Whoops. So much for that social engineering attempt.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110215/lf_ ... sity_menus

Calories on menus don't affect kids' food choices
By Julie Steenhuysen Julie Steenhuysen – 19 mins ago

CHICAGO (Reuters) – Requiring fast-food restaurants in New York City to post calorie counts on menus did little to cut the number of calories children and teens consumed, U.S. researchers said on Tuesday.

They found that children and adolescents noticed the calories posted on the menu but the calorie counts made little difference in what they chose to order. The researchers said taste was the most important factor the children and teens gave for their menu selections.

The study, published online in the International Journal of Obesity, challenges the notion that calorie labeling affects purchasing behavior of teens or parents buying food for their children.

"It means we're going to have to rethink what other sorts of interventions might be more effective," Dr. Brian Elbel of NYU, who led the study, said in a telephone interview.

Mandating calorie counts on restaurant menus is part of President Barack Obama's new healthcare law is included in the White House's push to reduce rates of obesity, which is one of the biggest health challenges facing the United States.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says two-thirds of American adults and 15 percent of children are overweight or obese. In some states, the childhood obesity rate is above 30 percent.

U.S. first lady Michelle Obama, spearheading an administration initiative on child obesity, has urged food manufacturers to re-package food so that it is healthier for kids.

BETTER-INFORMED CONSUMERS

New York became the first U.S. city to try to attack the U.S. obesity epidemic by requiring fast-food restaurants to list the calories of their foods on menus in 2008. The hope was that better-informed consumers would make better food choices.

Researchers at New York University wanted to see how effective the city's law is at getting parents and young people to think twice about ordering high-calorie foods.

The team gathered restaurant receipts and surveyed 427 parents and teenagers at fast-food restaurants both before and after mandatory labeling began in July 2008.

They focused on four of the largest chains in New York: McDonald's, privately held Burger King, Wendy's and Yum Brands Inc's KFC.

They compared this to food purchased at restaurants in nearby Newark, New Jersey, which did not have mandatory labeling.

The researchers found that after labeling began, 57 percent of New York teens surveyed said they noticed the calorie information and 9 percent said this information influenced their food choices.

"What we didn't see is any change in the number of calories before and after labeling started," Elbel said. "We also didn't see any changes in the number of calories for choices parents were making for their kids."

The foods teens bought amounted to about 725 calories per meal and the food parents bought for their children were about 600 calories per meal.

The study found that most teens underestimated the amount of calories they had purchased, some by up to 466 calories.

Elbel said the study was not big enough to predict how food labeling would work as it is rolled out in the new health law.

This article also gave me an excuse to tell another story.

Our fearless leader at work just came back from a exchange in India. He talked a lot about the food that they eat there. When we asked him what the Indians coming over here would think about our food, he said they'll hate it, because they'll think that it's too bland. He also said it's not just due to a lack of spices, but also that of salt and real heavy oils and fats. It made me think how interesting it is that we're having this debate over unhealthful problems we may have with our food, and then compare it to what the eating habits are in other countries.

Well, you didn't really expect kids to have a clue, did you?

I'm guessing they probably don't care a whole lot, either.

In this study, did the meals also come with 6 servings of energy drink?

Yeah, it's a mix. I always support this sort of thing on basic transparency issues, but I never expect it to change how fat and stupid Americans are.

Yeah, that's partially how I feel. The other part, that a good chunk of bleeding hearts might not like, is that some people are just made pretty damn happy y consuming a Big Mac.

I don't feel that way about Big Macs, but a spicy chicken sandwich, fries, and a frosty

oh, and


lol

Nutrition can be something quite tricky.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/10/1 ... index.html

Walker has never followed the fitness norms.

He eats once a day, skipping breakfast and lunch. After a long, intense day of training, he eats salad and bread for dinner. He doesn't care for meat or fuss about getting enough protein. Walker's a vegetarian.
"It's a mindset -- something I've been doing for a long time," he said. "I don't worry about protein. I don't worry about all that. I'm from old school. I grew up in south Georgia. They didn't worry about cholesterol or protein. They went out and worked and lived a long time, so I don't put a lot of worries in my mind. I just get it done."

Sometimes, Walker doesn't have an appetite and will go through seven hours of wrestling, kickboxing, sparring and practicing jujitsu without having eaten for three or four days.

an example of why hard and fast nutrition rules don't apply to everyone (i'd add a corollary that hard and fast rules don't apply to most things, diet, economy, morality, or otherwise).

but of course that doesn't detract from the benefits of general guidelines and principles, assuming they're sound.

The example of one extreme MMA fighter (who has an entirely different metabolism than the average person) doesn't change the fact that most people would be better served by eating more fruits and vegetables, less meat, and more healthy fats.

I started eating healthy/working out more about six weeks ago and have seen huge results. I just do a really basic workout and try to eat a balanced diet and I feel great and am closing in on a six pack, something I thought I'd never do. It's ridiculous how obscured basic truths about eating have become. Eat real food in the right amounts and you will see a change.

Also, McDonald's is straight up poison and I will never eat there again or allow my kids to eat there if I have any.

Well, the extreme example is a guy who eat a lot of veggies.

He is a former NFL player, but i'm almost sure he lies a little about his diet, too radical to keep up with all those muscles.

I agree, I just think people should be given information about their choices, so if they want to make them, they can.

If I DO care that my sandwich has 1000 calories or 90 grams of fat or 500 grams of sodium, the people giving me that food should tell me.

Same for country of origin, pesticide use, genetic modification, radiation, and other things that I can't think of.

In general, I'm in agreement. Of course, it should be handled on a case by case and a "whether it can affect your health" basis

I figure there should be a limit on how much work a food company should have to put into this, but it's inexcusable for a company to have information in hand and refuse to give it. For instance, I want to know what state my milk comes from. It's as much an environmental concern as it is a health concern. There's no excuse for not stamping a state on the fucking bottle. And if the company doesn't know ... "we have so much milk coming from everywhere in the world, we can't possibly be expected to track it." ... well that's not milk that I want to drink. If you can't track the origin of the milk, you can't possibly assure me that it's contaminant free.