So you CAN eat McDonald's every day...
Replies
-
tincanonastring wrote: »
Teaching them CICO takes five minutes, leaving lots of time to teach other things.janejellyroll wrote: »
They included some, but not all, nutrients. Had they included them all, they'd have to admit that you cannot eat a well-balanced diet when limiting yourself to McDonald's food. I hope that the kids were taught all about micros and how they're as important as macros, what the different micros do for the body, which foods have them, etc. I hope they discussed sodium and trans fats. I hope they discussed fiber and phytochemicals and all that stuff.lemurcat12 wrote: »BackupFridge wrote: »2. Yes, we do have different nutritional standards. Micros matter. Vitamins and minerals matter.
Well, supposedly part of the experiment was meeting FDA requirements for nutrition, not just calories. (See http://abc7.com/health/teacher-loses-60-pounds-while-eating-nothing-but-mcdonalds/705916/) I'd personally like to know precisely what that means and what they aimed for, since I'm skeptical that he would on the usual menu (http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-mcdonalds-2014-1), but it probably wouldn't be all that much different than many people who consider themselves to have healthy diets. Also, focusing on the nutritional content of foods wherever you get them (not just calories) is a valuable lesson and smarter than deciding that if you are at McD's (or some other less than ideal place from your perspective) it's a write off, might as well ignore the salad options.That's all I'm saying - micros matter. I don't know why someone with a serious goal wouldn't chase those instead of indulging in ingredients like the type I linked above.
Depending on the person, it might be more sustainable, or it might be one step in a long term process of improving the diet and one's health (I knew someone for whom this was true--well, something similar, as she didn't eat at McD's for every meal), or you might have reason to go to get quick restaurant foods quite often so need to learn how to choose.
I really hope that the kids learned something about nutrition other than "If you exercise, you can eat all your meals at McDonald's and still lose weight." That is something that could be taught in five minutes, leaving lots of time to cover things that most people don't know.
If all that time was spent on CICO, it's a huge waste of time that could've been spent educating the kids.
Given that the US is currently in the midst of a obesity epidemic (not a malnutrition epidemic), I don't think time spent educating children about CICO is a waste of time.
Which nutrients were excluded, by the way?
I don't remember what all they included and excluded. A lot of them weren't included.
Some posts on these forums beg to differ.
Posts on this forum beg to differ with many things. There are none so blind as those who will not see. This isn't a school, though. Nobody is charged with imparting knowledge and nobody relies on this for their education.
The kids in the school could be presented with the info. It could've been worked into this very thing. It could've been taught. Maybe it was! I sure hope so!
The kids had to plan out his meals to meet FDA regulations. It wasn't just about CICO.
I think you might mean RDA recommendations?0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »
Teaching them CICO takes five minutes, leaving lots of time to teach other things.janejellyroll wrote: »
They included some, but not all, nutrients. Had they included them all, they'd have to admit that you cannot eat a well-balanced diet when limiting yourself to McDonald's food. I hope that the kids were taught all about micros and how they're as important as macros, what the different micros do for the body, which foods have them, etc. I hope they discussed sodium and trans fats. I hope they discussed fiber and phytochemicals and all that stuff.lemurcat12 wrote: »BackupFridge wrote: »2. Yes, we do have different nutritional standards. Micros matter. Vitamins and minerals matter.
Well, supposedly part of the experiment was meeting FDA requirements for nutrition, not just calories. (See http://abc7.com/health/teacher-loses-60-pounds-while-eating-nothing-but-mcdonalds/705916/) I'd personally like to know precisely what that means and what they aimed for, since I'm skeptical that he would on the usual menu (http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-mcdonalds-2014-1), but it probably wouldn't be all that much different than many people who consider themselves to have healthy diets. Also, focusing on the nutritional content of foods wherever you get them (not just calories) is a valuable lesson and smarter than deciding that if you are at McD's (or some other less than ideal place from your perspective) it's a write off, might as well ignore the salad options.That's all I'm saying - micros matter. I don't know why someone with a serious goal wouldn't chase those instead of indulging in ingredients like the type I linked above.
Depending on the person, it might be more sustainable, or it might be one step in a long term process of improving the diet and one's health (I knew someone for whom this was true--well, something similar, as she didn't eat at McD's for every meal), or you might have reason to go to get quick restaurant foods quite often so need to learn how to choose.
I really hope that the kids learned something about nutrition other than "If you exercise, you can eat all your meals at McDonald's and still lose weight." That is something that could be taught in five minutes, leaving lots of time to cover things that most people don't know.
If all that time was spent on CICO, it's a huge waste of time that could've been spent educating the kids.
Given that the US is currently in the midst of a obesity epidemic (not a malnutrition epidemic), I don't think time spent educating children about CICO is a waste of time.
Which nutrients were excluded, by the way?
I don't remember what all they included and excluded. A lot of them weren't included.
Some posts on these forums beg to differ.
Posts on this forum beg to differ with many things. There are none so blind as those who will not see. This isn't a school, though. Nobody is charged with imparting knowledge and nobody relies on this for their education.
The kids in the school could be presented with the info. It could've been worked into this very thing. It could've been taught. Maybe it was! I sure hope so!
The kids had to plan out his meals to meet FDA regulations. It wasn't just about CICO.
I think you might mean RDA recommendations?
Yep. Jesus. That was just a terrible post!
0 -
Since my diet flip, there are many things I used to like that I no longer do. Taco Bell and KFC - I cannot believe I ever liked that stuff. Stouffer's is now waaay too salty, can't eat it. Lots and lots of things got scratched off the "Tastes Good" list.lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »BackupFridge wrote: »2. Yes, we do have different nutritional standards. Micros matter. Vitamins and minerals matter.
Well, supposedly part of the experiment was meeting FDA requirements for nutrition, not just calories. (See http://abc7.com/health/teacher-loses-60-pounds-while-eating-nothing-but-mcdonalds/705916/) I'd personally like to know precisely what that means and what they aimed for, since I'm skeptical that he would on the usual menu (http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-mcdonalds-2014-1), but it probably wouldn't be all that much different than many people who consider themselves to have healthy diets. Also, focusing on the nutritional content of foods wherever you get them (not just calories) is a valuable lesson and smarter than deciding that if you are at McD's (or some other less than ideal place from your perspective) it's a write off, might as well ignore the salad options.That's all I'm saying - micros matter. I don't know why someone with a serious goal wouldn't chase those instead of indulging in ingredients like the type I linked above.
Depending on the person, it might be more sustainable, or it might be one step in a long term process of improving the diet and one's health (I knew someone for whom this was true--well, something similar, as she didn't eat at McD's for every meal), or you might have reason to go to get quick restaurant foods quite often so need to learn how to choose.
They included some, but not all, nutrients. Had they included them all, they'd have to admit that you cannot eat a well-balanced diet when limiting yourself to McDonald's food. I hope that the kids were taught all about micros and how they're as important as macros, what the different micros do for the body, which foods have them, etc. I hope they discussed sodium and trans fats. I hope they discussed fiber and phytochemicals and all that stuff.
Yeah, I basically agree.I really hope that the kids learned something about nutrition other than "If you exercise, you can eat all your meals at McDonald's and still lose weight." That is something that could be taught in five minutes, leaving lots of time to cover things that most people don't know.
My impression was that it was more than this, that it was more about how to make choices. McD's doesn't have the best set of choices when compared to using a whole supermarket or some such, but there might be something to starting with a more limited set of choices to make it easier, using McD's to maybe make the experiment seem fun or challenging (or something easy for the teacher to do without cooking), or to help them see that even if they were eating lots of fast food (not sure if these kids were from families where fast food was common) that they should look beyond the burger and fries and worry about making more diverse choices.
I seriously doubt the take away was "eat McD's every day," however, as apparently some have assumed.
(I don't even like McD's -- haven't since I was a kid when we went on rare occasion as a treat.)
Not McDonald's. I haven't had a bit of everything, but I had a couple things. I cannot eat those fries any longer, ick. But the rest of it was as good as ever...which is to say, not really. I'd much, much rather have food cooked at home, but I do not gross out when having a bite of burger or chicken. I never thought it was really good, but I don't think it's worse now, like i do so many things.
I literally spit the Taco Bell out because I thought I was eating food that had gone bad. There is a local chicken place my son likes. That was still good, too.
