Romano's Macaroni Grill, with four locations in the [Sacramento] region, has managed to squeeze a whopping 880 calories out of just one salad, as the chain's menu undergoes a massive revamp under new ownership.
...
The new [Denny's] Grand Slam – two eggs, two sausages, two bacon slices and pancakes – is a build-your-own option with substitutions such as chicken instead of pork, egg whites, turkey bacon and whole wheat pancakes. For another 49 cents, add-ons such as yogurt are available.With the healthier options, the Grand Slam drops from 882 calories to 546, not to mention a 70 percent drop in fat grams.
This is a nice bonus of menu-labeling: some restaurants will be too ashamed to continue offering items like 1,200 calorie salads and will look for ways to make their foods more healthful. Although we're sure there will be complaints about a person's individual freedom to eat as much crap and be as fat as he wants, we think the public health benefits outweigh such concerns (especially considering that in the instances here, Denny's is keeping things like Moon Over My Hammy intact, and the type of person we just described probably wasn't celebrating his gluttony with a 1,200-calorie scallop and spinach salad at Macaroni Grill).
Although it's good to see restaurants retooling their menus, the main purpose of menu-labeling laws is to allow consumers to make informed decisions about the foods they eat. It's up to you, not the restaurant, to ensure you eat reasonably.
California Calorie Law Alters Chains' Fare [SacBee]
(Photo: satosphere)
If your burger is made from leaner meat and the mayonnaise is fat free are you getting less food?
]]>I would LOVE to see the menus have calories. I usually look up things on line, but would definitely make a different choice if what I wanted was loaded with calories. Or, I would pack up 1/2 of it for my husband to have for lunch the next day.
]]>Tomorrow, you'll still have the massive salad, the cheezy bacon fries and the heart-bypass burger.
This just creates an incentive to reduce calories and fat. Some businesses will offer healthy addons for marketing purposes - that will rarely be chosen. Others will switch ingredients with varying degrees of success. At worst, your McFatty will taste funny for a few months. But when the food settles, it'll be the same as it has always been and should be.
Those who try to eat carefully who stumble into the joint will at least be able to choose food that's not full of fat and HFCS/sugar.
]]>It wasn't the skinny guy.
I guess my point is that so many people equate fitness with being thin and lethargy with being obese that they tend to use going to the gym as this end-all be-all solution to being fit. For some people, it is, but for others, it's not and to dismiss the people who say "nothing works for me" is not helping. It's just putting more blame on people who want to change but can't see a solution.
]]>Nothing if you are reasonably intelligent. You seem to form your sentences/thoughts pretty well. You are more than likely intelligent. But now everyone is capable of making good decisions for themselves. Government makes rules and laws for the masses.
]]>@Jaynor: The OP didn't specify but if he/she is talking about work based healthcare costs then this statment from your posted article makes all the difference:
"The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run."
In a work environment you'll see a little give each way on those years, let's say 18-60. And yes I understand that older people do work and some of us work with them. But a huge amount of the working force is between this age range. So if your employer has a group plan then they are covering mostly people in this range. If there are people who are overweight or live an unhealthy lifestyle then they are indeed costing you more from your work based plan.
The original comment was mean spirited but there is a kernal of truth there. People on a work based plan should be encouraged to keep a healthy lifestyle and a reward should be a lower premium/co-pay/whatever. I know some businesses are switching to this model and I hope it catches on in the future.
]]>I apologize for any hateful tones, but I think you're reading too much into the post.
]]>No, if you're ordering a double lardburger, sugared soda and fries, you don't care how many calories are in them. But if you order grilled meat and steamed veggies, or something marked "healthy" or "low fat", or a salad, you deserve to know whether you are being calorically hoodwinked.
]]>1) Restaurants are not grocery stores.
2) You're not necessarily going to get less food just because the restaurants change some of their items to contain fewer calories.
]]>@Laurel Beth Martin: The comments aren't pre-screened. They're disemvoweled after the fact if someone e-mails the moderator and they agree it was out of line.
]]>I wonder how the law affects non-chain restaurants. I honestly don't know how any biz can even open, let alone stay open, in the blizzard of CA regs.
]]>Thank you for inadvertently demonstrating the degree of misunderstanding present in the general public, and for showing the necessity of this legislation.
]]>@Jaynor: Darned skinny people driving up health insurance premiums with their getting older and living to eat more medications.
]]>@Elcheecho: Ideally we check the facts prior to posting things to public blogs... not always:
"Scallops & Spinach Salad
Seared sea scallops with fresh spinach wilted and tossed with prosciutto, roasted garlic, fresh lemon and extra virgin olive oil"
That's from the menu of a Macaroni Grill in Elk Grove, California, and you can check out the rest of the menu here:
[www.macaronigrill.com]
On the other hand, if Hollywood kid happens and turns out to not be a total asshole you'll never have to worry about making insurance payments again!
