It depends. Do you need the extra calories. Will the extra calories make you healthier or will they make you heavier. If the extra calories add to your weight and you don't need to gain weight than your method isn't really good.
This is INSANE
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
As a Staff Attorney for the Montana Legislature for 25 years, I find this thread stimulating. Its an excellent discussion of the general subject of legislating for the peoples' good when the people won't themselves do what's good for them. This is a much debated question at every session of every legislature in the country. It is NOT a liberal vs. conservative thing. Liberals and conservatives both seek to pass legislation that they perceive will force or persuade people to do something (or not do it) for their own good. The only difference is in the agendas. I have personally known numerous legislators, both liberal and conservative, who are in principle generally for such legislation and numerous legislators who are in principle generally against such legislation. Its not a liberal/conservative thing. Its a philosophical question of whether you are for or against this type of legislation.
Personally, while I think I'm smarter than the average bear (don't we all) I find the idea that people need the government to protect them from the big bad evil corporations to be downright offensive.
Likewise, I find the idea that we need a bunch of rules to protect us against ourselves equally offensive.
Both positions essentially state that someone else knows better about what you should do than you do. So we should tell you, or make you follow a certain rule.
Both dominate political persuasions practice this type of insulting behavior.
I'm not calling for anarchy, as we do need a core set of rules. However, I believe the starting point is to hold individuals responsible for their decisions.
No one holds a gun to a persons head and says, you have to choose McDonalds over some fresh fruit and a bottled water. So if someone brings a lawsuit into court seeking big money from the corporation, they should be laughed out of the court.
I personally believe a big part of the problem is that folks have been told for 50+ years that they need to depend on the government to tell them the best way to eat, etc.
So the same folks that brought the Vietnam war, Watergate, the Iran hostage issue, $600 toilet seats, and other priceless government decisions are going to say they know the best way to eat. Frankly, we were a lot more healthy before the government was so interested in nutrition.
If people want to eat themselves to death, let 'em. But also let 'em remain personally responsible for the consequences, including their medical costs.
Likewise, I find the idea that we need a bunch of rules to protect us against ourselves equally offensive.
Both positions essentially state that someone else knows better about what you should do than you do. So we should tell you, or make you follow a certain rule.
Both dominate political persuasions practice this type of insulting behavior.
I'm not calling for anarchy, as we do need a core set of rules. However, I believe the starting point is to hold individuals responsible for their decisions.
No one holds a gun to a persons head and says, you have to choose McDonalds over some fresh fruit and a bottled water. So if someone brings a lawsuit into court seeking big money from the corporation, they should be laughed out of the court.
I personally believe a big part of the problem is that folks have been told for 50+ years that they need to depend on the government to tell them the best way to eat, etc.
So the same folks that brought the Vietnam war, Watergate, the Iran hostage issue, $600 toilet seats, and other priceless government decisions are going to say they know the best way to eat. Frankly, we were a lot more healthy before the government was so interested in nutrition.
If people want to eat themselves to death, let 'em. But also let 'em remain personally responsible for the consequences, including their medical costs.
There is really the cruxt of the problem. Couts/Lawyers have been able to enable people to seek money when they fail to look after themselves and it leads to problems for them.
But that won't end until Lawyers have every penny floating out there.
JHZR2
Staff member
And how... lawyers and their monopoly that keeps the legal system inaccessible from folks who actually need to use it for this or that are a MAJOR problem. Thats right, I said it.
JMH
JHZR2
Staff member
I think that I have the ability to think reasonably and know things that I should know about diet.
But the fact of the matter is that most people do not care to think about themselves and effectively do need protection from themselves, for the sake of everyone else.
The key is that politicians cannot decide what is right and wrong, it needs to be found out from unbiased scientific studies. Now, I know a lot of people disregard science in the name of religion or 'spin', but there is some real value to scientific study and analysis, and if it was used to determine a typical optimum dietary combination, and this was made official by the government... and then the deviation from this in terms of food offerings given by the large chains was published - it would be helpful to those who wish to glean this information in situ.
As I said, it wont stop me from going to pf changs or whatever other restaurant I choose... it may or may not effect what I order. But to have the information readily available reinforces my common sense knowledge that something may be good or bad by this amount or that amount. I know that it has been available at mcdonalds and other similar places for 20+ years. And it is NOT fair to require a mom and pop shop to give such information on everything they offer. But these days more folks eat at chains than mom and pop places, and so the chains ought to readily make the information available (e.g. on the menu). And do this without political pressure or anything else.
As I said, people who care will use it, people who dont care wont be changed anyway. Unfortunately these people are a liability to anyone who pays a health insurance premium or pays into medicare, etc.
People who think that just because information is out there that it will be read and digested by people lookingout for themselves are a bit shortsighted. When was the last time you read a scientific journal just for the sake of learning something interesting? Probably never. Do you really think that the common idiot who does not even care about the oil in their automobile really cares about the food in their body?
You cant brainwash, you cant force feed information into peoples' brains, but you can give the idiots information anywhre and everywhere, with the hope that they, or at least those on the borderline of idiocy might take some interest in the information.
Will it help in the end all? I dont know... I do know that I wouldnt mind having the info more readily available for my own use. But I do know to read it and analyze it. Will others? likely not... but will some folks take some slight interest at some point, which may have value for them? probably.
Its the arguments like this that cost all the money and create most of the problems. Big restaurants already have the caloric data, they already have brocheures, and they already reprint their menus a number of times a year. For restaurants that have more than 10 locations, it would be quite easy to implement data that they already have into even more accessible medium, to help those who wish to have their choices influences.
JMH
I just ate a huge lunch container of Chinese black bean (very few, but very salty), pork (let's not go there but it was lean), brocolli (good, ok) and red pepper stir fry homemade by my wife last night. Extremely tasty and other than the fact that I ate way too much, I knew what I was getting into. Probably 1000+ calories or so.
Washed down with water, burped in the cubicle a few times.
Washed down with water, burped in the cubicle a few times.
Why do people need protection from themselves?
Wouldn't ending such protection provide some incentive for folks to begin to take an interest in these things?
It a person chooses to remain ignorant, then let them live with the consequences of that decision.
Just because eating healthy is important to group A, that doesn't mean that group A should impose those values on group B. If group B wants to live in ignorance, or values eating a ThickBurger from Hardees everyday for lunch, then let 'em.
Besides, we won't have to pay out their Social Security benefits, LOL.
Wouldn't ending such protection provide some incentive for folks to begin to take an interest in these things?
It a person chooses to remain ignorant, then let them live with the consequences of that decision.
Just because eating healthy is important to group A, that doesn't mean that group A should impose those values on group B. If group B wants to live in ignorance, or values eating a ThickBurger from Hardees everyday for lunch, then let 'em.
Besides, we won't have to pay out their Social Security benefits, LOL.
Pablo, no one cares what you eat. Are you looking for a cookie?
How do you know what you were eating was really even pork?
I want to say one more thing before I check out of this thread bc we obviously don't have the same philisophical views on this topic. I usually vote for conservative democrats or moderate conservatives and I believe in capitalism. However, there are times when the market doesn't always come through. Healthcare in this country is out of control. 14% increase every year. I don't want socialized medicine but we are heading in that direction and at some point something will give, whether it's for the better or not.
You can blame it on lawyers all you want, you can blame it on the food we eat or lifestyles we live. Their comes a time when we will elect leaders to legislate rules/laws or whatever to help fix the problem. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. I stand by my position that simply adding the fat/calories next what you order would help. Would it help everyone? Of course not. I realize that people will do what they want. But I think it's a good idea to to inform the consumer as much as possible.
The United States is a great country. But we can learn things from other countries also. The quality of life among some of the Scandanavian countries are among the highest in the world. They are so socialized over there that they think our Democrats are conservative. I know this because I work with them.
Conservatives are no different then liberals. They both want to pass legislation to try and dictate how one should live that conforms to their beliefs.
I think both the busines's and consumers would benefit. Companies would be forced to make their food better and consumers would have better food to chose from. We are a working country and eat out a lot. I don't think adding this type of information to a menu would hurt anything.
I vote for NJ to adopt this type of policy. The rest of you can vote how you see it. Peace out.
P.S. What is TRULY ignorant is the false statement that restaurants have their nutrition info published in some brochure, etc. for all to view, (so people who don't know the content are somehow just ignorant.) You are ridiculous. MOST places IN FACT do NOT have these things available to the public. For those that want to know, they should have the info available. That is all I'm asking for. Period. The end.
[ June 20, 2006, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
I want to say one more thing before I check out of this thread bc we obviously don't have the same philisophical views on this topic. I usually vote for conservative democrats or moderate conservatives and I believe in capitalism. However, there are times when the market doesn't always come through. Healthcare in this country is out of control. 14% increase every year. I don't want socialized medicine but we are heading in that direction and at some point something will give, whether it's for the better or not.
You can blame it on lawyers all you want, you can blame it on the food we eat or lifestyles we live. Their comes a time when we will elect leaders to legislate rules/laws or whatever to help fix the problem. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. I stand by my position that simply adding the fat/calories next what you order would help. Would it help everyone? Of course not. I realize that people will do what they want. But I think it's a good idea to to inform the consumer as much as possible.
The United States is a great country. But we can learn things from other countries also. The quality of life among some of the Scandanavian countries are among the highest in the world. They are so socialized over there that they think our Democrats are conservative. I know this because I work with them.
Conservatives are no different then liberals. They both want to pass legislation to try and dictate how one should live that conforms to their beliefs.
I think both the busines's and consumers would benefit. Companies would be forced to make their food better and consumers would have better food to chose from. We are a working country and eat out a lot. I don't think adding this type of information to a menu would hurt anything.
I vote for NJ to adopt this type of policy. The rest of you can vote how you see it. Peace out.
P.S. What is TRULY ignorant is the false statement that restaurants have their nutrition info published in some brochure, etc. for all to view, (so people who don't know the content are somehow just ignorant.) You are ridiculous. MOST places IN FACT do NOT have these things available to the public. For those that want to know, they should have the info available. That is all I'm asking for. Period. The end.
[ June 20, 2006, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
I think I bit a dog.
Dog meat is pretty lean and healthy.
I'm not against labelling. Don't take me the wrong way. When we buy pork...it better be labelled pork. When I read a menu and order pork, it better be pork. This is a different level than forcing a restaurant to have calories right after the item on the menu. Again if you want to find out, you can. Not by force, by choice.
As for medical costs. Different thread.
You do struggle with there, their and they're don't you? (Quick fix it!)
Dog meat is pretty lean and healthy.
I'm not against labelling. Don't take me the wrong way. When we buy pork...it better be labelled pork. When I read a menu and order pork, it better be pork. This is a different level than forcing a restaurant to have calories right after the item on the menu. Again if you want to find out, you can. Not by force, by choice.
As for medical costs. Different thread.
Pablo, how can we find out the calorie content and fat content of a dinner at Carrabas when they do not list it? Do you have a fat/calorie analysis machine in your pocket?
There is no choice involved when there is no concrete way to find out the exact amount.
BTW, I type so fast I'm sure I make more spelling mistakes. I'm really bad with email/internet typing.
BTW, I type so fast I'm sure I make more spelling mistakes. I'm really bad with email/internet typing.
What's Carrabas?
Was my lunch labeled? I have a general idea, and when ordering at a restaurant you should probably not care or care and know what the approx. content is.
Was my lunch labeled? I have a general idea, and when ordering at a restaurant you should probably not care or care and know what the approx. content is.
The market doesn't come through. Isn't that the excuse of the loser.
Sounds similar to the electorial college isn't fair.
The bottom line is the market delivers what the people want, every time.
Just because health care costs are going up at a rate higher than inflation doesn't indicate a market failure. Frankly, I think it indicates the opposite, that there isn't a true market at work there, there are others who are paying the costs, so the costs are shifted.
So I don't by the market comparison for healthcare, until we all are actually paying for our healthcare costs directly, and not through some insurance, HMO or government sponsored health plan.
I think we all can agree that folks don't make healthy choices.
What we disagree about is should they be allowed to make those choices, or should they be forced to examine information, or to sign a waiver when they get that ThickBurger stating they understand this burger contains fat content levels that may be unhealthy if consumed in sufficient quantities.
So let the market decide.
All the folks who feel restaurants should provide nutrition information should start going to ONLY those restaurants that provide that information in the fashion you desire.
If enough of you do this, your marketplace clout will encourage others to do this.
Even if I agree that it's a good idea, I disagree that the government should be involved.
Sounds similar to the electorial college isn't fair.
The bottom line is the market delivers what the people want, every time.
Just because health care costs are going up at a rate higher than inflation doesn't indicate a market failure. Frankly, I think it indicates the opposite, that there isn't a true market at work there, there are others who are paying the costs, so the costs are shifted.
So I don't by the market comparison for healthcare, until we all are actually paying for our healthcare costs directly, and not through some insurance, HMO or government sponsored health plan.
I think we all can agree that folks don't make healthy choices.
What we disagree about is should they be allowed to make those choices, or should they be forced to examine information, or to sign a waiver when they get that ThickBurger stating they understand this burger contains fat content levels that may be unhealthy if consumed in sufficient quantities.
So let the market decide.
All the folks who feel restaurants should provide nutrition information should start going to ONLY those restaurants that provide that information in the fashion you desire.
If enough of you do this, your marketplace clout will encourage others to do this.
Even if I agree that it's a good idea, I disagree that the government should be involved.
Truer words have never been spoken. It's a wonder that the libertarians haven't gained any more momentum than they have.
Why does change have to come from the government, though. Why can't it come from society itself? I'm talking about people putting pressure on their friends and family to do the right thing. People tend to be a lot more responsible when they have to account to someone close to them. As a society, we have too strong a tendency to rely on the government to solve all our problems when simply having the courage to speak out and hold those close to you accountable can be a lot more effective and a lot less intrusive when viewed at a macro level.
Pizza with Cheese..Probably about 10 grams of saturated fat, lots of salt. Calories doesn't matter much. But as I said anyone who has even a minor clue of what a calorie can pretty well guess its at least 7 or 8 hundred. Salad with Blue Cheese dressing..Probably about the same amount of fat, maybe a few less calories. Full course meal..Turkey gravy, bread with butter, Filling, vegatables, slice of cheese cake. Probably 30 grans of Fat and 2500 calories.
I have, but I'm probably a total weirdo for having done it
JHZR2
Staff member
Not at all. I think that either you or I dont get the whole point of this thread. Any such rules to publish this kind of info would be to provide information. Nobody has to sign a waiver before they order their 1200 calorie dish... nobody even has to look at the numbers before they order. Nobody is forcing anyone to make any choices but the ones they want- they are merely providing the pertinent information pertaining to what they eat right in front of them, so they can if they desire, make the best choice.
When you go to the 711 and buy a candy bar, it has the number of calories and fat on it. Wen you drink a can of coke, it has the info on it. Are they wrong? Should they cloak that informatin so that I cant make a decision of if I want a twix or an almond joy, or if I want a coke or diet sprite? It seems that you either absolutely dont care at all, or you would favor the companies not showing this information. However, I would like to see that information. And, last time I checked, the legistlators were your and my way of excercising power to get what we want. If Im the only person in 100k that wants this, then I wont get it. If Im the 50001st person to want this, then it will get done.
You mix the concept of making information readily available up with the concept of someone deciding what one should eat. If you make the decision to not buy and eat the pf chang order because it has 109 grams of fat in it, it is nobody's choice buy your own. And, if you make that decision because all of a shudden they show big bad numbers, then you are either mentally weak or easily swayed, and werent really sure of yourself to begin with. If you use those numbers to make a well thought out analysis, then all is well, and it was your choice.
Nobody is legislating signing a waiver, or even any sort of positive verification that the buyer acknowledges the risks. Information = good.
JMH
That was my point.
I think you are missing my point as well. How long from when we mandate such information is put on everything until we have to sign such waivers?
It appears you focused on a small part of what I wrote.
I'm not against such information being made available, I'm saying if consumers want it, then let consumers let restaurants, buskers, the beer guy at the stadium, the counter gal at Hardees know, or vote with their dollars.
That's all.
I know oilbabe has a book from WeightWatchers that has that information. She wants to look it up, and she does. It's not hard. If someone wants the information, it's already out there. We don't need another government program or law to fix what is not an issue for most folks.
It appears you focused on a small part of what I wrote.
I'm not against such information being made available, I'm saying if consumers want it, then let consumers let restaurants, buskers, the beer guy at the stadium, the counter gal at Hardees know, or vote with their dollars.
That's all.
I know oilbabe has a book from WeightWatchers that has that information. She wants to look it up, and she does. It's not hard. If someone wants the information, it's already out there. We don't need another government program or law to fix what is not an issue for most folks.
Best..... book..... ever..... on all of this is "French Women Don't Get Fat" by Mireille Guiliano. I'm reading it right now; I love her writing style. Not exactly deep and philosophical, but fun and very informative all the same.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/14...103-5854207-2701436?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
[ June 20, 2006, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: johnsmith ]
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/14...103-5854207-2701436?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
Sometimes when you have too much information, it works the other way around.
[ June 20, 2006, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: johnsmith ]
- Status
