'Joy of Cooking' or 'Joy of Obesity'?

Full story: Chicago Tribune

Restaurants get a bad rap for serving gargantuan portions of food and contributing to Americans' expanding waistlines.
Comments
1 - 20 of 72 Comments Last updated Sep 12, 2013
First Prev
of 4
Next Last
oh really

Springfield, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Feb 17, 2009
 
17 recipes?!? Oh no, call the fat police now.

While I don't know how many recipes are in the book, I can imagine that 17 is only a tiny percentage (maybe less than 5% if that) of what they have to offer.

Silly article.
Wini

Tempe, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Feb 17, 2009
 
stop eating so much america-ya'll gettin fat

ps there's no fun in being overweight. there is joy in going to the gym, working out, and then eating guilt free.
VMS

Zion, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Feb 17, 2009
 
This report is crazy. The recipes themselves haven't changed, but the cookbook editors now feel that what used to be enought for 8 people to eat is now only enough for 4. Nowhere does it mention that just because a recipe lists a certain number of servings doesn't mean you have to eat that much at once. The problem is not the ingredients, but the arbitrary amount of food the ingredients supposedly serve. Bottom line--we eat too much, whether it's at a restaurant or at home. Come on people! Just because someone serves you a pound of pasta doesn't mean you have to eat it all at once.
Willow

Portland, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Feb 17, 2009
 
Oh, for Godsakes! I'm so sick of these food experts. Do you think the French have this problem? Eat good food, mostly plants, fresh ingredients...including butter, cream, etc., eat less and savor more. Share with your friends and live your life.
Cynical Libertarian

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Feb 17, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

Stop blaming food, start blaming the consumer. Eat what you want, but stay active and work off those calories.
FSB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Feb 17, 2009
 
I have the latest Better Homes and Gardens cookbook as well as the 1968 edition...and I definitely think the current edition is much healthier. First of all, it actually gives you the nutritional information under each and every recipe, which does not occur in the 1968 book. Secondly, there are far fewer canned and other artificial ingredients used. For example, my 1968 edition probably has 1 or 2 dozen jello salad recipes and almost no fresh fruit salads. The current one is the opposite. The current edition has many recipes with boneless, skinless chicken, not occuring at all in the 1968 (they tend to call for chicken parts), whereas the 1968 edition has several Spam-based recipes.
Melvin

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Feb 17, 2009
 
I own several editions of Joy and love them all. The most recent edition has 4500 recipies. 17/4500 = .01% of recipies.....give me a bleeping break.
Bob of Omaha

Omaha, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Feb 17, 2009
 
it is called portion control and more stupid people are the fat then smart people.

Since: Dec 07

DuPage County

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Feb 17, 2009
 
FSB wrote:
I have the latest Better Homes and Gardens cookbook as well as the 1968 edition...and I definitely think the current edition is much healthier. First of all, it actually gives you the nutritional information under each and every recipe, which does not occur in the 1968 book. Secondly, there are far fewer canned and other artificial ingredients used. For example, my 1968 edition probably has 1 or 2 dozen jello salad recipes and almost no fresh fruit salads. The current one is the opposite. The current edition has many recipes with boneless, skinless chicken, not occuring at all in the 1968 (they tend to call for chicken parts), whereas the 1968 edition has several Spam-based recipes.
Spam! Bring it on!

Best thing about the 1968 version has to be all the pics of the happy housewives smoking cigarettes while they work...smiling happily.
Karl Marx

Oak Park, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Feb 17, 2009
 

Judged:

1

Cynical Libertarian wrote:
Stop blaming food, start blaming the consumer. Eat what you want, but stay active and work off those calories.
In our new Socialist/PC society we have abandoned the concept of personal responsibility. Something else is always to blame.

