# How soon until NYC is NOT a food destination?



## danbuter (Jun 1, 2012)

With all of the crazy laws Bloomberg has passed or attempted to pass, how soon until all the good restaurants move to Jersey City or at least outside the city limits?

I still can't believe the NYC politicians called for a ban on salt in restaurants (even during prep).


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Jun 1, 2012)

Salt???


----------



## GLC (Jun 1, 2012)

It's very old news, 2010. Note that although Bloomberg called it ridiculous, when you read the rest of his response, it's clear he means that it was too much too fast and you have to ease people into their lives being controlled for their own good as determined by someone very, very smart (like guess who) over a few years. 


A10129-2009 Text
 S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K

 10129
 I N  ASSEMBLY
 March 5, 2010

 Introduced  by  M. of A. ORTIZ, MARKEY -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M. of A.
 PERRY -- read once and referred to the Committee on Health


AN ACT to amend the general business law, in relation to prohibiting the
 use of salt in the preparation of food by restaurants
 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND  ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The general business law is amended by adding a new section
 399-bbb to read as follows:

S  399-BBB.  PROHIBITION ON SALT; RESTAURANTS. 1. NO OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A RESTAURANT IN THIS STATE SHALL USE SALT IN ANY FORM IN THE PREPARATION OF ANY FOOD  FOR  CONSUMPTION  BY  CUSTOMERS  OF  SUCH  RESTAURANT, INCLUDING  FOOD  PREPARED TO BE CONSUMED ON THE PREMISES OF SUCH RESTAURANT OR OFF OF SUCH PREMISES.

Wikipedia:
_In March 2010, Ortiz introduced a bill, co-sponsored with assembly members Margaret Markey and N. Nick Perry, that would prohibit the use of all forms of salt in the preparation and cooking of all restaurant food.[3] Ortiz said he was inspired to introduce the bill after his father suffered a heart attack due to high blood pressure.[4] The bill quickly gained media attention, and prompted negative comments from New York chefs such as Tom Colicchio, who said a salt ban would mean "no one would come here anymore,"[5] and New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, who called the bill "ridiculous".[6] The proposal also earned Ortiz the title of "Nanny of the Month" for March 2010 from Reason.tv.[7] Responding to the outcry, Ortiz issued a statement saying that his intention was to have the bill only outlaw the use of salt "as an additive", not as "a functional component of the recipe".[6]_


----------



## buckytom (Jun 2, 2012)

yes, old news, but do you know abput the new speakeasies that are popping up? you can get extra salt and 20 oz. sodas, but for a price.
,
i can see a future where people pray for snow storms so they can follow the salt spreader trucks around with containers of french fries.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Jun 2, 2012)

I am opposed to government determining what I can eat or drink and I think  privately Bloomberg is too.  I think the real genius in Bloomberg's approach is that he uses these bans to create a national dialogue on health issues and eventually changes are made that improve the overall health of the nation.  In the case of salt and sugar I would like to see pressure placed on food companies to reduce the amount or remove it where it is not needed or was never intended to be.

As for the sweetened beverage ban it makes me laugh.  I am obese, round as a biscuit, and I have not had a sweetened beverage in about forty years. 

Go figure!


----------



## Margi Cintrano (Jun 2, 2012)

*Time For A New Governor & A New Mayor*

  People shall carry Salt in their Shoulder Bags ...  

It is time for a new Governor and a new Mayor ... Besides, it is illegal to be in mandate over 8 years, isn´t it ?  

I am sure the Michelin Chefs, such as Tom Keller etcetra, shall manifest or take it further ... Yes ? 

Interesting thread too ...

Ciao, Have nice wkend.

Margi.


----------



## justplainbill (Jun 2, 2012)

Pickles, sauerkraut, salami, pastrami, cheese, ..., without salt?


----------



## Siegal (Jun 2, 2012)

Some things Bloomberg did were great. The no smoking in bars and restaurants (bc you know other people are effected) and the posting of calories on menus with 15+ restaurants. I really miss that since I moved because I felt u could make an informed choice. But it was a choice he gave NYers unlike his current ban on soda which takes choice away.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Jun 2, 2012)

> (bc you know other people are effected)



Documentation please.......


----------



## Hoot (Jun 2, 2012)

I reckon he means well, but he sure comes off looking kinda pushy. Ban large sodas....what's next? no more free refills? limit soda sales to one per customer? 
I wonder if he really believes that banning large sodas will truly help.To be sure there must be more pressing matters in NYC....'course, not having ever traveled to that fair city, I could be wrong.


----------



## blissful (Jun 2, 2012)

buckytom said:


> ,
> i can see a future where people pray for snow storms so they can follow the salt spreader trucks around with containers of french fries.




And new Hookah bars and salt lick establishments for after dinner--it will be all the rave.


----------



## GLC (Jun 2, 2012)

Margi Cintrano said:


> It is time for a new Governor and a new Mayor ... Besides, it is illegal to be in mandate over 8 years, isn´t it ?



New York City had a two-term limit, but Bloomy got it extended to three years. No limits on the governor. 

Most places in the U.S., a mayor can hold office indefinitely. Hilmer Moore,the mayor of Richmond, Texas, a respectable sized small city, has held office since 1949. 
City of Richmond, Texas

Richard M Daley was mayor of Chicago for 22 years. Many states have term limits for governors. But Texas and North Dakota both have current governors in office more than 11 years.


----------



## taxlady (Jun 2, 2012)

Aunt Bea said:


> I am opposed to government determining what I can eat or drink and I think  privately Bloomberg is too.  I think the real genius in Bloomberg's approach is that he uses these bans to create a national dialogue on health issues and eventually changes are made that improve the overall health of the nation.  In the case of salt and sugar I would like to see pressure placed on food companies to reduce the amount or remove it where it is not needed or was never intended to be.
> 
> ...


If that's what he is doing, then kudos to him.

My blood pressure went up to 180/105. I was shocked. I knew I had been eating more salt, so I started to cut back. Mostly, I started looking at the sodium content of foods. My BP is back down to 120/65 and I really don't consider my diet to be "low salt" now.

I was shocked to see how much salt is added to food e.g., 260 mg of sodium in a 2 tablespoon serving of salsa. That's 11% of the RDA!

Maybe the restaurants should have to list how much sodium on average for each menu item. It might make the chefs and owners reconsider excessive salt use.


----------



## CraigC (Jun 2, 2012)

Keep sending Bloomy "Salty Dog Blues" videos!


----------



## Bolas De Fraile (Jun 2, 2012)

We do thing differently here in the UK we just let the main culprits sponsor the Olympics.
I would vote for Bloomberg.


----------



## Steve Kroll (Jun 2, 2012)

Siegal said:


> ...no smoking in bars and restaurants (bc you know other people are effected)





Uncle Bob said:


> Documentation please.......


How about this (published two months ago)? 
New evidence of harmfulness of second-hand smoke: Cancer causing agent present in gaseous phase of cigarette smoke

And on a more basic level, even if it did turn out there were no health implications from second-hand smoke, I sure appreciate people not puffing on their cancer sticks around me in a restaurant while I'm trying to eat. It has nothing to do with your rights. It's common courtesy.

As for the other stuff, I agree that the government has no business telling people what they can or can't eat. But, like Aunt Bea points out, it really seems like more of a publicity stunt to promote awareness, than a proposal for serious legislation.


----------



## Addie (Jun 2, 2012)

I would be bring my own salt shaker with me and for soda? I would be ordering two of their largest. One for my imaginary friend sitting across from me. 

When did Boomberg become a health specialist? We all need some sodium in our system. And for sodas? I don't drink them at all. Yet I too am overweight. I might drink a bottle of carbonated soda or seltzer water with a squirt of lemon about every six months. Does that count as a soda? 

We have a zealous mayor in Boston as well. But he hasn't gone as far as Bloomberg yet. His approach is excercise. He has started a bicycle program to get people to ride a bike to work. He is asking the summer programs for kids in the summer to put in more outside active games into their programs. Get the kids moving again. Volley Ball is one of his suggestions. I think it is an excellent idea. We also have a free tennis program for inner city kids. 

If you are going to address the obesity program in this country, start where the problem starts. With the kids. Excercise is addictive. Ask any runner.


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Jun 2, 2012)

They would still serve salt at the table, right? For those who want some salt on their food? Or would customers have to bring their own? Or even worse, do without?

Maybe we need a law requiring us to chew our food carefully and swallow it slowly. Also need that floss your teeth twice a day law.


----------



## justplainbill (Jun 2, 2012)

Addie said:


> I would be bring my own salt shaker with me and for soda? I would be ordering two of their largest. One for my imaginary friend sitting across from me.
> 
> When did Boomberg become a health specialist? We all need some sodium in our system. And for sodas? I don't drink them at all. Yet I too am overweight. I might drink a bottle of carbonated soda or seltzer water with a squirt of lemon about every six months. Does that count as a soda?
> 
> ...


With respect to exercise for the little darlings, there should be a drastic cutback in school busing programs.
Biking to work is fine if you have access to shower facilities but impractical during most inclement (precipitation) weather.


----------



## Andy M. (Jun 2, 2012)

justplainbill said:


> With respect to exercise for the little darlings, there should be a drastic cutback in school busing programs.
> Biking to work is fine if you have access to shower facilities but impractical during most inclement (precipitation) weather.



No one thing is or has to be a complete solution.  Maybe biking to work is one component of a complete exercise program.  This approach offers people the option of biking, rather than mandating your actions as in NYC.

