var json_comments = new Array("

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 6:33 PM

Moderate | Flag for review

How many calories equate to \"slightly\"? 25 calories or maybe 100-200?

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

October 7, 2009 2:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@dreamsneverend: From the article: \"For customers in New York City, orders had a mean of 846 calories after the labeling law took effect. Before the law took effect, it was 825 calories. In Newark, customers ordered about 825 calories before and after.\"

So not that different.

825 calories? Ech. But to be honest, I'd have thought it would be more.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

October 6, 2009 6:33 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Also that \"healthier choices\" and \"number of calories\" are not synonymous. If I eat 100 calories of whole-grain bread is that the same as 100 calories of potato chips? In terms of food energy, sure, but not in terms of nutrition.

7 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

outlulz

October 7, 2009 12:09 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@gggtur: The focus is never on health it's always on weight. No one cares if you're vitamin deficient as long as you don't look like a fatass. Weight is dependent on caloric intake, not nutrition, so they only care about calorie counts.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 7:19 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: Please explain this to my mother. She's doing Weight Watchers, and she gave up her morning glass of OJ, because it was a point. But she uses 1/3 of her daily points to drink her morning Starbucks Mocha.

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

October 7, 2009 4:52 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@JennQPublic: When you start with the premise that weight (rather than fitness, or fat vs. muscle body composition) is the true measure of health, you've already lost.

$\"user-pic\"$

crackers

October 7, 2009 3:44 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: Kudos for this statement.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 7, 2009 2:44 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: But this is America. Weight is the only measure, isn't it?

Seriously, I think you've hit the nail on the head. People focus so much on one thing that they don't pay attention to the larger picture. NeverLetMeDown is correct that weight and health can be correlated, but it's not all about the weight. Diet should be about health, AND about enjoyment. It's really sad that we as a society have gotten so far away from this.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 7, 2009 1:04 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Well, it's certainly highly correlated, and an easily measured proxy. Certainly, a 300lb NBA center is in much better shape than a 250lb 5' 10\" desk jockey, but, in general, 200lb people are healthier than 300lb people.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 8:49 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

That's pretty much how the plan works. Clearly, you could in theory make some pretty weird choices (spend all your daily points on a pint of ice cream), but they're not sustainable (you'll be hungry all the time), so the points do tend to push you toward sane choices.

$\"user-pic\"$

theyoungandthebetrayed

October 6, 2009 9:04 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@NeverLetMeDown: Dietary fiber will also reduce a food's points.

$\"user-pic\"$

nbs2

October 6, 2009 7:31 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@JennQPublic: At the same time, you have to look at both short and long term goals. If you have someone who is morbidly obese, it may be better in the shrot run for them to hack off the calories and worry about the source later. Long term, they will need to focus on calorie source.

I don't know the WW system, but I'm guessing it is calorie focused. If she is buringing 1/3 of her calories on the mocha, but having that mocha is a motivator to adhere to the diet, it may serve her better than the low calorie OJ that discourages the diet. As she develops better calorie consumption habits, she should feel encouraged to improve the quality of her diet as well - perhaps getting a smaller mocha, with the eventual goal of elimination.

$\"user-pic\"$

Nogard13

October 6, 2009 7:10 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: Well said. I've been trying to explain that very same point to some hard-headed co-workers today after they read the \"study\". Just because you eat more calories doesn't mean you're eating healthier. For example, I ate a sandwich today made with whole wheat bread (120 calories a slice compared to 110 for white bread). Would the sandwich be healthier if I used white bread instead?

$\"user-pic\"$

Applekid

October 6, 2009 6:47 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: How about 100 calories of potato chips with a multivitamin chaser?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 6:34 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Maybe we are in minority, but it does affect some of us.

When standing in line at fast food restaurants especially, I run a very high chance of getting 'calorie-phobic' and leaving when faced with a menu listing the item nutritionals.

