So you CAN eat McDonald's every day...
Replies
-
I dunno, McDonalds has REALLY good fries when they get them right. Burger King fries are certainly more consistent in quality.Liftng4Lis wrote: ».Therealobi1 wrote: »Liftng4Lis wrote: »I want Burger King!
oh dear no. MCdonalds all the way.
Whoppers WIN
.
McDonald's for desserts!
Burger King for fries!
Wendy's for hamburgers!
Glad they are all in a row. Lol
Fries from Wendy's and What A Burger tho...
It's Dairy Queen for desserts for me.0 -
A similar study has already been done. In fact, a McDonald's meal was actually used in the study. See Lyle McDonald's research review of it here: Hormonal Responses to a Fast Food MealPackerjohn wrote: »He lost 56 pounds of fat, I'm guessing that was a significant reason his blood test results improved. How about taking a person of a healthy BMI who is maintaining on say 2400 calories a day of nutrient dense "healthy" food and have them eat 2400 calories of McDonald's food for a few months and see what happens to their blood test results?
Bottom line is that, just as with anything else related to health and diet, dosage and context matter. As many other people have said, there are plenty of good choices that can be made eating at McDonalds (or most any other fast food restaurant, for that matter). When somebody mentions McDonalds, orthorexics automatically assume they're stuffing their face with Double Quarter Pounders, Xtra Large French Fries and chugging quart-sized Cokes. There couldn't possibly be a middle ground where somebody could mix in some salads, chicken breasts, egg whites, iced tea/water, oatmeal, etc., could there?
Sure you can eat healthy things like salads at McDonalds. Bottom line, most customers don't. McDonalds has had issues getting customers to adapt their healthy items. Salads are 2-3% of sales.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023043841045791398715594649600 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
A similar study has already been done. In fact, a McDonald's meal was actually used in the study. See Lyle McDonald's research review of it here: Hormonal Responses to a Fast Food MealPackerjohn wrote: »He lost 56 pounds of fat, I'm guessing that was a significant reason his blood test results improved. How about taking a person of a healthy BMI who is maintaining on say 2400 calories a day of nutrient dense "healthy" food and have them eat 2400 calories of McDonald's food for a few months and see what happens to their blood test results?
Bottom line is that, just as with anything else related to health and diet, dosage and context matter. As many other people have said, there are plenty of good choices that can be made eating at McDonalds (or most any other fast food restaurant, for that matter). When somebody mentions McDonalds, orthorexics automatically assume they're stuffing their face with Double Quarter Pounders, Xtra Large French Fries and chugging quart-sized Cokes. There couldn't possibly be a middle ground where somebody could mix in some salads, chicken breasts, egg whites, iced tea/water, oatmeal, etc., could there?
Sure you can eat healthy things like salads at McDonalds. Bottom line, most customers don't. McDonalds has had issues getting customers to adapt their healthy items. Salads are 2-3% of sales.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304384104579139871559464960
Is that McDonalds issue or the customers issue?
They offer healthier options...it is up to the customer to make the right choice for them.0 -
sooooo, PRIOR to this experiment, what was his eating habits/calories in / exercise program ?0
-
Debbie_Ferr wrote: »sooooo, PRIOR to this experiment, what was his eating habits/calories in / exercise program ?
What does it matter?0 -
Premium Bacon Ranch Salad is wonderful and is only 310 cal with grilled chicken. I do go there for it. and i generally do not even finish it. with a diet coke, and I'm a happy bunny0
-
janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Thought experiment: this happens and blood test results are still fine.Packerjohn wrote: »shadow2soul wrote: »random5483 wrote: »Losing weight is all about having a calorie deficit. Eating at McDonalds everyday and losing weight is definitely possible if you control your portions. However, I would not advise it. McDonalds is mostly unhealthy. Losing weight and being healthy are not one and the same.
His blood markers improved as well. He didn't have the student's just keep him at a calorie deficit. They had to make sure he was meeting the nutritional standards set by the FDA as well.
He lost 56 pounds of fat, I'm guessing that was a significant reason his blood test results improved. How about taking a person of a healthy BMI who is maintaining on say 2400 calories a day of nutrient dense "healthy" food and have them eat 2400 calories of McDonald's food for a few months and see what happens to their blood test results?
What's your conclusion?
For anyone thinking an exclusive diet of McDonald's food is good for you please message me with your social security number, credit card and bank account numbers. I know an African price that wants to deposit 1 million dollars in your account by noon tomorrow.
Except there's a guy here who's holding a million dollars (his blood work improved) telling everyone the instructions for getting it from the African prince, while saying he is not endorsing giving out the SSN to an African prince, just that it can be done.
Also, instead of ominous, unidentified harm, can you name explicitly something about McDonald's food that will cause an explicit health effect?
Here are a few articles:
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/statistics-health-risks-eating-fast-food-3290.html
http://www.healthline.com/health/fast-food-effects-on-body
The first article talks about risks that were specifically eliminated in this individual's case (his weight went down, his blood work improved). The second has lots of words like "suggest" and "may."
Do you really think this individual is worse off than he was before beginning his experiment?
Hmm, several studies by drs, in large groups, over several years. Verifying pretty much what we all see each day.
One guy's, on McDonald's payroll, personal testimony on how he had a positive health outcome, in a few months.
Whom to trust, what to believe...
Doesn't matter who endorses him, the science is the science. Follow the money reasoning is a poor heuristic often applied when people want to argue against the science but don't actually understand it.
I am pretty sure that there are very few people on this forum who understand science as well as I do, so you are not talking about me
If the point of the experiment was to show that eating less calories results in weight loss, yes, this was of course a valid point. No one on their right mind would argue with this.
If the point was to show that no longer being obese will result in improved health, again, it is nothing to debate about.
But what will the average person with poor eating habits get out of the whole thing? Something like the title of this thread. That eating at McDonalds daily can actually be good for you.
A conclusion associated with the brand, based on a sort term, not scientifically proven, experiment, of one man, over a sort period, with carefully planning choices. So, no, I do not think this is science. It is advertisement disguised as science. It could also have been a very good example to teach kids what a scientific study should not look like, especially when it comes to conclusions. But science, it is not.
The bolded is my concern as well.
I couldn't find the equivalent in McDonald's 2014 Annual Report, but apparently as of their 2007 Annual Report, the # 1 and 2 foods people bought at McDonald's were french fries and Big Macs.
So while McDonald's does have other options, that's not what the majority of its customers buy.
“540 Meals:” A McDonald’s Infomercial Coming to a School Near You
...It’s true that anyone will lose weight on a fast food diet if they consume too few calories to maintain their weight, just as anyone eating only “clean” food will gain weight if they eat too many calories. But 540 Meals is hardly a neutral lesson in calorie balancing. Instead, it instills in children as young as age 11 the explicit and potentially harmful message that “There’s nothing wrong with fast food. There’s nothing wrong with McDonald’s.”
Here are some specific concerns raised by the film:
540 Meals Omits Critical Information
Cisna’s “before” photo.
Unlike Morgan Spurlock, who was in good physical shape at the start of Super Size Me, Cisna weighed 280 pounds when his experiment began. This Institute of Medicine calorie calculator indicates Cisna likely required over 3,150 calories a day just to maintain his elevated weight, which explains his rapid weight loss on 2,000 calories a day.
But what about a 5′ 3,” 120-pound, sedentary high school girl watching 540 Meals in science class? She’ll gain weight if she exceeds 1,700 calories a day — not many more than the 1,440 calories in a single McDonald’s meal of a Big Mac, medium fries and a small chocolate shake. Cisna would likely respond that 540 Meals will teach this hypothetical girl to be more careful in choosing McDonald’s items to meet her lower caloric needs, but there are two problems with that response.
First, neither 540 Meals nor the discussion guide ever offer young viewers the critically important disclaimer that “Your calorie needs may be significantly lower than John Cisna’s,” nor do they even discuss how one might go about calculating one’s daily caloric requirements. Instead, students are left with the vague but reassuring message that “choice and balance,” along with a 45-minute walk (which might burn off about 1/5 of a Big Mac) will allow them to eat whatever they want at McDonald’s on a regular basis.
