[futurepilot]

Originally Posted by Sunder

Maybe I'm one of those misled people. Can you explain to me how something like a grilled chicken ceaser salad is worse than one of their burgers nutritionally? I'm sure due to the water injection/processing on the grilled chicken and the salad dressing? - this salad is inferior to other places salads; but I'm not sold on a McDonalds hamburger (or equally priced specialty burger) is somehow better.

Chicken caesar with dressing: 390 calories.

hamburger: 250 calories.

[CDB]

Originally Posted by futurepilot

the government has already so far outstepped its initial boundries that we must now work within what we have created.

No, we must push it back behind those boundries because they were there for a reason.

Many years ago cigarette companies had doctors hawking their goods, and people thought they were safe. They didnt know that in addition to tobacco they were getting 100+ carcinogens.

Same idea applys, if the actual nutrition content isnt required to be displayed for ALL food, then why should it be displayed on some?

It's not being displayed on all food, it's affecting chain restaurants. But cigarettes are a perfect analogy, because as with cigarettes this is likely only the first move. Since the purported goal of this legislation is a healthier public and not a more informed public, when it fails to cut down on the amount of fatties out there in any significant way the next step will be, as with cigarettes, behavioral modification through the law. First they'll let us know what we're eating, next they'll be telling us what we can and can't eat. The reason for this is because any other type of legislation will always fail because what's at issue is a question of values. A lot of people just don't give enough of a damn about their health to change their behavior. As such, they will continue to make bad decisions no matter how well informed they are or could be, and the government will continually encroach on everyone's lives with legislation to make them healthier.

I dont think the average consumer expects a simple plate of nachos, out at an average restaurant, to be 1500+ calories, when you can make it at home for less than 500.

I think it's the average consumer's job to protect themselves on that level, as it's not hard to find out that information. No one is forcing them to eat the crap, no one is defrauding them or lying to them.

[futurepilot]

Originally Posted by CDB

No, we must push it back behind those boundries because they were there for a reason.

no one is defrauding them or lying to them.

Not likely too happen, check out Eisenhowers speach on the military industrial complex. We can no more control our government today, than we can turn back the hands of time. But what we can do is bend it to our will, the gov. realizes that it must relent to at least some of the demands of the people to prevent all out anarchy.

I feel like "low-calorie" "No carbs" "all natural", etc is defrauding people. The advertisers use these buzzwords to suggest food is healthy, when it in most cases its not.

Im just saying that a little information goes a long way. And regulation doesnt mean prohibition. If i wanted to, right now i could get AAS, drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, or an uzi. But Im an informed consumer and im able to base my decisions on the information i have. Ive been blessed with access the internet, a public library card, and schools that take an interest in me. Without the ability to learn, how would one make an educated decision?

[CDB]

Originally Posted by futurepilot

Not likely too happen, check out Eisenhowers speach on the military industrial complex. We can no more control our government today, than we can turn back the hands of time. But what we can do is bend it to our will,

No, we can't. The government serves the will of special interest groups. That's why we pay three times the world price for sugar and why corporate farms rake in massive amounts of our money. 'The people' have near diddly squat of control when it comes to the government. Special interests have the time and energy to concentrate on getting their backs scratched, the costs of doing so are diffuse and hard to pin down, and the people in general pay the bill because they can't reasonably be expected to study and oppose every special interest group.

I feel like "low-calorie" "No carbs" "all natural", etc is defrauding people. The advertisers use these buzzwords to suggest food is healthy, when it in most cases its not.

So? If they are not lying who cares? Do you want the government to tell everyone that Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny aren't real too?

Im just saying that a little information goes a long way. And regulation doesnt mean prohibition.

I think you extraordinarily naive if you think this is as far as it will go.

Without the ability to learn, how would one make an educated decision?

The government is not the only, or best way, to learn things. In fact due to its political nature it's often the worst source from which to learn anything.

[dsade]

Anyone else notice the automatic ad at the bottom brings up Hostess 100 calorie packs and assorted other fast food ads?

[Jayhawkk]

Premium Caesar Salad with Grilled Chicken 11 oz (311 g)
220
60
6
10
3
15
0
75
25
890
37
12
4
3
13
5
30
130
50
20
10
Hamburger 3.5 oz (100 g)
250
80
9
13
3.5
16
0.5
25
9
520
22
31
10
2
6
6
12
0
2
10
15

McDonald's USA - McDonald's Nutrition Facts

Salad comes in much better for you by far and when you consider most people order fries as well, the lead gets even better. I still believe in a complete labelling process across the board to let consumers know which is the best choice. It may not be the difference between a salad and a big mac. It may be between two types of chicken entres or pork etc.

[Sunder]

Originally Posted by futurepilot

Chicken caesar with dressing: 390 calories.

hamburger: 250 calories.

I guess it's all how you look at it and how you prioritize your definition of nutrition. (BTW - the McDonalds calculator I used said grilled chicken caesar with dressing is 290 calories vs single no cheese plain hamburger at 250 cal.) I also wouldn't consider their whole salad to be the same serving size at a single plain hamburger - the salad fills you up much more (otherwise it's 290 cal divided by at least 2 which is 145 cal)- in fact the local McDonalds downstairs doesn't even have single hamburger on their menu. Their $1.99 value menu has the choice of a double cheeseburger or a cheeseburger with bacon.

Personally, I rarely ever look at the "calories", but rather base my decision on "protein", "fat", and "carbs", with protein typically being my 1 priority. I'm not saying I'm "right", just saying this is how I view it.

Grilled Chicken Salad:
Protein: 33g
Fat: 11g (change dressing to change this...I don't though)
Carb: 17g (change dressing to change this...I don't though)

Plain no cheese single hamburger:
Protein: 12g
Fat: 12g
Carb: 11g

12g of protien is not a meal to me, but 30g+ of protien is.

To get the same amount of protein as the salad, you'll have to buy 3 hamburgers, in which case all values * 3 = 750cal:
Protein: 36g
Fat: 36g
Carb: 33g

(Although you can double up patties and throw away the buns, etc too. Plus their buns are made of white flower - which I avoid as much as possible. I also think green salads trump bread for nutrition...not for taste though. :P Give me a double quarter pounder with cheese for taste, lol).

I still stand unconvinced that a McDonalds hamburger is nutrionally better than their salad. (Especially in the "real world" where I imagine their specialty burgers are ordered far more often than 1 single patty plain hamburger - but that could just be me, because I'm a pig, lol).

But I think I'm digressing from your original point anyways - a point to which I fully agree with. In fact, I'd prefer they list the protien/fat/carb content in addition to the caloric content; but it's a step in the right direction.

[CDB]

Originally Posted by Jayhawkk

I still believe in a complete labelling process across the board to let consumers know which is the best choice. It may not be the difference between a salad and a big mac. It may be between two types of chicken entres or pork etc.

I believe in labeling too. However that is not the purpose of this legislation. The real drive behind it is to engineer a healthier population. Which means when this legislation fails, they ratchet up the law, and again, and again ad nauseum. The government is far too huge and clumsy not to slide down every slippery slope it sees. Today it's labeling McDonald's, tomorrow it's regulating their food to make it more healthy, the day after it's telling us what we can't eat. I try to eat as healthy as possible, but I'd rather not have to go to theblack market to get a burger or hot dog on the 4th of July. And I guarantee you that's where this is heading. You're going to be good and healthy if the government has to kill you to do it. Every damn time something like this comes up people like me warn of the slippery slope and get poopooed, and then within a decade we're already half way or more down that very slope.

The question is real simple: whose responsibility is your health? I say it's yours, not the government's. the government should not be forcing you or anyone else to pay for anyone else's poor decisions. The government should not be protecting you or forcing your decision making except to protect you from violence and fraud.

[futurepilot]

Originally Posted by Sunder

I guess it's all how you look at it and how you prioritize your definition of nutrition. (BTW - the McDonalds calculator I used said grilled chicken caesar with dressing is 290 calories vs single no cheese plain hamburger at 250 cal.)
But I think I'm digressing from your original point anyways - a point to which I fully agree with. In fact, I'd prefer they list the protien/fat/carb content in addition to the caloric content; but it's a step in the right direction.

Just to clarify the numbers i was posting: salad 220. dressing 190= 410. Same link jay put up. I mistakenly used ranch which is 170, but the caeser is 190.

Like CDB signature says about data... you can make any thing healthy anywhere you go, which is in part my point. Like you said, you can eat a burger, no bread, just use it to hold the meat as you eat it. Which is what i do at restaurants unless its a whole wheat bun.

All the other salads, are 250-430, before dressing. So you could have a 5-600 calories salad before you know it. thats all im saying is in general a burger at McDonalds is equal to or healthier than a salad which makes me sad. cause there are people out there who dont know any better, trying too lose weight by eating "healthy" and they end up shooting themselves in the foot.

My favourite is arbys though, get this.

Market Fresh turkey and swiss: 708 calories.
Bacon beef and cheddar sandwich: 521

Is that not sad to anybody else?


And about going to that black market for a hot dog? That doesnt ring a little conspiracy theory to you? Besides if you wanted lips and a$$holes get a stripper.

[edwards]

Originally Posted by CDB

The only way to do that is stop subsidizing poor eating habits by spreading the cost of the health consequences over the entire population. This law does nothing to remove the moral hazzard created by that subsidization, and so we can still be guaranteed an ever increasing number of fatties in the USA.

Brilliant commentary. By socializing health care, the individual has little incentive to prevent health problems from starting since the costs of said care is spread out over the entire population via taxation (or monetary inflation - the hidden tax - through the expansion of money and credit via the federal reserve private banking cartel.) High costs of health care are picked up by medicare/medicaid or subsidized by increased costs to health care insurance policy holders.

however, this system is currently coming to a fast close, as the U.S. financial house of cards is collapsing just as the "Austrian" School of Economists has predicted. Where we go from here, either to a system of voluntary exchange based on sound money and sound economic principles or whether we continue to socialize the economy vis-a-vis a "New" New Deal will determine whether or not we have prosperity or depression. My outlook is not optimistic as both major political candidates are advocates of bigger government and more regulation.

[futurepilot]

Originally Posted by edwards

By socializing health care.

FYI nothing in this thread is about socializing health care...

[Gtarzan81]

Originally Posted by futurepilot

If i wanted to, right now i could get AAS, drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, or an uzi.

PM me about the uzi please.

[Jayhawkk]

Market Fresh turkey and swiss: 708 calories.

Damn, I had a few of those thinking it was better than a burger LOL.