You Ask, I Answer: Rice Paper/Summer Rolls

One of my favorite Thai appetizers is summer rolls.

I notice that the rice paper they use to make them is chewy and dense.

Is that because it has a lot of fat in it?

-- Virginia Alston
New York, NY

I share your sentiment, Virginia. I can't go to a Thai restaurant and not order summer rolls!

Not only are they delicious (the ones I had tonight were filled with lettuce, mango, avocado, carrot, cucumber, and cilantro), but also healthy.

Unlike spring rolls, summer rolls are not deep fried. Instead, all the ingredients are simply enclosed in rice paper.

Apart from being a tasty way to add some vegetables to your day, you also get some heart-healthy monounsaturated fat if they contain avocado or are accompanied by a peanut sauce dip.

Your average appetizer order of summer rolls provides a mere 45 to 50 calories from the rice paper alone.

About 95 percent of these calories are derived from carbohydrates.

For comparison purposes, one medium sheet of rice paper contains a third of the carbohydrates in one regular slice of bread.

The reason behind its chewiness is not lots of fat, but the inclusion of tapioca.

The other ingredients are simply rice flour, water, and a pinch of salt.

Numbers Game: Answer

According to figures from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), per capita sodium intake in the United States increased 56 percent between 1970 and 2000.

Not at all surprising, considering the rampant increase in meals eaten at restaurants and consumption of frozen foods.

Dietary guidelines recommend no more than 2,400 milligrams of sodium a day, but the average adult in the United States consumes, on average, anywhere from 3,300 to 3,800 milligrams.

Remember -- the more processed a food item, the higher its sodium levels (i.e.: three ounces of grilled chicken contain approximately 10 times less sodium than three ounces of chicken nuggets.)

You Ask, I Answer: Tortilla Chips & Salsa

I had lunch at a Mexican restaurant this weekend that labeled some [menu items] as low-fat and low-carb.

I was surprised that the chips and salsa appetizer wasn't [labeled] low-fat.

I know salsa is fat-free, so wouldn't [chips and salsa] be lower in calories than [an order of] chips and guacamole?

-- David (last name withheld)
Orlando, FL

Although a standard restaurant order of chips and salsa (approximately two ounces of tortilla chips and one cup of salsa) offers 330 fewer calories than that same amount of chips and guacamole, it is not a low-fat appetizer.

Sure, one serving (two tablespoons) of salsa contains a negligilble 0.1 grams of fat, but don't forget about the chips!

One serving of tortilla chips (one ounce in weight, or approximately 12 individual chips) contributes 140 calories and seven grams of fat. This is identical to the calorie and fat values of potato chips, by the way.

Assuming the restaurant is following FDA standards for low-fat labeling, they can only "award" that moniker to items contributing less than three grams of fat per serving.

Since one serving of tortilla chips alone offers more than twice that amount, you can understand why this particular appetizer didn't make the cut.

Numbers Game: Answer

The average taco salad shell contains approximately 300 - 450 calories.

Yet another example of how salads can sometimes pack a caloric wallop.

Eating the shell on a taco salad can make the difference between a 600 calorie lunch and 1,050 calorie meal!

You're better off resisting temptation by asking for your taco salad to be served in a bowl.

If you are in need of some crunch, ask the server to top off your salad with a few tortilla chips (think a half dozen, thereby adding no more than 100 calories.)

Numbers Game: Rice 'n Roll

An average 6-piece inside-out sushi roll (rice on the outside, nori on the inside, as pictured at left) at a Japanese restaurant in the United States contains _________ of rice.

(Note: 1 serving of rice = 1/2 cup)

a) 1/3 cup
b) 1/2 cup
c) 1 cup
d) 1.5 cups

Leave your guess in the "comments" section and come back on Wednesday for the answer.

An Appetizer A Day Can Bring Problems Your Way

Don't let the term "starters" or "appetizers" lure you into a false sense of security.

Sometimes, these items are just as caloric -- if not higher -- than entrees.

Consider some of the following examples from Chili's restaurant.

The buffalo wings appetizer (containing 9 pieces) adds up to 1,170 calories, 15 grams (75% of a day's worth) of saturated fat, and 4,130 milligrams (two days' worth) of sodium.

In the mood for classic nachos? Then I hope you are okay with ordering 1,450 calories, 57 grams (almost three days' worth!) of saturated fat, and 2,730 milligrams (over a day's worth) of sodium.

