So you CAN eat McDonald's every day...
Options
Replies
-
Maybe so, but in the absence of evidence that there's anything unique about his body, there's really no reason to believe that anyone else couldn't do the same, is there?Derf_Smeggle wrote: »This experiment is interesting and an inventive in its approach to engaging the students. Kudos to the teacher.
However, with a sample size of 1, this is more of a case study than an experiment with any statistical significant data.
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?0 -
No, there couldn't be. Around here, suggesting that one can occasionally eat some donuts and still be healthy really means advocating eating only donuts. So, of course, eating at McDonald's has to mean being face down in apple pies and Double Quarter Pounders with cheese.
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?
I'm not sure if it's a poor understanding of the options, or of logic, or of others' ability to eat moderate amounts of particular kinds of food. Or if it's just trying to mess up threads in which someone advocates something, gasp, different from one's own choices.
0 -
A sausage mcmuffin for 1 dollar will fill you up pretty good, and only 370 calories or so. You can even get it all day now.0
-
From a strictly scientific research standpoint, that would be a flawed assumption. Based on a data set of 1 you cannot infer anything about a larger population.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Maybe so, but in the absence of evidence that there's anything unique about his body, there's really no reason to believe that anyone else couldn't do the same, is there?Derf_Smeggle wrote: »This experiment is interesting and an inventive in its approach to engaging the students. Kudos to the teacher.
However, with a sample size of 1, this is more of a case study than an experiment with any statistical significant data.
Note - I personally believe the 2 hypotheses being spoken of the most. 1) eating at a calorie deficit will result in weight loss. 2) Weight loss contributes to improving blood panel test results.
But this experiment of 1 does not provide strong evidence of proof for those hypotheses because the sample size is as small as it gets. How about people who are not obese at the beginning? What is the effect there? Men v. women? Younger people v. older people? Does ethnicity play a roll in outcomes? Do it with 100, 500, 1000 people across gender, age, ethnicity profiles and then report the results.0 -
Except we're not basing the inference about the larger population on the one person, but on the one person because of the larger population.Derf_Smeggle wrote: »
From a strictly scientific research standpoint, that would be a flawed assumption. Based on a data set of 1 you cannot infer anything about a larger population.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Maybe so, but in the absence of evidence that there's anything unique about his body, there's really no reason to believe that anyone else couldn't do the same, is there?Derf_Smeggle wrote: »This experiment is interesting and an inventive in its approach to engaging the students. Kudos to the teacher.
However, with a sample size of 1, this is more of a case study than an experiment with any statistical significant data.
Note - I personally believe the 2 hypotheses being spoken of the most. 1) eating at a calorie deficit will result in weight loss. 2) Weight loss contributes to improving blood panel test results.
But this experiment of 1 does not provide strong evidence of proof for those hypotheses because the sample size is as small as it gets. How about people who are not obese at the beginning? What is the effect there? Men v. women? Younger people v. older people? Does ethnicity play a roll in outcomes? Do it with 100, 500, 1000 people across gender, age, ethnicity profiles and then report the results.
Those hypotheses have been demonstrated repeatedly. The novelty here is simply the source of the calories.
ETA: Even with the inherent problems of induction, can you cite a single person in the history of the world who hasn't, or wouldn't, lose weight in a caloric deficit (over the long term, not daily fluctuations) and the mechanism by which such a person would obtain the extra energy not present from food?0 -
I found it a perfect counterpoint to the sensationalist "Supersize Me". A class got a demonstrable example of the power of critical thinking. The classrooms of today are the voters of tomorrow. I want these kids to see past the gitteratii and NOT vote in the Trumps of the world.0
-
Derf_Smeggle wrote: »
From a strictly scientific research standpoint, that would be a flawed assumption. Based on a data set of 1 you cannot infer anything about a larger population.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Maybe so, but in the absence of evidence that there's anything unique about his body, there's really no reason to believe that anyone else couldn't do the same, is there?Derf_Smeggle wrote: »This experiment is interesting and an inventive in its approach to engaging the students. Kudos to the teacher.
However, with a sample size of 1, this is more of a case study than an experiment with any statistical significant data.
Note - I personally believe the 2 hypotheses being spoken of the most. 1) eating at a calorie deficit will result in weight loss. 2) Weight loss contributes to improving blood panel test results.
But this experiment of 1 does not provide strong evidence of proof for those hypotheses because the sample size is as small as it gets. How about people who are not obese at the beginning? What is the effect there? Men v. women? Younger people v. older people? Does ethnicity play a roll in outcomes? Do it with 100, 500, 1000 people across gender, age, ethnicity profiles and then report the results.
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).0 -
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).0 -
I can't eat mcdonalds or any fast food without feeling gross and not well for the next 24-48 hours. Maybe it's because I didn't grow up eating it and it's just not something I'm used to but I would HATE if all I could eat wasfast food.
It doesn't necessarily cause weight gain by any means but it's easier to consume a lot of it quickly because of the msg and the fa ct that if you don't eat it within like 20 minutes it turns to a cold hard rock.
I have a friend who ended up in treatment for anorexia with a BMI around 15 and all she ate was mcdonalds. She didn't eat a ton of it or anything but she didn't even know she had a problem because, well.. she was eating mcdonalds.