Read more: http://www.thelunchtray.com/cisna-540-meals-a-mcdonalds-infomercial-coming-to-a-school-near-you/0 -
Or, you know, teachers talk to their students about critical thinking, which was part of the purpose in the first place.0
-
People are overly snobby about McDonalds and I have never been able to grasp why.
I eat there at least once a week, and sometimes more. I have never been able to understand why a meat sandwich made at home is supposed to be more virtuous than one that is delivered to you at speed at a drive through. Most people I know put a whole lot more mayo and certainly a thicker wedge of cheese on a sandwich they prepare themselves.
People don't get horrified when you got to a restaurant, where things are just as likely to be designed to be delicious and full of cream and fat and the portions are bigger, but when you walk into the office with a McDonalds bag, half the office huffs and puffs like you are strolling in with crack cocaine.
I personally think it is a class issue. If I got the exact same burger made by Tashas (the restaurant where rich people eat in our town), and it was called an Eu de Boef or something, everyone would be impressed with my class and style.
Even though anyone with half a brain can understand how you can fit McDonalds into your calories, you will still get responses like "why would you?" because the dislike for the idea comes from a more complicated place.
People don't want to be seen as "the sort of people" who eat at McDonalds.
I've had burgers at McDonald's and burgers at Le Tub, and let me tell you, there is a world of difference.
In fact, I've never made a burger at home or had a burger at a non-fast food restaurant that wasn't better than a McDonald's burger.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Thought experiment: this happens and blood test results are still fine.Packerjohn wrote: »shadow2soul wrote: »random5483 wrote: »Losing weight is all about having a calorie deficit. Eating at McDonalds everyday and losing weight is definitely possible if you control your portions. However, I would not advise it. McDonalds is mostly unhealthy. Losing weight and being healthy are not one and the same.
His blood markers improved as well. He didn't have the student's just keep him at a calorie deficit. They had to make sure he was meeting the nutritional standards set by the FDA as well.
He lost 56 pounds of fat, I'm guessing that was a significant reason his blood test results improved. How about taking a person of a healthy BMI who is maintaining on say 2400 calories a day of nutrient dense "healthy" food and have them eat 2400 calories of McDonald's food for a few months and see what happens to their blood test results?
What's your conclusion?
For anyone thinking an exclusive diet of McDonald's food is good for you please message me with your social security number, credit card and bank account numbers. I know an African price that wants to deposit 1 million dollars in your account by noon tomorrow.
Except there's a guy here who's holding a million dollars (his blood work improved) telling everyone the instructions for getting it from the African prince, while saying he is not endorsing giving out the SSN to an African prince, just that it can be done.
Also, instead of ominous, unidentified harm, can you name explicitly something about McDonald's food that will cause an explicit health effect?
Here are a few articles:
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/statistics-health-risks-eating-fast-food-3290.html
http://www.healthline.com/health/fast-food-effects-on-body
The first article talks about risks that were specifically eliminated in this individual's case (his weight went down, his blood work improved). The second has lots of words like "suggest" and "may."
Do you really think this individual is worse off than he was before beginning his experiment?
Hmm, several studies by drs, in large groups, over several years. Verifying pretty much what we all see each day.
One guy's, on McDonald's payroll, personal testimony on how he had a positive health outcome, in a few months.
Whom to trust, what to believe...
Doesn't matter who endorses him, the science is the science. Follow the money reasoning is a poor heuristic often applied when people want to argue against the science but don't actually understand it.
I am pretty sure that there are very few people on this forum who understand science as well as I do, so you are not talking about me
If the point of the experiment was to show that eating less calories results in weight loss, yes, this was of course a valid point. No one on their right mind would argue with this.
If the point was to show that no longer being obese will result in improved health, again, it is nothing to debate about.
But what will the average person with poor eating habits get out of the whole thing? Something like the title of this thread. That eating at McDonalds daily can actually be good for you.
A conclusion associated with the brand, based on a sort term, not scientifically proven, experiment, of one man, over a sort period, with carefully planning choices. So, no, I do not think this is science. It is advertisement disguised as science. It could also have been a very good example to teach kids what a scientific study should not look like, especially when it comes to conclusions. But science, it is not.
The bolded is my concern as well.
I couldn't find the equivalent in McDonald's 2014 Annual Report, but apparently as of their 2007 Annual Report, the # 1 and 2 foods people bought at McDonald's were french fries and Big Macs.
So while McDonald's does have other options, that's not what the majority of its customers buy.
“540 Meals:” A McDonald’s Infomercial Coming to a School Near You
...It’s true that anyone will lose weight on a fast food diet if they consume too few calories to maintain their weight, just as anyone eating only “clean” food will gain weight if they eat too many calories. But 540 Meals is hardly a neutral lesson in calorie balancing. Instead, it instills in children as young as age 11 the explicit and potentially harmful message that “There’s nothing wrong with fast food. There’s nothing wrong with McDonald’s.”
Here are some specific concerns raised by the film:
540 Meals Omits Critical Information
Cisna’s “before” photo.
Unlike Morgan Spurlock, who was in good physical shape at the start of Super Size Me, Cisna weighed 280 pounds when his experiment began. This Institute of Medicine calorie calculator indicates Cisna likely required over 3,150 calories a day just to maintain his elevated weight, which explains his rapid weight loss on 2,000 calories a day.
But what about a 5′ 3,” 120-pound, sedentary high school girl watching 540 Meals in science class? She’ll gain weight if she exceeds 1,700 calories a day — not many more than the 1,440 calories in a single McDonald’s meal of a Big Mac, medium fries and a small chocolate shake. Cisna would likely respond that 540 Meals will teach this hypothetical girl to be more careful in choosing McDonald’s items to meet her lower caloric needs, but there are two problems with that response.
First, neither 540 Meals nor the discussion guide ever offer young viewers the critically important disclaimer that “Your calorie needs may be significantly lower than John Cisna’s,” nor do they even discuss how one might go about calculating one’s daily caloric requirements. Instead, students are left with the vague but reassuring message that “choice and balance,” along with a 45-minute walk (which might burn off about 1/5 of a Big Mac) will allow them to eat whatever they want at McDonald’s on a regular basis.
Read more: http://www.thelunchtray.com/cisna-540-meals-a-mcdonalds-infomercial-coming-to-a-school-near-you/
Great point.
The "Nutrition" education my son received in 7th grade health class was so brief and lacking in examples, that this is exactly the type of conclusion he'd draw. And, he does like McDonald's, so this is the type of stuff we talk about sometimes.
The word "moderation" keeps showing up in this thread, like it's so easy. Personally, I do not find moderation to be easy at all, which was part of how I got myself fat in the first place. I'll even go as far as to say that I think giving someone advice of, "eat anything you want, in moderation," is useless for a lot of people, unless it is very specifically defined, and I don't mean in only a "fit it in your daily allowance of calories" or even just macros type of way. Micros and satiety are important, too. I realize this method works for a lot of people, but it also does not work for a lot of people, as well.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »People are overly snobby about McDonalds and I have never been able to grasp why.
I eat there at least once a week, and sometimes more. I have never been able to understand why a meat sandwich made at home is supposed to be more virtuous than one that is delivered to you at speed at a drive through. Most people I know put a whole lot more mayo and certainly a thicker wedge of cheese on a sandwich they prepare themselves.
People don't get horrified when you got to a restaurant, where things are just as likely to be designed to be delicious and full of cream and fat and the portions are bigger, but when you walk into the office with a McDonalds bag, half the office huffs and puffs like you are strolling in with crack cocaine.
I personally think it is a class issue. If I got the exact same burger made by Tashas (the restaurant where rich people eat in our town), and it was called an Eu de Boef or something, everyone would be impressed with my class and style.
Even though anyone with half a brain can understand how you can fit McDonalds into your calories, you will still get responses like "why would you?" because the dislike for the idea comes from a more complicated place.
People don't want to be seen as "the sort of people" who eat at McDonalds.
I've had burgers at McDonald's and burgers at Le Tub, and let me tell you, there is a world of difference.
In fact, I've never made a burger at home or had a burger at a non-fast food restaurant that wasn't better than a McDonald's burger.
I don't eat at McDonalds...just have never really liked it. However...
Many people opt for McDonalds simply because it is affordable to take their family to. Then there is that playground...
Good or bad people have the ability to research and make their own choices.
