Calorie counts to be added to restaurant food menus

Scanlas The 2nd

Dave! wrote: »

starbelgrade 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...

starbelgrade wrote: »

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.

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.

Dave!

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

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

A tub?

prinz

flutterflye wrote: »

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.

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.

Logical Fallacy

flutterflye wrote: »

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?

flutterflye

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

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.

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.

Shryke

flutterflye wrote: »

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.

mikemac1

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

Sugary drink vs laxative

Which is it? :pac:

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.

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?

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.

starbelgrade

The Davestator wrote: »

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.

flutterflye

starbelgrade wrote: »

There's virtually no calories in coffee.

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

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.

Dave!

starbelgrade wrote: »

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

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.

Gummy Panda

starbelgrade wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

El_Dangeroso

Some science coming atcha:

http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/5/1/63

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/28/6/w1110.short

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.

Gummy Panda

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

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.

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.

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.