BIG difference between 1490 and 1766, Charles. Are you completely ignorant when it comes to eating?

I just think we are not on the same page here. Different fettuccine alfredo recipes are not that much different from one another unless some ingredients are totally changed which then cease to be fettuccine alfredo. I don't expect to find tomato sauce in my fettuccine alfredo order.



TW, you are taking this a tad bit to exaggerated. My point was when eating something that has large calorie counts, going to a different restaurant to save 20 calories on the same meal is kinda pointless. And people who actually care about calories make sure they don't eat 36.5 Lbs worth of calories.

Look, it's simple. You don't eat foods crammed with huge calorie counts if you are calorie conscience. You don't eat chicken parmigiana, hamburgers, pizza, french fries, loaded baked potatoes, etc if you are watching what you eat. But if you gonna consume these types of foods, whats the point in keep track of calories? You think I'm gonna go to a pizza place order a slice of pizza and only eat 1/3 of it to make sure I watch my calories but still be able to eat my fav? No way, that's insane. I would rather not eat it at all.

One eats what one knows one should eat based on the research one should do when one cares about what one eats. You don't go eat something and hope it does not have fat, it's not loaded with calories or it's not bad for you. It's not as if people have refused to go out to eat to avoid eating too many calories. "I wanna eat here but want to know how many calories there are in my meal, they don't have a list yet of calories so i'll just keep eating till one comes out, then I'll decide", that is the mentality of the average person who up until now had not bothered to figure out what the hell they were eating.

Duh, of course it's a big difference but considering the amount of calories they already have, over 1000, does it really matter when you wanna eat this type of food anyways? How hard is it to understand, if you truly care about calories you would not be eat 1490 or 1799 calories at all from a single meal. This is not even including breakfast, lunch, the drinks, the bread they server while you wait or even desert. Add all of that up and you got enough calories to last you a life time (exaggerated on purpose BTW).

One more time TW. It's obvious that a triple burger is going to have more calories than a single burger. Do you truly need a sign to tell you this? From your own post, the average difference in calories between sandwiches of the same category is between 75 and 100 calories. But it should be obvious that the average burger of a certain category (double, triple, with bacon, etc as example of categories) will be within the 400 to 600 calorie range or more depending on the category. Do you understand now?

My lord, I am positive I am talking English here. This is not about choosing the chicken over the beef because it has less calories, that would be obvious (in other words no sign required to inform you) in most cases. It's about knowing that a certain type of food will have an average amount of calories so you should be avoiding certain types of food from minute 1 if you are calorie conscientious.

Yes, people go to a restaurant and order something special they enjoy that is a "splurge" and fit it into their daily or weekly calorie allotment. Portion control plays a part as well. Just because you find it worthless to order a pizza and not eat the whole thing doesn't mean other people don't control their portion sizes and adjust the rest of their eating for the day to accommodate their special meal.

The fact that you are trying to suggest that normal people who watch what they eat should simply never eat out or never have high calorie foods demonstrates your lack of understanding regarding portion control and moderation in eating.

Before you looked it up, was it OBVIOUS to you how many calories a given burger would have?

You are pretending to have a mastery of something you know very little about and you're attempting to play catch-up now. It shows.

Let me give you a real-life example and maybe it will help you understand.

I am pregnant and nursing. My daily calorie goal (as per the nutritionist) is about 2,890 right now. My goal is to provide my body with enough calories to allow it to produce milk, provide energy for me for my activities and provide for my normal bodily functions, and provide energy and resources for the fetus and to sustain the needs of the pregnancy.

I don't consider this being a calorie-freak. If I do not hit the right amount of calories, I suffer, my milk production suffers, and my pregnancy (thus the fetus) suffers. If I go over, I will have excess weight gain that can contribute to health problems. I want to strive for right in that window.

My calorie allotment is such that, guess what, I could have a 1,490 calorie meal.

It CAN be important to know the calories you are consuming. And it's not always intuitive. Sometimes you're SHOCKED to find out how many calories are really in something that you thought was harmless (800 calorie muffin, anyone?).

Does that help you see what I'm getting at at all?

And hence my point that if they do have a favorite, would they not try to know how many calories the food has off hand? Are you telling me people will go to a pizzeria and ask for half a slice of pizza just to make sure they don't go beyond their calorie limit they set for themselves? Or pay for a full slice (since odds are yo wont get half a slice) and only eat enough of it according to the possible calories in that portion? Give me a break.



It's a matter of logic, you don't eat what may not be good for you if that is your goal. You can't be calorie conscious and wanna eat everything on the menu, not unless you go to a place where they sell low calorie foods. This is basically a have your cake and eat it too situation. I understand portion control and moderation but again, unless you plan on paying full price for the half of meal you will eat, based on the calorie count you wish to consume, or will ask every location you go to eat to only give you half or what ever portion you deem acceptable to your calorie count, I still don't see why you can't simply have an idea of what you can and can't eat and accept that there will simply be somethings out of you "calorie by calorie count" reach.



I never bothered to check because I was not interested. Otherwise I would have to stop eating fast food all together.



