Gothamist: Restaurants Pay Professor to Oppose Calorie Rules

Agata

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:13:03 -0500

calories are not the main evil of bad shape... Just our laziness... Good fitness 3 times a week- and you are diet free. signature: Cigarettes are killers that travel in packs.

Agata

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:08:40 -0500

calories are not the main evil of bad shape... Just our laziness... Good fitness 3 times a week- and you are diet free. signature: Cigarettes are killers that travel in packs.

McFister

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:12:38 -0500

It just goes to show that the restaurant industry a) knows exactly what it is doing, and b) will stop at nothing to addict us to sugar water and grease.

McFister

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:12:23 -0500

It just goes to show that the restaurant industry a) knows exactly what it is doing, and b) will stop at nothing to addict us to sugar water and grease.

edEx

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:22:01 -0500

gym ad placement has a new playground. people are so weak when it comes to food. if you work out at least 15-30 minutes a day, you will not have a calorie or weight problem.

sandradayoconnor

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:54:22 -0500

It is extremely common for professors to earn extra money by consulting (although, despite their protestations to the contrary, it is beyond me that the ones doing the consulting actually need the salary padding - adjuncts might earn shit, but the full professors who make desirable consultants almost always earn a pretty penny even before their speaking fees kick in...but that is neither here nor there). If the research he wrote for the restaurant industry is in keeping with the type of research he normally publishes, he is not doing anything ethically questionable. If this paid research flies in the face of what his professional work normally says, however, then he needs to be censored by his university's ethics committee.

Politburo

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:28:11 -0500

To me the fact that he's getting paid, while notable, is mainly irrelevant to the overall issue. The Gothamist writeup is incorrect, imo. The study isn't cited, but the Times writeup makes it sound like the 'distraction' isn't the calorie information, but something external. It appears the study says that if you're distracted, the calorie information doesn't help simply because you're not paying attention. IMO, the satiation argument is a red herring. Calorie labels are on almost all food except restaurant food. If there is a satiation issue, someone who is truly counting calories would notice the trend and would have to adjust their behavior.

donner

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:23:13 -0500

Trigger- congrats! And also- very good point.

Derekasaurus

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:17:58 -0500

Wow, what a whore. Next let's take warning labels off cigarettes because knowing that smoking is harmful might cause some smokers stress thereby making them smoke more.

petebfd

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:52:51 -0500

since when has misdirection ever helped in the pursuit of truth? because that's pretty much what these guys "reports" amount to

nonumentalart

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:48:31 -0500

another person who has sold his soul...

dr zippy

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:48:27 -0500

In other words, Dr. Allison will whore himself to the highest bidder!

triggerzer0

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:47:47 -0500

That’s bull plop. I have lost 8 kilos by counting calories. Restaurants are just afraid that when they post the calorie intake for a tuna melt sandwich people will be ordering less expensive dishes.