What is Digg?62 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22Not all calories are stored as fat. It is important to not make people afraid of calories.
- EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Knowing what's *IN* food helps people be more personally responsible. It's certainly a less restrictive option than trying to regulate how people make food. Personally I'd like to know which restaurants are making efforts to make their food healthy and which ones are taking the easy way out by using harmful fats, corn syrup, and everything else under the sun.
We require packaged food to have nutritional information--why not restaurants? - TheWriteJerry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I'm not a big fan of government regulation, but this is one proposal that I can get on board with. It doesn't regulate per se what a restaurant can and cannot serve, but it does arm the consumer with valuable information. In fact, I'd like to see calories, fat content and carbs listed - the 3 main things people look at when making food choices.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I try really hard to eat 4000+ calories a day in order to gain weight. It's more difficult than I ever thought it would be to find good high calorie foods.
- DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -3/+113500 calories = 1 pound of body fat approx.
http://health.howstuffworks.com/diet4.htm
http://health.howstuffworks.com/calorie5.htm - JamesAhlschwede, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I've eaten at a restaurant that does this, and the cafeteria at work lists the nutritional information in the same way that they're proposing. It really does change the way I eat, and I wish that every place did it.
- DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7that a good point.
also calories come from:
fats (9 kilocalories per gram),
carbohydrates (4 kilocalories per gram),
and proteins (4 kilocalories per gram).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie#Nutritional_and_food_labels
PS there are good fats and bad fats.
PPS low carbohydrate diets are usually just low calorie diets IMO. - addisonj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I think this is a horrible idea, first of all, counting calories is by no means the best way to diet, there are to many variables involved and different things you do during the day should determine how and what you eat, the best plan is to eat not until you are full but decent portions, and this may be adjusted to your own metabolism, avoid processed foods, the more whole to its original state the better, and by no means can you do it without exercise
Another point here is that finding the exact calorie content is not some cheap easy thing to do, as a person who has worked in a small local restaurant, they would involve getting over 50 menu items all tested, and not to mention daily or rotating specials, thats a huge amount of work and money that would already cut into to the slim profits of a restaurant. - LogicBomB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I was never fond of diets or label-checking until I went from 120 pounds to 180 in just over a year (damned metabolism and chronic eating!). Once I started watching my calories I dropped 10 pounds fairly easily (within 2-3 weeks). Stopped the midnight snacking and excessive calories.
Believe it or not, calories are not common sense to the average person. Did you know a McDonalds deli sandwhich has just about as much calories as most of their burgers? I sure didn't. Small changes make huge differences once you give people the info.
I'm 100% behind this. - rickcarson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Not all calories are stored as fat. It is important to not make people afraid of calories."
When a triple whopper meal is over 2000 calories... that is pretty scary.
When your nation is careening towards a health epidemic of immense proportions (sic)... that is pretty scary. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8It is sad in society where a hot girl is no longer hot because she is physically beautiful, but because she is one of a very few that are of normal human weight.
- adriantr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Most people should know what xyz amount of calories means. If they dont theyre probably American. I dont think I've ever met someone (except for little kids) who dont know what calories are. And out of those most know what alot of calories would be.
- rickcarson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Cashew nuts.
Chocolate.
Chips and dip. And don't go for the pansy olive and tomato dips, go for the creamy ones.
To my surprise Muesli is quite high in calories compared to most other cereals. Eat it with chocolate milk. There is bugger all difference in calories between skinny milk and chocolate milk, but every bit helps.
When shopping check out the health food section. There is heaps of high calorie food in there. Don't necessarily avoid the 'less than 1 nano gram of fat' foods, since they will usually pack them full of sugar (empty carbs) to make up for taste.
The other place you will find lots of sugar is if you try to eat cheaply. Cheaper foods tend to be less healthy, which is why you will see fat poor people.
Put an extra sugar in your coffee.
Biscuits. Oreos and chocolate milk.
With great calories comes great responsibility. I hope you are going to the gym a lot! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I go to the gym regularly! I wish more people would.
Every time I step into Walmart I remember why I started going. I don't want to end up like those people. They are disgusting, unhealthy, slow, clumsy, and lazy. - bushawa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4What people need to understand is that they need to take control of what they eat. Eating out more than once every two weeks is irresponsible. I understand that people are busy, but they are not that busy. It is all about time management. I make all my dinners for the week on Sunday (BBQ a lot of skinless/boneless chicken with just seasoning). I also make my lunch the night before. Instead of sitting and watching tv, angle it somehow so that you can cook and watch at the same time. Or watch the kids from the kitchen as well. There is always a way.
As for weight loss, figure out your Basal Metabolic Rate (aka resting metabolic rate) (http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/calrmr.htm) and this will give you the amount of calories a day you should consume.
My BMR = 2,411 calories a day to maintain my weight of 230lbs.
Now take off from that 15% - 20% = for me 2,049.35 - 1,928.8 calories a day, respectively.
Add on top of this working out (Cardio, weights, or a combination) and you will be on your way to weight loss. Exercise is very important because it is better to burn fat (cardio, weights) than to starve it (fad diets, calorie cutting). *20% is the maximum you should cut your calorie intake so your body does not go into starvation mode.
DigeratiPrime was right, 3,500 calories = a pound of fat. It is recommended by American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) to lose only 2 pounds a week, anything over that will more than likely be Lean Body Muscle and not Fat. LBM helps keep your metabolism running high. - m00dy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I wish all of the world would do that
- nlatimer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Digerati Prime
Since this is also pertaining to the Diggnation audience:
Alcohol is 7 kilocalories per gram - tcoop25, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@TomtheWombat
Sounds like you have been reading some McDonald's propaganda. When it comes down to it, calories in must equal calories out. Listing calories in menus is a great starting point.
There is nearly nothing healthy about a cheeseburger. Most burgers come on white buns, so it lacks anything in the way of nutrition. It is simple carbs that your body quickly burns and gets nothing out of but empty calories (the exact opposite of energy). Hamburger and cheese is loaded with saturated fats, which is not good. Yes, it has protein, but the average American gets way more protein than they need. While the food pyramid may tell you that you need loads of dairy, it is a bunch of crap. Most cheese is pasteurized, and processed crap. Once again, it has small amounts of calcium and protein, but calcium is not as important as dairy farmers would like you to believe. (btw, you can get more calcium from broccoli)
I don't think we have to worry about becoming a malnourished society any time soon. Americans, on average, are overweight or obese. I don't think it is the salads that is to blame. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Have you guys been to the midwest united states?
- CorruptSoul, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Is this because the whole "normal" weight expectation thing being raised in america? Are they finally trying to do something constructive for the society and make them aware of their diet more?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The problem is, there's not always a good way to get an accurate measure of how many calories are in things that are cooked to order (i.e. aren't mass produced). You can't simply add up the amount of calories for each serving of each ingredient, because that is all changed during the cooking process.
And besides, people aren't stupid, they know when something contains fat/sugar/carbs and what to order that *IS* healthy. You don't need to put businesses through any more red-tape hassle than they already have to deal with, for something that probably isn't going give you an accurate description of the food's caloric properties, and even if it does, it probably won't change people's dietary habits anyway.
Sounds like another idiotic idea that sounds great on paper, but the legislature fails to think through to it's logical conclusions and as a result causes more harm than good. - JayNemesis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That is a nice step forward but why stop with calories? Sodium is one thing that should be added to the mix as well. It causes many health problems but until cal/carb fad goes away it's going to remain a problem.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How many calories are in Haggis anyways?
- vuzman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yes, people have a right to know what they are buying and eating. A comprehensive ingredients list and nutrition information should be mandatory for all places that sell food.
The only way to make an informed choice is to have all the information first! - rickcarson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It helps because you can compare the difference between a double quarter pounder with cheese (730) and a Big Mac (560). Which is quite a difference.
Especially when you consider the difference between a large combo and small combo with diet drink is another 630 calories.
Total for dqpwc large combo: 1610
Total for bm small combo w diet softdrink: 810
Even 810 is at the top end of the range for a 'meals worth' for a large bloke. - logicslayer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is awesome I wish Saint Petersburg, Florida would do this. I started watching my calorie intake approx. 90 days ago and have lost 37Lbs. As for not all calories come from fat? What do you think 98% of McDonalds menu is? or KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco bell, Long John Silvers, Burger King, Arbys, or any other food chain I failed to mention here.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3They need English to know the health codes... I'd sure want them to know *That* much English.
Just because rat droppings are acceptable back home, doesn't mean they are here.
And how many calories are in those rat droppings anyways? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The rising obesity epidemic isn't going to be helped by requiring restaurants to list calories for items on their menus. If you want to educate people about how best to manage their weight, it would help to recognize that the old adage "a calorie is a calorie" doesn't take into account how various sources of calories affect blood sugar.
Many recent studies looking at diets with equal calorie content but different constituents have shown that "a calorie is a calorie" is far from true. Dieters on fat-based diets consistently lost much more weight than dieters on carb-based diets, even though both diets had exactly the same number of calories.
For the obese, eating a diet that is higher in fat might actually help. Fat satisfies hunger much more immediately and for much longer. A weight loss program involving a higher content of fat than the standard "low fat diet" certainly can help the obese be more successful since they don't have to be hungry all the time. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Wendy's... and they've eliminated Trans Fats. Which is a good thing... and they didn't wait for laws regulating it to make the decision. That's very responsible.
Not all fat is bad. Monosaturated fat, if you're going to have fat, is the way to go. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1*oops I meant mono-un-saturated fat - like in Olive Oil.
- PopcornDave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Maybe it's just me, but this smells like a lawsuit just waiting to be filed.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2How many calories are in a block of gov'mnt cheese anyways?
- cprincipe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No no no no no no no no no.
