Ice Cream Make You Fat, ergo Lawsuit time

[Timemaster Tim]

Washington Times Article (http://www.washingtontimes.com/business/20030724-102533-1344r.htm)

They sent letters to Baskin-Robbins Inc., Ben & Jerry's Homemade Holdings Inc., Cold Stone Creamery, the Haagen-Dazs Shoppes Inc., TCBY and Friendly Ice Cream Corp., telling the chains to add healthier alternatives and put nutritional facts on their store menu boards or face potential litigation.

They're going after Ben and Jerry's!!!!!!! I don't know about others, but I'm perfectly aware that ice cream is very fattening. And no, I don't want any healthy alternatives. When I indulge in ice cream, I want to INDULGE.

I swear the US simply has too many lawyers.

[Ben Sones]

This is the slippery slope that all that tobacco litigation is leading us down, though. People have gone from wanting to punish tobacco companies for lying about the healthiness of cigarettes to wanting the government to protect them from the consequences of their own choices.

Frankly, I can't imagine why anyone would want to launch such a lawsuit. Sure there's potential money in it, but it seems really unlikely that this case will go anywhere, and in the meantime you are announcing to the world that you are a dimwitted moron that doesn't realize that ice cream is fattening.

[Rywill]

I can't imagine this will go anywhere. Tobacco is a special case, because for years cigarette companies lied about whether cigarettes are unhealthy or addictive, when the evidence shows they knew both were the case (way back when, they even tried to promote the idea that cigarettes were healthy). No ice-cream maker is trying to pretend that ice cream isn't bad for you.

[Fjollefjumpen]

I can't imagine this will go anywhere.

I sure hope you're right. Otherwise it's bye-bye to the fattening and ever so tasty soft-ice we know, and hello to low-fat tasteless yoghurt (But then again, yoghurt probably causes cancer or even EBOLA, so it's unlikely that they stop there).

[Jim F.]

Ummm... isn't TCBY the healthier alternative to ice cream already? Seems like an odd target.

And every one of those companies offers a low fat/sugar alternative to their normal fare.

This is just aonther example of the "blame someone else" mentality that is seeping into our culture. Your kid not getting good grades in school? Claim that the lesson plan is ethnically biased and sue the school. Didn't get that new job? Claim that affirmative action caused reverse discrimination and sue the company. Your kid gunned down 6 people at school? Blame TV, music, or video games and sue till your heart's content.

Too fat? Sue McDonalds and Ben and Jerry's and claim that if they had nutritional information posted that you wouldn't stuff your face there 6 days a week.

[Timemaster Tim]

... claim that if they had nutritional information posted that you wouldn't stuff your face there 6 days a week.

Would posting nutritional information really do any good. Do most people even know how the nutritional information relates to their food intake.

I honestly don't have a clue how many calories I take in for a meal. And I don't know which vitamins and minerals are in the food I eat. What I do know is that I'm healthy, normal weight, and in good shape. I don't over eat. I don't load up on fatty foods, and generally try to have a bit of everything. I get regular exercise. And I indulge in ice cream once in a while.

[Ben Sones]

Well, some people don't want to make responsible choices all on their own. They want the government to do it for them, so they won't have to think so hard. They want to have their cake and eat it, too, dammit. With ice cream.

[John Merva]

They want to have their cake and eat it, too, dammit. With ice cream.

And then sue over the side effects.

[Jason McCullough]

As stupid as the lawsuit is, that resturaunts don't have to provide nutritional info is really wierd.

[curst]

You think ice cream is bad? Check this shit out. (http://home.planet.nl/~holtj019/GB/Microwave.html)

The brand name of the line of microwave meals I usually eat for lunch is Healthy Choice. Oh yeah, they are SO motherfucking sued for misleading advertising.

[Ben Sones]

As stupid as the lawsuit is, that resturaunts don't have to provide nutritional info is really wierd.

Not really. Processed, store-bought foods come in carefully measured serving sizes and have no variation from serving to serving. Any nutritional information that you put on food served at a restaurant is going to be, a best, a rough estimate. You might as well wonder why food distributors don't have to put nutritional information on produce. Many restaurants also change their menu on a daily basis, and would have to have some sort of system in place to calculate the nutritional value of specials and such on the fly. It would likely be a rather onerous regulation, especially for small restaurants.

[XPav]

Most frivolous lawsuits get thrown out before a trial.

[Jason McCullough]

As stupid as the lawsuit is, that resturaunts don't have to provide nutritional info is really wierd.

Not really. Processed, store-bought foods come in carefully measured serving sizes and have no variation from serving to serving. Any nutritional information that you put on food served at a restaurant is going to be, a best, a rough estimate. You might as well wonder why food distributors don't have to put nutritional information on produce. Many restaurants also change their menu on a daily basis, and would have to have some sort of system in place to calculate the nutritional value of specials and such on the fly. It would likely be a rather onerous regulation, especially for small restaurants.

Even a rough estimate would be an improvement. "This much chicken, this much sugar, you do the math."

Bagged lettuce at the store has it on the back, so I'm not sure why some produce has it and some doesn't.

[cyborg]

Even a rough estimate would be an improvement. "This much chicken, this much sugar, you do the math."

Except that doesn't tell the whole story nor could the average person look at a detailed breakdown of the components of any meal and actually be qualified to determine it's nutritional impact.

It's nonsense.

[Ben Sones]

Even a rough estimate would be an improvement. "This much chicken, this much sugar, you do the math."

Actually, the restaurant would have to do the math, and as I said, it would probably be a lot of work to remain in compliance with a constantly changing menu. The same dish may even change from person to person, since people ask for food to be prepared differently and portion sizes vary.


Bagged lettuce at the store has it on the back, so I'm not sure why some produce has it and some doesn't.

Bagged lettuce is measured and packaged by weight; nutritional information is a constant from bag to bag.

[Jason McCullough]

I'm just not following how this would be an enormous burden. The kind of restaurants with a constantly changing menu tend to be the kinds that charge a ton, and could easily afford to add up the listings on the back of the ingredients.

And what difference does requesting a smaller portion size make? If you order a half, it's pretty obvious.

[Ben Sones]

The kind of restaurants with a constantly changing menu tend to be the kinds that charge a ton, and could easily afford to add up the listings on the back of the ingredients.

You are kidding, right? I can't think of a single sit-down restaurant that doesn't have different stuff on the menu every day of the week. My local pub has a different dinner menu every night. The only restaurants that I know of with completely static menus are fast food chains; even most sit-down chains (Outback, TGIF, Unos, etc.) have daily specials.


And what difference does requesting a smaller portion size make? If you order a half, it's pretty obvious.

And if that were the only sort of custom order you could make in a restaurant, then I guess it wouldn't be a problem. If I went to my local pizza place and ordered a medium pie with half pepperoni, black olives, and garlic (the Prince of Pizzas) and half sausage and peppers, I think it would be a pretty major pain in the ass for the restaurant if they were legally obligated to weight and measure each of the ingredients they put into the pie so that they could provide me with a nutritional breakdown.

[Timemaster Tim]

I think it would be a pretty major pain in the ass for the restaurant if they were legally obligated to weight and measure each of the ingredients they put into the pie so that they could provide me with a nutritional breakdown.

Just imagine! Nutritional information waivers that a customer would have to sign to acknowledge that they requested a custom order and have waived the requirement for nutritional information to be provided. Ordering a pizza has never been so much fun.

[curst]

I'm just not following how this would be an enormous burden. The kind of restaurants with a constantly changing menu tend to be the kinds that charge a ton, and could easily afford to add up the listings on the back of the ingredients.

And what difference does requesting a smaller portion size make? If you order a half, it's pretty obvious.

Dude, you're wishing that Star Trek replicators were a reality here. This notion that there should be full disclosure about the nutritional content of everything you order at a restaurant is a pipe dream, sorry to say.

