[Split from this thread (http://www.sorcerers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=45279). -Tal]

One thing I noticed whilst in America is just how MASSIVE everything is. The cars, the buildings, roads, streets, people. Everything is just supersized.

Plus, it's easy to put on loads of weight in America. Most places you can pay like, 5 or 6 dollars (which is like 3 quid - nothing) and get all-you-can-eat and everything is fatty. I asked for a salad in one place and even that was covered in a greasy looking fatty dressing. Even the drinks aren't kind to you. Most places do free refills on drinks, you just pay for the cup then get what you want. I had about 5 cups of cola in one place before I realised I was getting hair on my teeth, and visibly getting fatter! The portions are huge as well.

Having said that though, its a great place to visit. The people are friendly and welcoming (unless that's just for British people) and there's loads to do. I want to go back to America, and will do as soon as I have the money. I'd love to spend about a year or two there, just travelling around. Buy a camper van or something and just bum across the whole of America.

Just watch your waistline whilst there - it's easy to get fat!

Plus, it's easy to put on loads of weight in America. Most places you can pay like, 5 or 6 dollars (which is like 3 quid - nothing) and get all-you-can-eat and everything is fatty.

Ha. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black... British cuisine isn't exactly the epitome of healthy eating, either.

Watch what you eat and how MUCH you eat and you won't gain weight anywhere. 5 cups of cola in one place? You were doing it to yourself, my friend.

Of course I wasn't. A gun was held to my head at the time.... [snip].

I said it was easy to put on weight, because it's hard to find healthy food and fatty stuff is really cheap. As I say, I bought a salad in one place and even that was greasy. The portions are loads bigger than anywhere else I've been, and I've been loads of places around the world. Is that so hard to fathom? Why kick off about it?

BA - the problem may actually be in your choice of restaurant. When you are talking about a place with free refills where you do the refilling and it is all-you-can-eat, you are talking about close to the bottom of the barrel (I'd put McDonalds below such a place).

Those places serve cheap food at cheap prices and, it turns out, cheap food is generally not all that good for you.

You are much better served finding a nicer restaurant with a better menu. It may cost more, but the food will taste better and be better for you.

Even if you are on a tight budget, there are still better places to eat than an all-you-can-eat buffet.

For example, there are chain places like Daphnes (Greek food) or Corner Bakery (salads, soups, sandwiches and the like), that offer healthy food (I picked them because they are close to where I work and I go there a lot when I do not have client lunches).

However, I do agree that our portions are generally enormous. Most of the battle is avoiding the desire to eat everything in front of you. I know a couple of people who take half their meal when it is served and immediately put it in a "to-go" container so that they can't eat the whole thing.

BA - the problem may actually be in your choice of restaurant. When you are talking about a place with free refills where you do the refilling and it is all-you-can-eat, you are talking about close to the bottom of the barrel (I'd put McDonalds below such a place).

Those places serve cheap food at cheap prices and, it turns out, cheap food is generally not all that good for you.

You are much better served finding a nicer restaurant with a better menu. It may cost more, but the food will taste better and be better for you.

Even if you are on a tight budget, there are still better places to eat than an all-you-can-eat buffet.

For example, there are chain places like Daphnes (Greek food) or Corner Bakery (salads, soups, sandwiches and the like), that offer healthy food (I picked them because they are close to where I work and I go there a lot when I do not have client lunches).

However, I do agree that our portions are generally enormous. Most of the battle is avoiding the desire to eat everything in front of you. I know a couple of people who take half their meal when it is served and immediately put it in a "to-go" container so that they can't eat the whole thing.

Christ, drop it. LOL! Nutters. I said portions are bigger than anywhere else and fatty food is cheaper. Travel about a bit and you'll probably notice the same. Everywhere I went in America, practically everything on the menu was fatty. That's my personal experience. Jesus, if I knew this was going to kick off, I'd have never have said anything!

BA, you most likely chose to eat at restaurants that you are familiar with (naturally) and that would most likely be fast food places. Unfortunately, one of our biggest exports is greasy cuisine. So, I don't blame you. I don't know how long ago you were here, but in recent years there has been a HUGE movement by fast food joints to clean up their act and give healthier options on the menu. Nowadays, "super-sizing" is not standard and neither are fires as a side. And this is coming from a guy that rather despises fast food. Anyway, I think it is rather unfair to characterize all of our food as greasy because that is absolutely not the case.

As far as the backlash goes against your comments go, we Americans are pretty well versed now at putting the blame for weight gain where it belongs after several lawsuits were brought against major fast food companies in recent years. The plaintiffs felt that it was McD’s fault for why they were fat and not their own eating habits. A total load of BS. So, yeah, you stepped in it there, mate. :D

Sorry, but as an American, I agree with BA. My wife is a prof at a university, so we know a lot of other professors and students from Europe, Asia, South America, etc. All of them consistently mention two things about American restaurants (not just fast food): huge portions, high proportions of fat and/or oil. Not to say you can't find healthy food here or that non-American food is a paragon of health, but it's a pretty accurate assessment.

As far as American fast food cleaning up its act, it's driven (dragged kicking and screaming is more accurate) by two main factors. One is the overnight success of Subway with its (relatively) healthy menu selection and marketing based on same. The second is the threat of litigation or regulation--NYC was considering banning restaurants from using trans-fats in their food. Let's not pretend that Hardee's is going to give up their 1400 calorie, 100 fat gram burger any time soon.

I'm surprised that any American would disagree with the assessment that portions are too big and fat content is too high at our restaurants. American nutritionists have been saying exactly that since as far back as the 1980's. Even our nicer restaurants tend to be quite fatty and often have too-large portions, which has been documented time and time again, so I really don't understand why you folks are getting offended.

They are huge portions and are excessively fatty, but I wouldn't have it any other way :yum:

And even scarier, some places, where the food is in over sized portions, still leaves some people hungry after they leave sot hey still need to go for junk food or high sugar deserts!

My family, most of the meals are meat and potatoes or pasta. I'm over 300 lbs, and with a bad back, excercise is unlikely. I guess I may be doomed to be oversized...

Doesn't it depend on where in the US you live? I have a feeling that people in some states, or even in some parts of states, are more health-conscious than other places.

My own experiences (from Raleigh/Durham, NC) is that portions in restaurants were large compared to Europe and that they were not exactly low fat.

BA is spot on. It appears it is indeed the portion sizing that makes the difference. Make no mistake, French quisine is anything but not fat, yet still the French on an average are thinner, despite their fondness for it. They also eat longer when they eat.

Two links:
Increasing portion sizes in American diets: More calories, more obesity (http://www.foodpolitics.com/pdf/increasportsize.pdf)
Smaller Food Portions May Explain The 'French Paradox' Of Rich Foods And A Svelte Population (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/030825073029.htm)

As for who's to blame: America is no nanny state, and I presume that the restaurants simply reacted on the market and sold what sold - larger menues, with the argument that they offer more for the same money. Of course that sells. And so it appears that man is still an animal, who, like my tomcat, eats when he can eat.

Health advocates blaming the food industry are, individual responsibility aside, right to some point - not caring for the health of the customer even when he is behaving stupid is poor sevice. Good bartenders and tavern wenches refuse more drinks when the customer has had enough. Try that in a restaurant: "No Sir, you've had enough considering your waistline!" Sizing is way more subtle, especially when considering that US service personnel is pretty dependent on tips.

While at it, how much does one as a polite person give as a tip in the US?

While at it, how much does one as a polite person give as a tip in the US?Depends on where you eat. At a fast food restaurant and some short order joints, not only is tipping unnecessary, but it is actually discouraged. At a buffet where you serve yourself and the waiter just brings you (non-alcoholic) drinks, it's customary to tip a couple bucks. In most other restaurants, the customary tip is 15-20%.

Doesn't it depend on where in the US you live? I have a feeling that people in some states, or even in some parts of states, are more health-conscious than other places.
Heh, yes. I grew up in California and lived in the Bay Area for about 10 years. A lot of good restaurants, health food places, and vegetarian menu items (wife and I are both vegetarians). We moved to Durham for two years and were simply amazed at the prolific use of pork and bacon--it was hard to even find a vegetarian salad because odds were it had pork of some type in it. It's the same deal now that we're in Kentucky. I always thought comedians were exaggerating when they talked about Southern food being laced with pork, but apparently not. :)

This is why we don't eat at restaurants very often. My wife and I are healthy eaters (some would say health nuts). When we eat out, it is what we consider a cheat. We eat at nice places, but the food is still not as healthy as what we make at home.

What's wrong with pork? And while I'm at it... what's wrong with some fat in foods? The marbled beef is the best for a reason -- the fat in the beef adds flavor, makes it more tender, and keeps it moist. The fat is the reason porterhouse steaks and ribeyes are so good. I go out to eat for taste. If I eat a high calorie meal, I just adjust the next meal to lower calories or cut out snacks.

Most pork products actually have less fat than beef. It's a very healthy meal (a nice meal of grilled pork chops or pork loin).

The real killer in restaurants is the deep fried foods. I go to a restaurant and have my potato mashed or baked -- this has a fraction of the fat (especially of you avoid butter) and nearly half the calories as a side of fries. Here's a tip for people eating out: The deep fried ocra or deep fried green beans are not healthy. Sure you get a serving of veggies, but you also get about a hundred grams of fat. The blooming onion? That's 2,000 whopping calories of mainly fat.

Pick and choose what you eat. Yeah, the fried stuff tastes great, so eat that in moderation. Even McDonald's serves a salad and grilled chicken.

Two more words: Portion control. This is the responsibility of the eater, not the restaurant.

T2,
McD's salad sauce is sugar ladden and iirc results in the 'light' and 'healthy' salad to have about as much calories as a burger....

But I totally agree about portion control. When you eat the 'Lumberjack Dinner' but have an office job, don't be too surprised when you are not able to burn all the calories you eat. And I don't think that there are some evil fat meals (like some of my favourites) but rather (lack of) activities and a lifestyle that don't match their nutritiveness. That means practically, you can still eat them, albeit in smaller portions. Which is just fine with me.

And I agree about pork. In fact, while Pork tends to be fat, and takes longer to digest, it's nutritive content is easily absorbed, and is so it especially well suited for little children.

I disagree about deep fried veggies, T2. You're not talking about deep fried veggies but about prepared and typically pre-cooked deep fried food (like 'side modules'). Yuck. Big difference. When vegetables are left untreated (beans normally don't include so much fat), as good deep frozen vegetables ought to be, and just frozen right after harvesting and preparation (typically only a few hours later) they can be just excellent, (counterintuitively) even better and healthier than some of the fresh stuff you can get that can lie around for days.

I'm surprised that any American would disagree with the assessment that portions are too big and fat content is too high at our restaurants. American nutritionists have been saying exactly that since as far back as the 1980's. Even our nicer restaurants tend to be quite fatty and often have too-large portions, which has been documented time and time again, so I really don't understand why you folks are getting offended.

I certainly hope you aren't referring to me, because in no way was I saying that I disagree that portions at restaurants are too big and too fatty. (Hint: they do that on PURPOSE! Eek!) And since nutritionists have been saying it since the ‘80s, it’s not exactly a secret!

What I was correcting BA on was the attitude that he had that it was all but impossible to eat anything here that wasn't fatty and greasy. I pointed out that even at McDonalds, the bastion of grease itself, it is now possible to avoid complete fat overload to some extent if you order right and eat right (like not putting all the dressing on your salad).

Furthermore, portion control is within everybody's ...er, control no matter how much food the restaurant gives you. There is no call to eat a 16 oz. steak, a loaded baked potato, a salad with fatty ranch dressing, vegetables steamed to a limp blob of dull-colored mush piled with more butter, and 3 or 4 rolls in one sitting. That could easily be 2 if not 3 portions. It's up to the individual to know how much is good to eat and not pin it on the restaurant. All of those things I mentioned could be healthy if ordered correctly and most restaurants will accommodate you.

Bottom line: at restaurants you choose where you eat, what you eat, and how much you eat. You are not forced to eat anything you don’t want.

Furthermore, portion control is within everybody's ...er, control no matter how much food the restaurant gives you. There is no call to eat a 16 oz. steak, a loaded baked potato, a salad with fatty ranch dressing, vegetables steamed to a limp blob of dull-colored mush piled with more butter, and 3 or 4 rolls in one sitting. That could easily be 2 if not 3 portions. It's up to the individual to know how much is good to eat and not pin it on the restaurant. All of those things I mentioned could be healthy if ordered correctly and most restaurants will accommodate you.

Bottom line: at restaurants you choose where you eat, what you eat, and how much you eat. You are not forced to eat anything you don’t want.

These are very good points.

It's up to the individual to know how much is good to eat and not pin it on the restaurant.Yes? Isn't that somewhat of slim smugness? :heh: I for my part am 1,80m @ 73 kg, just to dispel any suspicions :heh:

I was taught as a child to always clean up my plate, and I was served richly, after all I had to grow and so forth. It was considered sort of impolite to not eat up, and not doing so would get me admonished, usually by my grandma. Because the rests on the plate would go to waste, and - my parents both had experienced how it is to not have enough food after the war - one doesn't waste food, period. Which in turn made it somewhat hard for me to not eat up even when I wasn't hungry. I am still very reluctant to throw food away.

What I was correcting BA on was the attitude that he had that it was all but impossible to eat anything here that wasn't fatty and greasy. I pointed out that even at McDonalds, the bastion of grease itself, it is now possible to avoid complete fat overload to some extent if you order right and eat right (like not putting all the dressing on your salad).The problem, there, is that a garden salad with no dressing is not a meal. Eating healthy doesn't need to suck. Further, while it's possible to eat healthy at a restaurant, it generally requires knowing in advance exactly how the food is cooked. All too often, what would be a healthy meal at home can be a nutritional disaster when you go out. Think that pasta marinara over at Olive Garden is healthy? You wouldn't after you saw all the butter, cheese, and oil they put in the pasta and the sauce. The problem with that, though, is that you probably aren't going to taste the extra 600 calories they sneak into your meal. The only thing you're going to notice is that it tastes better than usual.

Of course, sugar and fat taste great. They are taste amplifiers, much like glutamate. That's why they are used.

Drew,

Since you quoted my post it is clear to see that I did not suggest having a salad with no dressing. I said not to use all the dressing. Dressings tend to have a lot of fat and in the low fat case, excess sodium makes up for it. Going healthy by ordering a salad and then loading it up with a bad dressing is counterproductive. But using a little bit doesn't kill it.

A real, healthy meal can be made from a salad. A lot of restaurants offer a lean, grilled meat like salmon or chicken on a number of salads. Go with a vinagrette rather than a ceasar dressing and you are well on your way to a healthy meal that doesn't suck, either. I have on occasion asked how certain items on the menu are prepared. There's your advance knowledge. I assumed once that the green beans on one place's menu would be a good choice. They came out in a small cup that was filled with beans, butter and bacon. Freaking nasty. I learned my lesson there.

Giles, I wasn't taking issue with the whole of your post...just a part. I kind of doubt you've ever ordered a McDonald's salad before. I have, and can assure you that, unless you want to pick out the egg yolks and cheese piece by piece, you aren't getting a healthy or filling meal. To be fair, it's been 7 years since I've last stepped into a McDonalds, so the salads may have changed since then.

I do feel the need, though, to re-iterate that a salad is not a meal. Sure, you might get enough fruit and vegetable servings (if the salad is made with an eclectic enough selection of greens, tomatoes, etc), and there is sometimes enough protein, you really aren't getting enough grains. Perhaps it is just my bias as a vegetarian of 12 years (vegan for the last 7) who's been forced more times than I care to discuss to attempt to subsist on restaurant salads while traveling or dining with co-workers, but salad is an appetizer, not a meal. Not only is it impossible to get "complete" nutrition with a salad ordered from a restaurant, but it also won't have enough whole grains or legumes to actually be filling.

I for one am glad to live in a country where I can enjoy whatever I want to eat. Whether it is healthy or non-healthy it is my choice to eat it. In the immortal words of Al Bundy, "C'mon kids, let's go clog an artery."

Bottom line: at restaurants you choose where you eat, what you eat, and how much you eat. You are not forced to eat anything you don’t want.

That may be the bottom line for you, but for most that is not realistic. There are so many chemicals and additives to food these days that the average consumer has to be a chemist to figure out what her/she is getting (probably T2 could figure out what's going on with that stuff). IMO, restaurants don't even remotely care about the health of their customers. Like you commented, it's all about the "bottom line" for most of them. It would not even surprise me to discover that the industry added chemicals to their food to make it more "addictive."

There's a foolproof remedy for that: Don't eat in restaurants if you don't trust their food.

Making the food addictive wouldn't work for a restaurant because the addicts could just eat at another restaurant next time they felt the crave.

Chandos,
the industry added chemicals to their food to make it more "addictive."They do. How was that with the aroma substances added to cigarettes? What about glutamate in crisps? Ever had the feeling you couldn't stop eating until the package is empty? I know that very well. In my presence crisps evaporate.

I know that there is at least one large food company adding a slight vanilla flavour to all of their products, from the baby food to ketchup in order to 'prime' them. Idea is to get the customer used to the trademark taste in childhood, so he won't get astray later. And they certainly aren't the only ones. And that's not just restaurant food, but stuff you get on the shelf. What do they have in the US? Aromated milk? Sugared milk? So much for milk being natural and good for you.

