Is fast food really so bad for you?

Joreanasaurous

On the rare occasions I eat fast food I get sick. Never fails. So for me at least....I'm going to say it is pretty bad.

miissnessa

Fast food isn't all that bad if you moderate yourself and don't eat it everyday. Instead of getting a bunch of items, get a decent meal and don't go everyday or too often. When you're out and craving food, go ahead but don't get too much. Fast food CAN be addicting and a problem but with moderation, it shouldn't be a problem.

magerum

Wut?

Fast food isn't bad in moderation. I eat it once a week or so if we can afford it. I don't classify foods as "good" or "bad." People get overweight/obese and have the related health problems by eating too much food (not just fast food. You can get overweight eating "healthy" food.) I've lost weight just fine.

And before anyone can chime in with, "It's more than just the number on the scale:"

My cholesterol is fine (bangin', in fact. It was over 300, I was prescribed meds for it, and now it's well into the healthy range without me ever taking the medication. And I was 103 pounds when it was tested that high, 141 pounds now. Go figure. Not weight-related,) my heart functions well, my liver and kidney function well, my blood tests came back with zero deficiencies... In fact, aside from having 20 pounds to lose still, I'm in tip-top shape according to every test my doctor could throw at me. I had 'em all (and, being in a healthy weight range and having an acceptable body fat % according to the doctor, the 20 pounds is just for my satisfaction and not for my health.)

I eat fast food more often than I used to, and I'm healthier than I was a year ago. Fast food didn't make me heathier, but eating everything in moderation did. Whether eating out or eating at home, it's about eating an appropriate amount.

You are 22 years old. And what works for you will not necessarily work for an obese 40 year-old. By the way, it is good that you did not go on the anti-cholesterol drug. They are dangerous drugs---the side effects are awful.

You are a 65 year old arthritic woman. What appliies to you doesn't necessarily apply to the vast, vast majority of people on MFP. Sometimes people just have energy needs. How is it going to benefit someone any more if they have already achieved several hundred percent more of a nutrient than needed? You don't get extra credit.

myofibril

I did not copy and paste from his book. In the book, he answers his critics who have said that the fructose intake was excessive but it was designed in the way that most studies are designed---exposing the test subjects to a large amount of a substance in a short time frame. While that does not exactly relate to "real world" consumption, Dr. Johnson and his colleagues have always said that the effects are long term and cumulative. As Dr. Johnson points out, it is quite striking that they were able to produce "metabolic syndrome" in the test subjects in TWO WEEKS!

Thank you (and ACG) for directing me to the study which I read with interest. Given I have not read the book I cannot comment definitively about what Dr Johnson's position is but I am not surprised he has had to answer criticism of the study.

Lets be clear. The InterAct study talks of the incidence of Type II diabetes and consumption of sugar sweetened beverages and this being raised, seemingly irrespective of body fatness (BMI). This study is about increasing the features of metabolic syndrome (which is a cluster of separate medical disorders) rather than establishing a causal link to diabetes (which would be unethical.)

Clearly these are different things and I don't think you can base a public policy message on the basis of Dr Johnson's study. The design leading to the potential of bias, lack of a control and exaggerated intake makes it hard for us to say general public should be concerned about fructose in their diet (concentrated forms of fructose may be a different kettle of fish though!)

It's certainly something to bear in mind though.

ArroganceInStep

I'm working as hard as I can at exercise (I have arthritis). I go to the pool twice a week and as my weight has come down (which makes the calorie restrictions become tighter and tighter) I have become a lot more active--as my arthritis improves. I am already down to a 2 pound a month weight loss, even though my macros are set at "1 pound a week". I added light weights several months ago and I am attempting to do heavier weights but I am also eating at a supposed deficit (and I am VERY careful to weigh and record EVERYTHING). I'm happy for you that you are able to maintain on 4,000 calories. I can assure you that I would blow up like a blimp on that many calories. I would have a problem maintaining on half of that.

That's why I said generally. MFP's estimation may be accurate for some people, which leads increasing your activity. If you can't (or are unwilling to) do that, you're stuck with what you have.

Again, it's not about FORCING 'junk food' into your diet, it's about having some if you want it and have the space in your calories for it.

ArroganceInStep

Except that you are not accounting for what obesity researchers have observed as the "anti-satiety" effect of excessive fructose consumption.

So a poptart is less filling than 200 calories of celery; in a calorie controlled environment that doesn't matter outside of preference. Once again not saying you can't eat 'clean' or a specific way, just that you don't have to in order to reach success. If you are ravenous after filling your daily allotment of calories with twinkies and skittles, then that's not a very well laid out diet. If you reach your nutritional needs for the day and have 200 cals left over for a scoop of ice cream and want one, that's perfectly fine.

ArroganceInStep

It isn't my "obsession"--it is the subject of ongoing obesity research.

I am acquainted with several severely obese individuals (450+ pounds) who easily eat that much fructose in a day through their excessive consumption of sweets and soda. The food diary of one of them records at least 800 grams of carbohydrate a day--the majority of which comes from sugar and high fructose corn syrup. This woman is severely ill--Type II diabetic---and even though she is only in her early 30s her life expectancy is quite short. At over 500 pounds, she must even lose some body fat before her doctor will even consider lap band surgery. And the results of those surgeries is proving to be unsuccessful in avoiding many of the problems and illnesses of the severely obese, anyway. There have been studies done which show that the rate of illness and medical complications accelerates for those who have had the procedure.

