
What 2,000 Calories Looks Like (2014) - smacktoward
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/22/upshot/what-2000-calories-looks-like.html?contentCollection=smarter-living
======
dropit_sphere
Man, as someone trying to _gain_ weight, this article was kind of depressing.
Sure you can get a ton of calories if you add a bunch of carbs or fat, but do
you know how much _stuff_ you have to eat to get a caloric surplus on a
protein-based diet, without the addictiveness of carbs? Pretty much any time
you think of it, it's time for some milk/peanut butter sandwich/hard-boiled
egg/spinach.

I know, I know, first-world problems. But the corollary to "it's so easy to
get fat eating junk" is "it's surprisingly hard to get big eating well."

~~~
morley
Several people have mentioned trying to follow Dwayne Johnson's diet, and they
end up spending all their time (and a substantial amount of their money)
preparing chicken and cod.

[http://www.muscleandfitness.com/nutrition/meal-
plans/smell-w...](http://www.muscleandfitness.com/nutrition/meal-plans/smell-
what-rock-cooking)

~~~
etrain
If I were trying to eat that diet and not break the bank/use all my time I'd
invest in 4 things: 1) A ricecooker. 2) A food processor. 3) A sous-
vide/vaccum sealer. 4) A Costco membership.

The ricecooker makes rice and keeps it warm all day. The food processor makes
quick work of chopping veggies.

You could pack the cod/chicken in vacuum bags and freeze it, and then pop it
in the water bath when it's time to eat. The sous-vide means you're not
worried about over-cooking/attending to the process so you can do other things
while your food cooks.

Costco will sell you high quality cod and chicken at ~$10/lb (probably less in
store) and steak around $20/lb. You could similarly buy rice/potatoes/fish oil
there in bulk.

Admittedly you're still spending $50+ on food/day, but that's not out of the
question for someone earning $150k/year.

That said, it is probably much easier when you're earning $150m/year and can
afford a private chef.

~~~
dtien
And don't forget the Costco rotisserie chicken! I don't know what the
cost/pound comes out to, but considering all the work that goes into cooking
it, it's an unbeatable deal. I think it's well known it's a loss leader for
them.

Buy several of those for the week, portion them out as you like. throw away
the skin to minimize a bit of the sodium, though I'm sure a bit is also in the
meat, so for the truly neurotic this maybe a deal breaker.

But if I were trying to just go for low cost, low maintenance protein with
some semblance of taste, this would be the way to go ( for me ).

~~~
endemic
Related: [https://priceonomics.com/are-rotisserie-chickens-a-
bargain/](https://priceonomics.com/are-rotisserie-chickens-a-bargain/)

------
pashapiro
One of the things I wonder about is how many calories your body can actually
metabolize into fat and glycogen in a given day. For example, if you eat
15,000 calories, how many of those calories will your body just pass right
through your digestive tract? I could see liquid calories like pop or juice
being metabolized easily, but do all the beans in a Chipotle burrito end up
clinging on your thighs and gut also?

~~~
dahart
> if you eat 15,000 calories, how many of those calories will your body just
> pass right through your digestive tract?

Depends on how much you're burning, how much you weigh, and how many calories
you normally eat. If you're not used to eating that much, you will find it
really hard to.

There are loads of videos of average build people trying to eat 8000 or more
calories, and at least some end up puking like this guy -- does that count as
passing through the digestive tract? ;)

[https://youtu.be/jWgsLGJUOc0](https://youtu.be/jWgsLGJUOc0)

> I could see liquid calories like pop or juice being metabolized easily, but
> do all the beans in a Chipotle burrito end up clinging on your thighs and
> gut also?

When you eat more than you need in the form of a combination of fats & carbs,
since carbs metabolize faster, fats get stored.

A Chipotle burrito is very high on fats, and carbs, and calories. So the
answer is that the burrito will hit the thighs or waist almost as easily as
juice, but it's not the beans, it's the whole burrito, and specifically the
tortilla and cheese, sour cream & guacamole, those are the big ticket items.

A Chipotle burrito is:

    
    
      Beans:                      120 cals, 22g carbs
      Tortilla:                   300 cals, 46g carbs
      Cheese + Sour Cream + Guac: 415 cals, 36g fat
    

[http://www.chipotlecaloriecalculator.com](http://www.chipotlecaloriecalculator.com)

