Slashdot Mirror
Food Calorie Counts Will Start Appearing in US Restaurants and Grocery Stores (qz.com)
Americans are about to find it very difficult to avoid knowing how many calories they're consuming every day. From a report: That's because the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) this week decided to move forward with an Obama-era food labeling rule that requires restaurants, grocery, and convenience stores with 20 or more locations to post calorie counts for standard menu items. The interesting thing about calorie counts is that, while they undoubtedly offer more transparency around the foods we choose to eat, there's not a lot of evidence to show they affect people's purchasing decisions.
In 2017, a team of researchers led by a Harvard University professor conducted a systematic review of 53 studies on the topic. Their work was later published in the journal Obesity, and included an analysis of 18 studies of behavior in real-world restaurants, 9 from in cafeterias, and 21 from simulated settings. Five studies examined restaurant offerings. Overall, the review found that available research lacked strong designs, which ultimately makes understanding the effectiveness of calorie count labeling all the more cloudy.
In 2017, a team of researchers led by a Harvard University professor conducted a systematic review of 53 studies on the topic. Their work was later published in the journal Obesity, and included an analysis of 18 studies of behavior in real-world restaurants, 9 from in cafeterias, and 21 from simulated settings. Five studies examined restaurant offerings. Overall, the review found that available research lacked strong designs, which ultimately makes understanding the effectiveness of calorie count labeling all the more cloudy.
The interesting thing about calorie counts is that, while they undoubtedly offer more transparency around the foods we choose to eat, there's not a lot of evidence to show they affect people's purchasing decisions.
There are folks you cannot reach despite all the evidence you can muster... nonetheless, please continue to provide that information for the folks you can.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Most chains with 20+ locations aren't worth going to anyway.
I would mod you up but I don't mod up people with user IDs less than six digits long.
Well this is some groundbreaking shit right here. No wonder Slashdot editors post stupid shit, nobody had access to nutrition info in grocery stores.
This is going to be a tough one to measure the effect of (or lack thereof) but I think more information in the hands of people is always better. I think the long term effect may be seen more in restaurant choice than choice at a restaurant. If you like Big Macs and go to McDonalds, chances are seeing the calorie count on the menu won't make you get a salad. What may happen though is the next time you are hungry, you remember the calorie count and decide to go somewhere else where you prefered meal isn't as high in calories.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
I can make a pizza that's about 250 calories a slice. When I go out to eat it's easy to forget that most pizzas are 600+ calories a slice.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I also use calorie counts sometimes, e.g. if I am trying to figure out which kind of meat to put on my sandwiches I will consider which one is healthier (e.g. ham vs pastrami vs roast beef vs salami vs whatever) and pick a healthier option.
What does calorie counts have to do with being a healthy option? 1000 calories of vegetables are more healthy than 100 calories of red meat.
What is this, 1977?
How about showing sugar content, instead? Salt content? Sulfites, MSG, heavy metals, palm oil, country of origin for main ingredients? C'mon, if you're going to give us information, at least make it something worth knowing.
You body handles sugar very differently than fat. And the order of eating fat, sugars and protein makes a big difference in how the body handles those.
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
Unless you are obese.
I love those '100 calorie packs'. It makes it easy for me to know I'm eating 500 calories when I eat 5 of them at once, because they're tinier than an infant's hand and fill me up less than a cup of water.
I particularly love bags of popcorn, where it's "only 60 calories per serving!" and each serving is 1 tablespoon. Who eats 1 tablespoon of popcorn in a sitting? How do you even measure pre-popped popcorn in tablespoons?
Europe does this right, food has 'calories per 100g' on every package.
On-topic, restaurant meal quantities vary by cook, with eye-balling of usage of cooking oil and sauce. Also, if you order a dish that comes with rice, chances are you will be given lots of rice and only end up using half of it for that dish, yet the 'total calories' will include the entire container of rice.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
The obesity epidemic is still getting worse because everyone parrots 1970s diet "science". No, red meat is not bad for you. No, 1000 calories from potatoes or parsnips are not good for you.
I've refrained from eating out for years due to not being able to properly quantify what I would have ordered. Nothing wrong with being able to do that if that's what matters to you, or being abler to figure out how it affects your diet if you weren't previously aware, which is part of why I'm so vigilant now.