0 -
BruceHedtke wrote: »I'm certain I could eat fast food all the time, lose weight and be healthy by making careful choices. But, I'm also pretty certain that I'd spend many of those days feeling hungry quite a bit. Fast food seems to satisfy me for an hour and then I feel hungry again. I might be able to adapt after awhile but I don't think I'd want to. I'd rather eat more food for the same amount of calories.
^^^^THIS0 -
Larger isn't always better. Statistically, the larger your sample, the more chance random chance or error causes is the reason you end up with an outlier that skews the results. And yes, statistically, 7 is the number required for statistically valid significance. It doesn't mean it applies in all populations or all situations, just that it is statistically likely that in this population, effects seen were not due to chance.jennifer_417 wrote: »Derf_Smeggle wrote: »
Please provide examples of these small scale studies that are well respected.
100+ people is not necessary and could actually make results less reliable. Generally a well designed experiment has definitive statistical results at 7 subjects or more per group (experimental + control groups).
Seriously. Anyone who actually knows anything about how to design an experiment know that the larger the sample size, the more reliable the results. There is no possible way 7 people can reflect a population.
Science never proves things for all cases because science isn't a positive proofing system like that. Even scientific laws aren't statements that they are guaranteed to always hold - if someone were to properly word the laws, in line with the philosophy underpinning science, they'd be more akin to "to the best of all observations, these rules have never been violated." People find that kind of language cumbersome though.
I got a paper published in a decent journal with an N=6...
You little statistical cheater.
0 -
The true evil in McDonalds is that they don't serve breakfast all day.
Waaaait a minute......
0 -
Going back to the initial point of the exercise the teacher did. I still feel that through this hands on experience students were far more engaged and therefore learned more from this experience than they would have if they listened to a standard nutrition lecture in a health class.
It would be difficult to convince all teenagers to never eat fast food. However, getting them to make more informed decisions is always going to be better than not even bothering.
Abstinence typically does not work for the majority of people.0 -
Teaching them CICO takes five minutes, leaving lots of time to teach other things.janejellyroll wrote: »
They included some, but not all, nutrients. Had they included them all, they'd have to admit that you cannot eat a well-balanced diet when limiting yourself to McDonald's food. I hope that the kids were taught all about micros and how they're as important as macros, what the different micros do for the body, which foods have them, etc. I hope they discussed sodium and trans fats. I hope they discussed fiber and phytochemicals and all that stuff.lemurcat12 wrote: »BackupFridge wrote: »2. Yes, we do have different nutritional standards. Micros matter. Vitamins and minerals matter.
Well, supposedly part of the experiment was meeting FDA requirements for nutrition, not just calories. (See http://abc7.com/health/teacher-loses-60-pounds-while-eating-nothing-but-mcdonalds/705916/) I'd personally like to know precisely what that means and what they aimed for, since I'm skeptical that he would on the usual menu (http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-mcdonalds-2014-1), but it probably wouldn't be all that much different than many people who consider themselves to have healthy diets. Also, focusing on the nutritional content of foods wherever you get them (not just calories) is a valuable lesson and smarter than deciding that if you are at McD's (or some other less than ideal place from your perspective) it's a write off, might as well ignore the salad options.That's all I'm saying - micros matter. I don't know why someone with a serious goal wouldn't chase those instead of indulging in ingredients like the type I linked above.
Depending on the person, it might be more sustainable, or it might be one step in a long term process of improving the diet and one's health (I knew someone for whom this was true--well, something similar, as she didn't eat at McD's for every meal), or you might have reason to go to get quick restaurant foods quite often so need to learn how to choose.
I really hope that the kids learned something about nutrition other than "If you exercise, you can eat all your meals at McDonald's and still lose weight." That is something that could be taught in five minutes, leaving lots of time to cover things that most people don't know.
If all that time was spent on CICO, it's a huge waste of time that could've been spent educating the kids.
Given that the US is currently in the midst of a obesity epidemic (not a malnutrition epidemic), I don't think time spent educating children about CICO is a waste of time.
Which nutrients were excluded, by the way?
I don't remember what all they included and excluded. A lot of them weren't included.
Some posts on these forums beg to differ.
