They are delicious. Which means they are not good for you.

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9703/16/lunchables/

If it tastes good, spit it out.

On Aug 6, 3:16?pm, Terry wrote:

> They are delicious. Which means they are not good for you.

They're delicious? They don't look delicious. They look
horrid.

"Terry" > wrote in message
...
> They are delicious. Which means they are not good for you.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9703/16/lunchables/
>
> If it tastes good, spit it out.


What is it like to be so stupid? Tell us.

"Terry" > wrote in message
...
> They are delicious. Which means they are not good for you.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9703/16/lunchables/
>
> If it tastes good, spit it out.

It did appear to be a limited, not entirely scientific study. It may have
some merit. But like many tasty things a steady diet isn't what most of us
would do. I did notice when they first came out that some varieties are much
higher in sodium, fat, and carbs than is good for us. Once a week or so
probably won't kill anybody if the rest of the diet is balanced.
Edrena

On Aug 6, 4:59 pm, "The Joneses" > wrote:
> "Terry" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > They are delicious. Which means they are not good for you.
>
> >http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9703/16/lunchables/
>
> > If it tastes good, spit it out.
>
> It did appear to be a limited, not entirely scientific study. It may have
> some merit. But like many tasty things a steady diet isn't what most of us
> would do. I did notice when they first came out that some varieties are much
> higher in sodium, fat, and carbs than is good for us. Once a week or so
> probably won't kill anybody if the rest of the diet is balanced.

So, what are you supposed to eat if not fat and carbs?

> Edrena

--Bryan

"Bobo Bonobo®" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Aug 6, 4:59 pm, "The Joneses" > wrote:
>> "Terry" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > They are delicious. Which means they are not good for you.
>>
>> >http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9703/16/lunchables/
>>
>> > If it tastes good, spit it out.
>>
Once a week or so
>> probably won't kill anybody if the rest of the diet is balanced. Edrena
>
> So, what are you supposed to eat if not fat and carbs? --Bryan
>
Less fat and carbs, unless you're a stevedore or athlete. Nice protein, from
vegetable sources often, more deep sea fish, etc. etc. Then there are those
with food allergies and conditions where you can't eat stuff. The secret,
young grasshopper, is colorful balance in all things. Beets can be eaten
with impunity and should be on every table and at every meal. Yeah, right.
Edrena

"Steve Wertz" > wrote

> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:16:07 -0400, Terry wrote:
>
>> They are delicious. Which means they are not good for you.
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9703/16/lunchables/
>>
>> If it tastes good, spit it out.
>
> CNN must be really desperate for stories. I especially laughed
> at the part that said "The packages should carry a warning label,
> he said."

I am astonished that they are still on the market. People really
buy that crap, how lame. From the ludicrous amount of
packaging to what's inside, there is nothing to recommend it.
I can see why people buy a Whopper with fries, Lunchables I
do not get.

nancy

"Terry" > wrote in message
...
> They are delicious. Which means they are not good for you.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9703/16/lunchables/
>
> If it tastes good, spit it out.

They are absolute crap. Have you read the labels? They are loaded with
salt, and I mean enough salt for a full grown man for several days - in one
package. And then there is the problem with the fat content, which is
extremely high and the fact that what they are is a highly processed load of
high glycemic carbs with extremely low nutritional value.

Convenient for the parents, but very damaging to the health of the kids who
live on the stuff. The ads for the crap are shameful, too. Mommy doesn't
love you if she makes you a nutritious and tasty lunch - no - she's a bitch.

Whatever happened to a PB&J, an apple and a carton of milk?

Paul

KevinS > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Aug 6, 3:16?pm, Terry wrote:
>
>> They are delicious. Which means they are not good for you.
>
> They're delicious? They don't look delicious. They look
> horrid.

according to my 7 year old, they *are* horrid. some of his
schoolmates eat them, i guess.
lee

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in
news:QEQti.4183$dD3.578@trnddc07:

> Whatever happened to a PB&J, an apple and a carton of milk?

many schools have total bans on peanuts (and the milk they
serve is 2% or skim now).
still, there are a lot of *other* choices, most of which are
cheaper & more healthful than Lunchables. even a Thermos of
Campbell's soup has less sodium than a Lunchable.
lee

"enigma" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in
> news:QEQti.4183$dD3.578@trnddc07:
>
> > Whatever happened to a PB&J, an apple and a carton of milk?
>
> many schools have total bans on peanuts (and the milk they
> serve is 2% or skim now).
> still, there are a lot of *other* choices, most of which are
> cheaper & more healthful than Lunchables. even a Thermos of
> Campbell's soup has less sodium than a Lunchable.


My 2 pound box of kosher salt has less sodium than a Lunchable.

And what is it with peanut allergy? OK, it is real, kids have died from it,
I know. Not making light of it at all. But when I was growing up, it was
just never heard of it. Now, if you so much as show the Planter's Peanut
man on TV, kids go into anaphylactic shock.

Paul

In article >,
says...
> They are delicious. Which means they are not good for you.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9703/16/lunchables/
>
> If it tastes good, spit it out.
>

Who in their right mind would buy those horrors? Never mind the gross
processed contents, you know you are being vastly overcharged because of
the packaging.

I hope that someday you taste some really delicious food that does not
need to be spit out because of health concerns. We get that three times
a day here.



--
Peter Aitken

On Aug 6, 7:19 pm, "The Joneses" > wrote:
> "Bobo Bonobo®" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > On Aug 6, 4:59 pm, "The Joneses" > wrote:
> >> "Terry" > wrote in message
>
> . ..
>
> >> > They are delicious. Which means they are not good for you.
>
> >> >http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9703/16/lunchables/
>
> >> > If it tastes good, spit it out.
>
> Once a week or so
> >> probably won't kill anybody if the rest of the diet is balanced. Edrena
>
> > So, what are you supposed to eat if not fat and carbs? --Bryan
>
> Less fat and carbs, unless you're a stevedore or athlete. Nice protein, from
> vegetable sources often, more deep sea fish, etc. etc. Then there are those
> with food allergies and conditions where you can't eat stuff. The secret,
> young grasshopper, is colorful balance in all things. Beets can be eaten
> with impunity and should be on every table and at every meal. Yeah, right.

You shouldn't exceed a certain level of protein. It'll make you feel
icky. If you want to lose body fat, you can cut out carbs almost
completely, but then you have to replace those calories with fat, not
just more protein. Contrary to popular wisdom, low carb dieting is
not "high protein," it is high fat (over 50% calories from fat).

You can't be healthy getting 70% of your calories from protein. I eat
too much protein for aesthetic reasons, but I know it isn't really
good for me to do so.

> Edrena

--Bryan

In article >,
Terry > wrote:

> They are delicious. Which means they are not good for you.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9703/16/lunchables/
>
> If it tastes good, spit it out.

They are loaded with salt and preservatives!
What did you expect?

And for the record, they are nothing special as far as flavor goes.
Too salty. Ick.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article >,
enigma > wrote:

> KevinS > wrote in
> ups.com:
>
> > On Aug 6, 3:16?pm, Terry wrote:
> >
> >> They are delicious. Which means they are not good for you.
> >
> > They're delicious? They don't look delicious. They look
> > horrid.
>
> according to my 7 year old, they *are* horrid. some of his
> schoolmates eat them, i guess.
> lee

Congrats on having a smart 7 year old. :-)

Well done!
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

On Aug 6, 5:16 pm, Terry > wrote:
> They are delicious. Which means they are not good for you.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9703/16/lunchables/
>
> If it tastes good, spit it out.

I thought they were disgusting, the one time my granddaughter wanted
one and I got it for her. And they are absolutely overwhelmed with
sodium.

N.

One time on Usenet, KevinS > said:
> On Aug 6, 3:16?pm, Terry wrote:
>
> > They are delicious. Which means they are not good for you.
>
> They're delicious? They don't look delicious. They look
> horrid.

They are, IMHO. DS, now 10, won't eat them...

--
Jani in WA

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in
news:rxTti.1674$Aj6.298@trnddc01:

>
> "enigma" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> still, there are a lot of *other* choices, most of which
>> are cheaper & more healthful than Lunchables. even a
>> Thermos of Campbell's soup has less sodium than a
>> Lunchable.
>
> My 2 pound box of kosher salt has less sodium than a
> Lunchable.

heh. loads less fat too!

> And what is it with peanut allergy? OK, it is real, kids
> have died from it, I know. Not making light of it at all.
> But when I was growing up, it was just never heard of it.
> Now, if you so much as show the Planter's Peanut man on TV,
> kids go into anaphylactic shock.

well, peanuts & peanut oil are fairly cheap, so they are in a
lot more products now. more exposure means more chance of
allergy. also, it may not be the actual peanuts causing the
reaction. peanuts are a highly artificially fertilized &
pesticided crop (also fungicided). the allergies could be to
residuals of those.
plus, like most allergies, peanut allergies come in a range
of reaction, from mild to deadly. because small children
aren't very good at being neat &/or washing up, if there is a
badly peanut allergic child in the building, it's easier to
ban all peanut products than to try to keep all surfaces in
the school that the allergic child might come in contact with
clean.
Boo had a peanut allergic child in his class last year. the
kid's mother was (fortunately) more for teaching her child to
take resposibility for his allergy than making everyone else
accomodate him, but the other parents were notified mostly so
if anyone was making treats for the entire class they would
know that peanut-free goodies would avoid leaving this child
out (no peanutbutter cookies for a birthday thing, etc)
lee