10 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Eleanor Ramilly

July 16, 2009 5:56 PM

@henrygates: The Cobb Salad has around 1,200. Hard boiled eggs, bacon, creamy dressing, etc.

$\"user-pic\"$

Brent Woodle

July 15, 2009 10:21 PM

@henrygates: You know what percentage of a Big Mac is lettuce? These salads are similar.

$\"user-pic\"$

twophrasebark

July 15, 2009 10:46 PM

It's the Milky Way bars that put it over the top.

$\"user-pic\"$

NightSteel

July 15, 2009 9:24 PM

@MostlyHarmless:
Ground beef, refried beans, guacamole, cheese, sour cream, and if there's any room left, a few shreds of lettuce. A culinary creation that baffles the human mind. A 12,000-calorie salad. Ay caramba. Some may ask, is your taco salad healthy? Of course it is, it's a salad, isn't it?

$\"user-pic\"$

dohtem

July 15, 2009 9:28 PM

@NightSteel: Don't forget to wash that down with a diet coke.

$\"user-pic\"$

Berz

July 15, 2009 9:22 PM

@henrygates:
Bud light presents 'real men of genius'
Today we salute you, Mr giant taco salad inverter...

$\"user-pic\"$

MostlyHarmless

July 15, 2009 9:14 PM

@henrygates: Mayo. Lots of Mayo. And cheese. Fried chicken, and ground beef. The only salad part of it is a week old leaf of lettuce at the bottom which most people will throw away.

$\"user-pic\"$

Skeetz

July 15, 2009 9:17 PM

@MostlyHarmless: @rpm773: I'm so hungry right now you guys.

$\"user-pic\"$

MostlyHarmless

July 15, 2009 9:27 PM

@Skeetz: But wait! THERES MORE! If you order this salad right NOW I'll throw in a glob of Baconnaise, FOR NO EXTRA CHARGE! THATS RIGHT! A pound full of gooey heart attacky goodness FOR AN UNBEATABLE PRICE OF ONE BLOCKED ARTERY!

$\"user-pic\"$

Skeetz

July 15, 2009 9:08 PM

@henrygates: It's deep fried.

$\"user-pic\"$

rpm773

July 15, 2009 9:15 PM

@Skeetz: ..and has a ring of cheese baked into it and is served with a garlic-ranch dipping sauce

$\"user-pic\"$

Ryan Millner

July 15, 2009 9:09 PM

I bet deep-fried lettuce would be delicious.

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

SquareBubbles

July 16, 2009 2:08 AM

@Ryan Millner: I can't find it on YouTube, but in an episode of Andy Richter Controls the Universe, Keith deep fries a salad (amongst other things).

The conclusion is that anything deep fried, even pencils, are delish

$\"user-pic\"$

ChuckECheese

July 15, 2009 10:29 PM

@Ryan Millner: I'm having a recipe inspiration due to this thread. I'll share it here. Romaine hearts, well chilled, cut in half lengthwise. Quickly dipped in thin tempura and immediately deep fried & drained. On a bed of cold dressed soba noodles, the lettuce dressed with ponzu sauce. A side garnish of pickled summer vegetables with added jalapeno. Ambitious, but I think I'm going to give it a try soon.

$\"user-pic\"$

kjherron

July 16, 2009 2:52 PM

@ChuckECheese: Alton Brown beat you to it.

$\"user-pic\"$

Smashville

July 15, 2009 9:19 PM

@Ryan Millner: Deep fried gym socks would be delicious.

$\"user-pic\"$

tonashideska

July 15, 2009 10:11 PM

@Smashville: They serve those at the Puyallup (pooh-al-up) Fair in Washington.

$\"user-pic\"$

dohtem

July 15, 2009 9:10 PM

We should watch this list (The 20 Worst Foods in America) and see restaurants pull them from their menus.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Shadowman615

July 16, 2009 2:41 AM

@dohtem: I don't follow that logic really. Being \"too ashamed to continue offering\" 1200-calorie salads should not be what this is intended to do.

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

Wes Chevalier

July 15, 2009 10:34 PM

@dohtem: That would be stupid, i would eat Outbacks Aussie Cheese Fries with Ranch Dressing even if they doubled the calories. That stuff is what life is all about.

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

Skeetz

July 15, 2009 9:11 PM

\"... there will be complaints about a person's individual freedom to eat as much crap and be as fat as he wants\"

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.

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

rpm773

July 15, 2009 9:29 PM

@Skeetz:
irritating noise which only the fatties will be able to hear

\"Buffet's clooooosssssed\" sung in middle C

$\"user-pic\"$

Snowblind

July 15, 2009 10:27 PM

@dohtem: Not barbaric enough!

Richard Simon's \"Sweating to the Oldies\" on continuous loop!

DIEEEE!1!!1!!!

$\"user-pic\"$

theblackdog

July 16, 2009 1:49 PM

@Snowblind: That's like a doomsday machine right there, no one would want to come in.

$\"user-pic\"$

theblackdog

July 15, 2009 9:17 PM

@Skeetz: That's easy, play the sound of salad being made and eaten, without any bacon bits, croutons, or dressing.

$\"user-pic\"$

dohtem

July 15, 2009 9:19 PM

@theblackdog: WHAT SORT OF BARBARISM IS THIS!?

$\"user-pic\"$

Skeetz

July 15, 2009 9:22 PM

@dohtem: Who's getting a hair cut?

$\"user-pic\"$

MostlyHarmless

July 15, 2009 9:16 PM

@Skeetz: I get accused a lot of being an elitist jerk with no empathy or political correctness whatsoever, but even I wouldnt have made that comment :P

$\"user-pic\"$

Adam Stewart

July 15, 2009 9:14 PM

\"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\"

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.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Shoelace

July 15, 2009 10:17 PM

@Adam Stewart: Agree and have two other thoughts:

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

Megalomania

July 15, 2009 11:32 PM

@Shoelace: I'm sure there will be random inspections (minimal random inspections, I would hope) plus a way for complaints to be submitted. The point isn't to make it so that people can obsessively count calories, it's so that people can put things in perspective to the standard 2000 calories a day number.

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

Amish Undercover

@Adam Stewart: agreeing entirely. besides that it is expensive, the other primary reason why i don't eat out very much (and i now refuse to get dessert) is that it is hard to judge the calorie and saturated fat counts. even if they just list the calories and satFat, i'm happy to set aside an appropriate proportion for later meal(s)... it is just hard to know what proportion without this info.

$\"user-pic\"$

Elcheecho

July 15, 2009 9:16 PM

you might have a right to be a fatty, but you're making my health premiums higher. jerk.

13 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Kimberly Gist-Collins

July 16, 2009 6:25 PM

@Elcheecho: Do you drink? Smoke? take drugs? Not exercise regularly? If so, then YOU are making mine higher.

$\"user-pic\"$

arstal

July 16, 2009 5:44 AM

@Elcheecho: Paging John Spartan.

$\"user-pic\"$

Jaynor

July 16, 2009 5:14 AM

@Elcheecho: Ideally we check the facts prior to posting things to public blogs... not always:

([www.usatoday.com]

$\"user-pic\"$

Fresh-Fest-1986

July 16, 2009 3:25 PM

@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.

$\"user-pic\"$

Jaynor

July 16, 2009 5:15 AM

@Jaynor: Darned skinny people driving up health insurance premiums with their getting older and living to eat more medications.

$\"user-pic\"$

Techguy1138

July 16, 2009 1:48 AM

@Elcheecho: Unhealthy people get very sick and die quickly. Healthy people live a long time and suck up greater resources before they go.

A study was done that basically said the reduced life expectancy covered the momentary increase in costs just before death for unhealthy habits.

$\"user-pic\"$

Laurel Beth Martin

July 16, 2009 1:34 AM

@Elcheecho: Given the relatively benign disemvoweled comments I've deciphered today, I'm shocked that something this hateful makes it out uncensored. Do you even realize that most of these shockingly high calorie foods aren't consumed by \"fatties\"? Fat people know that they're fat and they know that you hate them. They're the ones ordering salads in hopes of keeping their weight down. Young men with ridiculous metabolisms are the ones who consume blooming onions in one sitting. Besides, having information provided isn't depriving anyone of the right to choose to eat garbage. Anyone who struggles with their weight is probably breathing a sigh of relief at this and anything else that makes their battle easier.

$\"user-pic\"$

Elcheecho

July 16, 2009 2:13 PM

@Laurel Beth Martin: i was being sarcastic, but that didn't come across at all, though I think ChuckECheese might have gotten it.

I apologize for any hateful tones, but I think you're reading too much into the post.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 16, 2009 1:21 PM

I'm shocked that something this hateful makes it out uncensored

@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.

$\"user-pic\"$

ChuckECheese

July 15, 2009 10:25 PM

@Elcheecho: Haven't you heard? Everything and everybody is to blame for your health premiums being higher.

$\"user-pic\"$

JMB

July 15, 2009 9:24 PM

@Elcheecho: So are people who drink. And smoke. And drive fast. And so on and so on. It's a sliperry slope.

$\"user-pic\"$

MaelstromRider

July 15, 2009 9:36 PM

@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.

$\"user-pic\"$

MostlyHarmless

July 15, 2009 9:40 PM

@MaelstromRider: Having babies is evolutionarily necessary for continued survival of the human race. Paying to treat a chain smoker's lung cancer, or to treat that guy's heart attack because he could not keep his hands off a double quarterpounder with extra cheese and a side of the baconator is not.

$\"user-pic\"$

XTC46

July 15, 2009 11:04 PM

@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.

$\"user-pic\"$

MostlyHarmless

July 15, 2009 11:43 PM

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: That is exactly what I was saying, except for the last sentence of your comment.

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

Shoelace

July 15, 2009 10:32 PM

@MostlyHarmless: Agree with all, though this has got me wondering why some folks are so intent on continuing the survival of the human race. People don't have to have babies. After awhile there just wouldn't be any more of us. So?

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

Megalomania

July 16, 2009 12:23 AM

@Shoelace: Well, if you have a lot of kids, one of them might grow up and make it big in Hollywood! Hollywood kid! yeah!

$\"user-pic\"$

Shoelace

July 16, 2009 3:38 AM

@Megalomania: Yes, but it's like playing a lottery that might have only a few big winners out of tens of millions of entries.

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!

$\"user-pic\"$

LiquidGravity

@JMB: Correct, It is a very slippery slope. It can only lead to an I, Robot plot where all people are imprisoned by robots for their own safety. Or nobody gets insurance coverage. Definitely one of those two.

$\"user-pic\"$

Smashville

July 15, 2009 9:18 PM

@henrygates: Bacon.

$\"user-pic\"$

H3ion

July 15, 2009 9:27 PM

Well, we've had the Surgeon General's warning on cigarette packs for a few decades now. About 20% of the country's population still smokes. This information may be useful and it's good that some restaurants are offering healthier choices, but a person ordering a Baconator at Wendy's is not going to care that the caloric and fat content is greater than a cup of yogurt. I'd like to see a followup on how the new choices are selling.

6 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Kimberly Gist-Collins

July 16, 2009 6:30 PM

@H3ion: Well, I used to be overweight, never had a baconator, big value meal, and I do not eat dessert, potato chips, or Blizzards--even when I was large.

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

Techguy1138

July 16, 2009 1:45 AM

@H3ion: Yeah, but people like me get all uppity when that yogurt has 400 calories. Some times the healthy choice isn't

$\"user-pic\"$

rpm773

July 15, 2009 9:33 PM

@H3ion: True, but when the data isn't staring one in the face when ordering, it's amazing what one can rationalize as being \"healthy\". I do it all the time.

I had them hold the mayonnaise on that double cheeseburger. I'm doing great today.

$\"user-pic\"$

MostlyHarmless

July 15, 2009 9:31 PM

@H3ion: Yes, but a lot more than a 20% of the country's population are overweight. And most of these people are not the baconator ordering types. If they knew they were getting into a 2500 calorie milk shake, they'll steer clear of it.

Just because this would not work on some glutton does not mean its not worth it.

$\"user-pic\"$

MaelstromRider

July 15, 2009 9:40 PM

@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.

$\"user-pic\"$

NewsBunny

July 15, 2009 10:46 PM

@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.

$\"user-pic\"$

MostlyHarmless

July 15, 2009 9:44 PM

@MaelstromRider: Yeah, I too love having those guilty pleasures, once in a while, and used to drink lots of mountain dew everyday. But I cut back progressively when I caught myself putting on a few extra 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.

$\"user-pic\"$

dohtem

July 15, 2009 9:52 PM

@MostlyHarmless: True that. Esquire or Men's Health, I forget which, had an article on false healthy options a while back. The only one I remember clearly was Bacon vs. Turkey Bacon. It turns out turkey bacon has so much more sodium, you are better off just enjoying regular bacon.

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

ChuckECheese

July 15, 2009 10:32 PM

@dohtem: Crispy bacon is surprisingly low in fat and calories. I keep trying to explain this to people, but they don't listen.

$\"user-pic\"$

nybiker

July 15, 2009 11:01 PM

@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.

