Am I wierd in wondering who would croak first, someone who shot up heroin three times a day, someone who smoked crack three times a day, or someone who ate a McDonald's meal three times a day?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I'm not sure it's fair to fault McDonalds for not being healthy if eaten three times a day for a month. That'd be like faulting Aspirin for being unhealthy if taken 20 times a day.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
McDonald's claims they are healthy and nutritious. Also, I doubt aspirin makers advocate eating their product as much as possible and do not mention the negative side effects.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The dude is a flippo vegan lover preachin' to the converted. What am I s'posed ta do, give him a knighthood for being able to voluntarily barf up hamburgers to please his girlfriend?
[ January 26, 2004, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
*pat pat*
Yes, aspectre.
Posted by Julian Delphiki Jr. (Member # 5882) on :
I cannot believe that McDonalds actualt calimed that their food was nutrious. Sure, it might be on some level, if you only ate the fish with no tarter, but that is about it.
-Thruoghly disgusted, and outraged,I am W-
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
I eat fast food on a fairly regular basis, and I have lost at least 55 pounds in the last year or two. I find it much easier to eat healthy food at fast food restaurants than at sit-down restaurants. (The healthiest, of course, is eating food prepared at home.) (Incidentally, the least healthy food I ever eat is pizza. Why don't we hear more about Pizza Hut and Dominoes as purveyors of bad health, given the high calorie to satisfaction rating of pizza?)
Why do people gain weight at McDonald's? Well, look at what he was eating. Big Macs all the time, and supersizing whenever they asked him. When I go to McDonald's, I have a hamburger (Not a quarter pounder, a hamburger. No cheese, 1/8 pound of meat.) a small order of fries, and a diet soda. Total calories: 490. A large order of fries (large, not supersize) by itself has more calories. And notice that I haven't even brought up the fact that McDonald's sells salads (which are pretty decent, actually).
I would pretty much agree with McDonald's statement:
quote:McDonald's has finally been forced to comment. "Consumers can achieve balance in their daily dining decisions by choosing from our array of quality offerings and range of portion sizes to meet their taste and nutrition goals," it said in a statement last week.
In other words, control what you eat and eat in moderation. The only thing McDonald's is guilty of is subtly encouraging overconsumption by pushing supersizing, and by messing around with the drink sizes on a fairly regular basis to addict customers to larger sizes of drinks. (A modern super-size Coke is whopping 410 calories, more than a fifth of what I consume in a day.) Still, nothing a little bit of education and self-control would not fix.
quote:Spurlock claims that the goal was not to attack McDonald's as such. Among the issues he highlights is the willingness of schools to feed students nothing but burgers and pizza. "If there's one thing we could accomplish with the film, it is that we make people think about what they put in their mouth," he said. "So the next time you do go into a fast-food restaurant and they say, 'Would you like to upsize that?' you think about it and say, 'Maybe I won't. Maybe I'll stick with the medium this time.'"
Again, it sounds like the important thing is for people to educate themselves and control what they eat.
[ January 26, 2004, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: lcarus ]
Posted by Posable_Man (Member # 5105) on :
I'm sorry, but this is just so unbelievable that I have to approach it with a great deal of skepticism. I have known people who eat fast food every meal, every day and are apparently healthy.
Could it be that this particular guy caught the flu half-way through filming?
I have no doubt his cholesterol went up, but I'm thinking he must have some sort of weird metabolism to start with if 30 days of McDonalds did this much damage to him.
Certainly it sounds like his liver is susceptible to something.
Anyway, this is meaningless in any scientific sense as he only has an N of one.
Posted by Julian Delphiki Jr. (Member # 5882) on :
Two things:
One, why we don't hear about pizze hut is because it is more expensive, and not eaten as regularly.
Second, I am surprised I did not see the slant the movie. I am disgusted that I did not see it for myself. I get the chicken sandwhich everytime I go, or the fish during lent, neither of which are that bad for you (unless they load it down with mayo ::shudders:: ).