~~~
shaftway
Using net carbs (since you don't digest fiber), those beans drop to 12g of
carbs. Also don't forget rice:

    
    
      Beans:   115 cals, 12g carbs
      Rice:    185 cals, 33g carbs

------
komali2
To be fair, avoiding the fries and shake (or chips and coke or what have you)
seems to cut 50% or more of the calories. 760 calories on a burger is a fine
portion. Then again, the macro ratio is probably not where you want it if
you're counting that sort of thing.

~~~
ng12
The macros on a burger are actually pretty good. Lots of protein, lots of fat,
30-40 carbs. In-n-Out was one of my post workout go-to's when I was really
paying attention to my diet.

~~~
spicytunacone
I'd be careful with that claim. Looking at the nutritional info on the In-N-
Out website[0], I wouldn't say the macros are pretty good at all. Let's take
the Double Double which clocks in at 670 total calories, a decently sized meal
as the parent comment would suggest.

Double Double Total Calories: 670 [520 Protein® Style (lettuce for bun)]

    
    
      Fats: 41g (18g from saturated fats) * 9 = 369 calories, ~55% [~68%]
      Carbs: 39g * 4 = 156 calories, ~23% [~7%]
      Protein: 37g * 4 = 148 calories, ~22% [~25%]
    

For comparison, Cheeseburger Total Calories: 480 [330 Protein® Style]

    
    
      Fats: 27g (10g from saturated fats) * 9 = 243 calories, ~50% [~68%]
      Carbs: 39g * 4 = 156 calories, ~32% [~13%]
      Protein: 22g (a normal Hamburger is only 16g) * 4 = 88   calories, ~18% [~22%, total calories using my crude calculations adds up to 341]
    

Now, I realize arguing about ratios is about as good as arguing about editors,
but, for bulking, I'd rather scarf down some milk and I still think that's a
tad extreme (its ratios come to about 30% fat/45% carbs/25% protein even at a
quarter gallon for a comparable 632 calories)[1][2]. As for cutting to
preserve lean mass, it's definitely not something you can easily put into your
day without some prior planning or fallback options. Personally a Double
Double would put me at only slightly north of 1kcal allowance on a cut, and
I'd need to get another >~100g protein to come near my goals. Obviously I'm
not saying someone can't enjoy a burger every so often, but I wouldn't suggest
they compose model macros for most purposes.

0: [http://www.in-n-out.com/nutrition.aspx](http://www.in-n-
out.com/nutrition.aspx)

1: [https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/3967/weight-
gain...](https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/3967/weight-gained-using-
gomad-strategy)

2:
[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1/4+gallon+milk](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1/4+gallon+milk)

tldr: amateur bodybuilder (me) doesn't think fast-food burgers are
particularly great on their own, even for gaining mass. If you're a non-
bodybuilder/don't care about macros, just watch the sodium and saturated fats
if anything.

~~~
ng12
It depends on your diet goals. For me the 7% carbs was the attractive part.

~~~
spicytunacone
You specified the "30-40[g] carbs", which is the proper, bunned burger (as
opposed to the 11g carbs on the lettuce version). I realize I am being a jerk,
but I don't want people to walk away from reading comments like this convinced
that a burger can be a staple of their diet without some scrutiny. I'm in CA
and in particular I have talked with enough people who believe that because
they chose In-n-Out over whatever other franchise that they are "eating
healthy".

~~~
ng12
Who said anything about protein style? 40g of carbs is 40g of carbs, which is
a totally healthy amount for a meal.

Anyways, the point was that a hamburger can totally be a part of a healthy
diet and it's the fries/soda/shake that get you.

Edit: ah I see, I misread the chart. Still, a quick burger is a convenient
option even if you're watching calorie intake.

------
eumoria
The Sonic 2000 calorie single shake is pretty nuts. I can imagine someone
pairing it with a 2000+ calorie meal and not thinking they're slamming nearly
5k calories into their bodies. Although I suppose someone who drinking half a
gallon of milkshake with a meal probably doesn't care.

Also personally I could eat 2 burgers at shake shack with fries. Such a fatty
:<

~~~
karlshea
I don't think that's really a big problem if it's occasional. Once you're
doing that a couple times a week is when it adds up.

~~~
jtuente
Doing that even once a week with a regular diet the rest of the time, someone
could gain 35+ pounds per year.

