Deep Down, You Know Brunch Sucks. Let's Break It Down

Brunch is a beloved eating event treasured by the hungry and the hungover. For many, this portmanteau of two meals serves as a weekend social occasion to catch up with friends, get a little buzzed and soak up the previous night's bad decisions.

But in truth, brunch in itself is a bad decision. It kind of sucks. It's appallingly expensive, and excessive brunching is almost definitely bad for your health. Today, in HuffPost Debbie Downers, we're going to explain why going to brunch is such a terrible choice.

First and foremost, there's the line...

Chances are, when you want brunch, so does everyone else in your city. You've likely experienced it before: You intend to dine around 11:30 a.m., but you aren't seated until noon. Besides the hunger factor -- which is a big one -- waiting in line is a stressful activity that may even be taking a toll on your health. Research shows it can be a catalyst for increased heart rate and blood pressure.

When a noon brunch is your first meal of the day, you suffer.

Brunch, inherent in its name, is the combination of breakfast and lunch. The melding of the two mealtimes allows for menu items that would break the rules if they were strictly reserved for breakfast or lunch individually. And that is fun.

But the rule-breaking gets dangerous when you omit breakfast from your morning for the sake of "saving room." Experts beyond your mother will argue that you're missing out on the immense health benefits of breakfast (at a normal hour).

Breakfast eaters win big: They’re more likely to have better blood sugar and cholesterol levels, feel more alert throughout the day and have a boosted short-term memory than those who skip the morning meal.

Research has found an association between skipping breakfast and heart issues like coronary disease and heart attacks. And, according to another study, those who neglect breakfast are more likely to be obese.

It doesn't end there. Without food first thing to get you going, you can expect hanger: The headaches, mood swings and fatigue that come along with low blood sugar.

Drinks are way overpriced.

Bars and restaurants can mark up alcohol by sometimes more than 500 percent, and wine often has especially high markups. And what popular brunch drink contains wine? Mimosas, made with sparkling wine (or Champagne, if it's from France) and OJ. A basic mimosa can cost $12 at some fancy New York City brunch spots. By spending $20 on a bottle of sparkling wine, you could make very respectable mimosas at home for just $3.50 a glass.

Would you like a mimosa? Or how about a mimosa?

But what about bottomless brunch?

"All you can drink" brunch discounts may seem like a good deal, but restaurants can have ulterior motives. Often, bottomless brunch specials are what economists call "loss leaders," designed to hook customers so they keep coming back and spend more later at the same eatery. Restaurants will cut you off if you get too drunk or when time's up. And there seems to be some confusion over whether limitless drinks are even legal.

Also, some restaurants water down these unlimited adult beverages, meaning you need to drink a ton to get a buzz. Which leads us to our next point...

That boozy bonanza will lead you to consume more liquid calories than you probably planned for.

No, there's nothing wrong with a drink at brunch. But with the opportunity to go bottomless, you'll be more inclined to throw them back. After all, while you think you're getting a bang for your buck, you're subjecting yourself to the painful consequences of binge drinking and consuming a ton of calories.

Let's break it down for brunch: A classic bloody mary contains around 170 calories. A refreshing mimosa will clock in around 100 cals and a sangria (with all the fruity works) contains a bit more than 250 calories. In a single serving, none of these stats are terribly alarming. But at a bottomless brunch, where the booze flows like well, wine, it's difficult to have control over how much you're consuming.

In this case, two sangrias will set you back 500 calories, but you won't be able to fully recognize how much you're guzzling if the drink's served in a pitcher. And when the buzz hits, you'll be more likely to fill yourself with additional calories. "Alcohol lowers your inhibitions," Rebecca Scritchfield, a registered dietitian, told The Huffington Post in an email. And this "can hinder you from realizing how full or satisfied you are." "Bring on the bloodies," you'll slur.

Here's the vicious cycle that is weekend brunch (story continues after the graphic):

Typical brunch fare doesn't tend to be "healthy."

