Calorie counts to be added to restaurant food menus

Scioch

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

And yet people manage everyday to stay the exact same weight without doing complex calculations every day. Why is that?

And that helps people who are overweight or struggle with it how ? You think a ridiculous statement like "eat healthier and know when your full" is of any help whatsoever to someone who's struggling with weight ?

Its not complex calculations its a guide to go by for those who clearly find it difficult. Why do people have such an issue with overweight people trying to change themselves ? Everyone is constantly on about how wrong it is to indulge themselves yet when they try to do something about it or measure are put inot place to help them its not acceptable.

They just shouldnt be fat is that it ? Your not fat so everyone else in the entire world should have no problem with it ?

Scanlas The 2nd

LordSmeg wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

That's rubbish. Eat healthy foods and you won't need to count calories, your body will tell you when you are full.

Thats rubbish just listen to your body ?

You dont spend your evening dowsing for water by any chance do ya ?

If I want to get a good sense of how what I eat relates to my weight counting calories is the easiest way to do that. If I took your advice I may gain weight, then I'll come back and you'd throw out some equally simplistic tripe like "should have eaten healthier foods and listened more closely to your body".

Eat as much fish, meat, veg, eggs and fruit as you can stomach. You won't get fat, the protein will make you feel full, you won't be able to eat enough to get fat. throw in resistance excercise on top of that and you'll the weight will drop off.

smokedeels

The government spends too much time babysitting people instead of sorting out real problems.

flutterflye

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Eat as much fish, meat, veg, eggs and fruit as you can stomach. You won't get fat, the protein will make you feel full, you won't be able to eat enough to get fat. throw in resistance excercise on top of that and you'll the weight will drop off.

Anything other than the above is just complicating things unnecessarily.

Shryke

flutterflye wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Eat as much fish, meat, veg, eggs and fruit as you can stomach. You won't get fat, the protein will make you feel full, you won't be able to eat enough to get fat. throw in resistance excercise on top of that and you'll the weight will drop off.

Anything other than the above is just complicating things unnecessarily.

No it's not, and the above is just half assed.

Feathers

LordSmeg wrote: »

And that helps people who are overweight or struggle with it how ? You think a ridiculous statement like "eat healthier and know when your full" is of any help whatsoever to someone who's struggling with weight ?

Its not complex calculations its a guide to go by for those who clearly find it difficult. Why do people have such an issue with overweight people trying to change themselves ? Everyone is constantly on about how wrong it is to indulge themselves yet when they try to do something about it or measure are put inot place to help them its not acceptable.

They just shouldnt be fat is that it ? Your not fat so everyone else in the entire world should have no problem with it ?

So the restaurant informs you that all of their main courses are about 4x the amount of calories you should be having for a main meal. How will this help you lose weight?

The odd meal in a restaurant isn't what's going to make or break losing weight or maintaining a healthy weight. If on the other hand you're order from Dominos every second night, ordering the pizza that's 50 calories less is again probably going to make little difference to you.

Scioch

Feathers wrote: »

So the restaurant informs you that all of their main courses are about 4x the amount of calories you should be having for a main meal. How will this help you lose weight?

The odd meal in a restaurant isn't what's going to make or break losing weight or maintaining a healthy weight. If on the other hand you're order from Dominos every second night, ordering the pizza that's 50 calories less is again probably going to make little difference to you.

It gives people the choice to pick a low calorie meal or the best option available to them in regards to that, may direct restaurants to serve lower calorie meals if there is a demand for them. There's a weird view going around that people need to take responsibility for themselves and what they do but at the same time arguing that nobody else should be responsible for giving information about what they serve to enable them to do that.

Your saying "shur whats the point wont make any difference" in relation to restaurants while assuming the person making the choice eats Dominos every second night ? Whats that got to do with anything ??

I dont eat Dominos every second night I never eat it in fact. I am slightly overweight and I'd like to be able to pick a good option when out in a restaurant. Whats the big deal with giving people information to make their own decisions ?

Kitty-kitty

Feathers wrote: »

The odd meal in a restaurant isn't what's going to make or break losing weight or maintaining a healthy weight. If on the other hand you're order from Dominos every second night, ordering the pizza that's 50 calories less is again probably going to make little difference to you.