Oh, you want those with beef? That will be 1,740 calories, 65 grams of saturated fat, and 3,700 milligrams of sodium.

The Texas cheese fries appetizer, meanwhile, clocks in at 2,070 calories, 73 grams of saturated fat (almost FOUR days' worth) and 3,730 milligrams of sodium.

Even if shared, these are nutritional bombs.

Let's say the Texas cheese fries are split by a table of three.

Assuming each person gets an equal share of food, that's 720 calories, 25 grams of saturated fat (more than a day's worth) and half a day's worth of sodium a piece!

Combine that with a sandwich or a ribs-centered entree (averaging 1,000 calories without the side of fries) and you have a day's worth of calories.

Your best bet at this chain? First, swap an appetizer for a soup.

A cup of Southwestern vegetable soup contains 110 calories, the broccoli cheese variety clocks in at 160 calories, and a cup of baked potato soup adds up to 220 calories.

While not low in sodium, none offer more than 650 milligrams of sodium (that's almost 85% less sodium than some of the monstruosities I previously pointed out.)

And stay away from any menu item labeled as bottomless. Eating 800 calories of corn chips before your meal comes out isn't as impossible as you may think!

When it comes to your entree, stick to grilled fish dishes, pita sandwiches (no more than 500 calories) or grilled chicken sandwiches.

If you're in the mood for anything else (burgers, ribs, fried chicken platters), satisfy your craving by splitting your meal with a friend. You'll save some money -- and anywhere from 600 to 950 calories!

Numbers Game: Belly Busting Bistro

Over at PF Chang's China Bistro, an appetizer portion of spare ribs contains _____ calories, while the Great Wall of Chocolate dessert ("six layers of rich chocolate cake frosted with semi-sweet chocolate chips and raspberry sauce," pictured at right) adds up to _______ calories.

a) 972/1,760
b) 1,251/1,854
c) 1,762/1,603
d) 1,386/2,237

Leave your guess in the "comments" section and come back on Wednesday for the answer.

Numbers Game: Answer

Recent studies by Brian Wansink of Cornell University's Applied Economics and Management Department and Pierre Chandon of the European Institute for Business Administration found that, on average, people underestimate the caloric content of "healthy sounding" dishes (like a grilled chicken salad, pictured right) at chain restaurants (and most dishes at "healthy sounding" restaurants) by 20 percent.

This false sense of security is quite deceptive.

It's one thing to eat a grilled chicken breast on a bed of vegetables with a tablespoon of dressing or olive oil and balsamic vinegar, but quite another to accompany it with a ladle of dressing that can contribute up to 500 extra calories.

And it's not just calories that can be underestimated with healthy sounding choices.

Here's a shocker:

An order of medium fries at McDonald's contributes 221 milligrams of sodium to your day.

An Asian chicken salad from that same chain? 1,030 milligrams -- and that's before you add a single drop of dressing!

Once you pour that packet of dressing on, the total sodium content shoots up to 1,790 milligrams.

The best tactic is to always be aware of what you are eating.

For instance, does your grilled chicken sandwich come slathered with a thick layer of mayonnaise? Is your whole wheat wrap a foot long? Is your brown rice and vegetable stir fry drowning in sauce?

Don't be afraid to take charge, either. Ask for the dressing on the side, substitute mustard for mayo on your sandwich, and request that your stir fry be "light on the sauce."

Just remember to tip well!

What Happens in Vegas... Shows In Your Tummy

Two nights in Las Vegas provided plenty of blogging material.

My observations, below:

Despite the recent influx of celebrity chefs and three star restaurants, there isn't a single high-scale, fine dining vegetarian restaurant on the entire Strip.

What gives?

I'm afraid business executives and consumers are still under the inaccurate assumption that healthy dining and delicious meals are mutually exclusive.

As a result, diners who do not eat meat have to basically rely on pasta dishes. Zzzzzz....

All my restaurant experiences, while delicious, left me asking, "where's the fiber?"

Whole grains are completely absent from most menus, as are beans and legumes.

I am not asking for steakhouses to be shut down or the plethora of French restaurants to "de-fatten" their menus.

What I do want to know, though, is where are the options for healthy upscale eating?

I understand being on vacation and wanting to enjoy a rich, decadent meal, but after two or three of those, your body starts begging for some mercy.

Think everything is big in Texas? Wait until you hit the Vegas Strip!

