Anyone think that this action is exactly what we don't need to help obesity and overweight. So much stress in modern life, the last thing we need to have on our mind is a "calorie bank."
Sounds too nanny-state to me. Also, they've already tried this at fast-food restaurants and it hasn't deterred anyone either. Its just the government assuming everyone is an idiot. When I see a friend order 20 battered boneless "wings" and nachos at chilies, trust me when I say, he knows what he's doing.
Everyone knows chicken Alfredo is bad for them. All this will do Is make life harder for the smaller local chains who use real whole food ingredients and reward the jerks who use prepackaged, premeasured, reheated frozen garbage from restaurant suppliers.
Calorie ratings are not what I need, I'd get much more use out of an ingredient list. I have dramatically improved my health by engaging in the elimination of certain food-types from my diet.
If there was an ingredient list on the menu, that actually would help me pick wisely.
Your menu may vary.
Can't understand why people complain about stuff like this. How is more information a bad thing in this scenario? Sure, we can agree that it's not going to solve the obesity epidemic. But I still think it would be nice -- just for curiosity's sake -- to see calorie counts on the menu when I go to a restaurant.
This stuff just drives all the Libertarian Paleo bloggers crazy though. :-)
I think it is absurd that the government requires this, but I appreciate having all the information there if I'm curious (although the detailed ingredient listing is what I really care about - and that is not required, so no restaurants for me...).
The impact of this kind of information is negligible on what people order anyway. And you can generally guess within a reasonable range just looking at something (and maybe tasting for excess sweetness).
On a diet like ours, it is rather counter productive. Though I think it will help in situations when people say "oh I"ll go for the salad" but then it ends up the salad is 1000 calories and 50 grams of fat (Cheesecake factory, I'm looking at you).
I think the only situation where it will be useful is the one above, where so called "healthy" foods have been so butchered that they're unhealthy.
Won't do us much good.
A lot of big chains already are doing this because of either local nanny state regulations in places like New York or California, or because they wanted to just get it over with before this idiotic part of the "health care" law kicked in. I can verify that the calorie counts have been up at the local Starbucks and Coffee Bean since the beginning of the year here. Does it stop people from ordering up 500 calorie iced-blended sugar bombs? Nope. Not in the least. Calorie info has been up at most McDonalds locations since at least last year. Does that stop anyone from getting large Cokes and eating the bread with their burgers? Nope.
No, the only thing this idiotic law does is impose large costs on small-ish restaurant chains. Well it also imposes large costs on big chains as well, but they can absorb the cost better. Since the government still insists that you should get most of your calories from sugar, grains and PUFAs, it won't help anyone make better decisions. Nevermind that history has shown that trying to micromanage individuals is generally counterproductive.
Most people intuitively know what good food is and they intuitively know what junk food is. I don't think you'll find anyone drinking a venti frappucino at Starbuck's who thinks that it is healthy for them. I don't think you'll find people eating "value" meals at a fast food restaurant defending the healthiness of their choice. They'll make up excuses--cost, convenience, etc. But not health. It also assumes that most people have done BMR calculations and they're keeping diet logs. That is a ridiculous assumption. Without people having good estimations of their BMR and keeping detailed records of caloric intake, the whole calorie in/calorie out equation this is supposed to appeal to is worthless. Great, they might make a slightly better decision at McDonalds or at Chili's or what have you. They'll make up for that good decision by eating 3000 more calories of crap later that they aren't keeping track of.
I mean the government has subsidized and encouraged the poisoning of our food supply with cheap grains, cheap sweeteners (made from grains), and cheap fats (umm, also made from grains).Then restaurants use food science to turn that cheap crap into something semi-palatable, maybe even really tasty. People then want to eat it. Or, at least they have few options for not eating that crap due to the aforementioned subsidies. Those subsidized foods encourage over-eating (primarily due to high sugar content, but through a few other mechanisms as well). So then the government decides it wants people to eat less of the crap that they pretty much insist we eat. And that, in a nutshell, explains how useful government is.
How many calories am i consuming? 4 Answers
Why 1200 calories? 7 Answers
Hungry girl - sarah 4 Answers