Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

6600 Calories A Day

electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
edited January 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
I'm at uni, but the machine I want is being used, so behold, a thread based on NewScientist:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19325881.400

tl dr; A scientist did a clinically controlled study based on the idea behind Supersize Me, and finds some interesting things out about how the body deals with your dietary intake.

An excerpt which summarizes some counter-points to the idea of the movie (McDonalds is bad for you no matter what):
Downsize me

The study at Linköping University in Sweden is the first to try to replicate Morgan Spurlock's Super Size Me under laboratory conditions. The backlash against his film has, however, prompted several alternative experiments in the past couple of years designed to vindicate the fast food industry. You may question the funding, motivation and scientific credibility of these, but they do seem to confirm the simple truth that you can lose weight no matter what you eat, provided you consume fewer calories than you burn.

In 2004, Dutch journalist Wim Meij spent 30 days eating solely at McDonald's, but choosing mostly salads. He lost 6.5 kilograms.

Also in 2004, US documentary film-maker Scott Caswell lost 8.6 kilograms after a month ofeating only at McDonald's. He charts his progress in a movie Bowling for Morgan, but gives no details about what he ate, except that he avoided supersize meals and drank only water or diet soda.

The 2005 film Me and Mickey D follows New Hampshire resident Soso Whaley as she spends three 30-day periods eating 2000 calories a day at McDonald's. She lost a total of more than 16 kilograms.

After 90 days eating only at McDonald's but limiting herself to a daily maximum of 1400 calories, North Carolina construction worker Merab Morgan claims she lost more than 16 kilograms. Following a similar regime but eating 2500 calories a day and sticking to diet drinks, Texan air force sergeant Deshan Woods claims to have shed around 6 kilos over 90 days.

To make the point that obesity is not so much a matter of what you eat but how much, James Painter from Eastern Illinois University got two students to eat fast food for a month in portions calculated as appropriate for their size. Both lost a little weight and their taste for fast food. Painter made a film of his experiment, Portion Size Me, which he hopes will be used by nutritionists to educate students' fast-food choices.

Now, this whole study is actually pretty damn interesting. Firstly, it's apparent that if you're obese you've been pretty damn committed to the task of eating in the first place. Like, ridiculously so.

But secondly, the results in the variance of the effect that the 6600 calorie diet had on people are amazing. Some people put on muscle mass rather then fat and didn't suffer any apparent liver problems, others suffered almost the same as the movie. Some people appear to deal with the extra calories by increasing their body temperature (and thus basal metabolic rate).

So, I suppose the discuss questions are: what the hell is going on with the rate of obesity in the first place, and do you think there's much merit in the apparent find that really, it's quantity that is the most important factor in regards to losing weight, and pretty much everything else is secondary provided you avoid something like scurvy.

electricitylikesme on
«13

Posts

  • YosemiteSamYosemiteSam Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    and do you think there's much merit in the apparent find that really, it's quantity that is the most important factor in regards to losing weight, and pretty much everything else is secondary provided you avoid something like scurvy.
    That just highlights the difference between weight control and health.

    YosemiteSam on
    We are all very lucky to live in a world where there is this much music.
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    and do you think there's much merit in the apparent find that really, it's quantity that is the most important factor in regards to losing weight, and pretty much everything else is secondary provided you avoid something like scurvy.
    That just highlights the difference between weight control and health.
    Which was my point. You don't need a huge quantity of vitamins (they're trace elements for a reason) and other such things to stay healthy.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited January 2007
    It's pretty obvious that quantity is the major factor in losing weight. If you consume fewer calories than you burn, you will lose weight. That's why diets like Atkins are so goddamned stupid, because they are based around people avoiding important parts of a healthy diet for no reason at all.
    Of course, if you're trying to get in good shape, you shouldn't just be focussed on losing weight. You should be eating healthily, which means eating the right foods and not just eating less fatty stuff.

    Aroused Bull on
  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User
    edited January 2007
    It's pretty obvious that quantity is the major factor in losing weight. If you consume fewer calories than you burn, you will lose weight. That's why diets like Atkins are so goddamned stupid, because they are based around people avoiding important parts of a healthy diet for no reason at all.
    Of course, if you're trying to get in good shape, you shouldn't just be focussed on losing weight. You should be eating healthily, which means eating the right foods and not just eating less fatty stuff.
    Well, I think it's pretty obvious that most diet programs/schemes are tailored to doing as little as possible.

