Mmmm mmmm Chilis!

Diane and I were out at Chilis the other night to use up a gift card we received as a gift. As we went, I remembered seeing in a past issue of Nutrition Action a section titled Xtreme Eating 2009, highlighting some incredibly unhealthy meals out. Chilis was nominated for two, including their Chili's big Mouth bites when taken as an appetizer they provide you 1,580 calories, 28 grams of sat fat (over 1 1/2 days worth) and 2,930 mg of sodium! And that's before your entree! Needless to say we searched the menu and I ended up getting something off of the Guiltless Grill portion of their menu, the portion that guarantees no more than 750 calories, 25 grams of fat and 8 grams of sat fat. My choice was the Guiltless buffalo grilled chicken sandwich, served with steamed veggies and Parmesan cheese.. Can you believe its served with GRILLED chicken, LOW-FAT Ranch and its served on a WHOLE WHEAT bun? The funniest part was though, that feeling confident with my choice, I still felt awkward saying "I'd like the GUILTLESS buffalo chicken sandwich please" and when I ordered it, the waitress kindly told me that "the sandwich is kind of small, I brought it out to a guy earlier today and he yelled at me and told me it was too small, just warning you." Do we really need a 1/2 pound of beef to be content with our meal out? Needless to say I was plenty full finishing the meal, and although we would've still been healthier at home, it was a nice meal out.

So I still can't tell if these Guiltless type sections of menus really work. Does the name help or hinder the section? Will I feel "unmanly" if I order from the Guiltless menu? Its too bad that a section of the menu has to be focused on this stuff, instead of maybe providing LOW FAT ranch dressing and WHOLE WHEAT buns on all meals, just as a start? Would consumers really notice a taste difference? Not sure what the answer is but I look forward to the day when restaurants willingly post their nutritional info on ALL their menu items so we all can make more informed choices!

Nutrition Action Healthletter--Red Meat

I've caught of few issues of Nutrition Action over the past few years, and I've always found it to be incredibly informative and sometimes pretty witty (plus getting 10 issues for $10 makes it a no brainer). The cover story of the latest issue tracked a recent study of the health effects of red and processed meats. While this particulary story wasn't all that ground breaking, I'm always intrigued by the data that lies behind the claims. This study found that people who eat the most red and processed meats have higher rates of heart disease (no surprise), certain kinds of cancer, and even diabetes.

I've been pretty impressed with the organization that puts out the monthly newsletter. The Center for Science in the Public Interest seems to do a good job of reviewing the available research and being upfront with potential flaws or conflicts of interest. The video below outlines their goals and progress over the last 30+ years.



Nutrition Action is a great way to keep up with the latest scientific studies concerning health. At about 16 pages its a quick read and there aren't even any ads!

Misleading Names

I stopped by the grocery store the other day to pick up a few things for dinner. Typically I've been going to The Fresh Market in Raleigh as they seem to have a pretty good selection of unprocessed foods and organics. I got some fresh kielbasa from the meat counter, but was disappointed when I saw that MSG was one of the ingredients. Is that typical for sausage?? Of course I could only determine this after it had already been packaged for me. It just goes to show that the name of a store (or an individual product for that matter) doesn't guarantee anything. It's one more reason why I enjoy EarthFare so much back home--I don't have to think too much once I'm inside.

Competing Environmental Interests

As sustainability issues have begun to play a much greater role, it seems it has become more common for green interests to have to compete against one another. Take this example from a New York Times article, "As Wind Power Grows, a Push to Tear Down Dams."

The Pacific Northwest has always had a higher percentage of renewable energy than the rest of the nation. Much of it comes from hydroelectric dams. Recently, there has been an increased push for additional renewables such as wind power. Because hydroelectric dams can be so damaging to local environments, particularly impacting Salmon populations, some environmental groups argue that new wind turbines will allow for the phase-out of dams. However, others, including the power companies, claim that doing so would only hinder their ability to provide "green" power.

It seems to me that we as a society are still unwilling to make the major sacrifices needed. Very rarely do these discussions center around becoming more efficient with the energy we already have. Creating renewable energy sources is a great way to slow the increase of coal and oil consumption. But an increasing human population and an increasing consumeristic culture around the world make me worry that major changes are needed. Do we have the capacity to make these drastic changes as a species? I hope so.