Jump to content



Photo

Restaurant Meal Named 'Worst in America'

usa nutritionists long john silver trans fat high sodium heart disease

  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 Hum

Hum

    totally wAcKed

  • 63,496 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 03
  • Location: Odder Space
  • OS: Windows XP, 7

Posted 03 July 2013 - 14:54

Nutritionists have been telling us to eat more fish for years, but not all fish is prepared in a healthy way. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has revealed the worst restaurant meal in the United States to be Long John Silver's Big Catch.

On Tuesday, the consumer advocacy group tweeted:

 The restaurant chain introduced the meal, which includes a piece of fried haddock, hush puppies, and onion rings, in late May for the bargain price of $4.99 writing in a press release, "The Big Catch is a premium menu item, with the classic taste that Long John Silver's is known for." While it may be a lot of food for a small amount of money, it's no great deal in terms of nutrition.

According to the CSPI, which conducted its own lab tests, Big Catch contains 33 grams of trans fat, an additional 19 grams of saturated fat, and nearly 3,700 milligrams of sodium. The American Heart Association recommends that adults limit their consumption of trans fat to less than 2 grams a day and saturated fat to less than 16 grams per day. The latest recommendation for sodium is less than 1,500 milligrams per day. Trans fat and saturated fat are associated with higher bad cholesterol and increased risk of heart disease.

"Long John Silver's Big Catch meal deserves to be buried 20,000 leagues under the sea," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson in a press release. "This company is taking perfectly healthy fish and entombing it in a thick crust of batter and partially hydrogenated oil. The result? A heart attack on a hook. Instead of the Big Catch, I'd call it America's Deadliest Catch."

 

Walter C. Willett, chair of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health added, "It might have been defensible to use hydrogenated oil in the 1980s, before trans fat's harmfulness was discovered, but no longer."

 

Because Big Catch is a temporary menu item, Long John Silver's is not required to disclose its nutritional information. The CPSI estimates the meal contains 1,320 calories, roughly the same amount as in a McDonald's Big Mac, french fries, and milk shake combined.

 

The CSPI also asserts that Long John Silver's is telling a fish tale when it comes to the amount of haddock included in the meal. According to the restaurant, "It's the largest fish we have ever offered weighing in at 7-8 ounces of 100 percent premium Haddock caught in the icy waters of the North Atlantic." However, tests performed by the CSPI, reveal that that's a significant overstatement.

 

"It turns out that when Long John Silver's says 7 to 8 ounces of 100 percent haddock, it's more like 60 percent haddock and 40 percent batter and grease," said Jacobson. "Nutrition aside, that's just plain piracy." The restaurant chain has not responded to Yahoo! Shine's request for comment.

 

source




#2 Lord Method Man

Lord Method Man

    Banned

  • 3,758 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 12

Posted 03 July 2013 - 15:02

Ah yes, the organization that's always wanting to regulate what we can and cannot eat and constantly trying to get foods banned. No thanks - off to Long John Silver's now.



#3 moloko

moloko

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,721 posts
  • Joined: 28-December 02

Posted 03 July 2013 - 15:08

Yeah I agree with you.  Let us fat consumers decide if we want this in the market place.



#4 vcfan

vcfan

    Straight Ballin'

  • 5,348 posts
  • Joined: 12-June 11

Posted 03 July 2013 - 15:10

the American heart association is full of ######.



#5 Steven P.

Steven P.

    aka Neobond

  • 31,374 posts
  • Joined: 09-July 01
  • Location: Neowin HQ

Posted 03 July 2013 - 15:14

The worst thing about this is that many consumers will reckon that they are eating healthy "because it's fish guyz!" when you're probably better off with a super sized Big Mac menu :p



#6 psionicinversion

psionicinversion

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,883 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 05

Posted 03 July 2013 - 15:15

Thats insane tbh, someat that should be healthy turned into an unhealthy meal is stupid. Then again i guess if you eat anything battered and fried you probably shouldnt expect it to be all that healthy really



#7 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,954 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 10 Preview
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 03 July 2013 - 15:34

According to the CSPI, which conducted its own lab tests, Big Catch contains 33 grams of trans fat, an additional 19 grams of saturated fat, and nearly 3,700 milligrams of sodium. The American Heart Association recommends that adults limit their consumption of trans fat to less than 2 grams a day and saturated fat to less than 16 grams per day. The latest recommendation for sodium is less than 1,500 milligrams per day. Trans fat and saturated fat are associated with higher bad cholesterol and increased risk of heart disease.

...

 

Because Big Catch is a temporary menu item, Long John Silver's is not required to disclose its nutritional information. The CPSI estimates the meal contains 1,320 calories, roughly the same amount as in a McDonald's Big Mac, french fries, and milk shake combined.

Ah yes, the organization that's always wanting to regulate what we can and cannot eat and constantly trying to get foods banned. No thanks - off to Long John Silver's now.

You're kidding right? We're talking about a meal that is so ridiculously excessive—and for which the nutritional information is not disclosed to the public—that it literally poses a risk to human health. Consumers should have a reasonable expectation that what they buy is fit for human consumption - this clearly isn't. It's pathetic how many people in the US are opposed to common sense regulation. You shouldn't have to have a degree in nutrition and to conduct tests on every meal to be able to eat safely.



#8 Open Minded

Open Minded

    Balance

  • 1,397 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 11
  • Location: California

Posted 03 July 2013 - 15:40

You're kidding right? We're talking about a meal that is so ridiculously excessive—and for which the nutritional information is not disclosed to the public—that it literally poses a risk to human health. Consumers should have a reasonable expectation that what they buy is fit for human consumption - this clearly isn't. It's pathetic how many people in the US are opposed to common sense regulation. You shouldn't have to have a degree in nutrition and to conduct tests on every meal to be able to eat safely.

 

Except by law a restaurant has to offer the nutritional information if requested.  Here in CA, most of it is posted on the menu so you can see what you're about to eat as you order.  So if someone wants to eat this, that's their choice.



#9 Draconian Guppy

Draconian Guppy

    LippyZillaD Council

  • 15,868 posts
  • Joined: 22-August 04
  • Location: Neowin

Posted 03 July 2013 - 15:43

pics?



#10 vetneufuse

neufuse

    Neowinian Senior

  • 17,222 posts
  • Joined: 16-February 04

Posted 03 July 2013 - 15:55

The worst thing about this is that many consumers will reckon that they are eating healthy "because it's fish guyz!" when you're probably better off with a super sized Big Mac menu :p

there is no super sized menu in the USA anymore, McDonalds removed it years ago



#11 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,954 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 10 Preview
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 03 July 2013 - 15:57

Except by law a restaurant has to offer the nutritional information if requested.  Here in CA, most of it is posted on the menu so you can see what you're about to eat as you order.  So if someone wants to eat this, that's their choice.

The point is more that they doesn't disclose openly how unhealthy it is, which should be required for a meal that is so unhealthy (in terms of calories, fats and salt). Consumers aren't able to make an informed decision.

 

 

pics?

 

llVS5Wu.jpg



#12 +Audien

Audien

    Software Eng.

  • 4,471 posts
  • Joined: 30-December 03
  • Location: Seattle, WA
  • OS: Windows 8.1/Mac OSX
  • Phone: iPhone 5S

Posted 03 July 2013 - 15:59

This definitely needs pics but holy hell, this dish should never enter someone's mouth.  33 grams of trans fats!?  That's beyond insane.



#13 blade1269

blade1269

    Jesus Saved me! A Christian!

  • 1,725 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 04
  • Location: Arizona
  • OS: Window 8.1 iOS Linux Mint

Posted 03 July 2013 - 16:01

Sounds fishy to me..

#14 Draconian Guppy

Draconian Guppy

    LippyZillaD Council

  • 15,868 posts
  • Joined: 22-August 04
  • Location: Neowin

Posted 03 July 2013 - 16:01

The point is more that they doesn't disclose openly how unhealthy it is, which should be required for a meal that is so unhealthy (in terms of calories, fats and salt). Consumers aren't able to make an informed decision.

 

 

 

 

llVS5Wu.jpg

 

By that reasoning, everyfood and McDs, BKs, Wendys, etc. would probably be marked as "unhealthy".



#15 deck

deck

    Neowinian

  • 1,417 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 01
  • Location: Canada

Posted 03 July 2013 - 16:13

Everything in moderation.  I would have that meal once or twice.  It's like the Double Down from KFC...  I've had it 3 times in 3 years (which may be healthier, since KFC in Canada does not use oil with trans-fat).  Even  KFC calls the Double Down an occasional meal.  I eat a mix of 'good' and 'bad' fast food as well as 'real' food.

 

The problem is the overwhelming obesity and other medical concerns caused by the over-consumption of society in general, which is why the health organizations do what they do. 

 

Run the numbers; the world (the US in particular) would benefit greatly in increased productivity resulting from a healthier workforce that understands how to consume.  Less money spent on medical bills, more time to work and earn more money (because people who are not working don't make money, usually).  Japan is a probably a good opposite case which illustrates what happens when a society is healthier in general.