PDA

View Full Version : Stupid, stupid, stupid...



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 23

Scintillation
06-19-2012, 01:38 AM
He ate 1 6" sub a day and also put in a ton of exercise. His name is Jared....that whole campaign was a little misleading.

sap5
06-19-2012, 02:11 AM
I'd guess so too. :)

I often order from the "Senior" menu. Or the children's menu if it has reasonable options. It's not that I'm trying to be cheap. It's just that sometimes I don't want to deal with leftovers especially if it's something that doesn't "leftover" well.

Speaking of huge portion sizes: for Father's Day we all went to Outback for lunch. MacBoy and I split a BBQ Mixed Grill plate. It had shrimp, chicken & ribs on it along with French fries. We ended up leaving most of the French fries there and bringing home half the chicken, half the ribs, and one of the coconut shrimp.

So a meal sold as for one person fed two of us with enough leftovers for another meal. I suspect bigger eaters than MacBoy and I wouldn't have had any leftovers. But most people should be able to easily split that meal and be fully satisfied. Then I hear that Applebee's commercial where they say things like "share an appetizer?!" as if that's the most insane idea ever and I just shake my head over how warped our ideas of what a meal is have become.

This! I went to an Italian restaurant recently and ordered a pasta dish. I ate what for me is a normal portion, and took the rest home. No joke, the leftovers lasted me for SIX more meals. I certainly got my money's worth, but what kind of restaurant serves an entire box of pasta per person???

The scariest thing is I saw other people at tables near me finish their bowls in one sitting! :eek:

PrincessLeppard
06-19-2012, 03:35 PM
Was it Buca de Beppo's? (I may have spelled that incorrectly). Those meals are meant to be shared between 2-3 people. And yes, I be seen people chow down one by themselves :yikes:

danceronice
06-19-2012, 04:01 PM
But there are built-in costs that aren't really negotiable. For example, labor. The reason you can get some organic produce cheaper is because it's largely harvested by undocumented workers.

No, organic is not cheap because have you ever read the paperwork on what you have to do to get crops and animal products certified organic? And what that means you cannot do?

Here's an example where I know what goes on behind the cameras as well: on NatGeo Wild, there's the show "The Incredible Doctor Pol". On one episode, he goes to a farm with organic beef, and in the process of saving a cow he has to give her several antibiotics. Farmer gives her an ear tag and says that she's now got to be sold off into the non-organic-foods market because he can't use her or her offspring any more. I know that farm, that's where we buy our turkeys for the holidays--he's restricted in what he feeds the animals, in what the animals' PARENTS were fed, it took him several years to get the pasture those beef graze on considered clean from having been a 'non-certified' place before he started his farming, as demonstrated administering certain medications mean the animal can't be certified organic any more, even in a case where it means saving the animal's life. The operating costs for getting a farm certified and managing the animals in a way that keeps it certified (he has to buy feed that's certified organic, which is more expensive because not being able to use certain fertizliers and pesticides and not using certain seed stocks that have been modified means the yield per acre is lower and therefore the cost of growing is higher) increases his cost of doing business, meaning he has to charge higher prices to stay in business. Likewise, you can't keep as many
chickens or pigs in genuinely 'free range' situations because the fewer animals you have per acre, the higher the cost of raising each animal, plus you will lose stock more frequently (eggs lost because the hens lay outside, predators get at the flock, with the pigs unrestrained sows can and do crush offspring, not to mention that if you don't closely restrict what pigs eat and they do eat anything including carrion, you have to cook it WELL DONE to eat it safely-so-called 'factory farmed' pork can be eaten medium without worrying about parasites.)

Raising certified organic animals or food crops costs more per acre than raising "conventional" crops. It doesn't matter who is picking it. It's more expensive to produce food that can have that USDA Organic sticker slapped on it, so they have to charge more for it. It's not a conspiracy to keep the healthy food down, it's that the farmers have to make a profit.

MacMadame
06-19-2012, 04:23 PM
Speaking of Italian food, I remember going to a Macaroni Grill with a bunch of women all on Weight Watchers. 1 cup of pasta was 1 point back then and they taught us that 1 cup was about the size of our fist. So I'm holding my fist up to this pasta and 2.5-3 fists clearly fit in the bowl but there were gaps. So I'm trying to decide if the pasta was 1 or 2 points and I ask the others.... how many points do you think this is (we all ordered the same ting) and they all said ONE POINT!

I'm thinking: are you kidding me? There is no way this is 50 calories worth of pasta.

This is but one of the ways that people kid themselves about what they are eating IME.

BlueRidge
06-19-2012, 04:47 PM
Why Weíre Fat: Itís the Government and Wall Streetís Fault, Marion Nestle Says
(http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/why-fat-government-wall-street-fault-marion-nestle-175708490.html)

Sorry, haven't been able to read all the posts on this thread but I came across this article and wondered what people thought of this particular statement:


. "Today, in contrast to the early 1980s, it is socially acceptable to eat in more places, more frequently and in larger amounts, and for children to regularly consume fast foods, snacks and sodas," she writes.

Was it really different in the early 1980s? Doesn't seem so to me, but apparently obesity rates have risen greatly since then.

Thought this was interesting:


"People perceive fruits and vegetables as being very expensive," she says. "And in fact they are relatively because since 1980 the index cost of fruits and vegetables has gone up by 40 percent. Whereas the index price of sodas and snack foods have gone down by 20 to 30 percent. So there's something wrong with the way we're pricing foods, and that has a lot to do with government policies. I think we need to create a society that makes it easier for people to eat more healthfully."

..

manhn
06-19-2012, 04:56 PM
I don't know about the 80s. I was a child of the 80s and I loved me some Big Macs. I remember always going to McDonald's for birthday parties. Older relatives who see me now after a long time apart always recall me wanting to eat a Big Mac. Oh, so funny!

Actually, I find kids these days more well versed in food than I was as a kid. They are more willing to eat foods from different cultures, for example (sushi, pho, butter chicken), than I ever was.

BlueRidge
06-19-2012, 04:57 PM
I sure don't recall there being any lack of junk food in the '70s!

Stormy
06-19-2012, 04:59 PM
Actually, I find kids these days more well versed in food than I was as a kid. They are more willing to eat foods from different cultures, for example (sushi, pho, butter chicken), than I ever was.

I don't disagree, but are these the same kids who are regularly getting dinner at McDonalds? Somehow I don't think the parents of these kids are also introducing them to sushi.

cruisin
06-19-2012, 05:53 PM
Sorry, haven't been able to read all the posts on this thread but I came across this article and wondered what people thought of this particular statement:

"Today, in contrast to the early 1980s, it is socially acceptable to eat in more places, more frequently and in larger amounts, and for children to regularly consume fast foods, snacks and sodas," she writes.

Was it really different in the early 1980s? Doesn't seem so to me, but apparently obesity rates have risen greatly since then.

Hmm, I would agree that it is more acceptable to eat in non-traditional places. I know that in most stores, in the '80s, you would not be allowed in with any sort of food or drink. Now many stores are more flexible, especially with Starbucks products. I also think we tend to eat more on the go, than we used to - In the car, walking to or from an appointment. Which does two things - more fast food and packaged food, food we can eat with our fingers, and not as much waiting to eat when we get to a more appropriate place. I think the whole "super size" is more recent than the '80s, but I could be wrong.

I know there was plenty of fast food around in the '70s & '80s. There was plenty of it before that. I do think, however, that fast food used to be thought of as a treat. I can remember when we would go to White Castle once or twice during the summer (when I was a kid). That was a "special occasion", not the norm. MacDonalds was around, but we rarely went there. But, the world is different too. Far fewer women worked outside of the home. So, they had the time to shop and prepare more well balanced meals. But, now, more women have careers outside the home - which is a good thing (don't get me wrong). But, when both parents are working and the kids have multiple after school activities, fast food seems to answer a time problem.

I also wonder if school lunches play a part in children's weight. From articles I have read, school lunches are not always the most nutritious or low calorie options. Far fewer kids bring their lunch to school. And many who do, get sandwiches and a bag of chips instead of a piece of fruit. Juice boxes are not the best thing for kids either. Most are not just juice, they have corn syrup in them. Parents may intellectually know that the juice boxes are no better for their kids than sodas, but emotionally - it's fruit, so it's better.

michiruwater
06-19-2012, 06:09 PM
School lunches in the US are pretty atrocious, though Michelle Obama's trying.

sk8er1964
06-19-2012, 06:19 PM
But, the world is different too. Far fewer women worked outside of the home. So, they had the time to shop and prepare more well balanced meals. But, now, more women have careers outside the home - which is a good thing (don't get me wrong). But, when both parents are working and the kids have multiple after school activities, fast food seems to answer a time problem.

This, plus a lot more sedentary activities for children. More xbox and tv, less running around in the streets playing tag or climbing trees.

Southpaw
06-19-2012, 06:56 PM
When I was a kid in the 70s/80s there wasn't a fast food joint on every corner like we have now. Before cable tv there weren't a lot of commercials for this stuff, either. So yeah, there was junk food around, I certainly ate my fair share of it. But there wasn't a non-stop, in-your-face marketing drive like there is today. Por ejemplo...since I rarely watch tv I had no idea that Taco Bell is now offering a Dorito Taco. Well, the other day I was in a bar sipping a nice little cocktail and I saw the commercial for the Dorito Taco for the first time and suddenly I was like "Hmmm, maybe I should try that...." I haven't. Yet. :shuffle: But that's just me and that's just one time. I can imagine all the crap I'd be eating if I were being pounded with juicy succulent ads for it all the time.

I think the 80s was the turning point with this because of the explosion of cable television and the sudden plethora of cheaper ad space. Who among us has never once asked "Where's the Beef?" OK, maybe Tinami, but who else?

Bev Johnston
06-19-2012, 07:19 PM
He ate 1 6" sub a day and also put in a ton of exercise. His name is Jared....that whole campaign was a little misleading.

While subs aren't the most healthy choice, he went from eating several XL pizzas/day to (I believe) two 6" turkey subs. He was bound to lose weight from the reduction in calories alone. Add the exercise, and it just keeps coming off. Good for him, I say, but I would probably gain weight if I ate two 6" subs/day.

I grew up in the 70's/80's and never even tried McDonald's food until I was 12. It was just something we didn't do, and there were plenty of commercials on tv for fast food back then, too. I thought McDonald's burgers were pretty awful and didn't eat another one till high school. To this day, I still think they taste awful.

michiruwater
06-19-2012, 07:32 PM
Whenever I go to Subway, which is the only fast food restaurant I'll eat at (and rarely), I get a veggie sub with a bunch of veggies on whole wheat, with vinegar as the dressing. I freaking love vinegar. It's quite tasty, and their nutritional values list the veggie sub on whole wheat at 230 calories. The vegetables (no olives for me, I don't really like olives on most things) and vinegar would add a negligible amount of additional calories. So, guessing it's around 250 calories, for lunch that's really not that much.