Realistically, 1000 calories of veggies means some veggies and a lot of empty carbs, and for most people it's better to just eat a normal meal and have meat and veggies.
Calories counts are useful for people who are trying to lose weight in a scientific fashion. Calorie counts work, but people are terrible at estimating calories.
Realistically, 1000 calories of veggies means some veggies and a lot of empty carbs,
Although "empty carbs" is a meaningless metric, used by different people in different ways, you are the first person (or robot) I've ever seen refer to vegetables as empty carbs.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Just as soon as Trump hears Obama did it, he'll have it repealed.
Just because you've never seen somebody pour a cup of high-fructose corn syrup on their "greens" doesn't mean nobody else has.
when i go out to eat i like to get my moneys worth. now i will KNOWINGLY choose the meal with the most calories. its all about portion control. can't eat a large pizza every day expect not to get fat.
Scott
Realistically, who eats 1000 calories of veggies? That is like 7 pounds of spinach. Veggies on their own simply do not have enough calories to make 1000 calories in a meal. It's possible to eat maybe 50-100 calories of veggies and then 900-950 calories of potatoes.
And of course "empty carbs" has a meaning - carbohydrates with little nutrition. For instance, French Fries are a "vegetable" but not recommended as a diet staple.
Can I make a quick guess that you are fat and out of shape? How do you not know this stuff?
Depends on the vegetables, but meat is a good source of a lot of nutrients. Protein deficiency in adolescence is devastating in terms of brain development. Unless you live in parts of the world that are lucky enough to have protein rich vegetables that grow natively or rich enough to be able to import them or otherwise supplement your diet, then meat of some sort is necessary.
Even red meat isn't bad for you if prepared properly. A lot of the carcinogenic effects are from grilling it and burning parts of it, which incidentally can be counteracted with the consumption of alcohol. Or you can just cook it in other ways that don't involve burning the outer layers of the meat (yeah I know it tastes good) which is what happens when preparing most red meats due to grilling.
Greens are certainly good for some nutrients, but reds are better for others. You're much better off cutting out the grains and fruits, than your meats.
This whole program is adding a lot of work to our jobs. It's not just calorie counts. Everything prepared by us has to be weighed and logged. No items can be displaced on the shelves, because if they are in the wrong spot the calorie sign won't match up. If someone picks something up and puts it down in the wrong spot, that's a potential fine. It seems pretty heavy handed from my perspective. How much do people need their hands held at the grocery store?
And of course "empty carbs" has a meaning - carbohydrates with little nutrition.
Carbohydrates are an important nutritional component. Saying "carbohydrates have little nutrition" is not backed by science. It would be the same as saying "fat has little nutrition." These are macronutrients.
Can I make a quick guess that you are fat and out of shape?
You guessed wrong.
Let me guess, you think "eating clean" is the way to be healthy?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Waste of time. No one cares. Everyone knows what is high calorie and what isn't. They just don't care. No one walks into Mcdonald's and thinks the french fries are the health option with low calories. They don't care. They buy them anyway.
"Carbohydrates with little nutrition" is the phrase used, and you should consider the difference in meaning.
I also use calorie counts sometimes, e.g. if I am trying to figure out which kind of meat to put on my sandwiches
Stress is demonstrably bad for your health. I recommend you eliminate this particular stressful situation by simply putting every available kind of meat on your sandwiches.
#DeleteChrome
"Carbohydrates with little nutrition" is the phrase used,
And it's a wrong phrase. Carbohydrates are macronutrients, an important type of nutrient.
Other people use the term "empty carbs" to mean carbohydrates without many vitamins or micronutrients. Other times they use the term to mean carbohydrates with a high glycemic index (because they rapidly affect your blood sugar). Sometimes people say "empty calories" when they really mean "foods high in fat." A lot of times people have only a vague idea of what they mean: they use it in a poorly defined way, and it means something like "food I don't like."
"Empty carbs" is one of those terms, that when used by a public speaker or celebrity, indicates they have no clue what they are talking about. Asking them to define it can really help clarify the issue: whether they understand the words they speak or not.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
the nutritional information label in american foods is bad, see the following:
EU Label: https://www.esha.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/eu_label_3.jpg
US Label: https://www.esha.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/label-US-standard-01-1.png
AU Label: http://elevationperformance.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/nip.jpg
You need to be a math wizard to work out the values in something in the US compared to other countries.