7 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 7:07 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@evilrobot: i can barely order from Chilis, TGI Fridays or any of those places any more. after looking at the nutritional tables for that stuff i was pretty shocked that even some things that seemed relatively healthy like a grilled oriental chicken salad has way more calories/fat and sodium than a Big Mac with fries.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 7:12 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@craptastico: I think it's easy to underestimate how much more gets piled onto a plate when you're eating off of a plate--or, at some of these places, a platter. It seems like oversimplification, but food really does expand to fill whatever's containing it. The Japanese bento formulae pretty much operate on that philosophy, in fact.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 6:47 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@evilrobot: From what the NYT says, the mean calorie count went up about 20 in New York--which could in fact indicate that the lighter eaters just stopped going.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

October 6, 2009 6:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@evilrobot: It's akin to sticker shock. When you have an idea in your mind of what something is, but then see the real truth, it's shocking. I try to be the healthiest I can when I have to go to a fast food place. It's usually because we're on the road and that's the only thing there is. So I have to order something, but I'm more inclined to get the smallest size of everything and eat less of it.

$\"user-pic\"$

lmarconi

October 6, 2009 9:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Part of me wants to know and part of me doesn't. I do think it helps me to make smarter choices to know the nutritional value of things - just reading the back of the bag backs me out of the candy aisle every time. Instead I buy one 15 cent peppermint patty or mini chocolate from the \"penny candy\" part of my local convenience store and that makes me happy.
But at the same time, I really really like Chipotle. And double cheeseburgers. And once a month I want to be able to each something like that not feel totally gross about it.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 7:12 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Yes!!! The first time I saw that my Panera/Corner Bakery tomato and mozzarella sandwich weighed in at over 700 calories I was floored. That's without a drink or side. I haven't been able to eat one since.

$\"user-pic\"$

Mange

October 6, 2009 7:25 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TinkishDelight: I felt the same way when I saw the nutritional info on Chipotle burritos. Waaaa 1200 calories! Even without guacamole or sour cream! I can't finish the thing, but it is still way too much. I just can't bring myself to order one anymore.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

October 6, 2009 7:28 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Mange: Now I want Chipotle. But in my defense, I get a burrito bowl.

$\"user-pic\"$

Mange

October 6, 2009 7:42 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Isn't it crazy that the stupid, delicious tortilla weighs in at 300+ calories? And now I'm making myself want some too, damn it. Maybe someone will tear off a piece of tortilla for me if I get the bowl...

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

October 6, 2009 7:22 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TinkishDelight: I was browsing the Smoothie King website when I realized that two of my favorite smoothies clocked in at a whopping 554 calories each - this is a 20 oz. drink that is supposed to contain nothing but fruit and a little sorbet. 20 ounces!

I still drink them, but only if I'm not eating lunch. A low-cal subway sandwich still has about 650 calories.

$\"user-pic\"$

pax

October 6, 2009 7:34 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: So many commercially prepared smoothies are loaded with sugar, corn syrup, and preservatives. I only make my own at home (yes, really) anymore--that way I know they only contain fruit, yogurt, lowfat milk, orange juice and, in the a.m., oatmeal.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

October 6, 2009 7:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pax: I definitely don't drink them for their health benefits. They just taste good and are a good treat once in a while when I want something sweet.

$\"user-pic\"$

sponica

October 6, 2009 6:51 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: i buy happy meals. they have the calories/portions for a normal adult.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 7:31 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@sponica (on furlough): Ditto on the Happy Meals, but no toy, please.

$\"user-pic\"$

MsEllenT

October 7, 2009 4:01 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

What? I have a lovely collection of Happy Meal toys.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

October 6, 2009 6:55 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@sponica (on furlough): Which is ridiculous since Happy Meals are supposed to feed children roughly 1/3rd the weight of an adult.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 7:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: But, those kids that weigh 1/3 of an adult probably burn waaaay more calories throughout the day, especially if the adult has an office job. When I was a kid, I'd have at least an hour a day of recess before getting home and playing outside for at least a couple more hours.

$\"user-pic\"$

sponica

October 6, 2009 7:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@secret_curse: yeah....kids today don't play. at least not the ones i know. my cousins who do play are only able to do so bc the maternal unit has elected not to work (and the paternal unit makes enough that it is feasible). and schools cut recess out of the day for a lot of kids....and phys ed.

i mean if kids were burning the calories they were consuming, we wouldn't be putting 8 yr olds on cholesterol meds.

@JennQPublic: i get the toy, but i have cousins who are anywhere from 7 months to 17 years old. always someone who could use a happy meal toy.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

October 6, 2009 7:48 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@secret_curse: Maybe. I think the typical kid probably burns a ton of calories throughout the day. I think whenever I have kids, I'll have to make more of an effort to take them walking in the city or to a playground where they can actually run around. Can't run around in the parking lot of an apartment complex.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 6:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

It's helped me better budget my calories when one of my day's meals is from a quick service restaurant. It's also helped deter me from adding a milkshake to my order on many occasions. Freaking calorie bombs.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

October 7, 2009 6:05 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@yagisencho: @downwithmonstercable:
It swayed me as well, I used to get the spicy italian sub from subway, but that has twice as many calories as the turkey sandwich, so i don't order it anymore

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Saboth

October 6, 2009 6:38 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I think it will for a lot of people. Sometimes I might guess something has 500 and it actually has 900, then I'll choose something else. Of course you've got the people that order the 1 lb burger with 8 strips of bacon regardless (actually I'll do that from time to time too).

","

$\"user-pic\"$

jstonemo

October 6, 2009 6:42 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Nah, it will actually make me order the biggest calorie item. Sort of a challenge thing. I work outdoors and burn about 3000 calories a day, so it's all good.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 10:30 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

On an obliquely-related topic... one of the clients whose publications I've handled regularly was the Center for Science in the Public Interest and their Nutrition Action magazine, which features on its back page a feature called Right Stuff/Food Porn. This page features in one column a glowing review of something they think you should eat (like some kind of rice cake snack) and, on the other, a raging condemnation of something they think you shouldn't eat -- which, one month, happened to be the Sara Lee Chocolate-Covered \"Cheesecake Bites\", which I'd never heard of until then, and turned out to be, after about twenty minutes in the freezer, one of the most awesomest things I've ever eaten, except for their later-produced chocolate-cheesecake version which, in the words of John Cleese, makes \"my nipples explode with delight\".

Thank you, CSPI!

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 6:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Hosted a dinner with prospective students and their families at Macaroni Grill in Seattle soon after their law went into effect. The only dessert on the menu under 1000 calories was the sorbet at a mere 290 or so.

I asked the waitress if they had seen an increase in popularity and she said that dessert has skyrocketed while the others bottomed-out pretty quick.

In a perfect world this may encourage restaurants to make their food healthier. Sometimes there's no reason for certain basic things to end up being so bad for you.

Anybody at the table that ordered dessert got the sorbet.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 8:07 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ScubaSteveKzoo: If you shared a big dessert between several people it would amount to a lot less calories, but to get there you would have to split a 1000 calorie dessert 5 ways for 200 calories each. Depending on what it is though it might mean that each person only gets a morsel and they might not like that. Its a rarity if I go out to eat but I am likely to split the dessert with my party mostly because I am too full to eat a whole dessert myself so if I get 1-2 bites that is fine with me.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 6:47 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

The calorie counts may alter behavior in a way that's hard to document. Maybe people who eat fast food are ordering the same thing, but are they going less? Are younger customers developing different habits due to the information? Are the restaurants developing products that are a little healthier so they can push down those numbers?

Time will tell.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

carlos_the_dwarf

October 6, 2009 6:50 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Wow, you mean a stupid nanny law has unintended consequences that none of our masters (who are just doing it \"for or protection\") considered? Color me shocked.

7 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 7:37 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@carlos_the_dwarf: Yeah, who needs stupid laws that tell consumers exactly what a product contains?

I like being surprised by now many milligrams are in my Tylenol. Is it pain-reduction-strength or liver-damage-strength? Not knowing is half the fun!

$\"user-pic\"$

October 7, 2009 12:26 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

And Jen - don't forget the good old days when you didn't have to worry about the milk spoiling because of the formaldehyde that was thoughtfully put in it.

$\"user-pic\"$

Nogard13

October 6, 2009 7:19 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@carlos_the_dwarf: I think your brain is a dwarf, too. I'm a huge Nanny State opponent but I agree with requiring chain restaurants to post the nutritional info of the items they sell. This is not the state telling you what you can and can't eat, it's simply providing you more information so you can make a more informed decision. I don't remember anyone complaining about nanny state intrusion when the labels were mandated on regular food items you purchase at the grocery store. Also, the majority of fast food items are made following a strict formula so it is easier to calculate than a restaurant where everything is made to order and the portion sizes vary widely.

