Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

People Eat Even More after Calorie Counts Posted

mrplunkey

New member
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/nyregion/06calories.html

Nanny state programs just don't work.

Calorie Postings Don’t Change Habits, Study Finds

By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS
Published: October 6, 2009

A study of New York City’s pioneering law on posting calories in restaurant chains suggests that when it comes to deciding what to order, people’s stomachs are more powerful than their brains.

April Matos, 24, bought a Happy Meal at a McDonald’s for her 3-year-old son, Amari, and a Snack Wrap for herself. “Life is short,” she said. “I started eating everything now I’m pregnant.”

The study, by several professors at New York University and Yale, tracked customers at four fast-food chains — McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken — in poor neighborhoods of New York City where there are high rates of obesity.

It found that about half the customers noticed the calorie counts, which were prominently posted on menu boards. About 28 percent of those who noticed them said the information had influenced their ordering, and 9 out of 10 of those said they had made healthier choices as a result.

But when the researchers checked receipts afterward, they found that people had, in fact, ordered slightly more calories than the typical customer had before the labeling law went into effect, in July 2008.

The findings, to be published Tuesday in the online version of the journal Health Affairs come amid the spreading popularity of calorie-counting proposals as a way to improve public health across the country.

“I think it does show us that labels are not enough,” Brian Elbel, an assistant professor at the New York University School of Medicine and the lead author of the study, said in an interview.

New York City was the first place in the country to require calorie posting, making it a test case for other jurisdictions. Since then, California, Seattle and other places have instituted similar rules.

Calorie posting has even entered the national health care reform debate, with a proposal in the Senate to require calorie counts on menus and menu boards in chain restaurants.

This study focused primarily on poor black and Hispanic fast-food customers in the South Bronx, central Brooklyn, Harlem, Washington Heights and the Rockaways in Queens, and used a similar population in Newark, which does not have a calorie posting law, as a control group. The locations were chosen because of a high proportion of obesity and diabetes among poor minority populations.

The researchers collected about 1,100 receipts, two weeks before the calorie posting law took effect and four weeks after. Customers were paid $2 each to hand over their receipts.

For customers in New York City, orders had a mean of 846 calories after the labeling law took effect. Before the law took effect, it was 825 calories. In Newark, customers ordered about 825 calories before and after.

On Monday, customers at the McDonald’s on 125th Street near St. Nicholas Avenue provided anecdotal support for the findings.

William Mitchell, from Rosedale, Queens, who was in Harlem for a job interview, ordered two cheeseburgers, about 600 calories total, for $2.

When asked if he had checked the calories, he said: “It’s just cheap, so I buy it. I’m looking for the cheapest meal I can.”

Tameika Coates, 28, who works in the gift shop at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, ordered a Big Mac, 540 calories, with a large fries, 500 calories, and a large Sprite, 310 calories.

“I don’t really care too much,” Ms. Coates said. “I know I shouldn’t, ’cause I’m too big already,” she added with a laugh.

April Matos, a 24-year-old family specialist, bought her 3-year-old son, Amari, a Happy Meal with chicken McNuggets, along with a Snack Wrap for herself. She said with a shrug that she had no interest in counting calories. “Life is short,” she said, adding that she used to be a light eater. “I started eating everything now I’m pregnant.”

Nutrition and public health experts said the findings showed how hard it was to change behavior, but they said it was not a reason to abandon calorie posting.

One advocate of calorie posting suggested that low-income people were more interested in price than calories.

“Nutrition is not the top concern of low-income people, who are probably the least amenable to calorie labeling,” said Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit health advocacy group in Washington.

New York City health officials said that because the study was conducted immediately after the law took effect, it might not have captured changes in people’s behavior that have taken hold more gradually.

A year ago, officials pointed out, the city began an advertising campaign telling subway riders that most adults should eat about 2,000 calories a day, which might put the calorie counts in context.

