US Healthcare Bill Requires Restaurants to Display Calories, But Will it Help?(singularityhub.com)
singularityhub.com
US Healthcare Bill Requires Restaurants to Display Calories, But Will it Help?
http://singularityhub.com/2010/03/28/us-healthcare-bill-requires-restaurants-to-display-calories-on-menus-but-will-it-help/
7 comments
Ditto in NYC. You'd be surprised ( or at least I was ) to find out that certain salads are quite the calorie bombs while other dishes ( ex. pasta bolognese ) have far fewer calories than you'd think.
I was thinking the same thing about NYC (though I don't live there) as I remembered reading that a study found it did have an impact on people's eating habits:
http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/starbucks.html
Agreed. Before this was instituted, I didn't think that it would change my behavior at all, but there's something in seeing all the choices reduced down to a single, easily comparable caloric number. At first, I avoided the super-high calorie choices (there are options at many restaurants that are > 1200 cal), then actively looking for the lower calorie items, and then finally avoiding fast food altogether.
I don't lead a particularly healthy lifestyle. I smoke & I drink, but the warning labels on those products never really altered my behavior, but for some reason the fast food calorie ones have.
I don't lead a particularly healthy lifestyle. I smoke & I drink, but the warning labels on those products never really altered my behavior, but for some reason the fast food calorie ones have.
Of course, if the problem turns out not to be food calories but food composition, the only thing this will do is push more useless information into people's faces. Making it more prominent won't make it more useful.
Personally, I would take this as further condemnation of the calorie counting approach to health in the first place. Our ancestors did not need it, and there's nowhere in the human body to input raw calorie counts into our satiety mechanism. This is the classic hacks piled on hacks pattern, instead of fixing the root problem.
Personally, I would take this as further condemnation of the calorie counting approach to health in the first place. Our ancestors did not need it, and there's nowhere in the human body to input raw calorie counts into our satiety mechanism. This is the classic hacks piled on hacks pattern, instead of fixing the root problem.
But every nutritionist says "calories in, calories out"; that effectively counting calories and eating less is the only sure way to lose weight.
On the surface, yes, less calories eaten than burned will result in losing weight, but only following this rule on the surface is dangerous.
* Do you get enough of the necessary nutrients? * Do you eat so little that your body starts to reduce it's metabolism? * Do you have exercise program that continues after you stop a reduced calorie diet to rebuild the lost muscle tissue (your body burns both muscle and fat tissue when compensating for the missing calories)? * After the diet do you return to normal eating habits, or eat a diet that is balanced against your physical activity?
* Do you get enough of the necessary nutrients? * Do you eat so little that your body starts to reduce it's metabolism? * Do you have exercise program that continues after you stop a reduced calorie diet to rebuild the lost muscle tissue (your body burns both muscle and fat tissue when compensating for the missing calories)? * After the diet do you return to normal eating habits, or eat a diet that is balanced against your physical activity?
Yes, but none of them can produce a study where that approach actually works beyond small, trivial weight changes. I don't care how many people tell me to do things that don't work, it doesn't make it work. Even if you put the "scientist" label on them, though to be honest, when a "scientist" tells me to do things that science itself has shown not to work I begin to wonder about the label "scientist".
I'm not 100% confident about the "low carb" or "paleo" diets, but I am quite confident the standard line about fat and calorie counting being the key to losing weight is false. Science has abundantly demonstrated this. I recommend "Good Calories, Bad Calories" for a long discussion. In this case I particularly recommend the discussion about how equality symbols do not imply a causal direction.
I'm a little strident here because having dug into the issue I feel downright betrayed by people pushing "calories in/out" as if it's, well, truth. Because while the raw thermodynamics is true, everything else built on top of it is basically false.
I'm not 100% confident about the "low carb" or "paleo" diets, but I am quite confident the standard line about fat and calorie counting being the key to losing weight is false. Science has abundantly demonstrated this. I recommend "Good Calories, Bad Calories" for a long discussion. In this case I particularly recommend the discussion about how equality symbols do not imply a causal direction.
