• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
My friend was telling me that his grandson's school (Infant's age 4-7 ) monitor what food and drink they are allowed to bring in in their lunchboxes. Certain foods and drinks are banned and taken from them on periodic inspections.

I was rather taken aback, nobody gave a toss what we brought in to have at lunchtime - It couldn't have been worse than a spam fritter followed by gypsy tart anyway.

I think they have periodic lunchbox inspections, a term open to misinterpretation. I suppose it's part of the check for; guns, knives, alcohol, tobacco and crack cocaine.
I've seen kickback against 'food policing' when parents point out that taking the food from the child is theft, and that unless the school replaces it - with a more healthier item for instance - then the child will be going without food.
On the other hand, I've seen some children's packed lunches being nothing more than a processed cheese sandwich and a chocolate bar - hardly sufficient but at least it's something.
 
I was having this debate over on another forum (shock!!) the other day. I suggested that items should have the TOTAL calories printed on them in very big letters and numbers. None of this 'Only 100 calories per portion!' when a portion turns out to be so microscopic that no sensible human is EVER going to eat 100 calories worth. We all know we're going to neck the entire 'sharing pack' of crisps or Mars Bar so why not tell us, in those very big letters and numbers, what we're going to be putting in?

Those microwave curries where it says '350 calories' and you think 'oh well, it's my main meal of the day, that's no so bad is it, I might have some rice and a naan bread as well' and you only find out it says 'per portion - pack contains two portions' once you've eaten (and the rice and the naan bread) are no use to anyone, particularly as not many people are going to carefully only eat half the pack.
 
I think sugar and fat content of the whole packet should be highlighted. Calories are fine for those who know how many they should be having, or need, but most folks can understand 'too much'.
 
I think sugar and fat content of the whole packet should be highlighted. Calories are fine for those who know how many they should be having, or need, but most folks can understand 'too much'.
I am far better on calories than I am on sugar and fat content. Almost any person who has ever been on a diet of any kind knows what calories are, as opposed to 'what percentage of fat and sugar should I be eating', simply because it's an easier method of working out what you can eat. Once you get into TDEE and all that it gets trickier, but the daily calorie requirement of men and women (broad brush as it may be) is printed on practically every food item. Fat and sugars are harder to quantify, and even telling someone something is 100% fat won't stop them eating it. However, telling them that it contains more calories than their entire daily allowance just might.

IMO, obviously, but that's probably because I've been made aware of calories in/calories out all my life.
 
I am far better on calories than I am on sugar and fat content. Almost any person who has ever been on a diet of any kind knows what calories are, as opposed to 'what percentage of fat and sugar should I be eating', simply because it's an easier method of working out what you can eat. Once you get into TDEE and all that it gets trickier, but the daily calorie requirement of men and women (broad brush as it may be) is printed on practically every food item. Fat and sugars are harder to quantify, and even telling someone something is 100% fat won't stop them eating it. However, telling them that it contains more calories than their entire daily allowance just might.

IMO, obviously, but that's probably because I've been made aware of calories in/calories out all my life.
If you ate just lard for a while, you'd lose weight. 100% fat diet, no carbs.
There'd be... consequences, but hey - weight loss is a good thing, right?
 
If you ate just lard for a while, you'd lose weight. 100% fat diet, no carbs.
There'd be... consequences, but hey - weight loss is a good thing, right?
You would probably die of malnutrition though.

That or sliding off the loo, through the door and cracking your head on the steps as you shot out of the house.
 
1710599819272.png
 
However, telling them that it contains more calories than their entire daily allowance just might.
No it won't. People know damn well a Big Mac meal is more calories then they should be eating in any day, let alone a single meal. They still do it.

It's the same with smoking; other than a few annoying quirks, you don't see the consequences until it's far too late.
 
No it won't. People know damn well a Big Mac meal is more calories then they should be eating in any day, let alone a single meal. They still do it.

It's the same with smoking; other than a few annoying quirks, you don't see the consequences until it's far too late.
I'm not talking about Big Macs though (which already have the calories displayed). I'm talking about small things, things that people consider a harmless 'snack'. Take a chocolate hobnob for example. The calories per 100g will be displayed on the packet. I have never weighed a hobnob. The packet will tell me that 100g would give me nearly 500 calories. I can safely ignore that, because I don't think I will eat 100g worth (whilst having no idea how many biscuits 100g might be). So I will eat, say, two biscuits and reassure myself that it's nearly no calories, it's only two biscuits after all.

Two chocolate hobnobs will be damn near 200 calories. For me, that's just over two miles of running, quite fast. Knowing that simply eating ONE hobnob would completely undo any good (apart from muscular exercise) from my dog walk might make me stop and think before eating. Too many people can mindlessly eat this sort of 'snack' and be completely unaware of just how calorie dense they are.
 
I'm not talking about Big Macs though (which already have the calories displayed). I'm talking about small things, things that people consider a harmless 'snack'. Take a chocolate hobnob for example. The calories per 100g will be displayed on the packet. I have never weighed a hobnob. The packet will tell me that 100g would give me nearly 500 calories. I can safely ignore that, because I don't think I will eat 100g worth (whilst having no idea how many biscuits 100g might be). So I will eat, say, two biscuits and reassure myself that it's nearly no calories, it's only two biscuits after all.

Two chocolate hobnobs will be damn near 200 calories. For me, that's just over two miles of running, quite fast. Knowing that simply eating ONE hobnob would completely undo any good (apart from muscular exercise) from my dog walk might make me stop and think before eating. Too many people can mindlessly eat this sort of 'snack' and be completely unaware of just how calorie dense they are.
First, I agree with all of that, but you're going on the assumption people have absolutely no idea what-so-ever that there's 200 calories in 2 Hobnobs. I doubt anyone in Britain is that clueless. They know damn well that 2 Hobnobs are 200 calories and eat 10. No, that's not it....

You highlighted the real reason, however; willpower. Most people lack the willpower to stop eating after one serving (raises hand) and also lack the willpower to run two miles (raises hand) hence, the obesity crisis. :)
 
I never know which is the more fatal to weight loss: the amount of calories or of fat or of sugar. Google is no help because, as usual on any subject, advice is conflicting.
 
I never know which is the more fatal to weight loss: the amount of calories or of fat or of sugar. Google is no help because, as usual on any subject, advice is conflicting.
The only thing fatal to weight loss is to stop being mindful of what goes in your mouth. Both carbs and protein have 4 calories per gram; fat has 9 calories per gram. But there a whole lot more to it than that; protein takes longer to digest than carbs. If you're hungry for a snack and pick up a bag of chips, you'll be hungry again within an hour or 2. Eat a can of tuna fish and you won't be hungry for hours.

This nutrition information is provided by the USDA for 1 can (165g) of light tuna, packed in water (without salt) and drained.1

  • Calories: 191
  • Fat: 1.4g
  • Sodium: 83mg
  • Carbohydrates: 0g
  • Fiber: 0g
  • Sugar: 0g
  • Protein: 42g
  • Iron: 2.52mg
  • Magnesium: 44.6mg
  • Potassium: 391mg
  • Selenium: 133mcg
  • Vitamin B12: 4.93
  • Vitamin B6: 0.577mg

Weight loss is a game of averages. When I started Keto I learned that just eating 500 fewer calories every day would equal a 1 lb weight loss each week. Just doing nothing else than eating just a little less. That's why having a treat or a cheat meal won't derail your weight loss progress. Just enjoy it and get back to it the next day.
 
First, I agree with all of that, but you're going on the assumption people have absolutely no idea what-so-ever that there's 200 calories in 2 Hobnobs. I doubt anyone in Britain is that clueless. They know damn well that 2 Hobnobs are 200 calories and eat 10. No, that's not it....

You highlighted the real reason, however; willpower. Most people lack the willpower to stop eating after one serving (raises hand) and also lack the willpower to run two miles (raises hand) hence, the obesity crisis. :)

Also we have to stop thinking of the feeling of hunger as being somehow 'the enemy'. You see people shoving in 'snacks' only an hour after eating, simply because they've had a twinge of nibblishness. Feeling hungry won't kill anyone. When I was young (in the Dark Ages) there WERE no snacks. You ate three meals a day and got a clip around the ear if you said you were hungry between meals. You might possibly be offered something unappetising to eat if you were 'really hungry' (in our house it was apples, because no one liked apples. On the grounds that, if we were really hungry we would eat them).

But nowadays you see children being given snacks after five minutes running around. People stop for a snack every time they pass a coffee shop. I am seeing people eating more calories in 'snacks' (sandwich, packet of crisps and a drink) than I eat in a whole day.

And I'm not sure that EVERYONE does know that there are 200 calories in 2 hobnobs. People who are weight conscious might if they've read up on calories. But there are an awful lot of very stupid people out there, and also people who overestimate how many calories they burn and woefully underestimate how many they put in. Of the 'well, I went for a one mile walk today, so I can eat a packet of chips and some biscuits and probably a bacon sandwich now'. Telling people absolutely and categorically that they are overeating might help some.