I don't know what illusions you may harbor about restaurants, but I know this: when you order a 12-oz steak, it may not weigh precisely 12 ounces. Even four-star restaurants don't "construct" their meals to exact specifications - they go by general guidelines. So when you order a half a portion, you may get exactly 50% of the normal amount of 12 - oops - of somewhere around 12 ounces. You may get 55%. How are you going to know the difference? Why should they go through all the extra effort to make ABSOLUTELY SURE there is no difference and that yes, you got 50.0000000000%?

Let alone places like the fast food coney/ice cream store I used to work at - measurements were handled in a vague sense to say the least. I forget what the guidelines to making a plain vanilla shake were, but that's all they were - guidelines. Something like 3 oz of ice cream, then fill the cup to approx. 90% capacity with milk, mix... who knows exactly, but believe it or not if I weighed the ice cream amount and it came to, say, 2.8 oz, I wasn't going to add any more! If I hit the 3.3 mark, whoops, well tough for the customer whose milkshake has just become .09% thicker, because I'm not going to measure out exactly .3 oz of ice cream and scoop that shit out of the cup before continuing to make it.

Oh, and if I did, I'm sure the customer wouldn't be wondering why the hell it was taking so long to make the thing. We all know how perfectly rational people behave in restaurants.

And on top of all that, what if the customer requests customizations to their food? In the case of my old fast food joint, say they ask that their milkshake be made thick? Do I then make the milkshake then have it analyzed by the FDA in order to calculate the exact nutritional content of it before serving?

I'm not saying your idea is bad, it's just incredibly impractical.

[Jason McCullough]

Oh, give me a fucking break; these objections are nonsensical. A law specifying that restruants make the pre-cooking nutritional content of the ingredients to a dish of regular portion size available upon request would be a non-issue.

Take the pizza thing, for example: why on earth are you assuming they'd have to manually calculate the nutritional content of your pizza toppings on the fly? A chart with "a full topping of olives is X calories and so on" would be the obvious solution.


And on top of all that, what if the customer requests customizations to their food? In the case of my old fast food joint, say they ask that their milkshake be made thick? Do I then make the milkshake then have it analyzed by the FDA in order to calculate the exact nutritional content of it before serving?

Then the customer is just going to have to use the information as a rough guildline, for chrissakes. We don't demand canned food companies specify the contents of their product to 18 significant digits, why do you think resturants would be required to?

[Ben Sones]

Take the pizza thing, for example: why on earth are you assuming they'd have to manually calculate the nutritional content of your pizza toppings on the fly? A chart with "a full topping of olives is X calories and so on" would be the obvious solution.

And how much is a "full topping" of olives? As someone who used to work in a pizza place, I can tell you: it's however many you put on the pie. Then you'd have people complaining because the restaurant's chart says that a pizza comes with 2 oz. of olives and they got 5 (simply because the pizza chef happened to grab a large handful that time). No nutritional chart for food made on the fly is going to be accurate, because no real chef measures out ingredients unless they are baking.

Have you ever watched a cooking show? Does Emeril Lagasse measure out how much butter he throws in the skillet before he sautees something? He just throws a bunch in there, and the caloric value of whatever he sautees in it might vary significantly from customer to customer. In order to provide people with the sort of information you want, you'd need chefs across the nation to fundamentally change the way they cook. Either that, or the regulations would have to allow for a large margin of error, at which point they are esssentially meaningless.

And none of it would be at all necessary if people would just take the responsibility to learn what's healthy on their own. Regulations on packaged foods exist largely because companies put a lot of weird, unfamiliar ingredients into packaged food, and consumers have a right to know what they are. When you order a bucket of fried chicken wings, you pretty much know what you are getting. Restaurants now will tell you what ingredients they used and how they cooked them if you take the time to ask.

[cyborg]

My question remains unanswered - why is the public at large assumed qualified to interpret this mass of data correctly?

[Toddy]

So what are people supposed to do? Engage in hours of research before every meal? The plain fact is that a lot of these recent food lawsuits have been prompted by the same reason behind the tobacco lawsuits -- companies are lying to people about the content of their products. Period. Ben, you say people basically know what they're getting. They don't. It's one thing to say that people know Oreos are fattening, it's another to say that they know Oreos are loaded in trans fats that are incredbly dangerous to your heart. The whole trans fats thing is a fucking disgrace, and companies should be sued over that. If it's not blatantly false advertising to cram products with these poisons and make package claims like "NO-FAT!" I dunno what is.

I hate the lawsuit-happy culture in the US, but I applaud these cases because they're the only things pressuring the major food manufacturers to clean up their acts. Bitch about personal responsibility all you want. I agree with that. People have to take more care over what they eat today. But manufacturers also have to be responsible, and that that's clearly not happening. So getting these people into court is a good thing for all of us.

[Jason McCullough]

Ben, I know cooking isn't an exact science, but "1 pound of duck" is pretty much the same calorie and saturated fat content no matter how you do it.

And you *don't* pretty much know what you're getting; McDonalds french fries only look kind of bad, not really really really bad, because they're not required to tell you the amount of trans fatty acids in them.

[Ben Sones]

Ben, I know cooking isn't an exact science, but "1 pound of duck" is pretty much the same calorie and saturated fat content no matter how you do it.

If you say so. You're wrong, but believe what you want.


And you *don't* pretty much know what you're getting; McDonalds french fries only look kind of bad, not really really really bad, because they're not required to tell you the amount of trans fatty acids in them.

Yeah, whatever. Of course you can choose to ignore the fact that people started using trans-fatty hydrogenated oils such as margarine because for a long time nutritionists (and the FDA, for that matter) were convinced that they were healthier than animal fats, which were known to raise cholesterol. As it turns out, this theory was mistaken. But the research that proves this is relatively recent; to equate this with the policies of tobacco companies (who knew their product was dangerous and actively researched ways to make it more addictive) is ridiculous.

In any event, while trans fats are common in packaged foods (they can sit on shelves for long periods of time without going rancid), they aren't particularly common in restaurants outside of fast food chains. And frankly, I have trouble believing that anyone honestly thinks that fast food isn't "that bad" for you.

[Rywill]

I think it's very Jason of you to demand that pizza parlors present customers with enormous charts telling them the nutritional content of every pizza and topping. I realize it's just a fundamental difference in outlook, but it amazes me to see someone who is such a controlling, big-government liberal.

[Jason McCullough]

Dude, I'm not agreeing with the lawsuit. I'm just pointing out its extremely odd that unless the company feels like providing it to you, there's no way of figuring out the nutritional content of what you eat, other than "beef is kind of like this".

My point on the trans fat thing is that they still aren't required to report them. If McDonalds wanted to, they could refuse all requests to find out what goes into their food.

Carry on caricaturing my position, though (giant charts! cooks with calculators!)

[Rywill]

Oh, give me a fucking break; . . . A chart with "a full topping of olives is X calories and so on" would be the obvious solution.

[XPav]

Its pretty simple.

If it tastes good, its bad for you!

I've been trying to think of how this trait has survived through the many years of human evolution. Surely, those that ate healthier because healthy food tasted better would live longer and father more children, right?

My counter to my own argument is of course, that poor diet choice wasn't a major killer of humanity. The short life span of ancient man wasn't enough to make death by clogged-artery a major killer. Also, perhaps things that taste good actually help people survive short-term?

I don't know. I know for a fact that that cavemen probably wouldn't read warning labels.

[Jason McCullough]

I didn't say they were giant, did I? :D

[Rywill]

My counter to my own argument is of course, that poor diet choice wasn't a major killer of humanity. The short life span of ancient man wasn't enough to make death by clogged-artery a major killer. Also, perhaps things that taste good actually help people survive short-term?
From what I've read, that's exactly right. Fat is bad for you if you eat as much of it as, say, I do. But fat is really good for you if you're ekeing out a subsistance living as a hunter/gatherer--because it gives you lots of calories that you need. It's only when you're me--and need about half the calories you actually eat--that this becomes a bad thing.

[Ben Sones]

I've been trying to think of how this trait has survived through the many years of human evolution. Surely, those that ate healthier because healthy food tasted better would live longer and father more children, right?

