The murky math of calorie counting
Discuss today's Blowback.
Comments will close after two days.
From the Los Angeles Times
| Advertisement |
|
|
The Latest | news as it happens
- Judge OKs plea deal for 'Girls Gone Wild' founder Joe Francis - L.A. Times - Business 11/06/2009, 2:30 p.m.
- Angels GM Tony Reagins gets long-term contract extension - The Fabulous Forum 11/06/2009, 2:29 p.m.
- Animal lovers' calendar: Weekend of Nov. 7-8 and beyond - L.A. Unleashed 11/06/2009, 2:29 p.m.
- Shell Oil paying millions for tank violations - Greenspace 11/06/2009, 2:23 p.m.
- The last analyst says goodbye to FirstFed - Money & Company 11/06/2009, 2:17 p.m.
Save more than
Kevin - What does that have to do with anything she said - you may be right - but don't be a tool of this cynical huckster.
Richard Waddell @ 6:00 PM PDT, Aug 8, 2008
This is the typical usual step before lawmakers think they know what's best for everyone and ban it outright. Let people make decisions on their own, even with imperfect information. People know a double cheeseburger is worse than a turkey sandwich, and if they don't, they won't know how to read calorie information. Give restaurants the right to run their establishments the way they want. They don't tell City Council members how to flush their toilets.
Kevin @ 12:24 PM PDT, Aug 8, 2008
Ok - this really is the last one - internal and sensory cues tell us to eat as much of we can of the energy-densest foods available. Which happen to be processed foods full of sugar and fat. Our senses usually didn't have to deal with a problme of excess before agriculture so they embrace it - such as right after killing a nice juicy mammoth - now we have the equivalent of fortified mammoht meat every day - what's going to tell us to stop eating it? Let's hear you refute that.
Richard Waddell @ 10:36 AM PDT, Aug 8, 2008
Last one I swear - this is the best example I've seen that PhD sometimes means "Pile higher and deeper".
Richard Waddell @ 10:33 AM PDT, Aug 8, 2008
They haven't posted my previous comments - maybe this one is innocuous enough - are we all really as stupid as Carol Hart seems to think? Do you think maybe she's just trying to sell more books? I don't know - I'm just asking.
Richard Waddell @ 10:06 AM PDT, Aug 8, 2008
I don't know if they'll print my first comment, but If you're taken in by this nonsense I recommend you read a review of the book she's shilling at http://www.januarymagazine.com/cookbook/goodfood.html I have no connection with her or the reviewer, I'm just outraged at her 'expert' stance - she knows it all, nutrionists know nothing. Thank goodness for Karma because this column is a red herring that performs a great disservice just for the sake of selling some books.
Richard Waddell @ 9:15 AM PDT, Aug 8, 2008
Wow, shilling for your own book - and a PhD as well. Is that honorary? You should really be ashamed - you're as bad as the quacks who try to assert the whole medical community knows nothing and they have all the answers. Hope the backlash is severe, because this red herring is not helping anyone. I'll remember your name so I can cast aspersions every chance I get. Shame on the Times for printing this.
Richard Waddell @ 8:44 AM PDT, Aug 8, 2008
Labels are everything. I've seen people eat an entire box of "low fat" cookies and believe that they were being health conscious. This type of law gives the social engineers a warm and fuzzy feeling. See what we did for the benefit of mankind, and it didn't cost us a penny. It is doubtful that we can change peoples eating habits. That would require some thought and sacrafice. Not gonna happen!
Gary @ 6:33 AM PDT, Aug 8, 2008