~~~
swah
Agreed, 19k calories per week vs 14k calories, say. That's a 35% increase. One
would have to plan and follow their daily calorie intake very well to be able
to consume that milkshake regularly...

------
zackmorris
I spent so much of my life trying to make rent that some part of me read the
article backwards - looking for the densest meals for the buck. Burger Kings
seems like a pretty good value in a pinch. If eating out triggered the obesity
epidemic, then working long hours for poverty wages (or cost of living
outpacing incomes) surely exacerbated things.

~~~
mikeash
I find that restaurants listing calories on their menus can make it harder for
me to watch what I eat for just this reason. I see a 600 calorie meal for $10
and a 1000 calorie meal for $10 and I feel like I'm getting a bad deal if I
don't take the second one. Intellectually I know that I have no trouble
affording it either way and regulating my intake is much more important for
me, but it can be tough to overcome.

------
pugio
I've been using variations on the following smoothie recipe for years. Works
great for nutrition, energy, and is really easy to make.

As an added bonus, for focused work, it's really easy to sip while coding and
doesn't require those flow-busting lunch or snack breaks.

    
    
      1 can coconut milk/cream (thick) - 920 calories
      1 c plain coconut milk - 45 calories
      1 banana - 105 calories
      1 c blueberries - 85 calories
      2 c plain yogurt - 300 calories
      2x scoop whey protein - 220 calories
      2x serving 100% baking chocolate - 160 calories
      2c spinach - 14 calories
      2-3 tomato - ~60 calories
      Total: 1909 calories

~~~
exhilaration
So that (and probably water) is all you'd eat and drink in a single day?

~~~
pugio
Sometimes. I usually have 3-4 eggs in butter along with some more veggies. If
I'm active, then a handful of nuts or two. Occasionally (due to cost) some
grass fed ground beef stir fried in avocado oil.

The smoothie counts for breakfast and lunch. The eggs, for dinner, take ~5
minutes to make. All simple, easy, healthy foods.

------
mod
At home we picked diet soda and water to drink? Why didn't we do that when we
were out?

~~~
ashark
Yeah, drinkable desserts (soda, milk/ice cream drinks) seemed to be best
intersection between "easy to address" and "removing would cause a major
calorie reduction" in their fast food picks. The food portions wouldn't have
looked quite so small if they'd bumped those up to account for cutting that
crap.

Then again maybe they were going for the typical order, which I'm sure _does_
include a giant soda or shake.

------
tbabb
The results at starbucks really make me think that we should mandate visible
calorie counts for food establishments. No need to regulate calories directly,
just inform people about what they're eating and let behavior follow.

~~~
nsxwolf
We're already doing it in many places, it's mandated by the FDA for certain
establishments like McDonald's. And all we hear about is Americans getting
fatter and fatter. So maybe we could chill with the paternalism? When I moved
out of the house I was done with having parents tell me what to do.

~~~
sgift
If a piece of information is telling you what to do that's your own problem.
Other people may actually prefer it when they have are able to make informed
decisions.

~~~
nsxwolf
In the 80s and 90s they used to sell little paperback books that contained all
the calorie information for all the popular chains in the US. People who
wanted to be informed bought them.

Now you have the internet. There's literally no excuse. If you want that
information you can pull out your smartphone and look it up, right there,
standing in the line.

If you are a restaurant owner, it's just one more choice that's been taken
away from you - what you want to put on your signs. You may think it's
trivial, but it adds up. These choices are never ours to make again.

~~~
chimprich
Although you _could_ google calorie counts in every meal you buy, the vast
majority of people don't because of a) it would be tedious b) our body is
telling us to eat calories and resisting the urge to think too much about what
we are eating and c) everyone else would think you were a bit weird when you
were looking up calories instead of having a conversation.

As a customer you don't get a choice whether or not you get exposed to a lot
of intrusive advertising encouraging you to eat more (at least in your
McDonald's example). It seems to me this is in a small way redressing that
balance.

