@Xerloq, we are all made of stars.: Yeah like baby carrots vs. potato chips...wait that doesn't work. How about water vs. soda...nope. Processed and packaged foods are more expensive than fresh raw ingredients.

$\"user-pic\"$

AnthonyC

@valleyval:
Water that comes out of your sink, even if you filter it, is cheaper than bottled, dramatically so. If you need to carry some with you, but one plastic bottle, once, and just keep using it.

If you go to the grocery store and compare # calories/dollar, you can't really do better than large bags of white rice. At Costco rice can be had for ~25 cents a pound- 7000 calories/dollar.

$\"user-pic\"$

Amish Undercover

@valleyval: I can remain full on $1 in chips much longer than I can on $1 in carrots.

$\"user-pic\"$

TheWillow

@AngryK9: If it doesn't help EVERYONE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD but it helps some people and is better than the previous status, does that make it a stupid idea?

$\"user-pic\"$

joshuadavis

Hea@Xerloq, we are all made of stars.: Healthy food is cheaper. Replace a hunk of beef with rice and broccoli (a complete protein) and you've yourself some money. By the way I just finished my dinner consisting mostly of rice and broccoli.

$\"user-pic\"$

supercereal

A lower calorie meal isn't inherently a better meal. It's certainly a start, but a lot (a LOT) more goes into making healthy and informed food choices than just the calorie count.

Frankly, I think it may make things worse; people see a low calorie count on the menu and are tricked into believing it's healthy, regardless of the fat, cholesterol, sodium, and other \"bad\" counts. It just invites folks to be lazy in making informed eating decisions.

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

calquist

@supercereal: I totally agree, but it is a step forward versus no information at all. We need to teach people to pay attention to labels first before we can teach them to compare the different things on those labels.

And when it comes to McDonald's, I think more calories does equal worse food. They don't exactly have 1,000 calorie whole wheat vs. white bread buns to choose from.

$\"user-pic\"$

FigNinja

@supercereal: I believe they actually have to list things like fat, cholesterol and sodium, too. It's not just calories.

$\"user-pic\"$

FigNinja

@FigNinja: Or maybe that's just here in CA. But the last few chains I've been to have had all of that in their menus.

$\"user-pic\"$

ecwis

@supercereal: Right, I never look at calories. I can understand doing that if you wanted to lose weight I guess but not for overall healthy eating. My number one concern right now is to avoid artificial ingredients. I don't trust fake things.

$\"user-pic\"$

H3ion

If you went to McDonalds and ordered a five foot hamburger, would they sell it to you? And what would the calorie count be?

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

stormbird

@H3ion: There are some questions that should not be answered. This is one of them.

$\"user-pic\"$

AngryK9

Do they help people make better choices?

Does closing the barn door after the horse has run away help keep the horse in the barn?

$\"user-pic\"$

SatisfriedCrustomer

Who cares whether the labels help the average human lifeform make better choices? More information is always good, even if some people use it badly.

$\"user-pic\"$

FigNinja

What we don't know about the $5 foot-long sandwhiches is how many of them were split between two people or two meals. That's what I do.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

zomgorly

@FigNinja: Yea normally if I get the footlong sub at subway I am only eating the 6 inch for lunch and then save the second part for either dinner or lunch the next day. If I went to subway two days/meals in a row it would cost me more.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

@FigNinja: I find my stomach still growling after eating the six inch sub, so I tend to actually eat the whole thing. I don't eat chips or drink soda with it, though. I'm not a big eater, either. It's just that I get the plain oven roasted chicken with a lot of vegetables, and apparently it's healthy but not particularly filling.

$\"user-pic\"$

mazzic1083

@pecan 3.14159265: High five for the roasted chicken with lots of vegetables. I've recently been putting lite ranch on as well (I know, not exactly healthy but better than ranch) and it's one of my favorite subs (and one of the cheapest to boot)

$\"user-pic\"$

LJKelley

The problem I noted at Wendy's in NYC is that is posted a range. For example item A was 200-500 Calories. I know its all based on how you ordered the item etc but it still shows that these new rules don't allow a consumer to know 100% at a quick glance.

$\"user-pic\"$

dbshaw

Knowing the calorie count is really only useful to people who want to know for their own purposes. If you're not a calorie counter the info isn't likely to be important to you. Anyone who has the understanding to realize what the numbers mean is probably already helping themselves so the posted numbers aren't likely to be revelatory to many.

That being said, I don't think that the quantity of people helped is the important metric to be focused on in the debate about whether calories should be posted. They should be posted because its important information about your food and those few who do want or need to know should be able to have that info readily available.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

TheWillow

@dbshaw: Exactly. If scenario A is: No calories posted, helping no one. and scenario B is: calories posted, helping some, but additional education is needed for others... I don't see the problem.

$\"user-pic\"$

robotrousers

It makes me feel guiltier about the crap I eat. But I still eat it.

$\"user-pic\"$

sprocket79

I like the nutritional information. I went to a steakhouse this weekend and I thought about getting a burger. When I saw how many calories it was (1480!!!) I decided to get filet mignon (320 calories), a salad, and a tomato based soup (about half the calories of the potato soup). In the end I had a really nice meal with a decent amount of calories.

$\"user-pic\"$

suburbancowboy

I want the ingredients to be found easily. To discover that KFC Grilled Chicken has rendered Beef fat, and beef broth and MSG, you have to dig very deep in their web site.