To be fair, kids come with less biases from sites that guarantee to solve weight issues with 7 special foods, or that it is chemikillz that make them gain weight because fat cells make themselves out of nothing to store toxinz to protect you. So it might only take 5 minutes of explaining followed by 3 minutes of "so can I have a cookie?" Instead of 5 hours of pubmed studies with bad p-values or based only on take home surveys, or links to Mercola and such.0 -
Going back to the initial point of the exercise the teacher did. I still feel that through this hands on experience students were far more engaged and therefore learned more from this experience than they would have if they listened to a standard nutrition lecture in a health class.
It would be difficult to convince all teenagers to never eat fast food. However, getting them to make more informed decisions is always going to be better than not even bothering.
Abstinence typically does not work for the majority of people.
I've got more important things to do in my life than avoid fast food when it would be more convenient than another food choice...(to apply the "abstinence" to adults)0 -
A teacher lost weight, improved his markers, and taught children how to make good choices in any eating situation. With child obesity on the rise id say thats worthy of a million high fives.
[Edited by MFP Mods]0 -
I wish their fries were gluten free. I miss them.0
-
This is back and cleaned up.
0 -
Thank you for reopening @kgeyser. I do think this type of information is important for those who feel like they can't or won't give up fast foods or convenience foods in order to lose weight. It's important to see that you can live a convience food lifestyle and still make choices that will lead to better health.0
-
Thank you also for using a David Tennant gif to reopen the thread!
I'd also like to say that I appreciate the time it must have taken to get this cleaned, but am glad it was spent because I do feel this is a valuable discussion to leave standing.
Thank you again.0 -
GOD this must've taken forever to edit for the mods!! Well done
0 -
Welp, now I'll never know what poison exists in McDonald's.0
-
-
-
tincanonastring wrote: »
I did feel important lessons about trans fat got lost.
People use trans fat all the time when they really want to talk about partially hydrogenated oil, I think. All partially hydrogenated oil has trans fat but there are other kinds of trans fat.
Partially hydrogenated oil seems to raise LDL cholesterol and lower HDL, which is bad, and has lead the FDA to designate it no longer Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS), and eventually it must be eliminated - trans fat of other kinds will continue to be allowed.
McDonald's has already been reducing their partially hydrogenated oil, and based on this teacher's bloodwork improvements, the remaining amount isn't enough to influence cholesterol levels more than losing weight does.0 -
This seems reasonable. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I eat mcdonald's maybe 3 times a year when I'm too lazy to cook and I STILL gained weight cooking at home. It's all about CICO. And if this isn't proof of that, nothing will convince anyone of it.0
-
Strange that this wasn't showing a 'new' flag, must be a clean up glitch.0
-
-
I posted a bit earlier on the thread about wanting to undertake McVember. I may not get to do it as I have to travel for work to a country which does not have McDonalds, but I have been experimenting, for my own amusement.
At this early stage, it looks like the only way I could survive on McDonalds only for a month while sticking to my macros the way I normally do was if I allowed myself 2 meals at McDonalds and one meal at home per day and that meal needs to consist entirely of fruit and veg. The main reasons for this are that I am struggling to get anywhere near my preferred fiber intake and on 1200 calories and without a fruit and veg meal I am pretty darn hungry, even though I do get a delicious breakfast and dinner in quite easily.
Eating at 1200, I do not find sodium and sugar difficult to manage, eating 2 meals at McDonalds a day. Feel free to have a look at my diary for yesterday as an example of this. I have also run a few examples for myself in Excel and sugar and sodium are the least of my problems, if I combine my meals intelligently. People in America please not that the South African McDonalds calories and ingredients are slightly different so I have had to create my own entries based on the information on the South African site (not a massive difference).
Once again - this is me just messing about - not any kind of serious thing - before anyone jumps down my throat to tell me how I am doing it wrong or how my results cannot be applied to others. That is completely obvious, but thanks anyway.
I am struggling to keep my mojo going for the last bit of weight I have to lose and an unintended consequence of my junk food experiments this past week or two is the best weight loss I have seen in a while! Obviously this is only happening because I am being more careful about my deficit again, but I will take it! Lols
No one need fear for my health - if you glance at my Macros no terrible evils are being committed on my constitution. Also - no need to lecture me on 1200 calories please - I am often over that amount and I don't do any exercise so it is perfectly reasonable.0 -
Those of you who feel that the film is an infomercial that should not be shown in schools can sign a petition.
