So you CAN eat McDonald's every day...
Options
Replies
-
No.Gianfranco_R wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
"It" is the movie. It does not say, as represented in your quote, that eating at McDonald's means you "will be" eating a balanced diet. It, the movie, says you "can be."kshama2001 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Except that that's not what it says, at all.kshama2001 wrote: »This food write for Fortune magazine has the same takeaway as the link I posted earlier:
http://fortune.com/2015/10/15/mcdonalds-movie-weight-loss/
...McDonald’s, lately struggling to find solutions to flagging sales and a weakened reputation, is promoting a movie that advises high-school students that if they eat at McDonald’s, they will be following a healthy, “balanced” diet.
It's pretty cheap to slip in "will be" to attack something that says "can be."
By "it" in "Except that that's not what it says, at all" are you referring to the article I quoted? I copied and pasted and did not change a word.
Or are you referring to the author's takeaway?
It's a dishonest characterization.
do you mean the commercial?
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
"It" is the movie. It does not say, as represented in your quote, that eating at McDonald's means you "will be" eating a balanced diet. It, the movie, says you "can be."kshama2001 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Except that that's not what it says, at all.kshama2001 wrote: »This food write for Fortune magazine has the same takeaway as the link I posted earlier:
http://fortune.com/2015/10/15/mcdonalds-movie-weight-loss/
...McDonald’s, lately struggling to find solutions to flagging sales and a weakened reputation, is promoting a movie that advises high-school students that if they eat at McDonald’s, they will be following a healthy, “balanced” diet.
It's pretty cheap to slip in "will be" to attack something that says "can be."
By "it" in "Except that that's not what it says, at all" are you referring to the article I quoted? I copied and pasted and did not change a word.
Or are you referring to the author's takeaway?
It's a dishonest characterization.
do you mean the commercial?
This isn't black jack, you don't have the option to double down on dishonest characterization.
The experiment isn't a commercial. The teacher initiated the experiment independently to teach his students about nutrition. McDonald's, being a business, decided to promote it because it does serve their interest.
Quiet frankly, I'd ask you to address the science because the fact that few people are addressing actual science, and instead want to impugn the character of a man teaching science is rather sad evidence how much the world needs science teachers like this guy.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
"It" is the movie. It does not say, as represented in your quote, that eating at McDonald's means you "will be" eating a balanced diet. It, the movie, says you "can be."kshama2001 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Except that that's not what it says, at all.kshama2001 wrote: »This food write for Fortune magazine has the same takeaway as the link I posted earlier:
http://fortune.com/2015/10/15/mcdonalds-movie-weight-loss/
...McDonald’s, lately struggling to find solutions to flagging sales and a weakened reputation, is promoting a movie that advises high-school students that if they eat at McDonald’s, they will be following a healthy, “balanced” diet.
It's pretty cheap to slip in "will be" to attack something that says "can be."
By "it" in "Except that that's not what it says, at all" are you referring to the article I quoted? I copied and pasted and did not change a word.
Or are you referring to the author's takeaway?
It's a dishonest characterization.
do you mean the commercial?
This isn't black jack, you don't have the option to double down on dishonest characterization.
The experiment isn't a commercial. The teacher initiated the experiment independently to teach his students about nutrition. McDonald's, being a business, decided to promote it because it does serve their interest.
Quiet frankly, I'd ask you to address the science because the fact that few people are addressing actual science, and instead want to impugn the character of a man teaching science is rather sad evidence how much the world needs science teachers like this guy.
And how lowly we think of teachers.0 -
An honest question doesn't indicate a lack of imagination. Nor the need to "wind folks up". It can indicate curiosity, and the genuine wish to know.diannethegeek wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Can you? Sure. Why would you?
Some people honestly like the taste.
Some people work there and need the free food provided to employees.
Some people like the playplaces for their kids.
Some people are on the road all day and may not have the time or facilities for other options.
Some people are inexperienced or disastrous cooks who need ready-made food on a budget.
Some people feel pressured to go and eat with friends, family, or coworkers.
Some people honestly don't have access to working kitchen equipment.