    "I want to lose weight and not die before I turn 50 . . . but I don't want to break a sweat doing it".

    Andrew_Jay on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited January 2007
    Andrew_Jay wrote:
    It's pretty obvious that quantity is the major factor in losing weight. If you consume fewer calories than you burn, you will lose weight. That's why diets like Atkins are so goddamned stupid, because they are based around people avoiding important parts of a healthy diet for no reason at all.
    Of course, if you're trying to get in good shape, you shouldn't just be focussed on losing weight. You should be eating healthily, which means eating the right foods and not just eating less fatty stuff.
    Well, I think it's pretty obvious that most diet programs/schemes are tailored to doing as little as possible.

    "I want to lose weight and not die before I turn 50 . . . but I don't want to break a sweat doing it".

    That's why my weight loss program would label all nutrients as bad for you. If you haven't lost weight in six months, you get a free pizza.

    Aroused Bull on
  • visiblehowlvisiblehowl He/Him Neutron Nerd Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Does this mean that I'm not the only one who thought that Supersize Me was fucking ridiculous?

    I'm going to do a documentary in which I eat nothing but scampi, bruschetta, and Funyuns for 30 days. I predict that by the end of that time, my breath will smell HORRIBLE, proving once and for all that those foods are evil. I might even win an award for showing so much insight and originality.

    visiblehowl on
    vxsHp3F.gif
    I am apparently an MTGA draft god on Twitch
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2007
    James Painter from Eastern Illinois University got two students to eat fast food for a month in portions calculated as appropriate for their size. Both lost a little weight and their taste for fast food.

    Cute. :)

    Yeah, this doesn't shock me. What annoyed me about Spurlock's film was the continued insinuation that no matter what you do, if you eat at McDonald's all the time, you're going to gain a bunch of weight and die of liver failure.

    So yeah, this isn't really surprising. You can eat at McDonalds and not gain weight if you don't eat nothing but triple cheeseburgers. This should be unsurprising to pretty much anyone who isn't really, really dumb. And yeah, there's more to being healthy than not being fat. And different people's bodies behave differently when you throw thousands of excess calories per day at them.

    I'm waiting for the backlash of people to come in and say that the thing we all need to keep in mind is that studies or no, McDonalds is an evil force with no sense of responsibility that should be eradicated from the Earth for being single-handedly responsible for all the fat-asses in the world.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • RookRook Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Whilst I'm no nutrition expert, I'm not entirely sure what they're trying to show. Like you say, losing weight is pretty subjective and the long term benefits or health implications aren't really looked at if you look at 30 day periods. It's kinda like getting someone to smoke for 30 days and deciding there's no harmful side effects.

    Rook on
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    I don't care what you say eljeffe, McGriddles are pretty evil.


    But yes, fast food is better than nothing, and apparently six or seven dollar salads are better than fast food, and how else are you going to get a decent meal on the go for two bucks. Seriously.

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • edited January 2007
    The only people/thing at fault for obesity is the individual's inability to practice self-control and responsibility. Though, the fact that people (especially children/young teens) aren't as active as they used to be with video games, TV, and computers taking up more of their time. Portions are also out of control. It's quite sad.

    Merovingi on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Spaten OptimatorSpaten Optimator Smooth Operator Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    ElJeffe wrote:
    What annoyed me about Spurlock's film was the continued insinuation that no matter what you do, if you eat at McDonald's all the time, you're going to gain a bunch of weight and die of liver failure.


    To be fair, he included that skinny guy who ate a ridiculous amount of big macs. I don't think Supersize Me was intended as anything but an amusing attack on the fast food industry--he's not publishing a peer-reviewed study, for christ's sake. It's just one guy's experience with eating a lot of shitty food in a short period of time.

    Spaten Optimator on
  • Ant000Ant000 Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Merovingi wrote:
    The only people/thing at fault for obesity is the individual's inability to practice self-control and responsibility.


    I don't necessarily believe that applies to childhood and younger-adolescent obesity. That falls more to the parents I suppose.

    I watched a pretty unsettling documentary a few months ago showing McDonald's focus groups with toddlers and three/four year olds, with psychologists and marketers trying their best to come up with brands and products that will tie McDonalds to their little minds and make life-long customers out of them. That to me treads on some interesting moral ground.