It has helped me and my family to cut down on our fast food lunches/dinners and I'm sure it has done the same for others. We eat out about half as much as we did a year ago and the only reason is because we started checking the nutritional info. My wife and I have lost a combined 30 pounds in the last 8-9 months by eating at home more. We haven't changed anything else in our lives (no exercise, no smaller portions, no different purchases at the grocery store).

$\"user-pic\"$

Saboth

October 6, 2009 7:04 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@carlos_the_dwarf:

I don't like the government having too much to do in our lives either, but I don't see anything wrong with providing some nutritional info on the food you are buying.

$\"user-pic\"$

The Porkchop Express

October 6, 2009 7:22 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: Yeah, I in fact hate the government being too involved and I don't see an issue with this.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 7:01 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@carlos_the_dwarf: Uh... how exactly is it a \"nanny\" law? It's not saying you can't buy something crappy for you, it's just making it so those of us who would like to know that the \"salad\" you're ordering has 1100 calories can be informed.

Or is the nutritional info on the stuff in your supermarket evil too?

$\"user-pic\"$

TheFlamingoKing

October 6, 2009 7:22 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TheWillow, @Saboth:

It's a nanny law when people are forced to display the calorie counts. It's not that the information is bad - information is good for consumers. It's just unfortunate that the government has to use threat of force in order to get what it wants. Consumers could demand this information or do business elsewhere. That's the free market, non-force way to solve the problem. Maybe both ways work. Only one doesn't involve us losing our freedoms.

The real problem is the unintended consequences. Forcing restaurants to list calorie counts hurts small business and helps large business. If McDonalds is forced to make calorie listings, they can afford to pay to have the food analyzed and also can mass produce signage for all their restaurants. If Joe's Pizza is forced to it creates a competitive advantage for McDonalds, because the cost of testing is much greater per location than it is for McDonalds. If I recall, the Yum corporation was actively lobbying for this law, because the increased cost it would place on their competition would hurt their ability to compete with Taco Bell and KFC.

People on this site hate unbending, \"evil\" corporations that seem to focus more on incoming dollars than the people they service. Then why are we encouraging a law that benefits those same unbending, evil corporations at the expense of the little, mom-n-pop diner?

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

October 7, 2009 4:55 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TheFlamingoKing: If you knew what you were talking about, you'd be aware that the law applies to chain restaurants with standardized menus - like McDonald's - and not to Joe's Pizza. I doubt you recall that the Yum Corporation was lobbying for this law. If they did, they probably guessed that it was a lot more lenient than other regulations (like, actual limits on what their food could contain).

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 8:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TheFlamingoKing:

1) There's a minimum number of franchises before you're required to post the calories. I'm sure when supermarket labels first required nutritional info, it cost some mom & pop companies money as well. I still think it's a good idea.

2) Corporations are not \"evil.\" Something that isn't sentient can't be evil. They are, however, designed (and often beholden to their stockholders) to make money whether or not the activities that will make them money hurt society as a whole. Therefore, these activities must be kept in check - in your theoretical free market, consumer choice handles this quite well. However...

3) There are over 300,000,000 people in this country. Over 8,000,000 in NYC alone. How many consumers would need to \"demand this information or do business elsewhere\" to actively affect a company the size of McDonald's bottom line enough that they would notice, let alone care? Of course, you'd need to multiply that number by Burger King, Taco Bell, KFC, and every other McDonald's competitor that all of those consumers would also have to avoid (and I'll even grant you that NYC certainly has more alternative dining options than most places in the US). If the only way corporations were motivated to change was through a majority (or even a minority sizable enough to make an economic dent in a company's bottom line) consumer action, we would still be eating cheeseburgers made with bits of Jurgis Rudkus in them.

$\"user-pic\"$

Taed

October 6, 2009 8:39 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TheFlamingoKing: I understand your point, but don't agree, but clearly there's a line to be drawn somewhere. Consider if we take your first paragraph and make a thought experiment which is a bit absurd...

\"It's a nanny law when people are forced to display the RADIOACTIVE URANIUM content. It's not that the information about RADIOACTIVE URANIUM is bad - information is good for consumers. It's just unfortunate that the government has to use threat of force in order to get what it wants. Consumers could demand this information or do business elsewhere. That's the free market, non-force way to solve the problem. Maybe both ways work. Only one doesn't involve us losing our freedoms.\"

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 8:01 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TheFlamingoKing: I was under the impression that only chain restaurants with 50+ locations were affected. So in that situation, the mom and pop diner wouldn't have to post their nutritional info. I can't find the article right now but i'm certain I read that in an article here.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

remington870_20ga

October 6, 2009 6:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I pretty much know what Im about to eat if its healthy or not but new stuff I will take a peek at the label... mostly for gross stuff like mechanically seperated chicken for instance.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

October 6, 2009 6:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I'm diabetic. I'd be much more swayed if they'd include carb counts on their food items, not calorie counts.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Nidoking

October 6, 2009 7:50 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?: The way things are going in the food industry, I don't expect it to be very long before they require so much nutritional information to be posted that there's no room to list the names of the food items. \"Let's see, I'm diabetic, allergic to garlic and wheat, and I need something under 200 calories, 5 grams of carbs, 100 milligrams of sodium, and at least 30% of my RDA for vitamin A. Looks like I'll have the 'D', whatever that is.\"

\"Would you like to make that a combo for an additional 300 calories, 13 grams of carbs...?\"

$\"user-pic\"$

catastrophegirl chooses not to fly

October 6, 2009 7:09 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?: no kidding! i won't eat at places where the carb count is unavailable or likely to be way off my guess [like places that tend to use sweet sauces or breading on everything]

","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 6:59 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

That there burger has 275 calorees? Ooh, that one only has 150! Imma gonna get two cause they better for me!

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

DoubleBaconVeggieBurger

October 6, 2009 7:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Maybe (I hope?) it's a cat, they're notorious for their tenuous grasp of spelling and grammar. And, of course, for their interest in [cheez]burgers.

$\"user-pic\"$

aznjoker

October 6, 2009 7:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

lolcats FTW!!!

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

October 6, 2009 7:10 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@dreams305: So..what you're saying is people who aren't health-conscious are 1) Southern 2) Rednecks 3) Foreigners who speak English as a second language?

Try again.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 7:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

They should post the average meal calorie count on a billboard outside the restaurant. Then if you are on the road and on a diet, you can look for the best choices... Like gas prices!

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

TVarmy

October 6, 2009 7:02 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Woah, a pretzel dog has under 300 calories? That's a lot better than I expected, and they have to be one of my favorite \"awful\" foods. Processed meat wrapped in salt coated Wonderbread is pretty much like a supermarket tabloid for my mouth.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

thehouserules

October 6, 2009 8:09 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TVarmy: It also seems to disagree with Auntie Anne's website. Judging by the other things on the menu, I deduced that that picture is from Auntie Anne's.

Their own website says their pretzel dog is 320 calories with no butter, and 360 calories with butter. A jumbo pretzel dog with butter is 610 calories!

[www.auntieannes.com]

","","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

thehouserules

October 6, 2009 7:21 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I don't think that making lower calorie choices every now and then doesn't matter very much. The person at the fast food restaurant that chooses the pretzel dog at 290 calories because it has fewer calories than the pretzel stix at 370 calories might think they are making a healthy choice. Then they go home and eat 5 servings worth of cheetos as a snack and it doesn't even matter what they had for lunch.

Choosing a lower calorie option every once in awhile is not going to do you much good. It has to be a constant effort. And if you are making a constant effort, chances are you're not going to be making a choice between pretzel dogs and pretzel stix anyway.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 10:11 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@thehouserules: Yes, choosing between a pretzel dog & pretzel stix isn't going to revolutionize your diet... but switching to coffee with skim milk at <50 calories instead of a white chocolate mocha at 400+ calories will make a difference, and has for me.

It's amazing how easy it is to say something isn't useful for anyone just because you haven't found it to be useful for *you.*

$\"user-pic\"$

nofelix

October 7, 2009 10:55 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TheWillow: Switching from a habitual high calorie coffee to a low calorie coffee is a constant effort, which is what thehouserules is talking about.

The problem with calories on menus is that it only makes you think about your calorie intake for the minute you're ordering - not the whole of your day.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 7, 2009 12:58 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@nofelix: certainly it's not a perfect solution, but it definitely has value, even if it is only in individual decisions - clarifying for people that some things which seem inconsequential actually have a surprising number of calories - look at a \"fancy\" fast food chain like Cosi where half of the salads have more calories than the lighter sandwiches.

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

gggtur

October 6, 2009 7:27 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Lower calories and health are not synonymous. Fast food is junk, period. Pretzels are nothing more than refined and processed flour, devoid of any nutritional benefits. This NYC law is ridiculous. They should invest in educating people on what constitutes healthy eating (whole grains, lean meats, lots of fruits and veggies, and AVOIDING processed foods).

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 10:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@gggtur: But there's no closing down the fast-food restaurants. This way somebody who thought they were having a \"healthy\" salad may have a better idea of how fictional that notion is.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 10:12 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@gggtur: Posting the calories was step 1 of the initiative. Step 2 (which I think has started recently) is educating people about healthy foods.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

October 6, 2009 8:07 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@gggtur: Sometimes you really want a pretzel dog, and consuming fewer calories, even if it's something unhealthy like a pretzel dog, can be helpful. And sometimes you eat what you can get.

$\"user-pic\"$

sponica

October 6, 2009 8:05 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@gggtur: well, to be fair, there are people who know how to eat healthy, but the food is not readily available in their neighborhood. good produce can be difficult to find in NYC, especially when you live in a less affluent area. heck i live in the suburbs, and I'm almost always disappointed by the quality of produce in the supermarket.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 7:29 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I was pretty surprised by how many calories were in certain foods when I went to New York this summer. The biggest shock was when we ate at TGIFridays and actually made a game of finding the highest calorie count on the menu. Would you believe it was a salad? It was roughly 2400 calories. I just wish I could remember which salad it was now...

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Ratty

October 6, 2009 7:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

It makes a lot more sense to require it BEFORE ordering rather thsan after. mcDonald's had a nice effort with its labeling on the wrappers... but that doesn't tell me what's in a big mac before i order the bic mac.

Will still check online nutrition info before going to order any food.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

October 7, 2009 2:55 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Ratty: On the wrapper? I guess you can kind of credit them for that, but you're right, the information should be available before the order is placed, so customers can make informed choices.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 7:41 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

If I eat fast food, I know it's not good for me so I don't look at the calorie counts. I don't even wanna know.

I've cut a lot of it out because I'm trying to lose weight. I do miss my Arby's loaded potato bites. :(

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

October 7, 2009 2:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@HogwartsAlum: I can give you some killer recipes...PM me if you want. I'm all for the lighter food. BF and I love to cook. He always jokes about starting a food blog, but I can't be bothered.

$\"user-pic\"$

calquist

October 6, 2009 8:05 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@HogwartsAlum: Agreed. I probably eat fast food once a week and last week we chose Hardee's. The BF looked up the website with the nutrition facts and I had to walk away. If I am going to eat crap food, I want to get what I want and enjoy my calories.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

downwithmonstercable

October 6, 2009 7:42 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I know it swayed me. I knew the coffee I drank from Tully's/Starbucks was loaded with calories, but until I saw it right in front of my face, it didn't really resonate. I only order non fat now, with no extra flavors/sweeteners (ie, a regular mocha vs white mocha)

Similarly, I eat less fast food. I could be the posterboy for advocacy groups trying to prove this stuff works.

","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Zydia

October 6, 2009 8:06 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I keep track of calorie intake, and it is a tedious monitoring process that requires more than just reading labels, it requires committment. And passing this kind law isn't going to sway anyone who isn't committed in the first place, so this news is not surprising.

I personally like the labels since it makes things easier for me, but then again, I'm not the target audience.

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

nakkypoo

October 6, 2009 8:16 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Snack food manufactures figured this out years ago when they came out with 100-calorie packs. By using a round and seemingly low, healthy number people end up eating more.

[www.mailtribune.com]

[asunews.asu.edu]

","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 8:25 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Chicken McNuggets may have more calories, but they're near impossible to screw up. McDonalds in NYC is always a war zone, and I feel like an ass holding up the line to make sure they didn't render my burger inedible by slathering it in mayo.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

johnfrombrooklyn

October 6, 2009 8:33 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I love that in NYC we have calorie counts displayed prominently. It's the best idea ever. I wish every restaurant had it. I am surprised though when I hear comments from overweight people who laugh at the big calorie items they order. Hope they pay for their own dialysis when their diabetes kicks in.

