150 replies to this topic

[Hobbes]

If anyone has been following the Cheesecake Factory- a few facts you will know that is chock full of facts, actually quite more than I few I believe. And to this endeavor by adding fuel to the flames of this monstrosity-of-a-post I added these little gems to the mix:

Hobbes Jul 17 2003, 07:00 PM

CF sucks.  Overpriced, and like other chain restaurants, they irresponsibly over-serve food.  An entire serving dish of pasta for one person?  

Speaking of irresponsibly overserving, has anyone eaten at a Papadeaux recently?

I hate wasting food, and it killed me to walk away with half of my plate uneaten the last time I was there. Simply a gluttonous amount of food. It's no surprise why we have such problem with weight in this country - and in San Antonio specifically - when you look at the portions in places like this.

What do you think drives the portions? Is it "our" appetite, or did the portions drive the appetite? Great chicken-egg question.

Oh, and to stay on topic, I've never eaten at a CF - and don't know that I will, now. Awesome post.

What is driving portion sizing "in places like this" e.g. The Cheesecake Factory? It can all be summed up in two words Market Demographics -or- Big Media. The Restaurant National Association's article titled The Business of Keeping Baby Boomers Happy states that, "They are the most powerful demographic in history. Businesses thrive or fail based on their ability to gauge and keep pace with the vacillating likes and dislikes of this economic powerhouse known as the baby boomers. At 76 million strong, boomers have the clout to rule the marketplace and savvy restaurateurs are making sure they keep a place set at their tables for the largest generation."

What does all this mean for the restaurant industry? For one thing, restaurant operators are discovering that the largest generation in American history has an insatiable appetite for variety: more choices, more options, more menu items, more seating arrangements and more entertainment features. The boomer desire for "multipurpose" products and services is one of the major forces influencing the entertainment, hospitality and restaurant industries.

Offering "something for everyone" is also the strategy at The Cheesecake Factory, Inc......One of the secrets of The Cheesecake Factory's success, says Howard Gordon, senior vice president of business development and marketing, is the size of its menu. "We offer over 200 items and 50 different desserts," he says. "If you're in the mood for something with a Mexican twist, we've got it. An Asian twist, we've got that too. And we've got the staples, so when people get tired of the newest trend, they know they can come back and get an old favorite."

This Sounds like homogenization to me

This, above demand/market demographic a la Baby Boomer creates The Cheesecake Factory's portion sizes, which even by today's generous standards are eye-popping.

According to Gordon, it's all part of the fun, high-energy atmosphere that is the Factory's trademark. Big portions encourage sharing at the table, tap into the self-indulgent desires of boomers and are great for people too busy to cook for themselves. The restaurant routinely wraps up leftovers for customers to take home, because "people like having something leftover for lunch or dinner the next day," says Gordon.

Big portions also encourage over eating which causes major health problems. The Cheesecake Factory's purposeful over-sizing of every dish is irresponsible and is teaching us to stay to the trend that is infecting the nation, over eating. The Cheesecake Factory is infamous for its neglectful portion sizing, just do a google search for "cheesecake factory, portion size" and you will get tons of hits bashing CF as irresponsible and one of the forces behind this trend. I will always choose a local "mom and pop" over a chain because I arm just all to worry that if CF has its ways I will not have a choice to eat at that "mom and pop" because it won't be there; closed down and over run by big $$, look at what Wall-Mart did.

Hobbes

And this

Hobbes                     
Posted: Jul 18 2003, 12:51 PM

Read this article,

Portion Distortion -- You Don't Know the Half of It

I am not going to quote the hell out of it but do read it because it makes my point loud and clear; that there is a trend in the USA and that trend is over sizing portions.


------hjshorter Posted on Jul 18 2003, 04:05 AM------
"We shouldn't blame the restaurants for overeating.  I am responsible for how much food makes it's way down my gullet, regardless of the size of the plate put in front of me."

When confronted with their contribution to America's expanding waistline, restaurateurs and food packagers reply that eating less is a matter of individual responsibility. But that's not how the human stomach works. If you put more food in front of people, they eat more, as studies have consistently shown over the last decade. My personal favorite: The researcher gave moviegoers either a half-gallon or a gallon bucket of popcorn before the show (it was "Payback," with Mel Gibson) and then measured how much they ate when they returned what was left in the containers afterward. Nobody could polish off the entire thing, but subjects ate 44 percent more when given the bigger bucket.

American Institute for Cancer Research study shows that 67 percent of Americans eat everything on their plates, no matter what the size. This percentage can be found in this NBC article

I am really not trying to argue here. All I am saying is that there is a trend in America, to over size portions (see NBC article to see compared portion sizing from America to Europe). It is a fact that American business, including restaurants, are manipulating the food industry so people buy more than they should, this is one of the many factors causing the Obesity problem our country is afflicted with. (This is our country's affliction, obesity not CF). (I do not need to prove to you all here that there is an obesity problem here in the USA, just look at the news. Obesity is killing nearly as many citizens as cigarettes are). The Cheesecake Factory is not the soul problem to over sizing and they are not teaching you a thing. What they are doing is giving large portion sizes a place to thrive, just one more place (like 7-11 or Taco-Bell) that has super sizing. I find super sizing irresponsible and to some degree propagated by chain restaurants. I am just worry of The Cheesecake Factory and they are not sources of all evil and should not be boycotted. I have even eaten there myself and my experience was not bad at all, the food is good not great but good.

I am not trying to disempower anyone or screaming for "...closing all bars and other places that serve alcohol because clearly, alcohol is a problem in the world and serving it 'is teaching us to stay to the trend that is infecting the nation'." This is not my point. I do not want to abolish all food that is deemed bad for you. I am just poi9nting out that there is a trend in America to overeat and places like CF are propagating it. Read these articles I have put in my posts and it will be clear to you the point I am making; porting sizing is getting larger and this over sizing is leading towards overeating which has contributed to the problem of obesity. Do not take what I am saying out of context.

The first article in this post begs the question of, "How did today's oversized appetites become the norm? It didn't happen by accident or some inevitable evolutionary process. It was to a large degree the result of consumer manipulation. Fast food's marketing strategies, which make perfect sense from a business perspective, succeed only when they induce a substantial number of us to overeat." And the answer and case in point is that Taco Bell found out by reducing the cost of their tacos .30 cents they could get a large number of their guests to eat more thus spending more money. The decreased price is thought of as value in the consumer's mind so they buy more tacos but in the end they spend more money then they would have if they bought the taco when it was cheaper. In 1983 John Martin became CEO of the ailing Taco Bell franchise and met a young marketing whiz named Elliott Bloom. "Using so-called "smart research," a then-new kind of in-depth consumer survey, Bloom had figured out that fast-food franchises were sustained largely by a core group of "heavy users," mostly young, single males, who ate at such restaurants as often as 20 times a month. In fact, 30 percent of Taco Bell's customers accounted for 70 percent of its sales. Through his surveys, Bloom learned what might seem obvious now but wasn't at all clear 20 years ago -- these guys ate at fast-food joints because they had absolutely no interest in cooking for themselves and didn't give a rip about the nutritional quality of the food. They didn't even care much about the taste. All that mattered was that it was fast and cheap. Martin figured Taco Bell could capture a bigger share of these hard-core customers by streamlining the food production and pricing main menu items at 49, 59 and 69 cents -- well below its competitors." Taco Bell wins, they get more money out of you when there is a perceived value. This only used to be in fast food joints and quickie marts but now it has trickled down to all levels of the food industry.

"If the marketing strategy had stopped there, we might not be the nation of fatties that we are today. But the imperatives of the marketplace are growth and rising profits, and once everybody had slashed prices to the bone, the franchises had to look for a new way to satisfy investors."

"And what they found was . . . super-sizing."

20 years of "smart research" has trained the American populace to expect super-sizing every where they go. (You don't think 7-11 is just being nice to you by having big gulps at only $1 a cup, NO they are getting rich off you; consumer manipulation). And I do not need to point out that super sizing is everywhere, just look at advertising BIG-IS-BETTER mantra. It is even at CF; why??? CF is not being nice to you, yes they may be giving you what you want, but we have been trained; like these articles tell us, from notable sources mind you, to over eat. Maybe not in eveyone's case, not everyone overeats. But the big machine of coporations are working on it that you will consume and consume more (even more than you should). You have the power not to eat more than you should. We are individuals and have free will but the big coporations are working on this individuality, if they can, so you eat more. CF is just pandering to this BIG-$$ idea and that is what I am pointing out.  Timothy Weems of the Cheesecake Factory chain says, “Our guests just go, ‘Wow.’ They love our portions.” In fact, the chain is known for its big portions — marketing volume and taste. “If they don’t perceive us as providing a great value, they won’t be back,” Weems says." So what can you do about this? Big portions are their hook to catch you, they want you to eat more (and buy more). I wonder why then there is a obesity problem in the US of A? Our perseption to gague what is a large portion has been distorted, "It wasn't always thus. Readers of a certain age can remember a time when a trip to McDonald's seemed like a treat and when a small bag of French fries, a plain burger and a 12-ounce Coke seemed like a full meal. Fast food wasn't any healthier back then; we simply ate a lot less of it......McDonald's increased portions only reluctantly, because the company's founder, Ray Kroc, didn't like the image of lowbrow, cheap food. If people wanted more French fries, he would say, "they can buy two bags." But price competition had grown so fierce that the only way to keep profits up was to offer bigger and bigger portions. By 1988, McDonald's had introduced a 32-ounce "super size" soda and "super size" fries."

But we have the power just as "Northwestern University dietician Linda Van Horn recommends sharing entrees, taking home food and avoiding buffets. Despite portion size, she says, it’s up to the individual to have a plan and be the gatekeepers. “Say ahead of time, ‘This is what I’ll be eating and the rest I’m going to take home,’” she recommends."

If the only point I was making that we should abolish all things that are bad for us and that CF makes us eat more I would not have posted. This is not a post about bashing CF or even "bad food" mind you. CF is not the devil, ok? There is a reason for the American waist line to be expanding and the portion size is one of the many reasons for it. CF is know for thier large portions and I thought it would be helpful to post about research and articles that have been done on CF and about portion sizing. Portion sizing is a problem and there are roots to that problem that need to be looked at. We, as individuals, have the power not to eat more than we should but as a country I think we have not yet learned that lesson quite yet; hence the obesity problem.

Hobbes

And this is when in the Cheesecake Factory Thread that this was posted by Tommy posted on Jul 18 2003, 01:13 PM

hobbes, this sounds like the good topic for a new thread.

so now we are at a new thread, a new subject at hand:

I want this to be a tread where all you egullers can discuss portion sizing and the corporate effect on the restaurant industry. Look at the CF Thread, linked at the top of this post to see some reaction to what I posted, then post yourself. I would love to see what people feel is the chicken or the egg issue towards obesity.

And no I do not want all junk food to be band and deemed as evil. And I do think that people have free will in what they choose to eat or not eat. Lawsuits that support the view of Bronx resident Caesar Barber who claims that he ate fast food several times a week without understanding the dangers and that the restaurants are to blame are a copout. We need better answers to the obesity problem than McDonald's made me fat. If you believe that rhetoric join the CSPI where all "Junk Food" will be band.

Consider this can of worms officially open,

Hobbes

[hollywood]

Dude,
I totally agree with everything you said, and I'd write more. But the garlic sauce from my tarna sandwiches from Zankou Chicken is dripping all over my keyboard. Gotta run and eat.

[Katherine]

What is it about Americans that makes us so responsive to the "gluttony" marketing pitch?

[tan319]

I wonder how many of us that go to these over portioned joints, really eat all of what we order?
I know when I went to a Pappadeux', I couldn't eat all of my food and I'm not a big fan of Microwaved leftovers, unles it's Chinese or Thai.
Likewise, I don't believe that people that are eating at the higher priced OP places like CF and the like are cleaning those plates up.

[Eat_eat_eat]

I don't think Cheesecake Factory's entrees are that big. But they are big enough for me to skip the appertizer and the dessert. So some may consider that the portions are too big. I usually eat all of my food and I am not overweight either. Your metabolism rate may vary.

I am a fan of leftovers. Sure they can charge me a little bit less. But I don't need to make anything for dinner or lunch the next day so that's great.

[Fat Guy]

I'd be interested, for starters, in learning whether or not there is actual historical evidence to support a claim of larger portions -- not the claim that fast-food portions are larger than they were, but, rather, that portions in restaurants in general are larger. For example, what were restaurant portions like 100 years ago? Have they changed? How do they compare to fast-food portions? When I think of the restaurants of old, the first thing that comes to mind is the traditional chophouse, where large portions of grilled and roasted meats are served, along with side dishes usually containing large quantities of butter. A chophouse meal -- some sort of appetizer, bread and butter, a large piece of meat (probably in excess of a pound), side dishes, dessert, beer -- strikes me as being quite a bit larger than a super-sized extra-value-meal at McDonald's. Likewise, I'd be interested to learn the nutritional breakdown of a typical three-course meal served at a restaurant like Daniel, because restaurants like that have been around for quite some time yet they seem not to have caused much obesity in their demographic.

[tan319]

Fatguy:
I think I see where you're going with this.
If you go to Peter Lugars, you know you're going to get the most gigantic food ever. But somehow, it seems different then the places that are being discussed.
For one thing, it's hard to afford to go to a place like Lugars regularly.It's a pretty heavy hit. Also, that much meat all the time would mess you up after awhile.
I think most indie places would give you a 6 to 8 oz. portion of fish or meat,unless you were getting a NYstrip or a chop ,
which would probably weigh in at 12 to 14 oz.
Desserts are usually based around the main component being around a 4 oz.serving, with maybe a 1 or 2 oz. scoop of ice cream and some fruit or a tuile and a few squiggles of sauce,etc.
I think places like Daniel serve pretty clean food, not oversauced and probably less heavy sauces then say, when he was at Le Cirque, don't you think? He must keep things on the lighter but robust side these days .

[Hobbes]

It probably matters how many times an individual goes out to eat per week. If it is a once and a while thing, like on special occasions like birthdays or anniversaries it really does not matter what you eat or how much. Be gluttonous that person does not do this that often. One of the main questions is how important are restaurants for your main meals. , Bronx resident Caesar Barber (see lawsuit in my quoted post above) who ate fast food several times a week is making restaurant food (fast food for that matter) his main staple of sustenance. He should be a lot more concerned of what type of meal or quantity he eats when he goes out. But McDonald’s is moving in on school lunch programs. For kids school lunches are sometimes the only good meal they get or simply they will be eating it 5 days a week. These kids can’t escape from McDonald’s now because it is institutionalized; that is a scary thing we need to watch out for.

Catch ya later. This already looks like a good forum already! Great posts.

Hobbes

[Rail Paul]

Large portions served often mean large amounts of food prepared. Several charitable organizations specialize in the capture of already prepared food for distribution to America's hungry and malnourished through food banks and other means.

Among these are Second Harvest, and the American Culinary Federation (a large chef's professional organization). The ACF has a very active Chef and Child initiative

Second Harvest

American Culinary Federation

[Fat Guy]

It probably matters how many times an individual goes out to eat per week.

Of course it does. But there are people who eat at Daniel, the Four Seasons, etc., as many as five days a week. The comparison is still relevant.

But McDonald’s is moving in on school lunch programs.

Do you have information on exactly how? Is it as a provider of beverages, or packaged foods different than what's served in the restaurants, or are Big Mac Super-Size Extra-Value-Meals being served in school cafeterias? More importantly, compared to what schools serve for lunch now, I wonder whether most McDonald's food would be more or less healthful.

[fifi]

But there are people who eat at Daniel, the Four Seasons, etc., as many as five days a week. The comparison is still relevant.

Damn... What do they do for a special occasion? Surely, these folks are a very small minority.

[Hobbes]

It probably matters how many times an individual goes out to eat per week.

Of course it does. But there are people who eat at Daniel, the Four Seasons, etc., as many as five days a week. The comparison is still relevant.

But McDonald’s is moving in on school lunch programs.

Do you have information on exactly how? Is it as a provider of beverages, or packaged foods different than what's served in the restaurants, or are Big Mac Super-Size Extra-Value-Meals being served in school cafeterias? More importantly, compared to what schools serve for lunch now, I wonder whether most McDonald's food would be more or less healthful.

To answer your question Fat Guy look into these links:

----->School Lunches: Invasion of the Body Fatteners

Excerpt from above article:

The federal government sets standards for the nutrition (if not the taste) of regular school lunches. The national school lunch program, in fact, was developed after too many young men during World War II failed their physicals due to malnutrition.  But in schools today, à la carte meals answer to nobody -- except possibly Ronald McDonald. According to a nationwide survey conducted in 2000 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 20 percent of schools sell McDonald's hamburgers, Pizza Hut pizzas, or other brand-name fast foods. A second survey of California high schools, also done in 2000, found that 95 percent sold à la carte fast foods, including many items from Taco Bell, Subway, and other big-name franchises.

----->A recipe for disaster

Excerpt from above article:

But if students are hooked on fast food, schools now find themselves playing the role of "enablers." School cafeterias often resemble shopping mall food courts with their fast-food franchises like Domino's Pizza, Burger King and Taco Bell. Districts have discovered that partnerships with fast-food outlets cost them little or nothing, and may provide extra revenue for extracurricular programs or clubs.

----->NPR News: FAST-FOOD SCHOOL LUNCHES

Excerpt from above story:

--Aaron Schacter of Colorado Public Radio reports that schools across the country are signing up with corporations to sell products to the students. Among these deals are those arranged with fast-food companies, which help financially-strapped lunch progr........

NPR story is in audio format

----->2000 California High School Fast Food Survey

Excerpt from above survey:

Concerned about the record level of youth obesity, the Public Health Institute conducted the first study in the state to research the prevalence of fast foods on California high school campuses and student access to healthy foods at school.  The study, conducted by Samuels and Associates, describes the:

**Types of fast foods being sold on California high school campuses;

**Factors that influence fast food sales; and the
 
**Economic and policy issues associated with them.

"Despite the obvious nutritional concerns, schools have their reasons for putting Big Macs and candy on the menu. A questionnaire distributed to California schools by the Public Health Institute in 2000 [survey linked above] turned up the classic rationales: Kids won't eat anything else. They don't have enough time for a real meal. Above all else, fast food makes money, especially when it comes with a brand name. The same arguments are made all over the country. And in the eyes of one food service director, they're all bunk."

To see why "they're all bunk" see this NPR New article.

Fat Guy these fast food offerings may be equal to or better than tradition school lunch offerings but the USDA is supposed to be regulating the school lunches so the meals are healthy meal source (or main meal for underprivileged kids). Fast food in schools as I see it goes against the USDA's original goal. And for the schools making contracts with Pizza Hut, for example, limits the range of foods that the school can provide. The last NPR article proves that kids will like "health food" it just needs to be cooked right.

The National School Lunch Program (NSLP)

Hope this answers your questions and spurrs more debate on this issue. BTW I am no expert on this subject. This is just information I found on a google search. I also have a friend who is a nutritionist for the state of Virginia who has also helped me with the post. I am just answering questions via google searches and am not expert, ok.


Hobbes

[Fat Guy]

----->School Lunches: Invasion of the Body Fatteners

Excerpt from above article:

The federal government sets standards for the nutrition (if not the taste) of regular school lunches. The national school lunch program, in fact, was developed after too many young men during World War II failed their physicals due to malnutrition.  But in schools today, à la carte meals answer to nobody -- except possibly Ronald McDonald. According to a nationwide survey conducted in 2000 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 20 percent of schools sell McDonald's hamburgers, Pizza Hut pizzas, or other brand-name fast foods. A second survey of California high schools, also done in 2000, found that 95 percent sold à la carte fast foods, including many items from Taco Bell, Subway, and other big-name franchises.

Since it's the first one I read, let's look at some of the language from this piece of advocacy by Chris Woolston for Consumer Health Interactive.

According to a nationwide survey conducted in 2000 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 20 percent of schools sell McDonald's hamburgers, Pizza Hut pizzas, or other brand-name fast foods.

(Emphasis supplied)

While obviously designed to highlight that McDonald's hamburgers are available in schools, a careful reading of the sentence raises more questions than it answers. The sentence would be true if one school in the country sold McDonald's hamburgers, one school sold Pizza Hut pizza, and the rest of the 20 percent sold something completely innocuous from a health standpoint. (Not that McDonald's hamburgers or Pizza Hut pizza are, consumed in moderation, harmful.) I'd be interested in knowing what percentage of schools allow McDonald's food to be sold in their cafeterias. And I'd be interested to know, in those schools, what percentage of the students are eating them -- what percentage are eating McDonald's food at all, and what percentage are eating hamburgers specifically (as opposed to salads or grilled chicken sandwiches). And then of course there's the big question, the only important one: Are the students who eat the McDonald's food less healthy than the ones who eat the non-McDonald's food, in schools where there's a choice.

A second survey of California high schools, also done in 2000, found that 95 percent sold à la carte fast foods, including many items from Taco Bell, Subway, and other big-name franchises.

(Emphasis supplied)

Again, the sentence is designed to direct the reader's attention a certain way, but it's quite imprecise. What does the author mean by "a la carte fast foods"? Would that include, say, a prepackaged salad? Sushi from an outside vendor? The mention of Subway is interesting, especially, because Subway has long been the one big-league fast-food chain to pursue good nutrition aggressively as a corporate goal and marketing strategy.

From a nutritional standpoint, things could hardly get any worse, says Melinda Sothern, PhD, director of the Pediatric Obesity Clinical Research Section at the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, and coauthor of the recent book Trim Kids. Almost without exception, fast foods are loaded with fat and sugar, she says.

(Emphasis supplied)

Well that's just false. Almost without exception? Even if you look just at the McDonald's menu, there's plenty of food that has little fat or sugar. McDonald's offers 10 different salads, and has low-fat dressing options for them. And the reality is that a McDonald's hamburger has very little sugar -- there's none in the patty and only a bit in the bun, ketchup, etc., certainly no more than in any commercial bread or ketchup. A McDonald's hamburger has 280 calories, by the way.

When Al Schieder first took a look at the high school and middle school cafeterias in the Folsom Cordova Unified School District, a district that serves 16,500 students northeast of Sacramento, California, he didn't like what he saw. The cafeteria was sharply divided into two classes: poor kids who ate the bland, uninviting school lunches, and kids who could afford the à la carte items. The kids who lined up for school lunch had to take a daily walk of shame, but at least they were served a nutritious meal (much of which, unfortunately, ended up in the trash). The "privileged" kids lived on nachos, doughnuts, burgers, and similar fare.

Today, it's a much different scene. In a bold move, Schieder banished à la carte foods and soda from every cafeteria in his district two years ago.

Okay, there's the chance to prove that eliminating fast food from the cafeteria will improve health and combat obesity. Yet no such evidence, or even a hint of it, is presented. That's an omission that, to me, says a lot.

[Hobbes]

Fat Guy
Posted on Jul 20 2003, 08:02 PM

Okay, there's the chance to prove that eliminating fast food from the cafeteria will improve health and combat obesity. Yet no such evidence, or even a hint of it, is presented. That's an omission that, to me, says a lot.

Ok Ok, I am not making the case that the contract between fast food and schools for lunches cause obesity. I am really not sating there is one source to cause obesity. I have in my posts showed some trends in research and the media about obesity. Nothing more and nothing less. This is a forum not to discuss if I am right or wrong but if what is out in media land is right or wrong. I am just showing what is out there. I am not going to *prove* anything here. I just wanted this to be a forum to discuss the chicken or the egg questions about obesity not about what i post per say. If you want hard data on what causes obesity I do not have it. Lets divert this away from me and discuss the subject at hand, what is the source of obesity?

(If you want hard data look at the 2000 California High School Fast Food Survey in my past post)

And all that the articles state is that there is a concern about school lunches and that is all I have, concern. This fat guy is not a dissertation. I am not here to prove a thing. Take what I have posted as a overview of what could cause obesity, among the many factors.

[maggiethecat]

Americans are fat because we sit on our fat asses, or lie on our backs, 22 hours a day.

Ir doen't matter whether the fat comes from Taco Bell or Daniel, it's physical laziness that is, IMHO, the reason we're fat.

[Hobbes]

The quoted text of each article were not to be the only source of "proof" to point out fast food in schools is harmful. I quoted such a small percentage of what was in the articles I can understand why you did not understand the link I was making between fast food and harm. I posted the articles on the post so you could read them yourselves. To read them is one thing and only reading the quotes puts everything out of context. And as you said you only read the 1st quoted entry, fat guy. As I said this is not a dissertation and am not here to provide a unflappable account of the obesity problem, if there is one? I was just posting some articles I thought that could answer fat guy's question, "Do you have information on exactly how?" Thought you would read them since you did ask that question. Guess not.

This is where I'll end posting on this subject. I am over my head. fat guy don't look for answers my way I am only offering information that yes could be wrong. I am open to being worng. Continue to discuss but I can't keep posting where it seems like I am the one adding the wood to the fire while I am just no expert on this issue. Maybe there is someone out there that knows more than I do about this subject and maybe they should post. "I'll stick to what I know for now on."

[tan319]

Amen, Maggie.