Indulging in a decadent brunch on occasion -- even licking the plate clean -- isn't really a gut buster. "Get what you want and eat until you are full," Scritchfield said. "If all you really want is that pancake, then go for it." But when brunch becomes a ritual, and lowered inhibitions become a regular guest of that party, calories add up (and as a result, so do the pounds). A few facts that might make you momentarily put down your fork:

A single ounce of bacon contains 30 milligrams of cholesterol. (A full 68 percent of bacon's calories come from fat -- and half of that fat is the saturated kind.) Diets high in cholesterol are associated with increased risk of heart disease and stroke. Bacon is also salty: Just four to five slices of the stuff will bring you up to half of your daily recommended sodium intake. Like cholesterol, high-salt diets have been linked with high blood pressure and heart disease.

Mmm, the smell of that sticky syrup that dressed up your pancakes lingers all day long (probably because you got some in your hair). So too do the health effects of all that sweet stuff. Just a single tablespoon of maple syrup -- probably not enough to properly fill each waffle cranny -- contains 14 grams of sugar. The World Health Organization recommends limiting your intake to 25 grams a day. Consuming too much added sugar is linked with many not-so-sweet health risks, like high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

And the food's overpriced, too.

It's no surprise that food at restaurants is going to be more expensive than it is at home, but brunch may be especially prone to rip-offs. For one, brunch spots -- particularly those offering a buffet -- tend to create dishes using whatever ingredients are left over from the week prior. And certain brunch-specific items, like pancakes and eggs, can be especially overpriced in restaurants.

The average price of an egg for consumers is just $0.17, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Compare that to $2, $3 and even $6 for the price of an egg side dish at some popular brunch places across the U.S.

Wait, I paid how much for this?

In fact, discount deals often make you feel worse.

Bottomless or all-you-can eat brunches can have the doubly negative effect of causing brunchers to eat more and enjoy it less, according to a study by Cornell economists David Just and Brian Wansink. The study found customers typically try to recoup the cost of flat-rate meals by eating more, despite the fact that doing so made them enjoy the food less.

It's also bad for servers.

Even though servers have to get up early on the weekend to work brunch shifts, there's anecdotal evidence that they get less in tips. Also, studies have found that servers get more tips when they have more opportunity to interact with customers, something that can be hard to do at brunch buffets or in really busy restaurants.

Your productivity plummets afterward.

Your weekend plans to exercise, tidy up or just decompress from a stressful workweek may all be distorted by a boozy brunch. As Scritchfield reminds us, alcohol is a depressant. It makes you feel sluggish, sleepy and sad. Translation: You'll be less likely to follow through with other plans. Even if your plans were just to bum around for two days (no judgement), you'll just feel, well, icky.

Plus, if you decided to brunch on Sunday, your Monday will be -- you know this -- a headache. It's much tougher to get anything done when you're tired, dehydrated, experiencing nausea and hating life a little. Murray likens the Monday after a Sunday day-drinking event to going a night without quality sleep. Your focus, memory and concentration may be impaired, and these have deeper consequences when you're off your couch and in a professional setting.

Bottom line here folks? Going out for brunch sucks. If you miss your eggs Benedict and/or flapjacks so desperately, why not make 'em at home?

Yellen Warns That The Job Market Is Still Not Great

By Howard Schneider

JACKSON HOLE, Wyo., Aug 22 (Reuters) - U.S. labor markets remain hampered by the effects of the Great Recession and the Federal Reserve should move cautiously in determining when interest rates should rise, Fed Chair Janet Yellen said on Friday in a defense of her policy approach.

In a speech at a central banking conference here, Yellen laid out in detail why she feels the unemployment rate alone is inadequate to evaluate the strength of the U.S. job market.

The jobless rate has fallen faster than expected, but Yellen said the economic disruption of the last five years has left millions of workers sidelined, discouraged, or stuck in part time jobs - facts that are not captured in the unemployment rate alone.

Judging whether the economy is close to full employment is "complicated by ongoing shifts in the structure of the labor market and the possibility that the severe recession caused persistent changes in the labor market's functioning," Yellen said in the opening address at the Fed's annual economic policy conference.

"Assessments of the degree of remaining slack in the labor market need to become more nuanced because of considerable uncertainty about the level of employment consistent with the Federal Reserve's dual mandate" of stable prices and full employment, she added.

In such an environment "there is no simple recipe for appropriate policy," Yellen said, arguing for a "pragmatic" approach that allows officials room to evaluate data as it arrives without committing to a preset policy path.

Yellen's speech included lengthy references to the possibility that labor markets may in fact be tighter then they seem, and the Fed may be at risk of having to raise rates sooner and faster than expected.

But overall the remarks marked a defense of her basic premise that the 2007-2009 financial crisis and recession damaged the economy and work force in ways that are not fully understood.

The Fed has held benchmark rates near zero since December 2008, and has said it would wait a "considerable time" after winding down a stimulative bond-buying program in October before raising them. Financial markets currently expect rates to raise around the middle of next year.

The debate over Yellen's evaluation of labor markets - and over when to raise borrowing costs - is intensifying within the Fed's policy committee.

Some policymakers, including Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank President Esther George, the host of the annual conference in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, are becoming more vocal in their view that the Fed risks falling behind and should raise rates soon.

At the central bank's last policy meeting in July, some officials argued against characterizing the amount of slack in the labor market as "significant," which the Fed did do in its post-meeting statement. Many officials agreed that characterization may have to change soon.

Determining the degree of labor market slack has become the central debate at the U.S. central bank. Yellen wants to be sure employment has recovered as fully as possible before raising rates. Inflation "hawks" at the Fed, however, worry more months of near zero rates will cause inflation or possible asset bubbles.

A slate of academic papers at the conference will dissect the issue over the next two days, arguing for example that the United States' job-generating ability may be on the wane.

Outside the conference room, closed to all but the few dozen attendees from government, foreign central banks, academia and the media, Yellen will get some unexpected support.

A handful of workers in green "What Recovery?" t-shirts are also staying at the resort, pulling policymakers aside as they can in the mountain view bar and main lodge area to press the case that many families are still struggling. (Reporting by Howard Schneider, Michael Flaherty and Jonathan Spicer; Editing by Tim Ahmann and Paul Simao)

SeaWorld, Under Fire, Pledges To Improve Killer Whale Conditions

NEW YORK (AP) — After more than a year of public criticism of its treatment of killer whales, SeaWorld said Friday that it will build new, larger environments at its theme parks and will fund additional research on the animals along with programs to protect ocean health and whales in the wild.

The Orlando, Florida, company said the renovations have been in the works for some time and that they are not a response to the documentary "Blackfish" or the criticism of the company that followed the release of the film.

The company's shares, which are trading near their lowest point since SeaWorld listed its stock on public markets last year, rose Friday. But it remains to be seen if the renovations will fully address concerns about keeping large marine mammals in captivity.

The 2013 documentary "Blackfish" suggested that captivity and SeaWorld's treatment of the whales provoke violent behavior, which in turn has led to the death of trainers. Since the release of the film, a series of entertainers have pulled out of planned performances at SeaWorld parks. SeaWorld also recently said its longtime corporate partnership with Southwest Airlines is ending, and on Wednesday the company reported disappointing second-quarter financial results because of the backlash.

SeaWorld Entertainment Inc. says it will build a tank with 10 million gallons of water at its San Diego park, almost twice the size of the current tank with a depth of up to 50 feet. The new environment will be called the Blue World Project, and SeaWorld said it will include features that will be more stimulating for the whales. Those include a "fast water current" that will allow the whales to swim against moving water.

