An Argument Against Fast Food

AnvilHead

...Digestion requires a significant amount of energy, and some foods are harder to digest than others (i.e., require more energy). I suspect that people who eat only fast food are spending more energy digesting high amounts of fat...

The TEF (Thermic Effect of Feeding) for fat is somewhere around 2-3%. It's the most effortlessly digested of all macronutrients. Protein has the highest TEF, at around 20-30%, with carbs being around 5-6%.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/metabolic-rate-overview.html

BusyRaeNOTBusty

I ate Wendy's for lunch yesterday.

And take-out pizza the day before.

The End.

Hadabetter

...Digestion requires a significant amount of energy, and some foods are harder to digest than others (i.e., require more energy). I suspect that people who eat only fast food are spending more energy digesting high amounts of fat...

The TEF (Thermic Effect of Feeding) for fat is somewhere around 2-3%. It's the most effortlessly digested of all macronutrients. Protein has the highest TEF, at around 20-30%, with carbs being around 5-6%.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/metabolic-rate-overview.html

Wow, good to know. I was just speculating. Thanks for schooling me up.

CoachReddy

Well according to CoachReddy's original post - if you want to perform "better" - you need to cut out the fast food. But top athletes eat fast food in moderation. So if we go by his original statement, then they should cut out the fast food to perform even better.

But then he says that Michael Phelps is a genetic freak and it's okay for him to eat fast food. As for the other athletes that do - never got an answer as to whether they were exempt or not. Or if pro-athletes, in general, were exempt from this book's message.

you constantly ignore what I actually type, so here I'll quote myself from a couple pages ago. I did answer that question:

we've been through this already and I agree. but it's ok for them (athletes) to eat fast food ON TOP of the other nutrient dense foods they eat because their daily needs are being met by those foods, and the empty calories of fast food actually HELP them vs hurt them like with typical people. but don't make the mistake of thinking they don't also eat incredibly nutritious, nutrient dense foods every day as well.

CoachReddy

ok cool. we're actually on the same page. there are absolutely many contributing factors, and you listed a lot of really great ones there. thanks for that.

Well, 16 pages to get to this -- I beleive you were told early on that it was not nutrients only or even a major element of satiation.

People often attribute ongoing satiation to their feelings of fullness, there is a lot of evidence that satiation is psychological as well as physiological. Satiation happens too quickly in terms of biological processes to be purely digestive in nature, does not depend on just caloric or nutritional content. It really does appears that satiation is not solely driven by an internal meter indicating whether a need has been met - there are many studies on the psychology of eating that show this. Satiation also clearly has psychological components that are most likely linked to other well-known mechanisms such as envirnomental clueing, sensory adaptation and habituation.

It's nice to see you adjust your thinking across the discussion.

You stated some illnesses can be avoided by choices in diet and lifestyle but in reality it is the opposite. Some diseases can be aggrevated or triggered by diet/lifestyle choices - high blood pressure, diabetes, CVD, etc still exist among the "healthiest" of eaters just at lower frequencies. And the single most important risk factors in as a health marker for the most common diseases in America is not the type of food, a specific food item, fast vs slow but obesity and activity level. Within a varied lifestyle with food sources that cover nutrient needs the current arguments to completely avoid one food or another are specious.

that is a MUCH better way of looking at it. thanks for that.

dave4d

I tried to fuel my workout one day with a huge breakfast burrito from a local fast food restaurant, and my workout was very sluggish, and suffered, tremendously. I thought that the carbs from the potatoes, and tortilla, would have helped, but it made it worse. I can see the reason for this argument....But, There are choices at most fast food restaurants that are fairly healthy, and clean. I don't see any difference between a salad from Wendy's, ( if I avoid the unhealthy stuff like dressing), or a home made one. They don't do anything to the veggies to make them unhealthy at fast food joints, and grilled chicken is usually healthy, no matter where you get it.

CoachReddy

I tried to fuel my workout one day with a huge breakfast burrito from a local fast food restaurant, and my workout was very sluggish, and suffered, tremendously. I thought that the carbs from the potatoes, and tortilla, would have helped, but it made it worse. I can see the reason for this argument....But, There are choices at most fast food restaurants that are fairly healthy, and clean. I don't see any difference between a salad from Wendy's, ( if I avoid the unhealthy stuff like dressing), or a home made one. They don't do anything to the veggies to make them unhealthy at fast food joints, and grilled chicken is usually healthy, no matter where you get it.

you're right about the salads if you stay away from the crispy chicken add ons or the heavy dressings, as for grilled chicken, the chicken itself is usually not so bad, but the bun, mayo, etc are the culprits there.

but yes, more and more there are some better options. I've said it before, but if y'all like Chipotle, go crazy. Free range chicken and beef, local veggies. for some reason they're able to do it right. it's a shame the others don't follow suit!

FitnessPalWorks

had a gluten free, dairy free pizza from dominos a couple weeks ago.

crucify me.

What is that, like, a plate of meat and vegetables? O.o

gluten free crust, sauce and veggies. vegan

You do really most GF substitutes are actually far more unhealthier than those containing gluten? I wouldn't touch that crap. And this is coming from a diagnosed coeliac, btw.

man... ate my post. but the ingredients are: Water, Rice Flour, Rice Starch, Potato Starch, Olive Oil, Evaporated Cane Juice, Tapioca Flour, Potato Flour, Fresh Yeast, Avicel, Salt, Calcium Propionate.

Only two in there I'd be worried about. (Avicel, Calcium Propionate)

Seriously? LOL

Unless you are gluten sensitive or intolerant (as I am) or have Celiac Disease I highly recommend you NOT speak to your obvious lack of knowledge on the subject.

You are missing the mark on the most OBVIOUS FELON in those ingredients above. FRESH YEAST.

It requires two rises therefore is not good for gluten-free products.

Period.

girl you need to relax.

That's you're answer to being proven wrong?
How about you just say something like, "Oh wow, I had no idea"
It would make you seem more human and marginally humble.
You can't admit you were wrong, eh, or that someone had slightly more info than you?

i'm sure you know much more about celiac disease and gluten sensitivity than i do. don't doubt it. however, those things dont apply to me because i'm not noticeably sensitive to gluten (ie: i don't get symptoms).

Um, then why are you ordering a GLUTEN FREE pizza?

Because I personally feel that we'd all be better off eating less gluten. I can eat whatever I want. Lol

LOL? Really?
So with your "LOL"... you are mocking those that cannot eat whatever they want? Really?
So you're better than those that have restricted foods they can eat?
Dude, do you really find that AMUSING???

But you ingested gluten with the yeast up there that I indicated above that was not a gluten-free yeast.
You couldn't even be "lowered" to the level of giving props to someone who educated you on the subject.

Wow. Canoe alert. Canoe alert.......

Hey Coach, you ignoring my questions again? Here, I reposted it from page 14. Again.

CoachReddy

LOL? Really?
So with your "LOL"... you are mocking those that cannot eat whatever they want? Really?
So you're better than those that have restricted foods they can eat?
Dude, do you really find that AMUSING???

But you ingested gluten with the yeast up there that I indicated above that was not a gluten-free yeast.
You couldn't even be "lowered" to the level of giving props to someone who educated you on the subject.

Wow. Canoe alert. Canoe alert.......

Hey Coach, you ignoring my questions again? Here, I reposted it from page 14. Again.

it's tough for me to respond to every single raging post in these threads. don't' consider yourself special in that regard.

I wasn't mocking anyone with dietary restrictions. When I said "I can eat what ever I want" I simply meant I can choose to eat whatever I want and don't have to answer to anyone for it. Don't take everything so personally.

also, given that I don't believe I have a gluten sensitivity, I've never done in depth research on such sensitivities. I actually had no idea the potential risks of live or active yeasts in a persons' system. I read a bit about it this morning, and it seems a good enough reason for me to skip gluten even if I don't HAVE to.

anything wrong with that? or are martyrs like you the only people who are allowed to avoid gluten?

Oishii

Before you flame without reading the post, please keep in mind that while I have not listed the sources, Brendan Brazier, top triathlete and nutritional specialist lists ALL his sources in his book (Thrive: The Vegan Nutrition Guide to Optimal Performance in Sports and Life). It would take pages to list them all here.

I'm not saying any diet is better than another, just that I found this quite interesting to read, and thought others might too.

A calorie is defined as a measure of food energy. It might seem logical, then, to assume that the more calories consumed, the more energy our body is supplied with. Of course, we know this is not the case, otherwise people with the highest energy would be those who eat at fast food restaurants. By simply consuming more calories, we are not guaranteed more energy. Many conventional nutrition books would have us believe that if we expend a certain amount of energy, it can be quantified and replaced. They suggest that by simply adhering to calorie counts, with no consideration of other factors, we can accurately gauge the amount of food we need to consume to maintain low body weight and high energy. But it doesn't work that way.