Think?
not a hater

Evanston, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Feb 17, 2009
 
1. PORTIONS- The meal portion size in this country is so whacked out. The meals they eat can feed 4 people.

2. EXERCISE- It's as simple as taking the stairs sometimes. People get confused when the escalator or elevator is broken, Duh!!!! Unless you're disabled, there's really no excuse.
oh really

Springfield, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Feb 17, 2009
 
Melvin wrote:
I own several editions of Joy and love them all. The most recent edition has 4500 recipies. 17/4500 =.01% of recipies.....give me a bleeping break.
Thanks - I knew someone would have the number.

Still having a tough time understanding why .01% is significant enough to be a news story.
Mich

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Feb 17, 2009
 
Saluki Rod wrote:
<quoted text>
Best thing about the 1968 version has to be all the pics of the happy housewives smoking cigarettes while they work...smiling happily.
And of course life expectancy for men was less than 67 and women about 5 years longer...
Montys python

Las Vegas, NV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Feb 17, 2009
 
Cynical Libertarian wrote:
Stop blaming food, start blaming the consumer. Eat what you want, but stay active and work off those calories.
Moderation for Pete's sake.Seventeen recipes out of approx 350.Food experts:Get a life.

Since: Dec 07

DuPage County

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Feb 17, 2009
 
Mich wrote:
<quoted text>
And of course life expectancy for men was less than 67 and women about 5 years longer...
Of course, but they sure didn't worry about all the things we worry about now. Makes you think, live until 67 and smoke, eat whatever, or deprive yourself and live until 70? Which is better?
voice of reason

Mokena, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Feb 17, 2009
 
oh really wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks - I knew someone would have the number.
Still having a tough time understanding why .01% is significant enough to be a news story.
I could be wrong here, but I believe that the researhers chose 17 recipes that were repeated in both older and new books to do a representative comparison study.

voice of reason

Mokena, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Feb 17, 2009
 
Oops, make that 18 overall recipes.
And again, the study was looking for overall trends. So readers who believe this article only concerns a tiny percentage of one cookbook's recipes need to wake up and ... cut the calories!

QUOTE:
"...the report examined 18 classic recipes found in seven editions of the book from 1936 to 2006. It found that calorie counts for 14 of the recipes have ballooned by an average of 928 calories, or 44%, per recipe. And serving sizes have grown as well....

"...Overall, the scientists found, changes in ingredients and serving sizes led to a 63% increase in calories per serving in 17 of the recipes between 1936 and 2006."
Dr Phil

Orlando, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Feb 17, 2009
 
Willow wrote:
Oh, for Godsakes! I'm so sick of these food experts. Do you think the French have this problem? Eat good food, mostly plants, fresh ingredients...including butter, cream, etc., eat less and savor more. Share with your friends and live your life.
We are more like the french than ever. Nationalized banks and car makers and a soon to be gutted military. Long term unemplyment of 8%. WOOOHOOO!!
FatNSassy

Blue Island, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Feb 17, 2009
 
It is not enough that the power-elite has caused millions of people to worry where their next meal is coming from, or how to keep a roof over their heads, or how to send their kids to college, or how to finance retirement. They have to keep the health nags coming over every morsel the public puts in its mouth. Weight obsession translates into big bucks for BARFMA (BigDiet/Pharma.) Got to keep bleeding the middle class dry somehow. Not to mention guilt over diet keeps us passive and less angry at those who really cheated us over.

Or perhaps this article was written by the restaurant industry. As inept politicians want ever more taxes to pay for the mistakes of their rich puppet masters, "sin" taxes will increase. The restaurant lobby may try to head them off at the pass.

Either way, this is a moronic article with a hidden agenda. It is obscene to think obesity is a big problem when we have a growing number of elderly so poor they won't even be able to feed themselves. How she calls herself a journalist I don't know!!!
Ben Jones

Northbrook, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Feb 17, 2009
 
i think smoking is being overlooked in all these "americans are getting more obese" things. less smoking == fatter people. that's also the reason the french are so thin, they all smoke like chimneys in their cafe's.

all these diets offering more energy and a chance to lose ten pounds.. all you need to do is start smoking a pack a day!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••