$\"user-pic\"$

Stephmo

July 16, 2009 3:06 AM

@nybiker: If you cure your own bacon, it's even better. Yeah, it's salt-cured, but no where near as salty as you'd have from store-brand.

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!

$\"user-pic\"$

ChuckECheese

July 16, 2009 1:13 AM

@nybiker: Bacon is not the nutritional horror people think it is. 3 pieces have less than 100 calories and about 6 g of fat. If you put it on a double cheeseburger, it's a different story. Have it with a bowl of oatmeal or some egg beaters.

$\"user-pic\"$

Ratty

July 15, 2009 10:56 PM

@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.

$\"user-pic\"$

Skeetz

@MostlyHarmless: Agreed. Knowledge is power. What people choose to do with that power is up to them.

$\"user-pic\"$

LadySiren is murdering her kids with HFCS and processed cheese

July 15, 2009 9:30 PM

OMG, here we go. Everyone fire up your \"death to fatties\" arguments, we haven't had this debate on Consumerist in two days or so, we're about due.

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

LiquidGravity

July 15, 2009 9:36 PM

@LadySiren: Natural selection has a way of sorting this crap out. We just have to sit back and watch for a few thousand years.

$\"user-pic\"$

ludwigk

July 15, 2009 10:22 PM

@LiquidGravity: This may no longer be the case. With all the various options people have to combat the ill-effects of obesity, such as cholesterol medications, gastric bypass, angioplasty, heart surgery, etc, technology has really lowered the risks of obesity. Obesity still leads to all sorts of health related complications and expenses, but the risk of mortality due to obesity has been lowered, or at least delayed, significantly.

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

varro

July 15, 2009 10:05 PM

@LiquidGravity: Americans' transition from 120 years ago, when our ancestors were dirt-farming peasants or newly-freed slaves, is why we're fat.

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

dohtem

July 15, 2009 10:18 PM

@varro: I think it has less to do with how much we are eating and more to do with *what* we are eating. I don't think our ancestors had snickers, deep fried Twinkies or 7-layer nachos back then.

$\"user-pic\"$

ShariC

July 15, 2009 11:33 PM

@dohtem: The notion that overweight people eat candy, deep-fried Twinkies, etc. on a regular basis (or at all) is part of the problem. Fat people are not eating fast food, junk food, etc. around the clock. They are eating too much, but often the extra calories are in portion sizes of regular foods (potatoes, bread, butter,cheese, etc.) rather than too much junk food.

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

MostlyHarmless

July 15, 2009 9:42 PM

@LiquidGravity: I'm not too sure... several thousand years of human evolution has brought us to this point :P

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).

$\"user-pic\"$

Alexander Saites

\"outweigh\" might not have been the best term :P

$\"user-pic\"$

tungstencoil

July 15, 2009 9:56 PM

It's good to have choice but... why 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.

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?

8 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Tiber

July 16, 2009 5:22 PM

@tungstencoil: So you don't eat out because you want to know what you're eating, but you're against a law that would inform you? I are confused.

$\"user-pic\"$

wkm001

July 16, 2009 3:28 PM

@tungstencoil:

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

VA_White

July 16, 2009 12:10 AM

@tungstencoil: So as long as the laws line up with how you personally shop and eat, then it's ok. Screw what anyone else wants or needs because your lifestyle is the only relevant one, amirite?

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

paradisefound24

July 16, 2009 12:09 AM

@tungstencoil:

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

XianZomby

July 15, 2009 11:36 PM

@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.

$\"user-pic\"$

Snowblind

July 15, 2009 10:29 PM

@tungstencoil:
Then don't go to a big chain to eat. Then you get better food and you don't know how many calories are in the Aldaberto's Carne Asada Fries.

$\"user-pic\"$

veronykah

July 16, 2009 2:53 AM

@Snowblind: You don't have to see how many calories are in Aldaberto's Carne Asada fries, you KNOW when you eat them it must be around 10,000.
Hm, I miss those.

$\"user-pic\"$

yagisencho

July 15, 2009 10:08 PM

@tungstencoil:

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

SadSam

July 15, 2009 10:25 PM

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

dreamsneverend

July 15, 2009 10:29 PM

Well I don't mind properly listing what sort of calories I will ingest on a menu item, as long as I can still buy it.

$\"user-pic\"$

Geekybiker

July 15, 2009 10:37 PM

I'm very much for individual freedoms, but I love the idea of this. Its so hard to make good choice when eating out since you do have things like the 1200 calorie salads, or the chicken sandwiches that are the worst things on the menu. Even attempting to make good choices can sabotage you.

$\"user-pic\"$

obfusciatrist

July 15, 2009 10:43 PM

Because it was the one of only three options within a few blocks of my office for almost 2 years I ate at Subway in Emeryville, California one or two times a week. The manu listed calories and fat. After two years I still had no idea how many calories or fat my preferred sandwich had.

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.)?

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

takotchi

July 15, 2009 11:19 PM

@obfusciatrist: intercourse palate cleansers

What.

$\"user-pic\"$

Five

July 16, 2009 4:45 AM

@takotchi: \"Waiter! I want what he's having.\"

$\"user-pic\"$

floraposte

July 15, 2009 11:10 PM

@obfusciatrist: Interesting question on the first, but I don't know of a single chain restaurant that offers up a mid-meal sorbet.

$\"user-pic\"$

SpiderPaintingDollars

July 15, 2009 10:50 PM

The main issue is people are too complacent and don't care enough to get, and stay fit. It really isn't rocket science. There are some disorders that cause people to be larger, but its ridiculous that \"nothing works for me\" is such a common saying. Get out, and do something. Some may see this as harsh. But really, just get your heart rate up and work out! Here is to Tyler and 344pounds.com. If you think you're too big to go to the gym, its not about what people think you look like, its about what you feel like. Do you want to feel lethargic and sleep all the time, feel large, and get comfort from food? Some do have disorders, some are naturally big, and some have other withstanding conditions, but that is them, this is about those who hide under those labels. Just get out and do something. Have a *healthy* salad and a night out on the town with friends -- just walk to the movies! When it pays off, you'll have something to be very proud of, and you'll look great, feel great, and have more energy!

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

crunchberries

July 16, 2009 5:05 PM

@SpiderPaintingDollarz: Your comment reminds me of a particular episode of Penn & Teller's Bullsh!t where they had three obese guys and a skinny guy run a 500 meter race. Guess who won.

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 16, 2009 1:27 PM

@SpiderPaintingDollarz: You keep saying \"just\" as if weight loss is easy.

$\"user-pic\"$

Five

July 16, 2009 4:50 AM

@SpiderPaintingDollarz: \"There is always a well-known solution to every human problem - neat, plausible, and wrong.\" H. L. Mencken, Prejudies, Second Series (1920). @ShariC: Agreed. Each person's approach to managing their weight is complex and different, and it's insulting to say \"Hey fatty! Just get up off your ass!\"

$\"user-pic\"$

ShariC

July 15, 2009 11:40 PM

@SpiderPaintingDollarz: I applaud Tyler, but the problem is that losing weight by exercising your ass off is a temporary solution. No one will be able to keep that up forever, and he is at great risk of one day gaining it all back should his resolve falter or his portion control start to slowly unravel (something which is a greater risk because he continues to eat junk food). One injury and his whole plan falls apart. It also doesn't work for people with existing problems like back pain or joint issues.

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

yggdriedi

July 15, 2009 11:06 PM

So now we get less food for the same price?

Awesome!

$\"user-pic\"$

MissPiss

July 15, 2009 11:07 PM

Please get this menu-labeling law to Texas!!!! PLEASE!!!!

$\"user-pic\"$

AD8BC

July 15, 2009 11:14 PM

Meh. Remember when McDonalds started selling salads, later Burger King sold \"apple fries\"... The free market prevailed -- you can still buy a whopper, or a Big Mac... So what if people can see the calories... You inherantly know a big mac and fries are bad for you, and a salad is good for you. Exact numbers won't change that.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

kexline

July 16, 2009 1:50 PM

@AD8BC: And did you know that McDonald's yogurt parfait has almost 400 calories? You're missing the point. This is not about Big Macs and chili cheese fries -- though, good lord, it would never have occurred to me that chili cheese fries anywhere would be 3500 calories. This is about proper labeling for restaurants' bullshit healthier offerings, and the fact that their calorie counts don't match what we'd put in equivalent dishes at home. If I make a salad at home, even if it's bigger than my head and has cheese and chicken fingers on it, it won't be 1500 calories. Even if you think about the calories in dishes you'd prepare at home and add a restaurant-tastiness margin, you'd never come up with the numbers we see on the rare occasions when table service chains publish their nutrition info.

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

dohtem

July 15, 2009 11:23 PM

@AD8BC: Yeah, but did you know Outback's Awesome Blossom had enough calories to feed a horse?

$\"user-pic\"$

AD8BC

July 15, 2009 11:34 PM

@dohtem: No, but I knew it was bad for you. Really really bad. And that I should not eat it, whether it had 500 calories or 12000, I shouldn't eat it. A salad, I know, is good for you (depending on the choice of dressing, of course). I don't care if the salad has 50 calories or 200, it's damn better for you than the onion.

Of course, I never ate the whole onion. Gave me a sour stomach.

$\"user-pic\"$

Lokys

July 16, 2009 6:04 AM

@AD8BC: You're missing the point: a lot of the time, the salad really *isn't* better for you. It doesn't have 200 calories, it has 1200 because it's loaded with high-fat dressing, oil, cheese, and fatty meat, and if you order it assuming that it's better than a burger just because it's a salad, you will be wrong. Hell, a Big Mac, a medium fries, and a medium Coke adds up to a total of 1100 calories - less than that single salad!

Thank you for inadvertently demonstrating the degree of misunderstanding present in the general public, and for showing the necessity of this legislation.

$\"user-pic\"$

ShariC

July 15, 2009 11:42 PM

\"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...\"

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?

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

sbcpunkrocker

July 16, 2009 12:16 AM

@ShariC: No, but there will be the inevitable wacko who is locked into doctrine, who can't think for himself, who's going to scream about his rights being infringed and how this is America and he should be able to eat what he wants without some Liberal bureaucrat telling him what to eat, FASCISM, SOCIALISM, America's downfall!!!!

And you know that caricaturization, you've seen those idiots comment before.

$\"user-pic\"$

WB

July 16, 2009 12:23 AM

Macaroni Grill almost always shows up in lists such as \"Eat This, Not That\" as the worst offender in nearly every category that is represented by something on their menu. It's good to see they're rethinking the menu.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Kimberly Gist-Collins

July 16, 2009 6:37 PM

@WB: I agree. I love Macaroni Grill but rarely eat there b/c their food is so awful in the fat and calorie department. I only eat half of my entrees and they are still too high in fat and calories for my taste.

$\"user-pic\"$

bobert

July 16, 2009 12:50 AM

W00t! Now it's possible to make informed decisions.

\"[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.

$\"user-pic\"$

ShyamalHope

July 16, 2009 2:15 AM

Why isn't this tagged with the \"grocery shrink-ray\" category?

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.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

July 16, 2009 1:33 PM

@ShyamalHope:

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

morlo

July 16, 2009 5:21 PM

@Rectilinear Propagation: Calories are food, so they are certainly giving you less for your dollar. Previously you could have taken some of the food home in a doggy-bag and survived off of it for a week; now you only get one meal.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 16, 2009 7:59 PM

@morlo: But you don't have to reduce the portion to reduce the number of calories in it. They can always just make it less fatty or contain less sugar.

If your burger is made from leaner meat and the mayonnaise is fat free are you getting less food?

$\"user-pic\"$

MooseOfReason

July 16, 2009 4:00 AM

In case you were wondering, like I was, what the ingredients in that salad were:

\"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]

$\"user-pic\"$

picardia

July 16, 2009 4:07 AM

I don't understand why \"personal freedom of choice\" and \"posted calories\" are not considered complementary virtues. I mean, how can you be truly free to choose if you don't know what you're choosing? Yes, logic may tell you that veggies are better for you than French fries, but do you offhand know whether the salmon or the tilapia entree has fewer calories? Probably not. The ONLY reason not to post the information is to create a false sense of complacency/play on ignorance/sell more unhealthy crap -- in other words, it's all about corporate profit, not \"freedom of choice.\"

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

morlo

July 16, 2009 5:26 PM

@picardia: You're right, but with these posted numbers we're unlikely to see 3000 calorie burgers on the menu anymore, and it's kind of sad that that option will be forever gone. Hopefully better choices will be added to the menu, but I suspect we'll just see smaller portions of unhealthy food. You can be skinny and sickly yet have a fat belly.

$\"user-pic\"$

floridamom

July 16, 2009 12:34 PM

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.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Alex Chasick

July 16, 2009 2:54 PM

@floridamom: It doesn't. Only restaurants with at least 20 locations have to post calorie info. National and other state and city legislation is similar, although some say you only need 15 locations.

$\"user-pic\"$

consumerfan

July 16, 2009 6:29 PM

I think some people are worrying over nothing.

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.