I'm a little strident here because having dug into the issue I feel downright betrayed by people pushing "calories in/out" as if it's, well, truth. Because while the raw thermodynamics is true, everything else built on top of it is basically false.
I believe this will just keep the moderately health conscious people being health conscious but will leave the ignorant unchanged and continue to make poor food choices. Take McDonald's packaging for example. They have been putting nutrition information on their packages for some time now but do you think that deters Joe Blow from ordering his super duper extra large king size Coke and fries?
Do you really need nutritional information hitting you in the face to realize that deep fried chicken that you're going to eat is bad for you?
It's not as if they use this information to decide between a hoagie and a salad. They use it to decide if they should get the huge hoagie or the one a couple of inches smaller.
Do you really need nutritional information hitting you in the face to realize that deep fried chicken that you're going to eat is bad for you?
It's not as if they use this information to decide between a hoagie and a salad. They use it to decide if they should get the huge hoagie or the one a couple of inches smaller.
Having it on the package is a little different though since you don't find out about the calories until after you order. When the counts are before you make the decision it may have a more profound effect.
Yes I know, seeing it on the package after you order it couldn't possibly stop you from repeating the same mistake and avoid ordering it the next 100 times.
I think you're giving too much credit to memory. Even though I've looked at the nutritional information on my fish sandwich the last three or four times I ordered it, I honestly cannot give you even a rough estimation of the calorie count -- nor would I be able to have an informed opinion the next time I'm in line and trying to decide between the fish and a big mac.
On the other hand, having that information displayed prior to ordering not only makes it readily apparent, but it also removes the burden of forcing the consumer to be constantly carrying around past nutritional information in their head.
On the other hand, having that information displayed prior to ordering not only makes it readily apparent, but it also removes the burden of forcing the consumer to be constantly carrying around past nutritional information in their head.
Do you really think that either are a healthy choice? You're comparing two poor choices with each other and both will likely have the same outcome if eaten regularly. No nutritional label is going to change that.
Also, you're making the assumption that people can make a proper choice after reading a nutritional label. I could show someone that is less informed the nutritional data for various pieces of fish (that hasn't been breaded or deep fried) and they would think the fat and cholesterol content means that it's horrible for you when in fact fish has been shown to be beneficial.
Also, you're making the assumption that people can make a proper choice after reading a nutritional label. I could show someone that is less informed the nutritional data for various pieces of fish (that hasn't been breaded or deep fried) and they would think the fat and cholesterol content means that it's horrible for you when in fact fish has been shown to be beneficial.
Do you really think that either are a healthy choice?
No, not necessarily.
You're comparing two poor choices ...
Of which one is most certainly less poor. Granted, neither might be optimal, but if you've reached the point that you're reading the nutrition information, chances are you've already chosen where you're going to eat. Are you saying that making the slightly healthier choice would somehow be sub-optimal given the situation?
Also, you're making the assumption that people can make a proper choice after reading a nutritional label.
Yes, and that might be the wrong assumption when given the choice between apples and oranges; however, when contemplating a large fry vs. a medium fry (or a large anything vs. a smaller version of the same thing), the proper choice should most definitely be clear.
No, not necessarily.
You're comparing two poor choices ...
Of which one is most certainly less poor. Granted, neither might be optimal, but if you've reached the point that you're reading the nutrition information, chances are you've already chosen where you're going to eat. Are you saying that making the slightly healthier choice would somehow be sub-optimal given the situation?
Also, you're making the assumption that people can make a proper choice after reading a nutritional label.
Yes, and that might be the wrong assumption when given the choice between apples and oranges; however, when contemplating a large fry vs. a medium fry (or a large anything vs. a smaller version of the same thing), the proper choice should most definitely be clear.
