Rolling Science and Nature Thread

by **The Dude** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 09:55:38

holy shit, that's what i said the main problem was. you're just being stubborn

by **The Dude** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 09:56:35

the point is you don't want to educate them to the point they're choosing a cheeseburger over a big mac. you want to educate them so that they're buying a pound of chicken and asparagus for the same price as a large value meal. caloric info doesn't do anything

by **SK790** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 09:57:31

SK790 wrote:i'm not saying that [adding caloric info going to cure obesity, i'm saying that it could be a small step in helping. but as you and tv mentioned, education is where it all starts.

i said that education is the most important like 10 posts ago.

by **Bucky** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 09:57:57

SK790 wrote:
The Dude wrote:ok, it's been shown it hasn't had an effect, and that education is problem, but ok

but if you educate it might have an added effect

maybe not a measurable effect at this point, but I for one have used them as a guide in McDonalds. And SK is right- education needs to catch up- which hopefully is part of the philly school tactics (and others)- so it's good to have it there for those so enlightened. It's a very long term project which we can't measured in short samples.

by **The Dude** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 09:58:22

then what are you arguing? caloric info has proven to have no effect on choices at fast food restaurants. is that the only thing you're arguing?

by **The Dude** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 09:59:24

Bucky wrote:
SK790 wrote:
The Dude wrote:ok, it's been shown it hasn't had an effect, and that education is problem, but ok

but if you educate it might have an added effect

maybe not a measurable effect at this point, but I for one have used them as a guide in McDonalds. And SK is right- education needs to catch up- which hopefully is part of the philly school tactics (and others)- so it's good to have it there for those so enlightened. It's a very long term project which we can't measured in short samples.

But again, the education shouldn't be to get them to choose from one horrible option to a slightly lesser one. The education is to get them to not eat there

by **SK790** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 09:59:49

The Dude wrote:the point is you don't want to educate them to the point they're choosing a cheeseburger over a big mac. you want to educate them so that they're buying a pound of chicken and asparagus for the same price as a large value meal. caloric info doesn't do anything

i agree, but fast food places are going to still be in business if you do this. people are on the go all of the time and sometimes people need a quick meal and adding caloric info will lead people to making smart choices with better education. eventually this could lead to a demand for healthier fast food, as well. i just dispute that saying "adding the caloric info never matters" is wrong because it would help with better education.

by **The Dude** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:01:09

RIght, I understand the "people on the go". But that's not the only option. And they know that. Also, the main group of customers when I worked there were regulars. That's the problem. Not the people that only go there when on the go

by **jamiethekiller** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:05:20

i used the calorie info at Panera to make my sandwich choice for me. Panera is not a healthy place

by **SK790** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:05:29

well, idk what to tell you. you've had 2 people in this small sample size of a thread say that they've used the caloric charts at these places(me and Bucky) so I'm sure some people use them.

by **The Dude** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:07:21

Right, some, who are already intelligent enough to not be a regular customer at horrible places and eat the worst thing there. I'm talking about the vast majority of people that eat at McD's, BK, etc all the time

by **SK790** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:09:06

you said it had no effect, but you just admitted it has some.

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:09:55

arguments between insignificant and barely significant are the worst

by **The Dude** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:10:25

i said no effect on the vast majority. people that are already looking to be healthy, they're going to eat healthier things. if you, you personally, were in mcd's and looking to not eat something bad, you wouldn't need caloric info to know that the salad is better than the double quarter pounder

by **The Dude** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:10:52

Houshphandzadeh wrote:arguments between insignificant and barely significant are the worst

by **jamiethekiller** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:21:30

the most worst or the worstest

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:22:51

haven't had liverwurst in years

by **SK790** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:41:33

we have no idea what the effect would be w/ better education is my point. i think it'd have more of an effect and hopefully lead to healthier fast food choices. that's my point.

by **Bucky** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 12:15:16

I think it's not hurting anything so let's leave it be and hope for the best

by **ReadingPhilly** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 12:45:51

Oops, thought I clicked on the science and nature thread.

Archived

Rolling Science and Nature Thread

Re: Rolling Science and Nature Thread

Re: Rolling Science and Nature Thread

Re: Rolling Science and Nature Thread

Re: Rolling Science and Nature Thread

Re: Rolling Science and Nature Thread

Re: Rolling Science and Nature Thread

Re: Rolling Science and Nature Thread

Re: Rolling Science and Nature Thread

Re: Rolling Science and Nature Thread

Re: Rolling Science and Nature Thread

Re: Rolling Science and Nature Thread

Re: Rolling Science and Nature Thread

Re: Rolling Science and Nature Thread

Re: Rolling Science and Nature Thread

Re: Rolling Science and Nature Thread

Re: Rolling Science and Nature Thread

Re: Rolling Science and Nature Thread

Re: Rolling Science and Nature Thread

Re: Rolling Science and Nature Thread

Re: Rolling Science and Nature Thread

Quick Reply