At the Paris hotel, you can get alcoholic drinks in an Eiffel-tower shaped 32 ounce glass. Over at the Luxor, 52 ounce daiquiris are on the menu.

People do order them. I saw at least fifty people on one given night walking around the Strip with these huge drinks in hand -- most were more than halfway finished.

FYI -- a 32 ounce daiquiri contains 1,800 calories. The 52 ounce? 2,900.

And then there's the buffets. I am not a big fan of them, as I often find that quantity trumps quality.

I was up for some nutrition research, though, so off I went to The Palms for lunch one day.

Of the forty different dishes, not a single one contained a whole grain.

The salad bar's only truly nutritious offerings were chickpeas and kidney beans.

To my surprise -- and disappointment -- the salad bar did not offer carrots, bell peppers, broccoli florets, canned tuna, grilled chicken breast, avocado, sliced almonds, sunflower seeds, beets, asparagus, or anything to help diners construct a healthy and tasty salad.

It did, however, manage to provide croutons, bacon, cheese, iceberg lettuce, and pickles. Yum????

Fried foods, rich sauces, and refined carbohydrates made up the bulk of the remaining offerings. Vegetables were mostly drowned in butter or cream or covered in a deep fried shell.

Dessert consisted pies (some sugar free), cakes, brownies, and ice cream.

Fruit, you ask? There was literally one basket with three apples and two bananas.

The Venetian has a healthy restaurant (all dishes are low in saturated fat, high in fiber, high on fruit and vegetable content, and contain little or no added sugars) tucked away in its spa, meaning it is exclusively for guests of that hotel.

Why not move it to the general restaurant area and open it up to the general public?

While I'm at on the topic of hotels: why do guests have to pony up extra money -- up to $20 or $30 -- to utilize a hotel's gym?

Really. Why are people being deterred from exercising?

Anyway, a big thank you to the folks who make Lara, Clif Nectar, and Flavor & Fiber bars. My intestinal tract couldn't have made it in Vegas without you.

In The News: Here A Tasting, There A Tasting

Foodies and dietitians don't generally see eye to eye.

Foodies crave rich ingredients, orgasmic flavors, and lovely textures (even if they are achieved by triple deep frying).

Dietitians love food -- a good dietitian makes healthy eating flavorful, delicious, and not taste like cardboard -- but also seek out a certain nutrition balance (a sauce on the side, opting for broccoli instead of white rice to accompany a dish, etc.)

On that note, today's New York Times examines the impact of the foodie lifestyle -- particularly restaurant reviewers -- on health.

Take the case of eGullten.com founder Jason Perlow, who after years of sampling delicacies left and right without giving much thought to anything except how good they tasted, tipped the scales at 400 pounds and developed Type 2 diabetes.

Sure, an extreme situation, but it's still , pardon the pun, food for thought. And, he isn't necessary alone:

"“Most of us who are in this profession are here as an excuse to eat,” said Mimi Sheraton, the food writer and former New York Times restaurant critic who has chronicled her own battle with weight loss. Still, she said, “I’ve never seen such an outward, in-your-face celebration of eating fat.”

This is very much a "chicken or the egg" situation.

Chefs -- especially five-star celebrity ones -- continue to make fatty dishes without taken nutrition into consideration because, truth be told, they don't need to.

A restaurant reviewer could care less that an entree packs in 1,600 calories and two days' worth of saturated fat, or that the scrumptious new hot dessert in town has as much sugar as three cans of soda.

As far as a chef is concerned, if food coming out of the kitchen is well-reviewed, the job is well done.

This is why I personally don't find classical French cuisine that amazing. How hard can it be to make a delicious meal when butter, flour, and sugar are poured on liberally?
The new standard of top-notch cuisine should take nutrition into account.

This paradigm of "delicious vs. healthy" is antiquated, inaccurate, and due for a change!
Let's have dietitians infiltrate the restaurant scene.

Not to count calories or ask for a tomato-based sauce in place of a cream one, but to challenge talented chefs and say, "alright, that curry pad thai was to die for, but let's see you concoct something just as delicious that's higher in fiber, lower in fat, and has more vegetables."

The celebrity chefs sure seem to have the ego. So... come on and wow me.

Numbers Game: Regular? Don't You Mean Ridiculous?

A regular Quizno's tuna melt sub sandwich adds up to ________ calories, _______ grams of saturated fat, and ________ milligrams of sodium.