[Fat Guy]

Hobbes, I think and hope everybody understands that you're citing sources written by people other than you, and that I'm looking at one of those sources carefully and pointing to some problems I see with it. Nobody thinks you wrote that article or blames you for anything in it. I'm sure we all -- or at least I -- appreciate that you've taken the time to hunt down those sources. Thanks for doing that.

[Hobbes]

I am not playing the "blame game"

I do agree with you maggiethecat as you put it, "Americans are fat because we sit on our fat asses, or lie on our backs, 22 hours a day". I agree with you completely.

There is not one answer to this obesity problem. This is a forum to discuss that. Not paly the "blame game" and seek out absolute causes. There is no such thing. Please, please do not think that I am just pointing fingers I am not. As I see it fast food is a problem but not the only one. I am not on a tirade. This is not my montra. Please do not think that.

Hobbes

[maggiethecat]

Please, please do not think that I am just pointing fingers  I am not.  As I see it fast food is a problem but not the only one.  I am not on a tirade.  This is not my montra.  Please do not think that.

Hobbes, I know you're not doing any such thing. I was having a little vent!

Let the discussion continue.

[ballast_regime]

Most fast food chains are continually scaling down portions of their more expensive ingredients while upping the amount of filler per item. I.e., they're maximizing profit by minimizing the amount of costly ingredients, unless they can find more profitable ways to produce those ingredients. McDonald's fries are a good example. Their supersized container of fries are designed to hold less fries per cubic inch than smaller containers because the sides are tapered so the package's mouth doesn't open quite as wide. Taco Bell is another notorious example. They skimp on the amount of meat, which has been drastically reduced through corporate protocol over the years, and up the amount of other ingredients to give the illusion of big portions. While I agree with the general claims made about The Cheesecake Factory, it should be noted that big portions are used primarily as a marketing scheme for most fast food places. The actual amount of food primarily appears to be bigger, but in many ways has decreased for reasons that are obvious to any business owner. (Drinks are an obvious exception, since CO2, water, and syrup cost nothing.) It is doubtless true that the overall size of portions has gone up in scale over the last half century, as any American traveler has seen when comparing American restaurants to those of other (usually poorer) countries.

Much peace,

Ian Lowe
ballast/regime

Edited by ballast_regime, 21 July 2003 - 03:47 AM.

[22tango]

Speaking of McD's fries...

...did you know that they carefully cut them with lasers into certain shapes so that there will be a particular statistical distribution of longs, middles, and short-sizes. This ideal proportion of fry sizes has been determined so that they will seemingly fill up the boxes while using the least amount of fries!! (My father-in-law, through his job in the commercial food industry, saw one of the plants where this was done.) In fast food economy, nothing is random!

[Fat Guy]

It's just terrible that the fast-food companies are trying to give us smaller portions of french fries.

It's just terrible that the fast-food companies are trying to give us bigger portions of french fries.

[SobaAddict70]

I think its just terrible that the fries at McDonald's aren't as crisp as they used to be.

I also think its terrible that the McRib sandwich hasn't made a comeback.


Soba

[beans]

Americans are fat because we sit on our fat asses, or lie on our backs, 22 hours a day.

Ir doen't matter whether the fat comes from Taco Bell or Daniel, it's physical laziness that is, IMHO, the reason we're fat.

I agree. General laziness. Last time I was in Europe, all of those butter, cream laden goodies that were gobbled up on a daily basis and I felt self conscious walking among the slim and trim lovely French.

[enthusiast]

i thought this article in today's NY Times was excellent - balanced and unhysterical - and quoting some research which i hadn't seen before.
does it go some way to answering fat Guy's pointed, punchy and neat point:

It's just terrible that the fast-food companies are trying to give us smaller portions of french fries.

It's just terrible that the fast-food companies are trying to give us bigger portions of french fries.

is the point that the portions are bigger (bad for fat, good for value) but maybe not as big as they are made to look (good marketing, good for profits)? thus customers buy the bigger sizes, seduced by the value, and eat more and get fatter.

maybe if portion sizes were even bigger custoemrs would buy one between two and eat less!!

.

[ballast_regime]

I will link this NY Times article, even though I'm sure most of you will see it by tomorrow. Just to add to the fire. Stoke, boy, stoke!

[Fat Guy]

i thought this article in today's NY Times was excellent - balanced and unhysterical - and quoting some research which i hadn't seen before.

Hysterical in tone and hysterical in content are two different things. The Times piece is certainly well-researched, but the research is all positioned so as to point to one inexorable conclusion: we haven't proven it yet, but we will! It's about as balanced as a reduced-calorie Twinkie.

I'd have liked to see that Times article explore a bit further the issue of the relatively low incidence of obesity in France relative to the US, especially since Paul Rozin is quoted. His quote early in the article seems rather detached from context. Given that he has done one of the more interesting food-psychology studies out there, and that it is on-point to the article, it would have made sense at least to mention it. Then again, Rozin's conclusions might have been uncomfortable. Here's a good summary:

Is nonstop noshing just an American thing? Paul Rozin, a psychology professor at the University of Pittsburgh, recently compared to the eating habits and attitudes of Americans to those of the French, Japanese, and Belgians. The verdict: The French are the most concerned with taste and enjoyment — the Americans the least. Instead, Americans say they're most concerned about health. Sounds good, except that we seem to be talking out of both sides of our overstuffed mouths. We health-obsessed Americans have significantly higher rates of heart disease and obesity than those hedonistic French. According to Rozin, beyond the obvious difference between Baked Lays and baked Brie lies this notion: "In France, people associate food with pleasure. In this country, we associate it with guilt." Thus, the French have highly structured meals of moderate total quantity (no wonder the word of the "etiquette" is French), while American's chow informally on less-palatable but "healthier" foods such as reduced-fat cheese or low-sodium crackers and place no limit on when, where, or how much they eat.

http://www.marthasch...wFiles/h_n.html

[enthusiast]

yes, i guess it did play towards my prejudices. but when you're right, it's not always easy to see what adding more wrong-headed arguments adds to the debate!

one obvious difference between France and the USA is that in France McDonalds advertised that you shouldn't eat there more than once a week.

I'm not sure i believe the guilt v pleasure argument - the meat of that argument is more in the - "healthier" foods such as reduced-fat cheese - eating styles. where else but in the USA would a company advertise a snack product that you can eat "between snacks"?

my personal spin on this - with evidence particularly from ice-cream and chocolate - is that if you eat low quality (junk) food it is fundamentally unsatisfying; whereas if you eat good, high quality food, a little is enough. it is like panning for gold - the lower the richness of the seam the more you have to process to get your fix...

but i can't prove it

[Mottmott]

my personal spin on this - with evidence particularly from ice-cream and chocolate - is that if you eat low quality (junk) food it is fundamentally unsatisfying; whereas if you eat good, high quality food, a little is enough. it is like panning for gold - the lower the richness of the seam the more you have to process to get your fix...

enthusiast, my personal experience supports this notion. I'm an acknowledged sweets freak. My control of this is to get a large box of Valhrona feves, ostensibly for baking, but in fact to take the edge off my chocolate yen. Four of them = 1 oz. A half dozen of them is enough for me. And I don't even need to eat them every day. But if I were out and grabbed a bag of, say, Hershey's kisses, I'd go through the bag and still crave chocolate. Similarly with baked goods. If I make them at home or get them from a good bakery, I can be satisfied with small amounts, a couple canneles, a single scone and jam, a slice of rich pound cake, etc. But a box of Enterman chocolate covered donuts? Scarf time.

A couple other general observations:

First for those who hoot and holler about people ridiculous and/or greedy enough to sue mfgrs and ff venues for fattening foods, keep in mind that it has made people more aware of the issue generally. It has particularly highlighted the issue in regard to children's lunches.

Second we should note that food manufacturerers (ex: oreos) and ff chains (ex: McD) are changing what they are offering us. McD is even considering using only meat that has not been fed antibiotics for growth. And, btw, has anyone considered that the growth hormones in meat may be adding to our growth, too?

I agree with FG that all the evidence is not in yet, and perhaps in a matter such as this the evidence will never be complete. But I for one eat ff on the rarest of occasions, mostly on car trips, try to avoid processed foods as much as possible, and buy as much organic fruits and vegetables and meat, milk, eggs that are hormone and antibiotic free. Epidemiological "evidence" can be, I believe, a word to the wise in the absence of anything else.

Which brings me to my third point, that a lot of the problem comes from social conventions and economic constraints. Many people cannot afford to eat as I try to do or they may live in a social environment that does not support it.