(March 31, 2014 at 10:35 pm)KichigaiNeko Wrote: "Rule of thumb" is that anything excessive is not good for the human body. Even excessive exercise. What disturbs me is the ease of obsession one can achieve by 'calorie/ kilojoule counting', 'meat/ non-meat' eating, gym/ non-gym exercise.

Yes I think we agree here that obsession isn't a good thing. There is a difference between awareness and learning and that of obsession. Being aware of how much you should eat is different to be obsessed by calories.

Quote:Seriously, how can anyone be dumb enough to give themselves and obsession? What is so wrong with just eating enough of what you like to eat?

Depends if it's a good habit or a bad habit. A good habit trumps a bad one, we all know that.

Quote:BMI has been discredited as an inaccurate "golden rule" and is viewed more as a guide line. There is of course the emotional eaters. How does the WHO doctrine account for them?

Well yes BMI is limited, but it in fact fails most in the overweight to obese category where it does fail to recognize a proportion of people that are actually obese and only categorize them as overweight. It also doesn't account for aging and a more accurate calculation would take in: height, weight, gender and age.

But just because it's limited doesn't mean we can't use it. Hell Newtonian Mechanics has been disproven as well, but we still used it to put people on the moon and we still use it to put satellites into orbit!

Quote:77kg on 1600 calories a day? Good grief Charlie Brown! My father would think his throat was cut!

I usually consume more, you caught me on a rather light day.

---

(March 31, 2014 at 10:37 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: Why is this "nannystating?" I don't mind knowing how many calories are in the food I'm eating and it can help people make better choices by simply giving them the information. If they don't care about calories they'll ignore it, if they do they'll appreciate it.

Giving information isn't being a nannystate - what's being a nannystate is legislating the maximum drink size. Now that's some bullshit right there.

While I do agree with you, if people took notice how many calories are in the foods they buy at the supermarket they should be able to reasonably accurately estimate how many calories are in a restaurant meal, and while I do think having the number of calories in fast food and restaurant food displayed is helpful, I don't think it should be mandatory.

Quote:* A major pet peeve of mine is Nutrition Information boxes on foods and drinks. I think it should be a requirement, especially with drinks, that the Nutrition Information be given for the bottle, as well as the serving size, not just for a serving size and then tell you that there's actually three servings in the bottle knowing full well that the person is going to sit there and drink the whole thing. I think it's hugely misleading for them to do it by serving size only. I think this could easily be extended to all foods where Nutrition Information is required as part of their packaging.

Well that's not quite true since they give you the serving size amount and also the average per 100g or 1kg (or whatever unit you use there, eg. lbs). But in terms of coke for instance, the 375ml can serving size is 375ml, the 600ml bottle (the most popular size) serving size is 600ml, and yet the 1.25L and 2L bottle serving size is 250ml! Even though most tumblers hold around 350ml not 250ml.

There's only one place to get a kebab in Canberra in my opinion, and that's here, one of my favourite takeaways, but even without having nutrition information I know the thing contains around 700 maybe 800 calories, certainly not unhealthy in a proper diet. The trick with fast food isn't not to eat it, but to choose good options.

(March 31, 2014 at 11:18 pm)Aractus Wrote:

(March 31, 2014 at 10:37 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: Why is this "nannystating?" I don't mind knowing how many calories are in the food I'm eating and it can help people make better choices by simply giving them the information. If they don't care about calories they'll ignore it, if they do they'll appreciate it.

Giving information isn't being a nannystate - what's being a nannystate is legislating the maximum drink size. Now that's some bullshit right there.

While I do agree with you, if people took notice how many calories are in the foods they buy at the supermarket they should be able to reasonably accurately estimate how many calories are in a restaurant meal, and while I do think having the number of calories in fast food and restaurant food displayed is helpful, I don't think it should be mandatory.

How are you supposed to gauge the amount of calories in a meal from a restaurant where you have no idea what all the ingredients are and no (good) idea how the meal is prepared? Was it cooked in butter or oil? Was it marinated in something? Fried?