Even if it only makes moderately health-conscious people more healthy, it will still be a net benefit to the overall health and productivity of Americans. And if it reduces healthcare costs of the average American by even a minuscule amount, it will easily compensate for the effort required to put up the calorie coutns (which is honestly not very hard nor expensive)
The moderately health-conscious person is not the average American. The average American is ignorant and overweight and has led a life of poor eating choices. Not because of lack of information, but because of lack of caring and lack of habit. No nutritional label is going to change that.
Unfortunately the government is in the business of creating illusions. As long as we slap a label on something we create the illusion that we are making progress.
This is along the same lines that the government thinks they are making school lunches healthier by adding a fruit cup with their food but pay no attention to that fruit cup being loaded with sugar because of the heavy syrup in the container.
It just creates the illusion that we are doing something healthy, but not actually fixing the problem.
I do not believe that there is much we can do about the majority of adult Americans, but we could start shaping the future for the children and foster proper eating habits from the beginning.
Unfortunately the government is in the business of creating illusions. As long as we slap a label on something we create the illusion that we are making progress.
This is along the same lines that the government thinks they are making school lunches healthier by adding a fruit cup with their food but pay no attention to that fruit cup being loaded with sugar because of the heavy syrup in the container.
It just creates the illusion that we are doing something healthy, but not actually fixing the problem.
I do not believe that there is much we can do about the majority of adult Americans, but we could start shaping the future for the children and foster proper eating habits from the beginning.
When I said the "average" American, I meant the mathematical mean. That is to say, if the health-conscious people get slightly healthier and the rest stay the same, that pulls the average up slightly, which means less medical bills on average (again, mathematical mean) and greater average productivity.
I don't disagree with most of your points, but at the same time I don't see why there's any reason this law should not exist; it's easy to implement and does help some people. This law is not the health care solution; it's one tiny part of it.
I think that the article is arguing that since this law will not have a major impact on Americans' health, it should not be implemented. I'm arguing that it's a good law because it makes sense to provide basic information on food, and it's not an unreasonable hassle to do so.
I don't disagree with most of your points, but at the same time I don't see why there's any reason this law should not exist; it's easy to implement and does help some people. This law is not the health care solution; it's one tiny part of it.
I think that the article is arguing that since this law will not have a major impact on Americans' health, it should not be implemented. I'm arguing that it's a good law because it makes sense to provide basic information on food, and it's not an unreasonable hassle to do so.
The burden placed on the healthcare system are not by health conscious people but rather the people making poor lifestyle/food choices.
First, do you think that a health conscious person really needs that label to make a choice? Chances are they are conscious enough to make the proper choice to begin with. They are also probably making choices between items that are healthier than what an average person eats from a typical fast food joint.
Second, if they are already health conscious, I would go so far as to say they, on average, use the healthcare system the least in terms of ailments caused by poor food choices. So if you take a slightly healthy person and possibly make them marginally healthier, are they really using the healthcare system less, as a whole, to make a difference?
First, do you think that a health conscious person really needs that label to make a choice? Chances are they are conscious enough to make the proper choice to begin with. They are also probably making choices between items that are healthier than what an average person eats from a typical fast food joint.
Second, if they are already health conscious, I would go so far as to say they, on average, use the healthcare system the least in terms of ailments caused by poor food choices. So if you take a slightly healthy person and possibly make them marginally healthier, are they really using the healthcare system less, as a whole, to make a difference?
I think it is a fine idea, but I don't think it will be effective. Has the average person become heavier or lighter since the introduction of the Nutrition Facts Label on packed food was introduced in the 90's? The issue is the length of the feedback loop and the power of momentum. I saw some other stat that showed even after heart attacks only 30% of people changed their lifestyles.
Maybe it will help people who think ordering a large caesar salad is healthy.
It'll force some restaurants to rethink their menus.
I'm still buying the cheeseburger...
Once again, that's just me, and it doesn't really speak to the accuracy of the figures.