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"
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
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.
>"It's a worthless number. As if calories are all the same. You body handles sugar very differently than fat."
No, it is NOT a worthless number. It is far from ideal, but way far from "worthless." Most people eat far too many calories each meal/day, regardless of the source or types of calories. And you can't come up with a single, unified, number that explains the energy content AND use of sugars, fats, proteins, and other components that will be useful... especially to lay-people.
If one has an "average American" metabolism, I guarantee if he/she eats 4,000 calories a day, he/she will gain weight. I don't care what "type" of calories those are. Lower that to 2,000 and it becomes less clear what would happen. Lower it to 1,000 and he/she is going to lose weight- again, regardless of calorie source.
Just as soon as Trump hears Obama did it, he'll have it repealed.
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.
Obvious solution: Take a pizza cutter with you to the restaurant, and cut each slice in half.
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.
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
"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
Estimation - It also seems that a rather large percentage of adult population forget (or fail to grasp) that twice as large on both dimensions means 4 times in size, or that a larger pan of pizza measuring 40% longer already have roughly twice the calories.
And for larger heaps of food like of fried rice to double in calories it only needs to "look slightly larger", measuring at 26% extra on each of 3 dimensions (1.26^3=2.000376). All that is before inaccurate "guesstimates" on fat of sugar being considered.
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
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.