For non-processed foods the calorie content isn't given at grocery stores - they don't post how many calories are in an eggplant, or how many calories are in a pound of ground beef, or a halibut fillet or whatever, so most people have very little idea about how many calories there are in produce. Which is higher in calories: An apple or 3oz of green grapes? An orange or a pear? A carrot or a cucumber? Most people haven't the faintest idea, other than the vague notion that all of these things are probably less calories than a bag of Doritos.


The way I see it, legislating that restaurants print the calorie content of their menu items hurts no one and provides that restaurant's customers with valuable information that they can then choose to ignore if they want, just like they ignore how many calories are in the can of Pringles they just gobbled up. I see it as a step towards creating a more informed public, whether they choose to be informed or not.

Quote:

Quote:* A major pet peeve of mine is Nutrition Information boxes on foods and drinks. I think it should be a requirement, especially with drinks, that the Nutrition Information be given for the bottle, as well as the serving size, not just for a serving size and then tell you that there's actually three servings in the bottle knowing full well that the person is going to sit there and drink the whole thing. I think it's hugely misleading for them to do it by serving size only. I think this could easily be extended to all foods where Nutrition Information is required as part of their packaging.

Well that's not quite true since they give you the serving size amount and also the average per 100g or 1kg (or whatever unit you use there, eg. lbs). But in terms of coke for instance, the 375ml can serving size is 375ml, the 600ml bottle (the most popular size) serving size is 600ml, and yet the 1.25L and 2L bottle serving size is 250ml! Even though most tumblers hold around 350ml not 250ml.

Here's the Nutrition Information box on a bag of Doritos:


Where is the nutrition information for the bag? Oh, wait, they don't give it. And I'll be damned if anyone I've ever seen eating Doritos has counted out 11 chips to be their serving - they get a bowl and they fill the bowl with however many chips fill that bowl, and often go back for more. Sometimes they don't even fill a bowl, they just park the bag in their lap and eat away until they've eaten half the bag - or the whole bag.

Do you notice how if you want to figure out the calories in this bag of Doritos you have to multiply it by 12? Or they could give you the serving size information, and RIGHT NEXT TO IT give the information for the whole bag so if you -oops!!- eat half the bag in one go, you don't have to run and get a calculator to figure out how many calories you just ate.

Here's the Nutrition Information on a container of Pringles:

Same deal: calories given according to serving size, with no information given for the whole container except to say that there are 8 servings per container. At least the Doritos bag gave you an idea of how many chips that is, if you wanted to eat a recommended serving size of Pringles you'd have to count them out into eight piles.

How about Vitamin water?


Oh, look! More information given by serving size only, knowing full well you're likely going to sit there and drink the entire bottle at once. This one is especially malicious since there are two and a half servings per container so now people who aren't great at math to begin with have to contend with fractions. They, at least, give the vitamin information for both serving size and per bottle, but why not the calories?

Pepsi does the same deceitful thing:

A 20 oz bottle with nutrition information given for a serving size of 8 fl oz, with 2.5 servings per bottle - but see how easy it is to give the information for the whole bottle right next to it? It's not hard, why not make everyone do it?

I will say kudos to Coke for putting the "240 Calories Per bottle" label right on the front their smaller bottles and cans, but I think that should be on every bottled drink, and I think that the calories per container (bottle, bag, box, whatever) should be printed on every food that is required to have Nutrition Information printed on it, including Coke's 2-liter bottles, which they don't do; they print "100 Calories per serving, 8 servings per Package" and never mention that the serving size they are calculating is 8 fl oz, 2/3 of the average small cup in a house (~12 oz), and 1/2 the size or less of the average large cup in a house (assuming they're 16-20 oz).



You might say, "People just need to do the math and they'll figure out their caloric intake," but I know a lot of people who don't even realize that the calorie count posted on food, especially bottled drinks, is given per serving, and if they do realize that it's by serving, they don't realize there are multiple servings in a single bottle. (I've pointed this out to people and it's obvious by the realization on their faces that they never realized this information before.)

It's their own fault for not taking the time to read and understand the Nutrition Information, yes. But when it comes to Nutrition Information boxes I am of the opinion that they need to be idiot proof, and that giving the information only by serving size when there are multiple servings per container is a sneaky, deceitful way of making it look like your product has fewer calories than it actually does based on knowing how people consume the product (the whole thing at once, and not doled out in 8 oz servings). With things like Vitamin Water, they are artificially lowering the perceived calories in each bottle by giving the information by serving size knowing full well 90%+ of the people drinking that product are going to glance at the calories listed in the Nutrition Information box, make the assumption Vitamin Water wants them to make (that a serving size is one bottle so they choose Vitamin Water as their product perceiving it as a healthier beverage) and drink the whole bottle in one go.

Information hurts no one and the companies that produce these products already have the necessary information and facility to print it on their packaging. Coke does it. Pepsi does it. At least it will add two lines to their Nutrition Information box and that's not objectionable. At most, they'd be required to add a second column, and that's not objectionable either - Pepsi did it without altering the size of the box too greatly. I see no reason to oppose legislating a change like this. And if it doesn't happen through Senate or Congress, let it be mandated by the FDA.

Information.
Hurts.
No one.

Why be against giving people information?

(April 1, 2014 at 12:43 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: Here's the Nutrition Information box on a bag of Doritos:

---

---

Where is the nutrition information for the bag? Oh, wait, they don't give it. And I'll be damned if anyone I've ever seen eating Doritos has counted out 11 chips to be their serving - they get a bowl and they fill the bowl with however many chips fill that bowl, and often go back for more. Sometimes they don't even fill a bowl, they just park the bag in their lap and eat away until they've eaten half the bag - or the whole bag.

I've counted the chips in a bag before, it's well more than the number according to the number of chips per XXg (about 30% more or so), so I have no idea where they get that number from or why they are allowed to use it. The number of chips per XXg in pringles is probably accurate though.

But you do bring up a good point, here's a doritos bag in AU:

See I would have thought that you would have had an equivalent of the 100g panel on your packaging.

Here's a coke 1.25L bottle:

The can:

I don't have a picture for the 600ml, so here's the 600ml lemon-flavour version:

As you can see they all say "1 per package" not like your single-serve versions.

But... check this out:

375ml bottle:

3L bottle:

When I finish the bottle I'll return it to Woolies and ask for the extra litre promised on the bottle! I'll let you know how it goes.

Quote:You might say, "People just need to do the math and they'll figure out their caloric intake," but I know a lot of people who don't even realize that the calorie count posted on food, especially bottled drinks, is given per serving, and if they do realize that it's by serving, they don't realize there are multiple servings in a single bottle. (I've pointed this out to people and it's obvious by the realization on their faces that they never realized this information before.)

Well I think if you had the "per 100g" column as we do you'd find the "per package" of little relevance. I do agree with you that arbitrary serving sizes are often of little relevance. Interestingly though, for cornflakes the serving size is 30g and I decided to weigh my average serving and guess what - it came out to exactly 30g, so I guess in at least that one is accurate (although I have more than 250ml of milk with it - more like 300-350ml). Products, like doritos, are always shrinking the package size in order to put the price up by stealth. At the moment we're down to 185g bags... so within a year or so they'll re-launch the 250g bag for another round of endless product shrinkage.

Quote:With things like Vitamin Water, they are artificially lowering the perceived calories in each bottle by giving the information by serving size knowing full well 90%+ of the people drinking that product are going to glance at the calories listed in the Nutrition Information box, make the assumption Vitamin Water wants them to make (that a serving size is one bottle so they choose Vitamin Water as their product perceiving it as a healthier beverage) and drink the whole bottle in one go.

And yet if I check it here I see that just as coke and others the stated serving size is 1 per package in Australia. I am a little shocked that coke et all in the USA are making artificial serving sizes for what are obviously single-serve bottles.

Quote:Information hurts no one and the companies that produce these products already have the necessary information and facility to print it on their packaging. Coke does it. Pepsi does it. At least it will add two lines to their Nutrition Information box and that's not objectionable. At most, they'd be required to add a second column, and that's not objectionable either - Pepsi did it without altering the size of the box too greatly. I see no reason to oppose legislating a change like this. And if it doesn't happen through Senate or Congress, let it be mandated by the FDA.

Yes, I agree with you on the second column - principally because we already have it - I just disagree with forcing it to be the product size. No one needs to know the total calories in a 700g box of cereal, nor does the total calories in a 3L bottle of milk help anyone that isn't going to scoff the entire bottle. While we're at it, we don't need to know the number of calories in a 1kg block of cheese either, nor in a 500g block of cheese - no one is going to eat an entire block at once, and if you give them the calories per 100g it's a very straightforward calculation anyway.

Id rather be fat,fat you can lose,you cant lose dumb.

(April 1, 2014 at 11:21 pm)Aractus Wrote: But you do bring up a good point, here's a doritos bag in AU:

---

---

See I would have thought that you would have had an equivalent of the 100g panel on your packaging.

Interesting. I forgot you were from Australia so I apologize for my pissy tone in the last post, I didn't know your Nutrition Information boxes were so different. (That does explain why you were giving everything in L and mL and not oz though... that had me scratching my head )

I'd have WAY fewer issues with Nutrition Information boxes if they looked more like the Aussie ones.

Chalk up another reason the US is fucked up.

Quote:Products, like doritos, are always shrinking the package size in order to put the price up by stealth. At the moment we're down to 185g bags... so within a year or so they'll re-launch the 250g bag for another round of endless product shrinkage.

Once you catch on to the way the game is played it just makes you mad, doesn't it?

Quote:

Quote:With things like Vitamin Water, they are artificially lowering the perceived calories in each bottle by giving the information by serving size knowing full well 90%+ of the people drinking that product are going to glance at the calories listed in the Nutrition Information box, make the assumption Vitamin Water wants them to make (that a serving size is one bottle so they choose Vitamin Water as their product perceiving it as a healthier beverage) and drink the whole bottle in one go.

And yet if I check it here I see that just as coke and others the stated serving size is 1 per package in Australia. I am a little shocked that coke et all in the USA are making artificial serving sizes for what are obviously single-serve bottles.

Like I said, I think they do it to artificially deflate the perceived calorie count in the bottle. Why else would Vitamin Water give the calories only by SERVING SIZE, but create a whole column for giving the amount of vitamins for the whole BOTTLE? What's the deal, VW? Why are you playing games?

This is why I have a smidgen of respect for Coke when they put up front the calorie count of their whole bottles. But just a smidgen. Coke also seems to be the sole exception in giving Nutrition Information for their whole, single serving containers: 8oz and 12oz cans, 16oz and 20 oz bottles, but I'm not sure about 1L bottles. I still think the information should be given for whole 2L bottles, though.

I'll have to take a cruise down the beverage aisle the next time I'm at the store and see which other brands are duplicitous with their nutrition information.

Quote:Yes, I agree with you on the second column - principally because we already have it - I just disagree with forcing it to be the product size. No one needs to know the total calories in a 700g box of cereal, nor does the total calories in a 3L bottle of milk help anyone that isn't going to scoff the entire bottle. While we're at it, we don't need to know the number of calories in a 1kg block of cheese either, nor in a 500g block of cheese - no one is going to eat an entire block at once, and if you give them the calories per 100g it's a very straightforward calculation anyway.

On some products, like a block of cheese or a box of cereal, I agree it seems kind of ridiculous to put the total calories on the packaging, but I know I've sat and eaten a whole bag of white cheddar popcorn before (it's so damn good!) or a whole bag of cereal as a snack, and if I liked cheese I could conceive of eating a whole block, or a significant portion of one. I know there are people who drink a whole 2L of Coke in a day, sometimes multiples in a day. And for some, it's easier to estimate calories by percent of a whole than by multiples of a serving size. (i.e. it's easier for them to determine what half of 1800 calories is than to multiply 225 calories per serving by 4 servings to get the same number)

In principle, I would be okay with having a Nutrition Information box that included something like the 100g column (translated to something Americans could understand of course ) but I also wonder if that's going to create the same confusion as nutrition information by serving size - it's just a larger serving size.

(For blocks of cheese, they could do what they do for butter and put marks on the wrapper indicating where to cut the stick in order to get 2 tablespoons or whatever - only they could make the marks to indicate a serving size. Just a thought.)

(April 2, 2014 at 12:15 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: Like I said, I think they do it to artificially deflate the perceived calorie count in the bottle. Why else would Vitamin Water give the calories only by SERVING SIZE, but create a whole column for giving the amount of vitamins for the whole BOTTLE? What's the deal, VW? Why are you playing games?

Yes, and I can't understand the reasoning behind it, especially as it's not the standard practise here.

Quote:This is why I have a smidgen of respect for Coke when they put up front the calorie count of their whole bottles. But just a smidgen. Coke also seems to be the sole exception in giving Nutrition Information for their whole, single serving containers: 8oz and 12oz cans, 16oz and 20 oz bottles, but I'm not sure about 1L bottles. I still think the information should be given for whole 2L bottles, though.

(....)

I know there are people who drink a whole 2L of Coke in a day, sometimes multiples in a day. And for some, it's easier to estimate calories by percent of a whole than by multiples of a serving size. (i.e. it's easier for them to determine what half of 1800 calories is than to multiply 225 calories per serving by 4 servings to get the same number)

Drinking 2L of coke in a day is not the same as drinking 2L as one serving. Most people drink it one glass at a time, not straight out of the bottle. But that said, I totally agree that the 20oz/600g bottle should display the serving size as 1 per container as it does in Australia; those bottles are specifically designed to be consumed straight from the container.

Quote:In principle, I would be okay with having a Nutrition Information box that included something like the 100g column (translated to something Americans could understand of course ) but I also wonder if that's going to create the same confusion as nutrition information by serving size - it's just a larger serving size.

(For blocks of cheese, they could do what they do for butter and put marks on the wrapper indicating where to cut the stick in order to get 2 tablespoons or whatever - only they could make the marks to indicate a serving size. Just a thought.)

Well there's no better time than present to go metric. Here's the UK's label:

Similar to ours it too has to the 100g column. The only thing that I would like to see changed in our Australian labels is the energy always displayed in both kJ (Kilojoules) and Cal (Calories) - it is very simple to convert kJ to Cal in your head, however it would be nice if all products had both. We use kJ as standard because it's metric, however I know I think in terms of Calories and not Kilojoules.

There's no problem with having serving sizes, they are often useful. The serving size for butter or margarine is typically stated as 10g, which is 2x tsp - anyone can measure out 2 teaspoons to make sure they're using the correct amount, if they want to. If the number is 15ml that's about 1x tbsp - anyone can measure a tablespoon! Or as you say, you can cut the butter up along the marked lines - for cheese it's not marked but you can still easily estimate it, or work it out if you want to (I seriously don't know anyone who doesn't know how big a tablespoon is!)

See what you make of this ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82kYQ7j7X2s

I don't drink coke, it makes me feel ill.

On the other hand I can down 6 beers in quick succession no problems.

But one can of coke is too much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgKkBaXEvI8

I actually believe all advertising during children's programming should be banned - as it in fact is in some European countries. Subjecting children to 13 minutes of ads per hour is wrong, and in fact in most countries that volume of advertising it isn't even legal. But I do agree that schools should serve only healthy food, and there are studies that prove this is effective in preventing childhood obesity, but you know what - in a school with say 600 children, it's up to the parents to demand to the school that they don't serve junk - if the parents want it they will get it, if instead they sit by and idly watch their kids getting fatter then not acting on the school diet will be the least of the problems the parent is inflicting on their child's diet!

(April 3, 2014 at 5:53 am)Zen Badger Wrote: I don't drink coke, it makes me feel ill.

On the other hand I can down 6 beers in quick succession no problems.

But one can of coke is too much.

Beer is 100% all natural, and is healthy and nutritious when consumed moderately. Coke is poison.