Michelle Obama's Shake Shack Burger Indulgence Defended by Nutritionists (ABC News to the rescue)

ABC News ^ | Tuesday, July 12, 2011 | Mikeala Conley

[kristinn]

Stop the presses, Michelle Obama might have eaten a hamburger.

The blogosphere erupted with criticism almost immediately after the Washington Post reported Monday that the first lady sat down at a newly opened Shake Shack in Washington D.C., where she ordered a ShackBurger, fries, a chocolate shake and a Diet Coke. According to the popular burger joint's website, that's a 1,556-calorie meal. (sic, actually it was 1700 calories.)

Many critiqued the first lady's public display of Shake Shack love as she continues to advocate for her Let's Move! campaign, an initiative to eliminate childhood obesity.

But even as the first lady-turned-health-advocate chowed down on a meal that contains almost an entire day's recommended calorie intake, most nutrition experts are telling people to relax.

"[This is an] unfortunate invasion of privacy for Mrs. Obama," said Alice Lichtenstein, professor of nutrition science and policy at Tufts School of Medicine in Boston. "She has kept her weight constant and engages in regular physical activity. An occasional indulgence is fine. For many people, that is what helps them keep on track most of the time."

Most experts agreed with Lichtenstein, while saying that the first lady's lunch is being unnecessarily scrutinized.

[rollo tomasi]

As I said before, not just a hamburger, a pattern of hypocritical behavior with the power of enabling policy and spending behind that hypocrisy.

When you travel all over the globe on the public dole and lobby for billions in new programs for "school salad bars" and nutritionist (That the First Lady pushed while talking in her husbands ears) for healthy eating, this tax payer demands perfection from the powers that be. That is called living by example and honest government. If a politician can't do that, then they should shut the hell up and quit regulating "the peoples'" behavior. Do you prefer a disingenuous government?

Pointing out a perpetual hypocritical pattern of behavior the First Lady and her husband promote while calling for us to fund a Nanny State is hardly juvenile. What is juvenile is picking on someone who smokes or eat fatty foods for example, as he or she tells others not to without the "only for me, not for thee attitude. "The people" should castigate "limousine liberals" and hypocrites in power.

I explained this earlier in the thread (Was not just about "cheeseburgers") but you totally ignored the content and went into smart-ass mode. I don't suffer smart-asses well when they ignore previous content that addressed the issue which explained why this was not just about "Cheeseburgers".

[laotzu]

I don't suffer smart-asses well when they ignore previous content..

Outrageous, isn't it?

May I call you 'Tina'?

[rollo tomasi]

[laotzu]

Alas, poor Tina. Once you go ad hominem, you really can't go back again.
(pretty catchy, eh? say it a few times)

So........tell me about your mother. Let's talk about her.

[rollo tomasi]

[trisham]

Disgusting hypocrites.

[laotzu]

Your argument is invalid

Always with the arguing. No argument from me, Tina. Your
pantywaist, ad hominem surrender ended it a while back.

We have moved on to another topic.

So... are they like really big? Big as your head?
Or, fit in a champagne glass big?

[rollo tomasi]

"Your pantywaist, ad hominem surrender..."

By pointing out how ridiculous your initial post was? LOL.

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."-- Some juvenile in your broad opinion

"Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind."--Another juvenile in your own broad opinion

"The worst of all deceptions is self-deception."--Yet another juvenile in your broad opinion

And plenty more proving how idiotic your first post was concerning the hypocrisy of people in positions of power.

A lot of negative characteristics, where? The narc/pride part came later when you refused to understand what you wrote since that was the only logical conclusion. Also I take back the implication you were acting like a smart-ass, I sorry, should of said dumb-ass instead.

[laotzu]

By pointing out how ridiculous your initial post was?

By dismissing my posts because I must be on drugs. The very definition
of argumentum ad hominem. A total surrender....pantywaist, that is.

Lets leave this embarrasment behind you. Its just one conversation. Surely
there is more to you. Tell me about yourself. Do you have any sisters?

[GatorGirl]

The Zeros constantly parade around stuffing their faces with all sorts of junk food and restaurant fare.

“Invasion of privacy” my sweet patootie. She went to the place with full on entourage and lapped up all the attention. I’m sure she could have ordered in if she was worried about an invasion of privacy.

[Maverick68]

bump for hypocricy...

[laotzu]

you were acting like a smart-ass, I sorry, should of said dumb-ass instead

I see that you are only interested in re-arguing that which you
have already surrendered, and employing you typical charm.

Tina...there's just no point in it.

Tell you mother I said 'Hey', and 'Tuesday about 9'.

[rollo tomasi]

"By dismissing my posts because I must be on drugs."

I did not see a logical post to dismiss, only word games. I appologize for the narc part.



"Do you have any sisters?"

All 6 are taken (Parents were busy bees), youngest (23) just received a marriage proposal. Attractive creatures, but one is a collectivist, although Obama's ineptness and false promises are beginning to show her the light.

[rollo tomasi]

"you were acting like a smart-ass, I sorry, should of said dumb-ass instead"

You ignored the meat so I went straight to dessert.