From American nutritional information for dominoes, I know we don't have as much variety but just as an example:

(Highest calorie choice for an entire medium pizza, excluding toppings)
Crust: Deep dish (1290)
Sauce: Garlic parm (390)
Cheese: Regular (there is an 'extra' option but we're staying in the same price range here) (380)

2060 calories

(Lowest calorie choice for an entire medium pizza, excluding toppings)
Crust: Thin crust (690)
Sauce: 'New Pizza sauce' (70)
Cheese: Regular (380)

1140 calories.

A difference of 920 calories.

920 calories less, every second day for a year: 920 * 182.5 = 167900 calories

167900 calories / 3500 (the calorie deficit required to lose 1lb) = 48lb or 3 st 6lb.

Generally, eating out, I do like to see the calories so I can choose the lower option. I work long hours these days and do a lot of eating out, and I used to be a size 20 so am very, very conscious of weight fluctuations these days. I'd love for this to be a law.

RandomName2

Hazys wrote: »

Restaurants and foods have to provide the ingredients of their foods, why not the amount of calories?

Can't say I've often seen the ingredients of meals (except in a very loose form) listed on a restaurant menu. It would take up a good bit of space, surely?

Personally the only thing that I can't see that I care about when eating out is the hygiene in the kitchen. Can have consequences a lot more unpleasant than excessive calories! :eek: I've learned that to my cost, and now take pains to keep an eye on the type of place that I eat in, as well as the type of food.

suicide_circus

I think people are gonna be somewhat horrified by the calorie contents of meals in restaurants. I have several friends who are chefs and i can tell you that butter, cream and oil are used extremely liberally in professional kitchens in comparison to what you would use in your own meals at home.
As for the new legislation. Why do we need this and the likes of Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Netherlands or indeed the rest of our European brothers don't? Probably the same reason our off licenses need to close at 10. Because we need to be told what to do. Because we are so retardedly irresponsible that everything needs to be legislated for because we are essentially just giant obese drunk children .

Feathers

suicide_circus wrote: »

I think people are gonna be somewhat horrified by the calorie contents of meals in restaurants. I have several friends who are chefs and i can tell you that butter, cream and oil are used extremely liberally in professional kitchens in comparison to what you would use in your own meals at home.

This x1000.

LordSmeg wrote: »

It gives people the choice to pick a low calorie meal or the best option available to them in regards to that, may direct restaurants to serve lower calorie meals if there is a demand for them.

Exactly — if it's available to them. If that's the point of the exercise, why not just make restaurants offer a lower calorie option.

LordSmeg wrote: »

Your saying "shur whats the point wont make any difference" in relation to restaurants while assuming the person making the choice eats Dominos every second night ? Whats that got to do with anything ??

I dont eat Dominos every second night I never eat it in fact. I am slightly overweight and I'd like to be able to pick a good option when out in a restaurant. Whats the big deal with giving people information to make their own decisions ?

I'm obviously not talking about you personally (considering I don't know you), and if you read what I said, I didn't say that everyone is eating dominos every second night — my point was that for the majority, eating out in a restaurant isn't part of their weekly in-take of food; as such, it should be lower down on the government's list of problems in tackling health concerns.

Regarding fast food, if people are eating it regularly enough that choosing cheese instead of extra cheese is going to have a significant impact on their calorie in-take, they probably have bigger nutritional problems.

Finally, if tackling restaurant food is actually going to make a big impact on health for people, my point was that making restaurants offer a low calorie option is much better than simply getting them to show how many calories are in what is on the menu. Personally though, I'd prefer to see the government spending this effort on pre-prepared food (the likes of salt content in cereal, etc) — stuff that people buy in the supermarkets week in, week out has a much bigger impact that a restaurant meal once every few weeks.

