I have been telling you now for nearly a year, that America is changing. Americans don't want huge portions of unhealthy fatty food. Restaurants which serve these obscene, porcine portions are doomed.

Today it's confirmed. The marketplace has spoken.

Nobody wants heaping portions of $8.49 oriental chicken salad or $10.99 riblet platters (2,027 calories, 200% daily fat).

T.J. Palmer went to Applebee's last fall. Ms Palmer rarely goes there anymore. "It doesn't have anything that would make me want to come back." What's so remarkable about this statement is:

She's the co-founder of Applebee's 27 years ago.

When the largest -- yes, largest -- sit-down restaurant chain in America doesn't have anything for the founder to eat, you know "the times they are a changin.' "

The Friday Wall Street Journal reports sales at Applebee's restaurants dropped in 2006 for the first time. Why is the No. 1 chain in trouble? WSJ says Applebee's didn't change quickly enough and stayed too long with a formula that had worked for it in the past. (Applebee's diners weren't the only ones getting fat with food from the past. Its executives racked up huge bonuses while sales fell. Profits plummeted 20% in 2006.)

WSJ: Menus at many newer-generation restaurants stress the freshness or naturalness of their food, a contrast with the fried-and breaded fare at traditional bar-and-grill chains like Applebee's.

Read between the lines. Americans don't want crappy, fattening food anymore.

In the early 1990s Applebee's menu innovation often consisted of little more than adding a different slice of cheese or a flavored mayonnaise to the hamburger. By 2005 it was clear the Overland Park, Kansas company was out of touch with its customers.

"The landscape has changed," John Cywinski, then chief marketing officer, told investors. "Our paradigm must change."

So the company added television chef Tyler Florence to create food with more-diverse flavors.

The latest menu, out in May, features a giant fold-out photo of Florence's $14.99 New York strip steak with hearts of romaine salad and onion rings...So far, the changes haven't stopped the slide.

Wow, it took 20 marketing guys in Kansas to come up with a strip steak and "signature" garlic butter as what Americans want. Steak, butter, onion rings, bleu cheese, and that will save the nation's largest restaurant chain? WRONG!

Of course, the Applebee's executives are misdiagnosing the ailment. They think that the issues are growing competition, belt-tightening, perceptions with affluent guests, and tacky decor.

The issue is that it's a restaurant. Americans vote (and buy) with their stomachs. In 2007, a restaurant must offer good, healthy, fresh, natural, calorie-appropriate food. Simple.

Even a thick-headed CEO in Kansas should know that. His own Applebee's franchisee, Harry Rose of New Jersey, knows that. Rose is not looking to open any more Applebee's restaurants.

He plans to open a number of branches of Corner Bakery Cafe, a lunch spot that serves grilled paninis with artichokes and apricot walnut rugalach desserts.

Nobody in America is asking, where's the steak and onion rings?

P.S. Not only are Applebee's executives behind the menu and marketing curves, but they continue to be behind the health information curve. Applebee's releases very little nutritional information on its food. (What is it hiding?) According to FoodAndDiet.com website, Applebee's responded with a -- it's too complex for us to figure out the calories -- answer.

"Unfortunately, we do not provide information for all of our menu items for many different reasons. Our menu items vary regionally and many or many not be available in your restaurant, and it is important to know that some restaurants nationwide have changed their menus to no longer include these low-fat menu items."

Maybe this is what they are hiding, a slice of apple pie that has half the daily calories needed by a adult man: Sizzling Apple Pie, (1,085 calories, 56g fat, 580mg sodium, 146g carbs, 7g fiber, 14g protein)

Smaller portions of chefs

We all know diners need to eat the RightSize. How about chefs? Do you trust a fat chef or an appropriate-weight chef?

The Boston Globe looked at chefs and how much they weigh, and what they do to watch their portions.

Most chefs joined the industry because they have a finely honed appreciation for food. And while many are in the 32 percent of overweight American adults, being lean and working in the kitchen is no longer a stigma. In these fitness-conscious times, the old adage, "Never trust a skinny chef," seems as dated as the two-martini lunch.

Even cooking schools are paying attention. The New England Culinary Institute in Montpelier, Vt., requires students to check in once a week with a fitness instructor. Recently they banned sugary drinks from the vending machines. "The big push now is to train chefs who are healthy and in shape," says Mark Molinaro, an executive chef at the school. "We work with food but we're not gorging ourselves. A heavy chef tends to be looked down on."

more...

No fat kid left behind

CT school stays stuck in the seventies

This is a sad, sad state of affairs; or really, Danbury, Connecticut is a sad, sad state of junk food.

Danbury school officials tried to make the high school culinary arts program compliant with a healthy foods program run by the state but couldn't do it, so it's dropping out of the program. And giving up on a potential $50,000 the state provides to some schools for participating.

The Danbury Newtimeslive.com reports the program requires all food items offered for sale to students from any sources, including school stores, vending machines, school cafeterias and any fund raising activities, come from the state certified list.

"We tried," said Sue Levasseur, the school district's coordinator of health services. "The academic program uses a wide variety of foods that the students use in recipes they prepare and serve. The (nutrition) program took away a lot of the ingredients essential to the creation of recipes."

I'm incredulous: "The nutrition program took away a lot of essential ingredients." Is this the kind of coordinator of health services you want in your school district? Levasseur is saying we need to not only serve unhealthy recipes, but in Danbury they want to teach kids how to make unhealthy food.

Danbury High principal Catherine Richard said to comply with the state healthy foods program, the students would have to scan ingredients and adjust recipes before using them.

Duh. That's the entire reason behind the state's initiative! Change the recipes. Stop sticking butter and sugar and fat into every dish. Stop cooking oversized portions. Use fruits and vegetables. What educator -- in today's world -- says: "it's too difficult to teach kids how to cook healthy."

What happens to those Danbury students as they try to get a job in the food industry? Who's going to hire a cook or chef that says: in my schooling I only learned unhealthy recipes.

Susan Fiore, nutrition education coordinator for the state Department of Education, said she's received a number of calls from schools that did not participate but want to join. She also had a call from California, which is looking at Connecticut's program as a model.

Fiore thought the Danbury culinary program was an anomaly.

"If you start at the elementary school it's not an issue, because by the time these kids are in middle and high school they won't be missing the snacks that aren't allowed,'' she said. "Overall, most people were positive.

"The program raised the awareness of kids and staff, but we still have to make healthy food choices more attractive," Janice Jordan, Bethel associate superintendent, said.

In Danbury, their motto is, "no fat kid left behind."

Money and fast food can make you sick

As if you needed another reason not to eat in a fast food restaurant, Swiss researchers have confirmed why fast food restaurants literally may make you sick to your stomach.

I have always had a problem with workers who handle food and handle money. How about when you handle money and then eat? I see lots of people washing their hands before ordering their food, but when's the last time you saw someone order food at McDonald's, pay for it and then go into the bathroom to wash up. Never, would be my answer.

Maybe we all should.

This report has absolutely nothing to do with the RightSize of fast food, and everything to do with how unhealthy it is to be eating food with your hands.

As many as 69 percent of motorists eat meals on wheels by some survey accounts, a trend that fast-food restaurants and convenience stores have duly noted.

Witness the growing number of meals and snacks designed to be eaten easily with one hand. (Could there be any other reason for French toast sticks at Burger King?)

Earlier this year, 7-Eleven introduced Go-Go Taquitos, a to-go deep-fried tortillas. It took the company more than a year to develop a portable version of notoriously messy Mexican food.

The National Restaurant Association estimates that one-third of consumers age 18 to 24 eat more frequently in their cars now than two years ago.

We all know it's dangerous to eat and drive, and yet no one realizes it's more dangerous to pay and eat.

Why? Because no one washes their hands (their only dining utensil when driving) after paying for their food.

And because you don't wash your hands, you now have the nastiest germs on them from the money you just touched.

Swiss researchers have reported that influenza viruses can survive — alive and potentially infectious — on paper money for up to 17 days in some cases.

It’s not known what portion of influenza transmission is due to the touching of contaminated surfaces with hands which then transport viruses to the vulnerable mucous membranes of the nose or mouth. And this study can’t answer that question.

But lead author Yves Thomas said Wednesday he believes the touching of contaminated surfaces plays a role in the spread of flu. And those contaminated surfaces can include folding money.

"When you see that the virus is still alive for several days, I can’t imagine that it does not infect. I’m sure that it can infect," Thomas, a virologist at the Swiss National Centre for Influenza, said at a major international conference, Options for the Control of Influenza.

"It’s still alive. And it’s alive in quantities that can infect."

Think about that the next time you eat a taco by the dashboard light.

Mothers stick heads in sand, kids suffer

From the PR Newswire:

Despite eating habits that include consuming fast food at least once a week and turning to junk food in times of stress, an overwhelming majority of American mothers are not concerned with their child's weight finds a new poll from Woman's Day Magazine and AOL Food.

According to the findings, 36% stated they eat fast food at least once a week, with 16% stating they consume it two or more times a week.

Despite these poor eating choices, a surprising 79% are not concerned with their children's weight. The poll, which surveyed over 2,500 American women, provides insight into the eating habits and concerns of American women. The complete findings are highlighted in the June 19 issue of Woman's Day magazine

When examining the cost of eating healthy, 80% stated they believed eating healthier would be easier if cost weren't an issue; yet 85% stated their actual eating habits were not influenced at all or only a little by the cost.

Other key findings include:

• 43% admit to only sticking to a diet for a week before cheating
• 32% eat something they regret later almost every single day
• Only 21% say they've never really dieted
• 50% often skip at least one major meal and graze throughout the day
• Despite nutritionists suggestions that diners ask for reduced portions when eating out, only 17% have asked their waiter for a smaller portion

The Panhandle of Texas flips the biggest burgers

April is the cruellest month; or so said my favorite poet, T.S. Eliot.

It's the definitely the cruellest month for Texans trying to be the RightSize. That's because Mooyah Burgers opened in April, serving the biggest burgers at the lowest price. Burgers as big as ¾-pound for $3.95. Of course, that comes with french fries.

What it doesn't come with, is any nutritional information. You can't find information in the store or on the web site. The new restaurants is "just burgers, just fries, just fresh". We'll add: "just no (calorie) data".

