Year 3, Day 29: Detecto Says "174"

I've got to tell you, that weighing in at 178 a month ago was a terrible blow, especially since it was my three-year mark. I really wanted to say I had lost OVER 50 lbs, but I couldn't. That's just how it goes. But I prevailed and lo and behold, I am back to 174. It just takes a bit of seriousness. You can't eat all of your kid's cast-offs and lose weight. You can't eat anything you want and maintain your weight. Well you can't if you have my metabolism, anyway. I suppose if I'm lucky, I will be ping-ponging between 174 and 178 for the rest of my life.

Breakfast
Kashi Go Lean!
Heritage Flakes
Strawberries
Blueberries
Banana
Unsweetened Soy Milk
Coffee

Snack
80 tamari almonds
4 sticks beef jerky
1 oz Boston Lite Popcorn

Russo's ($4.90)
Romaine, red pepper, red onion, feta
chicken, broccoli, mushrooms
balsamic vinegar, pepperocini

Dinner:
9 Pieces Sashimi
Double Salad

Dessert
12 squares almond-chocolate
2 strawberries

Good intentions don't equal healthy choices by Monnica Reinagel from nutritiondata.com

A number of different reports on Americans' dietary habits and preferences were in the news this week, all pointing to the same trend: Although we consumers say we want to eat healthy, there seems to be a significant disconnect between our attitudes and our actions. A report titled "Attitudes to Food: Weight and Diet" indicates that while consumers believe it's important to eat a healthy diet, they continue with unhealthy habits.  The majority of consumers surveyed considered saturated fats, trans fat, cholesterol, salt, and added sugar to be harmful, for example. Yet we eat more fat and calories than ever before--and have the expanding waistlines to prove it. 

Why? Because, consumers say, unhealthy and fattening foods continue to be cheaper, quicker, and more available--not to mention tastier.  It's tempting to shift the blame and responsibility for our unhealthy eating habits to the food and restaurant industry. But is this really fair? A study commissioned by the restaurant industry reported that consumers were frustrated by the lack of healthy choices on restaurant menus.  Yet restaurant managers insist that when they add low-fat, low-calorie, or other healthy alternatives to the menu, customers continue to order the same fat- and calorie-laden dishes that were on the menu to begin with. The broccoli spoils in the walk-in cooler while the French fries continue to flow out the kitchen doors.

Adding menu items that no one orders spells financial hardship for restaurants, which run on impossibly tight profit margins.  So you can hardly blame restaurant owners for thinking twice before revamping their menus.  A survey of menu developers and marketing executives for the country's leading casual-dining restaurants (published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine) reveals that the most important considerations for choosing what's on the menu are sales and profits.  Food safety is a distant second, followed by consumer demand and labor issues.   Health and nutrition were listed as a consideration by less than a quarter of respondents.

Although efforts are underway to legislate healthier menus with trans fat bans and other initiatives (which I discussed in a recent issue of the ND newsletter), many people find this type of government interference in private industry (and personal choice) troubling. The way I see it, healthier food won't be a priority for the restaurant industry until we as consumers make it profitable. 

Ironically (but perhaps not surprisingly), those who say they are most concerned with nutrition also eat out the least. Is it because there are so few nutritious options on the menu? Perhaps if we frequent restaurants and support chefs who make it a priority to offer great-tasting, nutritious food, they'll get the message that healthier menus can be profitable...and we'll have more to choose from.