I never claimed to be a master of anything I am simply trying to explain my point which you have not understood yet. I understand what you are trying to say and it makes sense. But, again, my point is that most meals will have an average amount of calories and the average amount of daily calories the average person should intake ranges from more or less 1900 to 2500 calories per day (depending on male/female, daily lifestyle and your health) so it's obvious a person who cares will avoid certain foods just because.

[reply # 36]

As I said before I understand. That is a well laid out plan. But you obviously know that something like a single hamburger ranges around 300 to 500 calories and a double will obviously be more. You also know that milk will have a certain amount of calories and that fried chicken with mash potatoes, gravy and a biscuit will also have a certain amount of calories. You know this because you made it your business to know. That is my point, you made it your business to know. I only care about people not becoming too lazy to have to have everything done for them rather than making the effort to know this stuff themselves. Can you imagine the kind of world we would live in if people actually made the effort to know how their food is prepared, what goes into every meal they eat, how bad it could actually be for you, etc? A better one as far as I'm concerned. I only eat fast foods because they exist, otherwise I would eat what was convenient at the moment.

I should care more about my health, but for now I wanna enjoy life. Of course I don't over do it. But i don't spend my time worrying about every extra calorie, I just can't or I will end up missing out on a lot. But that's just me.

Just to make this clear I am not trying to say you are wrong TW. I just wanna make sure you understand that. As I said, I understand your argument and agree with it. It just not what I am trying to say.

T.W- I agree entirely. I think it is very important to adjust the diet to nutritional requirements. For example, there was a time in my life when I ate mcdonald's 5 days a week and was perfectly healthy- but it was because I was working a construction job at the time, only had a half hour lunch break (included in that half hour was travel time to and from the work site, stowing your tools so they wouldn't get stolen, etc) so we didn't have a lot of time and needed a lot of energy. Big Macs and fries were great because they packed a ton of calories and plenty of sodium, which we needed extra because of the combination of heat and physical exertion from the labor.

Now that I work in a mostly desk job, if I were to eat mcdonald's 5 days a week I would very quickly start putting on the pounds and get all kind of related medical conditions. If you want a truly eye-popping calorie count eat breakfast at Denny's or IHOP and order the "ultra all man meal" or whatever it happens to be called.

Here's the thing though...

Dr.Guy is arguing on the principle that it's government interference to mandate that restaurants in NY post calorie counts for their menu items.

I disagree, but this is a stance that has some substance to it. The idea that the gov't should not be involved in things like this.

That may be what you are trying to argue for as well, but I think you're diluting your message by going back and forth with me on what can be reasonably expected of consumers.

What I hear is from your argument is that restaurants shouldn't have to do it because it's not necessary. Not that it's not right, but that you feel it's not necessary.

I disagree simply because I know how different calorie counts can be for similar foods. You don't believe it, but you admit you're not much of a calorie counter.

It also surprises me that you think that people don't order food and only eat half, or some other portion, even though they paid for it. People actually do that because they feel their health is worth the $$.

Most people just have the portion they won't eat at the meal boxed up for another day, but some people will ask for a half portion, knowing they will pay the full price. They just don't want the temptation.

It is part of navigating in the world we live in...a give and take to be able to enjoy foods we love but not suffer health consequences from overindulgence.

I know that your argument is that it makes people lazy to have information posted by a restaurant, but I don't believe that has bearing on whether or not it's right for the gov't to require it. For me personally, I don't know if I would lobby for it, but I support it.

After reading the article {thank you artysim} and the comments, I am afraid I am going to have to throw my considerable weight behind tex {215} It makes sense to know exactly what kind of damage you are doing when dining out, much like it makes sense to know what you are doing when dining at home. 30 calories here, 45 calories there 70 calories over there before you know we are the fattest nation on the planet! OH WAIT! we ALREADY ARE!

Moreover, if I purchase something shouldn't I have the right to know from the manufacturer what went into the product? Especially if I'm going to eat it? I'm for all the help I can get to live a healthier and better life.

Be well.

 

Do you have any data to back this up?  Or are you just pulling random BS numbers out of the air (or other, less hygenic regions)?  'Cause to be honest, I'm betting on the latter.  You are going to have to find some serious solid evidence to support that idiotic claim, because even the slightest bit of insight into how much obestiy and smoking cost the Government (in terms of Medicare and Medicaid, as well as lost wages due to illness=lost taxes) argue against your statement.

I look forward to your fact-filled reply.  Or perhaps you will do what you do best, be elusive when someone calls you on your bull crap.

As to the article itself, I sit somewhere in between.  I don't necessarily think Government should mandate, though I think from a public health standpoint it is an excellent idea.  I think many of us would be startled to know that, for example, that Bloomin Onion offered as an appetizer to the meal actually has >2300 calories.  I don't see restaraunts making it easier for the public to make educated decisions as a bad thing.

That is great, but that's not what they have done.

A calories number does not tell you what exactly you are eating, it tells you how much energy is in it. But your body already has a calory counter built in. You don't need an external one. (If you are hungry, you need calories, if you are not hungry, you don't.)

_I_ want to know what I am eating, but the government doesn't grant me my wish. I don't need to know how many calories are in the food, I need to know whether it contains pork or whether it contains meat and milk products.

As for calories, it would interest me whether they come as as carbs (kick in after an hour) or as proteins (kick in after several hours). The raw number of calories doesn't tell me anything helpful though.