Orlando theme parks adapt to accommodate overweight guests

Carrie M. said:Highmark, is also offering benefits for wellness programs. They launched a Healthy U. (with U. standing for University...they're cute, aren't they?)

Those fools! Don't they know "u" stands for "you"?! This country is going to the dawgs, I swear.

I loved Super Size Me. It made me stop eating fast food for about six months! Maybe I need to watch it twice a year. :)

Food Inc. made me say, "That's all? I kind of already heard all of that. That's not so bad. Maybe I'll just keep eating this way".

The food industry makes more money from fatter people, so what incentive do they have to provide less fating, or healthier, foods? I wholeheartedly believe, because of my experience of having such a hard time resisting it, that the fast and frozen food industry does whatever they can to make their foods addictive.

I find it to be very hard to fight back with my wallet, because I am hooked.

It really is a lot like smoking. I never started, but many people in my family regret the day that they had their first cigarette, because now, no matter how hard they try, it is extremely difficult to quit. That's because the industry puts more than just tobacco in their products, more addictive additives. The fast food industry is very similar. Their foods are scientifically designed to be addictive, and make people fat.

I'm really not that fat, btw (6'1" and 249, as of today!). I understand how people get really fat though.

...From what I believe, anyways.

Jeff said:
Cooking at home is a hassle? I can throw a chicken breast on the grill for 15 minutes, steam some broccoli in less time and nuke a potato. Taking a crap is more complicated than that, and we all have to do that too.

Small portion food prep is a hassle and less cost efficient compared to cooking for a larger group. Brian pointed it out in one of his previous posts.

If you want to eat one bunch of broccoli every meal for 4 days to avoid throwing any of it away, then it won't be a hassle. But smaller portions generally cost more. For example, loose potatoes cost at least 99 cents a lb here, compared to $4.99 for a 10 lb bag. But how much of that 10 lb bag will a single person end up throwing away after a few weeks?

If you make a single or 2 serving portion of a recipe, it still ends up taking as long, and requiring as much cleanup as if you made enough for 10-12 people. Sure you could make more and freeze or store the extras, but you still need the means and space to do that too.

I never through away any of the potatoes from the 10 pound bags that I buy. I only cook for two people, and together, we eat about 6 potatoes a week.

I stop at the grocery store every day on the way home for work to buy a small portion of meat. I can get a two-person portion of meat for around $5 or less, depending on what I get.

Add a can of veggies, and maybe a slice of buttered bread for each of us, and we are eating for well under $8, for two meals, including the meat and potatoes. Sometimes we have leftovers too.

Example...

Fresh chicken tenderloins - about $5
Can of corn - about $1
2 Potatoes - maybe ¢50
2 slices of bread - maybe ¢20
Butter and olive oil - maybe ¢50
Total = $7.20

or what about spaghetti?

one pound of burger - $3.50
Noodles - $1
Sauce - $2
2 slice of bread - maybe ¢20
Butter and olive oil - maybe ¢50
Total = $7.20

...And with Spaghetti, I still have a half of a box of noodles left for next time.

I could share many more examples, at the risk of boring my audience. :)

LostKause said:
I could share many more examples, at the risk of boring my audience. :)

Too late. :)

RatherGoodBear said:
Small portion food prep is a hassle and less cost efficient compared to cooking for a larger group. Brian pointed it out in one of his previous posts.

If you want to eat one bunch of broccoli every meal for 4 days to avoid throwing any of it away, then it won't be a hassle. But smaller portions generally cost more.

I completely agree. At least that's been my experience. And yeah, you could argue it's about commitment and you do what you have to do, blah, blah, blah...:) But realistically speaking, for many, the alternative is just plain easier and less expensive. And we are a society that pretty much unanimously votes for cheap and convenient over just about everything.

Heck, I can't even get thru a half a gallon of milk before it expires :(.

But I do cook for myself most every day. I buy a lot of precooked meats that need microwaved, or frozen burgers for my grill. But it is kind of a hassle for a single person to prepare food everyday for themselves without it costing less to eat out.

Even though cooking small portions is cheaper than large portions (for yourself), it is my experience that it is still cheaper than going out.

The only time I eat out is when I'm traveling or want something that is really difficult to make myself (dim sum, pho, etc.).

I also find that the food sold in restaurants is overly salty.

That's not salt, that's the magic endorphin rush!

If you're talking cost-to-quality ratio, cooking yourself wins everytime.

If you're talking purely price, cooking at home can't touch the numerous options of restaurants, takeout, delivery and cheap crap.

Yeah, I can always get a McDouble and fries and tea for $3.

But I can get real hamburger, homemade fries, and my own brewed fresh tea for more at home.

Either way, I'm full.

I wholeheartedly believe, because of my experience of having such a hard time resisting it, that the fast and frozen food industry does whatever they can to make their foods addictive.

Our pediatrician has a phrase he uses: "unnaturally delicious." It's fine to eat the "unnaturally delicious" from time to time, but it has to be the exception, not the rule.

But, even eating "whole" food can get you into trouble, if you aren't careful with portion size and balance. Most people eat too much meat, and too much in general, even if they are cooking healthily. I'm a *very* healthy cook, but still eat too much!

Wait!

Are you guys telling me that the companies selling food try to make it as tasty as possible so that you'll want to eat it!?

Those bastards!

The Bliss Point

Lord Gonchar said:
If you're talking cost-to-quality ratio, cooking yourself wins everytime.

I'm not into self-cannibalism. ;)

Shuddup. :)

Heh heh heh.... ;)

Lord Gonchar said:
Wait!

Are you guys telling me that the companies selling food try to make it as tasty as possible so that you'll want to eat it!?

Those bastards!

The Bliss Point

Next you'll be telling us that amusement parks try to install rides that will make us have fun and want to ride them again. I think we need a congressional investigation into this matter.

Sounds like a job for Ed Markey!

Ensign Smith said:
Sounds like a job for Ed Markey!

ಠ_ಠ

Are you guys telling me that the companies selling food try to make it as tasty as possible so that you'll want to eat it!?

Exactly. And, that's the problem---thinking of food not as something you eat for nutrition but instead something you eat "for fun" is essentially *the* problem.

That's not to say that "eating for pleasure" is always (or even mostly) bad, but the "for fun" part needs to be subordinate to the "for health" part, or you get yourself into trouble.