Why is it that so much of what we want in this world is big? Big houses. Big cars. Big jobs. Big paychecks. In the 80s, big hair. There's Big Gulps at the 7-11. And Biggie fries at Wendy's. And the big plate of loaded chicken cheese nachos that make my mouth water at my favorite Gainesville Ale House. An appetizer, according to the menu but realistically, it could feed a family of four, or more.

It's all so contradictory, you know. Because these bodies of ours, well, we want them small. Extra small if we're trying to mimic our favorite Hollywood role models. Small is good. I mean, there's this whole philosophy out there suggesting that it's best to eat simple to survive, that the more restrictive our calories, the better. Even if you don't buy into this line of thinking, there's no question that smaller is better for your health. For those of you about to get mad at me, I'm not saying everyone must be skinny small. We've already established that sometimes, fat and fit is better than thin and lazy. All I'm saying is: Smaller is better than way bigger, and we can't live big (on the food front, anyway -- bring on the big paycheck, though) and not expect our bodies to follow suit.

Here's the deal: We can't supersize everything except our butts. Just can't happen. Wish it could. Remember Morgan Spurlock and his supersize experiment? The guy gained 24 pounds in 30 days on his big diet. Downsize is what we've got to do. I did it the other night when I let the cheese nacho moment pass. Opted for a grilled salmon sandwich with wild rice instead. Saved myself a few hundred calories and a big jump on the scale. I felt a whole lot better for my decision, and my butt is thanking me for the wise choice. Yours will thank you too if you minimize the importance of everything big in your diet. Go big on other things -- get a big promotion, save a big pile of money, go for a big run right after you read this. And give yourself a big pat on the back for your big and noble diet endeavors.

With all the hype that McDonald's is making about their commitment to healthy choices, and even despite their efforts to get rid of Supersized foods a few years ago, they are now taking a step backwards with their newest product, Hugo.

Hugo is, well, huge, with 42-oz of soda (that's 1.42 L) and a whopping 410 calories. Are you kidding me? 410 calories is a meal, not the drink you order with it. And at $0.89 at most restaurants, it's cheaper than bottled water.

I think this is a bad move, mainly because it shows that they're not as concerned about the health of their customers as they try to make us believe. But I do think that we as consumers need to take responsibility for our own health matters, which means choosing the bottled water over the Hugo-sized soda, even if it's more expensive.

Source