Numbers Game: Answer

In the United States, a McDonald's Big Mac and order of large fries adds up to 1,040 calories. In the United Kingdom, those same two items add up to 950 calories.

You would think all McDonald's items would be standardized, no matter what corner of the world you were ordering them in.

Not so.

Why the caloric difference? Simple -- a container of large fries is slightly smaller, as are the beef patties.

Mind you, McDonald's USA only recently lowered the calories in their large fries from 550 to 500. Two years ago, this combo would have added up to 1,090 on this side of the Atlantic.

Numbers Game: McCounting

In the United States, a McDonald's Big Mac and order of large fries adds up to 1,040 calories. In the United Kingdom, those same two items add up to __________ calories.

a) 1,125
b) 950
c) 800
d) 1,040

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

Numbers Game: Answer

When comparing an Au Bon Pain double chocolate chunk muffin with a large order of McDonald's french fries, the muffin provides 70 MORE calories (570 calories vs. the large fries' 500 calories).

That's not all, folks.

This muffin also provides double the saturated fat of those large fries -- and 100 MORE milligrams of sodium!

Oh, and then there are those 11 teaspoons of added sugar.

These gigantic muffins truly irritate me because they suck away all the enjoyment from savoring a chocolatey baked good.

Why can't these simply be half the size (and calories)? A 285 calorie muffin sounds more reasonable -- and easier to justify as an occasional treat.

And anyone who says "just don't eat the whole thing!" needs to go up to their bedroom and read Brian Wansink's amazing book, Mindless Eating.

Numbers Game: Compare and Contrast

When comparing An Au Bon Pain double chocolate chunk muffin with a large order of McDonald's french fries, the muffin provides _____ ______ calories.

a) 70 MORE
b) 50 FEWER
c) THE SAME AMOUNT OF
d) 120 MORE

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

Things That Make You Go... "Oh No, They Didn't!"

Food advertising is always.... interesting.

That's not to say it can't also be horrifying and disturbing.

Consider, for instance, this McDonald's advertisement that was prominently featured in Austrian billboard a few years ago.

Yes, this was a real advertisement!

Once your eyebrows return to their original position, feel free to post your thoughts.

In The News: Are You Calorie Blind?

This New York Times article -- centered around a French marketing expert and American attitudes towards food and nutrition -- makes the following case: health claims like "trans fat free" and "low fat" create a "health halo," providing consumers with a false sense of security, and ultimately making them more susceptible to overeating.

When random Americans in a nutritionally conscious Brooklyn neighborhood were asked to estimate the number of calories in an Applebee's meal, they overshot by an average of 100 calories.

Good news so far.

However, when that meal included two crackers labeled "trans fat free," those additional 100 calories went seemingly unnoticed!

Furthermore, the total caloric count of that meal received lower estimates than that of the cracker-less photograph.

Meanwhile, "[foreign tourists in Times Square] correctly estimated that the meal with crackers had more calories than the meal without crackers."

Sounds simple (more food = more calories), but this French professor of marketing contends that health halos can blind us from seeing the larger picture.

The theory is that foreigners, most of whom stem from countries where nutrition and weight loss mainly concerns calories (rather than specific nutrients), are not deceived by what Marion Nestle calls "calorie distractors."

What is a calorie distractor, you ask?

Any kind of claim that makes you forget the total caloric impact of what you are eating (i.e.: tortilla chips containing a mere sprinkle of flaxseed and soy protein, or Gummi candies with as much ALA Omega-3 as four walnuts.)

The article also mentions a most fascinating experiment conducted by this French researcher and Brian Wansink last year.

"After giving people a chance to order either a Big Mac or a 12-inch Italian sandwich from Subway, the people ordering the subway sandwich [which has more caloric than a Big Mac] were more likely to add a large nondiet soda and cookies to the order, end[ing] up with meals averaging 56 percent more calories than the meals ordered from McDonald’s."

This article cements a lot of the concepts commonly discussed in this blog. Let's recap:

1. Forget about "good" and "bad" foods. Instead, focus on the big picture. A donut and coffee breakfast is not worth fretting about if it only happens once a week.

2. Above all, think calories. Whole wheat pasta covered in 500-calorie Alfredo sauce is not a healthier choice than that same amount of "white" pasta accompanied by 100 calories of marinara sauce.

3. Don't be fooled by claims of "a day's worth of vitamins" or "x milligrams of Omega 3" on boxes of high-calorie, sugar and sodium laden junk foods. You might as well down a Centrum pill in between bites of a King Size Snickers bar.

