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

#16 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,322 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 03 July 2013 - 16:19

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

No, because they don't have grossly excessive fat and salt content. Some of their meals are excessive in terms of calories (depending on the person eating it) but not even close to the degree here. The biggest concern here is the use of trans fats, which are known to be very unhealthy.




#17 Rohdekill

Rohdekill

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,556 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 05
  • Location: Earth

Posted 03 July 2013 - 16:20

This meal can't harm you at all if you take it with a diet coke.  Ask any large set woman in a restaurant.  Diet Coke negates everything.

 

< /joke>



#18 OP Hum

Hum

    totally wAcKed

  • 62,632 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 03
  • Location: Odder Space
  • OS: Windows XP, 7

Posted 03 July 2013 - 16:22

I knew instinctively that Long John Silver was high sodium, which is why I begged off, when friends wanted to stop there to eat.

 

The extreme trans fat should kill off their business pretty quick.



#19 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,322 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 03 July 2013 - 16:32

The extreme trans fat should kill off their business pretty quick.

One can only hope.



#20 Jason S.

Jason S.

    Neowinian Senior

  • 12,056 posts
  • Joined: 01-September 03
  • Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Posted 03 July 2013 - 16:42

yes, this meal is bad, but how can it be labeled as the worst in america? plenty of places have worse meals. have you seen Chili's menu?

 

California Turkey Club Sandwich (w/ fries) - 1500 cal, 78g fat, 148g carbs, 3520mg sodium

 

http://www.chilis.co...enu Generic.pdf

 

asdf.JPG



#21 Spartan Erik

Spartan Erik

    Neowinian

  • 831 posts
  • Joined: 07-June 08

Posted 03 July 2013 - 16:55

yes, this meal is bad, but how can it be labeled as the worst in america? plenty of places have worse meals. have you seen Chili's menu?

 

California Turkey Club Sandwich (w/ fries) - 1500 cal, 78g fat, 148g carbs, 3520mg sodium

 

http://www.chilis.co...enu Generic.pdf

 

attachicon.gifasdf.JPG

 

It's the trans fat that is the alarming part.  While people are still debating about the role of certain saturated fats (animal vs plant derived) in atherosclerosis, strokes, and heart failure, there's pretty much a consensus on the harm of trans fats (whether naturally occurring or lab manufactured).  It raises your LDL and lowers your HDL which is very concerning to health professionals.

 

Sure, the calorie numbers on that Chili's menu are astronomical. 9 Calories per gram of fat, more fat = more calories.  The distinguishing factor here is the kind of fats, and trans fats.  Those Chili's dishes have far less trans fat than the LJS dish, at least I would hope.



#22 FloatingFatMan

FloatingFatMan

    Resident Fat Dude

  • 15,758 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 03 July 2013 - 20:43

Just think.. Without those obscene levels of sodium, you'd be able to actually TASTE the garbage you're putting in your mouths.  If you could, you wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.



#23 Raa

Raa

    Resident president

  • 12,615 posts
  • Joined: 03-April 02
  • Location: NSW, Australia

Posted 04 July 2013 - 04:59

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

Using common sense, it already is. :p



#24 +SharpGreen

SharpGreen

    Now with built-in BS detector.

  • 2,365 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 04
  • Location: North Carolina
  • OS: Ubuntu 14.04, 12.04 and Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Nexus

Posted 04 July 2013 - 05:20

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.

Because MORE regulation is just what is needed here. Right. The gov's job is not to be a nanny, and as such doesn't need to be involved here. If people are going to do something, then they should live with the outcome of whatever is they choose to do, whatever that may be.



#25 +_Alexander

_Alexander

    Neowinian

  • 1,137 posts
  • Joined: 21-January 13
  • Location: USA
  • OS: W8.1 u1
  • Phone: Nokia 521

Posted 04 July 2013 - 08:53

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

It should.

Certain people should stop sleeping with their bags of bribe money and do so.



#26 mygeotecnik

mygeotecnik

    Neowinian

  • 20 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 13
  • Location: Contagem - Brazil
  • OS: Wndows 8.1 Preview x64

Posted 04 July 2013 - 10:12

I like fat and I have the right to have elevated cholesterol. FREEDOM !

 

:)



#27 FloatingFatMan

FloatingFatMan

    Resident Fat Dude

  • 15,758 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 04 July 2013 - 10:32

Because MORE regulation is just what is needed here. Right. The gov's job is not to be a nanny, and as such doesn't need to be involved here. If people are going to do something, then they should live with the outcome of whatever is they choose to do, whatever that may be.

 

As long as the regulation is only to force the retailer to disclose all the nutrition information about the food, but not actually prevent its sale, then it's good regulation and something the government should be involved in.  Its job is, after all, to protect its citizens from all threats, both foreign and domestic.

 

That way, the consumer can actually make an informed choice, rather than just buying something based on sight alone and hoping it's not going to give them a coronary.  If people choose to eat this garbage despite seeing what's in it, then that's the point where it becomes their problem.



#28 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,322 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 04 July 2013 - 13:22

Because MORE regulation is just what is needed here. Right. The gov's job is not to be a nanny, and as such doesn't need to be involved here. If people are going to do something, then they should live with the outcome of whatever is they choose to do, whatever that may be.

The problem is that people don't know what the consequences are. There should be a reasonable expectation that food being sold is safe for human consumption, which is exactly why the FDA exists. The food here is simply not safe. Restaurants aren't allowed to serve raw meat or prepare food in unsanitary conditions, so it's not like the government doesn't already have similar powers. There's a big difference between a nanny state and common sense legislation. Irresponsible behaviour by restaurants like this is leading to the early death of millions of Americans. If you think that's not something the government should get involved in then I think you need to re-evaluate your political beliefs.

 

As long as the regulation is only to force the retailer to disclose all the nutrition information about the food, but not actually prevent its sale, then it's good regulation and something the government should be involved in.  Its job is, after all, to protect its citizens from all threats, both foreign and domestic.

That should include taxing unhealthy products, as has been done with tobacco. Part of the problem is that unhealthy food like this is incredibly cheap and that only encourages consumption. If people were informed about how unhealthy it is and meals were punitively taxed based upon how dangerous they are then consumers would be considerably less likely to buy such meals and restaurants wouldn't have an incentive to create unhealthy meals.



#29 Open Minded

Open Minded

    Balance

  • 1,284 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 11
  • Location: California

Posted 04 July 2013 - 13:39

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.

 

 

Really?  I JUST SAID that, here in California, all nutrition info must be posted so you can see it when you order and you can request a pamphlet if you wanted to take it with you.  It's the ######ing law.   How is that keeping people in the dark and not informing them?



#30 UseLess

UseLess

    Neowinian

  • 359 posts
  • Joined: 24-July 04
  • Location: Australia, West Coast

Posted 04 July 2013 - 13:46

Haha you have to laugh at these offerings. It is plain and simple natural selection...in a tasty dress =P