In purely pragmatic terms you are balancing the health of the population
(heart attacks, strokes, mental state quality) against the right of a
multinational restaurant chain to be slightly more profitable. I think it is
well worth it. There are far more egregious abuses of personal liberty you
could complain about.

~~~
nsxwolf
This is just utter baloney. The information exists. You can get it before you
leave the house. Standing in line was just an example of how absurdly easy it
is.

Enough with treating the population like babies.

This isn't even going to have any effect! And it would still be wrong to do
even if it made everyone skinny.

~~~
chimprich
If you don't think this is going to have an effect, the cost of this is that
calories are going to be presented on a menu which customers can choose to
look at or not. I am genuinely bemused as to why anyone would find this
offensive.

Do you think alcoholic drinks should be labelled with the percentage of
alcohol contained? Should food be labelled with the ingredients? Should you be
allowed to know if your food contains nuts? And so on.

~~~
nsxwolf
Alcoholic drinks aren't universally labeled, and even when they are the value
is dubious. You can see a proof number on liquor bottles but that tells you
nothing about its effects on your physiology. You still have to educate
yourself.

You can argue a compelling interest for labeling food allergens, because they
can kill people almost immediately. Calories can't.

------
anotherarray
This is a fairly biased article.

It is possible to have a healthy calorie consumption with fast food. During
college, I was able to compete in a natural bodybuilding competition by mostly
eating like this.

It's all about what you choose to eat. No matter where you are.

~~~
erikpukinskis
Yeah, the fact that they included a zero-calorie soda and black coffee in the
"home" meal is so heavy handed. They could've included a diet soda in any of
the other meals, but they didn't.

How insulting. The author has neither respect for their readers, nor
apparently belief that their editorial thesis stands on its own merits.

------
rayiner
The article reminds me why I'm always pretty skeptical of the "eat good food"
angle. The TV dinner generation (1950s-1980s) didn't have the same problem
with obesity. My pet theory is "calorie inflation." Coffee and a donut for
breakfast isn't "good food" but it's probably 250-300 calories. A Starbucks
latte and pastry is easily double that.

~~~
tomatsu
> _The TV dinner generation (1950s-1980s) didn 't have the same problem with
> obesity._

Subsidizing corn -> way too much corn -> dirt cheap sugar (HFCS) is a fairly
new problem. Today's processed food contains too much sugar, because it's the
cheapest way to add some taste.

The "low fat" and "no fat" variations, where fat is often replaced by sugar,
also made things much worse.

------
jimmytidey
Be interested to see the same article for the UK.

How a fry up measure up? 5 pints and a kebab?

~~~
arethuza
I hate to think what some of our culinary "specialities" here in Scotland
would come out as?

Deep fried battered pizza?

Deep fried battered white puddings?

[NB A white pudding is pretty much a savoury porridge sausage].

Butteries - which are basically 140% fat. (And delicious).

I'm now wondering if anyone has tried deep fried battered butteries....

~~~
jimmytidey
All washed down with larger and fags. Isn't there a part of Glasgow where life
expectancy is 54?

~~~
DonaldFisk
Calton:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calton,_Glasgow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calton,_Glasgow)

------
projektir
I don't know if fast food is really a problem per se. Getting a lot of
calories from a restaurant visit is quite expected. That's why you do it
occasionally and it's often your entire meal for the day. Like the article
says, whether it's a fancy steakhouse or Burger King doesn't really matter.
And fancy steakhouses existed for a while, though.

I do, though, think that the US has a problem with portion sizes. A lot of the
time, any given meal is just way too large for me. I just don't really like to
eat that much per sitting and sometimes I can get filled up on appetizers and
I really wish there were smaller portion options in addition to the larger
portion options at more places and I wouldn't waste money by plain not being
able to finish the food. Especially if I would have been perfectly happy being
able to have a small plate, then a small desert, and a drink, instead of one
giant plate that leaves room for nothing else.

Having a somewhat warped portion size may mess with peoples' heads, especially
those who want to get the most for their money. It doesn't help that the
bigger portions are often only marginally more expensive. Even worse for women
and children, who should be eating less in general.

That being said, I'm not really convinced the obesity epidemic is not a
consequence of the average human syndrome and mental health issues and that
the fast food industry isn't simply capitalizing on that as opposed to causing
it. I think counting calories and lamenting how people are not doing this or
that is missing the point.

~~~
dpark
> _and it 's often your entire meal for the day._

I don't know anyone who only eats one meal on days they go to restaurants. For
most people, going to a restaurant for a meal simply means they eat more in
total that day.

> _I do, though, think that the US has a problem with portion sizes. ... I
> really wish there were smaller portion options in addition to the larger
> portion options at more places and I wouldn 't waste money by plain not
> being able to finish the food._

The problem is that it's not much cheaper to serve smaller portions. That's
why when restaurants have half portions they still cost 75+% of the bigger
portion. As you noted, people want to "get their money's worth", so
restaurants give them absurdly large portions rather than charge 20% less for
half as much food and have patrons complain about getting so little food.

~~~
projektir
Well, you know at least one person now. Eating a lot less or not at all on
restaurant day has always been fairly normal for me and my family. I just
won't really enjoy a big lunch much if I already had breakfast. But that is if
I don't exercise, if I do, the restaurant meal may not actually fill up the
entire day. People who can eat one large meal in a day are likely correlated
with people who exercise, which means, on average, they won't end up eating
just one meal a day because they'd end up under their calorie intake and
because it's actually non-trivial to stuff that many calories into yourself at
that point.

> For most people, going to a restaurant for a meal simply means they eat more
> in total that day.

Most people (in the US, at least) are also obese, bringing them up in this
context doesn't prove much.

> The problem is that it's not much cheaper to serve smaller portions.

It may not be cheaper to serve smaller portions, but other countries seem to
manage it just fine. That's not a good enough reason. It seems more culture
bound than business bound.

~~~
dpark
> _Well, you know at least one person now. Eating a lot less or not at all on
> restaurant day has always been fairly normal for me and my family._

I think this is pretty abnormal. Even when I lived in Germany I didn't observe
this behavior.

It's fine if you do this. In fact it's probably good. It's just not common. If
it were common, huge restaurant meals wouldn't be an issue. (And actually, if
you do this I'm not sure why you're complaining about the big meals.)

> _Most people (in the US, at least) are also obese, bringing them up in this
> context doesn 't prove much._

I'm not sure what you think I'm trying to "prove". I was responding to your
broad statement that a restaurant meal tends supplant other food for the day.

Given that we're talking about American restaurants and enormous American
portions, I think the context of how Americans eat is extremely relevant.

> _It may not be cheaper to serve smaller portions, but other countries seem
> to manage it just fine. That 's not a good enough reason. It seems more
> culture bound than business bound._

It's quite obviously a cultural consideration. That doesn't mean it isn't a
business consideration as well. If your customers' expectations are that a $20
meal has enough calories for a day and you're serving half as much food for
the same price, you're likely to have trouble staying in business because your
customers think you're ripping them off.

------
philfrasty
Shameless plug for anyone interested: I have a (German) healthy-food channel
on YouTube
[https://www.youtube.com/user/CookedAndShredded/videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/CookedAndShredded/videos)

No processed foods used. No supplements. Just real food.

------
jlebrech
if you eat like this 3 meals a day is probably too much. your BMR is covered
by a single meal.

~~~
jonathanberger
Yes. We all know (and the article starts out saying) most adults need 2000
calories a day.

But then we see pictures of what most would consider one meal, and since we
have 2 - 3 meals a day, eating any of these actually leaves you with 4000 -
6000 calories a day.

Wouldn't it have been more instructive if this article showed pictures of
meals that were 700 - 1000 calories?

------
kj01a
It looks like the really had to try hard to get that Chipotle burrito to fit
into the 2000 cal. I've never seen a Chipotle burrito that small.

------
DanBC
I'd be interested to see the results of independent lab testing to see what
the actual calorie values are. Some companies consistently under-report
calories.

------
xedarius
What is not obvious from some of the photos (in particular the Cheesecake
factory chicken) is how big the portion sizes are.

------
doodpants
I clicked the link just to see if it would be an article about Soylent, since
it comes in 2000-calorie pouches.

------
adamwong246
or you could have 5 Soylents. Problem solved.