Would Texans be lining up for the latest big burger bargain if they knew it contained at least 700 calories. Fries are at least 500 calories.

QSRweb enthusiastically reports on the big burger epidemic sweeping the country. (Ironically obesity will definitely kill Americans this year. Bird flu none. Which do you know more about?)

From QSRweb:

When Robert Andersen decided to start a new hamburger chain, he recognized one big trend in the QSR industry — bigger burgers. And the reason was simple, Andersen said: Bigger burgers are of a higher quality than the thin patties that dominated the fast-food market for so long.

Capitalizing on the trend, Andersen opened Plano, Tex.-based Mooyah Burgers in April, serving burgers as large as ¾-pound. The response has been overwhelming, Andersen said.

And why not?

According to Datassentials, a Chicago-based menu-research firm, the availability of extra-large burgers, at least ½-pound in size, is highest in quick-serve and mid-scale restaurants, with just under 40 percent of operators offering at least one extra-large burger. Additionally, nearly 75 percent of all burger operations offer at least one extra-large burger item, while 40 percent of coffeehouses, bakeries, ice cream shops, and other food establishments also offer extra-large burgers.

But size is not enough to satisfy the public; it also has to be affordable. The typical Mooyah burger sells for $3.95; the average price for an extra-large burger in the quick-serve space is $4.42, compared to $9.90 in fine dining restaurants.

Despite a wave of health consciousness that has rolled across the nation, when American consumers walk into restaurant and look at the menu, more often than not they zero in on the 1/3-pound burgers and larger.

It may seem contradictory but that’s the way it is, said Jeff Jablow, director of training and menu development for Cheeburger, a 21-year-old burger chain with 69 locations.

“We offer salads, chicken, and meatless products like the portabella mushroom sandwich, but our No. one item is our burger, and the ½-pound sells as well as the ¼-pound,” said Jablow. “When it comes to burgers it’s one of those menu items that will never go away and, like everything else, we want the biggest and the best.”

In the 1950s, the industry standard for a hamburger was 1/10-pound, and that didn’t change until the 1980s when the ¼-pound hamburger was introduced, said Brad Haley, executive vice president of marketing for Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s.

Haley said during the decades when the fast-food industry clung to the skinny patty, the casual-dining segment, restaurants such as TGI Friday’s, Chili’s and Applebee’s, emerged with bigger- and higher-quality burgers, paving the way for QSRs to add larger burgers to their menus.

Haley said the new hamburger-industry standard is 1/3-pound when previously the ¼-pound burger was considered large.

Andersen said it’s all about the experience for customers. And when they leave the house with the goal of purchasing a burger, diets and weight worries are left behind.

“We talk about eating healthy so logically that makes sense, but we really eat with our hearts,” Andersen said. “And you’d think it’s just big old guys like me eating burgers, but we probably have a higher percentage of females than males and that’s been the most amazing thing.”

So in the 50s normal was a tenth of a pound hamburger, 30 years later it was 1/4 pounder, and now, just 20 years later it's 1/3 of a pound hamburger. Put that into a trend line and soon you'll only be able to buy a hamburger that can feed an entire family.

Fifty years ago just a minority of Americans were overweight. Now it's the majority overweight and obese.

With all these health problems and Americans putting their heads in the ground (or is it hamburgers in the mouths), it's reminding me of where I heard T.S. Eliot's famous stanza. In the "Waste Land."

By the way, Texas is the largest state in the lower 48. Its citizens only have to beat 3 other states to be the fattest people in America.

By being sweet, you're going to be fat

Would you eat a bowl of sugar in the morning? Take out a 1/4-measuring-cup. Fill it with refined white sugar. Now eat it.

Because that's what you do to your body, if you stop at Dunkin' Donuts and have a bagel.

"A bagel and a bowl of sugar may taste different, but to the body they're virtually the same thing," said Dr. David Ludwig. "A bagel would do the same thing to blood sugar hormones and hunger several hours after eating it."

Ludwig treats childhood obesity at Boston Children's Hospital and he is stunned by America's consumption of empty calories. In fact, he says that the average convenience store is a nutritional disaster area.

"All sugar-containing foods aren't bad," he told CBS News correspondent Susan Spencer. "For example, an apple has its main calories come from sugar. But it's surrounded by fiber, so it digests slowly and keeps blood sugar under control."

Including refined sugar, high fructose corn syrup and artificial sweeteners, the average American wolfs down 142 pounds a year, or roughly 2 ½ pound a week. That is up 23 percent in the last 25 years, and is a major factor in soaring rates of obesity and diabetes.

"The problem is when we take sugars and concentrate and refine them, and serve them in massive amounts throughout the food supply," Ludwig said. "That's causing hormonal changes that in many people drive hunger, cause overeating, and increase the risk of diabetes and heart disease."

Nutrition labels can be deceiving. Sugar content always is listed in grams, but few people know there are 4 grams in a teaspoon and, unlike the listings for salt and fats, there's not a clue as to how many grams of sugar is too many.

What's the RightSize of sugar? The Agriculture Department recommends no more than 12 teaspoons a day; that is roughly one 12-ounce soda and a slice of bread.

Eating half a cup of sugar might well send anyone into sugar shock, says author Connie Bennett. The author of "Susar Shock!" claims sugar just about ruined her life.

"I was socked in by brain fog," she said. "I would have these horrible migraine headaches."

All seemed lost until her doctor diagnosed low blood sugar — hypoglycemia — and told her to lay off the sweets.

"I remember all of a sudden, after three days, I was like, 'Wow! I feel so good,'" she said. "It was as if the fog lifted, and then, after a few weeks, all my ailments disappeared."

Connie Bennett thinks it's time to put on the brakes.

"I tell people, 'Don't believe me, just don't believe me,'" she said. "'Then test it out for yourself. Go a week without sugar and refined carbs, or maybe even two weeks and then just watch yourself like a lab rat.'"

Top 10 triggers for overeating

I found this explanation for overeating on WomenFitness.net.

• Boredom
• Feeling deprived
• Feeling disgust or hatred with your body
• Glucose intolerance
• Habits
• Lack of energy and feeling tired
• Needing love and comfort
• Feeling overwhelmed
• Feeling upset or hurt
• Lack of Willpower

And it's so typical of blaming the big, fat victim.

It's all your fault for being fat, America. You're just bored, or deprived or your mother didn't love you enough. That's why you eat too much.

Obviously, just 25-50 years ago, people in America were not ever bored, or felt disgust with their bodies, or had glucose intolerance. They never felt overwhelmed or needed love and comfort.

But amazingly today's Americans are fat, lazy and unloved, and they overeat because of it.

What a large load of lemons!

Why is no one challenging these silly "quick facts"?

Americans are fat because of too large of portions, too many calories and a distortion of what is healthy and appropriate, period.

When will we stop blaming the victim?

I'm back & still mad as hell and not going to take it anymore

It's been 3 weeks since my last post. I have been focusing on rightsizing my little world, instead of America.

I continue to read, see and hear America, though. More and more Americans are waking up, right now, to the portion poison haze hanging over all the eateries.

Two angry moms in Connecticut are demanding cafeterias serve the rightsize to our kids.

Students in Texas are asking Americans to make nourishment -- not gluttony -- a priority of eating once again.

T.G.I. Friday's and Cheesecake Factory are cutting prices along with meal size, so each dish is a few dollars cheaper than the larger entrées.

It has started. It has reached the tipping point.

Like Crocs and Webkinz and Facebook and presidential candidates, a tsunami of momentum is inundating the country.

You now can't open the NY Times and not see a story about obesity and food portions.

You can't listen to PBS and not hear a story about diets and fat people.

You can't turn on The Today Show and not view a story about eating the right foods to prevent disease.

You can't click on MSNBC.com and not see a health report on how government is looking at food.

But is this just the issue of the minute?

Or is this a health crisis like smoking, automobile accidents or cancer?

I don't know.

What I do know is, I'm back and still mad as hell. We need to change America today for our kids' tomorrows.

Yesterday, JD in comments encouraged me to continue the fight. I will.

Time magazine said:

What will it take to build on these ideas such as these, to extend brilliant local and pilot programs to more people? Alice Waters' one-word answer to this question struck me as the most honest: Money. And that's where the grassroots pressure comes in. The food industry will go where its customers lead them. Government ultimately has to heed the voters. "A million mad moms" — is a phrase that echoes in my ears. There is a role for the media — my colleagues, those at ABC, and elsewhere — to educate moms and dads. Perhaps if we stop playing up the dietary confusion message and emphasize what works in fighting obesity, more folks will get mad, understand what's at stake, and demand the kind of programs and changes we've heard about at this conference. Then we can finally reach and pass the "tipping point" on obesity.

I'm not a million moms. I'm just one dad.

But I'm trying to get a million moms mad...understand what's at stake...and demand the kinds of changes necessary to change America.

Join me in this crusade. Onward soldiers!

This is why this blog is called RightSizingAmerica and not RightSizingKorea.



(c) http://www.wellingtongrey.net/

McDonald's serves up myths with those fries

From the Center for Science in the Public Interest comes a complete debunking of fast food myths and half-truths as it relates to putting nutrition information on its menus.

Myth: Restaurant nutrition labeling will force mom and pop restaurants out of business.

Reality: The proposed legislation would apply only to restaurants that belong to chains with 10 or more outlets. Small business owners would not be affected by this legislation.

Myth: Special orders are common, and it would be impossible for a menu to list nutrition information for all possible different food preparation options and combinations.

Reality: The bill would require fastfood and other chain restaurants to provide nutrition information for menu items as “offered for sale.” It does not apply to customized orders or to daily specials (which are not standard menu items). If restaurants can provide nutrition information on websites and brochures, they should be able to do so on menus and menu boards. Even if people customize their orders, providing nutrition information for standard menu items at chain restaurants would provide a good basis for comparison from which customers could make informed choices.

Myth: The current system of voluntary labeling at restaurants is adequate.

Reality: Under the current system of voluntary labeling, fewer than half of the largest chain restaurants provide any nutrition information about their food to their customers. We know of no restaurants that provide calorie labeling for all menu items directly on menus or menu boards. A system requiring all chain restaurants to provide nutritional information on menus and menu boards would provide a level playing field in a highly competitive industry.

Myth: People already have access to nutrition labeling at restaurants.

Reality: The approximately one-third of restaurants that do provide nutrition information usually do so on websites, which have to be accessed before leaving home, or on hard-to-find and difficult-to-read posters or brochures in their stores. Placing the nutrition information on the menu or menu board would be right at the point of decision making, more convenient, and easier to use.

Myth: Nutrition labeling at fast-food and other chain restaurants will not help to reduce obesity because people eat out so infrequently.

Reality: Americans are relying increasingly on restaurants to feed themselves and their families – restaurants are not just for special occasions any more. Americans are eating out twice as much as in 1970. Adults and children eat about one-third of their calories from restaurants and other food service establishments. On a typical day, the National Restaurant Association (NRA) estimates that more than four out of ten adults patronize restaurants. Providing nutrition information at chain restaurants would provide an important tool to allow people to make informed choices for a significant and growing part of their diets. Eating out is associated with higher calorie intakes and higher body weights. Children eat almost twice as many calories when they eat a meal at a restaurant compared to at home (770 versus 420 calories). Portion sizes at restaurants often are large and for just a little more money customers can upgrade to larger serving sizes. Restaurant meals often provide a half to a whole day’s worth of calories.

Myth: When people eat out they want to splurge and do not want nutrition information.

Reality: While people may choose to ignore nutrition information on certain occasions, two-thirds of Americans support requiring restaurants to list nutrition information, such as calories, on menus, according to recent national polls by the Harvard Forums on Health and by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).

Myth: The cost of nutrition labeling would drive chain restaurants out of business.

Reality: Many of the largest chain restaurants already provide nutrition information on their websites and would not incur any new costs for analyzing their products. The cost to have a product analyzed is about $220 per menu item. A restaurant chain with 80 menu items would incur a one-time cost of approximately $18,000 to have all its menu items tested—less than ten dollars for each Denny’s outlet. The cost of redesigning menus and menu boards would be modest. Many chain restaurants centralize menu development and printing and restaurant headquarters incur the costs.

Myth: Nutrition labeling at restaurants is a radical idea advocated by the “food police” trying to tell us what we can and can not eat.

Reality: Nutrition labeling would not limit choices at restaurants. It simply would provide clearer information regarding those choices. Supporters of better nutrition information at restaurants include: The U.S. Surgeon General and Department of Health and Human Services’ “Call to Action” on obesity recommends “increasing availability of nutrition information for foods eaten and prepared away from home.” Seventeen cities, states and territories have introduced legislation to require better nutrition information at fast-food and other chain restaurants. Two-thirds of Americans support requiring nutrition labeling of restaurant foods.

Myth: Nutrition labeling on packaged foods in supermarkets has not been effective in helping people to make healthier food choices.

Reality: Americans rank nutrition second only to taste as the factor most frequently influencing food purchases. Three-fourths of adults report using food labels. People who read nutrition labels are more likely to have a diet lower in fat and cholesterol and higher in vitamin C. Also, packaged-food labeling has resulted in reformulation of existing products to improve their nutritional quality, as well as the introduction of new nutritionally-improved (low-fat, low-sodium, etc.) products. Finally, the rise in obesity rates began well before Nutrition Facts labels were required on packaged foods. Nutrition Facts labels 3 have only been required on packaged foods since 1994. Obesity rates started to increase in 1980.

Myth: Menu labeling is not necessary because restaurants already provide a wide variety of foods to meet any individual’s dietary needs.

Reality: The nutritional quality of restaurant meals varies and a range of options is usually available. However, without nutrition information, it is difficult to compare options and make informed decisions. Studies show that estimating the calorie and fat content of restaurant foods is difficult, even for nutrition professionals. Few people would guess that a tuna salad sandwich from a typical deli has 50% more calories than a roast beef with mustard or that a sirloin steak has half the calories of a porterhouse.

Myth: Physical inactivity is primarily responsible for obesity, and unhealthy eating habits play only a minor role.

Reality: The high levels of obesity in the U.S. are attributable to both unhealthy eating and physical inactivity, and both must be addressed to help reduce obesity, heart disease, cancer and other diseases. Most Americans are not getting the recommended amount of physical activity. However, existing data and societal trends suggest that activity levels were already low by 1980, when obesity rates started to increase. Many major societal trends leading to decreased physical activity occurred before 1980 – the move to the suburbs, shift to an information economy and more desk jobs, reliance on the car, and wide availability of labor-saving devices. It is not clear whether further declines in physical activity have occurred since then. In contrast, the data and societal trends are clear regarding the importance of increased caloric intake in driving the rising obesity rates. National surveys and food-supply data show that adults and children are consuming more calories (about 168 more calories per day for men and 335 more calories per day for women between 1971 and 2000). In addition, since 1980, there have been increases in portion sizes, eating out, and of soft drink intake. It would require a great deal of physical activity to burn off the calories in many popular restaurant foods and meals.

Why have government at all?

When I recently suggested that we all should unite behind the Center for Science in the Public Interest's campaign to put nutritional information on menus, I received the typical argument. Not against the intent of the bill, but the wrong-headed argument that government has no business telling anyone what to do.

The exact words were:

In my opinion this is the problem with legislating health. It is up to the consumer to STOP supersizing; STOP ordering mega portions or worse, complaining of how expensive the food is when served a NORMAL portion-why do you think restaurants starting making larger portions in the first place. We need to stop blaming governments, restaurants, fast food joints for what WE BUY. Don't buy mega meals and the food service industry will respond, Don't buy what you don't want to eat... there are plenty of options out there, but 'its too expensive', 'its too much trouble', PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS AND THE INDUSTRY WILL RESPOND. We can't expect 'big brother' to baby sit us... I certainly don't want the government telling me what I can and can't eat; I don't even let my fiance do that and I love him a lot more than I love my congressman, governor, legislature and president!

But of course the government does tell us what to eat. We can't eat tainted food. We could back in the 1920s, but the muckrakers forced government into action, stopping industries from poisoning us. We can't eat food picked by underpaid migrant workers. The government in the 1970s declared workers had certain rights. I can go on and on with how government currently tells you what to eat.

And today, government makes it easy and cheap to eat "junk" food. Why is it even possible for restaurants to "supersize"? Because the government has legislated it. And you paid for it. By changing the farm policy 40 years ago, corn is cheaper than what it costs to grow it. That supports the beef and fast-food industry. McDonald's should have to pay the true costs of hamburgers and french fries.

My critics say it's "too expensive" to eat healthy. They're right. The government doesn't subsidize carrots.

It's naive to think restaurants will do what's right. If it wasn't for government, they'd serve you trans fats, underpay their employees, have unsafe working conditions and monopolize industries. Good government is not big brother. Good government is you and me protecting our fellow citizens and children.

The 20 Best Weight-Loss Foods

Runner's World -- a magazine I rarely read -- recently listed the The 20 Best Weight-Loss Foods.

Now I'm not a runner by any means. But right off the bat, I thought this is a realistic list.

My top picks were:

For Breakfast: Green egg whites. I try to have this 3 or 4 times a week. It's mushrooms and spinach sauteed, and then stir in 1/2 cup of egg whites. Most times I add a little salsa on the top.

The fruit smoothie is also a great breakfast. Today I had a fresh strawberry, banana, orange juice, wheat germ (with ice) smoothie from the blender. Both my wife and son had a glass as well.

Runner's World suggested Health Valley chili for lunch. I like Cincinnati Chili made with 99% fat free ground turkey. I guarantee you'd think it was prime beef.

For dinner they suggest complex carbs, but I prefer grilled chicken salad with calorie-free Caeser dressing.

Try these suggestions just for a couple of weeks, instead of eating fast foods. Skip the enormous bagels in the morning. Forget the sandwich for lunch. And definitely avoid the red meat and fried foods for dinner. No ice cream for dessert, either.

In just a few weeks, you'll be feeling and looking better.

Small portions make smaller people

It takes a village to raise a child, and to make that child a little smaller.

Somerville Massachusetts, with 80,000 residents, like many American cities has overweight children. Tufts University with a grant from the CDC is starting to change that by targeting 1st through 3rd graders in an experiment to battle obesity.

The results after just eight months showed that students in first through third grades gained one pound less than students in similar communities. While it may not sound like a lot, this shift in weight gain over time would actually move many children out of the overweight category.

The grant, Shape Up Somerville: Eat Smart Play Hard.™, was awarded to Dr. Christina Economos (N96) in September 2002 for three years.

The project is a community-based environmental approach to obesity prevention. The interventions take place through community partnerships that create healthy eating and physical activity messages and increase opportunities for physical activity and healthy eating, specifically fruits, vegetables, legumes, low-fat dairy and whole grain products throughout the children’s day. Some of the interventions include:

Restaurants

Shape Up Somerville has been working with restaurants across the city to enhance the options for people and families who eat out. 20 restaurants have come on board and are now “Shape Up Approved”. In order for restaurants to be “Approved” they must meet the following criteria:

• Offer low fat dairy products
• Offer some dishes in a smaller portion size
• Offer fruits and vegetables as side dishes
• Have visible signs that highlight their healthier options

School Food Service

For the past two years Shape Up Somerville has worked with the Somerville School Food Service Department to enhance the quality and quantity of healthy foods for students. During the first year, a specific fruit and vegetable was highlighted each month in all ten elementary schools and there were taste tests done during lunch periods at all schools.

New kitchen preparation and serving equipment was purchased. All food service staff were trained on nutrition education, knife skills including working with the new equipment, and food safety. New vegetarian recipes were developed and salads were made fresh each day. A La Carte items were changed to meet specific nutritional standards and fresh fruit was made available everyday for breakfast and lunch. Ice cream was made available only one day per week and sugared cereals were limited at breakfast.

Fast Food Fraud Fools Folks

Ever wonder why fast food looks so good in the ads, and looks so bad in reality?

Because it's not real! Can you guess which picture above is real and which is marketing?

Marketing takes great care in "styling" the food shown in print and video ads to make it appear tasty and healthy. When we know it's not.

Jeff Kay from West Virginia Surf Report went to various fast food outlets and compared his "real" food with those same styled advertisements.

As he writes, "each item was purchased, taken home, and photographed immediately. Nothing was tampered with, run over by a car, or anything of the sort. It is an accurate representation in every case. Shiny, neon-orange, liquefied pump-cheese, and all."

Take a look at all his pictures. If you saw his reality pictures on a billboard, would you stop at McDonald's or Wendy's or KFC ever again?

Poor people don't have a chance when it comes to healthy foods

eMaxHealth.com reports, "How can people on a modest income eat a healthy diet and lose weight when they can't afford it?" The question stumped author Kimberly Floyd during a health seminar and she became determined to find the answer. Her new book "MoneyWise Weight Loss: The Faith-based Plan for Building a Better Body on a Budget" contains the strategies she uncovered.

Having lost 85 pounds herself, the former Registered Nurse found that conventional weight loss programs cost up to $14 a day. After reading that the average low income family can only spend $25 per person per week on food, she decided to see if she could still eat healthy while spending that amount each week.

"I did it for a month and it was challenging," Floyd said. "In my research, I discovered that there is indeed a 'rich people's diet' and a 'poor people's diet.' The rich diet consists of lots of fruits and vegetables, lean protein, and whole grains. The poor diet is high in sugar, fat, and starch. These foods contribute to obesity. In this country, higher obesity statistics run along socioeconomic lines."

To prove her point, Floyd sited an August 2006 article by Dr. Adam Drewnoski in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. In the article Drewnoski states, "There is no question that the rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes in the United States follow a socioeconomic gradient, such that the burden of disease falls disproportionately on people with limited resources, racial-ethnic minorities, and the poor."

Floyd went on to discuss her difficulty in saving money on fruits and vegetables during her challenge. "To save money, many experts advise you to buy fruits and vegetables in season. But what are the seasons? After a lot of digging, I found the answers, and then combined other food budgeting strategies with the principles I used to lose weight. That's how 'MoneyWise Weight Loss' was born."

She concludes "Achieving our optimal weight is one way that we can regain our energy, joy, and live the abundant life that we are called to live. My dream is to make wellness affordable for everyone."

You know you're a redneck, if you have heart disease

"Does the higher incidence of obesity come from the traditional Appalachian Sunday dinner, or is it from the spread of convenience stores and fast food in the last 25 years?" that's the question a two-day conference is trying to answer.

USA Today reports, doctors, lawmakers and specialists hope to launch a public health network in 13 states to change one of the stark facts of Appalachian life: Residents are 20% more likely to die from heart disease than the rest of the country.

The task won't be easy. States in Appalachia lead the country in heart disease risk factors such as smoking, obesity and lack of exercise, and those factors could partly come from long-held cultural practices and beliefs.

That's why the two-day conference that began Thursday includes historians, who can explain the unique characteristics of the region that stretches from Mississippi into upstate New York, including parts of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ohio, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and all of West Virginia.

Four of the five states with the highest rates of common heart conditions are in Appalachia, according to the CDC. West Virginia is the highest in the country, with about 10.4% of adults reporting a common heart condition such as coronary heart disease, compared to a national average of about 6.5%.

Four Appalachian states also rank in the top five for the highest rate of cardiovascular disease-related deaths, according to the American Heart Association, which also sponsored the conference. While researchers have known that for years, they still don't have a good explanation for it.

You want to eat less from your plate? Make your plate less

One of the easiest changes I made in my diet had nothing to do with food. And everything to do with eating.

After reading Brian Wansink book, "Mindless Eating" I decided to take much of his advice to heart. (And help my heart.)

Like most American dinner plates, mine were pretty big — almost 12 inches in diameter. “Pretty ample,” as Wansink said. Fifty years ago, when Americans were a lot skinnier, plates were a lot smaller. Large plates and bowls lead to more eating for the same reason giant popcorn buckets do: they make portions look smaller. Short, wide drinking glasses have a similar effect.

So I changed my plates and forks for good measure. I now eat off of salad plates and use my smaller salad fork. And in 8 months I have lost 80 pounds. I'm sure most of the reason for the weight l0ss has been the small portions I have been eating. But just a little bit of the reason has been the fact that my mind has new cues. When I load up my plate with my smaller portions, my plate looks full. In fact a few times, it looked too full. (That never happened on my old 12-inch dishes.)

I know intellectually that it's just a mind trick. But it's the same trick McDonald's uses to tell you a large order of french fries is a serving.

I was reminded of how fantastic Wansink's observations are after reading his recent interview in the New York Times.

Here are five other lessons from research by Wansink:

1. Hide the cookies; uncover the carrots.

You eat what you see. If you have to look at soda every time you open your refrigerator, you will spend more time thinking about soda and, ultimately, will drink more of it. So keep the sweets tucked away, and move your carrots and celery from the vegetable crisper to the top shelf of the fridge, where they will be at eye level.

2. The same goes for the office.

If there is a public stash of candy at work, make sure it’s not in a glass bowl. In one experiment, Mr. Wansink and another researcher, Jim Palmer, found that secretaries sitting near clear dishes filled with Hershey’s Kisses ate 71 percent more — or 77 calories a day — than those sitting near white dishes of Kisses. Over the course of a year, Mr. Wansink writes, the clear dish would have added more than five pounds of extra weight.

3. Convenience leads to consumption.

The easier food is to grab — even if the difference can be measured in seconds — the more you will eat. So before you move the carrots and celery to the top shelf, wash them and cut them up. You’ll eat more of them. And be wary of resealable cookie and cracker packages that make high-calorie snacking too easy. Leaving one of these packages open on a counter all but guarantees gluttony.

4. Don’t get rid of the evidence.

In another of Mr. Wansink’s experiments, people dining on chicken wings ate more if the bones were cleared away. When the bones were left on the table, diners had a tangible reminder of how much they had eaten. This also helps explain the results of the wonderful “bottomless soup bowl” test. When a bowl was secretly refilled with tomato soup — using a tube hidden beneath a table — people ate far more of the soup than when it disappeared from their bowl as they ate it. In effect, they were using the amount left in the bowl as a measure of how much they had already eaten.

5. Use your eyes to your advantage.

Since your stomach isn’t able to keep perfect track of the calories you are eating, you rely to a large degree on your eyes. The bigger something looks, the less of it you will eat. This is why soup is generally so healthy: the amount of water in it causes people to feel full when they actually are full — rather than a few hundred calories later.

Read the article and read the book. It will be difficult to Mindlessly Eat again

The children will lead us

It starts with the children.

The nation is starting to realize what we eat away from the home is important; so important that it needs to be managed for the benefit of society.

And it can't be left up to even the schools, and definitely not left up to the food industry. In the past 10 years, we have seen what Coke and Pepsi will do. They'll serve up to 5th graders the most sugary, most calorie-laden drinks in the biggest, baddest portions possible.

Now it might stop. Congress is demanding the Institute of Medicine to set food standards in schools. And surprise, surprise, the Institute is recommending more fruit, vegetables and whole grains. What they can't do is provide the money to make it happen.

Local school boards must treat the cafeterias as a place of learning. In that "classroom" we are teaching food nutrition for the rest of our childrens' lives.

What lessons are you demanding from your schools?

Nutrition Standards Urged For School Food: "(AP) WASHINGTON Millions of children soon could be saying goodbye to regular colas, candy and salty snacks during school hours.

Concerned about the rise of obesity in young people, Congress asked the Institute of Medicine to develop a set of standards for foods that would be available in schools.

The Institute responded Wednesday with a two-tier system designed to encourage youngsters to eat more fruit, vegetables and whole grains and to avoid added sugars, salt and saturated fats.

'The alarming increase in childhood obesity rates has galvanized parents and schools across the nation to find ways to improve children's diets and health, and we hope our report will assist that effort,' said Virginia A. Stallings, chair of the committee that prepared the report.

'Making sure that all foods and drinks available in schools meet nutrition standards is one more way schools can help children establish lifelong healthy eating habits,' said Stallings, director of the nutrition center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.

And don't think their recommendation applies only to children. The committee also urged that Parent Teacher Associations adhere to the same standards, as should food items sold at school fund raisers.

Obesity goes shaking along

USA Today.com reports today milkshakes are going chic.

Now there are fancier and fatter ways to get brain freeze.

The report show milkshakes getting bigger and bigger and with more and more calories. One shake has all the calories a 6-foot man needs for the entire day. That's right, the entire day.

These shakes are the ultimate in indulgence and gluttony. We don't need them that big. Why can't a treat be small and delicious? Why does it have to have heart attack written across it?

We know why. It makes more money for restaurants; a lot more than healthy foods.

Don't buy these obesity shakers.

Even as sales of fruit smoothies keep growing, a counter-move is afoot in the restaurant industry to give the old-fashioned milkshake extra buzz by taking it upscale.

It's working: Sales of milkshakes, malts and floats rose 11% in 2006, says NPD Group, an industry research specialist. They're picking up steam at odd hours, too: Nearly 1-in-10 of the dairy drinks is sold at breakfast and 3-in-10 are sold as late-night snacks. The drivers: nostalgia for the customer and profits for the restaurant.

For restaurants, milkshakes are easy money. "They're enormously profitable," Muller says. The average price of a restaurant shake in 2006 was about $3.38, reports Technomic, a market research firm.

About 75% of that is profit, Muller says.

•Twinkie shakes. For $5 to $7, 5-month-old BLT Burger in New York serves a Twinkie Boy shake — made with a Hostess Twinkie, vanilla ice cream and caramel syrup. "We sell a lot of those," says Tim Murphy, manager.

•Hand-scooped. Since launching hand-scooped shakes nearly two years ago, shake sales at Hardee's and Carl's Jr. have tripled — even though the price jumped nearly a buck to $2.99, says Brad Haley, marketing chief. Coming to the chains in May: Orange Cream (Creamsicle-like) shakes.

•Bottled shakes. Ben & Jerry's has taken three of its most popular ice cream flavors — Cherry Garcia, Chunky Monkey and Chocolate Fudge Brownie — and put them into $1.99 bottled shakes that are sold mostly through convenience stores.

But most shakes, particularly candy-filled shakes, are full of calories and fat, warns Amy Lanou, nutrition professor at the University of North Carolina.

A large Health Bar shake weighs in at 2,160 calories, she says. "That's the total calories many adults need for a day."