Yes, thanks to medical science, unhealthy people can live much much longer.

jesteinf wrote:Yes, thanks to medical science, unhealthy people can live much much longer.

My Mom is a miracle of surgical and pharmaceutical intervention. Every day is a bonus. My family is grateful for it, which I have to remind myself when she does drive me nuts sometimes.

Regards,

Cathy2 wrote:

jesteinf wrote:Yes, thanks to medical science, unhealthy people can live much much longer.

My Mom is a miracle of surgical and pharmaceutical intervention. Every day is a bonus. My family is grateful for it, which I have to remind myself when she does drive me nuts sometimes.

Regards,

And that's great. I'm just saying that just because we are living longer, it doesn't mean that we are living healthier.

jesteinf wrote:I'm just saying that just because we are living longer, it doesn't mean that we are living healthier.

Living is intrinsically healthier than the alternative.

LAZ wrote:Another reason is that they don't really care.

I think you're right about this. But then, when they get into some health troubles, they look for someone else to blame. I believe that's the main reason there's so much pressure on the food industry. It's a by-product of our overly-litigious societal condition.

=R=

ronnie_suburban wrote: But then, when they get into some health troubles, they look for someone else to blame. I believe that's the main reason there's so much pressure on the food industry. It's a by-product of our overly-litigious societal condition.

=R=

Amen. No one wants to be responsible. Plus there are the folks who view law suits as an alternative to lottery tickets.

I think connecting lawsuits, lottery tickets, and the salt debate is getting a little ridiculous. Reasonable people can disagree about food regulations. But this conversation seems to have drifted away from a reasonable, intelligent discussion.

Darren72 wrote:I think connecting lawsuits, lottery tickets, and the salt debate is getting a little ridiculous. Reasonable people can disagree about food regulations. But this conversation seems to have drifted away from a reasonable, intelligent discussion.

I agree . . . but only about the lottery tickets. When governments like NYC's start putting pressure on manufacturers to lower sodium levels in their foods (and legally requiring them to eliminate trans fats), it seems pretty clear that these things are connected.

=R=

The fact that Americans are living longer, unhealthier lives is directly connected the profit-driven paradigm of the Medical Industrial Complex; it is far more profitable to treat an illness than to cure or prevent it.

That said, if you're an unhealthy, big, fat load...you have no one to blame but yourself.

jesteinf wrote:

Cathy2 wrote:

jesteinf wrote:Yes, thanks to medical science, unhealthy people can live much much longer.

My Mom is a miracle of surgical and pharmaceutical intervention. Every day is a bonus. My family is grateful for it, which I have to remind myself when she does drive me nuts sometimes.

Regards,

And that's great. I'm just saying that just because we are living longer, it doesn't mean that we are living healthier.

Like I want to become a health fanatic so that I am sitting in a nursing home at age 92 dying of nothing.

Something on the news last night (we were in Baltimore, so I'm not sure if it was on here) strongly led to the inference that consumer information, all by itself, does result in different choices being made. The experiment went something like this. Some outposts of a fast food chain put on the wall the calorie/fat content of their various menu choices. Other outposts of that same fast food chain did not. At the outposts that did, the average order chosen by a customer consisted of 100 fewer calories and (X) fewer grams of fat than at the outposts that didn't.

I have to wonder if posting the nutritional values affected overall business.

nr706 wrote:I have to wonder if posting the nutritional values affected overall business.

I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind, but it's possible that the reason for the result was not that the same population stayed in the restaurant and made (on average) healthier choices, but that those who were most inclined to make the unhealthiest choices decided to leave without ordering anything, once they saw the nutrition information on the wall. Perhaps in their determination to eat 65 grams of saturated fat, they preferred to do it in a place that didn't tell them they were eating 65 grams of saturated fat. This left a "pre-selected" population of healthier eaters remaining in the nutrition-posting restaurants, causing the average fat grams and calories consumed in those restaurants to be lower than in the equivalent locations with no nutritional info posted.

riddlemay wrote:

nr706 wrote:I have to wonder if posting the nutritional values affected overall business.

I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind, but it's possible that the reason for the result was not that the same population stayed in the restaurant and made (on average) healthier choices, but that those who were most inclined to make the unhealthiest choices decided to leave without ordering anything, once they saw the nutrition information on the wall. Perhaps in their determination to eat 65 grams of saturated fat, they preferred to do it in a place that didn't tell them they were eating 65 grams of saturated fat. This left a "pre-selected" population of healthier eaters remaining in the nutrition-posting restaurants, causing the average fat grams and calories consumed in those restaurants to be lower than in the equivalent locations with no nutritional info posted.

Following your hypothesis, that might result in lower overall sales, unless the population which decided to leave without ordering was replaced by another, equally-sized population that became more attracted to the place by looking at the nutritional value posting. I'm guessing that's unlikely. So to heap my unproven hypothesis on yours, could it be possible that posting nutritional values hurts the biz?

Hi,

Believe it or not, I read the nutrition information if it is easy to access.

There is one food where learning the nutrition information caused me to change course: Taco Bell's original Taco Salad in the fried tortilla bowl. I smugly thought I was eating better until I saw how many calories were involved: over 900!

In this same time period, Big Mac's weighed in around 650 calories. I noticed recently the Big Mac is now around 580 calories. I don't know if they revised the recipe or recalculated the calories.

While I very much prefer McDonald's steak, cheese and egg bagel, I don't like the caloric hit around 650 calories. I pretty much stick with the classic Egg McMuffin, which is around 290 calories.

Would I want nutrition information on every menu, hell no. I have a good idea of what I am likely to consume. I just don't need my nose rubbed into it.

Regards,

nr706 wrote:

riddlemay wrote:

nr706 wrote:I have to wonder if posting the nutritional values affected overall business.

I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind, but it's possible that the reason for the result was not that the same population stayed in the restaurant and made (on average) healthier choices, but that those who were most inclined to make the unhealthiest choices decided to leave without ordering anything, once they saw the nutrition information on the wall. Perhaps in their determination to eat 65 grams of saturated fat, they preferred to do it in a place that didn't tell them they were eating 65 grams of saturated fat. This left a "pre-selected" population of healthier eaters remaining in the nutrition-posting restaurants, causing the average fat grams and calories consumed in those restaurants to be lower than in the equivalent locations with no nutritional info posted.

Following your hypothesis, that might result in lower overall sales, unless the population which decided to leave without ordering was replaced by another, equally-sized population that became more attracted to the place by looking at the nutritional value posting. I'm guessing that's unlikely. So to heap my unproven hypothesis on yours, could it be possible that posting nutritional values hurts the biz?

The article didn't say, but your hypothesis is reasonable. To that, I'd add that while I don't like hardworking businesspeople to lose business, we make that kind of decision all the time, and businesses usually adapt (or people adapt, and business thrives). When "we" (and I know not everybody agrees, but it was basically a social consensus) decided to ban smoking in bars, bar owners complained that they'd lose business, and they did at first, but the business came back; many smokers like to go to bars more than they need to smoke, plus new people who don't smoke starting going to bars more than they did before. On top of all of that, society made a judgment that even if bar business fell, some social goods are more important than commerce. And as Cathy's post demonstrates, even those of us who don't think we want nutritional information rubbed in our faces (and include me in that category) can sometimes be enlightened--and have our choices changed--by information we didn't know and didn't expect.

Cathy2 wrote:There is one food where learning the nutrition information caused me to change course: Taco Bell's original Taco Salad in the fried tortilla bowl. I smugly thought I was eating better until I saw how many calories were involved: over 900!

In this same time period, Big Mac's weighed in around 650 calories. I noticed recently the Big Mac is now around 580 calories. I don't know if they revised the recipe or recalculated the calories.

My moment came at Panera. Although you might think that sandwiches are healthier options than burgers, you have to order incredibly carefully at Panera to get something lower cal than a burger.

Darren72 wrote:

Cathy2 wrote:There is one food where learning the nutrition information caused me to change course: Taco Bell's original Taco Salad in the fried tortilla bowl. I smugly thought I was eating better until I saw how many calories were involved: over 900!

In this same time period, Big Mac's weighed in around 650 calories. I noticed recently the Big Mac is now around 580 calories. I don't know if they revised the recipe or recalculated the calories.

My moment came at Panera. Although you might think that sandwiches are healthier options than burgers, you have to order incredibly carefully at Panera to get something lower cal than a burger.

My epiphany (and it brings us back to salt) came when I looked at the nutrition facts on a can of soup I was about to buy in the supermarket. It was a brand or type I had consumed many times before. The sodium content was something like 900 or 1100 grams. (It might have been even worse than that, because the figure may have been based on a fictitiously small serving size.) I don't have high blood pressure, and I am aware of the position that salt can't give you high blood pressure if you don't have it already, but nobody needs that freakin' much salt. Since that moment, I choose canned soups with half that much sodium or less, and find them salty enough. Nutrition facts can be our friends.

Darren72 wrote:

Cathy2 wrote:There is one food where learning the nutrition information caused me to change course: Taco Bell's original Taco Salad in the fried tortilla bowl. I smugly thought I was eating better until I saw how many calories were involved: over 900!

In this same time period, Big Mac's weighed in around 650 calories. I noticed recently the Big Mac is now around 580 calories. I don't know if they revised the recipe or recalculated the calories.

My moment came at Panera. Although you might think that sandwiches are healthier options than burgers, you have to order incredibly carefully at Panera to get something lower cal than a burger.

My son bought a really interesting book about restaurant food (Eat This, Not That), which contains nutritional values for many menu items at most national chains. In a many instances, the salads were the most caloric choices on the menus. I guess this is mostly due to the common inclusion of bacon (and other meats) and cheese, as well as the fatty dressings. For data purposes, it is assumed that the entire serving of dressing will be consumed but if you use the dressings sparingly, the calorie counts drop significantly on these items.

=R=

Yes, exactly. In fact, you can eliminate a lot of the calories in their sandwiches by eliminating mayo-based dressings and cheese (including cheese-breads). There is an incredible amount of sodium in the sandwiches, mainly because of the bread, but also the cold cuts.

ronnie_suburban wrote:For data purposes, it is assumed that the entire serving of dressing will be consumed but if you use the dressings sparingly, the calorie counts drop significantly on these items.

=R=

My Mom will put a full two-ounce packet of dressing on the tiniest of salads. If one of those packets make it home, I can easily use it to dress a salad for three people. My teeth chatter watching her dress a salad.

Regards,

The easiest way to eat healthier is to completely avoid McDonald's, Taco Bell, etc.

It doesn't matter whether a fast food chain menu item has 10 or 10,000 calories, the fact is it's not real food and it is not healthy.

I think it's time to revisit The Ideal Diet.

Beauner wrote:The easiest way to eat healthier is to completely avoid McDonald's, Taco Bell, etc.

It doesn't matter whether a fast food chain menu item has 10 or 10,000 calories, the fact is it's not real food and it is not healthy.

There is little nutritional difference between a McDonald's Quarter Pounder and a 4oz burger at a local place, except perhaps that McDonald's will provide you with the nutritional information.

The nutritional numbers may add up the same, but your average fast food burger is made out of crap one step above Soylent Green. Read the linked article and tell me if you want to eat a Big Mac.
[url]
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us/31meat.html?_r=1 [/url]

I'll stick with DMK Burger or Edzo's

Beauner wrote:The nutritional numbers may add up the same, but your average fast food burger is made out of crap one step above Soylent Green. Read the linked article and tell me if you want to eat a Big Mac.
[url]
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us/31meat.html?_r=1 [/url]

I'll stick with DMK Burger or Edzo's

You specifically called out McDonald's as you mentioned Big Mac's.

I would trust McDonald's ground beef for safety than I would a local independent.

Your use of that link, which has NOTHING to do with McDonald's, is irresponsible at best.

The article specifically deals with a supplier to one of the USDA's nutritional program which purchases beef solely on the basis of cost. When you allow all your suppliers to know that you will purchase from the LOWEST BIDDER, which is nearly always the case with a government contract, you are asking fror trouble.

Cathy2 wrote:Hi,

Believe it or not, I read the nutrition information if it is easy to access.

There is one food where learning the nutrition information caused me to change course: Taco Bell's original Taco Salad in the fried tortilla bowl. I smugly thought I was eating better until I saw how many calories were involved: over 900!

In this same time period, Big Mac's weighed in around 650 calories. I noticed recently the Big Mac is now around 580 calories. I don't know if they revised the recipe or recalculated the calories.

While I very much prefer McDonald's steak, cheese and egg bagel, I don't like the caloric hit around 650 calories. I pretty much stick with the classic Egg McMuffin, which is around 290 calories.

Would I want nutrition information on every menu, hell no. I have a good idea of what I am likely to consume. I just don't need my nose rubbed into it.

Regards,

This is why I appreciate the much-maligned CSPI: in college, I felt the same about taco salads, and I had no idea about movie-theater popcorn (I figured if you got it unbuttered it was OK) These days, after years of label reading the nutritionals don't surprise me as much as they did when I was in college, but if you aren't paying attention it's easy to think you're eating "healthy" or "not doing too bad" when you're ingesting stuff that is the nutritional equivalent of a hefty serving of tiramisu - without being nearly as pleasant.

I do think it's helpful to have the nutritional information available for a number of reasons: while the OP isn't watching his salt intake, he might have a food intolerance that he otherwise would have to ask about. If you're going to mass-produce food anyway, nutritional information isn't that difficult to create. I did figure out what a serving of tiramisu is like, nutritionally - it doesn't stop me from eating it. I know it's not health food. But I'm damned if I'm going to eat a "healthy" flavorless burrito from Chipotle when it's got twice the calories of the tiramisu.

If you are looking for nutritional values of food, there quite simply is no better book than this one. It has things listed *by brands*, and gives a complete roll-out of absolutely everything you need to know. (Sorry, but I can't remember whether it does resto values, but it might could... I just can't remember.)

Geo

riddlemay wrote:

Darren72 wrote:

Cathy2 wrote:There is one food where learning the nutrition information caused me to change course: Taco Bell's original Taco Salad in the fried tortilla bowl. I smugly thought I was eating better until I saw how many calories were involved: over 900!

In this same time period, Big Mac's weighed in around 650 calories. I noticed recently the Big Mac is now around 580 calories. I don't know if they revised the recipe or recalculated the calories.

My moment came at Panera. Although you might think that sandwiches are healthier options than burgers, you have to order incredibly carefully at Panera to get something lower cal than a burger.

My epiphany (and it brings us back to salt) came when I looked at the nutrition facts on a can of soup I was about to buy in the supermarket. It was a brand or type I had consumed many times before. The sodium content was something like 900 or 1100 grams. (It might have been even worse than that, because the figure may have been based on a fictitiously small serving size.) I don't have high blood pressure, and I am aware of the position that salt can't give you high blood pressure if you don't have it already, but nobody needs that freakin' much salt. Since that moment, I choose canned soups with half that much sodium or less, and find them salty enough. Nutrition facts can be our friends.

I think you mean 900 or 1100 milligrams - 1100 grams would be over 2 lbs.

sarcon wrote:

riddlemay wrote:My epiphany (and it brings us back to salt) came when I looked at the nutrition facts on a can of soup I was about to buy in the supermarket. It was a brand or type I had consumed many times before. The sodium content was something like 900 or 1100 grams. (It might have been even worse than that, because the figure may have been based on a fictitiously small serving size.) I don't have high blood pressure, and I am aware of the position that salt can't give you high blood pressure if you don't have it already, but nobody needs that freakin' much salt. Since that moment, I choose canned soups with half that much sodium or less, and find them salty enough. Nutrition facts can be our friends.

I think you mean 900 or 1100 milligrams - 1100 grams would be over 2 lbs.

Yes, I must mean that. (Although once you go to the lower sodium soups, the regular ones begin to taste like they might have 2 lbs. of salt.)

Re CSPI that Michele mentioned: Another reason ya gotta love em is how they'll put things in stark comparative terms, like, "A small serving of movie popcorn with butter has as much sodium and saturated fat as three sides of beef injected with industrial-sized drums of ocean water." You tend to remember things like that more than numbers. Which is good.