If I owned a restaurant in NYC and that law passed, I'd move.  I wonder if the legislator who sponsored the salt bill eats all his food prepared with no salt???


----------



## justplainbill (Jun 2, 2012)

buckytom said:


> yes, old news, but do you know abput the new speakeasies that are popping up? you can get extra salt and 20 oz. sodas, but for a price.
> ,
> i can see a future where people pray for snow storms so they can follow the salt spreader trucks around with containers of french fries.


Calcium chloride is generally not recommended for human consumption.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Jun 2, 2012)

Steve Kroll said:


> How about this (published two months ago)?
> New evidence of harmfulness of second-hand smoke: Cancer causing agent present in gaseous phase of cigarette smoke
> 
> So they found a new component in cig smoke that is carcinogenic...So whats new?? it's well documented that the stuff will kill those who smoke!!
> ...


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Jun 2, 2012)

There has been a lot of work expended in scientific studies proving (or trying to prove, depending on whether you believe the studies) that second hand smoke is harmful to the health of those exposed to it. The basic problem is that no non-smoker should have to breathe other peoples' smoke, but it's difficult to restrict the freedom of those who smoke just because other people don't like it. Thus the effort to prove it's a health threat.

In an ideal world people who smoke would never inflict their smoke on people who don't want it. Unfortunately in the real world there are many smokers who could care less, and some who even like inflicting smoke on non-smokers. As a result the effort has been (1) prove that second hand smoke is harmful to health, and (2) make smoking illegal in public places.

That has pretty much happened now, and AFAIK most of the country has made smoking illegal in public places.

Salt does just not measure up as an issue. The idea of outlawing salt in food preparation is equivalent to outlawing smoking in private areas. I wish people would not smoke at all, but if they want to do it at home then it's certainly none of my business.

And it's none of the state's business to tell restaurants that they can't use salt. Customers are free to request their food to be prepared without salt, and most restaurants are likely to cooperate. I order french fries no salt without any problem at fast food joints.


----------



## Addie (Jun 2, 2012)

justplainbill said:


> With respect to exercise for the little darlings, there should be a drastic cutback in school busing programs.
> Biking to work is fine if you have access to shower facilities but impractical during most inclement (precipitation) weather.


 
I have seen bycylists who wear a slicker set in rainy weather. The most danger for them is not only the cars, but sliding on falling wet leaves.


----------



## danbuter (Jun 2, 2012)

His newest idea is to limit how much soda a restaurant is allowed to give you (no more than 24 oz, I believe). 

Also, it is illegal to smoke in public places (even a park outside) in NYC.


----------



## justplainbill (Jun 2, 2012)

danbuter said:


> His newest idea is to limit how much soda a restaurant is allowed to give you (no more than 24 oz, I believe).
> 
> Also, it is illegal to smoke in public places (even a park outside) in NYC.


Fine by me.  I put up with NYC for 54 years (the first 25 being somewhat pleasant).  Unfortunately the arrogant mentality of NYC is spreading to many other areas of the USA.


----------



## GLC (Jun 2, 2012)

Bolas De Fraile said:


> I would vote for Bloomberg.



A great many people truly wish you could.


----------



## justplainbill (Jun 2, 2012)

Uncle Bob said:


> Steve Kroll said:
> 
> 
> > How about this (published two months ago)?
> ...


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Jun 2, 2012)

This kind of "the government will protect you from yourself" mentality is not just New York. Here on the West Coast we associate this kind of thinking with San Francisco. If anything I think NYC is just becoming more like SF, or maybe vice versa, or both.

When it comes to food I think of it is "mommy-state" run wild. Eat slowly and chew your food carefully. We'll protect you from the evil fast food franchises.

When it comes to smoking in public I don't know. I did smoke about 30+ years ago and I quit. I'm sorry I ever started. It appears that it didn't totally wreck my health but it could have, and does for many--particularly those who can't or won't quit. Back when I smoked I never smoked around people who didn't like it. I understood that restaurants were not good places to smoke. Even when I was a smoker I couldn't condone smoke while I was eating.

Unfortunately not all people are considerate. If something isn't illegal then they take it as their right to do it whenever they want, and if somebody else doesn't like it then tough sh**. Those are the people who made it inevitable that smoking would become outlawed in the workplace and in public spaces. Fine, if you won't be considerate because the law doesn't require it, then we'll just change the law and now it's illegal for your inconsiderate behavior.

In my recent experience of temporary residences I've resided at places where charcoal barbecues and smokers would get you thrown out.

I still think people should be free to eat what they want and restaurants should be free to serve up whatever poison their customers want. I like the idea that restaurants must furnish dietary information. Let the customers decide.

If we're going to legislate healthfulness then we should prohibit all tobacco and alcohol. Yet we already tried the illegalization of alcohol and the experiment failed. Currently many sates are experimenting with legalization of pot (with IMO poor results).

This leads me to wonder that maybe the government is a poor choice when it comes to controlling our behavior. Maybe we've reached the point of having too much government...


----------



## lyndalou (Jun 3, 2012)

What Uncle Bob Said.


----------



## Skittle68 (Jun 3, 2012)

We just upped our glass size to 20 oz, and it amazes me when people suck down 3 or 4 glasses. Because I'm health conscious I would make a point not to drink even a full glass, but that is a choice the customer is making, and certainly shouldn't be something the government tries to get involved in. I DO agree that calories should be posted. We have a chocolate cake that has 1200 calories in one piece. I ate a piece once and it was sooooo good. I'd love to eat it all the time, but once I saw that I would never touch it again unless I was splitting it with 6 people lol. There are some things on the menu people probably think are healthy and vice versa, and it would be great for people to know these things (we do have some of the lowest calorie entree's listed in the "lighthouse menu" tho, which is nice).  I bet if they listed the calories we would sell a bunch of our flavored teas. They are just iced tea with 2 oz of fruit purée mixed in, so they are pretty low cal, but you still get to feel like you're splurging. And they look fancy


----------



## buckytom (Jun 4, 2012)

there used to be some old joke about bad habits and how they affect other people.
it went something about how we all have bad habits. 

smokers' bad habit has a side effect whereby other people around them are forced to breathe in their wafting smoke.

my bad habit is drinking beer. it's side effect is having to pee frequently.

to be fair, if i have to breathe in your smoke, i should be allowed to pee on you...


----------



## Hoot (Jun 4, 2012)

As a smoker...I am fond of good cigars...I would never put folks in a position to be affected by the smoke. I have absolutely no problem with the laws against smoking in a public place. I don't go to restaurants to smoke. I go there to eat. I can wait to smoke.


----------



## Addie (Jun 4, 2012)

I make it a point to walk away from a doorway if I am going to light up. I don't know one non-smoker who wants to be making an exit from a building and walk through a haze of smoke. I am also mindful of which way the wind is blowing.


----------



## GLC (Jun 4, 2012)

Long post. Don't like long posts? Move along or get over it. 

My gut says leave people to their choices. But gut feelings always need to be checked, and after checking mine, I'm not going to oppose legislated portion controls in one form or another. Here's why. And at the end, a modest proposal. 

While some of the regulations and proposed regulation are difficult to swallow (but they're also sugar-free and low-fat), the "choice" argument doesn't really work. Customers _could_ have ordered and eaten two cheeseburgers in 1992. But they didn't, because the seller presented one as the serving size. Today, the same seller represents that a single cheeseburger with twice the calories is the standard serving size. The customer is choosing ONE serving of the same meal in both cases. It is silly to expect customers to toss out half their serving, even if they are old enough to remember the old serving. 

In 1992, the customer _could_ have purchased and consumed two to four  8-ounce Cokes. But they didn't, because eight ounces was the seller's serving size. Today, Coke represents that twenty ounces is the standard serving size. (Labels pretending that an individual size unit has multiple "servings" is fraudulent. What's in the bottle is the real serving size, unless you're going be passing that bottle around the group.) 


Wendy's original medium drink was 22 ounces. Their Biggie was 32 ounces. If you were thinking moderation was good, here was their representation of "medium," greatly more than anyone needs and hardly "medium" in the bottled soft drink world. In 2006, they made the former Biggie become the medium at 32 ounces and the large 42 ounces. Your already excessive, but "moderate," medium increased by 50%. Just so you don't feel bad, they dropped the Biggie from their fries and began calling it "medium" without changing the amount. 

We're not going back very far for those numbers. If we go on back to the beginning, the 1955 original McDonald's hamburger weighed 3.7 ounces, of which the patty was 1.6 ounces. We could go on with examples, but maybe you can see them everywhere. 

MAYBE. Because if you're not very old, you think muffins have always been that size, four times the volume they used to be. And you might think a 10-inch pizza, or even a 12-inch pizza, is a "small." And if someone put a 9-inch plate in front of you, you might think they had mistakenly given you the salad plate. And today you would be right. You wouldn't know any different. 

The point is that the consumer doesn't determine what a normal portion is. The seller makes that determination. And the sellers cannot be trusted to make those decisions. They can't do it. As soon as one of them ups the size, the others are bound to follow, or they soon look like cheap pikers for offering less than a normal portion. (And, of course, they make less money when they sell less food. Not that they'd let financial gain guide them to choices that harm their customers.) 

There was a time when the meal you were served was about the appropriate size, both to feel full and to nourish you through that part of the day. It's true that you could be a pig, but you would then be knowingly and perhaps publicly gobbling more than a recognized standard normal portion. Your piggish decision would be to eat MORE than normal. The normal portions, as guided by restaurants, were apparently about right. 

*A small demonstration for those so young they've never known anything different. *

Look at any collection of photos from the 1950's, 1960's, and into the 1970's. How many people do you see who today would be thought "fat." Not many. But if you're young enough that you don't see any in those old photos, go find some photos of the "fat man" from an old carnival. 






And the fat lady.





Were they fat? Sure. Would they be fat today? Sure. But remember that, back then, they were so amazingly "fat" that people would pay to look at them. 

Aren't we lucky. We get to see for free.






Teachers. A rather sedentary bunch...

1950 teachers






1950 teacher candidates






2011 teachers






The 2011 student teacher candidates







The point is that people are not deliberately choosing to eat two and three times more than they should. The choice of portions is being made for them. The standard is being set, just as it was before, by the sellers of prepared meals. Those seller once set their portion size according to what portions were served at home. But business decisions drove them to increase portions sizes as a way of increasing profits. (There is no other way to effectively increase profits but by selling more food.)  

Now, the meal sellers were setting the portion size. And restaurants needed bigger plates to serve more food. And so home dinner plates followed suit. Today's plates won't even fit in shelves of kitchens unmodified since the 1040's or 1950's.  

There are other thins going on. The fast food meal sellers made extremely high sugar drinks the standard meal beverage. They were attractively sweet, and they were very cheap and easily stored as syrup and prepared on site. Perhaps not so terrible if this was still the standard portion:






We are not on entirely new ground here. There are limits to how potentially harmful can be stock market based products, because misuse can create great national harm to all. There are things where you can't just say "people have a choice" and leave it at that. Nor can you imagine that people will just learn to avoid such behavior. There have been investment bubble after investment bubbles for hundreds of years, each doing great general harm. But they still happen with some regularity. 

I don't know if portion size can be controlled by legislation. I'm not even sure what form that legislation would take to be effective, whether it would dictate the sizes offered or whether it would mandate a prominent warning and advisory. I do know that doing nothing is a poor option. And I do know that the history of meal seller actions in response to pressure on this issue shows they will merely craft a strategy to keep their super sizes. There is a legitimate and pressing government interest in some real action. The direct load on tax money is very real. The effect on children of the supersize environment is vicious. 

So, knowing there is a pressing need, perhaps a national emergency, I'm not going to say some effort is wrong or futile, because it might work or might motivate some correction, and I frankly don't have a better idea that's sure to work. I'm as shy of government regulation as most in a state with a tradition of light regulation, but the sellers of meals in this country have become, in a way that's not so outrageous to imagine, enemies of the national health and economy, and they've done it for their own financial gain and have targeted children to perpetuate their profits. This cannot be allowed, and they aren't going to effectively stop themselves.

And like most in my state, I do not intend that it be left entirely to government to fix. I start with me. Smaller plates at home. Smaller portions. And demanding restaurants serve two of us a single meal with an extra plate, paying a small fee for the extra plate and not even that in the case of fast food where the trusty pocket knife is handy. See how they like only making half from their supersize servings. 

Not that's legislation I could get behind, requiring meal sellers to split single meals for a very nominal fee, but prohibited for charging more for the meal or the extra drink.


----------



## Skittle68 (Jun 4, 2012)

GLC said:
			
		

> Long post. Don't like long posts? Move along or get over it.
> 
> My gut says leave people to their choices. But gut feelings always need to be checked, and after checking mine, I'm not going to oppose legislated portion controls in one form or another. Here's why. And at the end, a modest proposal.
> 
> ...



Great post- I agree with just about everything you said. Portion sizes are outrageous (I often ask for a to-go box with the meal so I can box half of it before I start eating, eliminating the temptation to eat the whole plate), and people drink soda like its water.  I am also not sure legislation is the answer, but then what is?  As I said earlier, posting calories/fat, and maybe listing what would be a recommended portion size might bring the sizes back down, and make most people get a water after they drink their first glass of coke. But why would you pay for an extra plate?? I split a meal with my bf just about every time we go out, and I've only been to one place where they tried to charge us (they wanted to charge $5 extra). I almost walked out, and I will never go back. I work in a restaurant and sending out an extra plate should not cost extra, unless they get an extra side, or an extra salad, and I think that's a terrible precedent to set. I'm perfectly happy to pay the prices at a restaurant, but I won't pay for nothing.


----------



## Andy M. (Jun 4, 2012)

I agree as a nation we are becoming heavier than is healthy.  I also agree it's because the restaurant and food industries as super-sizing their portions to increase profits through increased traffic and mark-up.

I am personally annoyed by the giant portions in many restaurants.  Much too much food for one person.  I reject the argument that the extra food can be taken home as leftovers.  If the restaurant/food industry would reverse the trend and offer smaller portions, that would be great.  I don't see it happening so I exercise personal portion control by not patronizing those restaurants that offer giant portions and by skipping appetizers and desserts or splitting them with my SO.

On the other hand, I am violently opposed to some grandstanding legislator who has no knowledge of food and cooking and is only looking for a headline, trying to legislate the elimination of salt from all restaurants in his state.  Now that's ludicrous!

I am firmly in the personal responsibility camp.  It's no one's fault but mine that I'm overweight.

If you go to a fast food restaurant, you have the option to super-size or king-size your meal.  It's an option, not an imperative.  Is the Whopper too big?  Go for a Whopper Jr.  You always have a choice.  If you're not willing to make that choice, that's on you.

Poor families often but two liter bottles of soft drinks because it's cheaper than milk.  If the govt. wants to get involved, maybe they can make an effort to reduce the price of milk or tax soft drinks.

Don't legislate smaller portions, I'll go to three restaurants in an evening if I have to.  Don't ban ingredients like salt or MSG, I'll get some on the black market if I have to.

Educate the population and work to provide healthful alternatives the make healthy eating viable.  You have to start now with children to change trends.  It's harder than banning and limiting but so much better in the long run.


----------



## Andy M. (Jun 4, 2012)

Skittle68 said:


> ...I've only been to one place where they tried to charge us (they wanted to charge $5 extra). I almost walked out, and I will never go back. I work in a restaurant and sending out an extra plate should not cost extra, unless they get an extra side, or an extra salad, and I think that's a terrible precedent to set. I'm perfectly happy to pay the prices at a restaurant, but I won't pay for nothing.



I agree.  Restaurants need to maximize the dollars they take in for a table to survive.  If a table turns over 2-3 times in a night, that's your revenue for the night.  If the portions are larger, they can charge more and increase revenues for that table.  If you want to split a meal, you're cutting into their profits and that's why they want to charge for a plate.

I agree it stinks.  Just trying to explain why it happens.


----------



## Skittle68 (Jun 4, 2012)

Andy M. said:
			
		

> I agree.  Restaurants need to maximize the dollars they take in for a table to survive.  If a table turns over 2-3 times in a night, that's your revenue for the night.  If the portions are larger, they can charge more and increase revenues for that table.  If you want to split a meal, you're cutting into their profits and that's why they want to charge for a plate.
> 
> I agree it stinks.  Just trying to explain why it happens.



Oh, I understand why they want to do it. Doesn't mean I have to agree or be willing to pay it. What if one person comes in alone and takes up that same table? Only one entree sold, and they aren't buying a second drink either. If I only get one entree I only expect to pay for one entree. Period. Oh, and this place was completely empty. No worries about taking up a table. The prices were too high, the food was good but not outstanding, and they nickel and dime people. Too bad, because I liked the atmosphere and the decor. Unfortunately I think they are one of those places where the owner has never seen the profit margin bell curve of supply and demand. If the place is empty, you need to find a way to draw more people in (like lowering prices), not raise the prices to try to make more off each entree, thereby reducing demand. I used to work at a restaurant where the owner didn't get that concept. She would run a good special, and the place would be packed, so the next week she would change it so that it wasn't such a good deal (so she would make more money) and people would stop coming back. And she started charging 59 cents for sides of ranch, mayo, BBQ sauce, or anything else like that. That pisses people off too, and makes them feel like we are ripping them off so they never want to come back, like me and the place that wanted to charge $5 for an extra plate. I ordered a cup of soup for my meal at that place, so I paid $3.50 instead of $5, and my bf and I ate off the same plate, which was fine with me anyway.


----------



## Hoot (Jun 4, 2012)

Another thing to consider... I agree that sellers set the portion size and it is true that, ultimately, it is a matter of personal responsibility to make healthy choices. In my opinion, however, it will take a long time before the population in general will willingly accept smaller serving sizes after being accustomed for so long to being able to have larger sizes. Oh they will accept them, they can just buy two. Eventually, it will work out that smaller sizes could become the norm. In the meantime, what about grocery stores? Will the government stop the sale of 2 liter bottles of Pepsi? Not likely. Will they limit the amount that can be sold? Nope. Will they ban the sale of substances that are deemed harmful? They haven't yet because there is too much tax revenue to be had to stop it. I suspect that if the truth were known, the only reason tobacco is still legal is because of the revenue it generates for the government. Just my humble two cents.


----------



## GLC (Jun 4, 2012)

Andy M. said:


> I agree.  Restaurants need to maximize the dollars they take in for a table to survive.  If a table turns over 2-3 times in a night, that's your revenue for the night.  If the portions are larger, they can charge more and increase revenues for that table.  If you want to split a meal, you're cutting into their profits and that's why they want to charge for a plate.
> 
> I agree it stinks.  Just trying to explain why it happens.