While the N.Y.U. study examined 1,100 restaurant receipts, the city is doing its own analysis of 12,000 restaurant receipts, which it plans to release in a few months, said Cathy Nonas, director of nutrition programs for the City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

People sometimes confuse intentions with actions, said Marie Roth, a registered dietitian with Blythedale Children’s Hospital in Valhalla, N.Y.

“Just by contemplating healthier choices, they feel like they could have done it and maybe they will the next time,” Ms. Roth said.

Jonathan Allen contributed reporting.
 
I just ate 2 fried eggs on top of wheat toast followed by cranberry juice

never tallied teh calories though
 
I just ate 2 fried eggs on top of wheat toast followed by cranberry juice

never tallied teh calories though

I'm struggling to find a hidden mo euphemism there...

Have you become so complex I can't break your code?
 
I don't see the problem. Some people won't care if they put up the calorie counts at food restaurants. I do. Due to it, I don't each anything else but a hamburger (and that's if I'm really desperate) at McD's.
 
I don't see the problem. Some people won't care if they put up the calorie counts at food restaurants. I do. Due to it, I don't each anything else but a hamburger (and that's if I'm really desperate) at McD's.

I certainly don't have problem with the information being posted. The fact that it's forced on businesses is mildly annoying but that's not really significant either.

The larger underlying point is that this underscores the myth that people simply need to be informed. Even when barraged with information, a significant number of people will still make terrible choices. Look at smoking: A solid 20%+ of all Americans smoke, yet we've known smoking is one of the deadliest things you can possibly do to yourself.

- Information: Good
- Personal Choices: Good
- Making me pay for someone else's personal choice: Bad

:)
 
I don't go to Mickey D's to eat healthy, but I usually grab a double cheesburger because it's cheap and a fried chicken sandwich because tastes like Chic-fil-a.
 
Well it is no surprise. People see the content and calories and just say "what the hell, a few more can't hurt."
 
Putting a label on your damn product to show what's in it and how many nutrients you've sucked/processed/freezedried out of your food product is not an undo burden on a business. These are simply facts they already know so forcing them to put these facts in writing on their product is good business practice. If there's retards in america that don't read the labels, fine.........but the fact is that the surge in the organic and local food industry shows that people care. It's a flawed study because they're sampling people who are in eating in places where they wouldn't eat if they were educated enough to understand nutrition. So naturally these people could give a fuck about a label because they don't have a clue what it even means and don't think it applies to them. Go to a health food store and sample those people and than come talk. Statistics is the language of pure and utter bullshit.


I certainly don't have problem with the information being posted. The fact that it's forced on businesses is mildly annoying but that's not really significant either.

The larger underlying point is that this underscores the myth that people simply need to be informed. Even when barraged with information, a significant number of people will still make terrible choices. Look at smoking: A solid 20%+ of all Americans smoke, yet we've known smoking is one of the deadliest things you can possibly do to yourself.

- Information: Good
- Personal Choices: Good
- Making me pay for someone else's personal choice: Bad

:)
 
And these guys were from Yale? ridiculous. ANother reason why you don't listen to anyone unless they're affiliated with MIT, the only place that knows what it's doing.
 
mrplunkey said:
The larger underlying point is that this underscores the myth that people simply need to be informed. Even when barraged with information, a significant number of people will still make terrible choices. Look at smoking: A solid 20%+ of all Americans smoke, yet we've known smoking is one of the deadliest things you can possibly do to yourself.

- Information: Good
- Personal Choices: Good
- Making me pay for someone else's personal choice: Bad

:)
Some people do need to be informed. Some are just plain stupid.

Trying to beat people over the head with the information (like smoking) and think that they'll change is also stupid. :)
 
Putting a label on your damn product to show what's in it and how many nutrients you've sucked/processed/freezedried out of your food product is not an undo burden on a business. These are simply facts they already know so forcing them to put these facts in writing on their product is good business practice. If there's retards in america that don't read the labels, fine.........but the fact is that the surge in the organic and local food industry shows that people care. It's a flawed study because they're sampling people who are in eating in places where they wouldn't eat if they were educated enough to understand nutrition. So naturally these people could give a fuck about a label because they don't have a clue what it even means and don't think it applies to them. Go to a health food store and sample those people and than come talk. Statistics is the language of pure and utter bullshit.

Organic food is one of the best scams ever. It's right up there with healing crystals, electric belts and social security.
 
Organic food is one of the best scams ever. It's right up there with healing crystals, electric belts and social security.


depends on what you're talking about. "real" organic food is obviously not a scam......is big food slapping the organic label on their products cause they reduced their pesticide use by 13%, yep. I'll be the first to admit that it's real tough sifting through all the utter bullshit the free market has waiting for us. ANd no I don't trust the govt. in the slightest to regulate what is and what is not "organic". I'm "in the mix", so to speak.....with the organic movement, so I have access to the people who know what's bullshit and what isn't.
 
I'm going to start a garden next spring and take my morning dump right in the middle of it. I figure that way I can sell my organic produce for at least 10x the going rate.
 
I'm going to start a garden next spring and take my morning dump right in the middle of it. I figure that way I can sell my organic produce for at least 10x the going rate.


Is that really what "organic" means to you? It's sort of a generic term that encompasses "alot". But in the instance of beef, poultry it's pretty simple.......free ranging and no hormones. Can't be done with factory style farms cause the animals aren't living as nature intended them to so we have to pump them full of hormones to make em bigger and antibiotics to make em healthier.......all of which get's stored in the animals flesh and get's transferred to us.
 
Is that really what "organic" means to you? It's sort of a generic term that encompasses "alot". But in the instance of beef, poultry it's pretty simple.......free ranging and no hormones. Can't be done with factory style farms cause the animals aren't living as nature intended them to so we have to pump them full of hormones to make em bigger and antibiotics to make em healthier.......all of which get's stored in the animals flesh and get's transferred to us.

Outstanding!

I'll have the pork loin with a side of Trichinosis please.
 
Outstanding!

I'll have the pork loin with a side of Trichinosis please.


I understand this sentiment, at one time in my life I was also living under the same general impressions that have been spoon fed to me as well. What you have to understand is that animals that are allowed to live as nature intended them hardly ever get sick, like almost never. E coli in beef is a result of cows not being fed what makes them healthy, just what makes them fatter and tastier to the american palet. And not uncoincidentally this type of feed is also cheaper. I'm not going to sit here and spell out all the different things that american cows are allowed to eat.....you can look that up yourself. Just know that grass isn't what cows are eating, even though they're supposed to be. I can't speak for pigs cause they live in shit constantly and seem to like it that way......there's probably a reason why jews and muslims won't touch em. I havn't eaten pork in I don't know how long, so it doesn't matter to me they can outlaw that meat for all I care. But in any case, you need to do some research on what you're not only putting in your body.....but your kids. I reiterate, animals that free range on grass are able to develop immune systems that fend off ecoli and whatever else.

And one more bit of information on ecoli......even wonder why it's beef and not steak that get's recalled under an ecoli alert? Well that's because steak comes from one animal whereas if you buy ground beef from the supermarket....I shit you not.......contains on average meat from almost 1000 cows. That's why it's more susceptible to ecoli contamination. And that's why ground beef is also out of the question for me. Only meat I eat is steak.
 
I understand this sentiment, at one time in my life I was also living under the same general impressions that have been spoon fed to me as well. What you have to understand is that animals that are allowed to live as nature intended them hardly ever get sick, like almost never. E coli in beef is a result of cows not being fed what makes them healthy, just what makes them fatter and tastier to the american palet. And not uncoincidentally this type of feed is also cheaper. I'm not going to sit here and spell out all the different things that american cows are allowed to eat.....you can look that up yourself. Just know that grass isn't what cows are eating, even though they're supposed to be. I can't speak for pigs cause they live in shit constantly and seem to like it that way......there's probably a reason why jews and muslims won't touch em. I havn't eaten pork in I don't know how long, so it doesn't matter to me they can outlaw that meat for all I care. But in any case, you need to do some research on what you're not only putting in your body.....but your kids. I reiterate, animals that free range on grass are able to develop immune systems that fend off ecoli and whatever else.

And one more bit of information on ecoli......even wonder why it's beef and not steak that get's recalled under an ecoli alert? Well that's because steak comes from one animal whereas if you buy ground beef from the supermarket....I shit you not.......contains on average meat from almost 1000 cows. That's why it's more susceptible to ecoli contamination. And that's why ground beef is also out of the question for me. Only meat I eat is steak.

Then why were parasites and contamination a bigger problem 100, 200 or even 300 years ago -- all before large-scale industrial livestock farming?

Parasites in pigs were such a problem thousands of years ago that most scholars believe that was the driving force behind both the Jewish and Muslim religions banning pork. Shouldn't that have been a time when these diseases were minimized since free-range was the only option?
 
I'm not aware that there was much of a problem with regular beef.......pork, absolutely....they eat and wallow constantly in their own feces. That's "absolutely" the reason why muslims and jews don't eat pork.....it's a filthy animal to them.

And you're also forgetting there was no refrigeration. Meat had to be eaten within a very short time of being slaughtered. Once the animal is dead the meat begins decay, the warmer the temp the quicker that happens obviously. Now consider the middle east.....pretty warm right? And that's the area where at least in the west, we get most of our history from. So I have no doubt that according to them, if someone got sick from eating meat it had more to do with the animal than decay.

Again, there is absolute irrefutable proof that free ranged animals have an order of magnitude healthier immune systems. The problem is that those animals might not be quite as tasty as animals fed on corn because corn promotes more fat than lean tissue. Than on top of that they feed cows in the U.S a melange of things that make one's stomach turn. They are, not shitting, allowed to mix a certain parts per million of chicken feces into cow feed.....certain parts per million of pasta, candy, concrete......the list goes on about what they're allowed to mix in within "strictly regulated percentages", yeah right :rolleyes:

When I eat meat I almost always get the australian free range. It's actually cheaper surprisingly and at least the filets'........are just as good as regular. The other cuts are maybe not quite as good......but that's a tradeoff I"m willing to take.



Then why were parasites and contamination a bigger problem 100, 200 or even 300 years ago -- all before large-scale industrial livestock farming?

Parasites in pigs were such a problem thousands of years ago that most scholars believe that was the driving force behind both the Jewish and Muslim religions banning pork. Shouldn't that have been a time when these diseases were minimized since free-range was the only option?
 
I'm not aware that there was much of a problem with regular beef.......pork, absolutely....they eat and wallow constantly in their own feces. That's "absolutely" the reason why muslims and jews don't eat pork.....it's a filthy animal to them.

And you're also forgetting there was no refrigeration. Meat had to be eaten within a very short time of being slaughtered. Once the animal is dead the meat begins decay, the warmer the temp the quicker that happens obviously. Now consider the middle east.....pretty warm right? And that's the area where at least in the west, we get most of our history from. So I have no doubt that according to them, if someone got sick from eating meat it had more to do with the animal than decay.

Again, there is absolute irrefutable proof that free ranged animals have an order of magnitude healthier immune systems. The problem is that those animals might not be quite as tasty as animals fed on corn because corn promotes more fat than lean tissue. Than on top of that they feed cows in the U.S a melange of things that make one's stomach turn. They are, not shitting, allowed to mix a certain parts per million of chicken feces into cow feed.....certain parts per million of pasta, candy, concrete......the list goes on about what they're allowed to mix in within "strictly regulated percentages", yeah right :rolleyes:

When I eat meat I almost always get the australian free range. It's actually cheaper surprisingly and at least the filets'........are just as good as regular. The other cuts are maybe not quite as good......but that's a tradeoff I"m willing to take.

So refrigeration technology is good but antibiotic technology is bad?

People get sick from food in general at a fraction of the rate they used to. And when it comes to animals, who cares if they are eating chicken shit, grass or Purina Cow Chow? Now I don't want them chowing-down on PCB's or ionic Mercury, but biological systems are generally very efficient at turning chicken shit into chicken salad.

I personally am not against organic food because to me it's a tax on environmentalists. As long as they are paying the premium and don't try to force that cost on me, they can eat all the nonviolently-collected, conflict-free, acoustically-soothed, new age crystal-harmonized tofu they want.
 
So refrigeration technology is good but antibiotic technology is bad?


I'm not really sure I understand the question but as far as antibiotics go, you realize they are responsible for creating the resistant strains of ecoli and other things right? If you had animals that didn't require antibiotics because they're immune systems were up to task........that would "better", right? This is a logical conclusion is it not? You know those antibiotics make their way in trace amounts into your system right?



People get sick from food in general at a fraction of the rate they used to
.


again, refrigeration is the key. People in cold weather that could bury their meat in the ground had it last all winter. They had little to no problems. If you ate what you hunted within a short period of time, chances are you were fine. But we don't "hunt" anymore do we? No we "farm" animals. But if you seperate them from their nature too much, they become susceptible to more things than they would if they were free.

And when it comes to animals, who cares if they are eating chicken shit, grass or Purina Cow Chow? Now I don't want them chowing-down on PCB's or ionic Mercury, but biological systems are generally very efficient at turning chicken shit into chicken salad.

You lack a fundamental understanding of the interaction of nutrients within a biological system, both for humans and animals.........well it's mostly the same anyway. You think that the biological systems of a cow can turn shit into lean healthy tissue? You're kidding right? Please tell me you're more informed than this.


I personally am not against organic food because to me it's a tax on environmentalists. As long as they are paying the premium and don't try to force that cost on me, they can eat all the nonviolently-collected, conflict-free, acoustically-soothed, new age crystal-harmonized tofu they want
.

how would they force that cost on to us?
 
I'm not really sure I understand the question but as far as antibiotics go, you realize they are responsible for creating the resistant strains of ecoli and other things right? If you had animals that didn't require antibiotics because they're immune systems were up to task........that would "better", right? This is a logical conclusion is it not? You know those antibiotics make their way in trace amounts into your system right?

I knew penicillin was a mistake! We should have banned that shit from the get-go.

You lack a fundamental understanding of the interaction of nutrients within a biological system, both for humans and animals.........well it's mostly the same anyway. You think that the biological systems of a cow can turn shit into lean healthy tissue? You're kidding right? Please tell me you're more informed than this.

No, that's the problem. I do understand how nutrition works. Feed rations are carefully planned and I could care less if my chicken was fed ground-up cow parts or organic protein bars.

You're a marketing person's dream. When I finish my own organic experiment next fall, would you like to buy some all-natural, organically-farmed, conflict-free, high-bioavailability tomatoes for $25/each? I'd tell you more about them, but I'm on my second cup of coffee and I need to go "fertilize" my garden here in a minute.

how would they force that cost on to us?

The organic food lobby has been pushing its agenda for decades. Here's a page with links to just a few lobbying groups:

Lobby Groups for Organic Farming - LoveToKnow Organic
 

It's not a poop thread until I post pics of my organic, all-natural, conflict-free, econeutral, macrobiotic, high-bioavailability, mineral-balanced, zero carbon footprint, family farm-friendly, eco-sustainable fertilization technique.

P.S. Since the tomatoes are now eco-sustainable, I'm going to raise the price from $25/each to $28/each.
 
night soil for the win!

See! Dr. Chris is in on the conspiracy too.

I bet he wants me to eat non-organic food so he can take my tonsils out for $$$. Barry warned me about you, scalpel-jockey.

Oh hell -- the medical profession is in league with commercial farming. I smell a rat.
 
Is :licker: :kitty: considered eating organic :confused:

It depends. Was the :kitty: exposed to any pesticides, hormones or non-naturally occuring foodstuffs?

What you should do is buy one of my all-organic tomatoes next fall and use the juice from it to wash said kitty out.
 
Top Bottom