var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
caelanarcher
June 25, 2009 2:53 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

I don't care if they'll kill me; I will eat the heck out of those cheese fries, and I will fight anyone who tries to stop me.

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
Easton21
June 25, 2009 5:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@caelanarcher: It's not an issue of \"if\" it will kill you, it's a matter of \"when\". Do you care if you're only 40? I don't either; about you that is...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chrisjames
June 25, 2009 7:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Easton21: I may die early, but at least I'll die well-fed.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tzepish
June 25, 2009 9:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chrisjames: You may be full, but you won't be \"well\"-fed.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ShariC
June 26, 2009 3:40 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chuckv: Yes, America is the only country in the world with nutritionally suspect, heavily caloric food in its restaurants. :-p

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SadSam
June 25, 2009 3:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The Murderous Eyes of Eos:


Oooh, I love those cheese fries too, but I get mine without bacon so I'm sure they are way healthier that way. Plus, I'm in an Outback once every two years so I don't think the rare treat is going to kill me.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Preyfar
June 25, 2009 2:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@caelanarcher: In my case, the only person who'd try to stop me... is my arteries. =D

Every time I eat at Outback I can hear my heart screaming, \"WHAT DID I DO TO YOOOU!?\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Mary Marsala with Fries
June 25, 2009 2:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Brilliant spin on an old topic. I can't *wait* for when they start putting nutritional info on the menus. People will be too embarrassed to order most of this crap!

Reply
10 replies
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
June 25, 2009 4:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mary Marsala with Fries:

As someone that has most of the nutritional info of most foods memorized, or I am able to make a very educated guess....I still eat very poorly most of the time.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
smonkey
June 25, 2009 4:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mary Marsala with Fries: Except for the ones that go for the gold. It's the same reason you don't see Breathalyzers in bars.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ngoandy
June 25, 2009 3:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mary Marsala with Fries: I'm betting certain groups of people will start having calorie competitions.

I know a friend of mine has done it before. Who can consume the most.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
newdanistan
June 25, 2009 4:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@OMG!ToOMG!,ByMyPonies!_GitEmSteveDave: Did you notice how out of breath Jesse got from holding those 40 pizza rolls and talking to the camera? I am all for people being able to do whatever they want...as long as it doesn't have a negative impact on my life. He can be a fat overeater with manboobs and stretch marks and if that makes him happy I am all for it. When the inevitable medical bills start rolling in (or my insurance premiums go up to cover other overindulgant fatties) he should be responsible for them. If not, time to strip him for parts and turn all that stored raw material into something useful.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dialing_wand
June 25, 2009 3:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mary Marsala with Fries: Exactly. The calorie counts will be just like warning labels on cigarette packs. Look how effective those have been!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
youaredumb
June 25, 2009 3:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mary Marsala with Fries:
Really? You think the most obese nation in the world cares that much about calories?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
June 25, 2009 3:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@youaredumb: I don't think it's going to halt fast food in its tracks, but it does seem to have made a difference to buying patterns in New York, where the policy is in action.

I think it's kind of like prices on menus--you figure it's expensive, but it's a different matter when you're faced with just how expensive. I think this may be especially relevant to the astonishingly caloric salads some of these places sell, since people think they're choosing the healthy option when it's not necessarily the case.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HFC
June 25, 2009 3:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mary Marsala with Fries: Speak for yourself. I love a double Whopper. I don't care how many calories are in it. Guess what? I also eat Hungry Man frozen meals for lunch. They have over 1000 mg of sodium in them. Woo-hoo! I don't care.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Easton21
June 25, 2009 5:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HFC: He did, that's why he used the word \"I\" istead of \"we\". Doy.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HFC
June 25, 2009 5:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Easton21: \"People will be too embarrassed to order most of this crap!\"

Whoops! Looks like there was a generalization in that statement after all.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
wgrune
June 25, 2009 3:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HFC:


Plus, many of them offer you \"more than 1lb of food\"!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
crashedpc : ゴキブリ and 蟑螂 division
June 25, 2009 2:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My heart hurts from reading that.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Christie Porter
June 25, 2009 2:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"those buzzkills at Time published this mouth-watering article about the massive caloric content of fast food.\"

HAHAHA. I love the writers at this site. Such funny ways of wording everything ;)

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Prole
June 25, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Christie Porter: I believe this was written by the guest bloggers. Well done hot blogger girl and that other guy!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
morkus
June 25, 2009 2:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The salad comes in one of those crispy bowls-you-can-eat, so you can probably cram everything in there and eat it like an enormous, sloppy, cupcake.

This line nearly made me spit coffee all over my computer screen.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
dulcinea47
June 25, 2009 3:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You get rickets from vitamin D deficiency, and you can get vit. D from the sun, so just sit outside while you're eating and you're good to go on that.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Chris Walters
June 25, 2009 3:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This sounds like the Dethklok diet. Just eat one really big meal a day right before you go to sleep so all your body has to do is digest it. And popscockles.

[www.adultswim.com]

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
CubeRat
June 25, 2009 3:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters:


Okay, so let me get this straight, one really big meal a day, then we go to sleep, no paper towels but a little bit of bread because we're not Nazis and as many popsicles as we want.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
lpranal
June 25, 2009 3:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This always sparks a huge debate, for some reason, but I actually see the value to this. We have warnings on everything nowadays, and usually the warnings are completely superfluous and unnecessary. However with fast food in particular, there's so many \"flavor enhancers\", hydrogenated oils, palm oils, lots of sneaky calories which are sometimes pretty shocking. I think when people genuinely try to eat healthy, but may just not be as informed as those of us who just avoid fast food altogether, they get kind of tricked into thinking the 1,500 calorie salad they're eating is going to help them lose weight. They often use words like \"fresh\" or \"low carb\" which have healthy connotations despite the foods themselves being very unhealthy. Sneaky marketing should be battled with information. Maybe requiring the calories to be directly on the menu is a little bit harsh, but the information should be freely available (as in, you can get to it without having to ask the underpaid teenager who probably has no clue what you're asking about).

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
VA_White
June 25, 2009 3:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think it's a great idea. Eating out for me involves a lot of research ahead of time so that I know what to order when I get there. Having the numbers on the menu would mean I could eat out more often which can only be good for the restaurant business, no?

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
KStrike155
June 25, 2009 3:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@VA_White: Until you realize that just about every item on the menu is ridiculously unhealthy for you because even things that should be healthy are cooked in butter and all kind of other crap to make it taste better.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
VA_White
June 25, 2009 8:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@KStrike155: I can usually find something to eat almost everywhere we go, even notoriously horrible Red Robin has a couple of wraps that aren't bad if you ask them to leave out the fried tortilla strips. I really like the restaurants that give you a calorie count per ingredient so I know if I order a particular sandwich, I can leave out the mayo and cheese to get it into the calorie range I need. But without the info up front, you can't make an informed decision. So mostly I don't go out to eat.

Bar owners thought smoking bans would kill their business but it brought all those non-smokers to their places instead. I really think labeling menus would bring more people out to eat. But perhaps I'm too much of an optimist.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
June 25, 2009 3:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@KStrike155: Butter's too expensive for fast-food restaurants.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Alex Chasick
June 25, 2009 3:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't even care, that Applebee's Quesadilla Burger looks delicious.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
dialing_wand
June 25, 2009 3:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Alex Chasick: And its cold-blooded protein content is reportedly very low.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
OMG!ToOMG!,ByMyPonies!_GitEmSteveDave
June 25, 2009 3:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yeah, you have to watch out for those shakes. Why, if it wasn't for them, Morgan Spurlok would still be a unknown mockumentary maker, instead of the source of many peoples \"scientific\" knowledge.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Bob_Mackey
June 25, 2009 7:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@OMG!ToOMG!,ByMyPonies!_GitEmSteveDave: Don't worry! The writers of this article were also sensationalizing the milkshakes. They told us that the shakes are 1,160 calories, but they conveniently forgot to mention that they're 32 ounces. So to get 2,320 calories, you would have to drink SIXTY-FOUR ounces of milkshake.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
burnedout
June 25, 2009 3:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Doonesbury made this joke too (June 9):

[www.doonesbury.com]

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Eric1285
June 25, 2009 3:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I wish this myth of a 2,000 calorie diet would just die. I haven't had a 2,000 calorie daily requirement since I was about 8 years old. The only people who could live on 2,000 calories a day without losing massive amounts of weight are those who are under 90 pounds. Last time I ran the numbers I require more like 3,000 calories a day.

Reply
12 replies
\"user-pic\"
PinkBox
June 25, 2009 4:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eric1285: My boyfriend's personal trainer told him not to eat more than 1600 calories a day.

It has been several months, and he is now in great shape, and definitely isn't starving.

Example of a 1600 calorie day:

Breakfast - oatmeal and coffee

Lunch - bbq chicken, slaw, brocolli and tea

Dinner - bourbon salmon, veggies, edamame and water

Snacks - Breakfast tea with sugar, juice and watermelon

Reply
\"user-pic\"
peachplum
June 25, 2009 4:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eric1285: 2000 is a perfectly good guideline for healthy, active women. Those with higher metabolisms can adjust to their needs. Is that really a big inconvenience?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cantras
June 25, 2009 3:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eric1285: Interesting, Dr. Eric. My mother's caloric needs would have her *gaining* massive amounts of weight on a 2000 calorie diet -- and she's not under 90 lbs. She has a sitting office job, and then comes home and has sitting hobbies like TV and reading and fantasy sports. Her caloric needs are in the low 1000s.

2000-calories-for-everyone is of course a myth, but people vary in both directions.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
June 25, 2009 3:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eric1285: It's not a myth just because it doesn't apply to you. It does apply to most adult women, for instance.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kduhtoe
June 25, 2009 4:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@floraposte: Agreed, when it comes to evidence basis, anecdotes fall somewhere between \"I heard it from a friend who's dad is a doctor\" and \"I learned it in middle school health class\". If 3000 calories is what Eric1285 requires to maintain his weight, that has little bearing on the fact that the majority of Americans are both overweight and highly sedentary. The number of calories is not the only thing to consider, but, also, the sources from where the calories comes from is important as well. 3000 calories in simple carbohydrates and fat is much worse than 3000 calories in complex carbohydrates and protein.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Citron
June 25, 2009 3:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@floraposte: @lpranal: It's not a myth. My maintenance intake is around 1800, and I weigh over 90 pounds. For some people 2000 calories is actually too much.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
June 25, 2009 6:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Citron: Yep, 1800 is about my maintenance. I get 2300 right now for the breastfeeding, but I haven't been OVER 2,000 calories a day as a maintenance intake in years and years.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Citron
June 25, 2009 3:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Citron: Ah crap. Didn't mean to @flora there. Comment fail.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
June 25, 2009 3:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eric1285: Depends. I tracked my calories for a week, and they consistently turned out to be less than 2000. (My \"suggested\" range was 2100-2300 or something) And my weight is fairly constant. Though that might be because of the working out and protein shakes. I am probably losing weight in fat and building it up in muscles (I hope so atleast).

I am guessing it depends on the body metabolism, activity levels, level of carbs and proteins in diet, etc etc.

On a side note, its a bitch to build muscles elsewhere when you are trying to lose some inches from your waist.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lpranal
June 25, 2009 5:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: \"On a side note, its a bitch to build muscles elsewhere when you are trying to lose some inches from your waist.\"

yes, it is, in fact most would say impossible. The only way i've able to lose any fat without losing muscle is through the The Anabolic Diet. It's controversial, but it works- I'm about 4 weeks in, I've definitely cut up significantly while my lifts have stayed the same or improved- which is pretty much a miracle considering how much I need to eat in order to gain muscle.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ceriphim
June 25, 2009 5:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: I feel you, though you shouldn't be trying to gain and cut at the same time. I *always* get some additional fat around the midsection when I'm trying to gain muscle. On the other hand, I lose a little bit of muscle with the fat when I'm trying to cut down.

Thems the breaks, at least for me.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
June 25, 2009 6:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ceriphim: @lpranal:

Yes, yes, I hear you both, especially the part about the bloating mid section when trying to build muscles.

That is because there are abs developing under the fat, and it makes it look bigger. You know that its the exercise thats working, but other people looking at you will think you are just a bloated piece of lard.

That is mainly a short term problem though, and I prefer to look at the long term advantages. To anyone who judges me based on my transitory fat, I say \"fuck you too\".

Meanwhile I alternate between days of Fat Burn/Cardio exercises and weights training, as I see no point in letting my arms and back lose strength while I put my waist through the torture.

Also, I am nowhere near as fat as the penguin in the pic. Nowhere near.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lpranal
June 25, 2009 7:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: Not to keep pimping this crazy ass diet (which honestly, sounded like a fad to me at first) but that's what's awesome about the anabolic diet- you get 2-3 days of lifting where you feel like you have superhuman strength, the rest of the week your body goes into a mode where everything you're burning is fat (this part is extremely protein sparing, thus you keep the muscle you just built). Outside of taking illegal drugs, there's really no way for your body to be anabolic (building muscle) and catabolic (fat burning) at the same time. I spent a long time destroying the gains I was getting with cardio, only to have modest fat loss at best. But it depends how dedicated you are, and it's definitely not for everyone...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
June 25, 2009 7:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@lpranal: I avoid diets with names on principle.

Muscle weight gain occurs naturally every time you step up your muscle use. (And if you spend all day in a cubicle, even doing push ups is a step up). Also I am not going all out on the weights, just keeping them at a consistent level, so that I can /maintain/ my strength and shape. Apparently my muscles start turning to jelly within 4 weeks of not exercising.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ceriphim
June 25, 2009 10:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: Ditto about the named diets. As for the spare-tire thing, it's kinda funny. Originally I was trying to get rid of all the fat around my midsection completely and rock the six-pack. After a year of lifting I've realized it's never gonna happen, in fact it sticks out a little further than it used to. But I really don't care anymore either, cause the rest of me sticks out more too. (Not a penis joke, I swear to god).

People who actually know anything about how bodies work know what strong, healthy people look like, and except in unusual cases it's not being huge, ripped, and having 1% body fat. I've gained 20 lbs of muscle in the past year, I still look mostly like me, just... Bigger. =)

I say keep at it and enjoy feeling better, it's more than most people do!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
June 25, 2009 7:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: I think idea of a universal guideline is a bit too simplistic. Caloric needs vary widely depending upon a persons age, height, weight and level of activity.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Carolyn Gabriel
June 25, 2009 3:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eric1285: Actually, caloric needs differ based on each individual person. Things like lifestyle, exercise, and current weight all come into play. For example, my sustaining diet (to keep from gaining or losing weight) would be about 1600 calories a day. I'm on 1400 to lose weight slowly, whereas adult women (as a rule of thumb) should never eat less than 1200.

Fast food is my arch nemesis - if I want a burger and fries, I don't eat anything but salad the rest of the day. :(

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lpranal
June 25, 2009 3:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eric1285: 2,000 is for the active, sedentary person. I'm fairly active and if I eat under 3,000 I get hunger rage.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lpranal
June 25, 2009 3:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@lpranal: INactive, sedentary. I think I just described someone who has telekinesis abilities.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LilBadKitty
June 25, 2009 6:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@lpranal: Telekinesis burns calories like a mofo. It is convenient to be able to cook dinner without leaving my chair, though.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Alpine75
June 25, 2009 3:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is silly. I lost 40 pounds eating McDonalds everyday. You just need to watch what you eat. A triple whopper is obviously extremely unhealthy but most fast food offerings aren't that extreme.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
DreamTheEndless: Death's little brother
June 25, 2009 4:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Alpine75: My diabetic mother was told by her nutritionist that a McDonalds egg McMuffin minus cheese is on of the healthiest things available from a drive through. 1 english muffin, 1 slice of lean ham, 1 real egg - that's it. As you say, not everything at McDonalds is bad for you...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
June 25, 2009 3:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Alpine75: I think most fast food *meals* are pretty extreme, though; folks who, say, get simply the wrap and nothing else are likely to be in the minority by quite a bit. And when I looked at the McDonald's nutritional info here [nutrition.mcdonalds.com] I did find some surprises on what was and what wasn't high caloric, and just what a high percentage fat was even in some smaller offerings. So I think that's useful information to customers.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
babyruthless
June 25, 2009 5:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@floraposte: Whenever I used to find myself at a fast-food joint, I'd order a kid's meal. They are reasonably portioned, and you get a toy to boot!


Now I'm vegetarian-ish, so when I go to a fast food joint, I get fries. Salads almost always have chicken on them, prepackaged. Yay!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
June 25, 2009 7:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@babyruthless:

That's what I do. And at McD's now you can get apples instead of fries, and Wendy's has the little orange cups (I love those).

I also like to get milk instead of soda.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Baxterjones
June 25, 2009 3:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Alpine75: Was that from all the vomiting? Hee! Only joshing.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
nataku8_e30
June 25, 2009 3:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Also, don't forget about other benefits, like having to safe significantly less for retirement. Yay disposable income!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
CFinWV
June 25, 2009 3:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Friends don't let friends eat triple whoppers and then play WoW. If we wipe due to your grease-induced coma heads are gonna roll.

(Brought to you by D.E.H.T.A.)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Amy Alkon
June 25, 2009 3:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Eat just a cheeseburger, no bun, and you'll be fine. Even a double cheeseburger. And a club soda, coffee, or unsweetened tea.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
June 25, 2009 3:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Amy Alkon: If you're insulin resistant, maybe. Not if you're not, though--the high-fat, low-carb approach isn't the panacea that some would argue it to be.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
June 25, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@floraposte: Yeah, didn't The Zone thing die a death once the cholesterol and hypertension reports from following that diet come out?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
June 25, 2009 6:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Dunno about that specifically--there are actually some good low-carb outcomes as well as some bad, and so far, it seems to be dependent on whether or not you're insulin resistant. But what seems to be happening is that people fall in love with one part of the Gary Taubes book (he likes low carbing) and ignore the rest (and it is kind of contradictory--he shuts up about the Mediterranean diet--which isn't low-carb--once it stops supporting his thesis, for instance). And then they go on the same one-size-fits-all diet advocacy that's pretty much dead and gone for good reason.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
AustinTXProgrammer
June 25, 2009 3:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Those cheese fries are meant to be shared, preferably with about 3 other people.

Still a lot, but not insane.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Free Refills
June 25, 2009 3:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

2,000 calories for $5 or $6 bucks? I'm never going grocery shopping again!

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Citron
June 25, 2009 3:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You could just drink a cup of canola oil or eat a stick of butter. That's probably more calorie-dense and even cheaper.

Mmmm, stick o butter.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Andi Lee
June 25, 2009 5:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Citron: Just not as yummy. But man, you're onto something... Both of you actually!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Citron
June 25, 2009 7:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Andi Lee: You could fry the butter in the oil. That might be yummy.

Throw some garlic in there.

That's the SOP for a lot of these restaurants. Fat and fat and garlic. I know I get a fat and fat and garlic craving every now and then . . . Mmm.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
sir_pantsalot
June 25, 2009 3:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The wife and I just recently started eating better to lose weight. This is the first time I have ever looked and and compared calories and saturated fat and I am 31. Before now I wouldn't care how many calories something had in it because I have nothing to compare it with. Nutrition info is useless for people who don't use it.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Starfury
June 25, 2009 3:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't WANT to see the calorie/fat content of my Ultimate Cheeseburger combo on the menu board. I already KNOW it's bad for me to eat which is why I don't have it that often. If I have to read how much fat/calories I'm eating I'll probably stop buying it.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
gggtur
June 25, 2009 3:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Lazy jerks...you can figure out how to get on the internet and read consumer blogs, yet you had no idea that fast food was bad for you?

Also, how will this affect mom and pop businesses? Will my favorite Indian restaurant who can barely get 10 customers on a Saturday have to figure out a many calories are in the Vindaloo? Will they get fined if they get it wrong?

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
ChuckECheese
June 25, 2009 4:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gggtur: The laws requiring restaurant nutrition info only apply to largeish chains that use standardized supplies and pre-prepared foodstuffs.

Your east-injun restaurant is doing poorly because of things other than nutrition labeling. I sure hope they have a buffet and that it has mac & cheese on it. When times are tough, people get conservative about what they eat and want the comforting, familiar basics. Personally I think a combo-Indian/American stealth buffet would be brilliant. After all, it's what the Greeks did to turn Americans on to their food - they Greek-ed up American dishes, and snuck Greek stuff onto American diner menus and vice-versa.

People generally know that fast food isn't health food. But sometimes they don't realize just how bad it is. And sometimes they like to make black humor about the whole thing. Have you missed the hilarious intent of this post?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
INTPLibrarian
June 25, 2009 4:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gggtur: You can figure out how to get on the internet and read consumer blogs, yet you can't go look up what the regulations are that they put into effect in NYC?

Also, I haven't read anyone being surprised that fast food is bad and/or high in calories. Are you reading people's minds?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
June 25, 2009 3:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gggtur: It's been clear from the beginning that this is for chain restaurants over a certain number only.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
bishophicks
June 25, 2009 3:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My wife and I ordered those cheese fries once. Someone should have explained that you need to share it among six people to get the calorie count per person down to a sane amount. They comes with bacon bits AND a zesty ranch dipping sauce.


I lost about 30 pounds a couple years ago, mostly by simply eating less. The result now is that most restaurant (fast food and regular) serving sizes look enormous. I order off the kid's menu if I can, otherwise I eat half and take the rest home with me.


I don't understand why restaurants go for the 1500 calorie, gut busting meals. You could make a quesadilla burger (or whatever) that's 1/2 or 1/3 the size and tastes exactly the same. Most appetizers (the cheese fries, for example) could be ordered based on number of people (\"we'd like the cheese fries for 3 and the coconut shrimp for 4 please\"). It would take exactly the same amount of time to prepare and would result in much more sanity at the dinner table.


Of course restaurant owners would never do this. Smaller portions mean lower prices without any change in the number of customers served, so their income would go down.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
ChuckECheese
June 25, 2009 4:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

bishophicks:

They comes with bacon bits AND a zesty ranch dipping sauce.
This reminds me of an old Onion headline, here: [www.theonion.com]
RE your comments about portion sizes: For a long time, food costs were the least of a restaurant's operating expenses. Increasing portion sizes was an inexpensive way to market your restaurant. People don't really like paying for a restaurant meal and feeling hungry soon after. People also like the value vibe they get from getting more for less. It didn't cost the restaurant much to serve larger sizes. 15 years later, I still have fond memories of a burrito shack in San Diego that served burros bigger than my foot.

These days, food costs are higher, and some restaurants have been tempted to cut back on portion sizes, which leads to customer backlash. Historically, attempts on the part of restaurants to 'health-up' their offerings, or to publicize smaller portions, has led to profit sadness ([knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu]).
There are other cultural-historical and socioeconomic issues that don't get addressed much when debating diets. Americans don't have much experience eating a low-calorie, smaller portion, high-vegetable & fiber diet. Never have. Healthier foods such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains and lean meats cost considerably more than less healthy options, and require more effort to prepare. People who work hard at minimum wage jobs, which is frankly a large chunk of the populace, don't have the means to hop on the healthy eating bandwagon.

@floraposte: My brother and I (I'm 44 and he's 40) both realize/lament that we need fewer calories than many to maintain our weight. I typically eat less than 1800 a day, and he's discovering that he requires about the same. We're both ex-chefs, love food, are what is known as \"big boned\" and eschew the healthy when you can have cheese on top.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
June 25, 2009 7:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ChuckECheese:

Unfortunately, as you get older, losing weight gets harder.

Sucks.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
June 25, 2009 6:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ChuckECheese: I think the \"But I did it this way before and I was fine!\" indignation runs deep within all of us when it comes to just about every aspect of health. Whaddya mean, we may have to change?!

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
INTPLibrarian
June 25, 2009 4:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I would love if restaurants, fast-food and otherwise, would publish handy nutritional info. I'm diabetic (Type I) and adjust my insulin depending on how many carbs I'm eating. I'm not necessarily looking for LOW carbs, I just want to know approximately how many I'm consuming!

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Jacob Morgan
June 25, 2009 4:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If I were to follow that last meal plan, would I get a free Nintendo Wii with it?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
citrus538
June 25, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think most people, if they cut out fast food and unhealthy snacks, would be shocked to see how much 2000 calories of REAL food will get you.

Think about it this way: one POUND (an entire BOX) of your run-of-the-mill uncooked pasta has 1600 calories. It's almost impossible to eat a pound of pasta in one sitting, yet a triple whopper with cheese, fries and a large soda goes down pretty easy.

Not only is healthy food better for you but you will naturally eat less and get less calories out of it.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
June 25, 2009 4:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm more of the Space Age.
Gimme a tub o lard, a liter of HFCS with a shooter of artificial coloring and several rails of preservatives and salt. Slap my fanny and shoot up some bovine growth formula and antibiotics for good measure. Then wash it all down with a cold glass of Tang and BLAST OFF!
Efficiency is so underrated.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
emnik
June 25, 2009 5:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

A Whopper with Cheese is only 770 calories. 770 calories is not \"over half of a normal 2,000 calorie per day diet\".

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
thepassenger
June 25, 2009 5:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I love how the Time site shoves an ad at you before each item on the list. Classy.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Quilt
June 25, 2009 6:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Possibly one of the worst dietary decisions a person could make?


Survey say, \"Yes.\"

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
horned_frog
June 25, 2009 8:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

heart attack grill [www.heartattackgrill.com]

home of the quadruple bypass burger

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
ShariC
June 26, 2009 3:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

One of the best possible consequences of putting nutrition information on menus is that the restaurants will change portion sizes or preparation methods in order to show people they can eat without gaining a lot of weight. It'll also give perspective to people who have no idea how many calories are in various size servings.

I know a lot of cynical people think overweight people don't care about calories, but that is simply not true. Being obese is the side effect of a variety of problems both physical and psychological. Essentially, they are addicts just like alcoholics or crackheads. They're not happy, and they're not indifferent, though in some cases they've simply given up and given in to their misery. They decide that if they can't break their addiction, they will at least enjoy how that addiction makes them feel.

The antagonistic and mocking attitude of the general public toward fat people only makes it worse as part of what causes people to seek comfort in food is their psychological misery at how they are treated and how their lives are going. At the very least, such people don't deserve contempt. Just leave them alone if you can't muster any compassion for them.

Reply
","");