Ellis Dee

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, this kind of stuff is really just a matter of casting false pearls before real swine.:rolleyes:

People who are enlightened enough to care about their calorie intake will probably have a good idea what various kinds of food contain in any event, and in cases of doubt will ask in a restaurant. Besides, unless one is eating in a restaurant every day, it matters really little in the overall scheme of things what or how much you stuff into your face once in a blue moon. What matters is your normal, customary diet, most of which is ingested at home by the vast majority of people.:)

If the authorities want to be a nanny state (which is not always necessarily a bad thing) and are serious about tackling the problem of obesity and unhealthy eating habits in general, there are dozens of other things they could tackle first, but then they are bound to run into both powerful vested interests and deeply ingrained ignorance and slobbishness.

Scioch

Feathers wrote: »

Exactly — if it's available to them. If that's the point of the exercise, why not just make restaurants offer a lower calorie option.

The point of the exercise is giving people the information they need on particular services to make an informed decision in light of the problem with obesity. Not to force restaurants or anyone to provide a particular service.

I'm obviously not talking about you personally (considering I don't know you), and if you read what I said, I didn't say that everyone is eating dominos every second night — my point was that for the majority, eating out in a restaurant isn't part of their weekly in-take of food; as such, it should be lower down on the government's list of problems in tackling health concerns.

I know you wernt talking about me but what you said was if your eating dominos every second night 50 calories wont make a difference. Which has nothing to do with what we are talking about which is giving people information to make a decision. Regardless of how often you eat in a restaurant people should be aware of what they are eating and although 50 calories in a once off meal wont change anything the knowledge of what these meals contain would. On the night it gives people the information to pick a meal in relation to knowledge of their weight. The amount of calories may be significant when you go from "Oh that sounds nice" to "1100 calories is it worth it?" Your changing how people view the food.

Regarding fast food, if people are eating it regularly enough that choosing cheese instead of extra cheese is going to have a significant impact on their calorie in-take, they probably have bigger nutritional problems.

Again we are not talking about his, we are talking about giving people information. Your very keen to rubbish the act of giving people information by throwing out the fact people eat rubbish.

Finally, if tackling restaurant food is actually going to make a big impact on health for people, my point was that making restaurants offer a low calorie option is much better than simply getting them to show how many calories are in what is on the menu. Personally though, I'd prefer to see the government spending this effort on pre-prepared food (the likes of salt content in cereal, etc) — stuff that people buy in the supermarkets week in, week out has a much bigger impact that a restaurant meal once every few weeks.

Perhaps it will lead to that who knows, no matter what they do there will likely be something better they could be doing. But looking at this in isolation (adding calories to menu's) I cant say as it wouldnt be of benefit or that its a complete waste of time.

Kitty-kitty

suicide_circus wrote: »

As for the new legislation. Why do we need this and the likes of Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Netherlands or indeed the rest of our European brothers don't? Probably the same reason our off licenses need to close at 10. Because we need to be told what to do. Because we are so retardedly irresponsible that everything needs to be legislated for because we are essentially just giant obese drunk children .

The last world obesity study found us 103rd, slimmer than Spain and Germany. Nobody's forcing you not to eat higher calorie foods, they're just making you more aware, geez. It's hard to tell sometimes.

Feathers

LordSmeg wrote: »

The amount of calories may be significant when you go from "Oh that sounds nice" to "1100 calories is it worth it?" Your changing how people view the food.

…

We are talking about giving people information. Your very keen to rubbish the act of giving people information by throwing out the fact people eat rubbish.

That's fine if people are fully educated about nutrition, they know how to take this into account. The reason I'm rubbishing the idea is that it could be a bad thing for people's health overall if they start to equate calorie in-take with healthy diet.

The 1100 calorie sea-bass cooked in butter might be the healthiest thing on the menu, even if it's the thing with the most calories.

LordSmeg wrote: »

Perhaps it will lead to that who knows, no matter what they do there will likely be something better they could be doing. But looking at this in isolation (adding calories to menu's) I cant say as it wouldnt be of benefit or that its a complete waste of time.

If you want to look at it in those terms, fine. I'd be of the view that no legislation is drafted in isolation — the government should know how to prioritise, and if they don't, we should be critical of it. Considering the finite time and resources that the department have to put into the area, this shouldn't be a priority.

Scioch

Feathers wrote: »

That's fine if people are fully educated about nutrition, they know how to take this into account. The reason I'm rubbishing the idea is that it could be a bad thing for people's health overall if they start to equate calorie in-take with healthy diet.