That's the truth that's behind all this. If what you sell is food, and you want to increase revenue, the most difficult approach is to try to gain more customers. Unless you have particular name recognition or location problems, you're probably not going to get many more customers. Most established restaurants, the long-term survivors, have pretty much as many customers as they can get. And some couldn't serve more if they had them. 

The surest way is to simply sell more stuff, in this case, food. The cost for upsizing a meal is proportionally much smaller than the base cost. The second batty or the second pork chop or the 50% larger steak doesn't cost you much more, but they justify a higher price. 

At first glance, it seems like you would be hurting yourself, competition wise. But once you are touting Biggies and supersizes and huge shrimp combos, your message is that THIS is the kind of meal you should be eating. And it's only a little bit more. Not ever more, shortly, because everyone else follows suit, because it makes sense. In seeing your huge shrimp combo and maybe raising you a bit, they're also turning more money. 

It's not like all the meal sellers get together and conspire to serve giant meals. It just happens. And it largely happens because - ask yourself - what's a "meal?"  Well, it's the amount of stuff you sit down to. If they are all telling you that food amounts two, three and four times larger are "meals," the message is that you can sit down to them and be sitting down to a meal. I mean, you would be unlikely to order three or four of them for yourself, even if the second, third, and fourth were just that small amount more than the base meal. 

Compare
4 ounce Hamburger - $2.  Large 6 ounce Hamburger - $2.50.  MegaMeal 12 ounce Hamburger - $3.00. 

Now 4 ounce Hamburger - $2.  Two 4 ounce Hamburgers - $3.   Three 4 ounce Hamburgers - $3.50. 

I'm betting few individual diners would order three 4 ounce burgers. That would be piggy, because that's three meals you're eating. But they will buy the MegaMeal, because it's one "meal." 


That's the way to shape choices. Make it okay by calling it a meal or, in the case of a restaurant, cramming it all on one plate. It is not simply offering more food. That was always offered. You could always by a supersize amount of food. You had the choice of more food. 

It's no different with Coke. You could always have bought two 8-ounce bottles and chugged them down. And it's true today that you could choose to buy a 20-ounce bottle and pour half of it out. But you would not have bought two 8-ounce Cokes, because you just wanted a Coke, and Coke said, "Here's a Coke."  You still want a Coke, and Coke still says, "Here's a Coke."  You had better believe Wendy's would love to start the menu at a huge burger and say , "Here's a meal." But they couldn't stand the heat. But take a look at what the bottom tier hamburger looks like. They're only there to compare to. 

Wendy's pitiful Cheesy Cheeseburger:






Really think that's a meal. No lettuce. No tomato. Not even condiments showing. They're there, but we don't want you seeing them and thinking this is a righteous meal. Meat and cheese grudgingly laid between buns. 300 calories. Add a medium Coke (+240) and the little "value" fries (+230), total 870 calories. And that's just for the burger carefully pictured to look pathetically NOT a meal. 

Yes, you can choose to leave half the meal or pour out half the Coke. But by the time you're through childhood, the MegaMeal and the 20-ounce Coke are the accepted portions. If you don't think fast food corporations and restaurant chains think in terms of generations, look at what they pay for the properties they build on and think about how many hamburgers that is. They're positioned for your grandchildren. 

It is not a harmless manipulation of choice, Nor is it something that you can write off as adults making choices. And it's not about protecting the individual from himself. Nor can you say, "Look. I make the right choice, and everyone else should, too." You can't get a grip on this until you think about it enough to see it as a slow bomb going off.  I can't say what will work to abate this. But I do know that if the best way doesn't work, the second best has to be tried.


----------



## CWS4322 (Jun 4, 2012)

I recently read an article about how cholesterol levels have shifted since the '60s. A lot of other things have shifted as well--the amount of exercise a person gets, the amount of pre-packaged food one eats, the number of fast food joints, etc. Here in Ontario, the liberals tried to ban sushi because of health risks. Adults driving with s/one under the age of 16 cannot smoke in the car; helmets must be worn when biking; smoking banned in all workplaces and public spaces; no treating one's lawn; no soda sold in school vending machines; food "police" at schools re: lunches students bring...the list goes on and on and on. There is such a thing as over-regulating people. It is as if people can no longer be thought of to make intelligent choices. Living in a nanny state is very insulting, I find. Also, most of these regulations are based on the majority of the population living in urban settings. I couldn't ride my bike to work if I wanted to--I live 35 km from the heart of the City. To take public transportation, I have to drive 25 minutes. I choose to live in the country, have a big garden, and raise my chickens. Luckily, the property is zoned Agricultural 2, otherwise, because the City moved to me when amalgamation took place, I wouldn't be able to keep my chickens. People in the little village that is now part of the City, can't keep chickens, but I can, 5 km out.


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Jun 4, 2012)

I'm all in favor of the government protecting people from other people, but IMO it's an unacceptable infringement of our freedom for the government to step in and protect us from ourselves.

If we take the food police thing to the extreme then what are we going to have? Routine weighings and a government approved diet issued to each person? The government telling you no, you can't have ice cream for dessert because you're too fat?

If the government wants to get in the process they should do it with education.


----------



## CWS4322 (Jun 4, 2012)

When I was growing up, we lived on one end of the town, the school was on the other. We either walked or rode our bikes to school, and we went home for lunch and walked or rode our bikes to do that. I rode my bike to piano lessons. When we moved and lived 5 miles out of town, I rode my bike to my summer job when I was 15. And, home again. If it rained, my mother drove me to work and my brother picked me up. Kids are bussed to school--can't walk or ride their bikes. Driven to other activities, can't ride a bike or take a bus. Children in Ontario, according to a recent study, get less than 3 hours of exercise a week. Children don't play outside anymore unless involved in an organized activity. We made tree forts, climbed trees, went skating, explored the local junk car yard, rode our bikes to friends' farms where we rode horses (I'd ride my bike to one of my parents' employee's farm where I'd ride the Pinto pony by myself--around the gravel pit, and all over the place--and sometimes, I didn't tighten the saddle right and she'd stop to eat and I'd slide down her neck--but I survived). We fished for sunfish in the local creek. We went to the county fair and went on the rides until we threw up the corndogs and cotton candy (okay--that wasn't always fun, but still). Where were my parents? They were at work. The only time I had to ask permission to go anywhere is if I wanted to go to the DQ for a Dilly bar--the DQ was across the highway and I had to have permission to do that. I never fell out of a tree or broke a limb; I didn't drown in the lake or the creek (and, I did fall through the ice in the spring a couple of times), I always got back on the horse if I got bucked off (and no, I didn't wear a riding helmet--we often rode bareback). Yes, a certain number of people die because of bike accidents or getting bucked off a horse. I haven't seen any proof that regulating how these activities are done will bring the number of injuries or deaths to zero.


----------



## taxlady (Jun 4, 2012)

CWS4322 said:


> ...
> Yes, a certain number of people die because of bike accidents or getting bucked off a horse. I haven't seen any proof that regulating how these activities are done will bring the number of injuries or deaths to zero.


Actually, it turns out that legislating bike helmets raises the death/accident rate / km ridden for bicyclists. More cyclists, better bicycle culture, safer riding. Requirement to wear helmets means fewer cyclists.


----------



## Skittle68 (Jun 4, 2012)

Because of the huge sizes people are used to, we often get complaints about the "small portion sizes" when people order off the lunch menu, even though the prices are lower. They are probably getting a better deal when comparing the price per shrimp, but they see 7 shrimp instead of 10 and think they are getting ripped off. How can you offer reasonable sized portions when you will have people running around complaining about the tiny portions at your establishment? Word of mouth is huge when it comes to restaurants.  We get the same thing when people order the 1/2 order of pasta or fish. The 1/2 portion is what you should be eating, and again, the price is lower, but people complain. So, or course corporate responds with larger sizes. No one writes into the guest satisfaction surveys saying that they had too much food (although they should. I think every entree should come with a half size, not just the fish and pasta).


----------



## blissful (Jun 4, 2012)

There are people socialized and culturalized to believe those big servings are what they are entitled to, every meal, every day! 

And to that I say "I'm not saying you are stupid, I'm just saying you are unlucky in thinking".

I give up! I have a friend like that--with acid stomach, acid reflux every day, digestive distress, diarrhea (tmi) at times, it's horrible.
I try to explain that a normal serving is the size of your fist, but no, they eat three times that amount.

I used to pick up what they called a chicken bowl, it was mashed potatoes, with corn on top, a little gravy around the edges, a little cheese melted on top and 7 pieces of fried chicken tenders for $3.60. I would eat that for lunch for three days--that is how much was in that bowl, three servings!

Also a muffalada, $5.50, at least 6''x6''x3'', enough for three days, I'd just refrigerate the rest for the next lunch or meal.

Should the gov't regulate soda, salt or serving size--naw. I'm never going to NYC, so hopefully none of this catches on anywhere else.

On the other hand, if a restaurant opens up, called 'SALT FREE' and they cook salt free, AND consumers want that--more power to them! Let your money speak for you.


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Jun 4, 2012)

We have a restaurant chain in Los Angeles called _Maria's Italian Kitchen_ and many of the dinner menu items offer the selection of full serving or half serving. The  half serving is IMO what most people should be ordering. I sometimes order one or the other based on how hungry I am. If I'm not extremely hungry the half serving is a very satisfying size.

And no, a half serving is not half the price of a full serving, nor would I expect it to be. But it is significantly less than a full serving, and it gives me the feeling that I'm enjoying dinner without pigging out, and don't have that overly full feeling I sometimes get when I eat too much.