    Ant000 on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited January 2007
    1) You can get a pretty decent salad at Carl's Jr. for under $5. I get one every day. You have to dodge the blue cheese dressing (which is 133% the calories of the salad sans croûtons), but it's a nice chicken salad.

    2) While it is ultimately about control, don't forget how difficult it is for some people (My coworkers load up the file cabinet right in front of my desk with candy on a daily fricking basis; for awhile, I had to put up a paper barrier, and one of the pricks TOOK IT DOWN, while another PUT CANDY ON MY DESK. Lucky for me, when I get angry, my will power increases dramatically)

    3) People handle calories in a very very different manner. Many genetic histories lend a predisposition to weight gain by various means, which worked perfectly well because they evolved in scarcity; but it makes living in a world with plenty of food absolutely horrific.

    4) As #2 suggests, other people will actively make this harder for whatever dipshit reason. Advertising is bad enough.

    Incenjucar on
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    ElJeffe wrote:
    Yeah, this doesn't shock me. What annoyed me about Spurlock's film was the continued insinuation that no matter what you do, if you eat at McDonald's all the time, you're going to gain a bunch of weight and die of liver failure.

    What a lot of people seem to forget about the movie was that in addition to eating solely at mcdonalds, he also adjusted his calorie expenditure to reflect that of an "average" American. No working out, using the elevator, not walking everywhere, etc.

    geckahn on
  • visiblehowlvisiblehowl He/Him Neutron Nerd Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    ElJeffe wrote:
    What annoyed me about Spurlock's film was the continued insinuation that no matter what you do, if you eat at McDonald's all the time, you're going to gain a bunch of weight and die of liver failure.


    To be fair, he included that skinny guy who ate a ridiculous amount of big macs. I don't think Supersize Me was intended as anything but an amusing attack on the fast food industry--he's not publishing a peer-reviewed study, for christ's sake. It's just one guy's experience with eating a lot of shitty food in a short period of time.

    I don't necessarily have a big problem with the movie itself so much as the fact that people are lining up to suck this guy's dick because he fought the good fight against the evil corporation making everybody fat. I mean, his movie won some pretty serious awards, including the Director's Award at Sundance, and being nominated for Best Documentary at the 2005 Academy Awards. I really don't think those are justified. To be honest, the movie just seemed like a really long version of a movie I'd find on YouTube or something. Amusing, yes, but hardly groundbreaking.

    visiblehowl on
    vxsHp3F.gif
    I am apparently an MTGA draft god on Twitch
  • real_pochaccoreal_pochacco Registered User
    edited January 2007
    ElJeffe wrote:
    What annoyed me about Spurlock's film was the continued insinuation that no matter what you do, if you eat at McDonald's all the time, you're going to gain a bunch of weight and die of liver failure.


    To be fair, he included that skinny guy who ate a ridiculous amount of big macs. I don't think Supersize Me was intended as anything but an amusing attack on the fast food industry--he's not publishing a peer-reviewed study, for christ's sake. It's just one guy's experience with eating a lot of shitty food in a short period of time.

    I don't necessarily have a big problem with the movie itself so much as the fact that people are lining up to suck this guy's dick because he fought the good fight against the evil corporation making everybody fat. I mean, his movie won some pretty serious awards, including the Director's Award at Sundance, and being nominated for Best Documentary at the 2005 Academy Awards. I really don't think those are justified. To be honest, the movie just seemed like a really long version of a movie I'd find on YouTube or something. Amusing, yes, but hardly groundbreaking.

    There were other things important the movie did, like the whole thing about nutrition information at McDonalds.

    real_pochacco on
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    There were other things important the movie did, like the whole thing about nutrition information at McDonalds.

    and McDonald's got rid of supersize. For that fact alone the film deserves some praise, even if it's only for the effect it had.

    geckahn on
  • visiblehowlvisiblehowl He/Him Neutron Nerd Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    I don't necessarily have a big problem with the movie itself so much as the fact that people are lining up to suck this guy's dick because he fought the good fight against the evil corporation making everybody fat. I mean, his movie won some pretty serious awards, including the Director's Award at Sundance, and being nominated for Best Documentary at the 2005 Academy Awards. I really don't think those are justified. To be honest, the movie just seemed like a really long version of a movie I'd find on YouTube or something. Amusing, yes, but hardly groundbreaking.

    There were other things important the movie did, like the whole thing about nutrition information at McDonalds.

    True, but that was hardly the major point of the movie. Throughout the whole thing, there was this undertone of "McDonalds is evil because it's just a business and doesn't care about the health of its customers". And even if that was the focus of the movie, I don't see why that makes it an especially fantastic documentary. I didn't really learn anything new about the fast food industry I didn't already know.

    visiblehowl on
    vxsHp3F.gif
    I am apparently an MTGA draft god on Twitch
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    I don't necessarily have a big problem with the movie itself so much as the fact that people are lining up to suck this guy's dick because he fought the good fight against the evil corporation making everybody fat. I mean, his movie won some pretty serious awards, including the Director's Award at Sundance, and being nominated for Best Documentary at the 2005 Academy Awards. I really don't think those are justified. To be honest, the movie just seemed like a really long version of a movie I'd find on YouTube or something. Amusing, yes, but hardly groundbreaking.

    There were other things important the movie did, like the whole thing about nutrition information at McDonalds.

    True, but that was hardly the major point of the movie. Throughout the whole thing, there was this undertone of "McDonalds is evil because it's just a business and doesn't care about the health of its customers". And even if that was the focus of the movie, I don't see why that makes it an especially fantastic documentary. I didn't really learn anything new about the fast food industry I didn't already know.

    Yeah agreed. Fast Food Nation (the book) did an absolutely amazing job in explaining the entire industry. Supersize me, not so much.

    geckahn on
  • visiblehowlvisiblehowl He/Him Neutron Nerd Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    geckhan wrote:
    and McDonald's got rid of supersize. For that fact alone the film deserves some praise, even if it's only for the effect it had.

    That actually really pissed me off. I loved those extra fries, dammit.

    visiblehowl on
    vxsHp3F.gif
    I am apparently an MTGA draft god on Twitch
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    just buy two value fries and know that you're subverting the portion system.

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • RookRook Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    I don't necessarily have a big problem with the movie itself so much as the fact that people are lining up to suck this guy's dick because he fought the good fight against the evil corporation making everybody fat. I mean, his movie won some pretty serious awards, including the Director's Award at Sundance, and being nominated for Best Documentary at the 2005 Academy Awards. I really don't think those are justified. To be honest, the movie just seemed like a really long version of a movie I'd find on YouTube or something. Amusing, yes, but hardly groundbreaking.

    There were other things important the movie did, like the whole thing about nutrition information at McDonalds.

    True, but that was hardly the major point of the movie. Throughout the whole thing, there was this undertone of "McDonalds is evil because it's just a business and doesn't care about the health of its customers". And even if that was the focus of the movie, I don't see why that makes it an especially fantastic documentary. I didn't really learn anything new about the fast food industry I didn't already know.

    I honestly found it to be a very entertaining film. It's really very well shot, has a great story to it, and presents all it wants to in a fun manner. I mean Inconvenient Truth didn't tell you anything new either and that wonsome academy awards.

    Rook on
  • Crimson KingCrimson King Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Rook wrote:
    I don't necessarily have a big problem with the movie itself so much as the fact that people are lining up to suck this guy's dick because he fought the good fight against the evil corporation making everybody fat. I mean, his movie won some pretty serious awards, including the Director's Award at Sundance, and being nominated for Best Documentary at the 2005 Academy Awards. I really don't think those are justified. To be honest, the movie just seemed like a really long version of a movie I'd find on YouTube or something. Amusing, yes, but hardly groundbreaking.

    There were other things important the movie did, like the whole thing about nutrition information at McDonalds.

    True, but that was hardly the major point of the movie. Throughout the whole thing, there was this undertone of "McDonalds is evil because it's just a business and doesn't care about the health of its customers". And even if that was the focus of the movie, I don't see why that makes it an especially fantastic documentary. I didn't really learn anything new about the fast food industry I didn't already know.

    I honestly found it to be a very entertaining film. It's really very well shot, has a great story to it, and presents all it wants to in a fun manner. I mean Inconvenient Truth didn't tell you anything new either and that wonsome academy awards.

    Yes, but people aren't going around actively denying that fatty foods make you fat and that all those fatties who ate lots of McDonalds are just fatties by coincidence.

    Crimson King on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited January 2007
    True, but that was hardly the major point of the movie. Throughout the whole thing, there was this undertone of "McDonalds is evil because it's just a business and doesn't care about the health of its customers".
    But, you know, it's undeniably true that McDonalds, as a business, doesn't care about the health of its customers. I mean - not a lot of places do, but McDonalds even less than many other places, puts less emphasis on "healthy choices".

    Also, like someone else mentioned, the "McD twice a day" diet really isn't all that outside the norm for a lot of people. One of my brothers used to hit McD a couple times per day for a supersize. Dude put on a morbid amount of weight over a short period of time.

    If the lesson learned is "McD food is pretty unhealthy for the most part, supersize is an unrealistic portion size, and centering your diet on McDonalds supersize portions is a good way to become a fatass" then it's a pretty good lesson.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • visiblehowlvisiblehowl He/Him Neutron Nerd Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Irond Will wrote:
    True, but that was hardly the major point of the movie. Throughout the whole thing, there was this undertone of "McDonalds is evil because it's just a business and doesn't care about the health of its customers".
    But, you know, it's undeniably true that McDonalds, as a business, doesn't care about the health of its customers. I mean - not a lot of places do, but McDonalds even less than many other places, puts less emphasis on "healthy choices".

    Also, like someone else mentioned, the "McD twice a day" diet really isn't all that outside the norm for a lot of people. One of my brothers used to hit McD a couple times per day for a supersize. Dude put on a morbid amount of weight over a short period of time.

    If the lesson learned is "McD food is pretty unhealthy for the most part, supersize is an unrealistic portion size, and centering your diet on McDonalds supersize portions is a good way to become a fatass" then it's a pretty good lesson.

    Sure, all that's true, but I find it hard to believe that your average non-retarded American doesn't already know all that. Did your brother really think that eating that much crap was healthy, or even "not unhealthy"?

    visiblehowl on
    vxsHp3F.gif
    I am apparently an MTGA draft god on Twitch
  • Low KeyLow Key Registered User
    edited January 2007
    Now, this whole study is actually pretty damn interesting. Firstly, it's apparent that if you're obese you've been pretty damn committed to the task of eating in the first place. Like, ridiculously so.

    But secondly, the results in the variance of the effect that the 6600 calorie diet had on people are amazing. Some people put on muscle mass rather then fat and didn't suffer any apparent liver problems, others suffered almost the same as the movie. Some people appear to deal with the extra calories by increasing their body temperature (and thus basal metabolic rate).

    Hmmm. For starters- you don't put on muscle mass, you create it. People with a more muscular physique are already better equipped to metabolise calories, but they aren't just creating muscle out of fat air. Some type of regular, intensive strain is being put on the system. The reaction of different body types and lifestyles to overeating isn't really all that amazing is it?

    Also, as far as good health goes, overemphasis is always placed on eating. Nutritionally we're way better off in modern western society than any large population ever. There's some gap points (soft drinks and schools for example) that need adressing, but the major overlooked cause of obesity is the decline in incidental activity. We're more busy than we used to be, but we get far less physical activity as a general side effect of day to day living. Less walking everywhere, less manual labour, less demanding housework etc etc. Nation of fatties ahoy.

    Low Key on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited January 2007
    Irond Will wrote:
    But, you know, it's undeniably true that McDonalds, as a business, doesn't care about the health of its customers. I mean - not a lot of places do, but McDonalds even less than many other places, puts less emphasis on "healthy choices".

    Also, like someone else mentioned, the "McD twice a day" diet really isn't all that outside the norm for a lot of people. One of my brothers used to hit McD a couple times per day for a supersize. Dude put on a morbid amount of weight over a short period of time.

    If the lesson learned is "McD food is pretty unhealthy for the most part, supersize is an unrealistic portion size, and centering your diet on McDonalds supersize portions is a good way to become a fatass" then it's a pretty good lesson.
    Sure, all that's true, but I find it hard to believe that your average non-retarded American doesn't already know all that. Did your brother really think that eating that much crap was healthy, or even "not unhealthy"?
    Well, he's not exactly the type of dude who thinks out his decisions and exhibits discipline. It was convenient and cheap and tasty, so he ate it a lot. I'm not making excuses for his behavior, and ultimately it's hit fat gut, but it's also probably pretty common in this country. If the documentary dissuaded anyone from eating like piggies from McD, or even if it even just gave people some perspective on their diet, I think it did a good thing.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • visiblehowlvisiblehowl He/Him Neutron Nerd Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Low Key wrote:
    ...but they aren't just creating muscle out of fat air.

    I see what you did there.

    visiblehowl on
    vxsHp3F.gif
    I am apparently an MTGA draft god on Twitch
  • Low KeyLow Key Registered User
    edited January 2007
    Low Key wrote:
    ...but they aren't just creating muscle out of fat air.

    I see what you did there.

    Shenannigans

    Low Key on
  • visiblehowlvisiblehowl He/Him Neutron Nerd Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Irond Will wrote:
    Sure, all that's true, but I find it hard to believe that your average non-retarded American doesn't already know all that. Did your brother really think that eating that much crap was healthy, or even "not unhealthy"?
    Well, he's not exactly the type of dude who thinks out his decisions and exhibits discipline. It was convenient and cheap and tasty, so he ate it a lot. I'm not making excuses for his behavior, and ultimately it's hit fat gut, but it's also probably pretty common in this country. If the documentary dissuaded anyone from eating like piggies from McD, or even if it even just gave people some perspective on their diet, I think it did a good thing.

    The problem is that I think it had the opposite effect for a lot of people. Obviously there's no real way to tell for sure, but I think it gave people a convenient excuse; it's not really MY fault, clearly McDonalds needs to make food with less fat.

    Edit: Trimmed the quote tree.

    visiblehowl on
    vxsHp3F.gif
    I am apparently an MTGA draft god on Twitch
  • Low KeyLow Key Registered User
    edited January 2007
    Irond Will wrote:
    Sure, all that's true, but I find it hard to believe that your average non-retarded American doesn't already know all that. Did your brother really think that eating that much crap was healthy, or even "not unhealthy"?
    Well, he's not exactly the type of dude who thinks out his decisions and exhibits discipline. It was convenient and cheap and tasty, so he ate it a lot. I'm not making excuses for his behavior, and ultimately it's hit fat gut, but it's also probably pretty common in this country. If the documentary dissuaded anyone from eating like piggies from McD, or even if it even just gave people some perspective on their diet, I think it did a good thing.

    The problem is that I think it had the opposite effect for a lot of people. Obviously there's no real way to tell for sure, but I think it gave people a convenient excuse; it's not really MY fault, clearly McDonalds needs to make food with less fat.

    There was an awesome set of figures that came out over here, about nine months after McDonalds in Australia started going all "healthy options menu/oh god please don't hate us for all the fatties". Basically it seemed that people very feeling more comfortable about returning to McDonalds thanks to all the new salads and sandwiches and whatnot, but no one was actually buying them, so overall the healthy options are just increasing any McDonalds related obesity. I'm loving it.

    Low Key on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited January 2007
    it had the opposite effect for a lot of people. Obviously there's no real way to tell for sure, but I think it gave people a convenient excuse; it's not really MY fault, clearly McDonalds needs to make food with less fat.
    Yeah I'm not all that sympathetic to the fatties whining that "McDonalds made me fat poor poor me" so much as I appreciate the the "geez too much McDonalds will make me fat" message might have sunk in with some people.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • LRGLRG Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Ok, so I'm gonna start a muscle building diet soon, hitting the weights and all that; is this report saying I can hit up the doller menu for cheap and great tasting food for thats gonna put on mad calories which helps me put on muscle?

    awesome.

    LRG on
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    LRG wrote:
    Ok, so I'm gonna start a muscle building diet soon, hitting the weights and all that; is this report saying I can hit up the doller menu for cheap and great tasting food for thats gonna put on mad calories which helps me put on muscle?

    awesome.

    haha, I doubt that would work for some reason. . .

    If you are seriously looking to start training soon I can point you in the direction of a thread with a ridiculous amount of excellent advice.

    geckahn on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Incenjucar wrote:
    1) You can get a pretty decent salad at Carl's Jr. for under $5. I get one every day. You have to dodge the blue cheese dressing (which is 133% the calories of the salad sans croûtons), but it's a nice chicken salad.

    When I was working a job where I was driving between appointments all day every day and working 10+ hour days I went through the menus of all the drive-thru restaurants and figured out what the healthiest items on each of the menus are. It's not impossible to eat healthy at fast-food as long as you ignore the value meals and pay attention to ingredients. (Taco Bell's fresca menu was my friend.)
    Sure, all that's true, but I find it hard to believe that your average non-retarded American doesn't already know all that. Did your brother really think that eating that much crap was healthy, or even "not unhealthy"?

