Calorie Postings

I personally LOVE the calorie postings in chain restaurants here in New York City.  Finally, we can make a somewhat informed decision about what we are ordering and eating.  I think back to a time when I was still learing the ropes of Weight Watchers and ordered a “rainbow cookie” at Starbucks to go with my non-fat Chai Latte (3 points).  It’s basically a chocolate chip cookie that uses M&Ms instead of chocolate chips, thus giving it a colorful “rainbow” appearance.  It was rather large, but I had plenty of my weekly points (or pleasure) allowance left, so I went for it.  How many points could it be, six?  I could handle that.  I had my latte and my cookie and thoroughly enjoyed it.  Then, I got home and went on the Starbucks website…drum roll please…10 points!  10 points for a stupid cookie!  For 13 points I could’ve had a Big Mac and considering I had the latte with it (for 3 points) I basically DID have the equivalent of a Big Mac.  Ridonculous.  Shame on them.

I don’t order that cookie anymore, or really ANYTHING at Fatbucks.  Capitalist pigs!  Oink, oink.

Anyway, here’s some supposed “findings” on how the calorie posting are working out in low-income areas.  We really need to find a way to deliver good food to the lower class that is affordable.  One guy says he’s just looking for the cheapest meal possible.  Sad.  Especially when that’s 2 cheeseburgers at McDonald’s for $2.

October 6, 2009

Calorie Postings Don’t Change Habits, Study Finds

By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS excerpted from The New York Times

 

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.  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% 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.

 

The 5 Worst Sandwiches in America

Just because it SOUNDS healthy, doesn’t mean it is…

Beware!

Better yet, make your own sandwich and brown bag it once and a while.

I had a similar incident at Panera.  I got a healthy sounding grilled chicken sandwich without knowing the nutritional information.  I enjoyed it and then went home and got on the Panera site to figure out the points.  Oy vei!  It was a 13 pointer!  I couldv’e had a Big Mac for the same 13 points and probably enjoyed it more!

This is why I love that chain restaurants have to post calories for all their items in NYC.

The 5 Worst Sandwiches in America

The sandwich is the on-the-go meal of choice. When you don’t have time for utensils and dishes, the sandwich is a natural go-to.

Unfortunately, these once-simple meals are getting more complicated: From wraps to paninis, and ciabatta, semolina and sourdough, there’s an entire armada of doughy choices and sandwich varieties. But which are good for you? Which will deliver protein and other nutrients and help you stay in fighting trim?

Here’s a hint: Some of the worst offenders carry innocent-sounding words like “chicken” or “salad” or even “vegetarian” in their names. Before you pick up a sandwich, make sure you know just what’s lurking below those innocent-looking loaves. The new book “Eat This, Not That! The Best (& Worst!) Foods in America” catalogs the best and worst sandwiches in America. Making simple swaps like these every day will help you eat what you want and still lose 10, 20, or even 30 pounds in the course of a year!

Worst “healthy” sandwich
Romano’s Macaroni Grill Grilled Chicken and Artichoke

• 980 calories
• 55 g fat (13 g saturated)
• 2,240 mg sodium
• 76 g carbohydrates

Equivalent: As many calories as 16 Fudgecicles

Nothing sounds healthier than some nice grilled chicken and artichokes, right? Well, chances are, you’ll seriously regret choking down this calorie-fest. It’s one thing to have a fatty, highly caloric burger, but when a sandwich sounds this diet-friendly, it’s particularly egregious. You’re much better off sticking with a simple, lean entree like the chicken spiedini.

Eat this instead!
Grilled Chicken Spiedini

• 360 calories
• 10 g fat (2 g saturated)
• 1150 mg sodium
• 17 g carbohydrates

Worst vegetarian sandwich
Blimpie Special Vegetarian (12”)

• 1,186 calories
• 60 g fat (19 g saturated)
• 3,532 mg sodium
• 131 g carbohydrates

Equivalent: As much sodium as 86 saltine crackers

“Vegetarian” doesn’t automatically translate to “healthy.” Sure, this sandwich has vegetables, but it also has three different kinds of oil tucked into a hulking 12” roll. No wonder it contains more than half a day’s worth of calories and a cascade of carbs.

Eat this instead!
VeggieMax on Wheat (6”)

• 499 calories
• 21 g fat (6 g saturated)
• 1,212 mg sodium
• 50 g carbohydrates

Worst meaty sandwich
Subway Footlong Meatball with Cheese

• 1,260 calories
• 54 g fat (22 g saturated)
• 3,570 mg sodium
• 142 g carbohydrates

Equivalent: Same calories as 42 onion rings (from Burger King)

Jared may be able to hold up those huge pants next to his svelte frame thanks to Subway, but we guarantee his weight-loss diet did not include this belt breaker. But luckily, there are only two things that will get you into trouble at Subway: footlongs and hot sandwiches. The best bet is to stick to a 6” ham, turkey or roast beef — if you’re extra hungry, double the protein for only 50 to 80 more calories.

Eat this instead!
6” Double Roast Beef

• 400 calories
• 7 g fat (2.5 g saturated)
• 1,410 mg sodium
• 47 g carbohydrates

Worst fried chicken sandwich
Chili’s Buffalo Chicken Crisper Bites

• 1,620 calories
• 100 g fat (21 g saturated)
• 5,380 mg sodium
• 123 g carbohydrates

Equivalent: Same fat as 28 scoops of Edy’s Loaded Cookies and Cream Ice Cream

These sandwiches may look cute, but they’re far from harmless. At Chili’s, the words “bites” and “crisper” translate into calorie-packed sauces and a bucket of frying oil. You can taste the same bold flavors and save more than 1,000 calories by opting for the Fajita Pita instead.

Eat this instead!
Fajita Pita Chicken

• 460 calories
• 13 g fat (2 g saturated)
• 1,400 mg sodium
• 52 g carbohydrates

Worst sandwich in America
Quiznos Tuna Melt (Large)

• 1,760 calories
• 133 g fat (25 g saturated, 1.5 g trans)
• 2,120 mg sodium

Equivalent: Same calories as 12 Budweisers (bottles)

The classic tuna melt is, in our eyes, a travesty of healthy eating. They’re taking one of the leanest, smartest foods out there — tuna — and bombarding it with an ocean of mayo and a flood of cheese. And Quiznos takes it to the next level with their outrageous serving sizes. You’re much better off with a flatbread sammie — heck, make it two! You’ll save at least 1,000 calories.

Eat this instead!
Sonoma Turkey Flatbread Sammie

• 280 calories
• 14 g fat (4 g saturated)
• 740 mg sodium