I have excellent portion control when I cook. I know what a healthy serving size is, I use a scale, and I cook just enough for dinner. (I don't like leftovers). I often get annoyed at restaurants when they serve overly large meals, although I generally go to nicer restaurants where they don't do that as often as the fast food places do. IMO at fast food places you'll get a whole day's fat and calories in one meal if you're not careful.

BTW I'm right at the middle of the BMI scale* (weight vs. height), so I must be doing something right. I guess to some degree I figure that if I can do, it why can't everybody else do it too? (But I recognize that it's not always easy for everybody.)

But I still don't think it's right for government to step in and make rules for how people can eat. That is just too much an infringement of our freedom. In the US our Constitution guarantees us the freedom to pursue our happiness, and some people find happiness in eating more than is good for them. I think people should have that right.


* BTW, speaking of BMI I know some people who seem to be too heavy for their height. Maybe they're just too short for their weight.


----------



## Andy M. (Jun 4, 2012)

Skittle68 said:


> Oh, I understand why they want to do it. Doesn't mean I have to agree or be willing to pay it. What if one person comes in alone and takes up that same table? Only one entree sold, and they aren't buying a second drink either. If I only get one entree I only expect to pay for one entree. Period. Oh, and this place was completely empty. No worries about taking up a table. The prices were too high, the food was good but not outstanding, and they nickel and dime people. Too bad, because I liked the atmosphere and the decor. Unfortunately I think they are one of those places where the owner has never seen the profit margin bell curve of supply and demand. If the place is empty, you need to find a way to draw more people in (like lowering prices), not raise the prices to try to make more off each entree, thereby reducing demand. I used to work at a restaurant where the owner didn't get that concept. She would run a good special, and the place would be packed, so the next week she would change it so that it wasn't such a good deal (so she would make more money) and people would stop coming back. And she started charging 59 cents for sides of ranch, mayo, BBQ sauce, or anything else like that. That pisses people off too, and makes them feel like we are ripping them off so they never want to come back, like me and the place that wanted to charge $5 for an extra plate. I ordered a cup of soup for my meal at that place, so I paid $3.50 instead of $5, and my bf and I ate off the same plate, which was fine with me anyway.



You're right.  Some restaurant owners don't get it.  People are looking for a fair deal for their money.


----------



## Andy M. (Jun 4, 2012)

Hoot said:


> ...In my opinion, however, it will take a long time before the population in general will willingly accept smaller serving sizes after being accustomed for so long to being able to have larger sizes. Oh they will accept them, they can just buy two. Eventually, it will work out that smaller sizes could become the norm...



I agree.  This is why education is so important.  We, the population, need to be educated on the benefits and dangers so we can make informed decisions.  When the public in general demands it, it will happen.


----------



## blissful (Jun 4, 2012)

Greg Who Cooks said:


> * BTW, speaking of BMI I know some people who seem to be too heavy for their height. Maybe they're just too short for their weight.



Actually, what happens, is that for women, they get so smart the extra knowledge starts to transfer to the waist and hips expanding them. And that for men, they get so smart, their brains full of so much knowledge, they expand right through to top of their scalps, eliminating hair as their heads expand.


----------



## GLC (Jun 4, 2012)

CWS4322 said:


> I recently read an article about how cholesterol levels have shifted since the '60s. A lot of other things have shifted as well--



I know where mine has shifted to. Apparently, it's where my shoes used to be. 




> It is as if people can no longer be thought of to make intelligent choices.



It's not a question of not being able to make intelligent choices. Few of them can. Probably none of them can do it consistently. To begin with, right at half of them are below average intelligence. And in general, decision making is something humans do poorly. 

The question is how you relieve others of being responsible for those poor choices. Prohibit any public absorption of medical costs of those choices? No Medicare for nursing home required by COPD if you smoked? No care for it at all that you can pay for in full yourself? Insurers not required to cover knee replacement in the obese? It's not a question of where government, meaning we all, have a genuine interest in these issues. Insurance is NOT going to be restricted. Medicare is not going to be denied. Those are realities from which no one can hide by withdrawing into griping about "creeping socialism," etc. So how much of your children's and grandchildren's taxes will go toward the consequences of poor choices that might be mitigated one way of another? How much of their money will go to insurance premiums high enough to cover those behaviors? How much just plain loss of enjoyment of life is to be lost for the sake of inducing people from childhood to eat far more than they need for the sake of making money? 

You want me to pay for the consequences of something, I get a say in controlling it. But somehow, I don't think I'll trust the word of someone who assures me that if they are just left alone to do whatever, they'll never tap my money when it goes bad on them. 

I do not know the answer, so I'm willing to have some things tried. It seems to me far more worthwhile to work on than arguing about who puts what where and gets the benefits of a legal social partnership and who doesn't. Poor choice of what to argue about.


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Jun 4, 2012)

How about a progressive tax on foods? The more unhealthy they are the higher the taxes go, at an accelerating rate? Maybe if that double size cheeseburger costs 4x as much people might opt for a single size burger without cheese... They can use the tax collected to pay for treating the obese.

How about they levy a tax on carbonated beverages and use the collected taxes to subsidize the price of milk? Or just have a negative tax on milk.

I don't really believe in this, but thought it might be an interesting topic of conversation.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Jun 4, 2012)

I think it is all about educating the younger generation.  If we start with the young and keep working with them over a 20 year period things will change.  It will also take several million funerals but, things will eventually change. Lasting change for anything seems to take a generation.  A couple of examples I have seen in my own life.

Raising the drinking age from 18 to 21.  When I was a teenager going out drinking was standard entertainment on a Friday or Saturday night.  Today drinking does not seem to be such a big thrill with the young adults.

The required use of seat belts, child safety seats and helmets.  All of these caused a big uproar with the older crowd when they were first introduced but, gradually the changes have been accepted.


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Jun 4, 2012)

Maybe we should raise the drinking age to 35... and the smoking age to 65...


----------



## danbuter (Jun 4, 2012)

A LOT of overweight people are that way thanks to high fructose corn syrup being used in everything, thanks to insane taxes on sugar imports to protect American sugar farmers. Just saying..


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Jun 4, 2012)

Let's ban HFCS.


----------



## Skittle68 (Jun 4, 2012)

danbuter said:
			
		

> A LOT of overweight people are that way thanks to high fructose corn syrup being used in everything, thanks to insane taxes on sugar imports to protect American sugar farmers. Just saying..



I didn't believe this when the rumors first started coming out- I thought it was just sugar derived from a different source, but it is 55% fructose, 42% glucose, and 3% saccharides, whereas sucrose (normal sugar) is 50% fructose and 50% glucose. The molecules in HFCS are also free and unbound, ready for absorption due to the processing, while in sucrose each fructose molecule is attached to a corresponding glucose molecule, and must go through an extra metabolic step to be utilized. It's possible that the extra fructose is being processed for fat while the glucose is being stored as carbohydrate for energy in the liver and muscles. That's just a theory, but the fact that HFCS causes weight gain more so than sugar consumed in the same calorific amounts is pretty much undeniable.


----------



## CWS4322 (Jun 5, 2012)

Personally, I consume very few things that contain added sugar. I also do not eat a lot of carbs. Removing or reducing those two things from one's diet can make a big difference. Eating a healthy diet, with the odd not-so-healthy things every now and again, can help maintain one's weight. I still wear the same size jeans I wore over 20 years' ago without a conscious effort to do so.


----------



## Zereh (Jun 5, 2012)

CWS4322 said:


> consume very few things that contain added sugar ... do not eat a lot of carbs



If people would follow those two very basic and very simple rules there would not be such a thing as morbid obesity and half of our population wouldn't be pre-diabetic nor have full-blown diabetes.


----------



## CWS4322 (Jun 5, 2012)

Zereh said:


> If people would follow those two very basic and very simple rules there would not be such a thing as morbid obesity and half of our population wouldn't be pre-diabetic nor have full-blown diabetes.


Cutting back on those two things, and this includes juice, I squeeze fresh oranges or grapefruit, and when in season, pomegranates, in the summer beets/carrots/veggies (there is a lot of added sugars in juices), one can easily drop 10 lb over the course of a year without dieting. I'm just lucky I do not really care for carbs or sweet things. Not that I don't eat any carbs or sweets, but a tablespoon of high-quality chocolate chips tossed with some nuts and sprinkled with chilpolte chili powder is one of my favorite snacks. And, as far as carbs go, I rarely eat bread so if I make burgers, I don't eat a bun and I almost always eat  whole wheat, not white. I know it is easier to go through the drive through and order a burger, fries, and a "super-sized" drink than it is to go to the grocery store, take the groceries home, and cook. I'm self-employed so I work mostly from home. I'd have to make a special trip to go to a drive-through. It amazes me how much money people spend on fast food. I just picked up just over a pound of ground chicken for $1.11. I have five pre-made burgers in the freezer that I can either eat as burgers or thaw and toss into a spaghetti sauce. That comes out to 22 cents a burger. Now, the portion size is not 1/2 lb, it is the size of my ice cream scoop and fit in the palm of my hand--the recommended portion size for meat.


----------



## Addie (Jun 5, 2012)

I am still in the process of learning to not cook for an army. Even though my kids are out of the house for a long time, I have continued to cook special dishes for them. I make a full pound of mac and cheese and before I send it to them I take a hefty portion for myself. I finally stopped do that. This time when I went shopping I didn't even go near the bread department. Little by little I am cutting back of the foods I usually buy to include my kids in. 

Women have the  problem of when they have a second or third child, the weight seems to want to hang around for a long time. That little girl figure she had with the first child has filled out with added weight. Her breasts are larger to produce milk for the child. Her hips have widened for the birth experience. Here thighs have added muscle to support her during her pregnancy. All of these changes with added muscles stay with her. But the worst thing is that during her first trimester, her appetite is out of control and she can't get enough to eat. Her "friends" tell her she is now eating for two.  Thus the start of becoming overweight.


----------



## Andy M. (Jun 5, 2012)

Addie said:


> I am still in the process of learning to not cook for an army. Even though my kids are out of the house for a long time, I have continued to cook special dishes for them. I make a full pound of mac and cheese and before I send it to them I take a hefty portion for myself. I finally stopped do that. This time when I went shopping I didn't even go near the bread department. Little by little I am cutting back of the foods I usually buy to include my kids in.
> 
> Women have the  problem of when they have a second or third child, the weight seems to want to hang around for a long time. That little girl figure she had with the first child has filled out with added weight. Her breasts are larger to produce milk for the child. Her hips have widened for the birth experience. Here thighs have added muscle to support her during her pregnancy. All of these changes with added muscles stay with her. But the worst thing is that during her first trimester, her appetite is out of control and she can't get enough to eat. Her "friends" tell her she is now eating for two.  Thus the start of becoming overweight.



I don't think that's my problem.


----------



## Skittle68 (Jun 5, 2012)

Andy M. said:
			
		

> I don't think that's my problem.



+1

Me either- my doctor says I'm a baby making machine (born with wide hips lol) My sister too- she had two 9 1/2 lb babies (not at the same time) naturally, and was only in labor for about ten hrs total for the first one, and 8 hrs for the second one. She was also back down to her pre-pregnancy weight within 3 months.  My mom who had three kids is 10 lb heavier than me, and two inches taller (I weigh about 110-115 when I'm in my ideal range. Right now I'm closer to 120, and trying to get back to 110. It's always a battle for me to stay in the middle of my BMI)


----------



## Zereh (Jun 5, 2012)

CWS4322 said:


> I almost always eat whole wheat, not  white



Interesting tidbit: Blood sugar levels bounce higher after eating whole-wheat bread than eating an equivalent amount of carbs (12g or so) of plain sugar! The thought is that this has to do with all of the DNA modifications (introduction of foreign, sometimes synthetic, genes & *not* to be confused with benign cross-pollinating practices) that have been made to wheat.


----------



## kadesma (Jun 5, 2012)

Zereh said:


> Interesting tidbit: Blood sugar levels bounce higher after eating whole-wheat bread than eating an equivalent amount of carbs (12g or so) of plain sugar! The thought is that this has to do with all of the DNA modifications (introduction of foreign, sometimes synthetic, genes & *not* to be confused with benign cross-pollinating practices) that have been made to wheat.


Blood Sugar levels vary from person to person. I do better with wheat than white. Crossants,bagels and such send my BG levels sky high. That is why I preach to diabetics how important it is to do tests after meals and eating certain foods like fruits,ice creams and such. Testing lets you learn about your body and how much you cn safely eat.
kades  .


----------



## taxlady (Jun 5, 2012)

Zereh said:


> Interesting tidbit: Blood sugar levels bounce higher after eating whole-wheat bread than eating an equivalent amount of carbs (12g or so) of plain sugar! The thought is that this has to do with all of the DNA modifications (introduction of foreign, sometimes synthetic, genes & *not* to be confused with benign cross-pollinating practices) that have been made to wheat.


Do you have any references for that?


----------



## blissful (Jun 5, 2012)

I just had to search around........to see if this was true.
http://www.medindia.net/patients/calculators/glycemic-index.asp

The glycemic index (GI) for whole grain bread is 72
The GI for sugar is 65

The site say "The food having a higher GI breaks down quickly and shoots up your blood  sugar levels rapidly. While the food having a lower GI takes a longer  time to get digested and absorbed, resulting in slower and gradual  changes in blood sugar levels."

I was surprised by this.


----------



## GLC (Jun 5, 2012)

Skittle68 said:


> I didn't believe this when the rumors first started coming out- I thought it was just sugar derived from a different source, but it is 55% fructose, 42% glucose, and 3% saccharides, whereas sucrose (normal sugar) is 50% fructose and 50% glucose. The molecules in HFCS are also free and unbound, ready for absorption due to the processing, while in sucrose each fructose molecule is attached to a corresponding glucose molecule, and must go through an extra metabolic step to be utilized. It's possible that the extra fructose is being processed for fat while the glucose is being stored as carbohydrate for energy in the liver and muscles. That's just a theory, but the fact that HFCS causes weight gain more so than sugar consumed in the same calorific amounts is pretty much undeniable.



I still think it's misdirection. Even if you take the theory as fact. There are obviously differences in how various sugars are metabolized. But to pretend that one form of sugar is a prime mover in obesity is another one of those notions that is popular because it seems to relieve people of direct responsibility. In other words, it is silly to imagine that, had HFCS not come to exist, there would be no problem. 

There are only two sugar issues in general obesity. One is the amount consumed of foods containing significant portions of sugars. The second is not really outside that, but it is useful to note the existence of more food choices that have significant sugar portions. The first is essentially eating too much of the wrong things. The second is being presented with too much of the wrong thing. 

Rounding, an 8-ounce Coke is about 100 calories. A 32-ounce Coke is then about 400. Any difference between the Coke in them being sweetened with HFCS or with cane sugar is then trivial. The Cokes represent the problem of being presented with too much, 32-ounce fountain drinks being unheard off pre-obesity epidemic. But processed foods frequently use sugar to enhance flavor, to give them zowie taste. Sugar was always used that way, of course. But the number of processed foods being offered and being consumed has grown enormously. 

Sugar is not the only problem, certainly, but it aggravates the "big portion" general problem. 

But to talk of fat, sugar, fiber, or any other food component as something that is key to effectively mitigating obesity is to ignore, in the most ridiculous way, the single factor without which there would be no problem - eating a lot more food than previously.


----------



## danbuter (Jun 5, 2012)

Greg Who Cooks said:


> Let's ban HFCS.



Or lower the tariffs so that companies can use sugar that would then be cheaper than HFCS.


----------



## taxlady (Jun 5, 2012)

blissful said:


> I just had to search around........to see if this was true.
> Glycemic Index Calculator | Medindia
> 
> The glycemic index (GI) for whole grain bread is 72
> ...


That site contradicts itself. It says shows this chart:


----------



## Andy M. (Jun 5, 2012)

GLC said:


> ...But to talk of fat, sugar, fiber, or any other food component as something that is key to effectively mitigating obesity is to ignore, in the most ridiculous way, the single factor without which there would be no problem - eating a lot more food than previously.



Bravo!  We're fat because we eat too much.  Plain and simple.

Don't worry about carbs or fats or proteins in your diet because they are carbs or fats or proteins.  Worry about them all because they bring calories to the party.


----------



## blissful (Jun 5, 2012)

taxlady said:


> That site contradicts itself. It says shows this chart:



The site doesn't appear to be SELLING anything though, just giving information. WHOLE WHEAT products was not a choice for finding the GI level. WHOLE GRAIN products was available at 72. I would expect that whole wheat and whole grain to be in the same category. And GRAINY BREAD is mentioned at a low GI. I wonder if it has more to do with how finely a grain is ground than anything else.


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Jun 5, 2012)

blissful said:


> I would expect that whole wheat and whole grain to be in the same category. And GRAINY BREAD is mentioned at a low GI. I wonder if it has more to do with how finely a grain is ground than anything else.


Degree of milling has a lot to do with how quickly the product is digested, and whether the bran is left on or milled off.


----------



## TATTRAT (Jun 5, 2012)

buckytom said:


> there used to be some old joke about bad habits and how they affect other people.
> it went something about how we all have bad habits.
> 
> smokers' bad habit has a side effect whereby other people around them are forced to breathe in their wafting smoke.
> ...



Is that like the old Summer rule: I don't swim in your toilet, so don't pee in my pool?


----------



## TATTRAT (Jun 5, 2012)

Andy M. said:


> Bravo!  We're fat because we eat too much.  Plain and simple.
> 
> Don't worry about carbs or fats or proteins in your diet because they are carbs or fats or proteins.  Worry about them all because they bring calories to the party.



A. Frickin. MEN.

People hwo go on these fad diets don't realize that Sugars, Carbs, Fats, alllllllllllofthat stuff, is PART OF A BALANCED MEAL.

I also hate the phrase "I'm on a diet", we are ALL on a diet. . . a diet is what you eat/what sustains you. No matter WHAT you are eating, that is your diet.


As for NYC, while I don't consider it a food destination for the reasons of world class Cuisine, and world famous Chefs, I have always though of it as more of a food destination for all the mom and pop, side street, back alley hole in the wall places that offer some of the more Authentic world cuisines, without having to go to Spain for AMAZING suckling pig, or Luzon for AMAZING lechon, or The Szechuan Provence for a proper hot pot.

While there is certainly plenty of top notch Chefs doing their thin in the Big Apple, I liken that to more of a touristy thing.

Chicago is more of a food destination for me(sorry, BT).


----------



## TATTRAT (Jun 5, 2012)

Also, all these laws and stuff trying to pass are just silly. 

