Stretched to the Limit
Thank you, Old Man Winter, for that nice 28.5-inch present you dropped on us here in Philadelphia. I really appreciated being reminded of what I was supposedly missing in Syracuse. Oh well, I don't need to drive anywhere for a few days... I'll let the snow melt, let the maintenance folks dig out the parking lot, then I'll extricate my car from its spot. And the worst part is no classes will be cancelled because of this...
Anyway, brief nod to the weather reality aside, let's get to what I really want to talk about. Philadelphia made news earlier this week before the snow hit by implementing a new law requiring restaurants to eventually display such information on their menus as number of calories and amounts of trans-fats, saturated fats, carbohydrates, and sodium. Yet another "nanny state" measure designed to curb obesity by making you think about what's in that chocolate donut before you buy and inhale it, the strictest law yet. However, I'm not taking the "nanny state" angle this time... something in the Philadelphia Inquirer story about the new law caught my eye. A quote from someone at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which might actually be the first intelligent thing I've ever seen from someone there. In case you're not familiar with CSPI, they're the guys who have spent the better part of the last two decades telling you that everything you like to eat will kill you. The end result of such stories have been trans-fat bans, frivolous lawsuits against McDonald's for making people fat, and as some right-wingers fear, eventual government micromanagement of everything you eat.
But again, I'm back on the "nanny state" track, so let me tell you what Margo Wootan of the CSPI had to say about the whole dining-out experience: "Back in the 1970s, eating out was a special occasion. What people ate didn't matter as much." Turns out that Americans now get an estimated 1/3 of their calories from meals outside the home. Restaurants have doubled and tripled their portion sizes... and wouldn't you do that if you were making such a brisk business the last 3 decades? But it got me thinking about what changed, and I think it comes down to two things: time and debt. We have too little of one and too much of the other.
Now I try not to eat out much, because I'm very particular about the things I eat and drink. Getting serious peptic ulcer problems in your mid-20s will do that. It would probably be good for me to make my lunch and bring it to campus with me... I'm just saying that "out loud" as a suggestion to myself that I will probably never follow. Anyway, when I can, I eat lunch at home and go to campus right afterward. That means that all I have on campus (if anything) is maybe a soft pretzel and an iced tea, which both can be had quite cheaply. I eat dinner when I get home. But at least 2 days a week, I'm on campus all day, so I've gotta eat lunch there. I consciously try to eat something healthy, but sometimes you've just gotta have a cheeseburger... or a cheesesteak (when in Rome, after all). I work out at the gym on these particular days so I'm probably okay doing this. Then again, I'm not most people.
No, most people are in this situation: they work all day, maybe more than one job if they can't get full-time hours at either, trying to make ends meet in a tough economy. They've overspent (sometimes their own fault, sometimes not), they've got a lot of debts weighing down on them, no pun intended. In order to make that money to keep the credit card bills and the mortgage paid, they extend themselves as far as they can timewise, so when it's time to eat... well, you gotta grab what's handy, and for most, that's fast food. Believe me, I've been there. In the past, on the way home from work was time to hit the Mickey D's drive-thru or grab a pizza. And when you can spare a little time for a tension-breaker with friends... well, you hit the restaurant or the bar that serves typical pub fare. Convenience. But also probably not too good for us. If you have kids, you stop and buy enough fast food for everyone... and then the kids share in your obesity problem. And they can't go outside and play after school because you live in a rough neighborhood, or you have them scheduled out the ying-yang with activities, or because letting kids be kids these days might result in a charge of child neglect against you. Or because they'd rather play Call of Duty.
The sad truth is buying groceries and making your meals at home costs a lot less than dining out or fast food, so you're adding to your budget problems for the sake of having time to make the money that might make your budget problems go away. Classic Catch-22. But how do we break the cycle? Restaurants have it tough enough with the bad economy (not to mention two-plus feet of snow falling on the weekend, when you expect the bulk of your weekly business), I certainly wouldn't want to tell people to stay away. But maybe it's time we restore going out to eat to its rightful place as something you do on a special occasion or to "treat yourself", not because it's there. If I want a nice night out with a friend, I'll bite the bullet and do the sports bar thing, but again, on occasion. I had the crab fries, I had the Tony Luke's cheesesteak, I don't need to go back repeatedly to remember what was so good about it. And as for the problem of not having time to cook, yeah I know it's rough working long hours and then having to make something for you and/or your family to eat, but time with your family's important too. We hear all the time about those studies on the benefits of families eating together at night... at home, not at Burger Death.
I guess what I'm saying is don't throw your hands up and say there's nothing you can do, because there is. So grow a conscience and at least make an effort. A little self-improvement never hurt anyone...
And nothing says bad eating behaviors quite like the Super Bowl, which of course happens tomorrow night, so I better make my prediction before it's too late. I'm on a bit of a roll, having only missed last year's final score by one point. I've gotten the last four games right (Pittsburgh, Indy, the Giants, and Pittsburgh again), pushing my lifetime record to 14-8, for entertainment purposes only of course. And I always qualify that lifetime mark by noting that I picked the Bills all 4 times they were in the Super Bowl. So this year, it's Indy and New Orleans. I always get in trouble when I pick with my heart (again, I picked the Bills 4 years straight, and I picked the Eagles in '05 for McNabb, my last wrong pick)... but I can't pick against New Orleans. Too great a story, so do with that what you will. Saints over the Colts, 35-31.
