When a 960 calorie shake is labeled "sinless" ?

WTH!

http://www.coldstonecreamery.com/***...s_04242009.pdf

I think that about MOST of the food out there--seriously, 85% of the food on traditional market shelves in this country are crap! I won't even begin with restaurants! It is disgusting to me actually.

oh my goodness... so I was shocked to see the "sinless" varieties... then I looked at the regular one....

for example, a PB&C™ Large Size is 2010 calories 1180 from fat 131 grams of fat 202% DV 68 grams of saturated fat 340% DV

I know their sinless sans fat sweet cream and sinless cake batter ice creams are ok... but geez O petes!

Well even the lowest calorie of their 'sinless' shake is 500 calories for the smallest serving size. On the other hand, I can have an entire pint of ice cream for less than that. (I was feeling sinful a couple weeks ago and thought about buying a pint of ice cream for dinner, even though it was in my caloric budget, I decided to pass)

Crazy! And now I'm craving a big milkshake!

Well, it's rather sinless for ICE CREAM, don't you think? I mean, the servings are all 16-24 oz, that means that their servings are 1-1.5 POUNDS of shake. A pound of chicken breast has over 500 cal., so if you put it in that perspective they aren't that bad at all.

Their sinless ice creams and smoothies are flavored with Splenda.

But its liquid which is different than being a solid (it is a shake).

I don't mean to argue or anything, I'm just curious how the liquid nature of a shake is relevant to its calorie content. I just picked chicken as an example of food people generally consider really healthy, to point out that a pound of ANYTHING has a lot of calories in it. I suspect that a pound of chicken has a similar volume to a pound of milk shake, and rather less fat, which kind of comes with the whole dessert territory. Also, a shake isn't exactly a thin liquid, it's quite substantive.

Tarisaande - Partially because liquid should mean more water but yes you can stuff a lot of calories in a shake. Also people generally don't expect even 500 calories from a drink.

As I said earlier, the ice cream I was thinking of getting the other day was less than 500 calories for a pint (no artificial sweeteners) while this shake is liquid ice cream with artificial sweeteners to lower the calories. It is a bit mind blowing. And that 500 calorie shake was the lowest calorie one on there while there were others much more.

That's almost a full day's allowance of food - in one meal! Super Crazy!

Wowzers...I think I'll stick with my 60 cal fudge pops! =)

That's is really horrible to name it "sinless" omg.....900+ calories in one container does not equal sinless to me lol

I am all for restaurants posting their nutrition lists and even leaving them on the tables!

In fact I am the kind of person that will go there just for that simple reason over another place that's equal in food/cost.

Angie and I ate at Mimi's Friday night, we do on occasion...well anyway I ordered a chicken breast with lemon sauce/ capers and asparagus with mashed potatoes. I mentioned to her that it had chicken and veggies but might not be better calorie wise than a burger that I thought about. She saw the list next to the wine list after we had finished and I was finishing my beer...she said there was something like 500 calories in my meal...don't remember exactly...anyway I said no way..it was saucy and creamy...etc....she just kept saying IT SAYS XXX calories...I said does it say anything about mashed potatoes?...hummm...no...the she sees where they are listed separate...

now...if there was a "choice" of sides with this particular meal I could see that...but there wasn't...it was listed...chicken-asparagus-mashed potatoes...

I appreciate they list it...but think some things are "hidden" too...

maybe it's just me...

not bashing MiMi's here...I like the place....

Um, yeah, this.

I would also add that a small portion of high quality homemade ice cream is far better than any junk concoction made by a fast food chain. Artificial this and artificial that? No thanks!