Remember -- the less processed your diet, the less you have to worry about scavenging the supermarket aisles for sugar-free, vitamin fortified, and low sugar Frankenfoods.

In The News: Lean Times, Leaner Burger

Starting Monday, the double cheeseburger will disappear from McDonald's dollar menu.

It's not that customers don't love it -- it's actually the chain's best-selling $1 item!

In its place? The same burger with just one slice of cheese, a different name, and a slightly heftier price tag.

The McDouble -- the end result of McDonald's strategy to increase profits after the cost of commodities like wheat skyrocketed over the past year -- is set to debut in 14,000 McDonald's restaurants on December 1.

Retailing for $1.19, this new version offers 50 fewer calories (390) and 25 percent less saturated fat (8.5 grams, or roughly 42% of the recommended daily limit) than its predecessor.

Numbers Game: Answer

At McDonald's, an order of small fries and a small soda contains 420 fewer calories than a large order of those same two items.

The purpose of this particular "numbers game" was to show that no matter where you eat, you always have the ability to make better choices.

Many times, when people go to fast food restaurants (especially if it's by choice), they resign themselves to large portions and high calorie amounts, thinking "hey, it's not supposed to be healthy."

Similarly, a lot of people balk at the idea of calorie information being posted at fast food restaurants, claiming people don't go to a burger and fries joint to eat healthy.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean these customers aren't interested in knowing how they can integrate a food they enjoy into a healthier way of eating.

The example provided in this answer is proof that a craving for fries and a soda doesn't necessarily have to add 810 calories to your day (large fries clock in at 500 calories, while a large soda contributes 310 calories.)

In The News: Missing In Action

Ronald McDonald has some 'splaining to do.

His fast-food chain has been "awarded" the most violations for not posting calorie information on various of their New York City stores' menu boards.

In total, 682 violations have been handed out since April.

"About 300 citations were issued during the first six weeks the rules took effect, which was considered a grace period, and did not carry fines. Since then, 388 violations were issued that carry fines between $200 and $2,000 each," reports Crain's New York Business.

McDonald's has acquired 103 violations, Dunkin' Donuts is not far behind with 89, and local fried chicken chain Crown Fried Chicken rounds out the Top 3 with 39 violations to its name.

"Some citations were given for non-compliance and others punished restaurants for not posting information the way the regulations require. For instance, a few restaurants were fined for putting the information in the wrong place or using lettering that was too small."

I notice the linked news article displays a sole comment from someone named "Joe" who claims calorie labeling is "nannying" and "a violation of... life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness."

Considering the amount of people I have heard voice a similar statement, Joe is joking.

For the life of me, though, I have no clue what civil liberties are violated by asking restaurants to post calorie content information.

I also fail to see how such a request can be considered "nannying."

Nobody is being forbidden from buying an 1,100 calorie milkshake. It isn't taxed more heavily than a less caloric option. There isn't a limit on how many times you can order it, or at what time of day.

So where, exactly, is the "you can't tell me what to eat!" defensiveness coming from?

Numbers Game: Go Small, Lose Big

There you are, driving down the highway.

You zoom by one McDonald's, two McDonald's, three McDonald's. ENOUGH! The craving for fries and a Coke can no longer be silenced.

You pull up to the drive-thru window.

You're not that hungry, but you figure, if you're going to have fries, you might as well go all out and get the large size, right?

Well, consider the following:

Satisfy your craving with a small order of fries and a small soda (rather than large fries and a large soda) and save _______ calories.

a) 198
b) 275
c) 362
d) 420

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

You Ask, I Answer: McDonald's

While I do not refute that McDonald's is not very appealing to me, do you think this article written by a "nutritional consult" has any value?

-- Kate Redfern
Alberta, Canada

The article Kate refers to is written by a "wellness educator" and nutrition consultant who argues that "[a] McDonald's [hamburger] fills an empty space in your belly. It does nothing to nourish the cell, it is not a nutritious food."

The author comes to this conclusion after pointing out that a hamburger she purchased at the Golden Arches 12 years ago and has since kept at her home has not decayed one bit and looks exactly like one someone ordered 5 minutes ago.

And the point of that would be...?

While that demonstrates that this hamburger contains plenty of preservatives, it does not negate its nutritional profile (which I will explain a few paragraphs later.)

One particularly confusing part of her argument is that "a [McDonald's] hamburger [in the United States] tastes exactly the same in China or some around the world place."

To that I say, "so what?"

After all, when you go to your favorite restaurant, you expect the dish you had 2 weeks ago to taste the exact same, don't you?

The fact that the taste is always identical does not mean said dish -- say, lentil soup -- is void of nutrition.

Standardized recipes and formulas are common practices in the restaurant business. They are there to ensure customer loyalty, not as some nutritional conspiracy.

While I do not disagree with the thought that McDonald's food is heavily processed, this notion that one of their hamburgers "does not nourish" is completely inaccurate (by the way, I'm still trying to figure out what the author means when she specifically mentions "cell nourishment.")

The plain and simple fact is that a McDonald's beef patty contains iron, protein, B vitamins, and a little vitamin A. The bun, meanwhile, offers iron, folate, niacin, thiamin, and riboflavin.

Is the hamburger high in sodium? Absolutely. Devoid of fiber? Yes -- but that's the case with ANY hamburger, not just a McDonald's one.

In short, these sorts of "articles" irritate me to no end because they aren't written within a framework of nutrition science (and by that I mean basic food composition; knowing what nutrients are in what foods.)

This is simply fear-mongering meant to titillate and shock, rather than educate.

Eating a McDonald's hamburger once a month, for example, will not kill anyone. The patty will not sit in your colon for 12 years. It will provide protein, iron, and B vitamins to your diet.

Would I recommend someone seek out food at McDonald's? No. But I am also not going to sit on some self-made ivory tower and condemn anyone who occasionally enjoys one of their plain hamburgers.

Besides, I have a hard time believing the hamburger shown at the link has been stored at room temperature for 12 years without a trace of mold -- not even on the bun!

As far as I'm concerned, it's the article at the link that's lacking substance.

In The News: Downsized Economy No Problem for Supersize Master

This article from Bloomberg.com states that "reported August sales [for McDonald's] rose more than some analysts estimated as consumers battered by higher gasoline and grocery bills bought $1 sodas in the U.S. and snack-sized chicken wraps in France."

The issue isn't so much that people are buying $1 sodas, but that it is the large sizes that are selling for the reduced cost of a single dollar.

A large Mickey D's cup offers 2 pints of soda, 21.5 teaspoons of sugar, and 310 calories (along with zero nutrition).

It's rather ironic that one of the main menu items driving up sales at McDonald's during an economic recession is one that offers no sustenance.

It's also very telling that the United States consumers opt for large sodas while French customers spend their money on snack-sized items.

Had McDonald's execs in the United States consulted me about menu changes during touch economic times, I would have suggested expanding the "dollar menu" by introducing smaller portions of more menu items.

Does advocating for smaller portions make me anti-American?

In The News: The McDonald's "Diet"

In case you haven't heard, a Virginia man named Chris Coleson lost 70 pounds in 6 months eating nothing but McDonald's.

For whatever reason, several media outlets are having a field day with this one.

I, personally, don't see what's so newsworthy here.

Not only is this not new (a woman shed 37 pounds in 2005 by eating every single meal at the Golden Arches for 90 days), it's also simply the result of very standard nutrition advice: eat less calories and you will lose weight.

Works like a charm!

In Mr. Coleson's case, it is estimated that he reduced his daily intake from 3,000 - 3,500 calories to 1400.

Yup, that'll do it.

The fact that he accomplished this by only eating two meals a day doesn't sit well with me.

Between lowering his calories so drastically and eating only twice a day, I suspect his metabolism may have been affected negatively.

Remember, you could feasibly lose weight eating nothing but ice cream, Kit Kat bars, or French fries, as long as you lower your caloric intake to the required levels.

The problem, of course, is that it doesn't take that much ice cream (or that many French fries) to reach, say, 1500 calories.

Additionally, an ice-cream-only diet would provide a good amount of certain nutrients (fat and calcium) and leave you entirely deficient of others (vitamin C, fiber, vitamin E, potassium, etc.)

Choose wisely (vegetables, fruits, legumes, non/low-fat dairy, lean protein) and you can eat a larger quantity of food for that same amount of calories, all while meeting your nutrient needs.

Mr. Coleson's McDonald's diet -- which, fortunately, the fast food chain is not taking credit for -- is low in fiber, high in sodium, and devoid of whole grains and legumes.

Relying so heavily on one restaurant to lose weight is dangerous.

What happens when Mr. Coleson goes over to someone else's home for dinner, or has to cook for himself? If he hasn't learned any new skills or concepts that will allow him to keep the weight off once he stops visiting Ronald the Clown's house every day, he'll be back to square one.

I'm so f'ing tired of fad diets!

You Ask, I Answer: Potato Consumption

While a baked potato with the skin left on is a healthy choice, the question is: how do the majority of North Americans eat their potatoes?

-- Kate (last name unknown)
Via the blog

Great question.

Here is what the most recent figures from the United States Department of Agriculture reveal.

In 2002, the "average American" consumed 126 lbs. of potatoes.

Of these 126 lbs., approximately 24 came exclusively from potato chips (the average American consumed 6 lbs. of potato chips in 2002; it takes 4 pounds of potatoes to make 1 pound of potato chips).

Frozen potatoes (mainly french fries) totaled 61 pounds.

Some simple addition reveals that french fries and potato chips make up two thirds of total average potato consumption!

Not exactly the picture of health.

We are still missing some vital information, though.

Although baked potatoes offer a good deal of nutrition (Harvard's School of Public Health Chair Walter Willett's claim that potatoes and candy bars are basically nutritionally identical is ludicruous), this survey does not tell us how people are eating them.

Mainly, how many calories they are being topped with. A pad of butter? Three tablespoons?

What we certainly know is that such a high consumption of French fries doesn't spell out good news for our waistlines.

While a nutritious side dish consisting of medium baked potato topped with a tablespoon of olive oil (that's quite a bit!) adds up to 280 calories, a large order of fries at McDonald's contributes 570.

The Hard Facts on Baskin-Robbins' Soft Serve

Baskin-Robbins is expanding its ice cream experience weeks before the official start of summer.

Say hello to their very own soft serve!

Don't let the name fool you; this swirly vanilla concoction has no interest in helping you indulge your sweet tooth without overloading on calories.

For starters, a regular (not kiddie-sized, not large) soft serve cone provides 280 calories, 35% of a day's worth of saturated fat, and 9 teaspoons of sugar.

Certainly not a harmless treat.

The real disaster, however, comes if you order Baskin Robbins' new 31 Below soft serve sundaes ("vanilla Soft Serve blended with your favorite candies, cookies and toppings for a delectable dessert.")

Take, for instance, the Reese's Peanut Butter Cup 31 Below treat: a combination of vanilla soft serve, Reese's Peanut Butter Cups, and Reese's Peanut Butter Sauce.

At its smallest, it offers 950 calories, 105% of a day's worth of saturated fat, and 21.5 teaspoons of sugar.

Choose a large (which, by the way, is advertised for a single person; there is no mention of it being "shareable") and once you've taken your last bite you will have consumed 1800 calories, 195% of a day's worth of saturated fat, almost half a day's worth of sodium (!), and 40 teaspoons of sugar!

And that's not even as bad as it gets.

A large fudge brownie 31 Below, for instance, clocks in at 1900 calories and 58 teaspoons of sugar.

We come back to the eternal question -- WHY?

Is there really a necessity to create a dessert that offers an entire day's worth of calories and 600% of the maximum added sugar allowance?

Your best bet is to tap into your inner child and order a kiddie size soft serve vanilla cone (don't be shy, it is just as big as McDonald's standard vanilla cone).

At 140 calories, 18% of a day's worth of saturated fat, and less than 5 teaspoons of sugar, it's an occassional summer treat that, despite the presence of "corn syrup solids" and multiple stabilizers, is cool with me.

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!

Celebrity Diet Secrets: Carnie Wilson

One of my favorite parts of flying is buying a pile of celebrity tabloids at the terminal's newsstand before boarding the plane.

This week's OK! is full of nutrition-related stories. Among them? Carnie Wilson's new weight loss struggle.

To recap: at her heaviest, the former Wilson Phillips member weighed 300 pounds.

In 2000, she underwent gastric bypass surgery and slimmed down to 146 pounds.

Now, eight years later, Carnie weighs 208 pounds.

I can't say I'm surprised. Most people who undergo gastric bypass are not addressing the real issue at hand.

Controlling one's weight isn't solely about shrinking stomach capacity.

Emotional eating, ingrained food patterns, and nutrition education also play a huge role in determining what, why, and how much we eat.

This is why once gastric bypass is completed, patients tend to regain weight.

Anyhow, in this interview, Carnie "vows" to shed the excess pounds she's accumulated over the past few years.

A sidebox details her new diet. The headline? "I'm not eating carbs." Sigh.

First of all, she IS eating carbs -- as she should! -- as evidenced by the fact that she consumes broccoli, asparagus, oranges, apples, and carrots.

"Carbs" are not just donuts, Wonder bread, and cookies.

In any case, Carnie goes on to say that if she "start[s] [her] morning with a piece of toast, [she's] doomed for the day. It's like, give me carbs," she explains.

And the problem with that would be, what, exactly?

If she were to start her day with whole -- or sprouted -- grain toast, accompany her lunch with a small side dish of whole wheat pasta, and then snack on a little popcorn in the afternoon, what horrible thing will befall her?

What's most interesting is that Carnie appears to blame her weight gain on carbs, yet she admits that what made her gain weight in the past was "go[ing] through McDonalds drive-throughs and hav[ing] a Big Mac, Super Size fries, a 20-piece Chicken McNuggets, a pie and a shake" for one meal.

She also points to being able to "eat a bag of M&M's in one day".

So, really -- and clearly -- the issue was excess calories, not excess carbs.

It always frustrates me to see people unnecessarily deny themselves nutritious and tasty food when they want to lose weight.

Carnie, if you're reading this, do me a favor: have some unsweetened oatmeal for breakfast, enjoy an open-faced sandwich on whole grain bread, and munch on two or three cups of air popped popcorn if your heart desires.

Just watch your calories, get plenty of fiber, cut down on added sugars, and above all, do not fear carbohydrates.

Oh, How Far We've Come!

This year marks the fiftieth anniversary of McDonald's selling its one millionth burger (just three years after opening its doors!)

Back then, a hamburger -- sold in just one size -- cost fifteen cents and, as Dr. Lisa Young revealed in The Portion Teller Plan, offered a 1.5 ounce beef patty.

Now, with approximately 120 billion hamburgers under its belt, McDonald's has certainly expanded.

Case in point: a Double Quarter Pounder with cheese (shown at right) weighs in at 8 ounces of beef and retails for $3.29.

Say What?: This Report Card is Brought To You By Mickey D's

Thank you to reader Chris Davis for sending me a link to the latest McDonald's marketing campaign -- report cards!

That's right -- Ronald's burger joint and The School Board of Seminole Country, Florida, have teamed up to offer free Happy Meals to students achieving good academic, conduct, and attendance scores.

Some of you might expect me to be flabbergasted and start punching my computer screen. Well, color yourselves surprised.

For starters -- the Happy Meal offers the choice of apple dippers instead of fries and milk in place of soda. I have to give McDonald's some credit for allowing customers to venture outside of the usual "soda and fries" mentality.

I also think that frequency, and not a Happy Meal itself, should be the examined issue.

If this free Happy Meal is a once-in-a-blue-moon occurrence, I don't interpret that as a public health menace.

If anything, restricting unhealthy meals to certain events is better than placing them in the "grab whenever we're in a rush" category or normalizing them as an authentic substitute for a home cooked meal.

Yes, I know we are dealing with the issue of using food as reward, which brings its share of problems. And, no, I'm not comfortable with the idea of McDonald's advertising on a report card.

It is one thing if a parent chooses to grab a Happy Meal with their kids as a way of rewarding them for good grades, it's another when children come home and say, "Mom, I got all A's, can we go to McDonald's? Look, we can go for free!"

However, when I was an elementary school student in Connecticut, a local deli offered the exact same report card deal.

Granted, it was not promoted by my school, but (surprisingly?), this is not a case of McDonald's setting a new low standard.

In The News: Poor, Innocent McDonald's

The January 2008 issue of Reason magazine includes a controversial article on the "unfair" double standards suffered by fast food restaurants.

According to author Greg Beato, McDonald's and other greasy food meccas bear the brunt of unhealthy offerings and public health policies despite even worse fare available at some local mom 'n pop stores or delis.

"Before America fell in love with cheap, convenient, standardized junk food, it loved cheap, convenient, independently deep-fried junk food," writes Beato.

While it is true that so-called traditional "American" fare consists of hamburgers, hot dogs, and apple pie, fast food restaurants take traditional comfort food and turn it into an artery-clogging equation.

Think about the following. McDonald's originally only offered one size of fries -- the 250-calorie version currently find inside a Happy Meal!

These companies have chosen to inflate their portions to such a degree that we now have four beef patties, eight strips of bacon, and six slices of cheese in between two buns.

You can get 2 liters of soda in a cup or, in the case of Hardee's new breakfast burrito, a day's worth of fat first thing in the morning.

A large order of McDonald's fries will set you back 800 calories (and provide 400% of the recommended maximum intake of trans fats for one day!)

Additionally, fast food chains are basically accessible any place at any time. More locations are increasingly keeping their doors open 24 hours a day, and a road trip down any major (or not so major) highway in the United States reveals a landscape littered with Domino's, KFC, Wendy, Burger King, and more.

And while delis offer their share of fat-laden bombs, truly healthy choices are available. In the case of fast food establishments, it is always about choosing the "lesser of the evils."

What do you think?