The facility will open to the public in 2018, and after that SeaWorld will make similar changes at its Orlando, Florida and San Antonio locations.

The company said the cost of the project will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars but would not specify the exact budget.

The company is also pledging $10 million in matching funds to support research focused on threats to killer whales, or orcas, in the wild. It also announced a $1.5 million commitment to a partnership focused on ocean health.

Former SeaWorld trainer Mark Simmons praised the moves, saying the new environments will provide the whales with mental stimulation that will help keep them healthy. He said the content of the whales' environment is even more important than the size, and that SeaWorld's trainers do a good job of interacting with the whales. He said and the new features of Blue World Project will give them new tools that will let them improve.

"I think it's an enhancement, an obvious evolution of SeaWorld's mission," Simmons said in a phone interview. Simmons worked at SeaWorld Orlando from 1986 to 1996.

"Blackfish" director Gabriela Cowperthwaite said the changes won't please the public or improve the lives of its whales. She said that in captivity the whales are forcibly bred, separated from their families and fight constantly for dominance. She added that the larger tanks may not mean the whales will have more room, as SeaWorld plans to expand to other countries and could use the additional space to breed the whales more often.

"None of this would change in a bigger pool," she said. "What people are upset about is that whales are not suitable to captivity."

Cowperthwaite said SeaWorld should instead create oceanic sanctuaries that will let the whales live out their lives in more natural environments.

It's difficult to assess how the whales do in captivity, said Dr. Douglas DeMaster, the research and science director for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Alaska region fisheries.

"We don't really have standards that can be measured to assess animal welfare for captive marine mammals," he said in an email.

On Wednesday SeaWorld reported net income and revenue that fell short of Wall Street expectations and the company withdrew its financial outlook for the year. Its revenue in the second quarter was about $40 million less than analysts had expected, and the company said "Blackfish" hurt attendance.

"Blackfish" explores the death of veteran SeaWorld trainer Dawn Brancheau, who was pulled off a platform and killed by a whale named Tilikum in 2010. The film argues that the whales become more aggressive toward humans and each other when they are kept in captivity.

Several entertainers, including country singers Trisha Yearwood and Willie Nelson and rock band Barenaked Ladies, have pulled out of planned performances at SeaWorld parks since the film's release. In July, Southwest Airlines and SeaWorld said they were ending a 25-year marketing partnership at the end of this year. SeaWorld said the decision was mutual, and said it wants to concentrate on growing markets in Latin America and Asia.

SeaWorld stock rose 66 cents, or 3.7 percent, to $18.66 Friday. The shares have dropped 35 percent this year.

McDonald's, Yum Apologize For Rotten Meat Scandal

* Meat supplier shut down after safety violations exposed

* TV footage shows workers picking up meat from floor

* Yum, McDonald's warn of potential China product shortfalls

* Incident highlights broader China food supply chain issues (Adds analyst's comment, Burger King share reaction)

By Adam Jourdan and Lisa Baertlein

SHANGHAI/LOS ANGELES, July 21 (Reuters) - Yum Brands Inc and McDonald's Corp are facing a new food safety scare in China, denting the fast-food companies' efforts to shore up reputations and businesses that were hurt by a 2012 safety scandal in one of their biggest markets.

McDonald's and KFC parent Yum apologized to customers on Monday after Chinese regulators shut a local meat supplier following a TV report that showed workers picking up meat from a factory floor, as well as mixing meat beyond its expiration date with fresh meat.

The companies said they immediately stopped using the supplier, Shanghai Husi Food Co Ltd, a unit of Aurora, Illinois-based OSI Group, and had switched to alternatives. They added that the factory served restaurants in the Shanghai area.

The report on China's Dragon TV brought Yum and McDonald's back into the firing line following the sales-battering 2012 scandal that involved chicken pumped with excessive amounts of antibiotics.

"We will not tolerate any violations of government laws and regulations from our suppliers," said Yum China, which required all of its KFC and Pizza Hut restaurants to seal up and stop using all meat materials supplied by the Husi factory.

The division, Yum's No. 1 business unit, had just seen its KFC restaurants bounce back from the double whammy of the food safety scare and a bird flu outbreak.

"If proven, the practices outlined in the reports are completely unacceptable to McDonald's anywhere in the world," a China-based spokeswoman for McDonald's told Reuters.

Husi provided McDonald's with chicken, beef and lettuce, a McDonald's U.S. spokeswoman said.

China is McDonald's third-biggest market as measured in number of restaurants.

"I think this is going to be really challenging for both these firms," said Benjamin Cavender, Shanghai-based principal at China Market Research Group.

"I don't know that this is something an apology can fix so easily, because at this point people don't have a whole lot of trust that they have good systems in place," he added.

Yum shares fell 4.2 percent to close at $74.13 and McDonald's shares lost 1.5 percent to $97.55.

"Although the issue is being addressed, we would not rule out the possibility of temporary sales disruptions," Baird analyst David Tarantino said in a research note lowering his target price on the company.

The Shanghai Municipal Food and Drug Administration shut Husi down on Sunday after the local Chinese TV broadcast aired. In addition to the meat safety violations, the program showed workers saying that if clients knew what they were doing, the firm would lose its contracts.

OSI said on its Chinese website that management was "appalled by the report." The company said it has formed its own investigation team, is fully cooperating with government inspectors and will take all necessary actions based on results of the investigation.

"Management believes this to be an isolated event, but takes full responsibility for the situation," OSI said.

OSI, which has close to 60 manufacturing facilities worldwide and had revenue of more than $5 billion in 2012, has been supplying McDonald's in China since 1992 and KFC and Pizza Hut parent Yum since 2008, according to its website.

SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES

McDonald's and Yum are the top two brands by sales in China's $174 billion fast-food market, according to Euromonitor, but face a challenge as local firms try to tempt cost-conscious diners with healthy, home-grown fare.

Both companies said they are investigating the issues highlighted in the report and said that switching suppliers will cause some temporary product shortages.

News of the scare spread quickly to diners negotiating Shanghai's lunch-hour rush on Monday.

"For now I won't go to eat at McDonald's or KFC, at least until this whole thing settles down," said Xu Xinyu, 24, a financial services worker, eating at a noodle shop near a McDonald's outlet in downtown Shanghai.

Yet Chinese consumers may already have developed a comparatively thick skin when it comes to food scandals. "Isn't everywhere like this?" asked student Li Xiaoye, 20, eating a beef burger in a Shanghai McDonald's outlet. "I'll keep going because wherever I eat, the issues are all the same."

The incident highlights the difficulty in ensuring quality and safety along the supply chain in China. Wal-Mart Stores Inc came under the spotlight this year after a supplier's donkey meat product was found to contain fox meat. It also came under fire for selling expired duck meat in 2011.

OSI is one of McDonald's key meat suppliers and has a good reputation, according to an industry insider speaking on condition of anonymity. He added the incident highlights the issue firms face enforcing strict processes with local staff.

As well as Yum and McDonald's, OSI listed Starbucks Corp , Japan's Saizeriya Co Ltd, Papa John's International Inc, Burger King Worldwide Inc and Doctor's Associates Inc's Subway brand as clients in China, according to a 2012 press release.

Burger King shares fell 1.6 percent to close at $26.13.

A Starbucks spokesman told Reuters that the company does not now have any direct business dealings with Husi Food.

Burger King, Subway, Papa John's and Saizeriya did not immediately respond to requests for comment. ($1 = 6.2088 Chinese Yuan) (Additional reporting by Engen Tham and Shanghai newsroom and by Lisa Baertlein in Los Angeles; editing by Kazunori Takada, Kenneth Maxwell, Jilian Mincer, Matthew Lewis and Peter Galloway)

Addicted To Inflation

The first step toward recovery is admitting that you have a problem. That goes for political movements as well as individuals.

Read the whole story at The New York Times

Want To Fix Social Security? Start With Giving Women Equal Pay

Closing the gender pay gap would do more than just help working women: It could also help shore up the nation’s finances, a new study suggests.

Making sure women earn equal pay for equal work could trim Social Security’s long-term shortfall by up to a third, according to a study released Thursday by Social Security Works, a non-profit group advocating to protect Social Security. That’s because boosting women's pay would put more money into the program's coffers.

Closing the pay gap between men and women who are the same age and have similar levels of education and hours of work would have generated $447.6 billion in extra income in 2012, according to figures from the Institute for Women's Policy Research cited in the study. Most of that income would have been subject to Social Security taxes, boosting annual revenue for the Social Security Trust Fund by at least $40 billion, said Ben Veghte, the research director of Social Security Works.

Extrapolating such gains over 75 years, higher pay for women could close much of what could be a nearly $10 trillion gap in Social Security's ability to pay benefits by 2087, according to one estimate.

The solvency of Social Security has been a major political issue over the past few years. As more baby boomers retire and start using the fund instead of paying into it, officials are looking for ways to make sure the program doesn't run out of money. Earlier this year, President Obama proposed cutting Social Security benefits in an attempt to strike a budget deal with Republicans. He ultimately withdrew the proposal after it became clear that a "grand bargain" on the budget was unpopular on both sides of the aisle.

Pay equality for women would also give them more money to save for retirement, making it less likely they'll have to rely only on Social Security, or a spouse's benefits, in retirement.

“Unequal pay has had a profound impact on women's economic security, and that includes their retirement security,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said on a conference call with reporters Thursday. “Women live longer and are much more reliant on Social Security because of lost wages over a lifetime.”

DeLauro is a sponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill that would make employers give legitimate reasons for pay discrepancies and ban retaliation against workers who talk about their pay. She added that, for millions of women, an extra boost in earnings -- and, ultimately, in Social Security benefits -- could mean “the difference between health and hunger.”

More than 2.6 million women over the age of 65 lived in poverty in 2012, according to an analysis from the National Womens’ Law Center.

The Social Security Works authors also suggested that women (and men) not be penalized for temporarily leaving the workforce to have and raise children. Social Security benefits are based on average earnings over the best 35 years of a career. Leaving the workforce weighs on those average earnings.

The authors back proposals that would give workers credit for something like half the national average wage each month for the years they’re caregiving. That way, when it’s time to calculate their Social Security benefits, these people don’t have several years with a bunch of zeros weighing down their average earnings.

“Instead of having them get an F for those years, they get a C-,” Veghte said.

Reporter Whose Rant Helped Launch Tea Party Gets Put In His Place

The CNBC reporter whose rant helped launch America's tea party movement was told off Monday amid -- what else -- one of his epic rants.

As Rick Santelli shouted from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade against the Federal Reserve's policies on "Fast Money Halftime Report," CNBC reporter Steve Liesman took him down a peg.

"It's impossible for you to have been more wrong, Rick," Liesman said. "Your call for inflation, the destruction of the dollar, the failure of the U.S. economy to rebound... The higher interest rates never came, the inability of the U.S. to sell bonds never happened, the dollar never crashed Rick, there isn't a single one that's worked for you."

“I wasn’t wrong on inflation," Santelli declared. "I didn’t know policy would be so bad that we’d get no velocity after five-and-a-half years.”

TIME explained Santelli's argument in its deconstruction of the on-screen fight:

By velocity, he basically means that no one is spending money, even though the Fed’s QE program has, in a sense “printed” a lot of it. Santelli has claimed before that he didn’t actually predict high inflation. As Business Insider has pointed out, the record says otherwise.

"Every single bit of advice you gave would've lost people money," Liesman told Santelli. "There is no piece of advice you've given that's worked."

Click here to watch the full CNBC video.