Unfortunately, most foods in the average North American's diet require almost as much energy to assimilate as they contain, because while they are high in calories, they are low in nutrients. The nutritional value of food stated on the food packaging label refers to what is in the food - not what the body actually gets from it. By consuming more easily assimilated foods, you can conserve a large amount of energy, therefore reducing stress in the body, and helping with recovery. There are two main reasons for this. First, foods in their natural, nutrient-dense state can be digested and assimilated with less energy expenditure than processed, refined foods. Second, when more nutrient-rich foods are present in the diet, the body does not have to eat as much as if it were fed less nutrient-rich foods. Today, I consume 30 percent fewer calories than I did just two years ago, yet I have more energy - by means of conservation, rather than consumption.

Essentially the point is this: because fast food is not nutritionally dense, your body has to work harder to get fewer nutrients, which is a WASTE of energy. Energy that could otherwise be used on anything from recovery - which would allow you to train harder and more often - to mental energy, to just feeling better in your day to day life. The more steam lined your system, and the less it has to work to digest the food you introduce, the better YOU will operate. The more weight you'll lose. The better you will feel.

But hey, I'm not here to say you HAVE to do it. I'm not even saying you should! If you'd rather eat fast food because you really enjoy it, then I would never advocate giving it up! But if your goals are to perform better and to feel better, not just lose weight, it may be worth considering.

Have at it. And let's try and keep it civil, K?

I've read as far as page 11, but I've gotten bored now and want to go read other threads, so I'm sorry if I repeat anyone.

Basically, whether fast food is good, bad or indifferent, I'm just not buying the logic of the quote from this book.

For a start:

A calorie is defined as a measure of food energy. It might seem logical, then, to assume that the more calories consumed, the more energy our body is supplied with. Of course, we know this is not the case, otherwise people with the highest energy would be those who eat at fast food restaurants.

I can't see how this can be anything other than nonsense. If I eat more I DO have more energy. I bounce more, wriggle more, dance more if I eat towards the top end of my maintenance range. If I eat towards the bottom end, I go into conservation mode: I catch myself sitting still and my NEAT plummets. Also, if I eat fewer calories than I need, I will lose weight because my body will take energy from my body.

It feels to me that this writer is using a totally unscientific definition of 'energy'. Once upon a time, pre real science, anyone could make up a theory and if the results matched that theory it was assumed to be true (my favourite is that the tides were caused by giant holes at both poles). We don't live in those times. Now a lot of things are better understood, but calories in v. calories out isn't going to sell to anyone, so people come up with their own, sellable ideas, like this one.

Next

Unfortunately, most foods in the average North American's diet require almost as much energy to assimilate as they contain, because while they are high in calories, they are low in nutrients.

So it would be nearly impossible to gain weight eating fast food? This is clearly wrong. Either the writer quoted is a truly bad writer who has failed to say what he meant to say, or he is completely illogical.

Finally:

Today, I consume 30 percent fewer calories than I did just two years ago, yet I have more energy - by means of conservation, rather than consumption.

30% fewer? So, my TDEE is around 2400. 800kcal deficit. I would be losing over 1lb a week. I don't want to lose 1lb a week. Is he claiming that he is maintaining the same weight, muscle mass and activity on 30% fewer calories, or has he had to shrink in the process?

I have found these ideas seductive in the past. Sometimes I would LIKE to be able to eat less, but with a noticeable lack of real science here, I'm just not buying it.

I would like to know what 'nutrient dense' foods he's recommending. A lot of fruits and veg are fibre rich and mainly water. Fibre is necessary, but hard work for the body to digest (high TEF, I think I read). It fills your stomach without providing energy, whilst also burning extra. How does he avoid this effect?

Finally, one misconception from the OP (I think, apologies if not): you have not eaten enough just because your stomach is full. I can have a full stomach from foods of a low calorie density and still be hungry. There are two different systems at work, and the full stomach message doesn't override the system saying, loudly 'calories in still lower than calories out'. In some people, especially those who have been obese or undereaten for a long time, these systems don't work correctly, so not everyone gets to experience this. So, stopping eating because your stomach is full is not the answer to adequate calorie intake.

Sorry to tag on to the tail end of this thread, but I felt the logic got lost in places along the way.