At least if it says "1000 calories" for a food item, you should know what the recommended DI is and what proportion of that meal would be for you.
"No, 1000 calories from potatoes or parsnips are not good for you."
Until you cover them with chilli, cheese and bacon! Now you're eating healthy.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
"That's because the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) this week decided to move forward with an Obama-era food labeling rule "
Well at least we know what one of Trumps next EO's will be.
Please accept our super size meal. Of even the bigger Big Mac. Only $5 extra and 2 hours and 23 minutes less...
Or our balanced meal. Personalised to your intake and your biology... just for $1001 extra...
An "empty carb" is a pure carb, not accompanied by vitamins, minerals, fibers, or other micronutrients. Granulated sugar is an empty carb, but so are pure starches.
Carbs are useful for energy, but they are not required for good health. Your body can synthesize all carbs it needs.
Apparently many cooks think that vegetarian dishes are for supermodels on a diet, and when you ask a waitress "is the Greek Salad large enough to actually get sated?" they'll always state "oh sure, yes". I hate paying as much as the person next to me and getting a third with frills.
Why can't they make a Greek salad like in Greece? Tomatoes, cucumber, half a pound of feta cheese, good black olives (not the ubiquitous blackened green ones: whose stupid idea ever was that?) in solid measures, drowned in excellent olive oil and some vinegar. That's all. And a lot of it.
Fortunately actually since the rest of the menu choices tends to be meat, meat, meat. The Greek Salad gets boring after a while but at least you don't starve. And it's much better than the Greek Salad at home because of the quality ingredients.
That is a belief.
Obviously you are a filthy muslim.
I hope you die while reciting the korean.
Complex carbohydrates are a caloric lie.
If I ate a 1000 calorie diet of veggies vs a 1000 calorie diet of oats... welll... I lose weight with one.
It's not that simple, but it's not entirely worthless either. It does manage to funnel a lot of money to labs which do calorie assessment.
It will ABSOLUTELY affect my purchasing decision
Just because you've never seen somebody pour a cup of high-fructose corn syrup on their "greens" doesn't mean nobody else has.
But corn is a vegetable, no? ~sarcasm
Just because you inform doesn't mean anyone cares.
Most people I speak to have absolutely zero idea what the recommended intake is, even to the nearest 1000 kcal. It's not because they couldn't find out. They just don't care.
Pretty much, because it's highly subjective and variable between people anyway, but nobody has a clue what "100 calories" means. They don't even correlate "100 calories" of food with the work required on an exercise machine to burn 100 calories of energy (mainly because it's so vastly unbelievable how much energy is in one single treat, for example, but your body also burns an astounding amount of energy just sitting there doing nothing).
Additionally - I *KNOW* that my greasy hamburger and fries isn't low-calorie. That's kind of why I ordered it. I wasn't IGNORANT. I was APATHETIC. As a certified Skinny Git(TM), I have to eat food with some actual substance to it or I waste away. I live on sugars and fats because my body processes them so [well/poorly depending on your outlook] that they just pass through me and if I don't, I can start to look like death within a few days. Either my gut bacteria is damn amazing at processing such food such that I don't get much left out of it, or they are so bad that they can only grab the easy pickings out of whatever I eat (either way, I don't really care!)
To be honest, even the people who calorie-count have NO IDEA what they're doing either. It's usually those same people who are sitting there telling me how their muesli is so good for them (hint: Read the nutritional information, compare and contrast to sugar-frosted honey nut cornflakes, and then get back to me).
I tend to find that those people with any modicum of interest in their diet then quickly descend into utter nonsense and are sitting there buying into everything from whole-grain to "good bacteria" to anti-oxidants. These things all exist, they all have some basis to them. But not to the extent that swallowing some bottle of green shite a day will make you super-human and never get ill, which is what they then start to believe (often contrary to their own evidence). Oh, and "carbs", don't get me started on "carbs".
At some point you have to accept that people DON'T CARE that something is full of fat.
I have to say that, despite being underweight my entire life, I honestly do not feel full unless I've had a sizeable amount of fat/sugar in a day. It's as simple as that. Putting on the calorie amounts won't change what I order, precisely because I have a good idea of what's the most fatty anyway and often order that, and that comes purely from what it tastes like and how filling it is.
