Date: 2007-01-06 05:13 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] idoru.livejournal.com
The bowl of ketchup and the glass of balsamic vinegar are particularly useful reference guides. Next time I need a snack, MM-MM VINEGAR GOODNESS.

Date: 2007-01-06 12:53 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gentlemaitresse.livejournal.com
While interesting, the author seems to assume that fewer calories is always better.

When you consider that an entire plate of broccoli contains the same number of calories as a small spoonful of peanut butter, you might think twice the next time you decide what to eat.

Sure, but I might also want to consider my goals, the amount of protein in the peanut butter, what I plan to do that day, how hungry I am, etc.

Date: 2007-01-06 11:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] idoru.livejournal.com
Most people aren't so mindful of what they're eating vs. what they're doing with their bodies. I agree 100% with your point, but I also know way too many people who pay NO attention to the caloric density of their food, and have no idea that a PBJ sammich has more calories than an entire plate of broccoli. It's smaller food, so it's smarter, right?

I've read a couple different places now that people tend to eat around the same weight of food per day regardless of the caloric density. My boyfriend, for example, will eat half a pizza plus cheese sticks for dinner without blinking -- or he'll eat two chicken breasts, rice, and whichever veggie I force on him. Just as filling, WAY fewer calories. The nutrition value doesn't even cross his mind, which is weird to me.

Different tangent -- I'm also amazed at how small a percentage of the American public has any idea what a serving size looks like, or the fact that a blueberry muffin from Starbucks is a billion calories and 2-3 servings.