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

mommy_dearest

October 6, 2009 9:02 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

At the same time people are buying more fast food, two things happened:

1. Calorie signs were posted.
2. People are losing jobs in record numbers.

The cause of people spending more on cheap food is obviously the signs.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 10:50 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mommy_dearest: Did you look at the NYT article, though? The change wasn't observed in the control group, and the before and after were only six weeks apart--it wasn't before the recession and after the recession. It sounds like they've ruled out the mitigating factors you've suggested.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

savdavid

October 6, 2009 9:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I wonder if restaurants \"encouraged\" these findings with say....bribes? If these studies are true then more education is needed for people, not less. Taking the calories off the menu would be less information. Complete, true information is power: that is a basic law of thinking for rational thinking. People not given the complete or correct truth will probably make bad decisions.

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 10:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

So we should wait till someone studies a couple middle-class fast food restaurants before criticizing the program?

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 6, 2009 10:50 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

It has swayed me in small ways, such as getting the grilled chicken instead of a burger or crispy chicken, or going for the italian dressing instead of ranch.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

AngryK9

October 6, 2009 10:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

The problem is that most people that go into fast food restaraunts go into them often, and thus already know exactly what they are going to order before they set foot into the building, and therefore never bother to look at the menu.

It would probably be more effective if they put signs on every door that state simply: \"Eating our food is hazardous to your health\"

","

$\"user-pic\"$

heart.shaped.rock

October 7, 2009 12:02 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

When I found out my favorite Tully's latte had 670 calories, I ordered a chai. It worked for me.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

krom

October 7, 2009 12:15 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

So what. They're informed consumers now. Whether they are also intelligent is their own problem. The goal wasn't to make people thinner/healthier but to let those who actually want to be thinner/healthier to make informed choices.

To me this shows off more that the typical corporate anti-regulation noise is once again baseless and unfounded. Didn't they all say that making the information prominent would drive down sales?

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

MooYork

October 7, 2009 1:01 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

My hypothesis of why the calorie count went up slightly in the study: When a customer is standing in line determining if he wants sandwich A or sandwich B, he is in a dilemma as he may see sandwich A as the one with less calories, but sandwich B as the one he prefers for taste. This decision neglects the additional potential item of chips C. Rather than sandwich B, the customer decides to order less caloric sandwich A + chips C, which results in, for example, a net +10 calories. Without having seen the calorie count, the customer may have only ordered preferred taste sandwich B and walked out with no chips. Discuss.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

TechnoDestructo

October 7, 2009 1:17 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Wow, the caramel has more calories than the cheese?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 7, 2009 1:47 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

On the other hand, some of us can eat 10,000 calories a day and LOSE weight.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Fett101

October 7, 2009 2:36 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

\"About 28 percent of those who noticed them said the information had influenced their ordering, and 9 out of 10 of those said they had made healthier choices as a result.\"

So 10% of the 28% actively decided to eat something with more calories?

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Tricericops

October 7, 2009 5:42 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I recently have become low income. Having been overweight growing up I've been counting my calories for years since I lost it. Now that I'm low on cash, however, my preference is for the most Calories for my buck rather than the least since getting my 2000 a day prove a challenge. Perhaps people in these neighborhoods share my reasoning.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

MrGutts

October 7, 2009 9:54 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I will still love my Chick-Fil-A chargrilled sandwich that comes in at 260 cal. :) mmmmmmmm Chick-fil-a

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

nofelix

October 7, 2009 11:00 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

There's no mention of whether they accounted for people not eating fast food at all because of the labels. Surely some of the most health concious, who were eating the healthier food on the menus beforehand, would be put off from eating fast food at all by seeing the calories in it. Then the remaining customers would be the fatties - avg calorie count goes up.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Al Swearengen

October 7, 2009 11:35 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I eat a lot less Chipotle now that I know a single burrito has like 1100 calories.

[www.chipotlefan.com]

","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 8, 2009 1:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Obviously it doesn't. I think if you posted Fat Grams, that would have more o fan impact. You hear the word \"fat\" 'and might think you will get fat if you eat that product. But calories doesn't have the same effect.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

CumaeanSibyl

October 14, 2009 3:41 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I imagine the poorer you are, the more calories you want for your money.

");