(NOTE: Saturated fat consumption should not exceed 20 grams per day, and the maximum daily sodium limit is set at 2,400 milligrams)

a) 987/13/1,098
b) 1,367/11/1,404
c) 1,420/21/1,535
d) 1,250/17/1,902

Leave your guess in the "comments" section and come back on Thursday for the answer (and the numbers you get from the LARGE!)

You "Ask", I Answer: Healthy Eating At Restaurants

[In response to your posting about chain restaurants not providing nutrition information:] So eat at home where you can control what goes in the food.

If you eat out, indulge.

Live life!

Don't make enjoying a meal out a science.

-- Sly
Via the blog

As regular readers of this blog know, I am a huge proponent of enjoying food and always experiencing eating as a pleasurable activity, not a punishable one.

I don't expect -- or want -- anyone to bring a calculator and scale to every meal they eat.

However, the point of that post -- and what brought up sufficient frustration in me to want to write about it -- was that consumers have a right to know what they are purchasing at a restaurant.

Obviously, a triple bacon cheeseburger with onion rings will never be confused for a "low calorie" or "heart healthy" meal.

However, a lot of the chain restaurants I mentioned (Olive Garden, TGI Friday's, Applebee's) offer entrees that sound healthy and are anything but.

Entree salads often contain as much saturated fat and sodium as a hamburger due to the sheer volume of dressing dumped on them.

My call for these restaurants to offer nutrition information isn't for people to obsess over numbers, but to have information available to help them make the right choices.

A "little appetizer" might be viewed differently when you discover it provides 900 calories.

When you go to a restaurant, I'm sure you like to know the cost of each dish before ordering. Wouldn't you hate to see a menu with no prices on it, only to get an expensive bill at the end?

If you're on a "financial diet", it helps you to know that the fish entree you're eyeing is $15 more expensive than the chicken entree you're also thinking of getting.

Apply the same principles to someone on a nutritional diet or eating plan.

Also, it's one thing to "indulge" if you eat out once every two weeks and follow generally healthy eating patterns. If dinner at a restaurant is the norm, though, giving yourself permission to indulge every time isn't such a good idea.

Numbers Game: Answer

An individual (advertised for one person) four cheese pizza from Uno Chicago Grill (formerly known as Pizzeria Uno) provides 1,920 calories, 39 grams of saturated fat, and 2,760 milligrams of sodium

(NOTE: Saturated fat consumption should not exceed 20 grams per day, and the maximum daily sodium limit is set at 2,400 milligrams)

Maybe they should change their slogan to, "Why eat three meals when you can get a day's worth of calories in one sitting?"

And don't think "just having an appetizer" is the solution.

The pizza skins appetizer packs in 2,400 calories, 50 grams of saturated fat, and 3,600 milligrams of sodium.

Even if split with someone else it's an absolute belt-buster.

Uno Grill does earn some brownie points for offering more sensible items, including a grilled mahi mahi with mango salsa entree that adds up to 220 calories and 400 milligrams of sodium.

Team it up with roasted or steamed veggies -- or brown rice cranberry pilaf -- for a fast-food meal your heart will be thankful for.

Whatever you do, watch out for the skinless baked potato side dish!

The cheddar, bacon, and sour cream piled on top turn a nutrition champ into a 480-calorie monster that delivers half a day's worth of saturated fat and sodium.

Shame On You: Olive Garden, TGI Friday's, Applebee's, Outback Steakhouse, and New York City Wendy's

Sneaky, sneaky, sneaky.

Many chain restaurants -- who have standardized recipes that call for an exact amount of certain ingredients every single time the dish is served -- offer nutrition information on their websites.

No matter how heinous their offerings -- think 10 grams of trans fat in a serving of large fries, in some cases -- the information is available to potential customers.

Olive Garden, TGI Friday's, Applebee's, Outback Steakhouse, and New York City Wendy's restaurants aren't as forthcoming.

In Olive Garden's case, they only list nutrition information for their "Garden Fare" low-fat and low-carb items.

Even that information is scarce, consisting solely of calories, fat, fiber, and carbohydrates.

There is no mention of sodium or saturated fat.

And make sure to read the tiny print at the bottom of the page:

"Olive Garden has made an effort to provide complete and current nutrition information, but changes in recipes and the hand-crafted nature of our menu items mean that variations from these values can occur from time to time. Therefore, the values shown here should be considered approximations."

Nutrition information for their remaining menu items? Nonexistent.

The only nutrition mention TGI Friday's makes on their website is via a 2007 press release announcing the availability of smaller portions of select menu items, all of which offer less than 500 calories and 10 grams of fat.

Want to know how many calories are in their standard fried mac and cheese appetizer? Start sharpening your psychic skills, because TGI Friday's sure isn't going to tell you.

Over at Applebee's, nutrition information is only available for Weight Watchers approved items.

The others?

"We do not provide nutritional information on other Applebee's® items - with approximately 1,900 locations in the U.S. alone there are many different vendors, which makes it extremely difficult to obtain nutritional information for our items."

I'm supposed to believe they can't tell me how many calories their three cheese chicken penne pasta bowl ("mozzarella, provolone and Parmesan cheeses top off a rich mix of penne pasta, Italian-seasoned grilled chicken, diced tomatoes, fresh basil and Alfredo sauce") provides?

Ironic, isn't it, how the main draw of all these restaurants is that no matter where in the country you go, their dishes are prepared identically, yet apparently when it comes to nutrition, each Applebee's is so unique that something as standard as caloric information varies from store to store?

Why doesn't this excuse apply to their Weight Watchers items?

I guess it wouldn't make them sound very trustworthy if they claimed, "Some items are Weight-Watchers friendly only in certain undisclosed cities."

Outback Steakhouse, meanwhile, beats around the bush.

Rather than tell consumers how many calories their Barbeque Chicken and Bacon Sandwich offers, they provide tips on making it healthier and "diet friendly":

"Order prepared without butter or BBQ sauce,order without the bacon and cheese, request with bun if your program allows, substitute baked potato, steamed vegetables, or steamed green beans."

The question remains -- how many calories do you get with the healthy substitutions? How many without?

Outback "answers" this question by tooting its own horn:

"We take pride in our "No Rules" approach to accommodating our customer's specific dietary needs."

In other words, "if we didn't give you people so much freedom when ordering, we would be able to provide nutrition information. Oh well!"

Then there's Wendy's. Well, at least the Wendy's in New York City.

Per the fast food chain's website:

"We regret that Wendy's cannot provide product calorie information to residents or customers in New York City. The New York City Department of Health passed a regulation requiring restaurants that already provide calorie information to post product calories on their menu boards -- using the same type size as the product listing.

We fully support the intent of this regulation; however, since most of our food is made-to-order, there isn't enough room on our existing menu boards to comply with the regulation.

To continue to provide caloric information to residents and customers of our New York City restaurants on our website and on our nutritional posters would subject us to this regulation. As a result, we will no longer provide caloric information to residents and customers of our New York City restaurants. "

So because someone can ask for a burger without ketchup or extra bacon Wendy's can no longer offer nutrition information?

Odd -- that doesn't stop them from posting nutrition information on their website, or in their other restaurants across the country, where consumers have jus as much flexibility in ordering.

And how come they were able to provide caloric information in their New York City stores before the Department of Health ruling, despite custom ordering?

I also ask -- what about items like fries, sodas, frosties, and chicken nuggets, which are not made to order? They can't even offer that information in their New York City restaurants?

Mind you, Wendy's prides themselves in their "unrivaled [passion] for giving people what they want — and uncompromising in giving people what they deserve."

We all deserve to know what is in the food we're eating!

Many of these chains rely on the standard argument that listing nutritional information is useless because consumers don't go to their restaurants for nutrition.

Alright then, if that's the case, why not reveal the numbers? If it's not losing potential consumers that scares you, what's stopping you?

Numbers Game: Answer

A six-piece chicken strip basket at Dairy Queen packs in 12 grams of trans fat and 2,910 milligrams of sodium.

(NOTE: Trans fat consumption is recommended at zero grams a day; maximum daily sodium intake is set at 2,400 milligrams)

That's what six chicken strips, a handful of fries, two slices of toast, and some gravy sauce add up to (in an entree many people have for lunch on any given day).

Think you can soften the blow by getting just four chicken strips, skimping on the fries, and starting with a bowl of cream of broccoli soup?

Think again!

That bowl sets you back 570 calories, five grams of trans fat and an outrageous 4,770 milligrams of sodium!

Yes, that's four THOUSAND -- not a typo of four hundred.

Hope you get a tall glass of water with that order...

In The News: Caloric Controversy

Back in January I posted about the New York City Board of Health's motion forcing chain restaurants to display caloric information in a conspicuous fashion (i.e.: on the menu, rather than the double cheeseburger wrapper you don't see until AFTER you have paid for your order).

Then, on February 4, I referred you to a link on Marion Nestle's blog where she notified us that the National Restaurant Association was preparing to fire back with litigation claiming such a rule was unnecessary, unfounded, and detrimental to consumers.

Now, The New York Times is providing details on the affidavit submitted to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

And, oh, what interesting details they are!

To begin with, the document is penned by Dr. David B. Allison.

Allison is not a high-profile corporate lawyer.

Oh no. Far from it. He's a professor of nutrition at the University of Alabama -- and the incoming president of the Obesity Society!

That's right. A man at the helm of an organization whose vision is to "be the leader in understanding, preventing and treating obesity and in improving the lives of those affected" is against calorie labeling and representing McDonald's, Burger King, and other fast food restaurants.

His arguments against the Board of Health's motion?

"Dr. Allison argues that the new rules could backfire — whether by adding to the forbidden-fruit allure of high-calorie foods or by sending patrons away hungry enough that they will later gorge themselves even more."

Sending away hungry patrons? Posting caloric information on a board is very different from armed guards threatening people with machine guns if they dare step inside a McDonald's.

The goal is simply to provide consumers with information allowing them to make healthier choices.

I should point out that I have given talks and workshops in the past where I actually show people how they can go to McDonald's for a meal and choose appropriately.

I do not recommend McDonald's be a daily staple, but I recognize that once in a while, whether out of personal preference or other reasons (i.e.: you're on the road, starving, pressed for time, and your only option is fast food), people will be looking up at a fast food menu deciding what to order.

Although it may be "so obvious" to some, many people aren't aware that a Big Mac with large fries and a large Coke is a very different meal from a regular hamburger with small fries and a bottle of water.

In fact, there is roughly a 900 calorie difference between those two options!

In any case, Allison supports his theory that calorie labeling will drive away hungry patrons who will ultimately end up gorging by "citing research showing that birds put on weight when food is scarce."

Too bad food scarcity is completely irrelevant in this discussion.

Consumers are not told to either order a 1,400 calorie meal or go home empty-handed. They can go ahead and order that 1,400 calorie meal, but now they'll KNOW it is a 1,400 calorie meal.

Allison proudly claims that he utilizes scientific evidence in his affidavit to prove his point.

Specifically, he "cites a study that found that dieters who were distracted while eating and presented with information that food was high in calories were more likely to overeat."

I love how people throw around the term "scientific evidence" as if that automatically means what they are about to say is a universal truth.

The study he points at mentions dieters being distracted while eating. How, exactly, would calorie labeling distract people as they eat? The information only comes to play while they are ordering.

A Board of Health representative will not be sitting across from them as they bite into their Big Mac notifying them of how many calories they just paid for.

Luckily, the Obesity Society is not standing behind Allison.

"The obesity group released a statement on Tuesday supporting calorie labeling on menus. “The Obesity Society believes that more information on the caloric content of restaurant servings, not less, is in the interests of consumers,” said the statement by the society, which is based in Silver Spring, Md."

I am surprised the Obesity Society is still permitting Dr. Allison to come in as president.

Isn't his support of the National Restaurant Association akin to the head of the National Rifle Association supporting strict gun control laws?

Say What?: It's not April 1 Yet, Is It?

Down in Mississippi -- one of the most obese states in the country -- three members of the House of Representatives have come up with what they believe is a solution to the obesity epidemic.

W.T. Mayhall, Jr. (R), John Read (R), and Bobby Shows (D) have drafted Bill number 282.

Its proposal? Make it illegal for state-licensed restaurants to serve obese patrons.

They are under the illusion that the Department of Health would not only agree with this idea, but also provide them with specific criteria to determine who falls into the obese category.

You can view the actual bill here.

There are so many problems with this, I don't even know where to start.

From a social standpoint, this is a terrible idea. An obese person can no longer be able to go out to dinner with friends or family?

While restaurants often serve mega-size portions loaded with calories, unhealthy fats, and sodium, they are not the direct cause of obesity.

Someone can never set foot in a restaurant and easily remain obese.

Supermarkets offer a plethora of unhealthy foods (donuts, ice cream, potato chips, frozen pizzas, candy bars) anyone can purchase and have available at their homes around the clock.

Add years of physical inactivity as well as no access to nutrition education and other resources, and you have the perfect breeding ground for obesity.

Remember, too, that obesity often has a strong psychological component behind it.

Food -- and the accompanying extra weight -- serves as a type of shield, or emotional security blanket, to hide behind.

Banning obese people from restaurants is absurd and does not tackle the real issues.

In The News: The Moment of Truth

New York City is at the forefront of nutrition public health issues once again.

After calling for a ban on trans fats for cooking and baking, the city's Board of Health unanimously voted to have all chain restaurants post calorie information on menu boards.

Two thumbs up.

Up until now, the only requirement of chain restaurants -- which have standardized menu options with consistent nutrition information -- was that they list nutrition information for their products in any way they saw fit.

Not surprisingly, many restaurants implemented this in very erroneous ways.

McDonald's, for example, stuck nutrition labels on the packaging of their sandwiches, burgers, and fries.

In other words, consumers are not informed about any nutrition information until after they have ordered and paid for their food. Useless!

No one is going to look at the calories in their Big Mac and, shocked by the numbers, decide to order something else instead.

Information needs to be communicated to the consumer BEFORE they order.

The National Restaurant Association, of course, is dead set against this new verdict.

They claim this will make menus look too cluttered.

Really? Adding a few more numbers next to, or below, a menu item does not seem like a recipe for layout disaster.

They also argue nutrition information is already available to the general public on each restaurant's website.

True, but not everyone has access to the Internet. And, besides, are they expecting consumers to memorize calorie figures for a myriad of menu items. Or, even less realistically, carry multiple printouts with them?

As for the claim that people are not going to change their mind as a result of seeing calories -- I strongly disagree.

That line of reasoning assumes that every person visiting a fast food restaurant is oblivious to his or her caloric intake.

Not so. Many people stop by these restaurants out of convenience, often times on their way to, or back from, a road trip.

It's very likely, actually, that they only visit these establishments under these conditions. For all we know, they are regularly healthy eaters who really don't have much of a choice at that moment.

Should they, or anyone else for that matter, be denied information that can help them make a smarter choice?

And then there's Starbucks.

I think a lot of people will be surprised to learn that a Venti frappuccino at Starbucks with whipped cream clocks in at over 500 calories. Or that the coffee chain's blueberry muffin contains 430 calories.

How anyone can think that informing consumers of calories in prospective meals is detrimental beats me.

No one is denying, banning, or limiting food. It is still a free country, where people can order as they please.

However, at a time when two thirds of adults are overweight, we can no longer afford to leave people in the dark.

What do you think?

Numbers Game: Answer

A standard pad thai entreé at a restaurant contains 1,350 calories.

Woah -- that's equivalent to six slices of a 12 inch Domino's cheese pizza.

Although the obscenely large portions of pad thai usually doled out at restaurants are behind this obscene figure, the main culprit is the large amounts of oil that go into making the dish.

As delicious as Thai cuisine is, options range from healthy to heinous.

Accompanying pad thai in the "tread carefully" category are spring rolls (deep-fried and offering very little nutrition), soups made with coconut milk (on average providing 450 calories and a day's worth of saturated fat), entrees made with curry (the presence of coconut milk quickly adds calories and saturated fat), and meat dishes labeled "crispy" (think additional fat and calories).

Fortunately, Thai restaurants also offer several healthy and delicious options.

Summer rolls are my favorite appetizer. Wrapped in a soy paper sheet and filled with carrots, basil, grilled tofu and chopped peanuts, they are a refreshing low-calorie treat.

Chicken or tofu satay (basically grilled and skewered) is another smart appetizer choice. However, watch the accompanying peanut dipping sauce, as it is higher in calories than other varieties.

When it comes to entrees, look for grilled, baked, or steamed chicken, shrimp, fish, or tofu with vegetables.

Any of the above in their stir-fry versions is still better than any sort of curry, but will definitely contain more oil than the choices just mentioned.

If the dish comes in a sauce, ask the waiter or waitress to order it "light on sauce". This could save you as much as 500 milligrams of sodium and 150 calories.

If your dish comes with a rice, ask for brown -- extra fiber always helps.

Even conventional white rice is a healthier choice than the fried counterpart, which contains 250 calories per cup!

Numbers Game: Oodles of Noodles

A standard pad thai entreé at a restaurant contains ________ calories.

a) 1,500
b) 1,350
c) 1,075
d) 890

Leave your guess in the "comments" section and come back on Monday for the answer!