Most food that tastes good is good for you, as far as evolution is concerned. Most of the problems that people encounter from various types of food are either a result of overeating combined with a sedentary lifestyle (which is a recent thing), or health issues (like cancer and heart disease) that typically arise long after child-rearing age (and are thus not evolutionary factors).

[voltaic]

Someone start a new poll: Is Jason McCullough really this fucking crazy?

[XPav]

I didn't say they were giant, did I? :D

How else are vision impaired people supposed to read them? Why do you hate blind people, Jason?

[bmulligan]

Ice cream makes you fat? Jesus friggin christ, next the'll be telling me alcohol is bad too, and jogging could give you a heart attack. What's next? Does TV give you brain cancer, or is that just cell phones and power lines?

Thats it!! Everthing should come with it's own warning label. Every pair of jogging shoes should say: WARNING-Prolonged use could result in heart failure. Every TV should flash when powered up: WARNING! extended use of this device can make you fat and stupid.

[Brad Grenz]

Someone start a new poll: Is Jason McCullough really this fucking crazy?

Yes, Comrade McCullough is.

Hey, Jason! Yes, this is an unreasonable burden to put on resturants. Especially small, independant ones who don't have their own labs for analyzing nutritional content. Not to mention by quantifying such things you expose yourself to new lawsuits if you, say, get real generous with the sausage one night.

And places like McDonald's already do provide nutritional information. Like 10 years ago I remember reading a poster listing calories and fat grams, etc, in the chicken nuggets and Big Macs. And if you ask I'm pretty sure they'll give you something with nutritional information on it. I don't know how much the other chains do that and if it is voluntary.

[Chris Nahr]

I propose abolishing all warning labels on digestibles so that stupid people kill themselves with junk food, alcohol and tobacco as quickly as possible.

Fresh, natural food = good. Chemically engineered, cheap food = bad. There's a good rule of thumb that's easy to remember. And for the details on the first category, go to a bookstore and get a book about the nutritional contents of a wide variety of common food. How hard is that? If it's too hard for you then you're too stupid to live and should be removed from the gene pool.

[John Merva]

Chemically engineered, cheap food = bad. There's a good rule of thumb that's easy to remember.

Of course you're ignoring those who do not have the income to be able to buy only the freshest, best cuts of meat and the highest ranges of organic foods.

[Chris Nahr]

Of course you're ignoring those who do not have the income to be able to buy only the freshest, best cuts of meat and the highest ranges of organic foods.

Obesity, alcoholism and chain-smoking are most common among the lower ranks of society, so they somehow can afford crap that's bad for them. And eating meat every day (another unhealthy obsession with the lower classes) is absolutely unnecessary. I don't have statistics but the popular wisdom of people being too poor for healthy meals doesn't convince me. Simple healthy food like rice, vegetables, noodles, bread, butter, milk etc. is certainly cheaper bought separately then as a ready-made dish.

[Tyjenks]

Yep, and if they are that poor then we have government programs which can easily cover the healthy staple foods. Food Stamps, for one, here in the U.S. However, I see many people buy cookies, pizza and beer with their foodstamps. Or selling them outside the store for cash. Oh yeah, then they get into a new cadillac or Camaro or Mustang when they leave the store.

[John Merva]

Of course you're ignoring those who do not have the income to be able to buy only the freshest, best cuts of meat and the highest ranges of organic foods.

Obesity, alcoholism and chain-smoking are most common among the lower ranks of society, so they somehow can afford crap that's bad for them. And eating meat every day (another unhealthy obsession with the lower classes) is absolutely unnecessary. I don't have statistics but the popular wisdom of people being too poor for healthy meals doesn't convince me. Simple healthy food like rice, vegetables, noodles, bread, butter, milk etc. is certainly cheaper bought separately then as a ready-made dish.

Perhaps then you're looking at a case of a lack of education. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that they have Safeway Savers brand beans, meat and practically everything else for a reason and that reason is because there are those that are simply unable to afford the best of everything.

[Jason McCullough]

Ok, I'm confused by the anger here.

[cyborg]

When is someone going to explain to me when everyone became qualified to interpret nutritional information correctly?

[Brad Grenz]

We talked about it in health class in middle school. And the information on heathy diets is like freely available to anyone who cares. No one's being asked to decipher a chain of atomic symbols here.

[voltaic]

Perhaps then you're looking at a case of a lack of education.
Are you going to try and make the case that poor people eat fast food, smoke, and drink to unhealthy excess more than other economic strata because of a lack of education?

[cyborg]

We talked about it in health class in middle school. And the information on heathy diets is like freely available to anyone who cares. No one's being asked to decipher a chain of atomic symbols here.

You actually looked at some of the ingredients of foods lately?

I guess not.

[Rywill]

We talked about it in health class in middle school. And the information on heathy diets is like freely available to anyone who cares. No one's being asked to decipher a chain of atomic symbols here.

You actually looked at some of the ingredients of foods lately?

I guess not.
I have. It says stuff like "5g of fat, 20% of daily recommended amount" or whatever. How hard is that to figure out? Are you taking the position that people without a degree in nutrition are incapable of determining what foods are generally healthy and what foods are generally bad for you? You don't need a doctorate to know that Haagen Dazs makes you fat, dummy.

[cyborg]

I have. It says stuff like "5g of fat, 20% of daily recommended amount" or whatever. How hard is that to figure out?

Given that fat is not a single element, people have widley different dietry needs with regards to fats and that 20% for you is not 20% for me and the fact that what is recommended is always being changed I would say that example is flawed.

As to not having to work out atomic symbols you should note things like:

Sodium Hydrogen Carbonate
Disodium Dihydrogen Diphosphate

et al, not to meantion that a whole host of additives and such have even less incisive codes rather than chemical names.


Are you taking the position that people without a degree in nutrition are incapable of determining what foods are generally healthy and what foods are generally bad for you?

I'm taking the position that if you want that much information you must be that incapable. Hence I demand to see some qualifications to see that you are certified to interpret that data accurately.


You don't need a doctorate to know that Haagen Dazs makes you fat, dummy.

Why not? Relying on common sense is cleerly not an option here.

[Ben Sones]

Are you taking the position that people without a degree in nutrition are incapable of determining what foods are generally healthy and what foods are generally bad for you?

I'm taking the position that if you want that much information you must be that incapable. Hence I demand to see some qualifications to see that you are certified to interpret that data accurately.

I think you missed Ry's point (bold emphasis). I think we can all accept as a given that someone with a degree in nutrition will much better understand how all this stuff works, but I also agree with Ry that the average person has a pretty good idea what types of foods (and in what amounts) are generally good for you, and what types aren't. I find it odd that you can simultaneously argue that you have to be a nutritionist to understand nutrition, and then proceed to provide examples of why that is. By your own logic, shouldn't you have to be a nutritionist to understand your examples? Or is it possible that a layperson (such as yourself) can be generally well-informed on matters of nutrition?



You don't need a doctorate to know that Haagen Dazs makes you fat, dummy.

Why not? Relying on common sense is cleerly not an option here.

Why not? Are you arguing that Haagen Dazs doesn't make you fat?

[Rywill]

Given that fat is not a single element, people have widley different dietry needs with regards to fats and that 20% for you is not 20% for me and the fact that what is recommended is always being changed I would say that example is flawed.
The fact that the recommendation is being changed is not relevant to this argument, unless you are imagining that nutritionists have always known what the "right" foods are and the government just keeps putting out misinformation. The recommendations change because the nutritionists change the recommendations. Thus, being a nutritionist is not going to make you any more or less able to deal with the changing requirements. But, by putting the info on the box, regular joes like me can keep up with the changes the nutritionists make, so I don't see how you think that putting the info on there is bad.

WRT the rest of your point, obviously the nutrition guidelines are exactly that: guidelines. Some people need more or fewer calories, and some people can eat more or less fat. We all know that. But the guidelines tell you what the average person needs, and you don't need to be a nutritionist to understand whether you're eating way over the average amount of fat. In fact, that's the whole point of these guidelines: to help laypeople understand how much of each thing an average person can or should eat.




Are you taking the position that people without a degree in nutrition are incapable of determining what foods are generally healthy and what foods are generally bad for you?

I'm taking the position that if you want that much information you must be that incapable. Hence I demand to see some qualifications to see that you are certified to interpret that data accurately.
I'm not trying to be flip, but I genuinely don't understand the meaning of the first sentence there. You need to be incapable of understanding something in order to glean information from it? Huh?? And here are my qualifications for interpreting the nutrition information on the sides of boxes correctly: I passed grade-school math. Thus, I know that if I eat five servings of something that provides 20% of my recommended fat intake, I've had all of my recommended fat intake for the day and better stop eating fat unless I want to be carting it around in my big-ass belly.




You don't need a doctorate to know that Haagen Dazs makes you fat, dummy.

Why not? Relying on common sense is cleerly not an option here.
Again, I don't understand you. Two seconds ago you were saying average people can't understand nutrition. Now you appear to be sarcastically implying that if people just used their "common sense" they could understand everything they need to about nutrition. Which is it? Are you trying to say that the nutrition information on the side of a box provides no more information than what you could get by using your common sense? Because I don't agree. Sure I know that ice cream is bad for me, but I've been really surprised sometimes looking at the nutrition information for various frozen dinners. Sometimes two things that I think taste equally good will have wildly varying fat contents. So now I know to avoid the high-fat one most of the time and go for the one that I think is just as good, but has half the fat. Maybe your cyborg senses allow you to discern that stuff without reading the nutrition panel, I dunno.

[Jason McCullough]

For what it's worth, I suspect the poor eating such horrible food is based on propogated culture, lack of time, and lack of income. Fast, cheap, tastes good, and good for you is a "pick 3 of 4" thing.

[XPav]

There is an correlation between low-income, low-education and obesity.

Why? I don't know. Some googling brings up academic papers on the subject.

[cyborg]

I think you missed Ry's point (bold emphasis). I think we can all accept as a given that someone with a degree in nutrition will much better understand how all this stuff works, but I also agree with Ry that the average person has a pretty good idea what types of foods (and in what amounts) are generally good for you, and what types aren't.

33% of the US is fat - clearly a third at least don't have a clue.


I find it odd that you can simultaneously argue that you have to be a nutritionist to understand nutrition, and then proceed to provide examples of why that is. By your own logic, shouldn't you have to be a nutritionist to understand your examples? Or is it possible that a layperson (such as yourself) can be generally well-informed on matters of nutrition?

My point is that you can choke on too much information. There's no reason to assume that simply having more information is going to solve anything.


Why not? Are you arguing that Haagen Dazs doesn't make you fat?

I'm not fat ergo I'll argue that.

[Ben Sones]

33% of the US is fat - clearly a third at least don't have a clue.

Or they don't care. Or they lack the discilpline to avoid foods they love for the sake of their health. Lots of people smoke, too, but I don't think it's because they don't realize that cigarettes are bad for you.


My point is that you can choke on too much information. There's no reason to assume that simply having more information is going to solve anything.

I suppose. I would argue that the point of nutritional facts on packaged food is to combat the problem of "too much information" by distilling things down to a simple form that anyone can understand (i.e. "20% daily allowance of fat"). Obviously, when you simplify you lose accuracy (such as breaking down different types of fat). As such, it's an imperfect solution, but I'm not sure what you propose as an alternative. In one post you said that nutritional information on packaged foods is too vague; now you are saying that it's bad to give people too much information. I guess I'm just not understanding your point.



Why not? Are you arguing that Haagen Dazs doesn't make you fat?

I'm not fat ergo I'll argue that.

Now you are just being an ass. Tell you what: let's do an experiment. You eat twenty ounces of Haagen Dazs every day for the next year, and I'll eat twenty ounces of celery every day for a year, and then we'll compare relative weight gain.

[cyborg]

Or they don't care. Or they lack the discilpline to avoid foods they love for the sake of their health. Lots of people smoke, too, but I don't think it's because they don't realize that cigarettes are bad for you.

Total gain by having more information = 0.


As such, it's an imperfect solution, but I'm not sure what you propose as an alternative. In one post you said that nutritional information on packaged foods is too vague; now you are saying that it's bad to give people too much information. I guess I'm just not understanding your point.

Neither really helps if the only objective is to ensure you know where to point the blame for your health problems. Given essentially that is what is being proposed I fail to see the benefit at all.

Give an RDA you can blame the food standards authourity who sets it if something goes wrong.




Now you are just being an ass. Tell you what: let's do an experiment. You eat twenty ounces of Haagen Dazs every day for the next year, and I'll eat twenty ounces of celery every day for a year, and then we'll compare relative weight gain.

No, I'm just making a point - I could have the same diet as you and not weigh the same. People are not equal and do not have the same dietry requirements. Milk is seen as healthy yet for the lactose intolerant it is hazardous. The foodstuff alone is simply not enough - on it's own it is merely inanimate. Any associated hazards or benefits can only manifest when in contact with a diner.

[Ben Sones]

Total gain by having more information = 0.

By choice. This is akin to arguing that textbooks are worthless because people can refuse to read them.


No, I'm just making a point - I could have the same diet as you and not weigh the same. People are not equal and do not have the same dietry requirements. Milk is seen as healthy yet for the lactose intolerant it is hazardous. The foodstuff alone is simply not enough - on it's own it is merely inanimate. Any associated hazards or benefits can only manifest when in contact with a diner.

Now you are just being contrary. Are you honestly saying that any generally applied nutritional principle is worthless? See if you can find a nutritionist that agrees with you.

[cyborg]

By choice. This is akin to arguing that textbooks are worthless because people can refuse to read them.

A book without a reader is merely a set of binded wood pulp sheets with dye stains on them. An object without a user is without use.


Now you are just being contrary. Are you honestly saying that any generally applied nutritional principle is worthless? See if you can find a nutritionist that agrees with you.

I couldn't - but then I could easily find two nutritionists who'd argue over what the general nutritional principles are.

[Brad Grenz]

cyborg, why don't you come back when you have some sort of answers or solutions to the problems you percieve, cause right now it's all just noise and double speak. I'm starting to think you're representing someone suing the food inustry.

[Jason McCullough]

More information makes you less informed????

[Rywill]

By choice. This is akin to arguing that textbooks are worthless because people can refuse to read them.
. . . Now you are just being contrary. Are you honestly saying that any generally applied nutritional principle is worthless? See if you can find a nutritionist that agrees with you.

http://www.poster.net/nicholsonpryde-williamjames/nicholsonpryde-williamjames-lyceum-don-quixote-2701086.jpg

[Ben Sones]

Yeah, yeah, I've already come to that conclusion myself.

[XPav]

Don Quixote was a nutritionist?

[Brad Grenz]

He owned a couple McDonald's franchises.

[John Merva]

Perhaps then you're looking at a case of a lack of education.
Are you going to try and make the case that poor people eat fast food, smoke, and drink to unhealthy excess more than other economic strata because of a lack of education?

I would certainly make the claim that it is a factor but not that it is the only cause. I believe that other factors such as culture and nationality also play a major role.

[Anders Hallin]

I think that it has less to do with a lack of education as such and a lot more to do with having a horrible job that doesn't inspire you a jot and is very tiring, lacks possibility for vacation and also is the living embodiment of your failure and/or perception of society's betrayal (the promise of the American Dream, the knowledge that life was supposed to be more). In such a situation, people will likely turn to the fastest, easiest thing when it comes to food and the like, because you're likely dog-tired and cutting into your free time by finding the best food will probably not seem worth it. Also, certain foodstuffs provide some measure of easy satisfaction, something I'd imagine is welcome considering the circumstances.

Which is why a 6-hour work day is a good idea :)

[cyborg]

More information makes you less informed????

Can do quite easily - especially in the food area where there is a great mass of conflicting information.

I certainly don't work for the food industry.

My point is two fold:

1) The motivation for extra nutritional information is litigative not educatitive
2) Gaining extra nutritional information will not necessarially educate - the indication here is that it would merely be a crutch

Some people seem to think it's such a simple formula - yet seem to forget the lessons the past has taught us about trusting the information we are told about food.

If the drive of the arguement is to have us totaly rely on the food industry to tell us what we should eat then we are screwed.

[Jason McCullough]

1) The motivation for extra nutritional information is litigative not educative.

It's not legal-based for *me*; I can't be the only person wondering what the hell the calorie content of stuff I get at sit-down restaurants is.

[Bub, Andrew]

Do you also feel that way when you head upstairs and Mom cooks you dinner? ;-)

Or does she provide your required labeling?

[Ben Sones]

1) The motivation for extra nutritional information is litigative not educatitive

How do you figure? The current litigation is predicated on the fact that restaurants don't post nutritional information. I fail to see how providing nutritional info would make lawsuits more common.


2) Gaining extra nutritional information will not necessarially educate - the indication here is that it would merely be a crutch

Again, I disagree. With both you and Jason. I think nutritional info can be useful to people that want it. I just think it's an undue burden on restaurants (for reasons I stated many posts ago), and I don't think that "people are curious" (as Jason mentioned) is a good enough reason to enact a government mandate. There are arguably good reasons to put such information on packaged food--such as highly unusual ingredients (like artificial preservatives) coupled with a physical seperation between the maker of the food and the consumer. If you are wondering what goes into a can of Easy Cheeze, it's not like you can ask the stockboy in the cracker aisle. If you are wondering what goes into the soup that you ordered at a restaurant, you can just ask the waiter.

[Jason McCullough]

If you are wondering what goes into a can of Easy Cheeze, it's not like you can ask the stockboy in the cracker aisle. If you are wondering what goes into the soup that you ordered at a restaurant, you can just ask the waiter.

Ok, that's a good point.

[cyborg]

How do you figure? The current litigation is predicated on the fact that restaurants don't post nutritional information. I fail to see how providing nutritional info would make lawsuits more common.

That is the point - if a change occurs it is due to litigative motives not educative ones - that is to say people can aruge that they has their health damaged by eating a certain thing but clearly they weren't that concerned at the time they were eating it to find out what it was. Hence if such information was made availble by law it would most likely have zero effect on any actually or fictional health problems it caused.

[Ben Sones]

That is the point - if a change occurs it is due to litigative motives not educative ones - that is to say people can aruge that they has their health damaged by eating a certain thing but clearly they weren't that concerned at the time they were eating it to find out what it was.

I'm not sure what you mean by "litigative motives." Litigation isn't necessarily a bad thing, and a person could litigate with the intention of ensuring themselves a better education (even if that's not the case here). I agree that the ice cream lawsuit is frivolous, and is almost certainly motivated by money rather than any desire for better nutritional information, as I have said before. I agree that the plaintiff could have asked for the nutritional information in the first place, if they really cared. More to the point, I find it incredibly hard to believe that they didn't already know that ice cream is fattening, even without nutritional info provided by Ben & Jerry's. Further, I think the the responsibility for pursuing a healthy diet falls on individuals, not restaurants. The mere fact that a restaurant serves food that may have a negative impact on your health is not a good justification for a lawsuit. You can choose to educate yourself on what types and amounts of food constitute a healthy diet, and you can choose whether or not to eat at any given restaurant. Or you can choose to do neither, but in that event you have no cause to complain when your health deteriorates. I see no reason why restaurants should bear the responsibility for educating people on matters of nutrition.

[zabuni]

A few words about the group doing the lawsuit:

http://www.reason.com/0307/fe.js.the.shtml

These are the food police, they've had proclamations about all of the following:

soft drinks
ice cream
saccharine
caffine
olestra
pizza
chinese food
italian food
milkshakes
meat
non-organic foods

They are kings of hyperbole. They call things "food porn", "a heart attack on a plate", "the culinary equivalent of a loaded pistol".

They aren't really about the money. Their main purpose is to hurt those companies involved.

[Jason McCullough]

I wouldn't take Reason too seriously; they have, shall we say, interesting funding sources.


non-organic foods

What, they're made of silicon?

[ElRavager]

:idea: Hey I know a niche market when I see one. I will set up outside the local Baskin Robbins and provide my services as a Fat Consultant. I'll provide a personalized "Fat Assessment" for any serving of ice-cream. ie: "Hmmmm, yep, that's gonna make you fatter... that'll be $100 please". All members of QTT get 50% off their first assessment! (I.D. required).

[Jason McCullough]

Seattle requires chain restaurants to label calorie counts (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/foodwine/2008585699_restaurants03m.html). I guess we can watch them all go out of business this year!

A bowl of Ivar's chowder is 1360 goddamn calories? Man.

[MatthewF]

That was an epic threadcromancy.

[russellmz00]

Seattle requires chain restaurants to label calorie counts (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/foodwine/2008585699_restaurants03m.html). I guess we can watch them all go out of business this year!

A bowl of Ivar's chowder is 1360 goddamn calories? Man.

for most stuff in restaurants, if you tried to guess the calories, you'd probably miss by a couple hundred, minimum.

[PeterGinsberg]

Seattle requires chain restaurants to label calorie counts (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/foodwine/2008585699_restaurants03m.html). I guess we can watch them all go out of business this year!

A bowl of Ivar's chowder is 1360 goddamn calories? Man.


It's been going on in NYC for a year or so now, here's an article on how it's working out (http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081214/FREE/812139970/1008).

Starbucks was the most surprising to me, one of their coffee shake concoctions is like 1/4th of your daily caloric intake.

[russellmz00]

Similarly, an insurance executive who regularly lunches at Capital Grille in midtown has made adjustments. She says she switched from salads to filet mignon after discovering that the two dishes contain the same number of calories.

wow...

[TheWombat]

I turn on the tube and what do I see
A whole lotta people cryin' "don't blame me"
They point their crooked little fingers ar everybody else
Spend all their time feelin' sorry for themselves
Victim of this, victim of that
Your momma�s too thin; your daddy's too fat

Get over it
Get over it
All this whinin' and cryin' and pitchin' a fit
Get over it, get over it

You say you haven't been the same since you had your little crash
But you might feel better if I gave you some cash
The more I think about it, old billy was right
Let�s kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight
You don't want to work, you want to live like a king
But the big, bad world doesn't owe you a thing

Get over it
Get over it
If you don't want to play, then you might as well split
Get over it, get over it

It's like going to confession every time I hear you speak
You're makin' the most of your losin' streak
Some call it sick, but I call it weak

You drag it around like a ball and chain
You wallow in the guilt; you wallow in the pain
You wave it like a flag, you wear it like a crown
Got your mind in the gutter, bringin' everybody down
Complain about the present and blame it on the past
I'd like to find your inner child and kick it's little ass

Get over it
Get over it
All this bitchin' and moanin' and pitchin' a fit
Get over it, get over it

Get over it
Get over it
It's gotta stop sometime, so why don't you quit
Get over it, get over it

[Pogo]

Are people really fucking shocked that muffins are 500 calories? I mean, that to me seems like a great justification for eating a muffin for breakfast.

[Flowers]

In my town, I find it amusing that people are uniformly shocked that a three quarter to one pound burrito has more calories than a hamburger.

But it has rice!

Yes, but rice does not magically negate the cheese and sourcream like poisons and antidotes on tv.

If we are going to pass stupid laws to get people to be healthier, the punishment for selling cake to a fat person should be the same as selling cigarettes to kids.

[Andrew Mayer]

Thing is, we had all this shit before without the epidemic of obesity. There's more going on here than just bad eating habits.

[Jason McCullough]

The filet mignon thing is hilarious on so many levels.

[The Bitter Cynic]

Wow, this be some serious thread necromancy...

Got only a couple thing to say: Eating some Ice Cream isn't unhealthy, eating a pint or more is.

One muffin not so bad, eating 6 bad. Same with anything really.

Cinnabon is all bad. Yes, they are soooooo good, but they're so not good for you.

Morale of the story? Eat smart, just cause double cheeseburgers are a buck doesn't mean you should eat 3.

[Andrew Mayer]

Morale of the story? Eat smart, just cause double cheeseburgers are a buck doesn't mean you should eat 3.

Assume that people can't or won't. In fact, after over a decade of tut-tutting, finger wagging, high-horsing, and moralizing the problem is only increasing in size.

And now imagine that you, the responsible person you are, is also going to end up bearing the costs for that whether you like it or not. And they are going to be massive. Not the least of which is a complete meltdown of the systems ability to help healthy people actually stay healthy.

What do you do now?

[Flowers]

You ever see those fat people with faces where you think they'd be attractice if they lost some weight?

Here's the deal, Mayer. I got a lot of crotchin my day because I wasn't a fatass. Some of that crotch, I took off the laps of fatasses. That's neither here nor there. What is important is that you know I have a big nose. If all those fabric stretchers get wise, throw the pies down and pick the sexy up, bignoses like myself will be out in the proverbial cold. There will be no great sucking sound for those Americans.

So please, join me in apathy to this very serious, but quite beneficial problem.

If that does not work, let me appeal to your interest in the sciences. I will tell you that my scientists are quite close to unlocking the mystery of spontaneous combustion, and that it relates closely to the issue we previously discussed. In return for your silence, I will let you know that the x-factor is a substance called "corduroy."

[JeffL]

I'm (not surprisingly) on the side of personal accountability when it comes to things like restaurants and ice cream.

I'm picturing one of our favorite restaurants in a small town nearby, a French restaurant run by an older couple, with about 15 tables, and the couple having to put together charts on every dish they decide to make with 10 categories of nutritional info. They often will make you something fairly custom if your request it.

If you go to a restaurant and are really concerned enough that you'd read a book of nutritional info for every dish, I'd expect that you'd be concerned enough that you knew 90% of it anyway. I've got a steak, 12 ounces, I know about how much that is in terms of fat and calories, etc. I got a baked potato, OK, I know the nutritional value of a baked potato, and I know if I add butter and sour cream what that does to it. I might request a butter substitute if they have it. Asparagus, mushrooms, a glass of red wine. If I get a big hunk of chocolate cake, I can guess that's pretty high in calories and fat, etc.

You can also do your homework and find a ton of this info for chains -for example, here's the info for a lot of what is served at Applebees from a web site that has a ton of restaurants:

http://www.dwlz.com/Restaurants/applebees.html

[Dave47]

One muffin not so bad, eating 6 bad. Same with anything really.
Isn't the point exactly the opposite of this? One muffin, or Starbucks coffee drink, or whatever can have over a quarter of your daily calories, but most people still mentally label it as a "small snack."

I agree that people should be "responsible for what they eat." But without good information, it can be very difficult to make the "responsible" choice. When I was living in NYC, I loved the calorie information at snack places, and I can't imagine why anyone who didn't have a financial stake in these restaurants would ever oppose it. Information is good, as it allows people to make responsible choices.

[JeffL]

Assume that people can't or won't. In fact, after over a decade of tut-tutting, finger wagging, high-horsing, and moralizing the problem is only increasing in size.

And now imagine that you, the responsible person you are, is also going to end up bearing the costs for that whether you like it or not. And they are going to be massive. Not the least of which is a complete meltdown of the systems ability to help healthy people actually stay healthy.

What do you do now?

Make red meat illegal? Make french fries illegal? Make chocolate cake illegal?

Tax pasta and bread?

The problem is as much people's lack of activity, sitting on their ass posting on web boards instead of working out, running a mile a day, etc. as it is what they eat. But the government can't and shouldn't force people to exercise.

I we want to be a nanny state we can shut down the bars, make alcohol and tobacco illegal, force fast food restaurants to shut down (or make them just serve salads, same effect,) put governors on cars to prevent them from going over 40 MPH, make people wear helmets and body armor in their cars, make everything in a bathroom out of Nerf foam, etc.

On a less extreme-for-example note, sure, there should be some regulation and obvious information should be made available on things that are deceptive - but ice cream is made of lots of sugar and calories and is fattening is obvious and protecting people from eating it is nonsensical.


People made some really good arguments for the reasons that booze was a major harm to society, and thus banned it. That didn't work so well.

[Jason McCullough]

I'm picturing one of our favorite restaurants in a small town nearby, a French restaurant run by an older couple, with about 15 tables, and the couple having to put together charts on every dish they decide to make with 10 categories of nutritional info. They often will make you something fairly custom if your request it.

One of the things that came out of this thread....if you read it :) ....was that it probably isn't reasonable to have this apply to restaurants that aren't chains. And it probably doesn't matter, because those places don't create highly misleading food.

Really it's targeted at "jesus christ" fast food - yes, Starbucks is included - that doesn't look like 2000 calories, yet is, because it's a highly processed miracle of science. Note none of the stuff you mention (baked potato, butter, sour cream, asparagus, steak) that has predictable, well known calorie values most people would know is really on offer at somewhere like McDonalds or a chain coffee shop.


What do you do now?

Don't subsidize processed foods, city designs where you can't walk anywhere, and all that. When you design a society where you actively encourage eating terrible food and no exercise as part of the daily life - you actually have to schedule it nowdays, unless you work at a loading dock or live in NYC - it's not this total surprise that everyone ends up fat.

[JeffL]

One of the things that came out of this thread....if you read it....was that it probably isn't reasonable to have this apply to restaurants that aren't chains.

Really it's targeted at "jesus christ" fast food - yes, Starbucks is included - that doesn't look like 2000 calories, yet is, because it's a highly processed miracle of science. Note none of the stuff you mention (baked potato, butter, sour cream, asparagus, steak) that has predictable, well known calorie values most people would know is really on offer at somewhere like McDonalds.

That information is pretty available already for just about every fast food chain in the country. The web site that I linked was just the first one that I looked at in a google search, and it has a ton on a ton of restaurants.

[Scrax]

Tax people according to whatever the best BMI indicator is. Oh, and charge fast people for using up 2 seats in an airplane.

[Jason McCullough]

That information is pretty available already for just about every fast food chain in the country. The web site that I linked was just the first one that I looked at in a google search, and it has a ton on a ton of restaurants.

Oh boy, it's available in a high-cost manner to look up by remembering to google up the specific place you're going to eat online. That's even worse than those not-very-obvious calorie brochures fast food places currently have.

What is the benefit of making it difficult for people?

[Angie Gallant]

The filet mignon thing is hilarious on so many levels.

I had a lot of anti-fun explaining that a salad that is half cheese, cream, and bacon is not "healthy" to a co-worker.

[Andrew Mayer]

I'd also argue that the food industry spends a lot more time educating people how to eat poorly than most individuals can think about.

I can still remember the exact moment I realized that no-one was looking out for my eating habits but me. I have to wonder what percentage have never had that realization.

In fact I think that for most people the simple presence of the nutrition badge acts as a kind of gris-gris that is supposed to protect them from being harmed by their chocolate chip wrapped sausage on a stick.

BUT no matter what you say here, it's clear that as currently defined "personal responsibility" is not only not working, it's impeding the implementation of any genuine solution to the epidemic.

[Bahimiron]

The problem with muffins is that a muffin now isn't what a muffin was fifteen years ago. When people think to themselves 'oh, muffins are healthy!', they aren't recognizing the difference between this...

http://www.wikityblog.com/muffin/pics/muffin.jpg

...and this...

http://daveagp.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/creamcheesemuffin.jpg

[JeffL]

I'd also argue that the food industry spends a lot more time educating people how to eat poorly than most individuals can think about.

I can still remember the exact moment I realized that no-one was looking out for my eating habits but me. I have to wonder what percentage have never had that realization.

In fact I think that for most people the simple presence of the nutrition badge acts as a kind of gris-gris that is supposed to protect them from being harmed by their chocolate chip wrapped sausage on a stick.

BUT no matter what you say here, it's clear that as currently defined "personal responsibility" is not only not working, it's impeding the implementation of any genuine solution to the epidemic.

Google for the actual studies, but there are many that say the fat epidemic today has MUCH more to do with the lazy non-moving lifestyle than people eating worse than before. People used to get out and be much more active than today - now people spend a LOT more time sitting on their ass watching TV, on the internet, in front of a game console, etc. Kids in particular are much, much less active on average than they used to be, and that translates into less active/less healthy adult habits

[Pogo]

The top is what I used to be used to, which is a standard size that you get with DIY baking trays.

The first time I ordered a muffin and I got the monstrosity at the bottom was a distinct "WTF?" moment in my life.

[Pogo]

Google for the actual studies, but there are many that say the fat epidemic today has MUCH more to do with the lazy non-moving lifestyle than people eating worse than before. People used to get out and be much more active than today - now people spend a LOT more time sitting on their ass watching TV, on the internet, in front of a game console, etc. Kids in particular are much, much less active on average than they used to be, and that translates into less active/less healthy adult habits

I see fat kids running around outside and playing all the time. I can't see activity having "MUCH more" to do with it than the processed crap those kids are undoubtedly eating.

[Andrew Mayer]

Google for the actual studies, but there are many that say the fat epidemic today has MUCH more to do with the lazy non-moving lifestyle than people eating worse than before. People used to get out and be much more active than today - now people spend a LOT more time sitting on their ass watching TV, on the internet, in front of a game console, etc. Kids in particular are much, much less active on average than they used to be, and that translates into less active/less healthy adult habits

So if I can prove that the food they eat makes them more lethargic do I get to sue the manufacturers?

[Flowers]

I eat like an unsupervised eight year old, which means if there is candy in the house and you go upstairs, then all the candy goes in my mouth. I drink enough soda everyday to cure a hypoglycemia epidemic. I clean my plate at fattypants restaurants like Applebee's and Chili's after working over an appetizer like I caught it fingering my kids. My cholesterol is probably 10W/40.

But I don't eat dessert and I rid myself of extra protein, which can turn into fat, in my diet through prodigous use of my onboard protein dispenser. Be careful not to get that into a lady, because then it actually turns into a lot more fat than it would have if you had just kept it.

[VegasRobb]

The first "supermuffins" that I remember were the chocolate ones from Costco. Mini bundt cakes.

[Bill Dungsroman]

Google for the actual studies, but there are many that say the fat epidemic today has MUCH more to do with the lazy non-moving lifestyle than people eating worse than before. People used to get out and be much more active than today - now people spend a LOT more time sitting on their ass watching TV, on the internet, in front of a game console, etc. Kids in particular are much, much less active on average than they used to be, and that translates into less active/less healthy adult habits

Less active at play, less active at work (thanks computers!), larger portion sizes, more stressful living conditions on average (stress not only promotes eating but also fat deposition), and depending on how far back you are comparing, food is easier to get thanks to vending machines, convenience stores, and drive-thrus.

[Moggraider]

Seattle requires chain restaurants to label calorie counts (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/foodwine/2008585699_restaurants03m.html). I guess we can watch them all go out of business this year!

A bowl of Ivar's chowder is 1360 goddamn calories? Man.

I applaud this law. All chain restaurants nationwide should provide the calorie content info up front, or in an easily apparent place, like the carton of a burger. This is critical, because tons of restaurant food is surprisingly caloric. Like the Blooming Onion thing at Chili's that has around 3600 calories.

In '07, I helped run a study at my college's dining hall asking students to guess the calories on a pretty standard meal of steak, potatoes, and such. Even students at an Ivy League were often way off. Perceptions need to be sharpened immediately. It's a critical matter of public health. Said hall actually had the caloric info for all its dishes posted for a short time too, back in '04, and that put me off of eating certain foods there for my last three years in college. Supposedly, the nutritional tables were removed because of complaints. Foolish move.

[milo]

I had a lot of anti-fun explaining that a salad that is half cheese, cream, and bacon is not "healthy" to a co-worker.

What is "healthy" depends on a lot of factors. I know bodybuilders on "The Anabolic Diet" who eat nothing but fat and protein, mainly from red meat, eggs, butter, cheese, and nuts. Some of them need to consume as much as 4000 calories a day just to maintain their body weight, which translates to more than a dozen eggs and a pound or two of beef every day. These guys aren't fat, and they don't have high cholesterol. And yet, everything you are told about what foods constitute a "healthy" diet says these guys cannot possibly exist.

[Adree]

http://i42.tinypic.com/1rpyc6.gif

Posting in a thread that Flowers has blessed.

http://i44.tinypic.com/b7b5tw.jpg

[Reldan]

I know bodybuilders on "The Anabolic Diet"

Yeah... and it works because they're bodybuilders. They're very specifically forcing their bodies to convert all that protein they take in into muscle mass and to not store it as fat.

For a lot of people in the western world, "health" in food can be pretty easily broken down into a matter of whether they're taking in more or less calories each day than they burn. When people don't have that simple equation under control, I wouldn't get too caught up on debating the merits of red meat vs. cheese vs. salad.

[milo]

In '07, I helped run a study at my college's dining hall asking students to guess the calories on a pretty standard meal of steak, potatoes, and such. Even students at an Ivy League were often way off.
I guess I wonder what constitutes a "standard" sized portion of steak and potatoes, and what extras are included in the "and such" part of the meal. A small, plain baked potato is about one hundred to one hundred fifty calories. The large, shoe-sized Idaho bakers you get in a restaurant are probably three or four times that much, before you add another four hundred calories of butter and sour cream. You could probably throw off people's estimates just by changing the size of the plate the meal was presented on to disguise the portion size.

Of course, the simplest way to avoid worrying about the ingredients in your food is to eat foods that only have one ingredient each. What are the ingredients in an egg? In a potato? Rice? Carrots? Salmon? Steak? Almonds?

[alexlitel]

Seattle requires chain restaurants to label calorie counts (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/foodwine/2008585699_restaurants03m.html). I guess we can watch them all go out of business this year!I was at this mall in Seattle and I ordered a single-scoop cone of ice cream at some ice cream place, and the girl working there said, "Why not three scoops? You are weird."

[Adree]

I was at this mall in Seattle and I ordered a single-scoop cone of ice cream at some ice cream place, and the girl working there said, "Why not three scoops? You are weird."



"My first thoughts were that the film was incredibly mediocre, which was incredibly disappointing because I had enjoyed Batman Begins."

Seems accurate to me.

[milo]

Yeah... and it works because they're bodybuilders. They're very specifically forcing their bodies to convert all that protein they take in into muscle mass and to not store it as fat.
Actually, very little of the calories that bodybuilders and weight lifters eat is converted into muscle mass. Most of it is burned through metabolic processes that go on in the muscles, both during training and throughout the day.

The diet works (in theory) because they are using it in combination with resistance training to manipulate their metabolism and endocrine systems. I say "in theory" because there is a lot of feedback between diet, exercise, metabolism, and body composition, and it is therefore hard to separate cause from effect even in controlled clinical studies.


For a lot of people in the western world, "health" in food can be pretty easily broken down into a matter of whether they're taking in more or less calories each day than they burn. When people don't have that simple equation under control, I wouldn't get too caught up on debating the merits of red meat vs. cheese vs. salad.

You are partly right: calories matter most. But the point is that you have to eat a diet that will actually nourish your body, as well as one that is matched to your activity level. You can't design a healthy diet by counting only calories. In some ways, you would be better off not counting calories at all and just eating reasonably sized meals of healthy foods - meats, vegetables, fruits, nuts, and to whatever extent you can tolerate them, dairy and whole grains. And then use the mirror and the scale to adjust your intake to match your energy expenditure.

[Chris Nahr]

Seattle requires chain restaurants to label calorie counts (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/foodwine/2008585699_restaurants03m.html). I guess we can watch them all go out of business this year!

A bowl of Ivar's chowder is 1360 goddamn calories? Man.

Awesome. Milkshakes run from 1,000 to 2,040 calories. For office workers that's nearly an entire day's worth of calories... in one milkshake!

Yeah, I don't think we need to look any further to answer the question why people are fat.

[JeffL]

I will agree that portion sizes in a lot of American restaurants are crazy. We were out at a chain restaurant last Sunday afternoon, and someone ordered roast and mashed potatoes. The roast portion was enough to feed two people, and the mashed potatoes must have been 5 potatoes worth. All of the dishes were that way.

A co-worker lost about 20 pounds last year, in about 4 months, and he said all he did was eat smaller portions and avoided eating foods that were obviously unhealthy.

[Ben Sones]

Less active at play, less active at work (thanks computers!), larger portion sizes, more stressful living conditions on average (stress not only promotes eating but also fat deposition), and depending on how far back you are comparing, food is easier to get thanks to vending machines, convenience stores, and drive-thrus.

Like Jeff, I think it's more the lack of activity than an excess of food. Consider this: Karen and I went to Strawberry Banke in Portsmouth over the Christmas holiday, which is a sort of museum comprised of a group of houses dating back to the mid 1600s, which have been restored and are decorated with period furnishings, and they do guided walking tours and such. The one we went on was about winter life in historic Portsmouth, and one of the things they covered was food (along with a demo of hearth cooking). They said that the average caloric intake--particularly during winter months--prior to the 20th century seemed to be about 4,000 calories per day--but that was just for average folks. People in jobs requiring a lot of physical labor, like sailors, took in more like 5,000-6,000 calories per day, and people in very active jobs, like the lumbermen who combed the forests looking for mainmasts for ships and sleeping at night on a bed of straw on top of the snow, took in more like 8,000.

This was during the winter, and one thing they pointed out was that aside from increased activity, people back then also didn't have heating. Sure, they had fireplaces, but that tended to warm up the air directly next to the fireplace, and left the rest of the house cold (the hearth cooking demonstrator said that even with a large fire going in a kitchen during the winter, you could put a bowl of water on the other side of the room and it would freeze). So they theorize that heating and air conditioning contribute to the decreased need for calories, to some extent. People just don't need to burn as many calories to regulate body temperature these days.

Anyway, if you go back far enough, it seems that people actually eat less food today than they used to. Just not enough less.

[Bill Dungsroman]

Like Jeff, I think it's more the lack of activity than an excess of food. Consider this: Karen and I went to Strawberry Banke in Portsmouth over the Christmas holiday, which is a sort of museum comprised of a group of houses dating back to the mid 1600s, which have been restored and are decorated with period furnishings, and they do guided walking tours and such. The one we went on was about winter life in historic Portsmouth, and one of the things they covered was food (along with a demo of hearth cooking). They said that the average caloric intake--particularly during winter months--prior to the 20th century seemed to be about 4,000 calories per day--but that was just for average folks. People in jobs requiring a lot of physical labor, like sailors, took in more like 5,000-6,000 calories per day, and people in very active jobs, like the lumbermen who combed the forests looking for mainmasts for ships and sleeping at night on a bed of straw on top of the snow, took in more like 8,000.

This was during the winter, and one thing they pointed out was that aside from increased activity, people back then also didn't have heating. Sure, they had fireplaces, but that tended to warm up the air directly next to the fireplace, and left the rest of the house cold (the hearth cooking demonstrator said that even with a large fire going in a kitchen during the winter, you could put a bowl of water on the other side of the room and it would freeze). So they theorize that heating and air conditioning contribute to the decreased need for calories, to some extent. People just don't need to burn as many calories to regulate body temperature these days.

Anyway, if you go back far enough, it seems that people actually eat less food today than they used to. Just not enough less.

That is indeed interesting, Ben, but all I see from what you've said is caloric intake. I don't see anything about types of food, portion sizes of food, or number of meals.

[Ben Sones]

They did cover a lot of that stuff. Typically fewer, larger meals, heavy on the fat, carbs, and protein (leaning towards meat for the wealthier folks, more carbs for the poor). They talked a lot about specific foods eaten in the winter, particularly pies, which were a New England staple and a way of preserving food (there is apparently some controversy over whether the thick pastry shell was actually eaten, or just used as a container). Not just dessert pies, but savory pies, with meat, potatoes, etc. They had a poem written by a guy who visited Boston in the 1700s during the winter and was so sick to death of pies by the time he left that he had to write an ode to how many pies New Englanders ate.

Anyway, it basically sounded like a diet that would turn most folks today into Fatty McFattersons, but people back then burned a lot more calories in a day, and thus did fine eating all of that high-carb, lard-packed goodness.

[russellmz00]

there's no reason weight gain can't be due to being warm in winter with an office job and 2000 calorie milkshakes.

[Ben Sones]

Oh, it's clearly due to all of those things, in one combination or another. I'm just saying that I think people fixate a bit too much on the "eat less food" side of the equation, which is probably necessary (because let's face it, no reasonable exercise regimen that you come up with is going to burn as many calories in a day as you'd burn as a 17th century sailor) but only one part of the picture.

[Flowers]

Anyway, it basically sounded like a diet that would turn most folks today into Fatty McFattersons, but people back then burned a lot more calories in a day, and thus did fine eating all of that high-carb, lard-packed goodness.

Before you all turn your central air off so that you can eat as many cheesebowls as you want, I would like to point out that these people didn't live very long. Restricted calorie diets have been found to increase longevity quite substantially in monkeys.

[Scrax]

Who really wants to live past 65? Okay, okay 70.

[Mordrak]

Oh, it's clearly due to all of those things, in one combination or another. I'm just saying that I think people fixate a bit too much on the "eat less food" side of the equation, which is probably necessary (because let's face it, no reasonable exercise regimen that you come up with is going to burn as many calories in a day as you'd burn as a 17th century sailor) but only one part of the picture.

Those are absurdly high numbers and I'm not sure if I buy it. If you go back 30-50 years though, I'm betting you would see a difference in portion sizes.

[Flowers]

Question : If the Esquimeaux had thirty different words for snow, what does it mean that we have ninety-three words for fat?

Factoid : "Portly," is an actual jacket size notation for men's sportcoats.

[Ben Sones]

Those are absurdly high numbers and I'm not sure if I buy it. If you go back 30-50 years though, I'm betting you would see a difference in portion sizes.

Well, I don't have anything to cite, but the folks who run Strawberry Banke are working from primary sources (journals, books from the era, some of which were on display). People kept very detailed logs of what foods they stored and ate--particularly in the winter, when it was common to record a daily inventory to make sure that stuff in the cold parts of the house remained frozen, and that food in the cellar does not freeze (typically fruits and vegetables were stored down there, since the temperature was more steady, and a freeze down there could wipe out large portions of your winter stores).

There are people today who eat an absurdly high number of calories. Michael Phelps eats an 8,000-calorie diet when he's training. It is perfectly possible to burn enough calories to require that sort of intake, but you need to be doing a lot of physical labor.


Before you all turn your central air off so that you can eat as many cheesebowls as you want, I would like to point out that these people didn't live very long.

Well, yeah. Like I said, I'm not saying that any one of these things is the magical key to being thin and healthy. In fact, quite the opposite--if you are really concerned about staying fit, I think it's a bad idea to focus on just diet, or just exercise, or whatever.

[Anders Hallin]

And here I thought I was the only one who had voluntarily gone to Strawbery Banke!

[Mordrak]

Interesting and relevant graph (http://bp3.blogger.com/_9mNHNOMqaqM/RitOW07rtrI/AAAAAAAAAPc/xp2GoxNvrGE/s1600-h/CaloricIntake1600b.jpg), though according to the blog, it's based on privileged menus mostly. There are some pretty high counts on there as well as lower ones.