]]>It's the easiest thing you'll ever do - order a pork belly from your butcher, make some basic cure and use your fridge. If you don't have a smoker to finish it off, you can finish it in your oven. Tasty!
]]>What's the problem with simply offering choices and reliable nutrition information to help the consumer decide? Not everyone needs or wants to monitor their calorie intake 100% of the time. I think a smarter business plan would be to offer healthier options right alongside the "bad stuff," so people can make informed decisions about it.
]]>Why is it considered a good thing in this case to get less for your money.
Consumerist, if you're going to have an opinion about something, make it a consistent one.
]]>The conclusion is that anything deep fried, even pencils, are delish
]]>A study was done that basically said the reduced life expectancy covered the momentary increase in costs just before death for unhealthy habits.
]]>"[W]hy do we have to legislate it? Many restaurants have this information available in one form or another. If you're truly seeking it, you can find it - or eat elsewhere."
Wrong-o. Let's say you're with a gang of people, you're trying to lose weight and calorie-counting, and everybody else wants to go to Cheesecake Factory. CF has steadfastly refused to provide any nutritional information to consumers whatsoever - Google it and you'll see.
So now you have a Hobson's choice: a crap shoot with the CF menu, or be a party-pooper. Lovely
It's all about freedom of choice. I want the freedom to know what I'm eating.
]]>And you know that caricaturization, you've seen those idiots comment before.
]]>My husband travels for work and is away from home 75% of the time so it's not a treat for him to eat out; it's a necessity. He would love better information on menus to help him make healthier choices when he's on the road.
]]>My boyfriend doesn't believe me about how many calories the taco salads he's eating as part of his "diet" are. No matter what I print out or hand him. Posting the calories is the only thing that's going to convince him, because it's a permanent thing and very clearly made by the restaurant. I'm glad I'm in CA.
]]>As a supposedly civilized and social race, humanity has a certain amount of obligation towards the society to help out people who cannot always help themselves.
Healing the sick and protecting the weak is different from paying for the mistakes of someone who deliberately causes harm to oneself despite knowing very well that what they are doing is not good for them.
Often we end up paying for other people's mistakes. Thats just how life rolls.
]]>This sort of cynical assertion really wasn't necessary. It seems to presume people want to have weight problems and will argue for keeping them. Fat people hate themselves and are hated by everyone around them. Do you sincerely believe they will argue for being fat?
]]>There is no one size fits all (no pun intended, I assure you) solution and oversimplifying the problem doesn't help people. Everyone has the answers to the obesity epidemic and everyone has their judgment right at hand waiting to issue it, but it's just not that simple.
There was a recent study on deprivation and how it affects habitual behavior. Smokers who were trying to quit were asked to resist a piece of chocolate cake (told to smell it, look at it, think about eating it). After resisting the cake, they were more likely to give in to smoking. Resisting temptation on one front makes you more likely to give in on another if you are addicted to something (food, caffeine, cigarettes, drugs). That means that there has to be some consideration for the fact that people who change eating habits aren't simply going to be able to walk away from their problem and pick up new habits so simply.
And I'm sure the issue is psychologically even more complex than this.
]]>@tungstencoil: I'd see bad legislation as a law saying what you can and can't serve in a restaurant. Legislation that requires you to tell people what they are eating, on the other hand, does not stymie personal choice -- it enables it. Restaurants may not like this. But it's not because it's limiting their menu options. It's because it removes the fog from people's decision-making process. Restaurants depend on that fog to sell you whatever they want. I think both lawmakers and restaurants want you to be able to make choices. It's just that restaurants don't want to help you make an informed choice.
]]>Of course, I never ate the whole onion. Gave me a sour stomach.
]]>The idea that you're fat because you eat garbage is only reinforcing bad eating habits as you have people who are fat and not eating that sort of junk, but feel helpless to control or understand why they are overweight and other people (who do eat junk) are not.
Giving the stereotypes and misconceptions a rest is the start of understanding the problem.
]]>Besides, if you're not one of the "you don't need to exercise" lunatics, a hundred extra calories here or there can't truly hurt you.
]]>What.
]]>Please get this menu-labeling law to Texas!!!! PLEASE!!!!
]]>Awesome!
]]>@MostlyHarmless: actually, saving the people who choose to smoke (and die of lung cancer) and over eat (and die of heart attacks etc) would be against evolution. Just like healing sick people, and protecting the weak from getting taken advantage of.
]]>@ChuckECheese: I am not trying to be snarky, but "low" as compared to what? Can we actually called crispy bacon "low fat"? Cause if we can, I'll head to BJ's tomorrow and pick up a few packs and get my skillet ready.
]]>@ChuckECheese: Oh, i listen and know.
though if you bake bacon (the only proper way to cook it after all), you can still have it a bit chewy and still not bad for you.
]]>@MaelstromRider: I'm fat, too. I box, or run, or bike at least five days a week. I eat reasonably well. My cholesterol and blood pressue can kick your ass.
I also have a thyroid condition that is not responding to medication.
Not all of us are gluttons.
]]>I also live across the street from a Macaroni Grill so every month or so I'll get take out from there. Last time I noticed that they'd downsized the chicken parmesan and it now tastes like something KFC might produce if they tried the dish.
Don't know if it is related to the economy, labeling, or just a coincidental change. But if that indicates the direction they'll go then I strongly disapprove.
As a side question, though, what are the requirements for food items that aren't on the menu but simply provided (such as free bread/oil/vinegar, intercourse palate cleansers, etc.)?
]]>I really do hope restaurants just continue on serving the same food. Its nice to be able to count calories and all but it should not be at the cost of our right to choose what we deem as good or bad for us. Especially those of us know that Aussie Cheese Fries with Ranch Dressing is not our healthy eating meal of the day.
]]>Maybe it would be OK if insurance companies only had to pay for a limited number of pregnancies and children and people wanting more could self-pay or buy a separate premium policy. Meanwhile, the insurance companies could pay out more (not saying they would...) for people who didn't directly and knowingly bring on their own medical problems.
]]>Richard Simon's "Sweating to the Oldies" on continuous loop!
DIEEEE!1!!1!!!
]]>I'm all for individual freedom. I love the Outback Cheese Fries (which are on one of those worst food lists) but the frequency that I go to Outback is about once a year so the fact that I order this item once a year or once every two years isn't going to do me in. I know it is bad for me but all things in moderation. I'm happy to know the nutritional value (or lack thereof) so I can make an informed choice. But I would have a case of the sads if I ended up at Outback and those yummy cheesy fries were yanked off the menu by the food police. Plus I order them without bacon so they are totally healthy.
]]>Eric Finkelstein writes about this in "The Fattening of America", which examines the recent increase of obesity in this country through the lens of an economist. He argues that cheapening foods combined with enabling technologies has lead to higher instances of obesity as the costs associated with obesity (i.e. protracted lifespsan) have been reduced.
]]>1. The restaurants are going to start putting up 'Eat here at your own risk' type signs to avoid being sued for heart attacks.
2. Even with the new law, I wouldn't entirely trust the reported calorie contents and breakdowns. Who's going to be checking? While most places will probably get it right, I can envision others doing salad calorie count using less-than-usual meat, cheese, dressing, etc. and calling it a normal variation if caught.
We have to legislate it precisely because most businesses weren't sharing the information voluntarily. And even those that were, weren't sharing it transparently enough to help customers make informed decisions at the time of their orders.
]]>Our bodies are still in the "clean the plate, you'll starve to death" mode, even as we approach 300 pounds in 21st Century America.
]]>I find the intrusion of the government unwelcome. Frankly, I don't eat out that much - and when I do, I'm going to get what I want, because it's a treat. The reason I don't eat out? I like to know what I'm eating, and control my portions and ingredients.
What's so hard about that?
]]>About the soda thing, apparently cutting soda out of your diet for one year (and doing nothing else) will help you drop a few pounds.
]]>These days, I still look up calorie values to see what I am getting into. And you'd be surprised by how many things you think are "a healthier option" and turn out not to be.
]]>Humanity has basically hacked the evolutionary process with technology. And I just talked to Shiva. He is not pleased with what he sees (with his third eye).
]]>@MostlyHarmless: I agree. I'm fat, but I really do try not to consume excessive amounts of calories in one sitting because I don't want to get fatter. It's been years since I've had a Blizzard at Dairy Queen. I stopped as soon as I found out they had 1200-1600 calories. They don't anymore, but 700-1000 is still too much for dessert.
]]>@JMB: Don't forget having babies. Policies that do not cover maternity are much cheaper, but men can't really get those breaks in a group insurance setting.
]]>I had them hold the mayonnaise on that double cheeseburger. I'm doing great today.
]]>Just because this would not work on some glutton does not mean its not worth it.
]]>"Buffet's clooooosssssed" sung in middle C
]]>@Ryan Millner: Deep fried gym socks would be delicious.
]]>@henrygates: Bacon.
]]>People are still free to eat whatever they want. This only gives the people who DON'T want to eat a 1200 calorie salad the information they need to avoid them.
Whenever I was trying to lose weight, I found it very frustrating trying to figure out the caloric content of the foods I was eating at restaurants. Google found me a few hits, but I always questioned the accuracy of the information that produced. Often times, I found recipes to make dishes similar to the restaurant offerings. But useful nutritional information was difficult to come by.
With this info, I could eat wherever looks good and still find something on the menu I could eat. If I couldn't find something to eat, I could always order something I would eat, and eat only 1/2 the portion to adjust the calories. It's difficult to do that if I don't know what's in it.
]]>Well the only way to curb that is to put up a speaker that plays an irritating noise which only the fatties will be able to hear.. thus dispersing them like that noise the teens hate does.
]]>