Deception..

I have a friend who has been on a "no red meat" kick for the last several months.  It probably isn't a bad idea, but sometimes I think that people can confuse cutting out red meat (or going full on veggie) with eating healthier.  This sort of idea was brought to light a couple of Fridays ago when I "had" to go to Taco Bell for lunch.  My wife is Catholic and we observe lent in our house.  This particular Friday came and I was totally unprepared for lunch.  I usually just go with tuna fish sandwiches when I find myself without a suitable meatless meal on Fridays, but we were out of mayo.  Since my work schedule is more conducive to going out to eat (I have a prep period before lunch), I took one for the team and grabbed some Taco Bell.

Knowing full well that Taco Bell isn't a super healthy choice, I did more or less budget my points for the lunch but I was still pretty surprised to see what the damage was.  I ordered 2 bean burritos and a tostada.  Even with eating less these days, that is still a relatively small meal (at least compared to the past).  The three items cost me a grand total of 24 points.  My usual lunches from home are much less "pointy" and it seems like they usually fill me up much more.

However, that isn't really the point of this exercise.  It got me thinking about comparing my "healthy" and meat free Taco Bell choices to a more standard cheeseburger and fries type of meal.  In the Inland Empire area of Southern California, we have a great family owned fast-food chain called Baker's Drive Thru.  While I love the Mexican portion of their menu, the shining star is their burgers.  Their "Double Baker" is almost on par with In-N-Out's "Double-Double".  Just for kicks and giggles, I decided to add up the points from a Double Baker value meal (with a Diet Coke of course).  A Double Baker w/cheese and an order of fries adds up to 29 points.

It obviously doesn't take a math major to figure out that the Baker's meal was more "expensive" than the Taco Bell meal.  On an unrestricted day, I would pick the Baker's meal 100 times out of 100, though.

However, the point of this exercise is more about perception.  Before my Weight Watchers days, if you would have given me the choice of which meal was healthier I would have thought that the Taco Bell me was WAY more healthy than the Baker's Meal.  In reality, they really aren't too much different.  Both of them are really bad for you.  And that is kind of the point of this exercise.

Sometimes we get caught up and focus too much certain components of a meal and don't take a look at the bigger picture.  A completely vegetarian meal from a fast food joint can be almost as bad for you as a typical burger and fries combo from another fast food joint.

It is noble to figure out ways to make yourself healthier.  I just think that sometimes, we need to to take a look at things on a "macro" scale rather than a "micro" scale.  Removing something like red meat from your diet is more of a micro choice to me.  It might make you healthier than you currently are, but it might not be a big enough change to make and keep you healthy in the long run.

Besides, I still think the important question is "Are you really going to give up (x) for the rest of your life?"  If you can't honestly answer that question than you need to maybe think about doing something else.