If I go to *any* restaurant, I know that the food has a higher fat and calorie content. I don't want to open a menu and see a freaking USDA nutitition chart. - Llan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There is seriously a town named after a Russian town in Florida?
- rickcarson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1One gym I went to they advised me to eat 6 small meals a day, with portions about the size of my fist. I piled on a lot of weight that way.
Which was ironic, since I was going there to lose weight not gain it.
The problem is that there are two types of diets and diet information, one for body builders trying to bulk up, the other for fatties trying to lose weight. And those two different types of information tend to get all jumbled up.
Maybe you should talk specifically to the body building crowd, and avoid taking advice from the rabbit food + aerobics crowd?
Alternately, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that skinny people (on average) live significantly longer than normal weight people. Maybe you should be thankful for that... and then start worrying about building your retirement fund! - rickcarson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1According to google,
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=How+many+calories+are+in+Haggis+anyways&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
approximately 1,058.39603524217 kilo-joules per 100 grams.
Which is probably a little less than other 'sausage like' products.
But at the suggested serving size of just under half a kilo... it ended up as 1149 calories. - rickcarson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think that when I started my calorie counting diet I could have gone to McDonalds every day and lost weight. I'd have been careful, for instance only drinking diet drinks, not maxing out the chips, avoiding certain menu items etc. But I'm pretty sure it could be done.
But Subway has had a promotion on to have a different sub at $3.50 every day (which in the monopoly money my country uses equates to a couple of quarters in USD). So I head on over there after working out at the gym almost every day.
One day the queues were really long, so I headed over to the McDonalds next door and had a Big Mac meal... and it tasted disgusting.
The problem with Subway is that they have ruined most other fast food options for me.
And since most of the subs + cheese + sauce combinations which I like come in under 450 calories ... it is darn hard to justify eating at any other 'fine dining' establishment. - Subiklim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1LOL. Have you ever been to the city?
As I rarely leave the NY metro area, it seems like to me that there is no obesity problem in this country.
However, if I go to times square I see all the fat american tourists. People who live in New York City are quite fit. They have to be, they walk everywhere.
You should really think, or base your comments on experience, lest you want to come off as ignorant. - abchealt, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0I think it's a great idea restaurants are being asked to post info. It's amazing how hard restaurant chains are fighting to hide their nutrition information. It's hard to eat well when eating out, especially when you have dietary needs or want to watch your calorie intake. Often food items that seem healthy and are marketed that way are not. For this reason, Wellsphere just launched a new service called Wellternatives that lets people find nutrition info for thousands of chain restaurants — right from their cell phone or on the web. It also makes recommendations for a healthier alternative to your favorite restaurant meals, hence the name... Wellternatives. Would love to hear what you think of it!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Not brainwashed... Brainwashed by the media would be expecting everyone to be beautiful, and being disappointed at seeing how less-than-beautiful everyone is.
Maybe saying most people are ugly is harsh... But how about most people are not-beautiful as defined by the current culture (whatever that might be) - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What? It's ridiculously cheap to make high fat, high calorie, deep fried, corn syrup laden food. That's why the menu at places like McDonald's will kill you. Good ingredients, healthy oils, and high quality meats cost much more.
I'm sure restaurant owners would hate it but the reasons you list are ridiculous. - bloodylip, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Definitely eat all sorts of nuts and peanuts if you want to gain weight. Full of fat and protein. Great for muscle building.
- thefoxtrot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1in soviet russia the calories list you!!!
- creacher, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Not sure how well this will sit with restaurant owners. By and large, the more calorically dense a meal is, the more expensive it is. Ignorance, as of right now, works in their favor. Consider the loss in revenue every time someone passes on a hamburger for a lower calorie (and effectively cheaper) entrée. And, as someone mentioned earlier: gathering these numbers and publishing them on wrappers, for instance, takes both time and money.
I can't see this truely going into effect if restaurant owners have any say. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8People should know how many calories a day they *shoud* be eating. If not, then they deserve to be fat, dumb, and poor.
- hematose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Dude,
37 lbs in 3 months? Better slow down there! No matter what your starting weight, rapid weight loss can lead to potentially lethal cardiac atrophy. At the very least, if you are going to shed pounds that quickly, make sure you are medically supervised. - FriscoTony, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1And don't forget riboflavin, too.
I have to say, I appreciate the day-to-day goodness of this, but there are venues where perhaps it's inappropriate -- say, fine dining establishments.
Does one really *want* to know, for instance, that the lobster risotto has 9,000 calories and 114 grams of fat? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Nah, there are quite a few ugly "normal" weight girls too.
Most people are ugly. No matter their weight. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Does anyone really think this will help anything? I really doubt that obese diners will look at the calorie content on the menu and think, "Wow, I was going to have the quadruple bacon chili cheeseburger with extra mayo, but now, I think I'll have a salad instead."
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2billy:
Um, what? If someone is "one of very few" then they are by definition not "normal".
h00:
I feel oppositely about the way people look. Most are beautiful in their own way. You're clearly brainwashed by the media's definitions of beauty. -
Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is