Non-fast food burgers might taste better but I am not so sure that they are any healthier. There is a restaurant near me called Zoe's Kichen...healthy fresh food is their claim. I can't eat there due to their high levels of sodium. I can however find something at most fast food places that I can work in to my 1000-1200mg sodium allowance.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
justrollme wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Thought experiment: this happens and blood test results are still fine.Packerjohn wrote: »shadow2soul wrote: »random5483 wrote: »Losing weight is all about having a calorie deficit. Eating at McDonalds everyday and losing weight is definitely possible if you control your portions. However, I would not advise it. McDonalds is mostly unhealthy. Losing weight and being healthy are not one and the same.
His blood markers improved as well. He didn't have the student's just keep him at a calorie deficit. They had to make sure he was meeting the nutritional standards set by the FDA as well.
He lost 56 pounds of fat, I'm guessing that was a significant reason his blood test results improved. How about taking a person of a healthy BMI who is maintaining on say 2400 calories a day of nutrient dense "healthy" food and have them eat 2400 calories of McDonald's food for a few months and see what happens to their blood test results?
What's your conclusion?
For anyone thinking an exclusive diet of McDonald's food is good for you please message me with your social security number, credit card and bank account numbers. I know an African price that wants to deposit 1 million dollars in your account by noon tomorrow.
Except there's a guy here who's holding a million dollars (his blood work improved) telling everyone the instructions for getting it from the African prince, while saying he is not endorsing giving out the SSN to an African prince, just that it can be done.
Also, instead of ominous, unidentified harm, can you name explicitly something about McDonald's food that will cause an explicit health effect?
Here are a few articles:
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/statistics-health-risks-eating-fast-food-3290.html
http://www.healthline.com/health/fast-food-effects-on-body
The first article talks about risks that were specifically eliminated in this individual's case (his weight went down, his blood work improved). The second has lots of words like "suggest" and "may."
Do you really think this individual is worse off than he was before beginning his experiment?
Hmm, several studies by drs, in large groups, over several years. Verifying pretty much what we all see each day.
One guy's, on McDonald's payroll, personal testimony on how he had a positive health outcome, in a few months.
Whom to trust, what to believe...
Doesn't matter who endorses him, the science is the science. Follow the money reasoning is a poor heuristic often applied when people want to argue against the science but don't actually understand it.
I am pretty sure that there are very few people on this forum who understand science as well as I do, so you are not talking about me
If the point of the experiment was to show that eating less calories results in weight loss, yes, this was of course a valid point. No one on their right mind would argue with this.
If the point was to show that no longer being obese will result in improved health, again, it is nothing to debate about.
But what will the average person with poor eating habits get out of the whole thing? Something like the title of this thread. That eating at McDonalds daily can actually be good for you.
A conclusion associated with the brand, based on a sort term, not scientifically proven, experiment, of one man, over a sort period, with carefully planning choices. So, no, I do not think this is science. It is advertisement disguised as science. It could also have been a very good example to teach kids what a scientific study should not look like, especially when it comes to conclusions. But science, it is not.
The bolded is my concern as well.
I couldn't find the equivalent in McDonald's 2014 Annual Report, but apparently as of their 2007 Annual Report, the # 1 and 2 foods people bought at McDonald's were french fries and Big Macs.
So while McDonald's does have other options, that's not what the majority of its customers buy.
“540 Meals:” A McDonald’s Infomercial Coming to a School Near You
...It’s true that anyone will lose weight on a fast food diet if they consume too few calories to maintain their weight, just as anyone eating only “clean” food will gain weight if they eat too many calories. But 540 Meals is hardly a neutral lesson in calorie balancing. Instead, it instills in children as young as age 11 the explicit and potentially harmful message that “There’s nothing wrong with fast food. There’s nothing wrong with McDonald’s.”
Here are some specific concerns raised by the film:
540 Meals Omits Critical Information
Cisna’s “before” photo.
Unlike Morgan Spurlock, who was in good physical shape at the start of Super Size Me, Cisna weighed 280 pounds when his experiment began. This Institute of Medicine calorie calculator indicates Cisna likely required over 3,150 calories a day just to maintain his elevated weight, which explains his rapid weight loss on 2,000 calories a day.
But what about a 5′ 3,” 120-pound, sedentary high school girl watching 540 Meals in science class? She’ll gain weight if she exceeds 1,700 calories a day — not many more than the 1,440 calories in a single McDonald’s meal of a Big Mac, medium fries and a small chocolate shake. Cisna would likely respond that 540 Meals will teach this hypothetical girl to be more careful in choosing McDonald’s items to meet her lower caloric needs, but there are two problems with that response.
First, neither 540 Meals nor the discussion guide ever offer young viewers the critically important disclaimer that “Your calorie needs may be significantly lower than John Cisna’s,” nor do they even discuss how one might go about calculating one’s daily caloric requirements. Instead, students are left with the vague but reassuring message that “choice and balance,” along with a 45-minute walk (which might burn off about 1/5 of a Big Mac) will allow them to eat whatever they want at McDonald’s on a regular basis.
Read more: http://www.thelunchtray.com/cisna-540-meals-a-mcdonalds-infomercial-coming-to-a-school-near-you/
Great point.
The "Nutrition" education my son received in 7th grade health class was so brief and lacking in examples, that this is exactly the type of conclusion he'd draw. And, he does like McDonald's, so this is the type of stuff we talk about sometimes.
The word "moderation" keeps showing up in this thread, like it's so easy. Personally, I do not find moderation to be easy at all, which was part of how I got myself fat in the first place. I'll even go as far as to say that I think giving someone advice of, "eat anything you want, in moderation," is useless for a lot of people, unless it is very specifically defined, and I don't mean in only a "fit it in your daily allowance of calories" or even just macros type of way. Micros and satiety are important, too. I realize this method works for a lot of people, but it also does not work for a lot of people, as well.
Moderation works for anyone who has the self-discipline to implement it on a consistent basis.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »justrollme wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Thought experiment: this happens and blood test results are still fine.Packerjohn wrote: »shadow2soul wrote: »random5483 wrote: »Losing weight is all about having a calorie deficit. Eating at McDonalds everyday and losing weight is definitely possible if you control your portions. However, I would not advise it. McDonalds is mostly unhealthy. Losing weight and being healthy are not one and the same.
His blood markers improved as well. He didn't have the student's just keep him at a calorie deficit. They had to make sure he was meeting the nutritional standards set by the FDA as well.
He lost 56 pounds of fat, I'm guessing that was a significant reason his blood test results improved. How about taking a person of a healthy BMI who is maintaining on say 2400 calories a day of nutrient dense "healthy" food and have them eat 2400 calories of McDonald's food for a few months and see what happens to their blood test results?
What's your conclusion?
For anyone thinking an exclusive diet of McDonald's food is good for you please message me with your social security number, credit card and bank account numbers. I know an African price that wants to deposit 1 million dollars in your account by noon tomorrow.
Except there's a guy here who's holding a million dollars (his blood work improved) telling everyone the instructions for getting it from the African prince, while saying he is not endorsing giving out the SSN to an African prince, just that it can be done.
Also, instead of ominous, unidentified harm, can you name explicitly something about McDonald's food that will cause an explicit health effect?
Here are a few articles:
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/statistics-health-risks-eating-fast-food-3290.html
http://www.healthline.com/health/fast-food-effects-on-body
The first article talks about risks that were specifically eliminated in this individual's case (his weight went down, his blood work improved). The second has lots of words like "suggest" and "may."
Do you really think this individual is worse off than he was before beginning his experiment?
Hmm, several studies by drs, in large groups, over several years. Verifying pretty much what we all see each day.
One guy's, on McDonald's payroll, personal testimony on how he had a positive health outcome, in a few months.
Whom to trust, what to believe...
Doesn't matter who endorses him, the science is the science. Follow the money reasoning is a poor heuristic often applied when people want to argue against the science but don't actually understand it.
I am pretty sure that there are very few people on this forum who understand science as well as I do, so you are not talking about me
If the point of the experiment was to show that eating less calories results in weight loss, yes, this was of course a valid point. No one on their right mind would argue with this.
If the point was to show that no longer being obese will result in improved health, again, it is nothing to debate about.
