If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options
Comments
i agree.
i don't think most people who actually need to be thinking about their calorific intake take any notice or if they do, change what they eat based on the information. it just stresses out people who are very paranoid or worried about calories, who don't actually need to be. you can't even have a nice soothing hot drink in starbucks anymore without having the calorie information shoved in your face.
What?? This information so valuable! For sensible people it really does help, like if go to starbucks and order a hot chocolate and it's 800 calouries, i know not to have 600 cal chocolate bun with it...
If you chose to ignore the information then that's your fault.
But simply not having it there at all would be seriously annoying...
They'll be very happy to hear the marketing machine has done a number on you
Seriously - learn to LISTEN to your body. It will tell you when it's full and that's the point at which you need to stop eating/drinking. Anything consumed past that point gets stored as fat or shat out. Unfortunately most of the time it's the former.
We are pre-programmed to finish our plate. That's BS. Finish when you're full. Put your knife and fork down after each mouthful and CHEW your food. Not only will it taste better but the 'full' signal from your stomach to your body will be more easily recognisable. Don't fancy throwing away the food you haven't eaten? Store it in the fridge (or whatever) for later.
if you desperately need the information then it's available online, there is no need to have it printed on the menu.
most 'sensible' people are aware that milky drinks and chocolate cakes aren't very good for you, without needing the exact figures. most people don't have a cake with their coffee everyday. it's about having a treat, and knowing that there are exactly 631 nasty guilty calories in something really spoils that treat. it annoys me that calories are being displayed in advertising and the media as a bad thing - too many calories are a bad thing, but not enough will kill you.
I think this comes down to mental understanding though. If you can't look at a menu with calories listed, without having palpitations because it says 631 calories, then you'd need to go get professional help with your eating disorder (not meant to sound harsh).
But what if you look at it the other way? The other day I was out getting food, and the desert said it was something silly like 200 cals, in total. I looked at that and went brilliant! It's healthy, i'll have one. Where if it hadn't listed the food, i could of judged it being a chocolate desert going "That's gonna be way unhealthy i wont have one", but instead it allowed me to have one.
But exactly what you said, i would guess is the 99% cause of obesity. I could get facts to back this up - but just go with me. Most people who are over weight, simply don't understand why. They go i eat like a normal person. But it's only when you give them a "Food" diary, and tell them to put everything they eat into it, and the cals. Then you get them to add it up after a day or week. And they soon find out they're eating far past the 2500 cal advised by healthy eating.
Finding it online, isn't useful at all. I'd hate to be sat with a girl in a restaurant, on a date and to go "two seconds waiter, let me just google how many calories are in this gorgeous pie you're selling". Just to find out, it's probably not listed online - not even close, because posh restaurants don't publish their recipes online or the cals.
Big chains like Subway, KFC, Maccys etc do. But again i'm hardly going to hold everyone up in a que, just so i can make a judgement on my food.
Having it on a menu makes it really easy and discrete too see.
You shouldn't look at everything as a limit, you should be able to see things for good and bad.
Attack a doctor? No hospital treatment for you boyo. Throw stuff at a fire engine? Lets see your cat rescue itself.
How is it doing harm?
If I listened to my body, id be the size of a house
If knowing that your treat is going to be nearly half your daily calorie intake spoils your treat, then good. Dont eat it, or restrict how often you eat the damn things. There is nothing wrong with giving people information to make informed choices about what they are putting into their body. The people who dont need to restrict their calories or fat etc dont usually read them anyway, and by that i mean people with very common health issues such as diabetes and heart disease, as well as people who wish to control their weight and diet for aesthetic reasons.
This is right. We need to mentally manage our own diets not just magically eat until we're full. Same with our children and our pets, we live in an age of abundance and there is no caveman instinct to not-consume.
I hope clem you don't think I'm being fatist. The point I was making originally is that being overweight or obese is not inevitable. I've been a member of a weight loss group and surprise surprise the ones who lose weight are the people who stuck to the plan, the ones who didn't lose weight were the ones who didn't.
Obesity may be a lifestyle choice for some, but it's not one I'd make when everything about my life is better after losing it.
My unpopular opinion then is that most reasons given for not losing weight are simply excuses for not trying. It's not easy, but it's not impossible either, and with the group I was in ( www.reddit.com/loseit) I've seen people who couldn't WALK because of their weight get on the bandwagon and stick with it, people with the worst possible starting point. That actually inspired me. And after starting and not putting it off, it was a lot easier than I thought.
My whole diet was based on calorie counting. Less wasn't better but people need to make decisions somehow.
You can't solve ED by hiding the information, calories is in the nutritional information as standard anyway, (kcal), putting it in a prominent position just makes it easier to make a decision between different items.
ETA: While I sympathise how calorie information could be problematic for people with eating disorders, calorie information isn't the problem. And I'm not sure we should let packaging be dictated by a small minority who have an unhealthy relationship with food.
But I did like It made me laugh for some reason
It feels like wetherspoons have pretty much got it right, the info is all readily available in the leaflets available by all of the menus. Particularly healthy living choices are marked on the normal menu with a subtle green tick or the like - but the menu is still pleasant to look at. It's not taken over by dietary info, and makes for a relaxing experience in chosing your meal based on the pretty pictures and mouth watering descriptions. For the majority, going out for a meal is a treat - so decision criteria are likely to be different to routine meals at home.
(Yes, ok I know wetherspoons and relaxing and mouthwater is a stretch - but you get the idea).
What really pisses me off is the traffic light symbols on food packaging. The packet of strawberry laces I picked up the other day had 4 out of the 5 sections as green. That means they're good for you - right?!?!?
well obviously. strawberry = fruit = one of your 5 a day
I'm not disagreeing with you at all but I'm still a bit shocked.
Stop implying people are fat haters. I haven't read all the posts (as I'm on my phone) but glanced over them and I'm sure you're referring to me. Make an argument against what I've actually said instead of 'oh my, that's so wrong/disturbing. I can't believe people in this thread have such deviant opinions'.
Tbf RAG symbols make it easy at a glance to make a judgement on purchasing decisions. In a world of consumers vs the marketing industry consumers always have less information and less power to make informed decisions. No food is perfect and people have to make judgements. By setting thresholds for what's red and what's green you compel (without making foods illegal) food producers and retailers to try to make their food healthier. Can't get away with dumping a ton of salt in a ready meal these days because there'll be a big fuckoff red mark on the front of your package and enough people will be put off buying to make it more profitable to work out how to make it taste good in a healthier way.
If you're so sure that I'm referring to you then what does that tell you?
It's great you found it easy to lose weight but it 'simply' isn't like that for a lot of people. You brought your personal experience of a slimming club into it. I brought my personal experience of having family struggling to lose the weight that they had put on from taking meds. One for a brain tumour and one for depression.
Phrases like 'having no sympathy' and suggesting it's as 'easy' as not overdoing the jaffa cakes genuinely piss me off. Medication for depression aside and I am in no way suggesting that all overweight people are on a downer about their appearance but I can only imagine how frustrating it must be when the only way to deal with how you feel about yourself is to overeat and getting larger. It's a downward spiral. You get the jist.
And don't grace opinions like 'the holocaust never happened' or 'over 70s should be euthanised' with the word 'devient'. That implies the holder of that opinion is some sort of controversial maverick instead of an ill-advised keyboard basher with a chip on their shoulder.
That your assertion that people aren't as moral as you is barely disguised.
I too have had family on meds who have put on weight. Had you read my previous comments, I stated that in 18 of 20 (ballpark opinion) can be changed primarily by eating less calories. So you are trying to refute my argument by providing examples that I had specifically and deliberately excluded.
I didn't say I had no sympathy. I didn't say it was easy, in fact I said it was hard. Again going back to my actual argument instead of what you think it is: its hard to lose weight, but the myth that the thing stopping them is anything other than their ability to control their diet. I even mitigated by saying there are legitimate reasons for being unable to control diet.
No, I was making the point that you are using your moral outrage as the argument why people are wrong, instead of either a) making an actual argument or b) simply saying you have a different opinion.
As for Holocaust denial and old age people culling, at first I believed these were both attempts at trolling the thread, but since we moved the thread to p&d it spawned a small discussion around both points. If you want to contribute, feel free. If you don't, don't. I don't agree with either but hey, we're here in this now-debate thread (explicitly at first my intention was this to be a fun thread about e.g. Tea isn't a nice drink), I'm not going to say how much better my morals are than everyone else to sate my ego.
Edit: some typos and clearing up
My original 'fattist' comment was not aimed at you but your rebuke of 'I lost weight therefore anyone else can' got my back up. You keep generalising by saying 'most', 'many' and 'ball park figure' which actually means nothing. A quick search on this messageboard reveals a lot of posters frustrated at the way their meds are affecting the way they put on weight would suggest that it's not a rare issue.
If your actual point is 'the only thing stopping them is their inability to control their diet' then I have agreed to an extent but prefer to take the view the reasons for it are often much more complex than being just 'excuses'.
And Shyboy I am contributing to this thread
I don't think we know how to have this discussion without you seeing it as a personal vendetta, so I'm going to bow out.
Right.
Okay, bye.