------
TranceMan
Off topic - Paywall link? [Also not working for me in incognito mode - and
can't remember the last time I deliberately click on a nytimes link] and the
web link doesn't work?

------
pdog
I'll answer for them. None. It's just another fad diet, no less ridiculous
than any other.

~~~
ethanbond
Except for the long, long, long history of well established medical benefits
from cutting out carbs. [http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-
blog/the-fat-...](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/the-fat-
fueled-brain-unnatural-or-advantageous/)

Besides the plain fact that you can't "answer for [someone else]" when the
question is about _their_ body's reaction to certain things.

I personally don't deal with carbs well, which is probably related to the
diabetes that runs rampant through my family despite myself not having it.

You know how there are probably foods that you like that others don't? Or that
others like and you don't? Some people simply don't like consuming
carbohydrates. Not because they have any disease (real nor imagined), but
simply because they don't like it.

It seems like you take a personal affront to people eating how they prefer to
eat. Could I ask why you care?

Historically speaking, in fact, the uber carb-rich diets that dominate
developed western culture is the real fad. Never before have humans ingested
carbohydrates in the proportion that your average American does today.

> Although dairy products, cereals, refined sugars, refined vegetable oils,
> and alcohol make up 72.1% of the total daily energy consumed by all people
> in the United States, these types of foods would have contributed little or
> none of the energy in the typical preagricultural hominin diet (20).
> Additionally, mixtures of foods listed in Table 1⇓ make up the ubiquitous
> processed foods (eg, cookies, cake, bakery foods, breakfast cereals, bagels,
> rolls, muffins, crackers, chips, snack foods, pizza, soft drinks, candy, ice
> cream, condiments, and salad dressings) that dominate the typical US diet.

[http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/81/2/341.full](http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/81/2/341.full)

~~~
M_Grey
From that blog, "While promising, large-scale placebo-controlled clinical
trials in patients with neurological disorders are still lacking."

That's the opposite of "well established medical benefits", and is more in
line with, "Lots of gaps to find your god in!"

~~~
ethanbond
[http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v67/n8/full/ejcn2013116a....](http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v67/n8/full/ejcn2013116a.html)

Strong evidence of therapeutic effects for: Epilesy, Type 2 diabetes, weight
loss, cardiovascular disease

Emerging evidence for: acne, cancer, PCOS, MS, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's

~~~
M_Grey
An example of the "strong evidence" being cited in that tome.

[http://press.endocrine.org/doi/10.1210/jc.2002-021480](http://press.endocrine.org/doi/10.1210/jc.2002-021480)

Nutrition research a is a joke, and with 53 subjects it's easy to see where
the punchline is.

~~~
ethanbond
Oh, so you're one those people who believes low n means a study is
meaningless. Not sure why you even bother looking up the studies if that's how
you're going to attempt to understand them.

~~~
M_Grey
I'm one of those people who doesn't think they constitute, "Strong evidence",
but rather a good starting point for a more telling study.

------
kowdermeister
2000 calories is a lot, I try to limit myself around 1000 / day. This is no
way a golden rule, I just figured it out a few years ago. I'm pretty much done
with eating for the day with a tactical kebab from the turkish guys.

Off: why is this on the front page? Anyone else hungry? :)

~~~
jlebrech
1000 calories of what? are you sure you're not counting 1000 and getting the
rest in hidden calories?

~~~
kowdermeister
Energy :) I know not all calories are made equal, but I really don't care, I
mix meat + vegetables + various carbon hydrates.

I get most of the extra calories via alcohol, beer mostly.

~~~
jlebrech
oh, I see. the "make room for alcohol" diet :)

------
hasenj
Why isn't there an outcry to regulate the fast food industry to prevent this
kind of thing from happening? This is one of the biggest issues in North
America.

~~~
wyldfire
I don't know that we need more regulation (NYC already has the portion cap for
soft drinks). But what about subsidies for carrots, lettuce, celery and
tomatoes? That might help nudge things a bit.

~~~
jtuente
How would subsidizing vegetables get more people to eat them? They're already
super cheap.

~~~
tormeh
My problem is the bulk sizes. I always end up throwing more than half away
because they're sold in so big packs. They're really cheap, but I just don't
like throwing food away, so I don't buy it. It's perfectly irrational, but
hard to change.