Why do people keep asking this question in this thread? Is it a lack of imagination that some people might like or need different things? Or is it just to wind people up?
As for the reasons. Most of them are somewhat depressing, and none suggest the "need" to eat at mcDs.
But then the teacher's "experiment" is rather depressing.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
"It" is the movie. It does not say, as represented in your quote, that eating at McDonald's means you "will be" eating a balanced diet. It, the movie, says you "can be."kshama2001 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Except that that's not what it says, at all.kshama2001 wrote: »This food write for Fortune magazine has the same takeaway as the link I posted earlier:
http://fortune.com/2015/10/15/mcdonalds-movie-weight-loss/
...McDonald’s, lately struggling to find solutions to flagging sales and a weakened reputation, is promoting a movie that advises high-school students that if they eat at McDonald’s, they will be following a healthy, “balanced” diet.
It's pretty cheap to slip in "will be" to attack something that says "can be."
By "it" in "Except that that's not what it says, at all" are you referring to the article I quoted? I copied and pasted and did not change a word.
Or are you referring to the author's takeaway?
It's a dishonest characterization.
Right, I'm not talking about the accuracy, but the takeaway. The first article I read was concerned 11 year olds would have that interpretation and so I found it ironic that in the second article I read the author led with that takeaway.0 -
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...
0 -
Losing weight is about calories in vs. calories used by your body. It does not mean you'd be healthy if you eat 4 cheeseburgers a day. But that wasn't her question. You can eat 3 yummy pieces of cake equaling 1200-1600 calories as long as after those three you are done eating for the day you'd lose weight. I choose low calorie foods most days so I can be full. However today I'm about finished with my eating because I've already hit goal. I had a piece of cake! But it was really good!0
-
My experience has been when I am going for low quality food the same applies to my exercising and general mindset. Our health is much more than our diet factor I am learning.0
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »My experience has been when I am going for low quality food the same applies to my exercising and general mindset. Our health is much more than our diet factor I am learning.
Again, the guy wasn't just focusing on calories. He was also focusing on creating a balanced diet, based on certain FDA recommendations. Whether his goals made sense or not can be debated, of course. And we definitely have different ideas of what a balanced healthy diet is.0 -
A cancer survivor (or someone living with undiagnosed cancer) may do better long-term on a McDonald's diet every day rather than eating a lot of fresh fruits and vegetables.
http://www.popsci.com/why-antioxidants-might-actually-make-your-cancer-worse0 -
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.
0 -
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?0 -
-
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »If nobody is doing this for Wendy's, I volunteer.
Hehe I volunteer as tribute!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.
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.0 -
Is Chipotle doing this yet? I volunteer!
This is just another marketing ploy by a large company, and it seems to be working. Did anyone else notice the correlation between McDonalds' stock dropping over the past year and this well timed experiment?0 -
BackupFridge wrote: »
Objection your honor, speculation...
Sustained.0 -
A cancer survivor (or someone living with undiagnosed cancer) may do better long-term on a McDonald's diet every day rather than eating a lot of fresh fruits and vegetables.
http://www.popsci.com/why-antioxidants-might-actually-make-your-cancer-worse
Their study used antioxidant supplements, not whole fruits and vegetables. Blasting lab grown melanoma cells isn't necessarily the same thing as people with cancer eating fruits and vegetables. I'm curious as to how "a battery of antioxidants" would compare to the amount people take in supplements.
http://www.popsci.com/why-antioxidants-might-actually-make-your-cancer-worse
"...To find out how Rac and Rho are involved in free radicals' effects on cancer, we grew melanoma cells in the lab and treated them with a battery of antioxidants to remove the reactive oxygen species. As a result the cells became more rounded and moved faster, making them more likely to spread.
...While our results don’t prove that antioxidants are harmful for healthy cells, they sound an important note of caution about the use of antioxidants in patients that have already developed cancer. More work is needed to fully understand the benefits and drawbacks of taking antioxidant supplements. And we need to find a way to inhibit the “bad” free radicals and allow the “good” ones to do their work."0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions