Support NeoGAF

[SeanR1221]

2400 calories for men and 2000 for women?! Jesus christ I eat 2200 when I'm bulking and 1700 when I'm cutting, wtf. These recommendations are complete BS and that's the real problem.

Nutrition needs to be redone and overhauled in the way its taught. The "food pyramid" (even the revised one) has been shown to be completely inaccurate and counterproductive. The "2000" magic calorie number is equally as harmful. Stop the madness

To be honest you're probably an outlier here for bulking cutting cycles. I don't know too many people who can bulk on 2200 calories.

 

[Impeccable]

To be honest you're probably an outlier here for bulking cutting cycles. I don't know too many people who can bulk on 2200 calories.

Maybe he's like 4'8" and 76 pounds.

 

[Trent Strong]

For sure. Looking at calories is only one part of the picture but the quality of the calories you consume are more important.



Absolutely. I love how the RDA is a blanket number, as if the average 5'8" sexagenarian needs as many calories as an active 6'3" 25-year-old male.

If anything, the FDA (and relevant bodies) should be promoting the Mifflin-St. Jeor or Harris-Benedict equations, both which are vastly more accurate than the one-size-fits-all value that is currently being touted today.



I have a friend who is in his early thirties, is thin and you would think he's very average by anyone's standards but was complaining about a lack of energy so he went to see a doctor. The doctor ran some tests and asked him what his diet was. Turns out that he ate McDonald's almost daily; the doctor ordered him to stop immediately because he was at a high risk of having a heart attack. Although he was visibly thin, his organs were covered with a high concentration of visceral fat.

What you can't see is often what is most dangerous. Do you know how much visceral fat you carry on you? I bode you no ill will but please don't fall under the illusion that because you can't see something it's not there. Visceral fat is as dangerous as cancer in that regard.

You gain visceral fat by eating more calories than you burn, the same way you gain subcutaneous fat, and since I don't eat more calories than I burn, I doubt I have much visceral fat. (Hopefully.)

 

[Queen of Hunting]

so health people got mcdonalds and other fast food places to list calorie infomation and are now calling it counterproductive for doing so. right

 

[crimsondynamics]

You gain visceral fat by eating more calories than you burn, the same way you gain subcutaneous fat, and since I don't eat more calories than I burn, I doubt I have much visceral fat. (Hopefully.)

I hope so too! I just wanted to make that point that my friend who by all external appearances is actually quite thin, was internally in a mess. If you can, get a body analysis reading at your local gym or post-checkup to see how your composition is like. Hopefully, indeed you have very low visceral fat, but if it is higher than expected, you can at least take remedial action sooner rather than later.

 

[Valnen]

This "I'm gonna eat more than I need" nonsense wouldn't fly in a hunter-gatherer society.

Well we aren't a hunter-gatherer society and won't ever be again unless some kind of disaster happens.

 

[Oni Jazar]

This thread just made me get McDonald's breakfast so... success!

 

[chickdigger802]

It's all about calorie per dollar anyways.

 

[ToxicAdam]

The two biggest problems is that the average person doesn't realize 1) the average amount of calories they should intake in a day 2) just how much exercise that calorie count (of whatever food item) represents.

If you showed someone that the <food item> would require 45 minutes of walking to work off, they might be less apt to order it.

That's what some studies have done:

But what if we give that calorie label a little context? That may help the cause, according to research that Ashlei James, graduate student at Texas Christian University, presented at the Nutrition Education minisymposium on Tuesday. Ashlei and her team randomized 200 men and women ages 18-30 into three menu groups: no calorie labels, calorie labels only, and calorie labels plus minutes of walking it would take to burn off those calories. All three menus offered the same food and beverage choices, and calories burned were based on the average 150lb person walking at 3.5miles per hour. All participants were blinded and told they were there for a study on hunger cues.

The group with the calories plus walking minutes ordered an average of 139 fewer calories than the group with no menu labels, and consumed 97 fewer calories of their meal, both of which were statistically significant. There was no significant difference in what was ordered or consumed between the other two groups or between the calories only and calories plus walking group. When asked, 90% of participants from the two groups with menu labels responded that they noticed the labels.

Interestingly, there was no difference in calories consumed after the meal among the groups suggesting that group that ate less didn't make up for it later.

http://www.nutrition.org/asn-blog/2013/04/eb-2013-when-calories-equals-exercise-do-people-eat-less/

A second study doing the same thing

So the problem isn't the information, it's that the information needs to have more context.

 

[BattleMonkey]

It worked for me at a chik fil a. I was going to order the combo with cheese and saw that it was like 1400 calories..... I ended up getting a salad

 

[crimsondynamics]

The two biggest problems is that the average person doesn't realize 1) the average amount of calories they should intake in a day 2) just how much exercise that calorie count (of whatever food item) represents.

If you showed someone that the <food item> would require 45 minutes of walking to work off, they might be less apt to order it.

That's what some studies have done:



http://www.nutrition.org/asn-blog/2013/04/eb-2013-when-calories-equals-exercise-do-people-eat-less/



A second study doing the same thing

So the problem isn't the information, it's that the information needs to have more context.

It's all in the presentation!

 

[SeanR1221]

The two biggest problems is that the average person doesn't realize 1) the average amount of calories they should intake in a day 2) just how much exercise that calorie count (of whatever food item) represents.

If you showed someone that the <food item> would require 45 minutes of walking to work off, they might be less apt to order it.

That's what some studies have done:



http://www.nutrition.org/asn-blog/2013/04/eb-2013-when-calories-equals-exercise-do-people-eat-less/



A second study doing the same thing

So the problem isn't the information, it's that the information needs to have more context.

I've seen that study before and love it. I always find people underestimate calories eaten and overestimate calories burned from exercise.

 

[rSpooky]

So because there are dumb people around , the ones that do look at these values have to suck it? I find that a weird notion.

For one , if I have a moment of weakness, the list of calories deters me just fine, second I want more detailed nutrition info , especially Carb content for food ( I am reall not just talking McD really) to keep my daughters glucose in check, and it is not a bad diet for me either

 

[jimi_dini]

That's what some studies have done:

I guess signal colors have to work, because the food industry does everything in their power to not have those included.

Something like this:

UK study here: http://webarchive.nationalarchives....ood.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/pmpexecsummary.pdf

Additional information like "gotta walk 70 minutes" would be great as well, because it gives context. Most people don't know much about calories and such.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

Yes, people are dumb, and we especially suck at evaluating long term risk. That's why I don't mind Bloomberg instituting hard guidelines to help people with their decisions. I'm all for (citywide) nanny states.

 

[chickdigger802]

The two biggest problems is that the average person doesn't realize 1) the average amount of calories they should intake in a day 2) just how much exercise that calorie count (of whatever food item) represents.

If you showed someone that the <food item> would require 45 minutes of walking to work off, they might be less apt to order it.

That's what some studies have done:



http://www.nutrition.org/asn-blog/2013/04/eb-2013-when-calories-equals-exercise-do-people-eat-less/



A second study doing the same thing

So the problem isn't the information, it's that the information needs to have more context.

Where does one get this mythical 250 calories burger in america, let alone in texas?

 

[Ether_Snake]

Stupid article. What matters is that the information is easily available, not what people chose to eat. Hiding caloric info from people does not help anyone in making choices.

 

[Dali]

It helps me decide what I'm gonna get when I go, so I'm glad they're there. If other people justify going for the higher calorie items just because it's under their 5000 calorie cake diet then, more power to them. I'll take a grilled chicken sammich no sauce.

 

[slit]

I knew that would happen, I just knew it. :lol

 

[Petrie]

I guess signal colors have to work, because the food industry does everything in their power to not have those included.

Something like this:

UK study here: http://webarchive.nationalarchives....ood.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/pmpexecsummary.pdf

Additional information like "gotta walk 70 minutes" would be great as well, because it gives context. Most people don't know much about calories and such.

My girl's sister plays softball and thinks she burns like 1200 kcal.

She coaches for 3 hours and thinks that's 1500 kcal.

Shit is fucked.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Stupid article. What matters is that the information is easily available, not what people chose to eat. Hiding caloric info from people does not help anyone in making choices.

apparently showing it doesn't help either...

 

[breakfuss]

To be honest you're probably an outlier here for bulking cutting cycles. I don't know too many people who can bulk on 2200 calories.

This. I sure as hell know that wouldn't do much for me.

 

[RumblingRosco]

I don't eat at McDonald's often, but when I do, I appreciate the calorie counts on there for when I'm bulking. I can more easily find the best value for my dollar (in terms of pennies per calorie). It's why whole milk is so affordable at stores, it has a great price per calorie ratio.

 

[iamshadowlark]

One thing I don't think people consider is that alot of people actually want to eat a bigger item. People supersize items, do double orders, etc and how it affects them is the last thing on their mind.

Not everyone gives a shit how they look.

 

[Petrie]

One thing I don't think people consider is that alot of people actually want to eat a bigger item. People supersize items, do double orders, etc and how it affects them is the last thing on their mind.

Not everyone gives a shit how they look.

But they should give a shit about their health.

It isn't all about cosmetic bullshit.

 

[radios shipping overview]

so health people got mcdonalds and other fast food places to list calorie infomation and are now calling it counterproductive for doing so. right

"health people"

 

[Skunkers]

You got a bad burger does that even have cheese on it. All the Mcdonalds I have been too are really good at getting their burgers right always looks like the picture.

I tend to agree, obviously they don't look perfect as they are slapped together in a hurry, but they look fairly close to the picture. Taco Bell is the real offender here; what you actually get looks pitiful next to the menu pictures. Tastes good though.

 

[daniels]

Bulking lol i remember how i bought 7 mcdoubles almost every day good times

 

[BobTheFork]

Honestly I never though this started because of educational health concerns. I thought that once fat people started trying to sue fast food restuarants this had to happen. If people don't know any better with all this information than they did with no information, I don't give a shit. Is pleading stupidity better or worse than pleading ignorance?

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

As someone who tries to make smarter decisions when it comes to food, I love having calorie counts posted. Obviously calories aren't the only part of eating healthy, but it helps.

 

[Sent]

I thought this would be common knowledge. Putting nutritional info on the packet hasn't stopped anyone from eating anything ever. The people it's techincally for don't give a shit.

 

[eznark]

I'm sure we will quickly come up with new counterproductive paternalistic edicts meant to force people to live the way we think they should live, don't worry guys.

 

[Sub_Level]

Dollars per calorie is a pretty good measure for getting the most from your money.

Per hundred calories rounded down to the nearest dollar and you might have something.

McDouble would become like $3

Some combos would become $10

Great anti-incentive.

To be nice you could keep the McChicken (just the filet, not the bun or anything) at $1.

 

[nateeasy]

Maybe they're cultivating mass.

 

[captive]

i would be interested to see the comparison to places with healthy food like smoothie king and cafe express. My gut guess would be that people that are likely to eat at those places are more likely to know how to budget their caloric intake.

Quite logical. Without that information people will think a Big Mac has a lot more calories, but the problem with fast food is not even the calorie intake. It is the fats, the sugar and stuff like that. You could have something with as many calories as a big mac, but a lot healthier.

Disregarding the fat content, depending on the size of the person, a big mac could be half or more of ones daily caloric intake, but people don't know this so they will continue to eat 2 other meals in that same day.

 

[Azih]

Makes sense sadly.

"I gotta stay lower than that daily number right? And this is like less than half of that! I'm good!".

Diet is more complicated than that. It's not just counting calories, it's sodium and sugar intake, lack of fiber etc etc.I like the idea of the colour codes. Red is bad.

 

[Mystic Theurge]

I do this.

When I eat, I want lots of calories. The idea is I don't want to get hungry again anytime soon.

 

[KlotePino]

At what point do you just give up on these people, honestly?

 

[Petrie]

I do this.

When I eat, I want lots of calories. The idea is I don't want to get hungry again anytime soon.

This doesn't work.

Calories have little do to with how satiated a food keeps you.

 

[slit]

At what point do you just give up on these people, honestly?

There is nothing to really "give up on." This was never going to do much because at the end of the day you can't regulate what people eat. You have to want to eat healthy and some people just don't care but that doesn't mean the information shouldn't be readily available.

 

[GungHo]

Give me a label that also shows me how long it takes to fuck it off.

 

[JWong]

Anyone eating at McDonald's very regularly and simultaneously worrying about health benefits/dangers are doing it wrong.

Yeah... people go to McDonald's to have a suicidal health.

That's why I haven't gone to these fast food restaurants in 15 years.

 

[professor_t]

2400 calories for men and 2000 for women?! Jesus christ I eat 2200 when I'm bulking and 1700 when I'm cutting, wtf. These recommendations are complete BS and that's the real problem.

Nutrition needs to be redone and overhauled in the way its taught. The "food pyramid" (even the revised one) has been shown to be completely inaccurate and counterproductive. The "2000" magic calorie number is equally as harmful. Stop the madness

Maybe you have a really low metabolism. I would wither away and die if I tried to subsist on 1700 calories a day.

Or, maybe, my metabolism is through the roof. Still, your numbers seem awfully low.

 

[The Technomancer]

Interesting. If further studied back this up then the laws may need re-evaluation.

 

[Mystic Theurge]

This doesn't work.

Calories have little do to with how satiated a food keeps you.

Really? What does?

 

[Petrie]

Really? What does?

A lot of it is components, as carbs don't satiate or keep you full. Fiber also plays a role. One thing certain though is calories don't keep you satiated.

 

[Joni]

Disregarding the fat content, depending on the size of the person, a big mac could be half or more of ones daily caloric intake, but people don't know this so they will continue to eat 2 other meals in that same day.

570 calories is not half of the necessary caloric intake for an adult.

 

[Sword Familiar]

Burger on the right looks dead

Good. I don't want my burger to be alive.

 

[Noema]

I'm just happy that if I get an Angus combo with medium fries plus two McBacons (no fries though, gotta watch those carbs. I try to eat healthy) my meal goes over 2000 calories which I can consume in less than 30 minutes, all for about US$10.

That, my friends, is beautiful.

 

[RumblingRosco]

570 calories is not half of the necessary caloric intake for an adult.

It's entirely possible, if you're in your 80-100s, female, ~4'10", and very inactive. I'd say that's a pretty small portion of the population though.