$\"user-pic\"$

bnelson333

Give me easy access to the info. Every restaurant, sit-down, chain, fast food, or mom and pop shop should have a flyer somewhere that has nutrition info for EVERY item on their menu. I count calories, have lost close to 60 lbs by now, and it drives absolutely insane how many places do NOT provide this info! I don't mind asking for it, but just make it available. And this brings me to my other pet peeve, no, I don't ONLY care about nutrition info for the \"diet\" foods. Calorie counters eat everyday food too. So what if I want a big greasy cheeseburger? If it fits into calorie target for the day it's fair game, please at least tell me how many calories it has so I know if I can afford it!

End rant now... phew that feels good to get that off my chest. :D

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

colorisnteverything

@bnelson333:

I agree. There should be calories and nutritional information everywhere. My little cousin has a SEVERE gluten allergy and no one can ever tell us if something contains gluten. Likewise, my grandmother is a very careful diabetic (she wants to live a long time and has had this disease almost her whole life) and can never find how much sodium is in something or how many carbs this has. I just want to eat well, but would still like to know how much sodium and fat something has and if I have an allergy to an ingredient. I am very allergic to shellfish and have reactions to certain nuts and also MSG. Thus, I don't want to be sick.

$\"user-pic\"$

SaraFimm

YES for Menu Info!!!!

I like knowing how many calories/carbs because my son is Type 1 diabetic so \"knowing is half the battle!\" I can get him to be reasonable about wanting a chocolate shake or m&m McFlurry with his 10 pc chicken nuggets if we know the carb cost.

Healthy Fast Food is very expensive, you have to brown bag it to make it cost effective, but if you have to do it you'll know what choices to make.

$\"user-pic\"$

TCama

(Not a New Yorker here ...)

I still get the 6-inch ones. I think only once in my life could I actually eat a footlong. I wish the 6-inch ones were cheaper though. $5 for a footlong, then ... $4 for a 6-inch? Uh, no. $3 would be reasonable.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

colorisnteverything

@TCama:

Go the way of the college student. Ask them to cut it in half. That way you have 2 dinners for the price of one ;) I can never eat enough of my pasta at some places and ideally, eat half and then doggy bag it! There is no shame in doing so and, when you think about it, leaving it there is incredibly wasteful and disrespectful.

$\"user-pic\"$

Outrun1986

Not everyone is using fast food restaurants as a daily food source. A lot of people who go to these places are tourists or people who are out on a day long shopping trip. Both of these groups will probably burn enough calories in a day to justify a meal that has higher calories than a normal meal for them. These people will not care how many calories their meal has, because they only eat the food once in a while, maybe once a month or once every 2-3 weeks if that. Again, if your eating fast food for one of those reasons, your probably burning enough calories to justify the meal, so I don't think its going to do any harm in the long run.

It would be interesting to chart a McDonald's or other fast food restaurant in a non-tourist neighborhood and one that is used primarily by tourists to see how the calories fare.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

@Outrun1986: That's very true. If I know I've got a long day of walking ahead of me, I eat a bigger meal so I have the energy to burn.

I think for the most part, tourists in DC are likely to walk because there's a lot to see and just walking the Mall will take off a bunch of calories. But I'm not seeing as many now that it's getting cold.

$\"user-pic\"$

MooseOfReason

I think you should mind your own business and stop trying to control other people's lives.

$\"user-pic\"$

kmw2

See, I only eat fast food a couple times a year (if that), and I never manage to finish what I order anyhow. So I don't actually care that much if I stuff my face with a quarter of a 1,000-calorie burger. What might be actually useful is requiring companies to offer ingredient lists!

$\"user-pic\"$

Mecharine

If they werent already eating healthy, then no amount of information is going to change their mind. This is the same situation with cigarettes.

$\"user-pic\"$

PsiCop

There are problems with both of these studies. The second was performed by the city health department, which presumably is staffed by people who are interested in seeing the new regulations look good ... since they're the ones who have to enforce them. The first study was independent, but covered a much smaller sample and a more restricted population.

Not to mention the Subway promotion appears to have skewed the results in one of them, right off the top, meaning that even if the study had been done by independent researchers with no vested interest in the outcome, the results don't necessarily reflect reality very well.

I don't think it's a good idea to reach any conclusions as yet, based on either of these studies. Let's get more data ... and let's get some from people who have no incentive to want the regulations to look good.

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

nybiker

@PsiCop: +1. We all know how truthful statistics are (See \"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.\" and \"How To Lie with Statistics\").

[en.wikipedia.org]

[en.wikipedia.org]

And the same thing with the sides of a story.

$\"user-pic\"$

rosvicl

I take the Subway $5 footlong offer, because what I actually want is 8 or 9 inches of sandwich, not six. So, I'll get the footlong, eat half as a sandwich, then either eat a few bits of the other hand, or pick out bits of meat and salad and ignore the roll. (Yes, the bread is fresh, but I like crustier bread than they offer.)

The biggest surprise I've gotten from those calorie postings was in a Starbucks. Banana, 90-150 calories. It shouldn't have surprised me--bananas are a starchy staple--but we've been taught that fruit is mostly low in calories.

$\"user-pic\"$

grimdeath9740

It's a good idea....for people who understand what a good calorie amount is. I for one do not. I have no idea what a good amount is for daily consumption so the count is moot.

I also would like to suggest that the people that DO actually know what a good amount is would most likely be the ones that also have a good idea of the amounts of the items without needing a chart.

Just saying, ive seen the calorie and other counts on the side of products in the grocery store for years (even worked at one when I was younger) and they still mean nothing to me. Not saying they shouldnt (I am over weight and this is most likely a major cause of that) but the counts alone will not a skinny nation make.