But what will the average person with poor eating habits get out of the whole thing? Something like the title of this thread. That eating at McDonalds daily can actually be good for you.
A conclusion associated with the brand, based on a sort term, not scientifically proven, experiment, of one man, over a sort period, with carefully planning choices. So, no, I do not think this is science. It is advertisement disguised as science. It could also have been a very good example to teach kids what a scientific study should not look like, especially when it comes to conclusions. But science, it is not.
The bolded is my concern as well.
I couldn't find the equivalent in McDonald's 2014 Annual Report, but apparently as of their 2007 Annual Report, the # 1 and 2 foods people bought at McDonald's were french fries and Big Macs.
So while McDonald's does have other options, that's not what the majority of its customers buy.
“540 Meals:” A McDonald’s Infomercial Coming to a School Near You
...It’s true that anyone will lose weight on a fast food diet if they consume too few calories to maintain their weight, just as anyone eating only “clean” food will gain weight if they eat too many calories. But 540 Meals is hardly a neutral lesson in calorie balancing. Instead, it instills in children as young as age 11 the explicit and potentially harmful message that “There’s nothing wrong with fast food. There’s nothing wrong with McDonald’s.”
Here are some specific concerns raised by the film:
540 Meals Omits Critical Information
Cisna’s “before” photo.
Unlike Morgan Spurlock, who was in good physical shape at the start of Super Size Me, Cisna weighed 280 pounds when his experiment began. This Institute of Medicine calorie calculator indicates Cisna likely required over 3,150 calories a day just to maintain his elevated weight, which explains his rapid weight loss on 2,000 calories a day.
But what about a 5′ 3,” 120-pound, sedentary high school girl watching 540 Meals in science class? She’ll gain weight if she exceeds 1,700 calories a day — not many more than the 1,440 calories in a single McDonald’s meal of a Big Mac, medium fries and a small chocolate shake. Cisna would likely respond that 540 Meals will teach this hypothetical girl to be more careful in choosing McDonald’s items to meet her lower caloric needs, but there are two problems with that response.
First, neither 540 Meals nor the discussion guide ever offer young viewers the critically important disclaimer that “Your calorie needs may be significantly lower than John Cisna’s,” nor do they even discuss how one might go about calculating one’s daily caloric requirements. Instead, students are left with the vague but reassuring message that “choice and balance,” along with a 45-minute walk (which might burn off about 1/5 of a Big Mac) will allow them to eat whatever they want at McDonald’s on a regular basis.
Read more: http://www.thelunchtray.com/cisna-540-meals-a-mcdonalds-infomercial-coming-to-a-school-near-you/
Great point.
The "Nutrition" education my son received in 7th grade health class was so brief and lacking in examples, that this is exactly the type of conclusion he'd draw. And, he does like McDonald's, so this is the type of stuff we talk about sometimes.
The word "moderation" keeps showing up in this thread, like it's so easy. Personally, I do not find moderation to be easy at all, which was part of how I got myself fat in the first place. I'll even go as far as to say that I think giving someone advice of, "eat anything you want, in moderation," is useless for a lot of people, unless it is very specifically defined, and I don't mean in only a "fit it in your daily allowance of calories" or even just macros type of way. Micros and satiety are important, too. I realize this method works for a lot of people, but it also does not work for a lot of people, as well.
Moderation works for anyone who has the self-discipline to implement it on a consistent basis.
So, by this statement, all fat people lack self-discipline. That's most people. Which is why I am pointing out that moderation doesn't work for a lot of people.
Although, I am now well into a healthy bmi and normal weight range, and I do not practice moderation, nor do I lack self-discipline, so...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.
(Assuming normally-distributed data)
Statistically, the larger the sample size, the better you are able to approximate population means, distinguish outliers and estimate the error contributed by noise. Very small sample sizes have a reduced chance of including an outlier, but when they do you have no way to determine that is the case or whether you have simply under-sampled the population.
There is no magic number for determining statistical significance that applies across the board. You'd need to do a power calculation for the particular study taking into account the number of variables measured, the variance in the population (known or estimated), the study design, the acceptable levels of error, and the hypotheses to be addressed. Even then, the results of the power calculation are just an estimate unless you know the population's stats in advance.
For in vivo studies with human populations, I've yet to participate in a study where the minimum recommended sample size was < 30. Which is not to say that those same studies didn't proceed anyway with much less than 30 samples and with much less useful results than desired. As our lead Biostatistician says, "Power calculations can be reduced to two questions. 'How much money do you have?', and 'how much does it cost to process each sample?' ".0 -
justrollme wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »justrollme wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Thought experiment: this happens and blood test results are still fine.Packerjohn wrote: »shadow2soul wrote: »random5483 wrote: »Losing weight is all about having a calorie deficit. Eating at McDonalds everyday and losing weight is definitely possible if you control your portions. However, I would not advise it. McDonalds is mostly unhealthy. Losing weight and being healthy are not one and the same.
His blood markers improved as well. He didn't have the student's just keep him at a calorie deficit. They had to make sure he was meeting the nutritional standards set by the FDA as well.
He lost 56 pounds of fat, I'm guessing that was a significant reason his blood test results improved. How about taking a person of a healthy BMI who is maintaining on say 2400 calories a day of nutrient dense "healthy" food and have them eat 2400 calories of McDonald's food for a few months and see what happens to their blood test results?
What's your conclusion?
For anyone thinking an exclusive diet of McDonald's food is good for you please message me with your social security number, credit card and bank account numbers. I know an African price that wants to deposit 1 million dollars in your account by noon tomorrow.
Except there's a guy here who's holding a million dollars (his blood work improved) telling everyone the instructions for getting it from the African prince, while saying he is not endorsing giving out the SSN to an African prince, just that it can be done.
Also, instead of ominous, unidentified harm, can you name explicitly something about McDonald's food that will cause an explicit health effect?
Here are a few articles:
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/statistics-health-risks-eating-fast-food-3290.html
http://www.healthline.com/health/fast-food-effects-on-body
The first article talks about risks that were specifically eliminated in this individual's case (his weight went down, his blood work improved). The second has lots of words like "suggest" and "may."
Do you really think this individual is worse off than he was before beginning his experiment?
Hmm, several studies by drs, in large groups, over several years. Verifying pretty much what we all see each day.
One guy's, on McDonald's payroll, personal testimony on how he had a positive health outcome, in a few months.
Whom to trust, what to believe...
Doesn't matter who endorses him, the science is the science. Follow the money reasoning is a poor heuristic often applied when people want to argue against the science but don't actually understand it.
I am pretty sure that there are very few people on this forum who understand science as well as I do, so you are not talking about me
If the point of the experiment was to show that eating less calories results in weight loss, yes, this was of course a valid point. No one on their right mind would argue with this.
If the point was to show that no longer being obese will result in improved health, again, it is nothing to debate about.
But what will the average person with poor eating habits get out of the whole thing? Something like the title of this thread. That eating at McDonalds daily can actually be good for you.
A conclusion associated with the brand, based on a sort term, not scientifically proven, experiment, of one man, over a sort period, with carefully planning choices. So, no, I do not think this is science. It is advertisement disguised as science. It could also have been a very good example to teach kids what a scientific study should not look like, especially when it comes to conclusions. But science, it is not.
The bolded is my concern as well.
I couldn't find the equivalent in McDonald's 2014 Annual Report, but apparently as of their 2007 Annual Report, the # 1 and 2 foods people bought at McDonald's were french fries and Big Macs.
So while McDonald's does have other options, that's not what the majority of its customers buy.
“540 Meals:” A McDonald’s Infomercial Coming to a School Near You
...It’s true that anyone will lose weight on a fast food diet if they consume too few calories to maintain their weight, just as anyone eating only “clean” food will gain weight if they eat too many calories. But 540 Meals is hardly a neutral lesson in calorie balancing. Instead, it instills in children as young as age 11 the explicit and potentially harmful message that “There’s nothing wrong with fast food. There’s nothing wrong with McDonald’s.”
Here are some specific concerns raised by the film:
540 Meals Omits Critical Information
Cisna’s “before” photo.
Unlike Morgan Spurlock, who was in good physical shape at the start of Super Size Me, Cisna weighed 280 pounds when his experiment began. This Institute of Medicine calorie calculator indicates Cisna likely required over 3,150 calories a day just to maintain his elevated weight, which explains his rapid weight loss on 2,000 calories a day.
But what about a 5′ 3,” 120-pound, sedentary high school girl watching 540 Meals in science class? She’ll gain weight if she exceeds 1,700 calories a day — not many more than the 1,440 calories in a single McDonald’s meal of a Big Mac, medium fries and a small chocolate shake. Cisna would likely respond that 540 Meals will teach this hypothetical girl to be more careful in choosing McDonald’s items to meet her lower caloric needs, but there are two problems with that response.
First, neither 540 Meals nor the discussion guide ever offer young viewers the critically important disclaimer that “Your calorie needs may be significantly lower than John Cisna’s,” nor do they even discuss how one might go about calculating one’s daily caloric requirements. Instead, students are left with the vague but reassuring message that “choice and balance,” along with a 45-minute walk (which might burn off about 1/5 of a Big Mac) will allow them to eat whatever they want at McDonald’s on a regular basis.
Read more: http://www.thelunchtray.com/cisna-540-meals-a-mcdonalds-infomercial-coming-to-a-school-near-you/
Great point.
The "Nutrition" education my son received in 7th grade health class was so brief and lacking in examples, that this is exactly the type of conclusion he'd draw. And, he does like McDonald's, so this is the type of stuff we talk about sometimes.
The word "moderation" keeps showing up in this thread, like it's so easy. Personally, I do not find moderation to be easy at all, which was part of how I got myself fat in the first place. I'll even go as far as to say that I think giving someone advice of, "eat anything you want, in moderation," is useless for a lot of people, unless it is very specifically defined, and I don't mean in only a "fit it in your daily allowance of calories" or even just macros type of way. Micros and satiety are important, too. I realize this method works for a lot of people, but it also does not work for a lot of people, as well.
Moderation works for anyone who has the self-discipline to implement it on a consistent basis.
So, by this statement, all fat people lack self-discipline. That's most people. Which is why I am pointing out that moderation doesn't work for a lot of people.
Although, I am now well into a healthy bmi and normal weight range, and I do not practice moderation, nor do I lack self-discipline, so...
No, all fat people who can't practice moderation lack the self-discipline to do so. Many fat people (who are in the process of becoming un-fat or who are just maintaining their present fatness) practice moderation successfully. I am one of them. Again, moderation will work for anyone who is able to stick to it. To say it doesn't work is an indictment of the practice versus the practitioner.
You may not lack self-discipline in other areas of your life, but when it comes to food, you do. If you need to completely cut certain food out of your diet because you can't control yourself in its presence, then yes, you do indeed lack self-discipline.
ETA: I should add that many people don't properly understand moderation, so they either choose not to try it at all or they try it unsuccessfully and don't go back. Again, that's not a problem wth moderation, but a problem with the person trying to practice it.0 -
The way that is stated sounds like begging the question and relying on rhetoric and ignorance to make a claim.kshama2001 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Thought experiment: this happens and blood test results are still fine.Packerjohn wrote: »shadow2soul wrote: »random5483 wrote: »Losing weight is all about having a calorie deficit. Eating at McDonalds everyday and losing weight is definitely possible if you control your portions. However, I would not advise it. McDonalds is mostly unhealthy. Losing weight and being healthy are not one and the same.
His blood markers improved as well. He didn't have the student's just keep him at a calorie deficit. They had to make sure he was meeting the nutritional standards set by the FDA as well.
He lost 56 pounds of fat, I'm guessing that was a significant reason his blood test results improved. How about taking a person of a healthy BMI who is maintaining on say 2400 calories a day of nutrient dense "healthy" food and have them eat 2400 calories of McDonald's food for a few months and see what happens to their blood test results?
What's your conclusion?
For anyone thinking an exclusive diet of McDonald's food is good for you please message me with your social security number, credit card and bank account numbers. I know an African price that wants to deposit 1 million dollars in your account by noon tomorrow.
Except there's a guy here who's holding a million dollars (his blood work improved) telling everyone the instructions for getting it from the African prince, while saying he is not endorsing giving out the SSN to an African prince, just that it can be done.
Also, instead of ominous, unidentified harm, can you name explicitly something about McDonald's food that will cause an explicit health effect?
Here are a few articles:
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/statistics-health-risks-eating-fast-food-3290.html
http://www.healthline.com/health/fast-food-effects-on-body
The first article talks about risks that were specifically eliminated in this individual's case (his weight went down, his blood work improved). The second has lots of words like "suggest" and "may."
Do you really think this individual is worse off than he was before beginning his experiment?
Hmm, several studies by drs, in large groups, over several years. Verifying pretty much what we all see each day.
One guy's, on McDonald's payroll, personal testimony on how he had a positive health outcome, in a few months.
Whom to trust, what to believe...
Doesn't matter who endorses him, the science is the science. Follow the money reasoning is a poor heuristic often applied when people want to argue against the science but don't actually understand it.
I am pretty sure that there are very few people on this forum who understand science as well as I do, so you are not talking about me
If the point of the experiment was to show that eating less calories results in weight loss, yes, this was of course a valid point. No one on their right mind would argue with this.
If the point was to show that no longer being obese will result in improved health, again, it is nothing to debate about.
But what will the average person with poor eating habits get out of the whole thing? Something like the title of this thread. That eating at McDonalds daily can actually be good for you.
A conclusion associated with the brand, based on a sort term, not scientifically proven, experiment, of one man, over a sort period, with carefully planning choices. So, no, I do not think this is science. It is advertisement disguised as science. It could also have been a very good example to teach kids what a scientific study should not look like, especially when it comes to conclusions. But science, it is not.
The bolded is my concern as well.
I couldn't find the equivalent in McDonald's 2014 Annual Report, but apparently as of their 2007 Annual Report, the # 1 and 2 foods people bought at McDonald's were french fries and Big Macs.
So while McDonald's does have other options, that's not what the majority of its customers buy.
“540 Meals:” A McDonald’s Infomercial Coming to a School Near You
...It’s true that anyone will lose weight on a fast food diet if they consume too few calories to maintain their weight, just as anyone eating only “clean” food will gain weight if they eat too many calories. But 540 Meals is hardly a neutral lesson in calorie balancing. Instead, it instills in children as young as age 11 the explicit and potentially harmful message that “There’s nothing wrong with fast food. There’s nothing wrong with McDonald’s.”
For all that people everywhere in this thread claim fast food is unhealthy just by being fast food, no one provides evidence of its harm. All people present is that "well if you overdo, well if you eat too much, well if don't get these nutrients." All the issues exist with food, no adjective required, full stop.
0 -
Can I confess for a minute?? I just showed this to my students and stressed to them the importance of choices. The majority of them had seen "Supersize Me", and this was a nice counterpoint. Call it shameless promotion, but since the majority of my kids eat at McDonald's several times/week, this drives home point that the choices you make are incredibly important.0
-
I've known of studies that intentionally use very large sample sizes with multiple variables just so they can p-farm a seemingly statistically significant difference in groups.
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.
(Assuming normally-distributed data)
Statistically, the larger the sample size, the better you are able to approximate population means, distinguish outliers and estimate the error contributed by noise. Very small sample sizes have a reduced chance of including an outlier, but when they do you have no way to determine that is the case or whether you have simply under-sampled the population.
There is no magic number for determining statistical significance that applies across the board. You'd need to do a power calculation for the particular study taking into account the number of variables measured, the variance in the population (known or estimated), the study design, the acceptable levels of error, and the hypotheses to be addressed. Even then, the results of the power calculation are just an estimate unless you know the population's stats in advance.
For in vivo studies with human populations, I've yet to participate in a study where the minimum recommended sample size was < 30. Which is not to say that those same studies didn't proceed anyway with much less than 30 samples and with much less useful results than desired. As our lead Biostatistician says, "Power calculations can be reduced to two questions. 'How much money do you have?', and 'how much does it cost to process each sample?' ".
I'm not going to say that typically larger sampling size is not better, merely that it isn't always so.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »You may not lack self-discipline in other areas of your life, but when it comes to food, you do. If you need to completely cut certain food out of your diet because you can't control yourself in its presence, then yes, you do indeed lack self-discipline.
ETA: I should add that many people don't properly understand moderation, so they either choose not to try it at all or they try it unsuccessfully and don't go back. Again, that's not a problem wth moderation, but a problem with the person trying to practice it.
I absolutely do have self-discipline with food, that is why I'm having no trouble sticking with my healthy habits now. And, I'm sure I am not the only person to whom that applies.
As for the rest, yes some people probably don't understand moderation, however I also think that a lot of people do understand it, but do not successfully practice or sustain it. My point is, that as much as some are eager to hop on a soapbox for moderation, it simply is not a means of success for everyone.
0 -
justrollme wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »justrollme wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Thought experiment: this happens and blood test results are still fine.Packerjohn wrote: »shadow2soul wrote: »random5483 wrote: »Losing weight is all about having a calorie deficit. Eating at McDonalds everyday and losing weight is definitely possible if you control your portions. However, I would not advise it. McDonalds is mostly unhealthy. Losing weight and being healthy are not one and the same.
His blood markers improved as well. He didn't have the student's just keep him at a calorie deficit. They had to make sure he was meeting the nutritional standards set by the FDA as well.
He lost 56 pounds of fat, I'm guessing that was a significant reason his blood test results improved. How about taking a person of a healthy BMI who is maintaining on say 2400 calories a day of nutrient dense "healthy" food and have them eat 2400 calories of McDonald's food for a few months and see what happens to their blood test results?
What's your conclusion?
For anyone thinking an exclusive diet of McDonald's food is good for you please message me with your social security number, credit card and bank account numbers. I know an African price that wants to deposit 1 million dollars in your account by noon tomorrow.
Except there's a guy here who's holding a million dollars (his blood work improved) telling everyone the instructions for getting it from the African prince, while saying he is not endorsing giving out the SSN to an African prince, just that it can be done.
Also, instead of ominous, unidentified harm, can you name explicitly something about McDonald's food that will cause an explicit health effect?
Here are a few articles:
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/statistics-health-risks-eating-fast-food-3290.html
http://www.healthline.com/health/fast-food-effects-on-body
The first article talks about risks that were specifically eliminated in this individual's case (his weight went down, his blood work improved). The second has lots of words like "suggest" and "may."
Do you really think this individual is worse off than he was before beginning his experiment?
Hmm, several studies by drs, in large groups, over several years. Verifying pretty much what we all see each day.
One guy's, on McDonald's payroll, personal testimony on how he had a positive health outcome, in a few months.
Whom to trust, what to believe...
Doesn't matter who endorses him, the science is the science. Follow the money reasoning is a poor heuristic often applied when people want to argue against the science but don't actually understand it.
I am pretty sure that there are very few people on this forum who understand science as well as I do, so you are not talking about me
If the point of the experiment was to show that eating less calories results in weight loss, yes, this was of course a valid point. No one on their right mind would argue with this.
If the point was to show that no longer being obese will result in improved health, again, it is nothing to debate about.
But what will the average person with poor eating habits get out of the whole thing? Something like the title of this thread. That eating at McDonalds daily can actually be good for you.
A conclusion associated with the brand, based on a sort term, not scientifically proven, experiment, of one man, over a sort period, with carefully planning choices. So, no, I do not think this is science. It is advertisement disguised as science. It could also have been a very good example to teach kids what a scientific study should not look like, especially when it comes to conclusions. But science, it is not.
The bolded is my concern as well.
I couldn't find the equivalent in McDonald's 2014 Annual Report, but apparently as of their 2007 Annual Report, the # 1 and 2 foods people bought at McDonald's were french fries and Big Macs.
So while McDonald's does have other options, that's not what the majority of its customers buy.
“540 Meals:” A McDonald’s Infomercial Coming to a School Near You
...It’s true that anyone will lose weight on a fast food diet if they consume too few calories to maintain their weight, just as anyone eating only “clean” food will gain weight if they eat too many calories. But 540 Meals is hardly a neutral lesson in calorie balancing. Instead, it instills in children as young as age 11 the explicit and potentially harmful message that “There’s nothing wrong with fast food. There’s nothing wrong with McDonald’s.”
Here are some specific concerns raised by the film:
540 Meals Omits Critical Information
Cisna’s “before” photo.
Unlike Morgan Spurlock, who was in good physical shape at the start of Super Size Me, Cisna weighed 280 pounds when his experiment began. This Institute of Medicine calorie calculator indicates Cisna likely required over 3,150 calories a day just to maintain his elevated weight, which explains his rapid weight loss on 2,000 calories a day.
But what about a 5′ 3,” 120-pound, sedentary high school girl watching 540 Meals in science class? She’ll gain weight if she exceeds 1,700 calories a day — not many more than the 1,440 calories in a single McDonald’s meal of a Big Mac, medium fries and a small chocolate shake. Cisna would likely respond that 540 Meals will teach this hypothetical girl to be more careful in choosing McDonald’s items to meet her lower caloric needs, but there are two problems with that response.
First, neither 540 Meals nor the discussion guide ever offer young viewers the critically important disclaimer that “Your calorie needs may be significantly lower than John Cisna’s,” nor do they even discuss how one might go about calculating one’s daily caloric requirements. Instead, students are left with the vague but reassuring message that “choice and balance,” along with a 45-minute walk (which might burn off about 1/5 of a Big Mac) will allow them to eat whatever they want at McDonald’s on a regular basis.
Read more: http://www.thelunchtray.com/cisna-540-meals-a-mcdonalds-infomercial-coming-to-a-school-near-you/
Great point.
The "Nutrition" education my son received in 7th grade health class was so brief and lacking in examples, that this is exactly the type of conclusion he'd draw. And, he does like McDonald's, so this is the type of stuff we talk about sometimes.
The word "moderation" keeps showing up in this thread, like it's so easy. Personally, I do not find moderation to be easy at all, which was part of how I got myself fat in the first place. I'll even go as far as to say that I think giving someone advice of, "eat anything you want, in moderation," is useless for a lot of people, unless it is very specifically defined, and I don't mean in only a "fit it in your daily allowance of calories" or even just macros type of way. Micros and satiety are important, too. I realize this method works for a lot of people, but it also does not work for a lot of people, as well.
Moderation works for anyone who has the self-discipline to implement it on a consistent basis.
So, by this statement, all fat people lack self-discipline. That's most people. Which is why I am pointing out that moderation doesn't work for a lot of people.
Although, I am now well into a healthy bmi and normal weight range, and I do not practice moderation, nor do I lack self-discipline, so...
But you're admitting then you don't have the discipline to say hey I'm only going to have X amount of this, or only going to have it once in a while or whatever. You don't have that discipline to control how much of it you eat so you're not practicing moderation with those food items, you're simply just not eating them. Sure maybe you have the discipline to not purchase them or go to those restaurants, but I don't know if that's the same discipline as buying something, having it in your house and only consuming small portions of it at a time. I'm not in any way saying better or worse . . . just not sure it's the same thing because if you have something in front of you that you really love it's going to take so much more discipline to only consume a small amount of it than it would if that thing you love isn't anywhere near you and you cannot access it.
I will fully admit I have way more discipline and control over what I put into my body than I used to, way more. I would argue that a large majority of people who are extremely overweight are so because they lack the discipline to control what they consume. I know I did for a VERY long time. Perhaps there are some, a small percentage of the overweight population, where it's a medical issue or something. But many people lack the discipline to become educated on what they're consuming, how much of it, what the nutritional value of it is and so on.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »justrollme wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »justrollme wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Thought experiment: this happens and blood test results are still fine.Packerjohn wrote: »shadow2soul wrote: »random5483 wrote: »Losing weight is all about having a calorie deficit. Eating at McDonalds everyday and losing weight is definitely possible if you control your portions. However, I would not advise it. McDonalds is mostly unhealthy. Losing weight and being healthy are not one and the same.
His blood markers improved as well. He didn't have the student's just keep him at a calorie deficit. They had to make sure he was meeting the nutritional standards set by the FDA as well.
He lost 56 pounds of fat, I'm guessing that was a significant reason his blood test results improved. How about taking a person of a healthy BMI who is maintaining on say 2400 calories a day of nutrient dense "healthy" food and have them eat 2400 calories of McDonald's food for a few months and see what happens to their blood test results?
What's your conclusion?
For anyone thinking an exclusive diet of McDonald's food is good for you please message me with your social security number, credit card and bank account numbers. I know an African price that wants to deposit 1 million dollars in your account by noon tomorrow.
Except there's a guy here who's holding a million dollars (his blood work improved) telling everyone the instructions for getting it from the African prince, while saying he is not endorsing giving out the SSN to an African prince, just that it can be done.
Also, instead of ominous, unidentified harm, can you name explicitly something about McDonald's food that will cause an explicit health effect?
Here are a few articles:
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/statistics-health-risks-eating-fast-food-3290.html
http://www.healthline.com/health/fast-food-effects-on-body
The first article talks about risks that were specifically eliminated in this individual's case (his weight went down, his blood work improved). The second has lots of words like "suggest" and "may."
Do you really think this individual is worse off than he was before beginning his experiment?
Hmm, several studies by drs, in large groups, over several years. Verifying pretty much what we all see each day.
One guy's, on McDonald's payroll, personal testimony on how he had a positive health outcome, in a few months.
Whom to trust, what to believe...
Doesn't matter who endorses him, the science is the science. Follow the money reasoning is a poor heuristic often applied when people want to argue against the science but don't actually understand it.
I am pretty sure that there are very few people on this forum who understand science as well as I do, so you are not talking about me
If the point of the experiment was to show that eating less calories results in weight loss, yes, this was of course a valid point. No one on their right mind would argue with this.
If the point was to show that no longer being obese will result in improved health, again, it is nothing to debate about.
But what will the average person with poor eating habits get out of the whole thing? Something like the title of this thread. That eating at McDonalds daily can actually be good for you.
A conclusion associated with the brand, based on a sort term, not scientifically proven, experiment, of one man, over a sort period, with carefully planning choices. So, no, I do not think this is science. It is advertisement disguised as science. It could also have been a very good example to teach kids what a scientific study should not look like, especially when it comes to conclusions. But science, it is not.
The bolded is my concern as well.
I couldn't find the equivalent in McDonald's 2014 Annual Report, but apparently as of their 2007 Annual Report, the # 1 and 2 foods people bought at McDonald's were french fries and Big Macs.
So while McDonald's does have other options, that's not what the majority of its customers buy.
“540 Meals:” A McDonald’s Infomercial Coming to a School Near You
...It’s true that anyone will lose weight on a fast food diet if they consume too few calories to maintain their weight, just as anyone eating only “clean” food will gain weight if they eat too many calories. But 540 Meals is hardly a neutral lesson in calorie balancing. Instead, it instills in children as young as age 11 the explicit and potentially harmful message that “There’s nothing wrong with fast food. There’s nothing wrong with McDonald’s.”
Here are some specific concerns raised by the film:
540 Meals Omits Critical Information
Cisna’s “before” photo.
Unlike Morgan Spurlock, who was in good physical shape at the start of Super Size Me, Cisna weighed 280 pounds when his experiment began. This Institute of Medicine calorie calculator indicates Cisna likely required over 3,150 calories a day just to maintain his elevated weight, which explains his rapid weight loss on 2,000 calories a day.
But what about a 5′ 3,” 120-pound, sedentary high school girl watching 540 Meals in science class? She’ll gain weight if she exceeds 1,700 calories a day — not many more than the 1,440 calories in a single McDonald’s meal of a Big Mac, medium fries and a small chocolate shake. Cisna would likely respond that 540 Meals will teach this hypothetical girl to be more careful in choosing McDonald’s items to meet her lower caloric needs, but there are two problems with that response.
First, neither 540 Meals nor the discussion guide ever offer young viewers the critically important disclaimer that “Your calorie needs may be significantly lower than John Cisna’s,” nor do they even discuss how one might go about calculating one’s daily caloric requirements. Instead, students are left with the vague but reassuring message that “choice and balance,” along with a 45-minute walk (which might burn off about 1/5 of a Big Mac) will allow them to eat whatever they want at McDonald’s on a regular basis.
Read more: http://www.thelunchtray.com/cisna-540-meals-a-mcdonalds-infomercial-coming-to-a-school-near-you/
Great point.
The "Nutrition" education my son received in 7th grade health class was so brief and lacking in examples, that this is exactly the type of conclusion he'd draw. And, he does like McDonald's, so this is the type of stuff we talk about sometimes.
The word "moderation" keeps showing up in this thread, like it's so easy. Personally, I do not find moderation to be easy at all, which was part of how I got myself fat in the first place. I'll even go as far as to say that I think giving someone advice of, "eat anything you want, in moderation," is useless for a lot of people, unless it is very specifically defined, and I don't mean in only a "fit it in your daily allowance of calories" or even just macros type of way. Micros and satiety are important, too. I realize this method works for a lot of people, but it also does not work for a lot of people, as well.
Moderation works for anyone who has the self-discipline to implement it on a consistent basis.
So, by this statement, all fat people lack self-discipline. That's most people. Which is why I am pointing out that moderation doesn't work for a lot of people.
Although, I am now well into a healthy bmi and normal weight range, and I do not practice moderation, nor do I lack self-discipline, so...
No, all fat people who can't practice moderation lack the self-discipline to do so. Many fat people (who are in the process of becoming un-fat or who are just maintaining their present fatness) practice moderation successfully. I am one of them. Again, moderation will work for anyone who is able to stick to it. To say it doesn't work is an indictment of the practice versus the practitioner.
You may not lack self-discipline in other areas of your life, but when it comes to food, you do. If you need to completely cut certain food out of your diet because you can't control yourself in its presence, then yes, you do indeed lack self-discipline.
ETA: I should add that many people don't properly understand moderation, so they either choose not to try it at all or they try it unsuccessfully and don't go back. Again, that's not a problem wth moderation, but a problem with the person trying to practice it.
Totally agree with the bolded! I used to lack a lot of discipline . . . I just couldn't control the amount of food I would consume sometimes. I also practice moderation, and have successfully practiced it through 90lbs of weight loss. It's very possible but it takes a lot of want to get there - and I mean sometimes giving up what you most want right now for what you most want overall.0 -
acorsaut89 wrote: »But you're admitting then you don't have the discipline to say hey I'm only going to have X amount of this, or only going to have it once in a while or whatever. You don't have that discipline to control how much of it you eat so you're not practicing moderation with those food items, you're simply just not eating them. Sure maybe you have the discipline to not purchase them or go to those restaurants, but I don't know if that's the same discipline as buying something, having it in your house and only consuming small portions of it at a time. I'm not in any way saying better or worse . . . just not sure it's the same thing because if you have something in front of you that you really love it's going to take so much more discipline to only consume a small amount of it than it would if that thing you love isn't anywhere near you and you cannot access it.
I will fully admit I have way more discipline and control over what I put into my body than I used to, way more. I would argue that a large majority of people who are extremely overweight are so because they lack the discipline to control what they consume. I know I did for a VERY long time. Perhaps there are some, a small percentage of the overweight population, where it's a medical issue or something. But many people lack the discipline to become educated on what they're consuming, how much of it, what the nutritional value of it is and so on.
I absolutely do have the discipline to say hey I'm only going to have X amount of this, but my "this" are better choices than what I ate when I got fat. (Otherwise, I would not have been able to maintain a deficit.) For me, I'd rather not waste calories on foods that are not going to satisfy me, or even worse, give me digestive troubles (which was something that happened to me sometimes when I did eat McDonald's.)
0 -
justrollme wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »You may not lack self-discipline in other areas of your life, but when it comes to food, you do. If you need to completely cut certain food out of your diet because you can't control yourself in its presence, then yes, you do indeed lack self-discipline.
ETA: I should add that many people don't properly understand moderation, so they either choose not to try it at all or they try it unsuccessfully and don't go back. Again, that's not a problem wth moderation, but a problem with the person trying to practice it.
I absolutely do have self-discipline with food, that is why I'm having no trouble sticking with my healthy habits now. And, I'm sure I am not the only person to whom that applies.
As for the rest, yes some people probably don't understand moderation, however I also think that a lot of people do understand it, but do not successfully practice or sustain it. My point is, that as much as some are eager to hop on a soapbox for moderation, it simply is not a means of success for everyone.
No, complete abstention from certain food requires a different level of discipline than that which is required to eat all foods in a manner that fits your nutritional and energy goals.
Saying moderation is not a means of success for everyone is a lot different than saying it doesn't work. The fact is that by practicing moderation to hit calorie goals and satisfy micro/macro requirements, it will work for every single person.
ETA: Changed the phrasing in my first paragraph.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »justrollme wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »You may not lack self-discipline in other areas of your life, but when it comes to food, you do. If you need to completely cut certain food out of your diet because you can't control yourself in its presence, then yes, you do indeed lack self-discipline.
ETA: I should add that many people don't properly understand moderation, so they either choose not to try it at all or they try it unsuccessfully and don't go back. Again, that's not a problem wth moderation, but a problem with the person trying to practice it.
I absolutely do have self-discipline with food, that is why I'm having no trouble sticking with my healthy habits now. And, I'm sure I am not the only person to whom that applies.
As for the rest, yes some people probably don't understand moderation, however I also think that a lot of people do understand it, but do not successfully practice or sustain it. My point is, that as much as some are eager to hop on a soapbox for moderation, it simply is not a means of success for everyone.
No, you have the discipline to avoid certain food entirely. That's a different level of discipline than that which is required to eat all foods in a manner that fits your nutritional and energy goals.
Saying moderation is not a means of success for everyone is a lot different than saying it doesn't work. The fact is that by practicing moderation to hit calorie goals and satisfy micro/macro requirements, it will work for every single person.
I never said moderation doesn't work, I said it doesn't work for everyone. Maybe you should re-read what I wrote?
In examining my habits, what works for me is elimination of certain foods and moderation of certain foods. Just like sugar shouldn't be demonized, elimination of foods should also not be demonized. Better?0 -
I've known of studies that intentionally use very large sample sizes with multiple variables just so they can p-farm a seemingly statistically significant difference in groups.
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.
(Assuming normally-distributed data)
Statistically, the larger the sample size, the better you are able to approximate population means, distinguish outliers and estimate the error contributed by noise. Very small sample sizes have a reduced chance of including an outlier, but when they do you have no way to determine that is the case or whether you have simply under-sampled the population.
There is no magic number for determining statistical significance that applies across the board. You'd need to do a power calculation for the particular study taking into account the number of variables measured, the variance in the population (known or estimated), the study design, the acceptable levels of error, and the hypotheses to be addressed. Even then, the results of the power calculation are just an estimate unless you know the population's stats in advance.
For in vivo studies with human populations, I've yet to participate in a study where the minimum recommended sample size was < 30. Which is not to say that those same studies didn't proceed anyway with much less than 30 samples and with much less useful results than desired. As our lead Biostatistician says, "Power calculations can be reduced to two questions. 'How much money do you have?', and 'how much does it cost to process each sample?' ".
I'm not going to say that typically larger sampling size is not better, merely that it isn't always so.
Increase the number of variables, increase the chance of getting some observations that reach statistical significance by chance alone, which is why there are multiple testing correction techniques that are supposed to 'help'. In reality they're often not effective because they operate on assumptions that frequently don't hold in the study.
If a study needs X samples to power their tests, then yes, it doesn't much matter if they use X - 5 or X - 10.
Common problem in the '-omics' fields since it's not likely any study will have enough samples to adequately power thousands to millions of variables.0 -
justrollme wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »justrollme wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »You may not lack self-discipline in other areas of your life, but when it comes to food, you do. If you need to completely cut certain food out of your diet because you can't control yourself in its presence, then yes, you do indeed lack self-discipline.
ETA: I should add that many people don't properly understand moderation, so they either choose not to try it at all or they try it unsuccessfully and don't go back. Again, that's not a problem wth moderation, but a problem with the person trying to practice it.
I absolutely do have self-discipline with food, that is why I'm having no trouble sticking with my healthy habits now. And, I'm sure I am not the only person to whom that applies.
As for the rest, yes some people probably don't understand moderation, however I also think that a lot of people do understand it, but do not successfully practice or sustain it. My point is, that as much as some are eager to hop on a soapbox for moderation, it simply is not a means of success for everyone.
No, you have the discipline to avoid certain food entirely. That's a different level of discipline than that which is required to eat all foods in a manner that fits your nutritional and energy goals.
Saying moderation is not a means of success for everyone is a lot different than saying it doesn't work. The fact is that by practicing moderation to hit calorie goals and satisfy micro/macro requirements, it will work for every single person.
I never said moderation doesn't work, I said it doesn't work for everyone. Maybe you should re-read what I wrote?
In examining my habits, what works for me is elimination of certain foods and moderation of certain foods. Just like sugar shouldn't be demonized, elimination of foods should also not be demonized. Better?
I read you correctly. I disagree and maintain that it will work for everyone. That's different than saying everyone has the discipline to practice it. There is no one out there who won't achieve their goals by sticking to a diet based on moderation. The ability to actually stick to the diet is the piece that requires discipline and I will agree with you that not everyone has that discipline.
You can't simultaneously practice moderation and elimination. They are inherently different approaches to eating (outside of medically-required eliminations).0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »justrollme wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »justrollme wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »You may not lack self-discipline in other areas of your life, but when it comes to food, you do. If you need to completely cut certain food out of your diet because you can't control yourself in its presence, then yes, you do indeed lack self-discipline.
ETA: I should add that many people don't properly understand moderation, so they either choose not to try it at all or they try it unsuccessfully and don't go back. Again, that's not a problem wth moderation, but a problem with the person trying to practice it.
I absolutely do have self-discipline with food, that is why I'm having no trouble sticking with my healthy habits now. And, I'm sure I am not the only person to whom that applies.
As for the rest, yes some people probably don't understand moderation, however I also think that a lot of people do understand it, but do not successfully practice or sustain it. My point is, that as much as some are eager to hop on a soapbox for moderation, it simply is not a means of success for everyone.
No, you have the discipline to avoid certain food entirely. That's a different level of discipline than that which is required to eat all foods in a manner that fits your nutritional and energy goals.
Saying moderation is not a means of success for everyone is a lot different than saying it doesn't work. The fact is that by practicing moderation to hit calorie goals and satisfy micro/macro requirements, it will work for every single person.
I never said moderation doesn't work, I said it doesn't work for everyone. Maybe you should re-read what I wrote?
In examining my habits, what works for me is elimination of certain foods and moderation of certain foods. Just like sugar shouldn't be demonized, elimination of foods should also not be demonized. Better?
I read you correctly. I disagree and maintain that it will work for everyone. That's different than saying everyone has the discipline to practice it. There is no one out there who won't achieve their goals by sticking to a diet based on moderation. The ability to actually stick to the diet is the piece that requires discipline and I will agree with you that not everyone has that discipline.
You can't simultaneously practice moderation and elimination. They are inherently different approaches to eating (outside of medically-required eliminations).
You didn't read well. Every single day, I moderate the foods I choose to eat, and I do not eat the foods I've chosen to eliminate. It is through discipline that I do this. You don't have to like it or believe it, but that is an every day reality for me.
As I stated in my original post, moderation is not easy for many people. If it was, then there wouldn't be a lot of people who fail at it, or who regain weight after losing.
At this point, we will have to agree to disagree.0 -
Read more: http://www.thelunchtray.com/cisna-540-meals-a-mcdonalds-infomercial-coming-to-a-school-near-you/
They stopped the infomercial woo hoo! Seriously, I'd like to know more about the next 90 days when he lost 19 more pounds and increased his exercise. Anybody walking for 45 minutes and burning 1/5 of Big Mac is probably doing something terribly wrong. I mean, how slow would you have to walk to burn 1/5 of 540 calories(a Big Mac) in 45 minutes? Hmmm....and the link provided also recommends 5 to 9 servings a day of fruits and vegetables. I've read a lot of diaries in over 3 years on MFP and I think it is safe to say you'd be hard pressed to find many people adhering to this. Then again. . . .0 -
Or, you know, teachers talk to their students about critical thinking, which was part of the purpose in the first place.
This. I feel like the "people might misunderstand" is basically assuming that other people are dumb. I prefer to treat people with respect and not assume they are going to be so dumb that they jump to wrong conclusions (until they prove otherwise, anyway).
Same with the "people won't understand how to do moderation" thing. People who want to can figure it out, obviously. It's really not rocket science.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions