Food labelling

[Tessa K]

Does putting labels on food to say how much exercise it takes to work off the calories help reduce obesity? There was a proposal to do this a while ago and now it's back .

Appreciating it would take four hours to walk off the calories in a pizza or 22 minutes to run off a chocolate bar creates an awareness of the energy cost of food, they say.

The labels would help people indulge less, exploratory studies suggest.The aim is to encourage healthier eating habits to fight obesity.

According to the researchers from Loughborough University, who looked at 14 studies, this type of labelling could cut about 200 calories from a person's daily average intake.

I wrote this the first time it was proposed.

tldr: obesity is multifactorial and this solution is highly problematic.

[Chris Preston]

I doubt it will help much. It does not address the main reasons why people consume too many calories.

[Tessa K]

I doubt it will help much. It does not address the main reasons why people consume too many calories.

A very good argument for God not being a woman is the amount of calories in chocolate.

[Herainestold]

Good analysis Tessa.
I personally would find it interesting, as I am a data nerd, but the practical effect will be approximately zero.

[lpm]

Quite handy that dividing the calories by 10 gives the minutes of running. Who cares if the figure is out by +/- 20% or whatever?

I think all these things add up, giving better awareness of calorie surpluses. And addresses the "I've been on a 30 minute walk, I deserve this Mars Bar" thinking. And making exercise normal has to be good.

The nihilistic approach that nothing will make a difference has to be wrong. Some people do change their behaviours and adjust their diets - so some of these public awareness things must be working.

[Tessa K]

Quite handy that dividing the calories by 10 gives the minutes of running. Who cares if the figure is out by +/- 20% or whatever?

I think all these things add up, giving better awareness of calorie surpluses. And addresses the "I've been on a 30 minute walk, I deserve this Mars Bar" thinking. And making exercise normal has to be good.

The nihilistic approach that nothing will make a difference has to be wrong. Some people do change their behaviours and adjust their diets - so some of these public awareness things must be working.

I agree that nihilism isn't the way. It's a multifactorial problem and needs a multifactorial response. Certainly for me realising the fat/calorie content in muffins was an eye opener. The trouble is that the things that work aren't headline material or monetiseable (is that a word?) - regular exercise, healthy diet, portion control, limited booze, no fags for ever. And of course, a little of what you fancy does you good.

[Al Capone Junior]

Posting the supposed amount of running needed to burn off some # of calories in a candy bar fails to address the elephant in the room - the sugar in that candy bar.

Not all calories are created equal, and some are much worse than others. If there's a devil, it's sugar*, and of course those who use tobacco company like tactics to keep pumping it down everybody's throats in huge quantities.

*not to belittle the colossal douche-baggery of oil companies or repugnicans

[shpalman]

Posting the supposed amount of running needed to burn off some # of calories in a candy bar fails to address the elephant in the room - the sugar in that candy bar.

Not all calories are created equal, and some are much worse than others. If there's a devil, it's sugar*, and of course those who use tobacco company like tactics to keep pumping it down everybody's throats in huge quantities.

To first order, that's wrong. You can lose weight eating nothing but Twinkies if you restrict the total number of calories. Food with added sugar makes it hard to do that but it's not because added sugar calories are worse than fruit sugar calories or protein calories or fat calories, it's just that you'll end up consuming more calories if you habitually eat foods with added sugar and are not careful about keeping track.

The thermic effect of food doesn't make a massive difference; I think what's more relevant is the feeling at satiety you get from fat or protein compared to carbs.

*not to belittle the colossal douche-baggery of oil companies or repugnicans

You're telling me I'm not supposed to eat oil or conservatism either now?

[Herainestold]

To first order, that's wrong. You can lose weight eating nothing but Twinkies if you restrict the total number of calories. Food with added sugar makes it hard to do that but it's not because added sugar calories are worse than fruit sugar calories or protein calories or fat calories, it's just that you'll end up consuming more calories if you habitually eat foods with added sugar and are not careful about keeping track.

The thermic effect of food doesn't make a massive difference; I think what's more relevant is the feeling at satiety you get from fat or protein compared to carbs.

That makes sense. Advice from an expert.

[Tessa K]

Posting the supposed amount of running needed to burn off some # of calories in a candy bar fails to address the elephant in the room - the sugar in that candy bar.

Not all calories are created equal, and some are much worse than others. If there's a devil, it's sugar*, and of course those who use tobacco company like tactics to keep pumping it down everybody's throats in huge quantities.

To first order, that's wrong. You can lose weight eating nothing but Twinkies if you restrict the total number of calories. Food with added sugar makes it hard to do that but it's not because added sugar calories are worse than fruit sugar calories or protein calories or fat calories, it's just that you'll end up consuming more calories if you habitually eat foods with added sugar and are not careful about keeping track.

The thermic effect of food doesn't make a massive difference; I think what's more relevant is the feeling at satiety you get from fat or protein compared to carbs.

*not to belittle the colossal douche-baggery of oil companies or repugnicans

You're telling me I'm not supposed to eat oil or conservatism either now?

And of course if you did just restrict calories and they were all sugar, you'd soon become pretty unhealthy. There's scurvy, for starters.

[shpalman]

And of course if you did just restrict calories and they were all sugar, you'd soon become pretty unhealthy. There's scurvy, for starters.

Nobody is suggesting getting literally all your daily calories from actual granulated sugar.

However it does seem to be the case that "natural" sugar from fruit is better for you than "added" sugar in cakes, but it's not immediately obvious why. Might be the fibre content of fruit or something, and smoothies and juice (even unsweetened) aren't necessarily helpful. (Also I once read something along the lines of "if you're hungry, eat an apple; if you can't be bothered to eat an apple, you aren't really hungry you're just bored.")

The It's-A-Bit-More-Complicated-Than-That on the Twinkie Diet was that he also ate "Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos" and "also took a multivitamin pill and drank a protein shake daily. And he ate vegetables, typically a can of green beans or three to four celery stalks."

But the point is he managed to go from a BMI of 28.8 to 24.9 in 10 weeks, by limiting himself to 1800 calories per day, even on 1800 calories of junk.

[lpm]

If people limit to 1,800 calories (human man) or 1,400 (human woman) then the body will notice the deficit.

A sensation known as "hunger" will result, the signal that more food is required.

If this deficit is maintained for 3 months then for much of these months the human will feel hungry. Most of the day, every day. But weight loss is guaranteed.

The entire weight-loss industry isn't so much diets to lose weight, but about making humans believe there's some magical solution that will eliminate the hungry feeling via clever tinkering with foods. A better approach is to encourage people to embrace hunger? The most successful methods are probably those that enable people to cope better with the feeling of hunger - e.g. social weight-watchers events where others motivate you to put up with the dreary months.

Once someone is around the right weight, the story changes. That's when the components of the routine diet need to work for the long term. A good mix of 2,500-2,000 calories that also make people feel satiated and pleasure in food. This requires the diet to include plenty of chocolate for pleasure, offset by generally smaller portions of everything else.

Too many people seem to confuse the two stages. They attempt to set up a long-term diet of healthy foods that will lead them to lose weight slowly and can be sustained for years. Never going to work. Better to have a short-term diet that loses weight much faster, then a long-term diet full of delicious things.

[El Pollo Diablo]

Fwiw, I find that with my incredibly sedentary office job and occasional gym visits, 1,800 cals is around the steady-state amount for me. 2,500 would see me put weight on.

[Bird on a Fire]

Lol at all the people going "I reckon this wouldn't work" in response to a trial showing that it did.

[lpm]

Fwiw, I find that with my incredibly sedentary office job and occasional gym visits, 1,800 cals is around the steady-state amount for me. 2,500 would see me put weight on.

Is there anything where you put in your height, weight, gender self-identification and laziness, and it estimates your normal burn?

[Bird on a Fire]

Fwiw, I find that with my incredibly sedentary office job and occasional gym visits, 1,800 cals is around the steady-state amount for me. 2,500 would see me put weight on.

Is there anything where you put in your height, weight, gender self-identification and laziness, and it estimates your normal burn?

Mayo Clinic has one here https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-life ... t-20402304

[Tessa K]

Nobody is suggesting getting literally all your daily calories from actual granulated sugar.

I do know that. Because if it was possible without dying, I would do it. And maybe the odd bacon sandwich. Bastard vegetables, so boring and yet so necessary.

Some of these extreme diets that seem to consist mostly of meat and dairy (eg Jordan Peterson style) make me wonder about things like scurvy - and also how the hell do they manage to poo with no fibre in the diet?

(Also I once read something along the lines of "if you're hungry, eat an apple; if you can't be bothered to eat an apple, you aren't really hungry you're just bored.")

Have you been listening to my mum?

The It's-A-Bit-More-Complicated-Than-That on the Twinkie Diet was that he also ate "Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos" and "also took a multivitamin pill and drank a protein shake daily. And he ate vegetables, typically a can of green beans or three to four celery stalks."

But the point is he managed to go from a BMI of 28.8 to 24.9 in 10 weeks, by limiting himself to 1800 calories per day, even on 1800 calories of junk.

Yes, any calorie restriction works short term, however unhealthy. I know someone who has lost a lot of weight doing that stupid Pioppi one where you cook everything in coconut oil.

[Tessa K]

If people limit to 1,800 calories (human man) or 1,400 (human woman) then the body will notice the deficit.

A sensation known as "hunger" will result, the signal that more food is required.

If this deficit is maintained for 3 months then for much of these months the human will feel hungry. Most of the day, every day. But weight loss is guaranteed.

From a combination of my age, menopause and now thyroid meds post-op I'm finding that even if I'm hungry most of the time my weight is still really hard to control. That's pretty tough, being hungry and still gaining weight. And I don't mean a bit peckish.

The doctors aren't that bothered because their main priority is that I'm not dead. The GP has upped the thyroxine dose a bit because I'm tired a lot of the time but it could be at least six months to get it right. In the meantime, I'm exercising like a bastard, doing portion control, resisting the lovely lovely sugar and STILL putting on weight. Sigh.

[lpm]

Yes, the thyroid is a bummer, and it does take months to balance out.

BoaF's Mayo Clinic thing has stolen 150 calories from me. That's a creme egg's worth. Bastards.

[Tessa K]

Yes, the thyroid is a bummer, and it does take months to balance out.

BoaF's Mayo Clinic thing has stolen 150 calories from me. That's a creme egg's worth. Bastards.

I got more than I was expecting, just 50 cal below the average female allowance. Still, that's 350 cal a week of sugar I haev to do without.

[shpalman]

Fwiw, I find that with my incredibly sedentary office job and occasional gym visits, 1,800 cals is around the steady-state amount for me. 2,500 would see me put weight on.

I track everything with MyFitness pal and I regularly have days up in the range of 2,500-3,000 cal, only spend two hours a week in the gym (and that's all weights rather than cardio) and manage to maintain a BMI around 22.5 (which for my height means 63-64 kg). When I'm back in England everyone is way bigger than I am... how the f.ck much must they be eating?

(It's true that on days in which I'm teaching both physics and dancing my watch counts about 30,000 steps, but back before I started dancing a trainer gave me a particular gym regime and nutritional plan and I lost about 5 kg in 5 months; I went below 60 kg. I'm actually trying to eat more right now because I feel like I'm losing strength.)

[Stephanie]

Fwiw, I find that with my incredibly sedentary office job and occasional gym visits, 1,800 cals is around the steady-state amount for me. 2,500 would see me put weight on.

Is there anything where you put in your height, weight, gender self-identification and laziness, and it estimates your normal burn?

Mayo Clinic has one here https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-life ... t-20402304

for me

Your estimated daily calorie needs (rounded to the nearest 50 calories) are: 1650 calories

I just did a quick estimate using myfitnesspal of an average day, and I'm pretty much bang on that amount

[JQH]

Fwiw, I find that with my incredibly sedentary office job and occasional gym visits, 1,800 cals is around the steady-state amount for me. 2,500 would see me put weight on.

Is there anything where you put in your height, weight, gender self-identification and laziness, and it estimates your normal burn?

Mayo Clinic has one here https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-life ... t-20402304

2,300 for me. I suspect I take in more than that.

[Herainestold]

actual granulated sugar.

However it does seem to be the case that "natural" sugar from fruit is better for you than "added" sugar in cakes, but it's not immediately obvious why. Might be the fibre content of fruit or something, and smoothies and juice (even unsweetened) aren't necessarily helpful. (Also I once read something along the lines of "if you're hungry, eat an apple; if you can't be bothered to eat an apple, you aren't really hungry you're just bored.")

nk.

From what I have read, and I am no expert to be sure, it is the fibre content and the fact that if you eat a bit of fruit the sugar is released more slowly than if you eat a cake or something. Smoothies and juice are really not good for you and the eat an apple advice is good. Its just boring so people dont want to follow it.

[shpalman]

actual granulated sugar.

However it does seem to be the case that "natural" sugar from fruit is better for you than "added" sugar in cakes, but it's not immediately obvious why. Might be the fibre content of fruit or something, and smoothies and juice (even unsweetened) aren't necessarily helpful. (Also I once read something along the lines of "if you're hungry, eat an apple; if you can't be bothered to eat an apple, you aren't really hungry you're just bored.")

nk.

From what I have read, and I am no expert to be sure, it is the fibre content and the fact that if you eat a bit of fruit the sugar is released more slowly than if you eat a cake or something. Smoothies and juice are really not good for you and the eat an apple advice is good. Its just boring so people dont want to follow it.

I also reckon (in a completely uninformed manner) that the various esters and what-have-you in fruit make it seem sweeter than it really is, because fruit is "trying" to get eaten and has then been bred in order to accentuate that taste. Whereas the sugar in cakes and that is because have you ever tasted cooked egg and flour on its own?