And not all exercise has to be willpower motivated. Ask anyone who has a dog...
 
Also we have to stop thinking of the feeling of hunger as being somehow 'the enemy'. You see people shoving in 'snacks' only an hour after eating, simply because they've had a twinge of nibblishness. Feeling hungry won't kill anyone. When I was young (in the Dark Ages) there WERE no snacks. You ate three meals a day and got a clip around the ear if you said you were hungry between meals. You might possibly be offered something unappetising to eat if you were 'really hungry' (in our house it was apples, because no one liked apples. On the grounds that, if we were really hungry we would eat them).

But nowadays you see children being given snacks after five minutes running around. People stop for a snack every time they pass a coffee shop. I am seeing people eating more calories in 'snacks' (sandwich, packet of crisps and a drink) than I eat in a whole day.

And I'm not sure that EVERYONE does know that there are 200 calories in 2 hobnobs. People who are weight conscious might if they've read up on calories. But there are an awful lot of very stupid people out there, and also people who overestimate how many calories they burn and woefully underestimate how many they put in. Of the 'well, I went for a one mile walk today, so I can eat a packet of chips and some biscuits and probably a bacon sandwich now'. Telling people absolutely and categorically that they are overeating might help some.

And not all exercise has to be willpower motivated. Ask anyone who has a dog...

Definitely agree. I know people who carry a diaper bag AND a bag full of snacks and drinks when going to visit a relative for a few hours. Seriously!?

But I wouldn't call it stupidity, I'd call it human nature to willfully slip blinders on yourself, particularly when it comes to comforting yourself. Whether a bottle of wine or a package of hob nobs, or a bucket of KFC, we've all habituated ourselves to reach for something unhealthy to deal with stress and some of use don't bother to hold ourselves accountable.
 
Personally, I walk 3 kilometres every morning, I'm very considerate of salt intake, fat intake, and sugar (don't have any sugar) and yet portion size is the one that tends to 'consolidate' on me.

I eat two meals a day with some cheese, nuts, or fruit around about one...but come Christmas, I will put on two kilo's (5 lbs, or thereabouts). I have lost one kilo and it is what, a quarter into the year?

Then there is our genetic inheritance, our age (buggrit!)...and the availability of things like English Stiltson...bloody 'Obnobs, and the culmination of all that's delinquent...Chocolate...(Sir...it is only a wafer thin mint!?)

I suppose we're all different when it comes to metabolism, but my albatross is portion size.
 
And I'm not sure that EVERYONE does know that there are 200 calories in 2 hobnobs.

There’s none so blind as he who will not see.”

There is one of these -

nutrition-facts-label-download-image3.jpg


- on the side of every item of foodstuff in the shops. Anyone who claims to be surprised at the calories in a Hobnob is either illiterate or being conveniently disingenuous.

Another issue is that we have one group of lavishly-paid government employees nagging us about obesity, and a second equally lavishly-paid bunch lecturing us about “body positivity.”

Wobblebottoms need to be hugged less, and to be told more often, “You’re a fat bastard and it’s all your own fault. Eat less; move more!

“Doctors and nurses often “weight-shame” people who are overweight or obese, leaving them feeling anxious, depressed and wrongly blaming themselves for their condition…”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/10/obese-patients-weight-shamed-doctors-nurses

:headbang:

maximus otter
 
Chatted about this with Techy, who's having to adjust his diet because of a health problem. If he eats or drinks certain things he'll be doubled up in pain again. He hasn't been tempted so far.

My take is that if I were told to live on, say, four foods for the rest of my life I'd comply. Pain avoidance is a great incentive. :bthumbup:
 
“Doctors and nurses often “weight-shame” people who are overweight or obese, leaving them feeling anxious, depressed and wrongly blaming themselves for their condition…”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/10/obese-patients-weight-shamed-doctors-nurses

:headbang:

maximus otter
You'd think if they were that depressed and anxious, they'd eat less wouldn't you? But no, we've allowed ourselves as a society to see food as comfort and it's much more socially acceptable nowadays to see a shopping cart filled with fattening food than it is to see a grocery cart filled with alcohol.
 
Can't touch the wealthy and powerful food industry?
Blame the consumer, eh?

Blanket condemnation of 'wobblebottoms' completely ignores those with real, medically-recognised physical and mental illnesses. Nice bit of empathy for your fellow human there.
People's bodies are all different, and respond to different chemicals and foodstuffs differently. If it was a matter of 'eat less, move more' then that is so easy that there would be no 'obesity', let alone an 'epidemic'.
 
You'd think if they were that depressed and anxious, they'd eat less wouldn't you? But no, we've allowed ourselves as a society to see food as comfort and it's much more socially acceptable nowadays to see a shopping cart filled with fattening food than it is to see a grocery cart filled with alcohol.
Depression, like neuro-divergence, affects people differently. And food-related mental issues can be so deep-seated from childhood that they're hard to shake. It is partly education ... but of the generation preceding the victim. How much better to educate an overweight generation in order to prevent a future lot growing up with avoidable health issues. Like a generation of smokers being educated about the health dangers, preventing their children from taking up the habit.
I know someone who struggles with their weight. They want to maintain a healthy size but they have 'comfort food' thanks to having a shitty life. They eat foods that they had in childhood, when they were far happier. How easy it is to say "Don't comfort eat". It's like telling someone who suffers from depression "just cheer up!"
 
a) Can't touch the wealthy and powerful food industry?
Blame the consumer, eh?

b) Blanket condemnation of 'wobblebottoms' completely ignores those with real, medically-recognised physical and mental illnesses.

a) The food industry doesn’t shove its products down people’s throats. Humans have agency and volition.

b) Those who are obese because of genuine medical problems form a tiny minority of the fatties we all see every day.

maximus otter
 
There’s none so blind as he who will not see.”

There is one of these -

nutrition-facts-label-download-image3.jpg


- on the side of every item of foodstuff in the shops. Anyone who claims to be surprised at the calories in a Hobnob is either illiterate or being conveniently disingenuous.

Another issue is that we have one group of lavishly-paid government employees nagging us about obesity, and a second equally lavishly-paid bunch lecturing us about “body positivity.”

Wobblebottoms need to be hugged less, and to be told more often, “You’re a fat bastard and it’s all your own fault. Eat less; move more!

“Doctors and nurses often “weight-shame” people who are overweight or obese, leaving them feeling anxious, depressed and wrongly blaming themselves for their condition…”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/10/obese-patients-weight-shamed-doctors-nurses

:headbang:

maximus otter
Per serving.

And no, it doesn't always tell you what 'A Serving' looks like. Look at breakfast cereal. It will say 'A 30g serving will give you.....' whatever the nutritional information is. A 30g serving barely covers the bottom of the bowl, it is not 'a serving' by any stretch of the imagination, apart from the food manufacturers who want to kid you that their food contains hardly any calories at all. A 30g serving of, say, Coco Pops looks almost like a diet food, until you see that it's an amount of food that would barely sustain a fairly small gnat for half an hour.

I also have to mention that I have no skin in this game, being actually slightly underweight at the moment, right at the bottom of my BMI.
 
Also we have to stop thinking of the feeling of hunger as being somehow 'the enemy'. You see people shoving in 'snacks' only an hour after eating, simply because they've had a twinge of nibblishness. Feeling hungry won't kill anyone. When I was young (in the Dark Ages) there WERE no snacks. You ate three meals a day and got a clip around the ear if you said you were hungry between meals. You might possibly be offered something unappetising to eat if you were 'really hungry' (in our house it was apples, because no one liked apples. On the grounds that, if we were really hungry we would eat them).
I find that the 20 minute rule really works.
Wait 20 minutes after your meal and (with me at least) nine times out of ten I'm really glad I didn't eat anything else even though I thought I was still hungry at the time.
But nowadays you see children being given snacks after five minutes running around. People stop for a snack every time they pass a coffee shop. I am seeing people eating more calories in 'snacks' (sandwich, packet of crisps and a drink) than I eat in a whole day.
And eating and drinking whilst walking seems to be far more prevalent than it was at one time.
It seems that people can't go an hour without it.
How can you enjoy food and drink (and digest it properly) that way?
I saw an obese woman shoving a huge pie in her face yesterday while she was walking through town.
 
Per serving.

And no, it doesn't always tell you what 'A Serving' looks like. Look at breakfast cereal. It will say 'A 30g serving will give you.....' whatever the nutritional information is. A 30g serving barely covers the bottom of the bowl, it is not 'a serving' by any stretch of the imagination, apart from the food manufacturers who want to kid you that their food contains hardly any calories at all. A 30g serving of, say, Coco Pops looks almost like a diet food, until you see that it's an amount of food that would barely sustain a fairly small gnat for half an hour.

I also have to mention that I have no skin in this game, being actually slightly underweight at the moment, right at the bottom of my BMI.

Every label includes “Energy per 100 grams.” This burger label includes “Energy per burger”:

traffic-light-info.jpg


I’ll take a lot of convincing that anyone who could be bothered, couldn’t work out what was lardy and what wasn’t.

maximus “BMI 23.6” otter
 
Back
Top