In relation to obesity then equating calorie intake with a healthy diet is fine. Nobody is going to live off 2k calories of ice cream. All it does is help them curb their eating habits to better suit their physical needs. Keeping calories under what is necessary will lose weight. Which for someone who is obese is a healthier diet than overeating on a healthier more varied diet.

The 1100 calorie sea-bass cooked in butter might be the healthiest thing on the menu, even if it's the thing with the most calories.

Not for someone who is overweight and already eaten a significant amount that day. A 700 calorie burger would be healthier. Their problem isnt unbalanced diets its being overweight. Thats what they need to tackle. So priority number one is changing eating habits to stop overeating not a balanced diet.

If you want to look at it in those terms, fine. I'd be of the view that no legislation is drafted in isolation — the government should know how to prioritise, and if they don't, we should be critical of it. Considering the finite time and resources that the department have to put into the area, this shouldn't be a priority.

Being critical of their priorities is fine but rubbishing something which may be of benefit because of it isnt. You havent been arguing about finite resources and better priorities you have just attempted to rubbish the idea entirely.

Jogathon

This thread needs a poll - in favour of it v's not in favour.

Scioch

Jogathon wrote: »

This Bread needs a roll - in flavour of it v's not in flavour.

Fixed.

daltonmd

Very interesting thread. I'm for knowing what I am eating and if I am watching my weight then I suppose it's a good thing that you can see the calorific count on the menu, I think it's good that people have a choice.

But then I think, "hmmm, isn't this standard in the states"? Look how that turned out!! I think it'll only be of a real benefit to those who actually look after themselves. Not to generalise, but I know overweight people, I eat out with them and they eat very little, then confide in me that when they go home they eat again.

I think if the "health minister" wants to impliment this, then particulary at this time, he should financially assist the industry, because I think what will happen is they will stick the cost on the bill somewhere.

It is a health initiative after all and if it does assist in some way to combat obesity, then it is the health service that will gain, and while it won't cost many places much, in some cases it could result in whether they stay open for business.

I recall watching a programme about restaurants in LA when they implemented this - their take from deserts dropped dramitically, with people choosing only a coffee - in fairness they diversified in the healthy options on the starters and main.

I think the government could at least assist for a breaking in period of time and give small businesses a bit of a break.

El_Dangeroso

LordSmeg wrote: »

They just shouldnt be fat is that it ? Your not fat so everyone else in the entire world should have no problem with it ?

I'm not fat now, but 5 years ago I went from an obese BMI to well into the normal range. Do you know how statistically unlikely it is to lose over 10% of your body weight and keep it off for 5 years? It's less than 100/1.

I never counted a calorie.

Feathers

LordSmeg wrote: »

In relation to obesity then equating calorie intake with a healthy diet is fine. Nobody is going to live off 2k calories of ice cream. All it does is help them curb their eating habits to better suit their physical needs. Keeping calories under what is necessary will lose weight. Which for someone who is obese is a healthier diet than overeating on a healthier more varied diet.

Not for someone who is overweight and already eaten a significant amount that day. A 700 calorie burger would be healthier. Their problem isnt unbalanced diets its being overweight. Thats what they need to tackle. So priority number one is changing eating habits to stop overeating not a balanced diet.

OK, I'm no expert on nutrition by any means, but this sounds really wrong to me — just because someone is overweight doesn't mean that you can prioritise calories at the expense of good nutrition in general. You might lose weight, but you won't get much healthier.

LordSmeg wrote: »

Being critical of their priorities is fine but rubbishing something which may be of benefit because of it isnt. You havent been arguing about finite resources and better priorities you have just attempted to rubbish the idea entirely.

Feathers wrote: »

Personally though, I'd prefer to see the government spending this effort on pre-prepared food (the likes of salt content in cereal, etc) — stuff that people buy in the supermarkets week in, week out has a much bigger impact that a restaurant meal once every few weeks.

Maybe my post wasn't clear so? When I say 'spending this effort', I meant the time that they're putting into drafting and discussing this legislation. When I say something else has a 'much bigger impact' I'm saying it should be a higher priority. The fact that the government only has a certain amount of time to pass a certain number of acts, I took as read.

Scioch

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I'm not fat now, but 5 years ago I went from an obese BMI to well into the normal range. Do you know how statistically unlikely it is to lose over 10% of your body weight and keep it off for 5 years? It's less than 100/1.

I never counted a calorie.

That does not validate your argument that others manage just fine keeping a stable weight ergo it should be enough for everyone. It worked for you and I'm glad it did but the statistics you are providing shows its extremely unlikely to work for others for whatever reason.

And considering obesity is on the rise I think it logical to conclude ignoring the issue and assuming repeating stuff like "dont count calories just stop eating when your full" will have any effect is a bit absurd.

El_Dangeroso

LordSmeg wrote: »

That does not validate your argument that others manage just fine keeping a stable weight ergo it should be enough for everyone. It worked for you and I'm glad it did but the statistics you are providing shows its extremely unlikely to work for others for whatever reason.

And considering obesity is on the rise I think it logical to conclude ignoring the issue and assuming repeating stuff like "dont count calories just stop eating when your full" will have any effect is a bit absurd.

Not saying it will work for everyone, but believe it or not straight calorie counting is actually one of the most ineffective ways to lose weight. It loses in trials against:

Low fat
Low carb
Vegetarian
Vegan
Paleo
Low GI
Low GL
High Protein
Zone

Because pretty much all the above place emphasis on food quality and cutting out junk. That's all most people actually need to do believe it or not. We don't get fat because we don't know the calorie counts of food, we get fat because most of the food we eat is DESIGNED to make us overeat.

Again I will say putting mandatory calorie counts on everything won't do a thing to reduce weight, this has been demonstrated time and time again in other places that have implemented it.

Scioch

Feathers wrote: »

OK, I'm no expert on nutrition by any means, but this sounds really wrong to me — just because someone is overweight doesn't mean that you can prioritise calories at the expense of good nutrition in general. You might lose weight, but you won't get much healthier.

If the weight is the main reasoned there is health risks then yes you would. It might not be optimal but the health risks associated with being obese would be much worse than those associated with not having a perfectly healthy diet.

Maybe my post wasn't clear so? When I say 'spending this effort', I meant the time that they're putting into drafting and discussing this legislation. When I say something else has a 'much bigger impact' I'm saying it should be a higher priority. The fact that the government only has a certain amount of time to pass a certain number of acts, I took as read.

Look above ^^ and in your previous posts. Your are rubbishing this idea in its own right. Then you are saying its about priorities.

The reason I'm rubbishing the idea is that it could be a bad thing for people's health overall if they start to equate calorie in-take with healthy diet

I just dont see any link to how your arguing priorities when you are also arguing that this shouldnt even be in the list. Its either a valid measure or its not and if your saying its not then its not bad prioritizing its failure to tackle the issue. Which is fine if thats your argument but it just doesnt make sense to me to say there are better options and because of that rubbish whatever they are doing. Which seems to me to be what your doing. Saying I'd rather something with a bigger impact and if I cant have that I dont want anything.

Scioch

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Not saying it will work for everyone, but believe it or not straight calorie counting is actually one of the most ineffective ways to lose weight. It loses in trials against:

Low fat
Low carb
Vegetarian
Vegan
Paleo
Low GI
Low GL
High Protein
Zone

Because pretty much all the above place emphasis on food quality and cutting out junk. That's all most people actually need to do believe it or not. We don't get fat because we don't know the calorie counts of food, we get fat because most of the food we eat is DESIGNED to make us overeat.

Again I will say putting mandatory calorie counts on everything won't do a thing to reduce weight, this has been demonstrated time and time again in other places that have implemented it.

Thats my point though, all this does is show people the impact the food may have on their weight. Its merely making them aware of it. The reason restaurants are opposed to this is because they may lose business. Why ? Because people probably arent aware of the impact this food will have on them. Its designed to make you buy it and eat it, they dont want you knowing anything bad about it. Its deceptive to an extent and removing that wont hurt.

I dont do it now but I did for a while and in doing it I learned how foods and meals differed. That gave me the ability to change my eating habits to suit my calorie limits and even though I dont count them now I have a good idea of what a can eat daily/weekly to keep myself from gaining weight.

For people who struggle with it over a long period of time vague stuff like "stop when your full" is pointless. Full to most people is not being hungry anymore. And anyone with eating issues have associated being hungry and eating with everything. If there is food on the plate they will feel hungry.

El_Dangeroso

LordSmeg wrote: »

Thats my point though, all this does is show people the impact the food may have on their weight. Its merely making them aware of it. The reason restaurants are opposed to this is because they may lose business. Why ? Because people probably arent aware of the impact this food will have on them. Its designed to make you buy it and eat it, they dont want you knowing anything bad about it. Its deceptive to an extent and removing that wont hurt.

I dont do it now but I did for a while and in doing it I learned how foods and meals differed. That gave me the ability to change my eating habits to suit my calorie limits and even though I dont count them now I have a good idea of what a can eat daily/weekly to keep myself from gaining weight.

For people who struggle with it over a long period of time vague stuff like "stop when your full" is pointless. Full to most people is not being hungry anymore. And anyone with eating issues have associated being hungry and eating with everything. If there is food on the plate they will feel hungry.

I understand where you are coming from, you think this will cause people to pause and think twice about eating a double cheeseburger. But people already know that a double cheeseburger is not a weight loss food. They KNOW it's high in calories even if it's not an exact number. It's just common sense!

Restaurants won't lose business because people won't pay a blind bit of attention, they just don't want the hassle of this pointless exercise!

Scioch

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I understand where you are coming from, you think this will cause people to pause and think twice about eating a double cheeseburger. But people already know that a double cheeseburger is not a weight loss food. They KNOW it's high in calories even if it's not an exact number. It's just common sense!

Restaurants won't lose business because people won't pay a blind bit of attention, they just don't want the hassle of this pointless exercise!

No I think it will allow people like me to make informed decisions on what to eat in restaurants in regards to whats high and low calorie wise.

I dont eat double cheese burgers in restaurants but I expect it all to be non too healthy nonetheless and I'd like the option at least to do some damage control. If I was tempted by as double cheese burger perhaps the knowledge that a regular burger and small fries would feed my habit by causing significantly less damage.

Whatever it does it has to be better than shrugging your shoulders and going for what looks tasty.

Feathers

LordSmeg wrote: »

If the weight is the main reasoned there is health risks then yes you would. It might not be optimal but the health risks associated with being obese would be much worse than those associated with not having a perfectly healthy diet.

I disagree — a lot of people who are obese can have complications because of that, like high blood pressure or raised risk of heart disease. They can't just ignore these issues, eating whatever they like so long as it's under 2400 calories, until such a time as their BMI is back to a normal range.

LordSmeg wrote: »

I just dont see any link to how your arguing priorities when you are also arguing that this shouldnt even be in the list. Its either a valid measure or its not and if your saying its not then its not bad prioritizing its failure to tackle the issue. Which is fine if thats your argument but it just doesnt make sense to me to say there are better options and because of that rubbish whatever they are doing. Which seems to me to be what your doing. Saying I'd rather something with a bigger impact and if I cant have that I dont want anything.

I don't think restaurants are a priority when it comes to healthier eating, firstly, as they don't form a large part of people's diet. I disagree with focusing on this at the expense of other areas.

Secondly, if you do want to look at restaurant food for healthy eating, focussing too narrowly on calorie in-take can give people the impression that this can be used as a single measure of a healthy diet, which I think is unwise.

I don't think that the first point contradicts the second.

Dave!

Feathers wrote: »

OK, I'm no expert on nutrition by any means, but this sounds really wrong to me — just because someone is overweight doesn't mean that you can prioritise calories at the expense of good nutrition in general. You might lose weight, but you won't get much healthier

Obesity is the biggest predictor of a whole array of diseases in later life, so getting that under control should be priority #1. You can eat all the 'healthy' food you want, but if you're 5ft 10 and 18 stone of fat then you're still very likely to develop problems. And dropping that weight is pretty simple (in principle) -- take in less energy, use up more energy.

oppenheimer1

The opposition from some of the general public here to this measure is amazing. Why on earth would someone be opposed to being more informed?