Anyway, brief nod to the weather reality aside, let's get to what I really want to talk about. Philadelphia made news earlier this week before the snow hit by implementing a new law requiring restaurants to eventually display such information on their menus as number of calories and amounts of trans-fats, saturated fats, carbohydrates, and sodium. Yet another "nanny state" measure designed to curb obesity by making you think about what's in that chocolate donut before you buy and inhale it, the strictest law yet. However, I'm not taking the "nanny state" angle this time... something in the Philadelphia Inquirer story about the new law caught my eye. A quote from someone at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which might actually be the first intelligent thing I've ever seen from someone there. In case you're not familiar with CSPI, they're the guys who have spent the better part of the last two decades telling you that everything you like to eat will kill you. The end result of such stories have been trans-fat bans, frivolous lawsuits against McDonald's for making people fat, and as some right-wingers fear, eventual government micromanagement of everything you eat.
But again, I'm back on the "nanny state" track, so let me tell you what Margo Wootan of the CSPI had to say about the whole dining-out experience: "Back in the 1970s, eating out was a special occasion. What people ate didn't matter as much." Turns out that Americans now get an estimated 1/3 of their calories from meals outside the home. Restaurants have doubled and tripled their portion sizes... and wouldn't you do that if you were making such a brisk business the last 3 decades? But it got me thinking about what changed, and I think it comes down to two things: time and debt. We have too little of one and too much of the other.
Now I try not to eat out much, because I'm very particular about the things I eat and drink. Getting serious peptic ulcer problems in your mid-20s will do that. It would probably be good for me to make my lunch and bring it to campus with me... I'm just saying that "out loud" as a suggestion to myself that I will probably never follow. Anyway, when I can, I eat lunch at home and go to campus right afterward. That means that all I have on campus (if anything) is maybe a soft pretzel and an iced tea, which both can be had quite cheaply. I eat dinner when I get home. But at least 2 days a week, I'm on campus all day, so I've gotta eat lunch there. I consciously try to eat something healthy, but sometimes you've just gotta have a cheeseburger... or a cheesesteak (when in Rome, after all). I work out at the gym on these particular days so I'm probably okay doing this. Then again, I'm not most people.
No, most people are in this situation: they work all day, maybe more than one job if they can't get full-time hours at either, trying to make ends meet in a tough economy. They've overspent (sometimes their own fault, sometimes not), they've got a lot of debts weighing down on them, no pun intended. In order to make that money to keep the credit card bills and the mortgage paid, they extend themselves as far as they can timewise, so when it's time to eat... well, you gotta grab what's handy, and for most, that's fast food. Believe me, I've been there. In the past, on the way home from work was time to hit the Mickey D's drive-thru or grab a pizza. And when you can spare a little time for a tension-breaker with friends... well, you hit the restaurant or the bar that serves typical pub fare. Convenience. But also probably not too good for us. If you have kids, you stop and buy enough fast food for everyone... and then the kids share in your obesity problem. And they can't go outside and play after school because you live in a rough neighborhood, or you have them scheduled out the ying-yang with activities, or because letting kids be kids these days might result in a charge of child neglect against you. Or because they'd rather play Call of Duty.
The sad truth is buying groceries and making your meals at home costs a lot less than dining out or fast food, so you're adding to your budget problems for the sake of having time to make the money that might make your budget problems go away. Classic Catch-22. But how do we break the cycle? Restaurants have it tough enough with the bad economy (not to mention two-plus feet of snow falling on the weekend, when you expect the bulk of your weekly business), I certainly wouldn't want to tell people to stay away. But maybe it's time we restore going out to eat to its rightful place as something you do on a special occasion or to "treat yourself", not because it's there. If I want a nice night out with a friend, I'll bite the bullet and do the sports bar thing, but again, on occasion. I had the crab fries, I had the Tony Luke's cheesesteak, I don't need to go back repeatedly to remember what was so good about it. And as for the problem of not having time to cook, yeah I know it's rough working long hours and then having to make something for you and/or your family to eat, but time with your family's important too. We hear all the time about those studies on the benefits of families eating together at night... at home, not at Burger Death.
I guess what I'm saying is don't throw your hands up and say there's nothing you can do, because there is. So grow a conscience and at least make an effort. A little self-improvement never hurt anyone...
And nothing says bad eating behaviors quite like the Super Bowl, which of course happens tomorrow night, so I better make my prediction before it's too late. I'm on a bit of a roll, having only missed last year's final score by one point. I've gotten the last four games right (Pittsburgh, Indy, the Giants, and Pittsburgh again), pushing my lifetime record to 14-8, for entertainment purposes only of course. And I always qualify that lifetime mark by noting that I picked the Bills all 4 times they were in the Super Bowl. So this year, it's Indy and New Orleans. I always get in trouble when I pick with my heart (again, I picked the Bills 4 years straight, and I picked the Eagles in '05 for McNabb, my last wrong pick)... but I can't pick against New Orleans. Too great a story, so do with that what you will. Saints over the Colts, 35-31.
posted by Dave | 10:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home