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.
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.
It's for the prepared food you can get in most mid-range and up grocery stores these days. Think rotisserie chickens, sandwiches, etc.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
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.
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.
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
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.
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."
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."
"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
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.