At least to me there is a difference between losing weight and getting healthy. I can weigh 100lbs and feel great or 100lbs and feel like crap because my eating habits and exercise routine are not where they should be. I'm a little. Over 100 mow and I know I need to be healthier because my body is telling me give up the crap food and stick to what works with me so wright has little to do with what someone eats. Plenty of obese people eat what people consider "healthy". It's all about moderation and finding out what your body agrees with0 -
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.
0 -
So the teacher's experiment was as controlled as the "supersize me" movie. It taught the students a great deal about measuring and variables, not to mention critical thinking skills.0
-
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. Lol0 -
The bottom line to this thread is that main problem is not the type of food but inactivity or sedentary lifestyle.
When I was a kid, I used to eat whatever I wanted but I was very active.
Using bicycle for school, every evening outdoor play and extra hours of outdoor activities on weekends.
How many children on the average really do that these days? Lets not even discuss about the adults.
I disagree, it's not activity levels. When I was a kid, 20 years ago, I didn't have the Internet or video games, but I was in sports, had PE in school, hiked all over the mountains in scouts, and played soccer/basketball when I wasn't doing all that...still I was always chubby. So if we're using anecdotal evidence, I'm just not sold on activity level being a culprit.
0 -
I eat from Dunkin' Donuts every morning: bacon, egg, & cheese wrap with a large black coffee. 180 calories, it fills me up, and doesn't weigh me down. I probably have that 5 days out of 7, and I'm down close to 80 pounds
0 -
ufgator187 wrote: »I can't eat mcdonalds or any fast food without feeling gross and not well for the next 24-48 hours. Maybe it's because I didn't grow up eating it and it's just not something I'm used to but I would HATE if all I could eat wasfast food.
It doesn't necessarily cause weight gain by any means but it's easier to consume a lot of it quickly because of the msg and the fa ct that if you don't eat it within like 20 minutes it turns to a cold hard rock.
I have a friend who ended up in treatment for anorexia with a BMI around 15 and all she ate was mcdonalds. She didn't eat a ton of it or anything but she didn't even know she had a problem because, well.. she was eating mcdonalds.
At least to me there is a difference between losing weight and getting healthy. I can weigh 100lbs and feel great or 100lbs and feel like crap because my eating habits and exercise routine are not where they should be. I'm a little. Over 100 mow and I know I need to be healthier because my body is telling me give up the crap food and stick to what works with me so wright has little to do with what someone eats. Plenty of obese people eat what people consider "healthy". It's all about moderation and finding out what your body agrees with
While I definitely agree that moderation is very important, there are some people who just cannot control how much of something they end up eating . . . for various reasons . . . and they have to completely cut that food item out of their life until either they figure out how to portion it properly or forever.
What I do not agree with is you stating perhaps you feel gross when eating fast food because you didn't grow up with it. I grew up playing sports - I played basketball, volleyball and softball. My brother played football. We were always active and involved in team sports and extra curricular activities, but we also had parents who worked full time hours +. They almost always made it to our games, tournaments and most practices, too. They did everything they could to make sure we knew they supported us. And sometimes that meant that we ate out for whole weekends because the four of us were at a tournament or whatever. It did happen, very often. So pretty young I was introduced to the concept of fast food and my body was too. Fast forward to 2012 when I had been eating fast food regularly (at least twice a week) for the last 12 years or so and my body was pretty used to it. I didn't feel as great as I do now, but at that time I didn't know I wasn't feeling great I just thought it's how I felt. But now that I only eat fast food once every 4 or 5 months (and I know it's not a reality for some people, so please don't take this as judgment) I cannot stomach it very well anymore. I get really ill and find myself visiting bathrooms constantly for about a 36 hour period after eating it. It's not fun - and many times it's not worth it for me - but sometimes I still do it. The point of this is that even those of us who "grew up" eating fast food regularly, when we take it out of our regular rotation of food our bodies can sometimes no longer handle it, either. My dad has Chrons disease and when he and my mom started being a lot more careful about what they ate his flareups were much less severe - they still happen because a lot of times they're stress related but when they do happen and he has been eating higher quality nutritional foods, they are much less severe for him. I have IBS and my flareups are also emotion/stress related but the flareups are not as bad or as painful if I'm eating the right foods for me.
Weight gain is caused by eating more than you burn - and it doesn't matter what kinds of food you eat, if you're eating too much for your body then you will gain weight. Your body, in terms of calories, cannot tell if you're eating a home made burger or one from a restaurant. Maybe in terms of ingredients you will feel different - either better or worse. But your body cannot tell the difference in terms of calories.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.0 -
I love Big Macs. Love.
But I can't eat them everyday. Even when I am at my ideal weight and shape, eating fast food often makes me feel...poorly. Can't put my finger on it. But I just can't.
10 years ago, I used to have a HUGE fast food meal a week. I mean enormous. And I managed to stay in great shape.
Now, I feel like crap when I eat (my favorite) Big Mac meal.
Maybe it's just that I am getting older, and my body can't recuperate as quickly. I still do it every once in a while, though...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions