Victory for Jamie Oliver in the U.S. as McDonald’s is forced to stop using pink slime

[Fish]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I'm sure saving a few dollars for a cheap burger is worth the cost of diabetes, health issues, and decreased workplace productivity. I'm sure this is worth the billions in health related costs associated with morbid obesity.

The basics of supply and demand is that if more people eat healthy food, healthy food can be priced lower. I would rather that than to sell people garbage that is creating a massive societal cost.

The problem of diabetes and health issues would remain if you closed every single McD's in the country. That's the point you're missing. It's not the access to a particular food that's the problem. It's the fact that people don't care. You can't make people eat healthy food by attempting to remove all the unhealthy food. That doesn't work, and that will never work. Fatties don't eat at McD's all the time because they don't have access to healthy food alternatives. They absolutely do, even within McD's itself.

You keep harping that people are being tricked, and they don't know that what they eat is unhealthy. But that's BS. The nutritional info is always available for everything they serve, for those that want to find out. What else do you want? A popup disclaimer every time somebody orders a Big Mac and large fries and coke that says "Hey fatty, you sure you know how many calories that is?" Come on.....

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by Fish

You keep harping that people are being tricked, and they don't know that what they eat is unhealthy. But that's BS. The nutritional info is always available for everything they serve, for those that want to find out. What else do you want? A popup disclaimer every time somebody orders a Big Mac and large fries and coke that says "Hey fatty, you sure you know how many calories that is?" Come on.....

It's also perfectly possible to eat reasonably at a fast food place. Nobody says you have to eat 2000 calories each time you go.

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by Frosty

It's also perfectly possible to eat reasonably at a fast food place. Nobody says you have to eat 2000 calories each time you go.

What the ****, do you own stock or something?

Why don't you point me to the menu item that is reasonably healthy at McDonad's?

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

What the ****, do you own stock or something?

Why don't you point me to the menu item that is reasonably healthy at McDonad's?

No and I rarely eat there. I just know that if you eat decently most of the time occasional forays into fast food or junk food isn't going to hurt you assuming you don't gorge yourself. That's all I was saying.

Watch the first half of the documentary "Fat Head" sometime. It was an answer to "Supersize Me", where the film maker ate every meal at McD's except didn't stuff himself like Morgan Spurlock did. He lost weight and had his health markers (BP, cholesterol, etc) improve.

Then there was the nutrition professor that put himself on the Twinkie Diet and ate mostly junk food for 10 weeks (but kept the calories low - 1800/day) and lost weight and had his health markers improve.

I don't advocate (and have never said) to eat at McD's or eat junk food all of the time. Eating a mostly whole food diet is what I think is healthful (and what I strive for). However, if I'm on the road and choose to eat at fast food place due to time/cost, I don't freak the **** out about like some apparently do.

[Omaha]

Originally Posted by Frosty

No and I rarely eat there. I just know that if you eat decently most of the time occasional forays into fast food or junk food isn't going to hurt you assuming you don't gorge yourself. That's all I was saying.

Watch the first half of the documentary "Fat Head" sometime. It was an answer to "Supersize Me", where the film maker ate every meal at McD's except didn't stuff himself like Morgan Spurlock did. He lost weight and had his health markers (BP, cholesterol, etc) improve.

Then there was the nutrition professor that put himself on the Twinkie Diet and ate mostly junk food for 10 weeks (but kept the calories low - 1800/day) and lost weight and had his health markers improve.

I don't advocate (and have never said) to eat at McD's or eat junk food all of the time. Eating a mostly whole food diet is what I think is healthful (and what I strive for). However, if I'm on the road and choose to eat at fast food place due to time/cost, I don't freak the **** out about like some apparently do.

You are absolutely right. There is no reason to go completely apeshit at a fast food place and occasionally eating that shit in moderate serving sizes won't kill you. However, people are missing out on nutrients when they opt for processed foods like the "meat" served at fast food joints over real food like grass fed beef that has no added hormones/antibiotics.

As for the Twinky Diet guy, anyone can lose weight by maintaining a low calorie diet as he did. Weight loss alone will improve many health markers. Again, he is missing out of important nutrients that he'd get from real foods so that twinkie died wouldn't be a great option long term.

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by Omaha

As for the Twinky Diet guy, anyone can lose weight by maintaining a low calorie diet as he did. Weight loss alone will improve many health markers. Again, he is missing out of important nutrients that he'd get from real foods so that twinkie died wouldn't be a great option long term.

Of course. It just isn't going to kill you or cause irreparable harm to eat out or eat junk food if you control the calories.

[Omaha]

Originally Posted by Frosty

Of course. It just isn't going to kill you or cause irreparable harm to eat out or eat junk food if you control the calories.

It might if he continued the all junk food/low calorie diet long term because he would eventually become so malnourished his immune system (and other systems) would not function properly, but I think I get your point. Junk food in moderation won't end your life.

[sedated]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

Why don't you point me to the menu item that is reasonably healthy at McDonad's?

Most of the items with grilled chicken have around 400 calories and 10-15 grams of fat.

Small fries has 100 calories and 11 grams of fat.

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by sedated

Most of the items with grilled chicken have around 400 calories and 10-15 grams of fat.

Small fries has 100 calories and 11 grams of fat.

You think that's healthy? Or in any way reasonable? That a potato should have 11 grams of fat?

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by Fish

The problem of diabetes and health issues would remain if you closed every single McD's in the country. That's the point you're missing. It's not the access to a particular food that's the problem. It's the fact that people don't care. You can't make people eat healthy food by attempting to remove all the unhealthy food. That doesn't work, and that will never work. Fatties don't eat at McD's all the time because they don't have access to healthy food alternatives. They absolutely do, even within McD's itself.

You keep harping that people are being tricked, and they don't know that what they eat is unhealthy. But that's BS. The nutritional info is always available for everything they serve, for those that want to find out. What else do you want? A popup disclaimer every time somebody orders a Big Mac and large fries and coke that says "Hey fatty, you sure you know how many calories that is?" Come on.....

Yes. Exactly.

In California now, you have to have the nutritional content posted and the calories and fat listed next to the menu item.

So you walk into a TOGO's or Taco Bell, and it says "Chicken Caesar Panini - 1120 cal, 36g fat" or "Crunchwrap Supreme - 920 cal, 26 g."

And guess what?

I've walked into those places, read the board, and then walked out and gone somewhere else to get something healthy.

Therefore, based on my personal experience and not your hypothetical projections, I can say with 100% certainty...




It ****ing works.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

Yes. Exactly.

In California now, you have to have the nutritional content posted and the calories and fat listed next to the menu item.

So you walk into a TOGO's or Taco Bell, and it says "Chicken Caesar Panini - 1120 cal, 36g fat" or "Crunchwrap Supreme - 920 cal, 26 g."

And guess what?

I've walked into those places, read the board, and then walked out and gone somewhere else to get something healthy.

Therefore, based on my personal experience and not your hypothetical projections, I can say with 100% certainty...




It ****ing works.

Except that exact thing has been done already, and the results showed that requiring food joints to post caloric info had absolutely no effect on obesity rates. Multiple studies have been done, showing what you're claiming is completely ineffective.

The hope is that posting calorie counts at chain restaurants—defined broadly to include Taco Bell, Applebee's, and Starbucks—will lead people to order healthier food for themselves and their children.

There's a kind of logic to this. Restaurant calories are big contributors to the obesity epidemic. Americans blow nearly half their food budget at restaurants and spend less than half the time cooking at home than they did 50 years ago. If people only knew how many calories were in that Applebee's cheeseburger (930, plus 400 more for the fries), surely they'd order something lighter. This common-sense assumption drives the public health community's full-throated support for posting calorie counts, and explains why, to name one example, the Center for Science in the Public Interest calls the new measure a "huge victory." Even the restaurant industry heaps praise: It "gives consumers one more way to live a healthy lifestyle."

Requiring chain restaurants to post calorie counts won't put a dent in the nation's obesity rates.

The trouble? Posting calorie counts won't help. We know because New York City has done it. Since 2008, chain restaurants in the city have had to post calorie information. In two studies, researchers at New York University compared the food choices of low-income children and adults from Newark, N.J. (where calories aren't posted) to the food choices of low-income New Yorkers. Although posting calorie counts raised consumer awareness somewhat, the researchers found that the measure had virtually no effect on what the New Yorkers actually purchased. Most distressingly, kids in New York were still eating as many calories as before. A third study looking at New York City and a fourth out of Seattle likewise found that little good came of posting calorie counts.

The ineffectiveness of similar regulations tells the same story. Since the mid-1990s, we've made food manufacturers print nutrition information, including calorie counts, on packaged foods. Time and again, however, studies show that few people notice nutritional information and even fewer use it effectively. As the FDA lamented in a 2004 report, "It may be that consumers do not take advantage of the available information on the food label to control their weight, perhaps because they do not appreciate how the information could be used for weight management purposes or perhaps because they find it too hard to apply the available information to such purposes."

http://hive.slate.com/hive/time-to-t.../whos-counting

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by Fish

Except that exact thing has been done already, and the results showed that requiring food joints to post caloric info had absolutely no effect on obesity rates. Multiple studies have been done, showing what you're claiming is completely ineffective.

Except that it had an effect on MY obesity rate, so all of your info is completely pointless, and completely wrong.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

Except that it had an effect on MY obesity rate, so all of your info is completely pointless, and completely wrong.

These studies are pointless, because one person thinks it worked for them....

OK then... I guess that's a wrap....

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

Except that it had an effect on MY obesity rate, so all of your info is completely pointless, and completely wrong.

You're an idiot.

[Omaha]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

You're an idiot.

I'm pretty sure that was a joke.