This isn't the forum to get into big brother govt talk, but that being said, there have been people trying to tell others how they should live their lives since the dawn of time, it's nothing new, and it certainly won't be the last time it's tried.

Food is not a drug, it's not a crime, and it is one "vice" that everyone can partake in. It's not guns, cocaine, prostitution, gambling, booze, it's FOOD. it is one cultural thing that EVERYONE can embrace, and enjoy, and besides maybe being guilty of the calories, with moderation, food isn't going to kill you. That goes for no matter WHAT city you are in.


----------



## buckytom (Jun 6, 2012)

TATTRAT said:


> A. Frickin. MEN.
> 
> People hwo go on these fad diets don't realize that Sugars, Carbs, Fats, alllllllllllofthat stuff, is PART OF A BALANCED MEAL.
> 
> ...



i completely agree. what makes nyc special is the diversity. tourists are actually part of that diversity, in a way.

but it's the little holes in the wall that are the true, sustaining gems here; not the celebrity flash in the pan joints. 

the big time restaurants here are like broadway shows. they're great for a short time, but when you're on their 5th change of cast members, it ain't the same. but they're still there, packing the house.


----------



## Skittle68 (Jun 6, 2012)

GLC said:
			
		

> I still think it's misdirection. Even if you take the theory as fact. There are obviously differences in how various sugars are metabolized. But to pretend that one form of sugar is a prime mover in obesity is another one of those notions that is popular because it seems to relieve people of direct responsibility. In other words, it is silly to imagine that, had HFCS not come to exist, there would be no problem.
> 
> There are only two sugar issues in general obesity. One is the amount consumed of foods containing significant portions of sugars. The second is not really outside that, but it is useful to note the existence of more food choices that have significant sugar portions. The first is essentially eating too much of the wrong things. The second is being presented with too much of the wrong thing.
> 
> ...



I agree with that- after all, I have been exposed to HFCS my whole life, and I'm not overweight because I consume unhealthy foods in moderation.  My point was just that I used to believe that sugar and HFCS metabolized the same in your body, and now that I know they don't, I make a point to avoid it more than I would have otherwise. For example, using honey in a recipe that calls for corn syrup. Not saying that just because it causes more weight gain than sugar, consumed in equal amounts, that it is completely to blame


----------



## Bolas De Fraile (Jun 6, 2012)

Dr Titli's Guide to LOSING WEIGHT - YouTube


----------



## GLC (Jun 6, 2012)

Andy M. said:


> Bravo!  We're fat because we eat too much.  Plain and simple.
> 
> Don't worry about carbs or fats or proteins in your diet because they are carbs or fats or proteins.  Worry about them all because they bring calories to the party.









And it's really just a matter of energy in and energy out. If you were to work every day like a 19th century farmer or a working cowboy, you'd have a hard time becoming obese if you tried. They had to pack in the fat just to get enough calories, pouring on the gravy and being lavish with the lard. Of course they were both pretty crippled up by work by middle age. 

Or we could go back to hunted-gatherer routine, where to catch it and prep it burns up as many calories as the food.





But along the same line, people got a double whammy after the 1950's or so. At the time, you just didn't have much to keep you glued to the couch. Fast food, portion wars, and saturation television all began and increased along the same timeline. 

I really think, though, that the most certain and realistic solution is to work at making small portions of good food the trendy thing, the thing that kids and adults want to emulate and the thing that a hostess wants to show off. 

Some favor warning labels:





Or, I wonder what would happen if meal sellers had to serve food in packages or on plates color coded to the calorie range of the food in or on it. Let those "salads" be shown for what they really are when they have to be served on a bright yellow plate. I guess it would get pretty bad in Chili's, with all those meals coming out on plates striped dayglo orange and green with flashing warning lights and little sirens blaring.


----------



## Andy M. (Jun 6, 2012)

GLC said:


> ...I guess it would get pretty bad in Chili's, with all those meals coming out on plates striped dayglo orange and green with flashing warning lights and little sirens blaring.




...and there would be a table full of idiots who would cheer and order two each as a sign of their manhood.


----------



## taxlady (Jun 6, 2012)

Andy M. said:


> ...and there would be a table full of idiots who would cheer and order two each as a sign of their manhood.


 Only laughing 'cause it's true.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Jun 6, 2012)

GLC said:


> I really think, though, that the most certain and realistic solution is to work at making small portions of good food the trendy thing, the thing that kids and adults want to emulate and the thing that a hostess wants to show off.




Reminds me of the Nouvelle Cuisine craze.  

I hated going into a restaurant and being served two scallops and three pieces of asparagus for $29.95!  

I do think that you are right though, sheep love to follow sheep!


----------



## GLC (Jun 6, 2012)

I think you were being conservative. THAT kind of place would charge even more, and it would only be one scallop and two spears, but they would be on a bed of two arugula leaves and be surrounded by a thin drizzle of chef's mystery sauce. 

But I think that might even help get the movement started, since lesser culinary lights could serve lighter and could very likely serve a higher grade of food. The ideal would be if they were no longer trying to one-up each other with portion size but were trying to serve a more accurate size portion. 

The 30th bite of chicken fried steak tastes exactly like the first bite, or maybe not even quite as good as the first bite. The difference is that, with the correct portion, you pay more attention to each bite and experience them more fully. The 32nd ounce of Coke tastes just like the first ounce. 

It's like eating an Oreo with a knife and fork. You experience the Oreo for a lot longer that way than just popping it into your mouth.


----------



## CWS4322 (Jun 12, 2012)

Maybe this is what people need to do, regardless of their ages:

What French Parents Do That Americans Don't : NPR


----------



## taxlady (Jun 13, 2012)

CWS4322 said:


> Maybe this is what people need to do, regardless of their ages:
> 
> What French Parents Do That Americans Don't : NPR


Interesting article. I can see a whole lot of that in how I was raised, and my mother was a worry wart.

I have a friend who had several foster children. None of them were fussy eaters. When there was a food that kids are fussy about, she would say, "I want you to taste this. You don't have to eat it if you don't like it. I want to know if you are old enough to like it yet."


----------



## CWS4322 (Jun 13, 2012)

The author was interviewed on NPR. It was quite interesting. She had moved to France with her 2 young children and they had to learn to stop eating beige (the kids) and eat the food offered at school. I don't eat snacks--could this be why I still wear the same size I wore in high school????


----------



## TATTRAT (Jun 13, 2012)

Once you get hungry enough, you WILL eat it.

My mom was of the mindset that if I didn't like what she had prepared, A) I would be reminded that I could cook something myself(though I couldn't at the time), B) that is what is for dinner, and if you aren't going to try it, you can't say you like it, or C)well, if you aren't going to eat it, you can go to bed hungry.

I think nowadays, kids would call the police, and the police would come lock up the parent for some stupid, nonsensical, "politically correct" trumped up charge...

I can certainly relate to the wonderful article referenced by CWS4322, and I agree. My mother is a Swed, and a graduate of the Culinary Institute Switzerland, my pops is a Brit that has never turned down a meal that I know of, and as a kid it was a simple matter of eat, or not. I ate all sorts of stuff, and never had McDonalds until I was almost 12, iirc.

Food is one thing in life that everyone can enjoy. Just try it. The worse that can happen, asides from a deadly allergic reaction, is you spit it out.


----------



## taxlady (Jun 13, 2012)

I wasn't a fussy eater. However, I detested (and still do) canned peas. One day my mother noticed that I was more than happy to eat fresh peas. After that, she never served canned peas, just fresh or frozen.


----------



## TATTRAT (Jun 13, 2012)

taxlady said:


> I wasn't a fussy eater. However, I detested (and still do) canned peas. One day my mother noticed that I was more than happy to eat fresh peas. After that, she never served canned peas, just fresh or frozen.



One of my faves as a kid was Mushy peas. SO GOOD. But, I can relate on the canned peas. While some mushy Peas are indeed from a can, they taste nothing like the canned peas I am sure you are referring to. 

I think it is strange too that kids seem to gravitate towards strange colored foods. . . I am not sure that they still have it, but the rage like 15 years ago for kids was ketchup that was green, or purple. kids LOVED it. Kids eat purple things, florescent looking things(think Cheetos), and just some strange things based on just the color.


----------



## PattY1 (Jun 13, 2012)

Greg Who Cooks said:


> This kind of "the government will protect you from yourself" mentality is not just New York. Here on the West Coast we associate this kind of thinking with San Francisco. If anything I think NYC is just becoming more like SF, or maybe vice versa, or both.
> 
> When it comes to food I think of it is "mommy-state" run wild. Eat slowly and chew your food carefully. We'll protect you from the evil fast food franchises.
> 
> ...



Patting yourself on the back?? I and everyone I know smoked in public because it was always excepted. No one ever thought not to because it was not a issue.

Your shoulder should be hurting by now with all that "patting yourself on the back".


----------



## taxlady (Jun 13, 2012)

PattY1 said:


> Patting yourself on the back?? I and everyone I know smoked in public because it was always excepted. No one ever thought not to because it was not a issue.
> 
> Your shoulder should be hurting by now with all that "patting yourself on the back".


I remember when it was normal for people to smoke in elevators!


----------



## Dawgluver (Jun 13, 2012)

taxlady said:
			
		

> I remember when it was normal for people to smoke in elevators!



And on airplanes!


----------



## buckytom (Jun 13, 2012)

or airplanes? man, can you remember the stench of that recirculated air? or being seated in the last non-smoking row? 

strangely, i always liked the smell of cigars or pipes.


----------



## CWS4322 (Jun 13, 2012)

In the interview on NPR, the author explained how her kids moved from eating "beige" to eating the foods (the kids get a 4-course meal) offered at school. Parents in France cannot send a packed lunch--the cost for the lunch at school is .20 to $7.00. 
Parents who can afford it, pay something like $7/lunch, parents who can't, pay as little as twenty cents. Part of the curriculum is teaching kids about the value of the foods they are eating.

And, could it be that obesity has replaced smoking?


----------



## taxlady (Jun 13, 2012)

Elevators didn't have a "no smoking" section.

BT, I never noticed the smell. I was making it.


----------



## PattY1 (Jun 13, 2012)

CWS4322 said:


> The author was interviewed on NPR. It was quite interesting. She had moved to France with her 2 young children and *they had to learn to stop eating beige (the kids) *and eat the food offered at school. I don't eat snacks--could this be why I still wear the same size I wore in high school????




What is Beige?


----------



## TATTRAT (Jun 13, 2012)

PattY1 said:


> What is Beige?



I am pretty sure it is just a term, like when people say "oh, it's so vanilla", meaning, meh, run of the mill, neither bad, nor exciting. . . basic, almost boring.


----------



## buckytom (Jun 13, 2012)

norwegians eat a lot of white or off-white food. they can have an entire feast of just whitish things.

you'd think in a country that get loads of white snow they might think about a caprese salad now and again, but nope. ole and sven ain't going for it.


----------



## CWS4322 (Jun 13, 2012)

PattY1 said:


> What is Beige?


Pasta. crackers, etc. Beige food.


----------



## CWS4322 (Jun 13, 2012)

buckytom said:


> norwegians eat a lot of white or off-white food. they can have an entire feast of just whitish things.
> 
> you'd think in a country that get loads of white snow they might think about a caprese salad now and again, but nope. ole and sven ain't going for it.


That is called snow-blindness--white sauce on everything. Don't you read/listen to Lake Woebegone? Have you not gone to a Lutheran Church supper?


----------



## TATTRAT (Jun 13, 2012)

CWS4322 said:


> That is called snow-blindness--white sauce on everything. Don't you read/listen to Lake Woebegone? Have you not gone to a Lutheran Church supper?



Well, let us not forget ketchup, or (be bop, a loo bop) Rhubarb Pie. . .not only sponsors, but tasty additions to any meal. And PRAISE buttermilk biscuits, though they fall into a "beige" meal item.


----------



## Bolas De Fraile (Jun 13, 2012)

taxlady said:


> I remember when it was normal for people to smoke in elevators!


Three people in an elevator which one farted


----------



## buckytom (Jun 13, 2012)

CWS4322 said:


> That is called snow-blindness--white sauce on everything. Don't you read/listen to Lake Woebegone? Have you not gone to a Lutheran Church supper?



no, but i've heard of both, lake wobegone and lutheran church suppers. 

we are east coast norskies. mostly catholics, but we still have fiskeboller, lutefisk, and blodpolse at family gatherings, and at christmas, julekake.

hey, there you go.  blood sausage and reindeer meat aren't white! unless you put a white sauce on them.


----------



## TATTRAT (Jun 13, 2012)

Wow, well I just learned that there is a "beige food diet", learn something new everyday. . . so much for my theory.


----------



## taxlady (Jun 13, 2012)

buckytom said:


> no, but i've heard of both, lake wobegone and lutheran church suppers.
> 
> we are east coast norskies. mostly catholics, but we still have fiskeboller, lutefisk, and blodpolse at family gatherings, and at christmas, julekake.
> 
> hey, there you go.  blood sausage and reindeer meat aren't white! unless you put a white sauce on them.


Don't you guys have sandwiches on heavy rye bread (rugbrød)?


----------



## buckytom (Jun 13, 2012)

oh man, my maternal uncles used to bring over (what we called) dark and light rye breads from brooklyn on sundays. it was worth hearing the same stories over and over, and being pinched, and squeezed, and teased just for the bread!


----------



## CWS4322 (Jun 13, 2012)

buckytom said:


> oh man, my maternal uncles used to bring over (what we called) dark and light rye breads from brooklyn on sundays. it was worth hearing the same stories over and over, and being pinched, and squeezed, and teased just for the bread!


Krumkake, rosettes, and fattigman are white...


----------



## GLC (Jun 13, 2012)

Bolas De Fraile said:


> Three people in an elevator which one farted



More likely 

The last guy did it but is out to make the other two think it was one of them.


----------



## blissful (Jun 13, 2012)

Bolas De Fraile said:


> Three people in an elevator which one farted



The richest one, he could afford gas at the price it is today!


----------



## Skittle68 (Jun 13, 2012)

My sister's 4 year old will eat anything. He's been eating raw onions and snacking on peppers since he was 2. She made a point to assume, "if I like it, why wouldn't he like it?" he's never been told, "Oh, you aren't going to like that." the only thing I can think of that he's ever said yuck to was cold salads like potato salad and coleslaw, and I think that's more just the fact that it seems like something that should be hot, because he likes everything that goes into those. She also does the "you have to try it but you don't have to eat it if you don't like it" thing.  Boy is it nice to be around kids that just sit down and eat.


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Jun 13, 2012)

taxlady said:


> I wasn't a fussy eater. However, I detested (and still do) canned peas. One day my mother noticed that I was more than happy to eat fresh peas. After that, she never served canned peas, just fresh or frozen.


Canned peas are gross. They are partially cooked and you cook them some more to heat them to serving temperature.

Fresh peas can be eaten raw, and all they need to be served with dinner is brought up to serving temperature, no cooking necessary.

I think peas are possibly the worst canned vegetable ever.


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Jun 13, 2012)

PattY1 said:


> Patting yourself on the back?? I and everyone I know smoked in public because it was always excepted. No one ever thought not to because it was not a issue.
> 
> Your shoulder should be hurting by now with all that "patting yourself on the back".


No, I wasn't. I was explaining the historic basis on how the current "mommy" government thing came about.


----------



## danbuter (Jun 13, 2012)

Now he's taking aim at popcorn and _milk_. Too much is bad for you!!!

Health panel talks about wider food ban - New York News | New York Breaking News | NYC Headlines


----------



## GLC (Jun 13, 2012)

There's only so much you can do. I imagine theaters would just introduce the "Bottomless Popcorn Bucket" and raise the price. And if you're spending THAT much time at the movies, it's not the size of the popcorn bucket that's the problem. 

And I guess that's it for the five-dollar shake, too. I'd like to see what they would come up with in the way of a milk drink statute. Seems you'd drive the creation of "milk-like" drinks that would be worse than the real milk drinks. Ummmm! That's good palm kernel oil.


----------



## Skittle68 (Jun 13, 2012)

danbuter said:
			
		

> Now he's taking aim at popcorn and milk. Too much is bad for you!!!
> 
> Health panel talks about wider food ban - New York News | New York Breaking News | NYC Headlines



Not "milk" but milkshakes and coffee drinks (which can be close to 1000 calories for  the large size, sugary, full fat variety).  That would piss me off. When I go get an espresso drink I want the large size lol.


----------



## buckytom (Jun 13, 2012)

lol, skittle. you drink large espressos?

does everyone seem like they're moving in slow motion after that?

as far as mayor bloomies goes, i listened to a speech the other day and realized that he is a business man first. if it costs the city money to treat people's medical conditions, the people should be forced to change to help the bottom line.

it's simply about money to him. screw feeedom and personal rights.


----------



## justplainbill (Jun 13, 2012)

buckytom said:


> lol, skittle. you drink large espressos?
> 
> does everyone seem like they're moving in slow motion after that?
> 
> ...


Would not be surprised if bloomers goes after buckets of beer and beer by the pitcher.


----------



## danbuter (Jun 13, 2012)

I'm really surprised the people in NYC are willing to put up with all the things going on there. It's a sad day when you can't even buy a common food because the mayor decides it's bad for you.


----------



## TATTRAT (Jun 13, 2012)

danbuter said:


> I'm really surprised the people in NYC are willing to put up with all the things going on there. It's a sad day when you can't even buy a common food because the mayor decides it's bad for you.



The FDA has made what is common in a lot of other countries, NOT common here. . . .simple example: Raw Cheese. 

This can go along with NYC Banning Salt from restaurants, or Chicago banning Foie gras. We all see how well that went. . .


----------



## buckytom (Jun 13, 2012)

everything will just go underground until a repeal.

we really are endowed with certain unalienable rights. it just takes time until the next election.


----------



## Bolas De Fraile (Jun 14, 2012)

buckytom said:


> everything will just go underground until a repeal.
> 
> we really are endowed with certain unalienable rights. it just takes time until the next election.


This prog is on the Beeb tonight, have you seen it
The Men Who Made Us Fat | Series 1 - Episode 1 | Radio Times


----------



## Skittle68 (Jun 14, 2012)

buckytom said:
			
		

> lol, skittle. you drink large espressos?
> 
> does everyone seem like they're moving in slow motion after that?
> 
> ...




Lol weeeellllll... I generally drink about the same volume of French press coffee in the morning (which has the highest amount of caffeine per serving), and a large espresso drink only has three shots of espresso (which has the lowest caffeine per serving) so it probably works out to be about the same.  Other than calories!!! Even non-fat, light on the flavored syrup, and no whipped cream is still going to be WAY higher calorie than the couple tablespoons of flavored creamer I usually use.


----------

