Reading List: The Biggest Loser Resort, Top 10 Riskiest Foods & Gourmet Folds

by in Food News, October 9, 2009

In this week’s nutrition news: Healthy foods top the riskiest food list, a study shows posting nutrition info doesn’t change what you order and say farewell to Gourmet.

Public Enemy #1: Spinach
This week, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CPSI) released its top 10 riskiest foods — that is, foods that accounted for 40% of all food-borne illnesses since the mid-1990s (yikes!). Topping the list are leafy greens such as spinach. Eggs and tuna round out the top three. Oysters, potatoes, cheese and ice cream are also on the hit list. Check out the full report here.

The Biggest Loser Resort
The hit TV show just unveiled a new video game for Wii and Nintendo DS, which offers personalized workouts. If you need even more incentive to lose weight, try visiting their Biggest Loser Resort at Fitness Ridge in southern Utah. According to the website, the resort offers tons of fitness programs, including circuit training, hiking, kickboxing and outdoor mountain cycling. Chefs and registered dietitians have developed their meals, and nutrition classes are also available. The cost? $1,995 for one week and $7,200 for a month.

New Study: Posting Calories Doesn’t Change Habits
New York is one of the first states requiring chain restaurants to post nutrition information on their menus. A new study conducted by professors at New York University and Yale University examined low-income New York City neighborhoods to see if this was affecting orders. After reviewing sales receipts, reseachers found that people ordered slightly more calories than before the labeling law went into effect. Time to give up? Dr. Marion Nestle, professor at NYU and former chair of their Food, Nutrition and Public Health department (from which I graduated), doesn’t think so. She claims that the whole idea of labeling menu items is to educate the public and have restaurants start being more mindful. Over time folks may decide to change their eating habits.

Farewell, Gourmet Magazine
Published since 1941, Gourmet Magazine has been a sort of food bible for many, including me. I remember flipping through issues when I was little and pointing out recipes I wanted my mom to make. The magazine’s editor, Ruth Reichl, covered many important food issues for the magazine — from food politics to organic farming. I’m sad to hear an American icon will be gone.

More posts from .

Similar Posts

Noticed: Whey on the Way

Cheers! Whey's time has come. ...

Comments (2)

  1. julo says:

    I wonder how many people have to change their eating habits for it to be considered "worth it". Also, why do we only care about low income neighborhoods? We don't care if rich people are fat too? Sure, rich people can afford health care. So they can afford to pay the doctor who tells them they're going to die because they're fat. Big deal!

    I'm in California, and they've also just put a law into effect that chain restaurants have to post their calorie information (I wish it was all info!). I don't know about everyone else, but I've witnessed the positive change first hand. I was at California Pizza Kitchen with my husband. He said he would have ordered a pizza, but after seeing how many calories per slice they were, he opted for a chicken sandwich and salad instead. And me? I haven't been back to Chilis since finding out how many calories are in their salads even! So at least one California couple is changing their habits eating out armed with this new information. I don't believe that other people aren't changing their eating habits as a result of the truth staring them in the face.

  2. Fawn says:

    I'm sad to see Gourmet going away. Some of my favorite recipes from 2004-2007 were from that magazine.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>