    Americans have a ridiculously distorted view of portion sizes. We consume more calories on average per meal than any other first-world nation. The fast food restaurants aren't helping, because even the basic value meals are extremely bloated. Your basic Burger King number 1 is 1230 calories (after a 479 calorie medium soda), not including cheese. And they're still trying to upsell stuff all the time, desserts or larger beverages or what have you.

    People base their daily decisions on this sort of thing on what they perceive to be normal. If the number one doesn't look terribly large next to the large combo or the double cheeseburger, then people will get the impression that the number one is a normal everyday meal when it's really not. Most people know that eating a number one from any given hamburger joint is unhealthy, but not a lot of people know quite how unhealthy it is. Other chain non-fast-food restaurants don't help, either. I eat out quite a bit, but one take-out box usually lasts me two or three meals, and I see some people polishing off those entire meals in one sitting. That's not a "meal," that's a fucking "buffet."

    That, and this might be venturing off-topic, but I think it's ludicrous that "physical education" in public schools involves very little actual education. I didn't actually learn anything in PE. PE would be a really good opportunity to educate people about their physical bodies, like appropriate caloric intakes and how much a fast food value menu meal really is. Meh.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Low KeyLow Key Registered User
    edited January 2007
    Feral wrote:
    That, and this might be venturing off-topic, but I think it's ludicrous that "physical education" in public schools involves very little actual education. I didn't actually learn anything in PE. PE would be a really good opportunity to educate people about their physical bodies, like appropriate caloric intakes and how much a fast food value menu meal really is. Meh.

    How long did you do PE for? As an elective subject over here it involves a fair amount of basic anatomy (more than bilogy anyway) and nutritional information. As a compulsory subject though it's just designed to get kids active, improve motor skills and help them discover sports that they might enjoy on a long term basis. And teaching them to taunt the weak.

    Low Key on
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2007
    I went to Burger King today.

    I go once every two years.

    I'm pretty sure it is McDonalds that uses the beef tallow with the fries.

    Shinto on
  • LRGLRG Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    geckahn wrote:
    LRG wrote:
    Ok, so I'm gonna start a muscle building diet soon, hitting the weights and all that; is this report saying I can hit up the doller menu for cheap and great tasting food for thats gonna put on mad calories which helps me put on muscle?

    awesome.

    haha, I doubt that would work for some reason. . .

    If you are seriously looking to start training soon I can point you in the direction of a thread with a ridiculous amount of excellent advice.

    The fitness thread in H/A? I know of it and I also got a book with alot of great info.

    I'm just excited at the idea that Micky D's isn't necessarily unhealthy for you since the doller menu is cheap, tasty, and it'd give me the extra calories to build muscle; I could eat it everyday for 8 weeks, but I doubt it will.

    LRG on
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    LRG wrote:
    geckahn wrote:
    LRG wrote:
    Ok, so I'm gonna start a muscle building diet soon, hitting the weights and all that; is this report saying I can hit up the doller menu for cheap and great tasting food for thats gonna put on mad calories which helps me put on muscle?

    awesome.

    haha, I doubt that would work for some reason. . .

    If you are seriously looking to start training soon I can point you in the direction of a thread with a ridiculous amount of excellent advice.

    The fitness thread in H/A? I know of it and I also got a book with alot of great info.

    I'm just excited at the idea that Micky D's isn't necessarily unhealthy for you since the doller menu is cheap, tasty, and it'd give me the extra calories to build muscle; I could eat it everyday for 8 weeks, but I doubt it will.

    Nope. here: http://messageboard.tuckermax.com/showthread.php?t=2347&page=1&pp=10

    PETrainer and Lhprop1 both know their shit extremely well. Take their advice. Lhprop1 is an amateur strongman, and PETrainer has owned a personal training gym and has clients that include professional athletes.

    and fastfood is shit. If youre serious about getting fit, stick to lean protein and clean carbs. Chicken, fish, lean beef, eggs . . . whole grain bread, whole grain pasta, rice. Obviously, its okay once in a while. But you eat it alot and . . . you definitely will not be gaining the amount of muscle that you should be. And probably getting fat.

    Stick to compound exercises. Isolation is a waste of your time. Squats, deadlifts, overhead presses and bench press should be the core of your exercise. Dont do arms.

    geckahn on
  • LRGLRG Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Cripes.

    That shit cost a bit more money and thought into my meals.

    I was really hoping I could cheat. Oh well.

    LRG on
«13
Sign In or Register to comment.