting calories.
    Why is nobody getting it?!!

    What is it that is making my posts incoherent?
    They are all making perfect sense to me!!

    as i said, it's a combo of the two really


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,213 ✭✭✭Sea Filly


    prinz wrote: »
    Tbh if I had a choice of two places to eat out and one published calorie info and one didn't, I'd go to the one with, even if I was going to eat the same exact food.

    See, I'd go to the one with the nicest food, what with it being a treat and all.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,144 ✭✭✭Scanlas The 2nd


    Dave! wrote: »
    It's kind of ironic that the people who spend a lot of their time "watching their calories" are usually overweight.

    Well actually (a) you just made that up, and (b) people who are not overweight don't need to worry about it, so obviously they don't have to "watch their calories"! Once they start gaining weight, then they tend to start worrying about it again...
    I've tried to remain balanced on this issue, but in my honest opinion, if you don't know what foods are good or bad for you, then you're a f[SIZE="2"]uc[/SIZE]king retard.

    It's not about good or bad... Assuming a generally balanced and healthy diet, it's calorie/portion control that's the overriding factor in weight gain/loss, and it's difficult to accurately quantify your caloric intake for various different meals. Research shows that we underestimate significantly. Doesn't make the person a retard.

    Yes, if you don't know that eating a tub of lard is bad, then you're a retard...

    Lard is good for you, it's a myth that saturated fat is bad for you.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    News story from a while ago that may interest ye... It's only one person though, so not really scientific

    http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

    Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds

    By Madison Park , CNN

    November 8, 2010 -- Updated 1340 GMT (2140 HKT)

    CNN.com

    (CNN) -- Twinkies. Nutty bars. Powdered donuts.

    For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.

    His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.

    The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.

    For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.

    His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds.

    But you might expect other indicators of health would have suffered. Not so.

    Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.

    "That's where the head scratching comes," Haub said. "What does that mean? Does that mean I'm healthier? Or does it mean how we define health from a biology standpoint, that we're missing something?"

    Despite his temporary success, Haub does not recommend replicating his snack-centric diet.

    "I'm not geared to say this is a good thing to do," he said. "I'm stuck in the middle. I guess that's the frustrating part. I can't give a concrete answer. There's not enough information to do that."

    Two-thirds of his total intake came from junk food. He also took a multivitamin pill and drank a protein shake daily. And he ate vegetables, typically a can of green beans or three to four celery stalks.

    Families who live in food deserts have limited access to fresh fruits and vegetables, so they often rely on the kind of food Haub was eating.

    "These foods are consumed by lots of people," he said. "It may be an issue of portion size and moderation rather than total removal. I just think it's unrealistic to expect people to totally drop these foods for vegetables and fruits. It may be healthy, but not realistic."

    Haub's body fat dropped from 33.4 to 24.9 percent. This posed the question: What matters more for weight loss, the quantity or quality of calories?

    His success is probably a result of caloric reduction, said Dawn Jackson Blatner, a dietitian in Chicago, Illinois.

    "It's a great reminder for weight loss that calories count," she said. "Is that the bottom line to being healthy? That's another story."

    Blatner, a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association, said she's not surprised to hear Haub's health markers improved even when he loaded up on processed snack cakes.

    Being overweight is the central problem that leads to complications like high blood pressure, diabetes and high cholesterol, she said.

    How well are you managing your diabetes?

    "When you lose weight, regardless of how you're doing it -- even if it's with packaged foods, generally you will see these markers improve when weight loss has improved," she said.

    Before jumping on the Ding Dong bandwagon, Blatner warned of health concerns.

    "There are things we can't measure," said Blatner, questioning how the lack of fruits and vegetables could affect long-term health. "How much does that affect the risk for cancer? We can't measure how diet changes affect our health."

    On August 25, Haub, 41, started his cake diet focusing on portion control.

    "I'm eating to the point of need and pushing the plate or wrapper away," he said.

    He intended the trial to last a month as a teaching tool for his class. As he lost weight, Haub continued the diet until he reached a normal body mass index.

    Before his Twinkie diet, he tried to eat a healthy diet that included whole grains, dietary fiber, berries and bananas, vegetables and occasional treats like pizza.

    "There seems to be a disconnect between eating healthy and being healthy," Haub said. "It may not be the same. I was eating healthier, but I wasn't healthy. I was eating too much."

    He maintained the same level of moderate physical activity as before going on the diet. (Haub does not have any ties to the snack cake companies.)

    To avoid setting a bad example for his kids, Haub ate vegetables in front of his family. Away from the dinner table, he usually unwrapped his meals.

    Study: U.S. obesity rate will hit 42 percent

    Haub monitored his body composition, blood pressure, cholesterol and glucose, and updated his progress on his Facebook page, Professor Haub's diet experiment.

    To curb calories, he avoided meat, whole grains and fruits. Once he started adding meat into the diet four weeks ago, his cholesterol level increased.

    Haub plans to add about 300 calories to his daily intake now that he's done with the diet. But he's not ditching snack cakes altogether. Despite his weight loss, Haub feels ambivalence.

    "I wish I could say the outcomes are unhealthy. I wish I could say it's healthy. I'm not confident enough in doing that. That frustrates a lot of people. One side says it's irresponsible. It is unhealthy, but the data doesn't say that."
    © 2011 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Lard is good for you, it's a myth that saturated fat is bad for you.

    A tub? :p


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Why don't people just eat what is good for them, and cut out what is bad?!!

    Because a lot of the time people don't have a clue what is good for them, and a lot of the time, what is promoted as being good for them to lose weight, in fact is just as bad. Look at the LOW FAT products that when you really check don't have much of a calorific difference whatsoever. As has been mentioned people whill convince themselves that a salad is good for you, and then top it off with a dressing that could be ridiculously high in calories and then they scratch their heads because they don't lose weight.

    I don't think anyone is suggesting walking around with a calculator and pen and paper to get the exact calories in everything they eat, but it's often the case that it is the things like sides, salad dressings, croutons etc that make the calorie count creep up, and people should note the calories on these products to take account of them if they are trying to lose weight.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Sea Filly wrote: »
    See, I'd go to the one with the nicest food, what with it being a treat and all.

    perhaps you missed the..........
    even if I was going to eat the same exact food
    ... in my post.

    I also know a fair few people who say things like 'I only get a takeaway/eat out once a week as a treat'............then buy their lunch from a Spar deli counter every day of the week.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    Why don't people just eat what is good for them, and cut out what is bad?
    Calories don't come into it - it's about healthy eating, not about counting calories.
    Why is nobody getting it?!!

    What is it that is making my posts incoherent?
    They are all making perfect sense to me!!

    Because nothing is really good or bad for you. It's about balance. People could still eat enough "good foods" and be fat, because they eat too much of it.

    And what most people consider "healthy eating" is a total joke.

    It also begs the question...how do you decide what is healthy in a restaurant when you have no idea what is in the food?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,538 ✭✭✭flutterflye


    Because nothing is really good or bad for you. It's about balance. People could still eat enough "good foods" and be fat, because they eat too much of it.

    And what most people consider "healthy eating" is a total joke.

    It also begs the question...how do you decide what is healthy in a restaurant when you have no idea what is in the food?

    I already said that I thought of a list of ingredients was a good idea.
    I just take issue with calorie counting.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    prinz wrote: »
    Because a lot of the time people don't have a clue what is good for them, and a lot of the time, what is promoted as being good for them to lose weight, in fact is just as bad. Look at the LOW FAT products that when you really check don't have much of a calorific difference whatsoever. As has been mentioned people whill convince themselves that a salad is good for you, and then top it off with a dressing that could be ridiculously high in calories and then they scratch their heads because they don't lose weight.

    I don't think anyone is suggesting walking around with a calculator and pen and paper to get the exact calories in everything they eat, but it's often the case that it is the things like sides, salad dressings, croutons etc that make the calorie count creep up, and people should note the calories on these products to take account of them if they are trying to lose weight.

    But being "good for you" and 'helping you lose weight' are not synonymous. In that case laxatives would be 1. health food. :pac:

    Also, it is not necessarily high calorie foods that will cause people to gain weight - eat enough low calorie foods and it will have the same effect ;)

    There may be a case for having the ingredients of foods available to customers - but that isn't the issue here; it's just part of the health crusade against obesity (sort of Emmanuel Goldstein style).

    So I'd rank this proposal along side the idea of fat taxes, of people employed to give dietary advice in restaurants, children encouraged to keep tabs on each other to ensure no contraband is smuggled into schools, banning of food adverts, restrictions on planning permission to fast food restaurants, etc. etc. of the nanny state big government bodies.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,199 ✭✭✭Shryke


    I already said that I thought of a list of ingredients was a good idea.
    I just take issue with calorie counting.

    Nothing wrong with it.
    It's a good overall look at your intake.

    You might take issue with people having an obsessive attitude to dieting but that doesn't have anything to do with calorie counting itself, although calorie counting is going to be something that someone with an obsessive attitude will do.

    It's plenty important to look at nutrition but it's all part of the same picture here. Different approaches and methods based on what a persons goals are. If a person wants to lose fat or gain muscle then calculating calories will help them accurately hit a deficit or surplus in their diet.
    I like to think that it's common knowledge that people have an idea about nutrition.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    Is Bulmers Pear good for you or bad for you on a diet?

    Sugary drink vs laxative

    Which is it? :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,199 ✭✭✭Shryke


    mikemac1 wrote: »
    Is Bulmers Pear good for you or bad for you on a diet?

    Sugary drink vs laxative

    Which is it? :pac:

    Drinking your own piss would be an improvement.


  • Registered Users Posts: 221 ✭✭Kitty-kitty


    mikemac1 wrote: »
    Is Bulmers Pear good for you or bad for you on a diet?

    Sugary drink vs laxative

    Which is it? :pac:

    Serious answer 1: Laxatives don't actually assist/desist in digestion; any weight lost is just waste malingering in your bowels getting flushed out.

    Serious answer 2: A bottle of bulmers pear is only 233 calories, which is actually decent.

    Actual answer: Why in the name of god would you drink that ****e anyway?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,492 ✭✭✭The Davestator


    Totally in favour as sometimes people think they're ordering the right option for them, but they don't realise how many calories are in it.

    Will also help people who drink 400 calories in a coffee a few times a day.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    Totally in favour as sometimes people think they're ordering the right option for them, but they don't realise how many calories are in it.

    Will also help people who drink 400 calories in a coffee a few times a day.

    There's virtually no calories in coffee.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,538 ✭✭✭flutterflye


    There's virtually no calories in coffee.

    There's a fair few in my coffee - I take loads of sugar :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,458 ✭✭✭CathyMoran


    Am a type 1 diabetic among other things so I would be delighted if they put the carbs on things so that I do not have to guess as much. I am a healthy weight but am prone to being underweight so knowing what is high in calories would be useful for me.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    There's virtually no calories in coffee.
    Depends on what kind of coffee you get!

    A plain cup of joe doesn't have alot though, you're right


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    Dave! wrote: »
    Depends on what kind of coffee you get!

    A plain cup of joe doesn't have alot though, you're right

    Coffee with lard in it isn't listed. :confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,919 ✭✭✭✭Gummy Panda


    It's kind of ironic that the people who spend a lot of their time "watching their calories" are usually overweight.

    Depends on people you know. I know people who would be healthier than the average Joe who calorie count in a way. Macro breakdown is more important.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Well I think its a good idea but as regards the effect of food on health you cant say a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. Every calorie has the same amount of energy but a calorie of essential fatty acids like Linoleic acids and a calories of pure glucose or sucrose are going to have very different effects on the body. A packet of nuts and a bar of chocolate might contain the same calories but the chocolate is going to spike insulin levels (actually the fat might blunt that response but for arguments sake...) which could lead to increased fat storage and could lead to insulin resistance.

    In a sentence I think education about the type of foods consumed is equally important as numbers beside a choice of food on a menu.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Dave! wrote: »
    Depends on what kind of coffee you get!

    A plain cup of joe doesn't have alot though, you're right

    True but I think theres some scientific evidence (as opossed to a study by Starbucks) to say that coffe blunts the insulin response.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,213 ✭✭✭Sea Filly


    prinz wrote: »
    perhaps you missed the.......... ... in my post.

    I also know a fair few people who say things like 'I only get a takeaway/eat out once a week as a treat'............then buy their lunch from a Spar deli counter every day of the week.

    Well, no restaurants are going to have the "exact same" food. So I'd choose the one with better food.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    True but I think theres some scientific evidence (as opossed to a study by Starbucks) to say that coffe blunts the insulin response.
    What effect does that have?


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    You know you can argue the nanny state angle and the informed consumer angle until the cows come home but none of this will change the fact that every single time they implement these laws (afaik they are all over the US in various places), they don't work, like, at all. As in they change nothing whatsoever. People don't eat less on average, people don't lose weight.

    Complete waste of time.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    I'm against this. Its not going to stop the greedy from getting fat. It will just be a headache for restaurants and they will change their menu's less.


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Dave! wrote: »
    What effect does that have?

    Well Insulin is released as a response to increased blood sugar levels. It removes excess sugar from the blood as to much is toxic. The increase of insulin prevents the body using fat as energy. Inuslin also tells fat cells to take in more lipids (small fat molecules). Basically insulin can increase the amount of fat stores in the body and decrease the bodies use of fats. The rise in sugar causes the body to think that theres enough energy in the body so no need to use fat as an energy soucre. Theres evidence (very strong evidence) to say that coffee and some fats can reduce the amount of insulin released even if you take in sugary foods aswell.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,919 ✭✭✭✭Gummy Panda


    You know you can argue the nanny state angle and the informed consumer angle until the cows come home but none of this will change the fact that every single time they implement these laws (afaik they are all over the US in various places), they don't work, like, at all. As in they change nothing whatsoever. People don't eat less on average, people don't lose weight.

    Complete waste of time.

    Probably better to reduce the portions but then value for money would be questioned.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    TBH, I don't get all of the nanny state comments. This is actually a way to let people make their own conscious decisions. A nanny state approach would be to ban foods like soda or deep fried Mars bars. Instead, by making information readily available, the government can at least take the position that they are not going to tell anyone what to do, but they will give them the information to make healthier choices.

    Secondly, it is not hard to get a rough estimate of the caloric value of a recipe - I do it all the time on myfitness.com (and there are plenty of other websites out there). I suspect that many restaurants are resistant to this because the amount of fat and salt in restaurant food is unreal - that is why it tastes so good!

    I agree that most people who aren't interested in losing weight would not be interested in knowing the nutritional value of the foods they eat. But I do think it would be valuable for people who think they are making healthy choices. There are a lot of 'upscale' fast-food places in the US (Panera Bread for example) where people feel like they are making a healthier decision to eat there over McDonald's. But when Panera started posting their nutritional information, it became clear that a lot of their 'healthy' options were just as calorie and salt-laden as a Quarter Pounder Extra Value meal.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,492 ✭✭✭The Davestator


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Well Insulin is released as a response to increased blood sugar levels. It removes excess sugar from the blood as to much is toxic. The increase of insulin prevents the body using fat as energy. Inuslin also tells fat cells to take in more lipids (small fat molecules). Basically insulin can increase the amount of fat stores in the body and decrease the bodies use of fats. The rise in sugar causes the body to think that theres enough energy in the body so no need to use fat as an energy soucre. Theres evidence (very strong evidence) to say that coffee and some fats can reduce the amount of insulin released even if you take in sugary foods aswell.

    This may be so but it doesn't alter the fact that you have injested the calories.


Advertisement