...The film is pitched to schools as "educational" - it even comes with a "Teachers Discussion Guide" prepared by McDonald's - but in reality it's little more than a heavily-branded infomercial for the fast food chain, one that seems cynically calculated to get kids to eat even more fast food than they do now. In this era of childhood obesity, that’s a terrible idea.
It’s fine to teach kids about calorie balancing, but this naked advertising effort expressly tells impressionable kids that “there’s nothing wrong with fast food” and that they shouldn’t believe any negative information on the Internet about fast food or McDonald’s. It also makes no mention of the poor nutritional quality of most fast food.
Teens and pre-teens are notoriously impulsive. So when a trusted authority like a science teacher says he ate fries on a near-daily basis for six months, as well as regularly eating Big Macs, Quarter Pounders and ice cream - and that he still eats at McDonald’s every day – do we think teens are suddenly going to become highly disciplined calorie-cutters? Or do we think they’ll get the message that it’s OK to eat even more fast food?
If McDonald's wants to post 540 Meals on YouTube or show it in movie theaters, that's the company's right. But it's our right as parents to keep this kind of aggressive fast food advertising out of our kids’ schools.
[Edited by MFP Staff]0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Those of you who feel that the film is an infomercial that should not be shown in schools can sign a petition here:
https://www.change.org/p/keep-mcdonald-s-nutrition-infomercial-out-of-our-children-s-schools
...The film is pitched to schools as "educational" - it even comes with a "Teachers Discussion Guide" prepared by McDonald's - but in reality it's little more than a heavily-branded infomercial for the fast food chain, one that seems cynically calculated to get kids to eat even more fast food than they do now. In this era of childhood obesity, that’s a terrible idea.
It’s fine to teach kids about calorie balancing, but this naked advertising effort expressly tells impressionable kids that “there’s nothing wrong with fast food” and that they shouldn’t believe any negative information on the Internet about fast food or McDonald’s. It also makes no mention of the poor nutritional quality of most fast food.
Teens and pre-teens are notoriously impulsive. So when a trusted authority like a science teacher says he ate fries on a near-daily basis for six months, as well as regularly eating Big Macs, Quarter Pounders and ice cream - and that he still eats at McDonald’s every day – do we think teens are suddenly going to become highly disciplined calorie-cutters? Or do we think they’ll get the message that it’s OK to eat even more fast food?
If McDonald's wants to post 540 Meals on YouTube or show it in movie theaters, that's the company's right. But it's our right as parents to keep this kind of aggressive fast food advertising out of our kids’ schools.
Does this keep other documnetaries (propaganda) such as Fedup, etc out of schools? If we have to gore someone's specific ox, we should probably get them all....am I right?0 -
I can't wait for this to become the sequel to Inherit The Wind.0
-
Goes to show calories a calorie.....and yes, being physically active does help a LOT....I didn't start seeing the scale move until I started being more active, and weighing my food that I eat.....0
-
I_Will_End_You wrote: »The true evil in McDonalds is that they don't serve breakfast all day.
Waaaait a minute......
I live in san diego and we are the city they tried all day breakfast on before they went nation wide... we have had it for like 6 months now! its been amazing. ALL THE HASHBROWNS!!0 -
Love this. Whether you like McDonald's or not, the whole McDonald's made me fat thing is absurd. It's a silly excuse and I'm glad someone is taking the piss out of it.0
-
Love this. Whether you like McDonald's or not, the whole McDonald's made me fat thing is absurd. It's a silly excuse and I'm glad someone is taking the piss out of it.
Yup, when people ask me how I am losing weight and still eating fast food I tell them..."The fast food doesn't make me fat. It's the half box of cereal in the morning, the Big Mac meal with Coke in the afternoon, the 3 granola bars, the huge order of Mexican food after I get off work, oh, and the ice cream for dessert that did it. I eat fast food only when it works with what I ate during the day." We need more "documentaries" like this, there are always two sides to the story!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions