Who could be against this?

[Anonymous No.10548636]

>"Starting Monday, the FDA is implementing an Obama-era policy that will require restaurants and other food outlets with 20 or more locations to post calorie counts."
>"calorie labeling is expected to...push food companies and restaurants to reformulate products so that they aren’t so hideously high in calories..."

[Anonymous No.10548677]

>>10548636
gubmint interference, surely

[Anonymous No.10548688]

>20 or more locations
So if I have 19 "Jim's BBQ" restaurants but name my 20th "Big Jim's BBQ" am I exempt?

[Anonymous No.10548694]

Labeling calories isn't gonna make the fatties less fat. I do believe that they should label all the ingredients though.

[Anonymous No.10548695]

>>10548688
Obviously it is just meant to hit the big fast food chains. If you had 25 restaurants and didn't comply, would anybody notice? Probably not.

[Anonymous No.10548697]

>>10548688
I think you'd have to at least do some shell company shenanigans, but I don't really know.

[Anonymous No.10548702]

>>10548694
And warnings on packages will never make smokers quit. The idea is to discourage some people from becoming addicted to fattening food in the first place.

[Anonymous No.10548706]

>>10548694
It begins with information. That doesn't mean it automatically solves poor impulse control, bad decision making, or a whole host of other reasons behind obesity, but it's a stepping stone.

[Anonymous No.10548710]

>>10548695
I mean yeah, that's obviously the intent of the regulation, but it would be more a matter of "when" than "if" a guy with 25 locations had the bureaucratic millstone start grinding him.

[Anonymous No.10548720]

>>10548695
>someone actually believes this in a country full of bloodthirsty lawyers

[Anonymous No.10548728]

480 calories for one stinking doughnut? I could eat a giant bowl of hot wholesome oatmeal for less.

[Anonymous No.10548729]

>>10548688
no

[Anonymous No.10548732]

>>10548720
You sound like an idiot. Random lawyers aren't all prosecutors.

[Anonymous No.10548735]

>>10548706
>>10548702
I don't think you understand. Fatties aren't fat because they eat high calorie foods. They're fat because we live in a sedentary world where they don't have to move... Ever. Everyone drives, no one walks, the only people who work out are already healthy.

Calories aren't what's causing the fat epidemic. If you look at every developed nation you'll see obesity rates are on the rise across the board.

[Anonymous No.10548740]

Artificial intelligence could determine the calorie counts of food rather easily.

[Anonymous No.10548744]

>>10548735
My lifestyle is completely sedentary. I hardly even leave the house. I am skinny because I don't eat much.

People get fat because they eat the diet of an olympian while having the physical activity of a 90 year old.

[Anonymous No.10548749]

>>10548740
That's an interesting proposition, because the nominal calorie counts we typically use are basically made up anyway. It's actually rather difficult to accurately measure the energy contained in a doughnut.

[Anonymous No.10548751]

>>10548636
Is there downside to this?

[Anonymous No.10548752]

>>10548735
>Calories aren't what's causing the fat epidemic

Where else would fat come from if not from calories?

In the end it's always about calories. Yes, having a sedentary lifestyle does decrease the number of calories you can consume without getting fat, but it's still about calories in the end.

Consume more than you burn and you gain weight.
Cosume fewer than you burn and you lose weight.
Couldn't be any simpler.

[Anonymous No.10548754]

>>10548744
people are fat because they eat fatty food. Fat is not satisfying on a calorie/g basis. Fat is also not immediately useful to the body in the way starch and glucose is, so it is doubly unsatisfying. Gorging on fat is a survival instinct humans have. It kills us in modern times.

[Anonymous No.10548756]

>>10548751
It's killing jobs for no reason. This won't make anybody lose weight, all it will do is make some employers lose business. Probably not much, but they will also waste a bunch of money on "compliance."

[Anonymous No.10548757]

>>10548735
I think in the UK anyway, obesity has definitely got to do with poverty and poor food education in general - not sedentary lifestyles.

Calorie dense, processed foods, are the most cost-effective and time efficient way of feeding a working-class family who don't know how to cook.

[Anonymous No.10548758]

>>10548754
Look at what fat people actually eat. Watch an episode of one of those reality shows or something. Most of their calories come from sugars.

[Anonymous No.10548759]

>>10548732
>aren't all
only takes one jackass, plenty of hungry sharks looking to make a name, but go ahead and think you can ignore open-public regulation compliance like that and not get burned
>>10548636
>Who could be against this?
A lot of people but let me ask you this, who is for it? I bet if you dig deep enough you'll find big restaurants behind pushing it, because it creates a barrier of entry for smaller places to grow.

[Anonymous No.10548760]

>>10548749
I mean one could make a regular computer program to do it, but then someone still has to enter in all the info to get the answers, ai could read the recipe and figure out everything on its own.

[Anonymous No.10548761]

>>10548744
It's not that I don't agree that eating less food would help. Because it will keep you skinny if you don't eat much. I'm just pointing out that the epidemic seems to be more caused by people simply not working out or moving around.

The fatties still chug liters of soda with clearly marked calorie counts.

[Anonymous No.10548764]

>>10548735
Why are you telling me I don't understand when you're suggesting a sedentary lifestyle is the SOLE reason for obesity? If you believe there aren't a whole host of lifestyle factors that feed into it then you really need to do some more reading.

I said information was a STEP and it absolutely is. But not just about the contents of what we eat, but about our exercise, our habits, and our lifestyles. Information ABOUT obesity rates and about science-based solutions toward turning people's lives around.

In some places, obesity rates are falling because of that awareness. Same thing with >>10548702, smoking rates are falling because of information and awareness.

[Anonymous No.10548766]

>>10548754
Is it easier for the body to burn bodily fat stores as opposed to using calories from fatty foods?

So on a high fat, low carb diet would the body burn more fat than calories from food?

[Anonymous No.10548767]

>>10548759
>go ahead and think you can ignore open-public regulation compliance like that and not get burned
I don't think that. But I think someone "provocatively" asking "what if I name my 20th restaurant 'Mic'Donalds instead?" is being an idiot and intentionally missing the point.

[Anonymous No.10548771]

>>10548756
>won't make anybody lose weight
>will still kill jobs somehow
Holy fuck the doublethink. You can't have your cake and eat it too, anon.

[Anonymous No.10548775]

>>10548771
"Nutrition facts" have proven to just be a government subsidy for jewish "nutritionists." They have been around for ages and people are getting fatter and fatter, not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.10548777]

>>10548759
>because it creates a barrier of entry for smaller places to grow.
little "harmless" regulations like this done ad infinitum are the reasons you walk into a grocery store with tens of thousands of different things and they're all made by the same 5-6 companies

[Anonymous No.10548781]

>>10548775
You still haven't explained how something can be unaffective yet still affect business

[Anonymous No.10548783]

>>10548775
OBSESSED

[Anonymous No.10548785]

>>10548758
>Most of their calories come from sugars.
sucrose is 50% fructose. Fructose is turned into fat in the liver.

Starch is pure glucose. Glucose is what the cells use. Glucose is extremely good energy source for the body.

[Anonymous No.10548788]

>>10548785
>sucrose is 50% fructose
>Starch is pure glucose
Imagine being this retarded

[Anonymous No.10548789]

>>10548764
I don't think you understand. Fatties still eat bags of Doritos and liters of sodas and put cream in their sugary cereal.

The calorie counts on restaurant meals clearly are not going to change those acts.

You want to really combat the fat epidemic? Don't teach people that as long as it's 'low in calories'. Put taxes on heavily processed foods. Make unprocessed and lightly processed foods cheaper. 90% of the American diet is incredibly unhealthy overtly processed food.

The only point that I'm making is that putting the calorie count on fast food places (the majority of which already have them) isn't going to change shit.

[Anonymous No.10548795]

>>10548789
as long as it's 'low in calories' that's it's healthy*

[Anonymous No.10548797]

>>10548788
Imagine calling facts retarded just to support your own ignorance.

[Anonymous No.10548801]

>>10548789
There's no other way to say it than you're making an incorrect point out of ignorance.

[Anonymous No.10548804]

>>10548766
>Is it easier for the body to burn bodily fat stores as opposed to using calories from fatty foods?
If you want to burn fat, eat very little fat and fructose (a sugar that is turned into fat), and exercise.

The body will burn the glucose through exercise, and the fat will be drawn from storage, slowly, to be burned by metabolic processes (the heart uses fat for fuel, for example)

[Anonymous No.10548809]

>>10548789
Though I agree with your ideas for taxing processed foods, it's not in their political interests to do so. It raises prices, reflected in the consumer price index of inflation, and cases real wages to fall.

They'd rather use 'nudge' taxes than more effective policy.

[Anonymous No.10548813]

>>10548697
>shenanigans
This word, it is not used nearly enough

[Anonymous No.10548814]

>>10548735
Why is it 2017 and people this retarded still exist?
Shouldn't people be ahead of these 1980s nutritional myths?

Yes you stupid piece of stinky shit, they are fat because they eat TOO MUCH CALORIES. 70% diet, 30% exercise. Stupid retard, just by breathing you spend around 2000kcal a day. To burn off that say, running, you'd have to be like 10 hours running non-stop. That's retarded and nobody does it, the correct choice is to STOP FUCKING EATING. That way you'll be on a caloric deficit higher than running around like a giant retard. It's the only thing that matters regarding obesity, fuck you and your retarded memes from the 80s.

[Anonymous No.10548815]

I support it fully. Not only is it useful for everyone, but people should by law be allowed to know what they're putting in their body.

[Anonymous No.10548816]

I expect high calories, high fat, high salt, and high sugar when I eat out.

[Anonymous No.10548818]

>>10548801
Show me the stats about putting calorie counts on soda changing people's eating habits. Show me the stats on McDonald's calorie counts changing behavior.

You're making the argument that this works so it's up to you to provide the stats.

[Anonymous No.10548821]

>>10548694
No but for someone like me who used to be fat and is now very careful about maintaining calories it's useful to easy be able to count at a glance.

[Anonymous No.10548829]

>>10548797
Try reading the wikipedia articles on sucrose, fructose, glucose and starch before posting again. There's really no excuse for being so completely wrong about everything considering the resources that are freely available.

[Anonymous No.10548836]

>>10548814
>just by breathing you spend around 2000kcal a day
Woah, that is way off man. Maybe if you weigh 1000 lbs that is true. For a normal person the number is around 500. Source: I eat far less than 2000kcal and don't lose weight.

[Anonymous No.10548838]

>>10548814
You're right. I was being hyperbolic. The point I'm trying to make is that these people do not count or care about calories so if you want real change you promote exercise and you tax overtly processed food and make unprocessed food cheaper.

You're right that weight is determined by calorie in calorie out but labeling doesn't change the behavior of people who chug clearly labeled soda.

[Anonymous No.10548842]

>>10548838
There might be a public shaming effect at least. Fatties might actually feel embarrassed about ordering a 2000 calorie lunch when they know everyone around can clearly see how much it really is.

[Anonymous No.10548844]

>>10548836
wtf are you talking about. that is absolutely correct. look up any website that calculates your daily caloric requirements.

[Anonymous No.10548845]

>>10548821
True it is helpful but people like you are already going to look up average calories on the internet on or from apps like fitnesspal. I'm saying the average fatty does not even consider it.

[Anonymous No.10548853]

The thing is, American hate the socialist idea of taxing. It's too much of an intrusive policy which invades their right, blablahblah

So they have to do ineffective shit like this instead

[Anonymous No.10548856]

>>10548818
If you're too lazy to look for yourself then I guarantee you won't read a report this size, but have at it: https://stateofobesity.org/files/stateofobesity2016.pdf

[Anonymous No.10548860]

>>10548829
?? sucrose is 50/50 glucose and fructose.

starch is broken down into glucose when we eat it. what's the problem?

[Anonymous No.10548861]

>>10548853
would you like a free helicopter ride?

[Anonymous No.10548863]

>>10548853
I mean I'm arguing that it's a good policy but I also understand that the government would completely fuck it up because it is an ineffective and useless system.

[Anonymous No.10548864]

>>10548845
No but this will help them start considering it. They'll realize that some things have more calories than others, it will help people starting diets that don't know much stick with the diet as they're better informed. It will educate people even if only slightly.
This is already a thing in Canada, if I go out to eat the calories are always next to the price. I don't know if it's helped slow down obesity but anecdotally I've seen friends mention it in consideration. Even if it doesn't help people lose weight, it will help them not gain it.
It's an overall positive no matter how you look at it. Even if you're a businessman you can use this as a health food angle which is big right now.

[Anonymous No.10548868]

>>10548836
Maybe if you're a woman or a soiboi. Men with decent muscle mass will spend 2k a day easily. My point still stands.
>For a normal person the number is around 500
No.
>>10548838
>if you want real change you promote exercise
This achieves NOTHING. Exercise is HARMFUL to fat people, they fuck up their joints and cause irreversible damage, those deformed bodies cannot do what a regular human can and they should lose weight first exclusively by diet.

Smokers will still smoke no matter what. You expect people addicted to food (to sugar, stronger than heroin) to just stop because you put some meaningless numbers (to them) below their meals? Because you'll judge them and call them fat?
This whole way of thinking is retarded. Change must come from the individual himself with no pressure.
We don't need to change anybody, let them eat themselves to death, why do you care? It's their choice. Take care of your body and let others swim or sink.
And stop adding taxes to fucking everything under the guise of saving the world, fuck off. I don't want to pay more for something just because others abuse it.
Taxing fucking food. just WOW.

[Anonymous No.10548877]

>Cheesecake Factory on suicide watch

[Anonymous No.10548884]

>>10548636
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/11/10/16623590/calorie-count-menus-mandatory-2018

[Anonymous No.10548885]

>>10548695
>meant for big fast food chains
Fast food chains have already had to do this for some time now though.

[Anonymous No.10548888]

I know we're bringing up smoking with this but do we have hard stats on smoking tobacco rates to smoking weed rates.

This just be my naive assumption but I think a large part of the reason smoking went down so much is because it was replaced with weed. All I'm saying is they might have just replaced one vice with another.

[Anonymous No.10548895]

>>10548868
>I don't want to pay more for something just because others abuse it
You already are. Your idea of letting others sink or swim won't work because we don't all live in a self-contained bubble where our individual choices have 0 impact on others. Obese individuals have outrageous health issues compared to healthy individuals and the rest of us are subsidizing it. Maybe it isn't on your paycheck or a doctor's bill as a "fat tax" but that's exactly what's happening.

[Anonymous No.10548899]

>>10548877
Jesus Christ how is that even possible? What do you even put in those things for that to be possible?

[Anonymous No.10548901]

>>10548877
I propose we air drop crispy chicken costolettas on Puerto Rico and certain sections of Africa.

[Anonymous No.10548902]

>>10548877
Jesus Christ.

Went to cheesecake factory once and had the miso salmon. 1700kcal?!?! My maintenance is 1400!!!

[Anonymous No.10548903]

>>10548853
>So they have to do ineffective shit like this instead
>unlike taxation

[Anonymous No.10548906]

>>10548888
But that indicates that changing perceptions does change behaviors. Over the last 5 decades or so, the public has perceived cigarettes to be more dangerous, and weed to be less dangerous.

[Anonymous No.10548908]

>>10548899
I've never actually finished a meal at Cheesecake Factory. They just give you a fuckload of food, and you take half of it home.

[Anonymous No.10548911]

>>10548888
There aren't direct correlations, but in one CA study, marijuana use at a young age correlated with increased chance of tobacco consumption, and vice versa. Not to mention tobacco consumption was falling steadily before legalization.

[Anonymous No.10548912]

>>10548895
And your retarded taxing of food won't do shit because these people are ADDICTED.
A pack of cigs costs 5€ in my country. People still buy it, around 4,50€ is only tax.
Your stupid prohibition/taxation shit doesn't work. Stop making innocent people pay for other's mistakes.

[Anonymous No.10548913]

>>10548844
Ok, I did look it up and found that it's actually like 1400kcal for me personally. I guess I can't trust those pro-ana websites from the old days.

[Anonymous No.10548914]

>>10548885
I think that's just certain states like California, it's definitely not in some areas

[Anonymous No.10548919]

>>10548895
Maybe don't have socialized healthcare then

[Anonymous No.10548921]

>>10548908
Yeah, however you usually split an appetizer and some cheesecake while youre there too. God forbid you order a soda.

[Anonymous No.10548922]

Great now everyone is going to fake calories.
It was somewhat reliable till now.

[Anonymous No.10548924]

>>10548903
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43372295

UK tax on sugar in drinks. Companies are already changing drinks formula to avoid a hike in their price, and ultimately sales.

[Anonymous No.10548925]

>>10548913
>pleb-ana
>not being friends with Mia

[Anonymous No.10548926]

>>10548842
>There might be a public shaming effect at least.
There is already so much public shaming of fat people. I don't think people knowing that your big mac, fillet o'fish, 20 piece nuggets and super sized fries and soda "lunch" is 35,000 calories, is going to make much difference. They are already looking at you with disgust from the size of your order anyway.
>Fatties might actually feel embarrassed
I think all they feel is fat. Oh, and hungry.

[Anonymous No.10548932]

>>10548842
>Fatties might actually feel embarrassed about ordering a 2000 calorie lunch
Do americans really care about what others think of their food?

[Anonymous No.10548937]

>>10548926
I guess there's a counterargument to be made that shame makes them want to eat more. Fat people certainly seem to promote that view, that emotional struggles make them want to eat more.

[Anonymous No.10548939]

>>10548912
Taxing tobacco and alcohol has worked. Soda is definitely more complex and are much more recent, but there's already data that shows that soda taxes can be effective as well (Philadelphia, Berkeley, Chicago, Boulder, NY).

Care to try again with facts?

[Anonymous No.10548940]

>>10548908
This is the crsipy chicken costaletta at Cheesecake Factory (2556 cal). I can see someone finishing this with a little effort. It definitely does not look like an entire day's worth of calories.

[Anonymous No.10548943]

>>10548911
Yeah I guess you're right. Although I still think it's a bit different. No one is raised on smoking, but everyone is raised eating. It's significantly harder to break a bad habit than it is to start one.

[Anonymous No.10548948]

>>10548919
The US doesn't...

[Anonymous No.10548955]

>>10548914
I live in Florida. Every fast food place I've visited clearly marked their calories.

[Anonymous No.10548956]

>>10548924
so now people that take care of themselves and just happen to enjoy these drinks get their choices taken away to circumvent the tax

[Anonymous No.10548964]

>>10548919
The US doesn't...

>>10548943
It's interesting you mention that, because targeting young people has shown the most success. While the rate of adulthood obesity has slowed, the rate of childhood obesity has reversed simply because of better information, better school programs, and education.

Maybe we can't save every adult, but this movements to expand awareness, improve access to healthy food and drinks, etc. will reap rewards for many years to come. As the saying goes: "The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is today." Arguing that these changes shouldn't be enforced because they won't save every obese person are shortsighted.

[Anonymous No.10548969]

>>10548939
>Taxing tobacco and alcohol has worked.
Are you legally retarded son?
In which way has this worked?
Do you know you can do alcohol yourself easily? Do you know you can plant tobacco too? Do you know people still buy this shit with tax because they don't give a fuck and it doesn't stop them even if it's expensive?
Oh no, the soda can will cost 80c instead of 50c, will fat fucks ever recover? They'll need to abandon it for good now!

Or... are you gonna make them real expensive? $10 a can?

What will stop companies from selling you the flavoring, and then it's on you to add the sugar?

Will you tax sugar itself then? Surely that'd work real good. People would literally make their own sugar or buy it from others illegally, black market.

When will you learn? Human will always finds a way.

[Anonymous No.10548975]

>>10548939
You probably argue about things like regressive taxes and muh poor people but have no problem taxing cigarettes to high holy hell because you don't like them oblivious to the fact these things economically kneecap poor people.

I can end duis by summarily executing the driver on the spot if he fails a breathylizer, doesn't mean it should be done. You need to know where to draw the line.

[Anonymous No.10548980]

>another attempt to reel in big business that stops small businesses from expanding
liberalism is a disease

[Anonymous No.10548983]

>>10548948
Medicare, Medicaid, schip, ssid, etc is socialized healthcare numbnuts. it takes up more of our budget than the military pretty comfortably

[Anonymous No.10548984]

>>10548937
>Fat people certainly seem to promote that view, that emotional struggles make them want to eat more.
Well it's self-serving blame deflection. They get to continue to overeat, except it is your fault for "making" them do it, rather than their utter lack of self-control and discipline.

[Anonymous No.10548988]

>>10548969
>in which way has this worked?
By the reduction in alcohol and tobacco consumption. I'm not going to respond to the rest because it's a bunch of angry nonsense to change the conversation because you've been repeatedly proven wrong.

[Anonymous No.10548991]

>>10548956
Would you say the same thing about drug prohibition, or alcohol prohibition?

Yeah, it sucks that now absinthe is banned for people who are responsible drinkers. Or the quality of LSD blotters are shit because they're now unavailable on the regular market.

You're living under the state, under their rules. You're already giving up your liberties.

[Anonymous No.10548993]

>>10548940
This is 2500 calories? There's no way. Even if each was cooked in a tablespoon of butter, the potatoes and asparagus would only be around 500 cal. There would have to be 1.75lbs of fried chicken there to make up the final 2000 cal.

[Anonymous No.10548994]

>>10548912
Prohibition did work.

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html

[Anonymous No.10548998]

>>10548940
That actually looks tasty, and I totally would have ordered and ate that, except that now I know it is 2,556 calories. So no thank you.

[Anonymous No.10548999]

>>10548975
Was there a point anywhere in there or are you just ranting angrily at this point?

[Anonymous No.10549003]

>>10548988
>By the reduction in alcohol and tobacco consumption.
And that's only because of the current mainstream mentality, nothing to do with taxes, it's only because it's seen as bad for you and because it will give you cancer.
>I'm not going to respond to the rest because it's a bunch of angry nonsense
No, it's very clear, it's just that you don't have any arguments to refute it.

[Anonymous No.10549004]

>>10548980
yep. then these same people will turn around and rail against the "evils of capitalism" and "big business" and blame the right oblivious to the fact all these barriers they happily supported throwing up to keep these big companies entrenched regardless of what they do are the cause of what they hate

[Anonymous No.10549009]

>>10549003
>And that's only because of the current mainstream mentality, nothing to do with taxes.
If taxes had nothing to do with it, please explain why there were significant reductions immediately after these taxes were introduced.

>No, it's very clear.
Delusion: the post.

[Anonymous No.10549017]

>>10548994
>Homicide rates rose dramatically from 1900 to 1910 but remained roughly constant during Prohibition's 14 year rule.
Just in case if you were wondering if that was true. For reference: prohibition was enacted in 1920 and repealed in 1933.

[Anonymous No.10549029]

>>10548993
First, missing from that picture (not sure why) is a lemon cream sauce. Here is another photo
Second, there are a lot of things that can add up:
How much cream and butter is in the mashed potatoes?
What did they fry the asparagus in?
What oil did they fry the chicken in
What is in the chicken breading?
How much cream is in the sauce?
The calorie info is posted from a cheesecake menu in LA, and the photo is taken from the restaurant - I'm not bullshitting you.
This is EXACTLY why posting calorie counts on menus can have an impact. So many of these dishes can be misleading!

[Anonymous No.10549032]

>>10549009
They were introduced because it was already known to the public they were bad for you.
People had a lot of disposable income back then, wake the fuck up.
>Delusion: the post.
Is that why you avoid addressing it? If it's so delusional you should be able to respond to it and say what's wrong.

[Anonymous No.10549033]

>>10548636
i thought they already did this? i'm completely okay with it, some places manage to get the calorie count exorbitantly high for tasting pretty mediocre and for having such a small portion

[Anonymous No.10549035]

>>10548940
That normally comes in a heavy cream sauce which they obviously ordered without, so it's probably only ~2000 calories there.

[Anonymous No.10549039]

>>10548940
>2556 calories for this
How. Screw scarfing down terrible big macs when bulking season starts, just eat this.

[Anonymous No.10549048]

>>10548636
I believe in honest labeling, but I've already seen this for over two decades.

[Anonymous No.10549065]

>>10549032
>Why don't you waste your time arguing against my nonsensical ranting with no facts or sources to back it up?
The answer's in the question.

[Anonymous No.10549067]

>>10549029
>a lemon cream sauce
That would explain a lot.
>How much cream and butter is in the mashed potatoes?
A lot.
>This is EXACTLY why posting calorie counts on menus can have an impact.
Yes on the people that were likely in mediocre to good shape anyway. I'm not super fit, but I do pay attention to calorie counts on menus when I am ordering (my state has mandated them for a while), so do the people I usually dine with. Occasionally we will say fuck it, but it is often a topic of conversation when we do.
I'm in favor of having this information listed, because it is helpful. I just am not sure what, if any, effect it will have on actual fatties.

[Anonymous No.10549082]

>>10548752
The issue (Not that poster) is that people are eating the wrong kinds of calories. Fats are filling, proteins are needed for cellular maintenance, and so on. However, when someone drinks a large soda (mcdonalds large coke) that's 300 calories that provides no benefit, AND is not filling. I could easily spend an entire day drinking coke and consume well over 4k calories from take alone, and aside from feeling like shit for all the sugar, I will still be hungry.
While weight always comes back to calories, what KINDS of calories do matter to a certain extent

[Anonymous No.10549105]

>>10548914
Maybe. I don't pay much attention to it. I know that at least do in maryland and the surrounding states.

[Anonymous No.10549114]

>>10549067
>I just am not sure what, if any, effect it will have on actual fatties.
It may have no effect on 99 of them, and 1 positive effect. To me, I don't see how having additional useful information about the food your eating can have any drawbacks.