-How did this happen?? I am W-
[ January 26, 2004, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Julian Delphiki Jr. ]
Posted by Coccinelle (Member # 5832) on :
Moderation... that is the key to fast food, and this guy definately didn't eat it in any sort of moderate activity. Three times a day? Yelch is all I can think.
I decided a few years ago to cut out fast food from my daily diet and make it a monthly treat. I lost over thirty pounds within the first three months.
Looking at nutrtion facts for most places makes me tremble, a supersized meal at McD's has over 1600 calories, that's the ammount of calories I eat in a whole day.
[ January 26, 2004, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: Coccinelle ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I think the solution will end up being a two-pronged attack.
1. Americans, generally, need to learn to choose their food more wisely. This includes cooking for yourself, reading labels at the grocery store (and understanding them), and restrict restaurant eating. I wrote a long comment about this a few months ago.
2. Companies who have a great deal of market share in the US need to reduce saturated and trans fats. Decrease the portion size and lower the salt content. Already Lays company has cut trans fats from their snack food lines. McDonalds _is_ offering reasonable low-calorie meals. But they can continue to push and better themselves, without sacrificing taste (I'd say quality, but that doesn't quite fit).
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Nope, the dude is pure scam&sham. Went in knowing what result he wanted -- a lot of weight gain -- and proceeded to overeat to fulfill his goal. Wouldn't surprise me to find out that he couch-potatoed the entire time to minimize any burnoff of calories.
Anyone could pull the same kind of sleezy stunt, put on the same extra weight on a pure vegan diet, and still die from malnutrition.
[ January 26, 2004, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Icarus, I agree with everything(edit: o.k. not everything, but a lot of, anyway) you said. I guess my question is, if cigarette makers are responsible for listing all the bad things cigarettes can do to you on their packaging, should McDonald's be responsible for doing so as well?
Consumers can always avoid bad stuff if they just bother to educate themselves. This is, actually, the cornerstone of the argument for legalizing pot, etc. So, I am very down with your argument. The question is(or one of them, anyway), do suppliers have a responsibility to educate the consumer or do consumers have the responsibility to educate themselves?
[ January 26, 2004, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
The problem with the cigarettes warning label idea is that if you exercise and pay attention to what you eat, you can eat McDonald's food with no damage to your body. This is not true with cigarettes.
I think the things the director of this "documentary" is counting on are:
1. The popularity of rabble-rousing documentaries such as "Bowling for Columbine" as of late.
2. The general attitude about health and wellness in this country.
And most importantly 3. The inability for most people to recognize that your diet and the way you should eat to remain healthy varies widely according to your body. Therefore, this guy should stay away from McDonald's foods altogether, but that doesn't mean that anyone else should.
I have regular short debates with my roommate about the application of the Atkins diet or the efficacy of cutting carbohydrates out of the diet. She's an athlete and has had many problems with nutrition and diet, and it's a very sore topic for her. When I tell her that a diet much like the Atkins works for some people, or that carbohydrates are unhealthy for me, or that the "Food Pyramid" that was shown to us in grade school really doesn't apply to me, she gets upset. For her, it's best for her to continue to think that way. It helps her get along in her daily life. But the truth is that many people deny the fact that healthy eating habits are sometimes vastly different between even similar types of people.
[ January 26, 2004, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: Ryuko ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: The problem with the cigarettes warning label idea is that if you exercise and pay attention to what you eat, you can eat McDonald's food with no damage to your body. This is not true with cigarettes.
actually, if you eat McDonald's burgers and fries, and drink the colas, three times a day, there is pretty much no way you can avoid gaining weight. All the exercise in the world ain't gonna burn off 3000 calories plus a day, and that doesn't take into account getting rid of the saturated fat, flushing all the salts out of your system,etc, and otherwise getting a balanced diet.
Conversely, I have seen studies (don't ask me where) which show that smoking ten or less cigarettes a day is something your body can repair.
Anyways, which is 'better' for you, a pack of cigarettes a day and exercise and a balanced diet, or a diet exclusively McDonald's with exercise? You got me on that. Maybe CT or Suneun have a good answer. I can't see one is much better than the other.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
That's it. No more McDonalds for me. From now on I'm sticking with Burger King.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
You know, it isn't just the getting fat. Apparently his liver was under a heavy load too.
A bigger problem I see with this particular study is that it isn't real. Very few people if any eat exclusively McD's. We naturally crave variety, and variety is necessary. So even people who are eating a high fat, generally unhealthy diet are going to fair better than someone who eats exclusively at McD's.
Even if they ate a sugar cereal for breakfast, that at least is fortified with a few vitamins.
Posted by Julian Delphiki Jr. (Member # 5882) on :
this could be worse, but Taco Bell has always been my choice of fast food.
-W-
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Also, I doubt aspirin makers advocate eating their product as much as possible and do not mention the negative side effects.
I have never seen McDonald's anywhere say people should eat there three times a day. In fact, I know I've seen them specifically say they DIDN'T think people should be eating there every day.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Storm, yeah, I think they should educate people, but the fact is that fast food restaurants already do a pretty good job of that. At virtually any fast food restaurant, nutritional information is posted on a wall, and brochures are available. (I have quite a collection!) Are there people who truly don't know that eating greasy fried foods can be bad for you, if not done in moderation?
On the other hand, sit-down restaurants don't provide any nutritional information (very often), and they give you grotesque quantities of food. (Try to ask Outback how many calories or fat grams are in a Blooming Onion!)
I would favor requiring all chain restaurants to have nutritional information available upon request.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
It's not set in stone, it's not a diet that works for all body types, but the lunch ladies do know what they're talking about.
See the fats and sweets way up there in the little bitty box? Yeah - that's where big macs and supersized colas fit. In the "sparingly" category.
See the fruits and vegetables down there near the bottom? Yeah, they weren't kidding when they made you eat two servings with every meal in grade school.
McDonald's isn't being any more irresponsible than Ben & Jerry's; Americans are being irresponsible when they decide to cut fruits, vegetables, and whole grains out of their diets.
Lose the sugar - use the fat sparingly - cut carbohydrates only in the sense that you eat whole grains rather than starches and believe it or not, you too can be a healthy human being.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
quote: actually, if you eat McDonald's burgers and fries, and drink the colas, three times a day, there is pretty much no way you can avoid gaining weight.
I wouldn't call that paying attention to what you eat. Unless you count watching it as it goes, dripping, from the plate to your mouth.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Actually, if you ate a McDonald's hamburger, a small order of fries, and a small Coke three meals a day, you would probably not gain weight. You would look great when you finally died, toothless, of a heart attack.
[ January 26, 2004, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: lcarus ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
You would absolutely(edit: I'm pretty sure...) gain weight, Icarus, since only a very small portion of those calories you are eating will actually be used by your body.
[ January 26, 2004, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Nope. Conservation of energy. If he maintains his level of activity, a 150 lb man of average activity who eats 1 hamburger, a small order of fries, and a small coke three times a day (2190 Calories) will maintain his weight. Somebody who weighs more than 150 (or who works out) will lose weight.
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
JulianJr., I hope you don't think that the Filet-o-Fish is good for you (without mayo, even). Honey, it's fried. FRIED. If you get the broiled chicken sandwich sans mayo, then you're right, that's not bad for you, much, but the fish is Right Out.
On topic: the 'documentary' sounds crazy. I am certain that if you eat three high-fat meals a day (at any establishment), you are going to be in bad shape. There are better choices at McDonald's (as has been said before), and they are required to have a nutritional guideline available. At the McDonald's that I occasionally go to, the information is posted on the wall right next to the registers. They are being responsible, the purchasing public is being less so.
I'm not particularly in shape, or healthy, but I blame that on no one else than myself. I know when my body needs more vegetables or fruits, and generally, I listen. My body functions properly, it's my choice whether or not to keep it going.
Trying to blame one's unhealthy meatspace on purveyors of food is just a huge cop-out.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:this could be worse, but Taco Bell has always been my choice of fast food.
That depends on what you order at taco bell. A chicken taco is not bad, and neither is a bean burrito. When I was following a recommended diet from my physician those two menu items from Taco Bell were listed as reasonable lunch choices.
If you're eating Nachos with sour cream and melted cheese and beef and chips, well - probably not all that great for you.
I have to fully support Icarus on this issue. It's nearly impossible for anyone to not know what types of food are unhealthy. There's a story about the perils of fast food eating on local news at least once a week.
People like Dr. Phil get national media coverage when they launch a new diet book. The debate of low-carb vs. low-fat diets gets plenty of attention. People in America know what makes them fat. It's not McDonald's job to tell each customer "You know this meal has 1,600 calories in it don't you?" The customer should know that already.
Have you noticed McDonald's has low-carb meals available now? Like a chicken breast (grilled) served with a side salad? I haven't tried it yet, but I saw it when I got the kids some food today. I, by the way, did not buy food for myself at McDonald's but when across the street to Taco Bell for a bean burrito and a diet Pepsi.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
My favorite Taco Bell food is the old beef burrito, which no longer appears on the menu, but they will still make it on request. It has like 480 calories, so it's quite high for fast food. Unfortunately (I guess) I can't stand refried beans or sour cream, so tht rules out most of their food.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
My lunch today, according to the Taco Bell nutritional guide, was 370 calories, 10 grams of fat and 3.5 grams of saturated fat.
Could have been better. But, could have been a whole lot worse too.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
For the past couple of months, I've eaten at Wendy's twice a day about 80% of the time. So far as I can tell, I haven't gained any weight, though I suppose I could be working some of it off at work. (Believe me, on weekends, I have to RUN to finish cleaning.)
I HAVE been experiencing a little joint pain lately, cause unknown.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
I would just like to comment on the nature of the work at this point. This is not something I would consider a documentary. The goal was not to document a specific event or phenomenon. Rather, the artist set out to create a situation, using himself as the subject, to make a point. I would consider this performance art.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
It's a math game, as Icarus has said.
You figure out what number of calories you need to maintain your current weight (factoring in the amount of exercise you get). A pound of fat is 3500 calories. If you want to lose a pound a week, you divide 3500 by 7 and subract that number from your maintenance caloric intake.
Your resting metabolism is boosted by every pound of muscle you put on--1 pound of muscle burns an extra 50 calories a day just resting.
Another thing to take into account is the type of metabolism you have. Jenny Gardener and I both are hypoglycemic--we HAVE to eat much more protein and fat than carbohydrates. Too many carbs and we get weak, lightheaded, and very hungry an hour after a carb-heavy meal (simple carbs, which included refined flour and pasta). More protein and fat means it'll stick to us longer and we won't be eating all the time.
So with Belle's lunch, the 10 grams of fat wouldn't have bothered me (although I don't think I'd have eaten that meal at all ). I'd be concentrating on whether there's a lot of simple carbs and enough protein to last me till dinnertime.
I don't know about the rest of you, but the thought alone of eating greasy McDonald's three times a day for a month makes me ill.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Hmm.
From now on I'm going to eat healthier people.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Believe it or not, I think I actually like grease. Yeah, yeah, something's wrong with me. I crave fatty stuff of all kinds.
Posted by Hi (Member # 5289) on :
A little over three years ago, for a month, I feasted on fast food. Every. Single. Day.
For both lunch and dinner I would eat my choice of either McDonalds, Carls Jr., Jack in the Box, Burger King, Pizza Hut, Dominoes... In between I would finish a relatively large bag of hot cheetos, at the rate of one bag a day. Mind you, I don't normally eat this much, but when it's summer, and boredom kicks in, it's amazing how much food you can take in for sheer entertainment.
Even at thirteen, I wasn't very weight conscientious- nor very health orientated either. So any possible dastardly effects it could have done to my health I really didn't care.
So unsurprisingly, I gained about ten pounds in weight. My brother, who was on the same diet, gained about the same amount as well. It wasn't really noticeable unless I pointed it out to people, but when my mother came back from her trip to Cambodia (Which was the reason why we didn't have a healthy home cooked meal for a while), to her surprise, only a few of the clothes she bought me actually fit.
After I sliped back into my regular diet, composed of a watery soup substance, steamed vegetables and meat, I promply reverted to my old scrawney self. For a year, I couldn't bring myself to eat another Big Mac again.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Hey, I was hungry, I was running late,and it was either McDonalds or taco bell. The bean burrito seemed to be the lesser of evils.
But yeah, mack's got it. Play the numbers. The thing to remember, is that while exercise certainly helps and it's healthier for you in more ways than just weight loss - the actual exercise itself does not matter as much in weight loss as what you eat.
For ex., walking at a moderate pace (4 mph) burns about 173 calories for each 30 minutes you do it (this calculation assumes you weigh 160 pounds, if you weigh less you'll burn less, weigh more, burn more)
To lose a pound of fat in a week - you'd have to walk for more than 10 hours.
You can lose the same amount by cutting your calorie consumption each day by 500 calories. If you drink 4 12 oz cans of regular coke a day, you can lose a pound a week by replacing those with water or even a diet coke.
Of course, that's overly simplistic and there are a hundred factors it doesn't take into account, I'm using it only as a illustrator that changes in diet impact your weight much more quickly and significantly that walking 30 minutes three times a week will.
The best combination is reducing your caloric intake, exercising to improve your metabolism and strength training to increase muscle mass. Then again, didn't we all already know that?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yeah, Icarus is completely right. Every squirrel gets a nut sometimes, I guess.
In my defense, what I was thinking of was that your body only needs a certain number of calories from fats/proteins/etc. My thinking was that if you are eating three squares a day from McDonald's, 90% of that stuff is going to be empty calories that your body ignores, and it goes directly to fat.
But of course your body has to burn the food for energy first for simple sustenance. Dar.
So, yeah, you might lose, or just maintain, weight eating a small burger, fries and coke for every meal, but I think you would quite possibly 'starve' to death from malnutrition within a few years.
That sound better?
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Or die of a heart attack. Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Really, though, we need to point out that exercising is way better than dieting. You can cut calories and lose weight, but you really need a healthy heart. If you've got back or joint problems that make running hard, there are plenty of low-impact exercise options.
30 minutes of exercise that makes you lose your breath at least 3 times a week will do you much more good than dieting ever will. And then you get to eat more. ^_^
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Actually, I don't agree with any "way better" claims, and I've heard 'em from both sides. I think both are valuable and important, but which one ultimately has more impact on a person's health varies from person to person. What works for one person may not work as well for another. And this goes for Atkins or South Beach or Beverly Hills or the food pyramid as well. I think you can't go wrong with a combination of eating healthy food and exercising, of course, but I don't automatically place one above the other.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I did say that I was referring to weight loss, because most people overestimate how many calories exercise burns.
I also pointed out that exercise is important in a lot of other ways, than just weight reduction.
However, changing your diet will make a quicker impact on weight loss than will exercise - that's just a fact. I could start walking 30 minutes a day four times a week, and it will make me healthier and help my heart, but it's not likely to cause me to lose much weight unless I change my diet too.
I'm not saying exercise isn't important - I'm just trying to counter the belief that "Well, I went for a 30 minute walk this morning so this Big Mac won't hurt me."
Edit: Overestimate, not under.
[ January 27, 2004, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Mmmmm. My exercise can be extreme at times (not on purpose). My hikes that loop around ten miles with my pace and elevation usually burn at LEAST 2000 calories. Two THOUSAND. o_O
Same with snowboarding. I rarely take breaks and it burns 400-600 calories per hour. Two hours, at least 1000 calories.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
and 3.5 grams of saturated fat. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
). I'd be concentrating on whether there's a lot of simple carbs and enough protein to last me till dinnertime. ![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)