Monty,
getting the folks primed, would mean, when combined with good marketing, they they will not go to another restaurant when they feel the crave. To the contrary.

getting the folks primed, would mean, when combined with good marketing, they they will not go to another restaurant when they feel the crave.

Exactly.

If I knew that a restaurant had deliberately tried to turn me into an addict, I would stay a mile clear of that restaurant, no matter how strong the cravings, and make sure to tell everybody. But maybe it's just me who's unusually vengeful...

Are you seriously suggesting that restaurants and food producers add addictive drugs (strongly addictive - maybe not like opiates, but in the order of nicotine) to their food? Or do I read too much into your statement?

Monty,If I knew that a restaurant had deliberately tried to turn me into an addictPoint is, you don't. From what I read the vanilla taste in ketchup for instance is not consciously notable, but it is there. And it was added with the deliberate intent of priming the customer, and it apparently works.Are you seriously suggesting that restaurants and food producers add addictive drugs ... to their food? Or do I read too much into your statement?Only insofar as you speak of addictive drugs. No, they don't want to hurt their customers, but they sure have a keen interest in keeping them 'loyal to the brand' to sell more of their product and retain or expand their market share. That's what those tobacco additives in cigarettes were all about. And that's what glutamate in crisps is all about - it tastes great, and it makes you (want to) eat more. I know the effect first hand :D

Do you really think they spend millions on branding, taste concepts, priming and marketing - but do not consciously decide what they put into their food? Of course the choice of ingredients it is deliberate. And of course the pursuit of concepts like taste branding and customer priming is completely deliberate.

It would not even surprise me to discover that the industry added chemicals to their food to make it more "addictive."

Oh, they do. At least the Colonel does-- in his chicken. He puts an addictive chemical in it that makes you crave it fortnightly! :D

In my experience, the only food that I've ever craved in kimchi. Now aint that odd?

Ragusa, additives to enhance flavor and additives to extract more nicotine out of cigarettes (and thereby make them more addictive) are orders of magnitude apart. To put these things on the same level is simply silly.

Only as far as directly harmful physical effects are concerned. The principle is the same. You 'amplify' your food. There's sugar, salt, and glutamate and in that league indeed, nicotine boosters are something else.

But except for that? What about the idea of biochemical customer binding through food additives in general?

You feed your baby with vanilla-ized or otherwise 'branded' baby food and it will then grow up and unconsciously prefer these products in later life? That's totally ok because it isn't harmful - you don't get sick of it - you just end up being primed for a certain brand? That's quite something else than just making tasty food.

Yes, it doesn't cause additiction as far as we know today, but it is still something I find sleazy and questionable - just like amplifying cigs to hook smokers on it. Where the circle closes.

Nicotine is way more harmful than vanilla (or glutamate or salt or sugar), so the comparison between cigarettes on one side and baby food on the other is somewhat stretched.

Besides, since vanilla is hardly as addictive as nicotine, trying to get your customers hooked on vanilla is quite a long shot. Also, don't forget that the competition might also be using the same additives as yourself, so you can still lose the customers even if they should become addicted. And if this scheme is revealed to the press (by bad luck, research, or a disgruntled ex-employee), the negative exposure could easily kill your business.

In short, it is easier and safer to win and retain customers by simply offering them a good quality product at a fair price.

Yesterday I made myself a huge hamburger fried in bacon grease for dinner :yum: That's how I do it at home, so the fattyness at restaurants and the like aren't a problem for me.

The attitude that the restaurants are responsible for an individuals lack of restraint is really tragic. This is just another example of a troubling trend. The restaurants do NOT make people fat. People who don't take responsibility for what they put in their bodies make themselves fat.

I used to eat McDogfood, Taco Smell, Kentucky Fried Pigeon, etc. I was unhealthy, got sick frequently, and was physically weak. I made the conscious decision to change my ways. Started eating healthy and working out regularly. I didn't blame the restaurant industry for my poor health, I blamed me.

Blaming the restaurants is a cop out. If people took personal responsibility for the very important, fundamental act of eating, then the restaurants would have to change. This is capitalism. Demand is being supplied. If people demanded something else (healthy food), it would be supplied.

There are a number of problems contributing to an overweight society here in America:

1.)Lack of excercise. Hardly anyone does any real, regular exercise anymore, and those that do usually see results. Of course, most of them then stop and loose the results and then wonder why...

2.)Larger portion sizes. This really is the case, and we are trained, both by parents and the 'this child is starving in Africa, don't throw away your food' commercials, to finish our meals. Add to that a consumer mentality, so getting more is as much of a deal as getting it at a lower price.

3.)Fatty cooking. Let's face it, there's a lot of this here, even in places that you wouldn't expect it.

4.)A snack-by-habit society. The snack food industry has done well, and there's a reason for it. Seriously, how many of you Americans out there have ever tried to fast for a day. You'll learn quickly how much you eat by habit.

5.)High-Fructose Corn Syrup. This one may catch many of you by suprise, and it is my personal favorite devil on the list. You see, corn syrup is a more-or-less tasteless volumizing additive in anything you can add it to here, and it all seems to be high-fructose corn syrup. Now what is high-fructose about it? Well, normal corn syrup is chalk full of complex carbohydrates, basically large chemicals that are zip-chords of simple sugars (fructose in this case). As I understand it, your body takes these and breaks the sugars off one at a time as needed, keeping the rest of the molecule in circulation in your metabolism much longer. High-fructose corn syrup, however, has been 'pre-digested' by artifical enzymes and processes so all the zip-chords have been zipped already and the fructose is floating free. This fructose hits your system like about 10K oranges all at once, and these simple sugars are either quickly used or immediately shunted to fat cells for storage. Guess which happens to most. And this stuff is pervasive, too. You'll find it in just about everything that has an ingredients list. I know, my mother-in-law used to be very overweight until she went on a high-fructose corn syrup free diet. Combined with a number of other weight-loss efforts, it has worked wonderfully, but she really has to hunt and peck to find something that doesn't have it in there.

JF,
it's not blaming the restaurants. I do eat in such places, although rather rarely, and I am slim. Yes, self restraint, moderation and exercise all play a great role, as does education about healthy nutrition and so forth.

But, and there we are again, I do not like to absolve the businesses producing food and selling it from any responsibility despite their very deliberate priming techniques. It's just the consumer who can't handle the food he gets served! Sorry, in my ears that does sound just a wee bit too convenient (and self serving) to be true. It is not that McD and their ilk are innocent victims falling prey to frivolous lawsuits.

PS: If the product, it's ingredients and the portion sizing can't be handled properly by an increasing number of customers, it is .... maybe unsuitable, maybe just a bad product?

Ragusa,

First, I applaud your healthy lifestyle. It is nice to know that we share this.

I agree with you, it is clearly a bad product. There is no disagreement there. That is what the market seems to be demanding. If people wouldn't buy it, the restaurants wouldn't sell it. Remember, restuarants are businesses. They want to make money. How do you make money? By selling something that is in demand. You frame my position as "It's the consumer who can't handle the food he has been served!". I look at it from the other direction. The consumer can't handle food he has demanded. Remember, the restaurants are not forcing anyone to eat anything. The person going into Olive Garden and pigging out on the "bottomless" pasta bowl could just have easily gone to the market, purchased some fresh vegetables and fish, and made a healthy meal. I speak as a reformed fast/junk food eater.

We can dance around this forever. It is a fundamental difference of opinion. I believe that an individual needs to take personal responsibility. You appear to believe that an individual is not responsible for their own choice in this case.

The attitude that the restaurants are responsible for an individuals lack of restraint is really tragic.

Well, Jack, I respectfully disagree. Before I was married, I used to room with a bartender at one of the more popular restaurants here in H-Town. We also went to college together because U of H has a huge restaurant program (Conrad Hilton school), on campus, which he attended (but I was off in an entirely different program). Nevertheless, you think they would have taught him a few things about responsibility. Often times I used to sit a his bar after I got off work at the electronics store and watched him and his partners pump massive amounts of alcohol into their partons for hours, many of them regulars - in the old days they were called "Bar Flies." I used to ask him if he had any regrets for all the customers who would leave his bar compteley drunk and drive off into whatever fate awaited them. He would just shrug his shoulders and say, "As long as they tip me well, the rest is their problem."

The managers of his restaurant did not care much either, because they were in the back counting all the cash they were taking in at the bar. Let me ask you this: what is the first thing they offer you when you sit down at a table? If you guessed a beer, a margarita, or a bottle of wine, you win the big prize of the day.

But we were speaking of "tragedy," yes? We were supposed to be all boo-hooing for all the big restaurant owners and corporations who can't help it that their patrons show such a "lack of restraint." Ah, several years later I was with the same electronics store when one of our managers turned up missing one morning. It turned out that he was in the hospital, ICU, and would probably never be returning, because the night before he had left a restaurant, and yes, drunk, and had an "accident." He was somewhat lucky, because even though he had broken half the bones in his body, the family of four he had crashed into were not so lucky, not even the two young children who were burned to death in the car he ran into. There is tragedy, and then there is "tragedy."

I know that I am somewhat off a little here, becuase the topic was "fatty food." But I wonder if the same group of people who could care less about real "tragedy," could really care about the few thousand extra calories in what they serve their customers.

JF,
that's not absolving the individual of his responsibility to take care in his own affairs, but rather a refusal to give the producer of a crappy product a pass. You need two for that game. For the mythical powers of the market to work with the described (desired?) corrective effect, it requires equal knowledge on both sides. Now we two have more than a hunch that this is bad food. Swell. That lacking in many others, there is always someone biting the proverbial grease ball burger.

What the market rocks at is the correction after the fact, at which point damage has been done. That's a general rule. Needless to say, I don't share your faith in the market. Put more pointedly, I don't see the harm of the uninformed or stupid as the acceptable price (they have) to pay for the corrective powers of the market to take effect.

As for knowledge ("harm of the uninformed"), the nutritional data for most chain restaurants is available on request. At the very least it is available on their website. And to say that people don't know that McDonalds is unhealthy is a poor excuse. If they don't "know" then it is denial. It's not like nobody is telling people that eating this stuff is unhealthy. To say that they are uninformed is intellectually dishonest.

As for the market: Have you seen the commercials that Burger King is running now where they use a hidden camera and tell people that they have stopped serving the Whopper? As the commercial says, people freaked. The demand is driving the market.

Besides, you're not going to convince a recovering addict that anything but personal responsibility is the answer to this problem. People aren't going to stop abusing substances (and yes, filling your body with unhealthy junk is substance abuse) until they make the individual decision to do so. When adults make the choice to be self destructive, then they are responsible.

JF,you're not going to convince a recovering addictthat's it! You're biased :p :shake:Have you seen the commercials that Burger King is running now where they use a hidden camera and tell people that they have stopped serving the Whopper? As the commercial says, people freaked.Even though Ronald Reagan told his country's youths, just say no, how come, I wonder, that despite common sense (drugs = bad) and well meaning pleas for abstinence there still drug consumption, and a perceived need for the DEA? Because demand drives the market?

The dose makes the poison (with all undue modesty, what a particularly witty phrase in this context, and what a smooth lead over!). Personally I feel very uneasy when, as US conservatives and neo-liberals like like to do, 'the market' is being revered like a natural force, like wind is worshipped by a pagan tribe. What about a hurricane?

And as for getting nutritional data on request only, what do they have to hide? :eek: And what else is there they don't tell us even when we ask? :eek:

I guess I have to ask you, what is the solution? Businesses are not going to stop selling a popular product. Their customers would merely go to a place that gave them what they wanted. That is what I mean by the demand driving the market.

I would like to see nutrional information on menus (A bit hard for fast food places, but many post them next to the counter). That would be interesting. My guess is people may initially be shocked, but would likely continue eating it anyway. Nutritional information is put on food in the supermarket and it doesn't stop people from buying and consuming unhealthy food.

My gut feeling tells me that it would be best to purge the planet of Starbucks, McD and the like, especially Starbucks (because they are evil, spread like the flu, and their coffee sucks, bad). But not Burger King, and Taco Bell (said to be great, never checked). I'm a little subjective I guess.

On a more serious note, forcing them to show their nutritive data prominently would be a great thing. And improve health education, especially as far as the benefits of healthy nutrition and exercise are concerned.
But in the end you're right, it's, pathological obesity aside, a choice to be fat. It's like I wrote initially, like my tomcat, people eat much because they can and because it tastes well. Eating feels good. It makes you feel good (so does sport, albeit in a different way, and not instantly). The stuff they serve at fast food chains is so saturated with aroma and boosters like sugar, glutamate and whatever that it is hard for the stuff to not taste great. And of course that sells. And selling such food cheap amplifies that. Plus, many people have never learned to eat sensibly, and probably never will.

So, yes, it's unhealthy and stupid to eat it, but it's in demand, shall we just let the market decide what's good for us? Don't we all know what's best for us? Point is, many people don't, and we likely can't change that.

The main problem is that healthy food is as a rule more expensive than any kind of unhealthy food. Anything that's better for you winds up costing you more - significantly, in most cases. Until this situation is reversed, it's utopian to expect that the majority of people will eat healthily. Most people can't afford to pay extra for healthier food, even if they would prefer it. And many aren't prepared to pay more simply on principle, because they can get better tasting food cheaper.

So just blaming it all on people for eating unhealthy food is unfair. At least here, by far the largest part of the population can't afford to pay up to a third more for every food product considered more healthy than the cheaper alternative.

Most people can't afford to eat in restaurants regularly anyway. What they buy in supermarkets is far more significant to the debate overall.

Incidentally, saying that "it's a choice to be fat" is really ignorant. Do you know any fat people who will tell you that they're fat because they enjoy being fat? Or that they would rather be fat than slim? I certainly don't know any.

You can only make such generalizing statements when the majority of the people involved will confirm your supposition. That really isn't the case as far as being overweight goes. "Being fat" can't be quit like smoking and drinking can - one fell swoop and you're done.

So whenever I see statements like "it's a choice to be fat" I'm just reminded of especially European prejudices against overweight people, which have little little basis in reality. There are dozens of possible contributing factors to being overweight, but choice is by far the last one of the possible ones.

Tal,
as for being fat being a choice ... :o what's silly about it is that it is exactly what I mocked JF for :bang: I trapped myself there - and that is laying the blame on the consumers. That is my pun, and I accept your scolding. I stand corrected. I do think that when you're overweight a statement like: I beat it and so can you, just say no to being overweight! does indeed defy average experience. I wasn mocking that only two posts ago, and forgot already.

I see what a pain it has been in some of my relatives of mine to lose unhealthy weight. It's not easy. Talk about changing your life. A very hard thing to do.

As for the market: Have you seen the commercials that Burger King is running now where they use a hidden camera and tell people that they have stopped serving the Whopper? As the commercial says, people freaked. The demand is driving the market.What? You realize that they get to pick and choose which reactions they show, right? How many hundreds or thousands of people did they have to go through, do you think, before they came up with the appropriate reactions? Are we absolutely sure that the people weren't actors?

If you're going to bring up commercials, I prefer the one where the accountant asks a guy for a receipt for a meal from a burger joint. The guy says, "Can I just photocopy my butt?" The rest is visual, and absolutely priceless.

THe most addictive substance in the world is... SALT. Once you have it once, you want it forever - this is why baby food has NO added salt.

Something I've always wondered... why is it necessary for a company to support multiple product lines: original, low salt, fat free, etc? Why not phase out the least nutritious version over time? Product changes don't all have to be a repeat of the New Coke fiasco.

Tal - I think your statement about asking a fat person if they want to be fat is as oversimplified as the very statement you are taking to task. In general (and, as Ragusa said, ignoring the pathological obese who have a physical reason for being so fat), fat people are fat because they eat more calories than they burn. It's pretty simple.

So, when you ask a fat person if he or she wants to be fat, he or she will, of course, say hell no. But if you ask that person why he or she needs to have two double-doubles, large fries, and regular sweetened sodas several times a week, he or she will say something that reveals that there is a strong disconnect here. I would venture to say that most fat people, while they intellectually understand that they eat too much of food that is not particularly good for them, cannot really fathom the devastation that their meals make of their bodies.

We all know the basics, but I have found that most fat people simply refuse to acknowledge that they are in control. They could eat better, they choose not to. They could exercise more, they choose not to. Everyone is so used to seeing instantaneous results in other parts of life that they don't understand that they need to commit to a lifestyle makeover in order to see real results and, further, that they are not going to really see appreciable results for weeks. This also explains why extreme fad diets are so popular and so useless. People commit to them, see great results in a short time, but have to change what they eat in order to avoid malnutrition on the diet, which almost always leads to regression in eating habits and weight gain that usually exceeds what is lost. There are books written on this situation.

What you often see is either a blame situation (my parents fed me too much and that is the way I eat and what my body is used to, so I cannot change), or, what is becoming more and more prevalent, the cop-out of turning to surgical procedures in lieu of life-style alteration. Liposuction and stomach stapling, etc. The real problem is that these mechanisms don't change the underlying pathology in the way the person eats and exercises. They are still going to go on eating as they have, although in the case of the stomach stapling, significantly less of it. That might ultimately help, but it is so extreme that it boggles the mind that anyone who is less than 100 pounds overweight would even consider it.

All in all, they do choose to be fat or to remain fat. They just don't confront their choice honestly.

I'm fat. I don't see it as a choice, but the consequence of a series of other choices I routinely make. For years I was rather sedentary, working only when I had to, and excercising even less. The Marijuana I used to smoke made it possible to remain sedentary for longer periods of time, as well as making me crave empty calories (not that I cared back then). When I finally gave up the weed, I still found that I would have periods where I was hyperactive, so I still got some excercise.

However since I hurt my back, excercise and work have become difficult, and avoided where possible, and in the last year, my financial situation has been better, so I've spent more on junk food (which shows).

All of this is a choice, habits formed. What I need to do is find other habits that can replace these bad habits without causing too much pain...

We all know the basics, but I have found that most fat people simply refuse to acknowledge that they are in control. They could eat better, they choose not to. They could exercise more, they choose not to. Everyone is so used to seeing instantaneous results in other parts of life that they don't understand that they need to commit to a lifestyle makeover in order to see real results and, further, that they are not going to really see appreciable results for weeks. This also explains why extreme fad diets are so popular and so useless. People commit to them, see great results in a short time, but have to change what they eat in order to avoid malnutrition on the diet, which almost always leads to regression in eating habits and weight gain that usually exceeds what is lost. There are books written on this situation.

Well, saying how people are "in control" with so much conviction seems rather naive to me. Technically, sure, we're all in control of ourselves. But I'm convinced that you and I both know a number of people who have tried to quit smoking unsuccessfully, for example. All it takes there is stopping the action of smoking and coping with it. It doesn't take a lifestyle makeover, it doesn't require daily exercise, it doesn't require watching every calorie, it doesn't require a bunch of steps to make sure they don't relapse... and they STILL can't do it. I know people who have tried to stop smoking 10+ times with the best intents, but couldn't do it. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Now compare attempts at stopping with an addiction that is not connected with an inherent biological function like eating, and overfeeding itself. Truth be told, there is no comparison. If stopping smoking is tough for many people, all the required steps to "stop being fat" are infinitely more challenging (especially for people with genetic predisposition to it). And if so many people can't stop smoking, you're probably getting an idea why so many, MANY more people can't "stop being fat". If these people were really in control, as you say, stopping smoking or stopping being fat would be as easy as making a mental note. It isn't.

How would you characterize a smoker who's tried to quit 5+ times, but has always relapsed? Or a dieter who's been on 10+ diets and always relapsed?

Not in control would be a good start, as far as I'm concerned. You can argue about the reasons, but not the end result. I've seen pretty much all kinds of addictions first hand, and I can tell you that food addiction (we can call it that) is by far the hardest to kick. Because unlike with all the other kinds of addiction, you can't just stop doing it, because in this case it'd mean stopping eating, which we naturally can't do.

Imagine if alcohol or smoking addiction couldn't be stopped as it is in 99.9% of cases, by making sure that the addict never touches alcohol or cigarettes again. It's a proven fact that practically no alcohol addict can get back to just having a drink now and then. If they don't want to climb into the bottle again, they simply can't touch alcohol ever again.

However, "stopping" a food addiction requires exactly what's impossible for alcoholics - to keep doing the same act that drives them into addiction, just in moderation. This doesn't work with the overwhelming majority of alcoholics. Why do you think it should work with food addicts?

You can call all of them weak, sure... but that's not really helping, and I don't think that it's fair either.

What you often see is either a blame situation (my parents fed me too much and that is the way I eat and what my body is used to, so I cannot change), or, what is becoming more and more prevalent, the cop-out of turning to surgical procedures in lieu of life-style alteration. Liposuction and stomach stapling, etc. The real problem is that these mechanisms don't change the underlying pathology in the way the person eats and exercises. They are still going to go on eating as they have, although in the case of the stomach stapling, significantly less of it. That might ultimately help, but it is so extreme that it boggles the mind that anyone who is less than 100 pounds overweight would even consider it.

I cannot change without even trying, or I cannot change despite trying to do my best a number of times? This last one is much more realistic in most such situations in my experience. And it does make a lot of difference. If the situation was really as simplified as you too try to make it here (people just stay fat because they're too lazy to try stopping being fat), I'd be in full agreement with you. However, that is practically never the real situation, just the perceived behaviour attributed to fat people by the rest of the society, especially by the part that has never had to deal with being fat. It's pretty much a "Let them eat cake!" type of statement in my opinion.

Being able to understand this I can also distinguish between smokers who enjoy smoking and wouldn't stop doing it for the world (and would defend their right to smoke to the end), and smokers who equally enjoy it, but have at least made attempts at stopping, even if they haven't actually managed to go the whole way yet (but want to!).

All in all, they do choose to be fat or to remain fat. They just don't confront their choice honestly.

That is the popular belief, certainly... and if the U.S. legal system operated on that presumption, 90% of cases would never make it to court because the full fault could be attributed before hearing anyone out. If every murderer could just be executed on the basis that they chose to take someone's life it'd make things a hell of a lot simpler.

I think dmc pointed out very well the responsibility issue. Culinary culture has a great part in play for why people are fat and American culinary culture seems to largely favour a use of excessive fat and sugar as well as oversized portions, some countries have similar trends and others have not. Changing this will be about changing how people think first and then what they eat.

Point of the matter is that I don't see why you can't eat a mcdonalds hamburger every now and then if you enjoy it? Ragusa&co are probably biased in the regard that they actually don't like the food so they'll be happy to be rid of it but I'm pretty sure they too eat some stuff which is probably is not too healthy and they'd not wish to give up for simply because there are people getting fat by eating excessive amounts of it.

Fighting obesity should come with endorsing healthy food, possibly with tax reliefs and also providing education. To be honest the likelyhood that either of these will help people allready overweight or obese is quite slim but atleast hopefully it will do something to prevent the constant increase of overweight and obese people. I think using the carrot rather than the stick is the better way of adjusting the markets in a more healthy direction.

The main problem is that healthy food is as a rule more expensive than any kind of unhealthy food. Anything that's better for you winds up costing you more - significantly, in most cases.

No offence, Tal, but what on earth are you talking about? Simple fresh in-season fruit and vegetables are miles cheaper than any fatty restaurant foods. A carrot costs about 5c and an apple costs about 20c and a potato is about 10c. A packet of rolled oats that costs about $2 will keep you in porridge for breakfast for a month.

Compare that to a meal at a middle of the road 'family' restaurant that costs about $20 a head and there is no contest. Eating healthily and eating economically are not mutually exclusive.

Tal - I just don't think we are going to agree here. You equate overeating with physical addictions and I equate it with mental addictions. While I know that there is an element of physical craving that goes along with eating certain types of food, to me, the largest component of overeating involves a mental addiction. People eat because of a ton of reasons having nothing to do with physical hunger and I am just not willing to give them a pass and say "It's not your fault" when I think, at the base level, it is.

It might not be their fault that, as children, they learned to eat when they are feeling depressed, but (and I am talking about adults here) if they had intellectual honesty, they would know that they react to feeling depressed by overeating and would either accept the choice or take measures to sublimate the eating urge into something more productive, like, say, exercising. (Caveat - I am also not talking about true psychological depression.)

Just so you know, I say this from experience with a couple of close friends who were rather overweight but, recognizing what was going on, took charge of it and completely changed the way they ate and exercised. I also have a professional colleague who knows exactly what he is doing to himself but, as he loves to eat crap and doesn't care that much about the ramifications, is probably 80-100 pounds overweight with no intention of doing anything about it. He acknowledges that he is almost certainly going to die earlier that he should, but says that he doesn't care and is at peace with the fact that he is fat and going to stay that way.

No offence, Tal, but what on earth are you talking about? Simple fresh in-season fruit and vegetables are miles cheaper than any fatty restaurant foods. A carrot costs about 5c and an apple costs about 20c and a potato is about 10c. A packet of rolled oats that costs about $2 will keep you in porridge for breakfast for a month.

Compare that to a meal at a middle of the road 'family' restaurant that costs about $20 a head and there is no contest. Eating healthily and eating economically are not mutually exclusive.

No offence Harbourboy, but most people's idea of a healthy diet is not going vegan. We are talking basic foodstuffs like milk, meat, bread, etc. Fruit and vegetables are part of every diet, but most people don't want to live off just that. I wasn't talking about any restaurant food either; I even specifically mentioned that most people can't afford to eat in restaurants on a regular basis (at least not here, anyway). So I don't know what you're going on about...

Tal - I just don't think we are going to agree here. You equate overeating with physical addictions and I equate it with mental addictions. While I know that there is an element of physical craving that goes along with eating certain types of food, to me, the largest component of overeating involves a mental addiction. People eat because of a ton of reasons having nothing to do with physical hunger and I am just not willing to give them a pass and say "It's not your fault" when I think, at the base level, it is.

But you could say that about any addiction, really. I don't think that any addiction is purely physical or purely mental. I'd say that most are an intertwined mix of both. What about people addicted to sex?

It might not be their fault that, as children, they learned to eat when they are feeling depressed, but (and I am talking about adults here) if they had intellectual honesty, they would know that they react to feeling depressed by overeating and would either accept the choice or take measures to sublimate the eating urge into something more productive, like, say, exercising. (Caveat - I am also not talking about true psychological depression.)

I don't think that you're addressing anything that I wrote, just repeating your stance...

Just so you know, I say this from experience with a couple of close friends who were rather overweight but, recognizing what was going on, took charge of it and completely changed the way they ate and exercised. I also have a professional colleague who knows exactly what he is doing to himself but, as he loves to eat crap and doesn't care that much about the ramifications, is probably 80-100 pounds overweight with no intention of doing anything about it. He acknowledges that he is almost certainly going to die earlier that he should, but says that he doesn't care and is at peace with the fact that he is fat and going to stay that way.

I write from similar experience myself too - I've been able to observe it first-hand for years, within my own family, so I'm probably a bit more familiar with it. And we're not talking about people just slightly overweight (which is hardly ever an issue that requires a lifestyle makeover), but people fat enough to require a prolonged diet AND a change of lifestyle. Slimming itself is usually not the hardest part, it's the "change of lifestyle" that most people can't do. That phrase is thrown around these days like it's a simple thing. Oh, he or she is too fat? Well, they just need to change their lifestyle! Infinitely easier said than done. We're all creatures of habit, and many people can't just break off with the lifestyle they've been living most of their life and start living differently just like that.

To emphasize again, I'm not defending anyone that is like your colleague who is consciously not doing anything about his health condition, but people who try to and fail, for one reason or another. The problem is that the society in general treats all of them equally derisively.

Tal,
I guess one key problem people have in reconciling eating with it being an addiction is that you naturally need to eat to live. You don't eat, you die. It's not that humans are so much addicted to food, they are dependent on food for their survival. It's some unlucky wording, IMO. It might help to better focus if we split the issue up a bit.

We can carve out basically two fields: If we speek of a 'food addiction' and resulting overweight, what do we mean? If you count pathological anomalities like bulimic eating or odd metabolism as one field, what remains is habits (personal/ cultural), and unconscious behaviour.

And in this latter field 'food addiction' is at it's most basic and from an objective point of view excess consumption first of all - overweight people do indeed simply eating more than they burn - which still leaves a great deal of room for the why's.

No offence Harbourboy, but most people's idea of a healthy diet is not going vegan. We are talking basic foodstuffs like milk, meat, bread, etc. Fruit and vegetables are part of every diet, but most people don't want to live off just that.

I can make a big pot of chicken soup that lasts a week for a fraction of the cost of any sort of processed unhealthy fast food. I am still adamant that eating healthy basic food is miles cheaper than eating lazy modern unhealthy food.

How about growing your own vegetables?

Harborboy,I am still adamant that eating healthy basic food is miles cheaper than eating lazy modern unhealthy food.And rightly so. In Germany you pay to get fed at some fast food shop some 4-ish Euro for a basic dinner (one burger, large coke, fries) and you probably want something extra, so add some more 3-ish Euro. For two persons, double that. And that's for one meal.

For that money I can buy the ingredients to cook about two decent 2-person dinners, meat and veggies and a dish, or wine instead of the dish, and will probably have something left for one more (excess potatoes, onions, carrots etc).

We had home grown veggies at my parents. My father was an agricultural engineer, and a farmer at heart. Home grown veggies are the best :yum: well, if you can fend off those bloody pigeons (hint: a pigeon will keep an enterprising, crafty cat happy and well fed for a day, for free).

You find quite a lot of people who just don't know how many vegetables look in their natural form. How can they let them out of school not knowing that? I am always appalled when I see that. When I have children I'll make sure they don't grow up like that. Little story: An aunt of mine sells farm goods at a local market, and one well off lady came along referring to the sticks (http://seeds.thompson-morgan.com/pix/m/seeds/6/696.jpg) of bruxelles sprouts (no, they do not look like marbles (http://obst-gemuese.bitpalast.net/images/objects/rosenkohl.jpg)) as 'nicely decorated'. She, in cold blood, returned that because of that they cost extra :lol: God, was I laughing :shake: She left a happy customer.

I can make a big pot of chicken soup that lasts a week..... No, you can't! If you actually knew how fast meat starts to go bad, you would never even think of eating left-over meat products more than a day or two at most after cooking it...let alone a week. This assumes that, as soon as it was taken off the heat, you immediately refrigerated it. If it sat at room temperature for as little as half an hour before refrigeration, you've cut down the time it'll still be good to a matter of hours. Sure, you can eat it, but it's a terrible idea and the odds of not getting some sort of food poisoning are extraordinarily low.

On top of what Harbs said... My dad maintains an allotment and grows loads of stuff. He only owns a small section of an area, but grows enough potatoes, tomatoes, rubarb cabbages, lettuce etc etc that he ends up giving most of it away. That's after he's given me and a my sister some. It's neither hard work, nor expensive to grow vegetables.

Tal,
I guess one key problem people have in reconciling eating with it being an addiction is that you naturally need to eat to live. You don't eat, you die. It's not that humans are so much addicted to food, they are dependent on food for their survival. It's some unlucky wording, IMO. It might help to better focus if we split the issue up a bit.

Actually, I'm not talking about eating being an addiction, but overeating being an addiction that develops from the biological need to eat.

I can make a big pot of chicken soup that lasts a week for a fraction of the cost of any sort of processed unhealthy fast food. I am still adamant that eating healthy basic food is miles cheaper than eating lazy modern unhealthy food.

How about growing your own vegetables?

Ok, I'm not squeamish when it comes to eating leftovers (though rarely over a day old), but not even I could eat the same thing more than three times in a row, let alone all week. And Drew has summed up the health risks, so I don't need to.

Also, most people who can't afford to buy healthier food don't live in houses with gardens, but blocks of flats or apartments in the middle of the concrete jungle.

Let's leave aside the fact that today it costs you more to grow your own vegetables than to buy them. Seriously, our own garden is operating at a loss if you count all the expenses and hard work that goes into it and compare it with the prices of vegetables in stores. We only do it because it's supposedly healthier, but given the factory in the vicinity, that assumption is quite questionable.

It's neither hard work, nor expensive to grow vegetables.

Let me guess, you've never done it yourself, have you? Well, I can tell you from personal experience that nothing comes from nothing, and you only get as much back from any garden as you put into it. Every well-maintained garden amounts to a lot of work and a considerable cost.

Let me guess, you've never done it yourself, have you? Well, I can tell you from personal experience that nothing comes from nothing, and you only get as much back from any garden as you put into it. Every well-maintained garden amounts to a lot of work and a considerable cost.

Yes, I guess I should have used the word 'overly'. Although my dad works full time, goes to the gym, swimming and running clubs 4 days a week and still finds time to keep a really well maintained garden. He says it's a piece of piss, but then I guess he really knows what he's doing.

No, you can't!

That's right, HB. You only imagine that you've been eating that chicken for a week. But you are right, there are always heathly alternatives, if you are resourceful enough.

But Tal is also right: The solutions are not that simple, nor are they cheap. It's easy to say just do X and Y, and you will get Z. But getting there requires research, thoughtful meal planning and extra expense, that for many is just not very practical. One can say that we have to "eat to live," but by the time you are finished with the proper alternatives you find that you are really "living to eat" instead. And Tal is also right that to have a healthy diet should not have to be that difficult. The market encourges the quick and easy - the mostly unhealthy - solutions. I mean, the basics should not have to be rocket science for anyone.


What about people addicted to sex?

They have more fun. :roll:

Sure, you can eat it, but it's a terrible idea and the odds of not getting some sort of food poisoning are extraordinarily low.

Really? I've made soup plenty of times and even forgotten it for as much as half a day on the stove before putting to the refrigerator. I make this sort of soup about once a month and guess what? Never in my life have I had any sort of food poisoning and usually eat that soup for four days or so, neither have I ever gotten any serious stomach aches about it. I also know several fellow students that do the very same thing, and this is with minced meat probably the meat with most inherent bacteria and the one that should be going bad the fastest.

To be honest healthy food is often more expensive, soups may not be but more often than not it's easier and cheaper to buy some instant freezed food which you warm up in the microwave. I do that myself sometime but I've tried to limit it to once a week max. And even then it's mostly about the time and no the expenses, and I'm living on student budget meaning that I'm not exactly swimming in money.

Really? I've made soup plenty of times and even forgotten it for as much as half a day on the stove before putting to the refrigerator. I make this sort of soup about once a month and guess what? Never in my life have I had any sort of food poisoning and usually eat that soup for four days or so, neither have I ever gotten any serious stomach aches about it.Did you know that 90% of "flu" cases are actually food poisoning? Did you know that most of the time you get diarrhea or constipation without any other symptoms, it's usually food poisoning? Not all food poisoning puts you in the hospital or kills you, and most people suffering from food poisoning fail to recognize it as such. Nevertheless, food poisoning does weaken your immune system and can cause a host of unpleasant symptoms which are generally attributed to some other ailment. Further, in much the same way that you don't develop symptoms every time you are exposed to the cold virus (although your body still fights the virus), you won't necessarily have any symptoms every time you get food poisoning. Symptoms or no, you still just ate tainted food, though.

Of course, if you are immediately moving your soup to the freezer (rather than the refrigerator) after taking it off the heat, it can last quite long. While a pain in the ass to re-heat from the freezer, it is at least safe to do it this way.

I'm very rarely sick or have the flu, usually once a year or so and usually it's associated with the autnum epidemics season when everyone seems to have it. So unless my food poisonings are periodically set to arise at that period and everyone else too has it then, I'm not very convinced that it's a food poisoning I'm having. Also I don't really care if the food is "tainted" or not when there's seemingly very little consequences from eating it.

@Morgoroth: Whatever floats your boat, man. I, for one, would prefer to avoid unnecessary risks where I can, but if rolling the dice makes you happy, knock yourself out.

SNIP

Of course, if you are immediately moving your soup to the freezer (rather than the refrigerator) after taking it off the heat, it can last quite long. While a pain in the ass to re-heat from the freezer, it is at least safe to do it this way.

Actually, that is a VERY unsafe thing to do. Putting food fresh from the stove into either the refrigerator or the freezer actually shortens the life of the items that are already in cold storage. The space is designed to maintain foods at a stable temperature, not to quickly bring items down to taht temperature. Dumping a large pot quantity of food into the cold space has the effect of raising the temperature of the cold space until such time as equilibrium can be restored. Until that happens, all other items are at risk for accelerated bacteria growth.

The best practice is to chill your new item in isolation from things that can spoil - such as in a cooler full of ice, or a wintertime porch or garage. We happen to have a spare fridge that we use for only sealed beverages, and that works nicely (as long as there's no milk there).

@Tal: Do you remember Sprite? She doesn't buy vegetables for much of the year, because the yard of her urban home produces enough to feed her family of four. She manages to do this while working on her doctoral thesis. Gardening doesn't have to be a chore.

People don't understand the idea of a "treat" anymore, IMO. The idea of "delayed gratification" is out of societal favor, and expanding waistlines and deteriorating health are only some of the effects. :geezer: :pope:

Thanks, Rally. I didn't know about that.

Rallymama, we grow enough vegetables for 6 people, so we end up giving a lot of them to grandparents, relatives, friends, etc. But there's only so much you can have on every garden of manageable size, so it's unrealistic to expect everyone could just grow everything they need. There's also the problem of bad seed, weather conditions, various pests, etc. Just weeding our garden in the season takes hours every few days, let alone everything else. Most people who have never tended a garden seem to have very idealized notions of gardening being pure bliss requiring little time and effort and always producing excellent results. The reality is just slightly different.

The fact that Sprite (or anyone else) manages to do it while working on a doctoral thesis doesn't really prove anything aside from the fact this it obviously still leaves them with enough time to do it. No work is a chore if you enjoy doing it, and many people do gardening as a hobby. But not everyone enjoys gardening and everything connected with it. Most people don't have the time for it either, that's why it's mostly in the domain of retirees and housewives.

@Morgoroth: Whatever floats your boat, man. I, for one, would prefer to avoid unnecessary risks where I can, but if rolling the dice makes you happy, knock yourself out.

What I claim is that you exaggerate the risks otherwise something bad would have allready happened to me or someone I know. Surprisingly nothing bad has happened. If the situation was as bad as you seem to imply then the probabilities would have allready kicked in a caused something to happen. Of course I don't doubt the bacteria amount increases and that there is a possibility of symptoms following but you are greatly exaggerating the odds and the consequences.

I'm also the kind of guy who learns through expirience, when something bad happens I'll stop and food poisonings are rarely lethal so the odds are that it won't kill me. So as soon my habit kicks me in the head I'm sure to stop. It has not done so for four or five years now so I won't be holding my breath. ;)

Also the gardening part is a very unrealistic option for people who can't afford healthy food otherwise. Poor people rarely do gardening for one simple reason. They don't have land. People who are poor rarely own their own house with a big backyard, it's more likely that they live in a flat without any personal yardspace. Making gardening a very distant choice for them, this also applies for most people living in bigger cities.

But Tal is also right: The solutions are not that simple, nor are they cheap.

Things must work differently in your country then because where I live, it is most definitely much much much much much cheaper to eat healthy fresh food than processed fast food. If I wanted to slash my food bill in half, I would do it by buying loads more fresh vegetables from the local grocer and meat from the local butcher and cook big hearty meals at home.

All the talk about food poisoning is a bit off-topic because the point I was trying to make was the same as Ragusa and Barmy.

I would agree that growing your own food isn't always that economical these days, but certain things are good to grow. Examples:
- fresh herbs (e.g. rosemary, thyme, basil). They cost about $1 as a small plant in a pot and they grow like crazy and you just snip bits off as you need them. Your $1 lasts almost forever and is miles cheaper than paying $4 for a packet of dried herbs every few months.
- lettuce: 50c for a packet of lettuce leave seeds, which will result in about 30 bags of prepacked lettuce at $4 each. Saving of $119.50, less the cost of water and dirt.

How ever you look at it, fresh vegetables and meat are miles cheaper than biscuits and chips and lollies and TV dinners and all the other unhealthy rubbish that people eat, especially when those same people also pop loads of vitamin pills to supplement their health, that would be unnecessary if they ate real normal basic food to start off with.

OK, this point has been made before but I want to re-iterate it. The problem is not localized to food choices, the problem is a lifestyle one that is bigger than just food consumption. I don't know about Europe but I know that a prevailing North American attitude is that "time is money", and many of us con ourselves into believing that we are "too busy" to cook our own food from first principles. We certainly don't want to take all that time to simmer something. We want something that we can pop into the microwave and eat, all within 15 minutes or less. Then we have time to other important things like watch Seinfeld reruns that we've seen 12 times anyway (pardon the sarcasm, this is self criticism, please bear that in mind.)

Anyhow, even better is the concept of grabbing something at a restaurant on the way home. No dishes, no cleanup, easy peasy nice and cheesy. Because of the focus on getting the most for our buck, we want things "supersized", missing the logical point that getting quality for your buck is more important than getting quantity for your buck.

All of that being said, there are many North Americans who have taken steps to get off that wagon -- lots of people are eating healthier. This is why I don't buy into the idea that fast food chains are somehow magically sapping our will to choose and are therefore responsible for my bad eating habits. They are supplying demand, plain and simple. Many people still want that fast, greasy food, and the restaurants service those people. Do I think the market will self-correct itself? Not really. Do I think that tons of government regulation of the restaurant industry will solve the problem? Nope! Educating the people and offering them incentives to eat healthier foods would be more effective in the long run than strong arm legal tactics that are punitive in nature.

2 little asides before I sign off. The first is that in Calgary, AB, they have banned trans fats in all restaurants. While I applaud the intentions, the implementation method here is flawed, totalitarian, and will not work. The second is a little anecdote that I heard, I wish I could remember the source, but the upshot was that Canadian soldiers serving in Afghanistan complained to their superiors about the food that American companies were serving the soldiers. Those American companies were apprently based in the South and most of the things they served were fried and greasy -- fried chicken being a staple. The Canadians liked it for a little while but eventually were getting sick of it. I don't know how this story ended or if the Canucks got some different foods in their diet. I just thought it was funny.

Things must work differently in your country then because where I live, it is most definitely much much much much much cheaper to eat healthy fresh food than processed fast food. If I wanted to slash my food bill in half, I would do it by buying loads more fresh vegetables from the local grocer and meat from the local butcher and cook big hearty meals at home.
I find exactly the same. Eating (reasonably) healthy is certainly the way to keep the budget down.

While my wife and I are by no means obese, we are overweight (we could probably both stand to lose between 5 and 10 Kg), and with a new baby at home, I can't remember the last time we went out to eat. (Actually, that's not completely true, I do know it was sometime prior to August 14, 2007.) I do almost all of the cooking now (only Mrs. Idiot has a boob, and thus Mini-Fop is much more attached to her - in both the literal and metaphoric sense of the word). I do not cook TV dinners, or frozen, pre-packaged meals. A typical dinner consists of some type of meat - usually chicken, a starch, and a vegetable (usually fresh). I make more than we need because whatever I cook for dinner also serves as lunch for the following day. So even if you do all of the right things, sometimes you still don't maintain a perfect waistline.

As far as leftovers are concerned, while I do not think I have ever eaten leftovers that were 7 days old, I certainly have eaten things that were a few days old, and I have never got sick from them. This very week I'm eating beef stew that I cooked on Sunday. It was lunch the past two days, and I probably have enough for one more lunch left in the fridge at home. AFAIK, I've never had food poisoning ever. While I have no idea what the exact amount of time can elapse and it is still safe to eat something, I'm inclined to believe that it is at least a few days, simply based on personal experience. I'm sure bacteria begin to grow on things quite quickly, but will not thoroughly reheating something kill off the bacteria?

...will not thoroughly reheating something kill off the bacteria?Yes.

Besides, that's what your immune system is for; you are constantly exposed to microorganisms in the environment, and not all of them are bad; in fact some are good for you (e.g. lactobacillus).

Obesity is becoming a result of what seems to be almost automatic behaviours in many people. To overcome this means forcing yourself into changing these habits. It means making different choices. Maybe put a TV in the kitchen, so you can cook real food while that Seinfeld rerun is on (That way if it's something you may not want to watch whilt eating, it's okay because it will be over by the time you eat). Maybe it's putting the candy across the room from your computer desk so you have to walk across the room for a candy when you want one (And you can limit yourself to how many you eat at a time, rather than having the whole one pound bag disappear within 48 hours). Maybe it's keeping the drinks down the hall from where you'd be sitting (let's face it, how much is there to do that you pretty much have to be sitting for these days?) so you at least get some excercise? It's little things, but we have to figure them out and do them. I just have to get back in the habit of usig the stepper machine that's beside my TV chair in the room I watch hockey in...

The military really enforced my belief that food needs to be seriously tainted in order for you to get food poisoning. Some of the food had been left standing for hours before we came to because of lat schedule and still no one got food poisoning, and when in the woods even the slightest sign of diarrhea means the end of your trip in the woods. Of course cases of food poisoning in the military are relatively common since the food made in the forests are rarely of a great hygienic standard, not to mention that washing your dishes is practically impossible, but still the human body seems to tolerate a surprisingly bad hygienic standard for food without apparent consequences.

Does eating bacteria-laden food constitute eating meat? Is this against vegetarian and unber-vegetarian guidlines? Just curious.

Does eating bacteria-laden food constitute eating meat?Of course it doesn't. There is bacteria in everything. Bacteria is neither sentient nor capable of suffering, and microbiologists do not even consider bacteria to be a living entity. In other words, broccoli is actually more alive than bacteria. Since vegetarians have no qualms about eating broccoli (unless they just don't like it), they won't be worried about bacteria either. While you'll find the occasional Jainist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism) who avoids root vegetables and the like because of the high presence of microbial life found in them, this is actually the exception (even among Jainists, these people are considered extreme)...not the rule. :)

The most important thing with meat is that it is fresh when you cook or fry or roast it. After that, it is good for a while. One of the worst things to happen with supermarket meat is that the cooling chain has been interrupted, so the meat melts on transport and freezes again and so forth, or that it is stored too warm, and of course, too long. This causes meat to be really bad, and storing leftovers for a few days in the fridge should be much less a concern.

Yeah I remember a scandal in Sweden a few months ago when stores were actually selling old minced meat by just replacing the labels with new expiration dates. More than a few individual stores seemed to be guilty of this.

That story about the meat with replaced expiration labels is utterly repulsive, Morgoroth. I'd bet that sort of $ first, customer health later sort of attitude is not limited to Sweden, sadly enough . . .

As for food poisoning, I've often been of the opinion that in many cases (not all, mind you) there is another factor involved in the person getting sick. I've left casseroles and cooked hamburger on the stove overnight and eaten it the next day and not had a problem. However, When my 80+ year old father has done this sort of thing, he gets sick. I'd say that's because of his age and otherwise weakening constitution rather than JUST the food.

I also wanted to mention about putting food straight from the oven into the freezer, unless you're talking about REALLY hot food and a really inefficient freezer, I cannot imagine that the hot food would be able to thaw the food already in a freezer to such a degree that the frozen food would be in the "danger zone" for contamination. At the same time, though, it sounds kind of silly to me to move the food that quickly.

While you'll find the occasional Jainist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism) who avoids root vegetables ...

I assume Jains don't eat root vegetables, since to obtain the root of a plant requires you to kill the plant. Now there's a philosophy I can respect. As for the rest of you evil plant killers, fie on ye I say! :mad:

Is mandrake root fair game? :grin:

I assume Jains don't eat root vegetables, since to obtain the root of a plant requires you to kill the plant. Now there's a philosophy I can respect. As for the rest of you evil plant killers, fie on ye I say! :mad:You have to kill the plant for more than just root vegetables. The reason some Jainists avoid them is the high concentration of microbial life found in them.

Mississippi is prepared to do something about obese people not being able to control what they put into their own mouths:

Mississippi Legislature Introduces Bill that Would Ban Restaurants from Serving the Obese (http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/4524)

With nearly one-third of the population of Mississippi now classified as "obese", the state is understandably concerned about encouraging its residents to start shedding some pounds. A group of legislators in Mississippi have introduced a new bill that takes aim at solving this issue - HB 282, which would make it illegal for restaurants to serve fat people.

According to HB 282, the health department could revoke the health dept. license of any restaurant, fast-food or otherwise, if it is caught serving food to anyone who meets the department's criteria of being "obese."

That's ridiculous.

That REALLY is... something like that passing in the Land of the Free? You've got to be kidding me...

But apparently it's true (http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/2008/pdf/history/HB/HB0282.xml). It just seems unbelievable to me... There are states in the U.S. that won't prohibit smoking in public places, which is detrimental to the smoker and everyone else, but Mississippi is now going to control whether an individual is allowed to be served in restaurants? What's next, separate bathrooms for the obese and non-obese? What the ...?!

1. It'll never pass.
2. Were it to pass, there's no way to enforce it.

This is nothing but another desperate attempt to call attention to the problem.

And then there's this approach... (http://www.mcall.com/news/custom/offbeat/sns-ap-odd-buffet-ban,0,3043882,print.story?coll=sns-offbeat-headlines)

The guy didn't expect it to become a law; as Rally said it is an attempt to call attention to the problem.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20080204/ca_pr_on_od/oddity_no_serve_law

He says he never even expected his plan to become law. Representative John Read says he was "trying to shed a little light on the number one problem in Mississippi." Read, a Republican, acknowledges that at 5-foot-11 and 230 pounds, he'd probably have a tough time under his own bill.

Hilarious! Even the sponsor would be banned! :lol:

But how many people could you stop? And how many restaurants would actually want to ban their best customers?

And how many restaurants would actually want to ban their best customers?Pretty much every restaurant that has an all you can eat buffet...

Good point, Drew...

I've always thought all-one-can eat buffets were (unless all they were serving was raw unseasoned lettuce and brown rice crackers) a bad idea anyway.
Ingesting a small amount of nasties is good for your immune system. Quite a few new studies point to excessive cleanliness as a factor in several (pretty nasty) illnesses.
Regarding the edibility of soup, the easiest way to make sure it keeps is to spoil it from the beginning. Round here, the most common way to do that is to add bran vinegar (verjus, alternatively) and lovage to it. The acid in the vinegar and the mildly antiseptic compounds in the lovage act as natural preservers. Of course, the taste seems a bit odd for a first time eater. Heavily spicing it (with fresh pungent herbs like tarragon) also helps increase edibility 'lifespan'.

It comes down to an ideological argument. Are people responsible for what they do? Or is the state responsible for everything? Now, I'm putting it into overly simplistic terms, but that's kind of what it boils down to. I most certainly DO NOT want the government telling me what I can and cannot eat. Drugs are one thing that can have societal consequences, but food is different by an order of magnitude. If I serve someone food, it is not my responsibility to tell them when to stop eating that food.

Now in the case of the all you can eat place, they're just trying to turn a profit! I know some people eat more than "X" amount of food and some people eat less, but let's be realistic here and say that if a fellow consistantly eats 4 times "X" he's hurting the business and under those terms they have every right to ask the guy to not return, as it is not a good business situation for the owners. By brother and his friends were asked not to come back to an all you can eat place in Japan for this very reason.

Food is not actually that much different, if you eat enough to become obese the probability for all sorts of health issues increases and may lead to disablities and make you unable to work normally. This probably leads to the state having to take care of you anyhow. Now you might argue that the state should not be responsible to do so but I for some reason very much dislike the idea of leaving people to die with their disabilities even if they were caused by their own obsessions.

I hardly think my post advocated letting obese people die in the street without any help. By the same token, do you really relish the idea of the government coming at you with calipers and telling you what to eat?