Obesity Discussion Forums

[Rue]

I posted this question in another forum - that has nothing to do with weight-issues. I was surprised at how vehemently people were defending 'super-sized portions'. (but I did make the mistake of suggesting the government should regulate it...apparently that translated into a communist takeover!)...

I was in Budapest over the holidays and I noticed that the Hungarians, as a rule, were thin and fit. I saw a couple of overweight people, but not one morbidly obese person...

They have all the same fast-food restaurants we have here...and for fun I did eat at Subway and at McD's for comparison...what I noticed is that they have S, M and L food/drink sizes...but NOT super-sized.

This got me thinking that if part of our problem is not recognizing a proper portion size, that if we saw 'normal' portions when we ate out - we'd have a better idea of how much we should be eating in general.

Personally, I think it's a good idea...but apparently I was only one. Now I'm wondering what you guys think, since it's maybe more of a concern among the weight-conscious.

[Obesity Discussion]

Originally Posted by Rue

I posted this question in another forum - that has nothing to do with weight-issues. I was surprised at how vehemently people were defending 'super-sized portions'. (but I did make the mistake of suggesting the government should regulate it...apparently that translated into a communist takeover!)...

I was in Budapest over the holidays and I noticed that the Hungarians, as a rule, were thin and fit. I saw a couple of overweight people, but not one morbidly obese person...

They have all the same fast-food restaurants we have here...and for fun I did eat at Subway and at McD's for comparison...what I noticed is that they have S, M and L food/drink sizes...but NOT super-sized.

This got me thinking that if part of our problem is not recognizing a proper portion size, that if we saw 'normal' portions when we ate out - we'd have a better idea of how much we should be eating in general.

Personally, I think it's a good idea...but apparently I was only one. Now I'm wondering what you guys think, since it's maybe more of a concern among the weight-conscious.

I personally don't think it should be regulated, because as adults we should know better. It shouldn't take a government to tell us how much we can and can't eat. If people didn't demand such large portion sizes they wouldn't eat it. Food portions used to be smaller in the United States for example, but restaurateurs figured out they can make more money selling double the food for a higher price.....kinda like this:

The food in a 1/2 lb Burrito cost $1 to make.
The labor and other overhead costs like building rent, power, etc adds $1.

So now you have a 1/2lb Burrito that costs $2 to make, and they sell it for $3. Do the math and that is 33% profit on those costs.

Let's say they up the Burrito size to 1 full lb...and now the food cost is $2.
The rent and labor is still the same for the bigger burrito, so now it costs $3 to make a Burrito that is twice as big.

So lets say they now charge $5 for that Burrito and you say wow, I can get a 1/2 Burrito for $3, or a full pound for $5. What a deal!

Now this person is making $2 profit on a full pound burrito, or a 40% profit.

From a business perspective, I would have absolutely no motivation to sell smaller portions and make less money. People in the United States value bang for the buck and will spend more even though they don't need it because they feel they are getting a bargain.

[Rue]

Yes...that's why I originally suggested it needed government regulation, because it's profit-based for the company.

But when people eat out - they see an amount of food placed before them, and they think this is 'normal'. Not to mention many of us were brought up not to leave food on our plates (like I was), which reinforces bad eating habits.

Apparently we're now eating 300 calories a day more than what we used to back 30 years ago. As we all know, 300 calories isn't a huge amount food-wise, so we don't even notice that we're eating it, and then wonder why we're gaining weight.

I know that some public backlash has affected fast-food restaurants...McD's (up here) is no longer asking "Would you like to super-size your order?" at the till anymore...but while that's useful, I don't think it's enough.

And yes...people feel they're getting a bargain...and if they ate part of it and took the rest home (some do, but a minority) it's not so bad. But most people eat it all (even if it means stuffing themselves) OR they throw it out - so then we get massive food wastage (which is another serious issue).

[Chrissy]

Well my opinion is I don't think it should be goverment regulated......No way.

However I do think we all should be more responsible for portion sizes that we eat (it has gotten out of control) as well as what products we are putting in our bodies. Portion sizes have been creeping up for years......and so has the obesity rate especially in our children.

I have had a distorted vision over the years of what is the proper portion size and have had to educate myself of what a portion is. I'm really trying to take responsibilty and show my children the correct way to eat.

So my answer is no not regulated by goverment. I will do my own regulating by not choosing fast food joints for me and my family and cooking at home as much as I can

Another interesting topic.......should there be a "sin" tax on junkfood and soda and such like there is on cigarettes? Hehehe.....I say bring it on, that is one of the reasons I quit smoking.

[Rue]

In an ideal world - we'd need little regulation, but it seems like the majority of people won't govern themselves...

Don't we have a 'sin' tax? I'm sure I pay tax on junk food...I'll have to go look and make sure...

[wildwoman]

The thing with regulations is if you start them....where do they stop? I don't take regulations of my freedoms lightly.........I say the less the better! One persons idea of logical regulations might stomp all over someone elses freedoms........let people make there own decisions and deal with the consiqences as they come! Growth comes about that way!!!

[matt007]

I don't like the idea of regulating portion size. Let's face it a lot of people can eat those huge portions and either keep active enough to have fast metabolisms or eat little enough the rest of the day/week that they don't have weight problems. Sure they might have some health issues due to all the junk. But there are a lot of people who can do this stuff without issues.

On the other hand I do favor one sort of government regulation. I think the government should force all chain restaurants to print their nutrition information on their menu. I understand it might be prohibitively expensive for a mom and pop place to get all that stuff tested. But for a big place with say 5+ or even 10 or 20+ locations (not knowing the costs of nutrition testing I'm not sure what would be a good minimum number of locations) it wouldn't be a major expense. It would give consumers more information and probably bring portions back down to more regular sizes in restaurants for the most part anyway. I mean how many people are going to buy ODs 1 lb burrito when they see it has 1500 calories? Sure some will, but I bet the demand for that 1/2 lb burrito will go up.

[Obesity Discussion]

Originally Posted by Rue

Yes...that's why I originally suggested it needed government regulation, because it's profit-based for the company.

But when people eat out - they see an amount of food placed before them, and they think this is 'normal'. Not to mention many of us were brought up not to leave food on our plates (like I was), which reinforces bad eating habits.

Apparently we're now eating 300 calories a day more than what we used to back 30 years ago. As we all know, 300 calories isn't a huge amount food-wise, so we don't even notice that we're eating it, and then wonder why we're gaining weight.

I know that some public backlash has affected fast-food restaurants...McD's (up here) is no longer asking "Would you like to super-size your order?" at the till anymore...but while that's useful, I don't think it's enough.

And yes...people feel they're getting a bargain...and if they ate part of it and took the rest home (some do, but a minority) it's not so bad. But most people eat it all (even if it means stuffing themselves) OR they throw it out - so then we get massive food wastage (which is another serious issue).

It's not just about us eating 300 calories more, but also the fact that we move a lot less than we used to! Remember when people actually used to walk places? Kids used to play outside more? So that's a double whammy! But keep in mind that people in the United States have gotten a little taller/bigger over the years, so that should make up for a smidgen of the increase, but not nearly enough to offset the above.

I will say that has gotten better is that there are a lot more healthy options than their used to be, but there are also more unhealthy options including trans fats, etc.

[Thin Desire]

Well in this issue, I do not think this needs any kind of government regulation. We need to learn to be more responsible for our own choices without the nanny state making those decisions for us, and this is coming from a person who would describe himself as a bleeding heart liberal, pinko commie sympathizer, lol. In theory I agree with the utopian state ideals, in practice, I'm seeing that it never works, no matter how well its intentions are. The road to hell and all that.

What I DO think needs to be regulated are the ingredients such as High Fructose Corn Syrup that pervades nearly every food we eat and demand REAL food instead of chemically injected pseudo-food. Make as much of our own food from scratch as possible, and stick to the ends aisles of the grocery store, away from the middle HFCS island, and buy organic (which is not only healthier, but usually tastes loads better) as much as possible.

We're always looking for a bargain, so we're always gonna go for "supersize". I'm not against some kind of regulation however stating to the public that a certain portion size exceeds the RDA recommendation portion size, but as for regulation actually dictating the actual size? No.

I just wish I wasn't stupid and ordering the x-large soda, when I can order a small for half the price and get endless refills, lol.

[Obesity Discussion]

Originally Posted by Thin Desire

Well in this issue, I do not think this needs any kind of government regulation. We need to learn to be more responsible for our own choices without the nanny state making those decisions for us, and this is coming from a person who would describe himself as a bleeding heart liberal, pinko commie sympathizer, lol. In theory I agree with the utopian state ideals, in practice, I'm seeing that it never works, no matter how well its intentions are. The road to hell and all that.

What I DO think needs to be regulated are the ingredients such as High Fructose Corn Syrup that pervades nearly every food we eat and demand REAL food instead of chemically injected pseudo-food. Make as much of our own food from scratch as possible, and stick to the ends aisles of the grocery store, away from the middle HFCS island, and buy organic (which is not only healthier, but usually tastes loads better) as much as possible.

We're always looking for a bargain, so we're always gonna go for "supersize". I'm not against some kind of regulation however stating to the public that a certain portion size exceeds the RDA recommendation portion size, but as for regulation actually dictating the actual size? No.

I just wish I wasn't stupid and ordering the x-large soda, when I can order a small for half the price and get endless refills, lol.

Some people may argue that regulating ingredients is just as intrusive by the government as regulating portion size. I don't feel that way, as I don't have a problem with the government banning shitty ingredients. I think it will also force us to spend some money to research healthier alternatives, which are long overdue.

[marymary_27]

I don't agree that the government should regulate size of portions nor what can and can't go into it. I do believe that they must state in a conspicuous place what is in the food including caloric information so that people who choose to eat those foods know exactly what they are eating.
I also say then the people making all of these bad choices, becoming obese (this goes for smoking too-getting COPD) my taxes shouldn't go to their health care. Nor should it go to me if I make those choices. The people making all the wrong choices and not at least trying to do something about it shouldn't be supported by the government when they get sick, like, take responsibility for your own actions.
Whew, I'll get off the soap box now.

[Rue]

The thing is...from my POV...this wouldn't affect anyone making wise eating choices...but might help out those that don't know what 'normal' is. If we're having an obesity epidemic, wouldn't this be an easy way to help out?

Again, I'm not suggesting getting rid of junk food, or some size options...let's just get rid of super-sizing altogether - and maybe determine a standard portion-size for restaurants. If it's not a huge factor in Europe, why does it have to be a huge factor in North America?

Better restaraunts do have portions as well - they would lose too much money if they didn't...so it's already in place and it does work, fine dining isn't in danger of disappearing - now we just have to extend those policies to the types of restaurants that people are more likely to overeat at...

We have caloric content available at many places, such as McD's - it's printed on the packaging...I doubt it's helping people to not overeat though...

[notobeseanymore]

Originally Posted by matt007

I don't like the idea of regulating portion size. Let's face it a lot of people can eat those huge portions and either keep active enough to have fast metabolisms or eat little enough the rest of the day/week that they don't have weight problems. Sure they might have some health issues due to all the junk. But there are a lot of people who can do this stuff without issues.

On the other hand I do favor one sort of government regulation. I think the government should force all chain restaurants to print their nutrition information on their menu. I understand it might be prohibitively expensive for a mom and pop place to get all that stuff tested. But for a big place with say 5+ or even 10 or 20+ locations (not knowing the costs of nutrition testing I'm not sure what would be a good minimum number of locations) it wouldn't be a major expense. It would give consumers more information and probably bring portions back down to more regular sizes in restaurants for the most part anyway. I mean how many people are going to buy ODs 1 lb burrito when they see it has 1500 calories? Sure some will, but I bet the demand for that 1/2 lb burrito will go up.

I agree with this. I refuse to eat at a national chain if it won't tell me what's in the food (like TGI Friday's). Not only should that data be available but it should be printed on the wrappers at fast food joints, or printed on the menus at restaurants. Making smart choices for a lot of people involves research and a lot of people just won't do it...but if you confront them on the menu with the calorie/fat/sodium content of what they're about to order, they might think twice. At least then some people can stop deluding themselves that a salad covered in fried chicken pieces and cheese swimming in ranch dressing is "healthy."

[notobeseanymore]

Originally Posted by Rue

The thing is...from my POV...this wouldn't affect anyone making wise eating choices...but might help out those that don't know what 'normal' is. If we're having an obesity epidemic, wouldn't this be an easy way to help out?

Again, I'm not suggesting getting rid of junk food, or some size options...let's just get rid of super-sizing altogether - and maybe determine a standard portion-size for restaurants. If it's not a huge factor in Europe, why does it have to be a huge factor in North America?

Better restaraunts do have portions as well - they would lose too much money if they didn't...so it's already in place and it does work, fine dining isn't in danger of disappearing - now we just have to extend those policies to the types of restaurants that people are more likely to overeat at...

We have caloric content available at many places, such as McD's - it's printed on the packaging...I doubt it's helping people to not overeat though...

It's not "Europe" though, it's certain countries within Europe. Hungary and other former Iron Curtain nations have only had access to the "Western" lifestyle for a short time, relatively speaking, and every country in the EU (including Hungary) has rising obesity rates. Fact. I lived in Europe for many years and I can tell you definitively that Europeans are getting fatter. In some countries, like Greece and the UK, they may already have passed us Americans...smaller portion sizes notwithstanding.

In the UK, for example, their "super size" at McDonald's was always a step smaller than the one here in the US, i.e. their "super size" was our large, their large was our medium, etc. Didn't seem to help them avoid obesity at all, as the British are pretty much as obese as we are...if not more so. A lot of Americans visiting the UK get a skewed perspective on the British obesity epidemic since they visit only London, or do not venture far from London. London, coincidentally, is the UK's thinnest city by quite a large margin. So you don't get an accurate picture of the problem unless you visit cities like Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, or even smaller cities like Coventry, York, etc. The north in particular is the UK's ground zero for the "diabesity" time bomb.

A nanny state that constantly threatens to put a "fat tax" on certain foods and regulates food growth/manufacturing very heavily, nationalized healthcare, smaller portion sizes (which are only marginally smaller in Britain), no free soda refills almost anywhere, a near-complete lack of HFCS in processed foods, and an infrastructure much less dependent on cars than ours have not saved the British from themselves. This to me more than anything proves that obesity is not simply a side effect of the US way of life; it is a side effect of behavior. Getting rid of HFCS and getting the government involved won't fix it. Neither will nationalized healthcare. Even the French are getting fatter, and noticeably so. I've visited France many times over a 20-year span and every time I've gone there, the population has become noticeably larger...even in Paris, which is one of the thinner cities in France. Hit a southern city like Bordeaux sometime. Yikes. Then hit a McDonald's there and pay over $12 for a value meal that would cost you half that in the US, and in France you'd get noticeably less food on your tray. Then take a look at the other diners around you, most of whom will be French except for in very touristy areas. Look at the size of them. Smaller portions aren't helping them. 20 years ago I was not aware of any chain shop in France that catered to plus-size women because there simply weren't enough of them to bother with it. Last time I was there the "Grandes Tailles" sections were not only evident, but were BIG!

Also...I don't know of any European country that regulates portion sizes. They can regulate all sorts of insane things; there have been serious arguments about calling Cadbury's products something other than chocolate, there have been lawsuits over whether you can call cheese made in Cumbria "feta" or cheese made in Silesia "cheddar", and people have been threatened with prison for selling fruit by the pound instead of by the kilogram. But I've never heard of any country saying "a portion of chicken is x grams, a portion of grapes is x grams, etc."

[Rue]

Good points. Thanks!

I don't know who determines portion sizes - outside of the government...but portion sizes do exist - even if they're just 'suggested portions'.

And I fully agree that we need to move more - that's a huge factor...no one walks anywhere anymore! Even my husband - who will run a full marathon - will prefer to take the car around the block to get a litre of milk rather than walk to get it.

I think they do still walk more in Europe...things are closer and easier to walk to. Where we live it's hard to get by without a car unless you live in an older downtown area with all the amenities.

So then, if little 'fixes' aren't useful, any suggestions as what would work? People obviously need to be 'told' what to do to some extent...

[notobeseanymore]

Originally Posted by Rue

Good points. Thanks!

I don't know who determines portion sizes - outside of the government...but portion sizes do exist - even if they're just 'suggested portions'.

Nutritionists and physicians are usually the ones setting those standards.

And I fully agree that we need to move more - that's a huge factor...no one walks anywhere anymore! Even my husband - who will run a full marathon - will prefer to take the car around the block to get a litre of milk rather than walk to get it.

But even when you do walk frequently or even walk everywhere, you can still be obese. Walking does not actually burn that many calories; sure, it's better for you than driving a car but if you top off a 2-4 mile walk with a calorie-laden meal, you'll just gain weight a bit more slowly than someone who drove to get that meal. You won't walk it off. I knew morbidly obese people in England who didn't own cars and who walked/biked everywhere. They'd wonder in all seriousness why they were overweight, then they'd tuck into a curry swimming in ghee, or a fry-up from the chippie up the street. I knew why I was fat, I just wasn't ready to pull my fingers out of my ears and do the work to change that.

I think they do still walk more in Europe...things are closer and easier to walk to. Where we live it's hard to get by without a car unless you live in an older downtown area with all the amenities.

Definitely it is. But I was morbidly obese the entire time I lived in Europe despite walking almost everywhere and riding my bike when the weather was nice. It was nice being able to walk to the store to get a pint or two of milk and other necessities if the weather was warm, but I don't miss it at all.

So then, if little 'fixes' aren't useful, any suggestions as what would work? People obviously need to be 'told' what to do to some extent...

It isn't just that they need to be told; they actually have to listen. Basically there is no way that people can continue to eat the foods that made them fat if they no longer want to be fat. No way at all. If you're taking in 4-6,000 calories per day with an unhealthy diet, there's pretty much no way for you to work it off. You can't work off a bad diet. There are always exceptions...people like Michael Phelps, for example, who famously eats 10-12,000 calories of pure junk and is an Olympic champion...but he is the exception to MANY rules! Most of us mere mortals have to be content with 2,000 calories a day (or fewer) of HEALTHY food and a LOT more strenous exercise. Taking the stairs 1-2x a day and/or walking more won't cut it. They call it a "lifestyle change" for a reason. You don't just eat less crap and walk a bit more. You have to cut most if not all of the crap out of your diet and make exercise a priority.

You (not you personally but you being "everybody") have to change the way you think about food from "treat" to "fuel." You have to change your approach to exercise from something you "reward" yourself for doing to something that HAS to be done, like laundry or sweeping or walking the dog. It's a HAVE to, something that you must prioritize...even if it means missing your favorite programs on television or playing around on the net for an hour.

[Obesity Discussion]

I just saw on the news this morning that the FDA is going to be reviewing serving sizes on food we buy in stores....to determine whether an ounce of potato chips for example is truly a serving (but yet the small bag from the vending machine could be 1.5oz, so people assume that the full bag is a serving), whereas other small bags say the full bag is a serving. And of course the serving size in the United States is drastically different than the serving size in other countries.

Ideally there could be some sort of worldwide standard for serving sizes, but due to factors like age, height, weight, sex, living conditions, you name it, a serving size is going to be drastically different.

Our definition of a serving size in the U.S. is much bigger than in other parts of the world. On the flip side, shouldn't one serving of chips for a 5 foot tall 100lb 60 year old woman be drastically different than for a 6 foot tall 200lb 20 year old male?

In the U.S. on some foods, ideal/average daily calories are listed, and show different rates for men vs. women, I think it's 2000 calories for women, 2500 calories for men per day, yet serving sizes aren't different for men vs. women.

I guess what I'm saying is overall I'm not a fan of the food labeling system, and I frequently see miscalculations on labels, especially on mom/pop brands, low volume foods, etc that apparently aren't being reviewed timely by the FDA.

[notobeseanymore]

Originally Posted by Obesity Discussion

I just saw on the news this morning that the FDA is going to be reviewing serving sizes on food we buy in stores....to determine whether an ounce of potato chips for example is truly a serving (but yet the small bag from the vending machine could be 1.5oz, so people assume that the full bag is a serving), whereas other small bags say the full bag is a serving. And of course the serving size in the United States is drastically different than the serving size in other countries.

Ideally there could be some sort of worldwide standard for serving sizes, but due to factors like age, height, weight, sex, living conditions, you name it, a serving size is going to be drastically different.

Our definition of a serving size in the U.S. is much bigger than in other parts of the world. On the flip side, shouldn't one serving of chips for a 5 foot tall 100lb 60 year old woman be drastically different than for a 6 foot tall 200lb 20 year old male?

In the U.S. on some foods, ideal/average daily calories are listed, and show different rates for men vs. women, I think it's 2000 calories for women, 2500 calories for men per day, yet serving sizes aren't different for men vs. women.

I guess what I'm saying is overall I'm not a fan of the food labeling system, and I frequently see miscalculations on labels, especially on mom/pop brands, low volume foods, etc that apparently aren't being reviewed timely by the FDA.

If something comes in a "single serving" packet like a bottle of juce or a bag of chips, I want to know the nutritional content of the entire bottle or bag. Who eats half a small "single serving" bag of chips? Honestly!

As an adult I'm capable of deciding for myself how much of something I want to consume, and I don't want the government telling me what constitutes a "serving"; I can work that out on my own too. But what I do want to know is what's in the food I eat.

I think it's funny that a "serving" of broccoli is a cup. First, who measures broccoli by the cup; its shape doesn't lend itself to accurate volumetric measurements, it's better to WEIGH it...and a cup isn't enough for me anyway. I love broccoli. So for me, a "serving" of broccoli is "all the broccoli I want." But it's broccoli, so I figure that's not too bad.

[Rue]

Thanks guys...excellent discussion!

One point though...I like having a reference point...just gives me something to compare against...

So a standard serving size still works...I can adjust whether or not I can eat a single serving, or 1.5 or 2, or even .5...

And of course that varies with any individual...my high-performance athletic daughter has to consume an incredible amount of calories to maintain her weight when she's going all out...I couldn't eat that much food if I tried! So the amount of servings will need to change depending on the individual and what they do...but that doesn't mean the standard size has to change.

Personally, I'd also like to see other things standardized better - like clothing sizes...I can't see any need for having several different sizes of 'small'...the other thing that irks me is that we're on the metric system but half of our metric foods are just converted from imperial weights...so they're stupid. A can of soup is 10 oz. which is 284 ml. That's just dumb. At least have it 300, or 250 ml. Having a metric system that is based on converted imperial measurements is just dumb (*phew* needed to get that off my chest! )

[matt007]

Originally Posted by Rue

Thanks guys...excellent discussion!

One point though...I like having a reference point...just gives me something to compare against...

So a standard serving size still works...I can adjust whether or not I can eat a single serving, or 1.5 or 2, or even .5...

And of course that varies with any individual...my high-performance athletic daughter has to consume an incredible amount of calories to maintain her weight when she's going all out...I couldn't eat that much food if I tried! So the amount of servings will need to change depending on the individual and what they do...but that doesn't mean the standard size has to change.

Personally, I'd also like to see other things standardized better - like clothing sizes...I can't see any need for having several different sizes of 'small'...the other thing that irks me is that we're on the metric system but half of our metric foods are just converted from imperial weights...so they're stupid. A can of soup is 10 oz. which is 284 ml. That's just dumb. At least have it 300, or 250 ml. Having a metric system that is based on converted imperial measurements is just dumb (*phew* needed to get that off my chest! )

Speaking of soup the 10.75 oz can of tomato soup I have sitting in my cabinet is 2.5 servings. That is ridiculous. I understand a serving size isn't supposed to be an entire meal. But what adult in their right mind gets 2.5 servings out of a single small can of soup??? I could see 2 (although I'm betting even that is uncommon) but more than 2???