I can't imagine that there aren't people in the opposite position - who are fat and know exactly what the healthiest thing is anyway - but they're opposite in attitude, and will deliberately go for the fattiest thing anyway.
You're not fighting ignorance here. We can find out the information about any food whenever we like with a quick command to our phones. You're fighting apathy. We can't even be bothered to look. Nobody cares, and often they choose something PRECISELY because it's unhealthy.
The only reason to care about weight are:
- Personal longevity. (They're really not going to "hurt" anyone else here, so it's a hard-sell)
- Personal financial cost. (Unfortunately fast/fatty food is often cheaper than the healthier food, and certainly easier to come by).
- Penalties (e.g. life insurance premiums, being charged for or refused surgery, etc. - again, the only person they're hurting is themselves).
Thus, you can't solve people being overweight or eating unhealthily until pretty much after you have also solved the problems like people smoking, doing drugs, etc. too (which have the above AND the possible effect on others).
I think we should have higher priorities. I also think that it's nice to be informed, yes, but in the UK/EU, nutritional information has been available for a long time and places like restaura
Just knowing the calorie count many not be enough. Break up of calories coming from starch(carbohydrate), fats(saturated and unsaturated) and proteins. What other nutrient the food has and how much fibre is there in it?
As the father of a daughter who is recovering from anorexia, I say this is not a good thing. Seeing how many calories is in anything is one of the worst things for her. She's in recovery and handling things much better now, but we really don't need calorie counts in our faces everywhere we go. I guess that will further limit our restaurant and shopping choices to places that don't do this.
Yes, I realize the obesity problem in the U.S. And that people with eating disorders make up a much smaller percentage of the population that overweight people. But believe me, after seeing her go through this, and now recovering, the last thing you want are more triggers all over the place to make her think about it.
What does a label do when even the smallest snack clocks in at 800 kcal (the unit is kilocalorie, not calorie). I rather have them look for means to have the food and beverage industry offer better quality and lower kcals with far less additional substances of questionable health impact with far less corn sirup and salt. Plus, make serving sizes match reality. A can of soup is not two servings, it is one serving....same for a "family size" bag of chips.
There are also the guys who lift several hundred pounds and eat 4,000 calories a day. They will be very happy to find the cheapest/largest source of calories on the go!
Ah, the old calorie, which doesn't really exist, and is just pseudo-scientific way of meassuring the supposed amount of energy in food, without any actual relation to how the human body actually processes food, nor the variations in gut bacteria and metabolization from one person to another.
If you want to lose weight, eat less rice, potatoes, grains, and sugars, and eat more fats, fibres, and proteins. And get off your fat American ass. Counting calories will not help.
If you want to lose weight, eat less rice, potatoes, grains, and sugars, and eat more fats, fibres, and proteins.
You mean the stuff the government told me to eat 9-11 servings of a day when I was a kid? So it turns out the philosopher kings didn't know best after all? Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the grain lobby.
Now here comes the government to "solve" a problem of it's own creation.
And it's a wrong phrase.
No, your reply waa addressing the actual phrase said wrongly, to wit, by making a misstatement that altered the original phrase on your part.
An error you still refuse to address.
A lot of times people have only a vague idea of what they mean
A lot of other times, like in your example here, people have a poor idea of what other people mean, and their objections amount to useless sputtering that isn't even accurately understanding the other person in the first place, and becomes nothing more than "I don't like those words" which is really pointless quibbling pedantry.
"Empty carbs" is one of those terms, that when used by a public speaker or celebrity, indicates they have no clue what they are talking about. Asking them to define it can really help clarify the issue: whether they understand the words they speak or not.
When a person who raises a concern over an insignificant linguistic difference starts expounding upon others, rather than making an effort to comprehend the words, or even avoids, admitting to their own mistaken, you know they really don't have a legitimate point, it is just them trying to feel superior to another person as they let their condescension rise to the top.
It's really just empty words, a load of balderdash and claptrap, meant to overwhelm with noise their own lack of substance.
Sorry, but you chose to make character an issue, not just diet.
Can we get types of wheat and maize listed also.
I would like to know which ones are patented by Monsanto and when they are in my food.
I hope you die while reciting the korean.
I desperately want that to be intentional and not a typo. Though I do think proper grammar would be "reciting in Korean".
As the father of a daughter who is recovering from anorexia, this is not a good thing. Seeing how many calories is in anything is one of the worst things for her. She's in recovery and handling things much better now, but we really don't need calorie counts in our faces everywhere we go. I guess that will further limit our restaurant and shopping choices to places that don't do this.
Yes, I realize the obesity problem in the U.S. And that people with eating disorders make up a much smaller percentage of the population than overweight people. But believe me, after seeing her go through this, and now recovering, the last thing I want are more triggers all over the place to make her think about it.
I mod down all the "free iPod"-sig losers.
Keep the chili, cheese, and bacon, and delete the rest. Now you're talking!
There has been some research that showing caloric content of foods might not benefit in the way we intend. more specifically for lower income families. This is due to the those individuals who compare for example a healthy food that gives 250 calories for a price of $5 vs a unhealthy meal giving 500 calories for the same cost. If you don't have a lot of income you sometimes view the lower calorie choice as "losing out" or "paying more" for less.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4209007/
Carbohydrates are an important nutritional component. Saying "carbohydrates have little nutrition" is not backed by science.
I disagree. Carbohydrates are not important at all in the same way as the essential proteins that the human body is incapable of making for itself. There is plenty of research on it. The interesting stuff is pre-1950, before large scale industrial farming was considered normal.
Using basic math, we can determine that fat is more energy dense. Carbs have 4kcal/gram, Protein has 4kcal/gram, while Fat has 9kcal/gram. 9 is larger than 4. Not that hard to see. Now, "nutrition" is not the same thing as raw energy, and there is where things diverge into some madness. Fools will cry out that fat is bad simply because more is bad when trying to lose weight. This is penny wise and pound foolish, as there are many subtle hormonal and metabolic factors involved. "A calorie is a calorie is a calorie" is just as wrong as saying "gasoline is coal is sunshine". They all have energy value, sure, but that's it.
If you still want to argue that "Saying 'carbohydrates have little nutrition' is not backed by science", then I challenge you to read some of the studies and evaluate the methods. You probably haven't, otherwise you would shock yourself to see what you are blindly agreeing with simply because it is what everybody has been telling you for so long. If you refuse to read any studies and at least try and understand the methods they devised to try and learn some of these things, then you have no business making any sort of argument at all about the scientific validity of it.
If I wanted to prove that "all performance artists are blue", and my method was to go visit several Blue Man Group events since they are the only ones I want to go see, what do you think I would conclude? Does it validate my theory that all performance artists are blue simply because my data overwhelmingly shows that I am right? You can cite the title of my paper, generate loads of dumb and misleading statistics from my data, (no! only 99.7% are blue!), but if you aren't even looking at my method I can make you believe anything "scientific".
Actually, potato chips are fairly healthy. At least the simple ones, like Lays. They're just potatoes, oil, & salt. Potatoes are a staple food & starches. Oil adds a nice chunk of calories. Salt's only a problem with high blood pressure.
I had to be corrected on potato chips too, by my kid's nutritionist no less. My kid badly needed more calories in his diet. Chips were a godsend!
I'm in much the same boat. I'm on a restricted diet: Celiac disease, I'm allergic to milk, and a few other things. (Plus IBS that gets set off by the simplest foods.) For me, it's a daily struggle to keep my weight up, and I badly need to increase my daily calorie count.
Don't knock the potato chip!
On the other hand, red meat... Just look at how we handle mad cow disease in this country, and then decide if you want to risk it.
The interesting thing about calorie counts is that, while they undoubtedly offer more transparency around the foods we choose to eat, there's not a lot of evidence to show they affect people's purchasing decisions
So, it won't help anything anyway, but we need to make everybody do this, because.
I'm in-and-around Toronto. It's been about a year since we started putting calorie counts on restaurant menus (with at least 5 locations).
Yes it works well.
Very well.
For me at least.
Before, I used to complain about calorie counts (and to some extent I still do) because they are so viciously incomplete. A large steak has a large calorie count (~900 for 14oz) but obviously I won't be hungry enough to eat again for at least 14 hours. On the other hand, a fancy cheesecake might have 1'400 calories, and I'll burn through it in under an hour.
So where does it work so well? When comparing two things on the same menu.
That 14oz steak marked as 900 calories has a whiskey butter sauce that takes it to 1'300 calories. That cheesecake has a version without the hot fudge for 800 calories.
The food itself doesn't have the crazy calorie count. It's the restaurants that do. The restaurants have been stuffing good food with crazy butter, corn syrup, caramel, and cheese sauces for years.
I'm very happy with the calorie counts on the menus. Don't get me wrong, I hate that I'm now refusing to eat things that are clearly junk that I used to find enjoyable. Makes me feel like a girl sometimes.
All of that said, I certainly don't eat out any less, I certainly do eat smaller portions that are clearly sufficient food by the numbers, and I've certainly cut out a handful of restaurants that I feel are simply irresponsibly disgusting by the numbers.
I've been eating more steak.
And there you have a good example of erroneous assumptions. One thousand calories is only a measure of energy, not a good/bad in and of itself thing. That one thousand calories from parsnips is just fine if you don't also consume an excessive amount of calories from other foods. As far as calories, it's the total, not the components.
Until moral improves.
>No, red meat is not bad for you. No, 1000 calories from potatoes or parsnips are not good for you.
Cite?
I could hardly care less about the calorie count, I want to know how many carbs are in things. I'm tired of meat dishes that are full of added carbs.
> The interesting thing about calorie counts is that, while they undoubtedly offer more transparency around the foods we choose to eat, there's not a lot of evidence to show they affect people's purchasing decisions.
As long as it's clear and people actually read it, I've seen it have an impact.
I was standing next to a lady at Cheesecake Factory - she blurted out "Is that 1500 calories for the entire cake?" - when the answer was "noooo... that for one", her jaw dropped in shock... and she walked away.
I realize this is one instance, but when something is THAT calorie dense, I have to think it at least has some impact
I'm 70, and have been eating those fats all my life. Heartscan test early last week shows I have a 94th percentile of plaque buildup in my heart. Cardiologist says its from saturated fats, which he told me to cut down. But go ahead and eat all the fats you want, just count me out.
As for the calories, they do work. Eat less than you burn, and you'll lose weight. I can use the Nutrisystem foods to eat 1200 calories a day comfortably (without getting hungry) and step off 1300 calories on an elliptical crosstrainer at Gold's gym, and lose 1/2 lb any day I choose. These heat equations work.
And knowing the numbers is valuable. I ate at a famous Chicago-based pizzaria place and got an order of mac and cheese. Only after i got back did I find that the single order was 1800 calories. It was delicious, but it was 1800 calories, 100 more than I burn in normal activity all day. Its helpful to know the calories, I would have avoided that...
Learn2google. High-glycemic vs low-glycemic, low-fat vs low-carb, hormonal theory of obesity vs caloric theory of obesity.
You know what I would really like? The ability to scan a barcode for each meal so it uploads the info into my calorie tracking app. I use MyFitnessPal whenever I can and the ability to scan food to track my daily intake (not just calories) has been an instrumental part of my weight management strategy
Realistically, who eats 1000 calories of veggies?
A large portion of the Southern US population. That's because each vegetable has to be individually dipped in ranch dressing for some strange reason. I get the strangest looks at restaurants when I ask for a salad with NO dressing. It's as if they don't recognize that vegetable actually have a flavor of their own.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Wait .. wouldn't it be better to posit, "1000 calories of vegetables are more healthy than 1000 calories of red meat"?
If what you're saying is that calories by themselves mean nothing?
That is, 1000 calories of vegetables would have more 'good' nutrients for you than 1000 calories of red meat
Great, now I can make sure I get the most calories for my dollar.
horror vacui
Over a year ago, I got tired of hearing my friend talk about weight loss. I gave simple advice that I assured him would work. He refused to listen. What did I do? I followed my own advice. In 2 months I had lost 35 lbs. I've kept the weight off this entire time while on a diet consisting almost entirely of TV dinners, sushi, McDonald's, and pizza. It's not rocket surgery here people. Eat a small amount less and move around more. That's it.
At the risk of elevating the tone of this discussion, I'll ask a question: Where in the Constitution of the United States of America is the national government authorized to do this?
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.