800+ grams cho is over 3200 calories without considering the other 2 macros (or alcohol). 3200 is the problem, not 800.

SanteMulberry

Wut?

Fast food isn't bad in moderation. I eat it once a week or so if we can afford it. I don't classify foods as "good" or "bad." People get overweight/obese and have the related health problems by eating too much food (not just fast food. You can get overweight eating "healthy" food.) I've lost weight just fine.

And before anyone can chime in with, "It's more than just the number on the scale:"

My cholesterol is fine (bangin', in fact. It was over 300, I was prescribed meds for it, and now it's well into the healthy range without me ever taking the medication. And I was 103 pounds when it was tested that high, 141 pounds now. Go figure. Not weight-related,) my heart functions well, my liver and kidney function well, my blood tests came back with zero deficiencies... In fact, aside from having 20 pounds to lose still, I'm in tip-top shape according to every test my doctor could throw at me. I had 'em all (and, being in a healthy weight range and having an acceptable body fat % according to the doctor, the 20 pounds is just for my satisfaction and not for my health.)

I eat fast food more often than I used to, and I'm healthier than I was a year ago. Fast food didn't make me heathier, but eating everything in moderation did. Whether eating out or eating at home, it's about eating an appropriate amount.

You are 22 years old. And what works for you will not necessarily work for an obese 40 year-old. By the way, it is good that you did not go on the anti-cholesterol drug. They are dangerous drugs---the side effects are awful.

You are a 65 year old arthritic woman. What appliies to you doesn't necessarily apply to the vast, vast majority of people on MFP. Sometimes people just have energy needs. How is it going to benefit someone any more if they have already achieved several hundred percent more of a nutrient than needed? You don't get extra credit.

But Magerum, that is assuming we even KNOW all of the nutrients that come together to form the synergy of health. I understand that what applies to me doesn't necessarily apply to everyone here but it likely applies to more than you think. I meet people here every day who have similar struggles (and they are mostly women). There is a vast difference between someone who maintains at 3,200 calories and someone who is eating less than half of that and only losing 1/2 pound per week.

SanteMulberry

Except that you are not accounting for what obesity researchers have observed as the "anti-satiety" effect of excessive fructose consumption.

So a poptart is less filling than 200 calories of celery; in a calorie controlled environment that doesn't matter outside of preference. Once again not saying you can't eat 'clean' or a specific way, just that you don't have to in order to reach success. If you are ravenous after filling your daily allotment of calories with twinkies and skittles, then that's not a very well laid out diet. If you reach your nutritional needs for the day and have 200 cals left over for a scoop of ice cream and want one, that's perfectly fine.

Actually, it is less filling, according to the newest research on "food addiction". Here is a link to the proceedings from a recent scientific conference on that subject: http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/index.htm

magerum

Wut?

Fast food isn't bad in moderation. I eat it once a week or so if we can afford it. I don't classify foods as "good" or "bad." People get overweight/obese and have the related health problems by eating too much food (not just fast food. You can get overweight eating "healthy" food.) I've lost weight just fine.

And before anyone can chime in with, "It's more than just the number on the scale:"

My cholesterol is fine (bangin', in fact. It was over 300, I was prescribed meds for it, and now it's well into the healthy range without me ever taking the medication. And I was 103 pounds when it was tested that high, 141 pounds now. Go figure. Not weight-related,) my heart functions well, my liver and kidney function well, my blood tests came back with zero deficiencies... In fact, aside from having 20 pounds to lose still, I'm in tip-top shape according to every test my doctor could throw at me. I had 'em all (and, being in a healthy weight range and having an acceptable body fat % according to the doctor, the 20 pounds is just for my satisfaction and not for my health.)

I eat fast food more often than I used to, and I'm healthier than I was a year ago. Fast food didn't make me heathier, but eating everything in moderation did. Whether eating out or eating at home, it's about eating an appropriate amount.

You are 22 years old. And what works for you will not necessarily work for an obese 40 year-old. By the way, it is good that you did not go on the anti-cholesterol drug. They are dangerous drugs---the side effects are awful.

You are a 65 year old arthritic woman. What appliies to you doesn't necessarily apply to the vast, vast majority of people on MFP. Sometimes people just have energy needs. How is it going to benefit someone any more if they have already achieved several hundred percent more of a nutrient than needed? You don't get extra credit.

But Magerum, that is assuming we even KNOW all of the nutrients that come together to form the synergy of health. I understand that what applies to me doesn't necessarily apply to everyone here but it likely applies to more than you think. I meet people here every day who have similar struggles (and they are mostly women). There is a vast difference between someone who maintains at 3,200 calories and someone who is eating less than half of that and only losing 1/2 pound per week.

Just for he record, I'm losing a little more than a pound a week at 3250. Maintenance is a bit north of 4,000. I only made that comment because of your previous comment about the posters age. I still don't see how demonizing food helps, regardless or caloric intake. Women are not unique butterflies, the laws of thermodynamics apply to both genders.

I happen to have had success following the laws of physics/thermodynamics. Success that any human can achieve by accurately measuring an using established controls.

SanteMulberry

Wut?

Fast food isn't bad in moderation. I eat it once a week or so if we can afford it. I don't classify foods as "good" or "bad." People get overweight/obese and have the related health problems by eating too much food (not just fast food. You can get overweight eating "healthy" food.) I've lost weight just fine.

And before anyone can chime in with, "It's more than just the number on the scale:"

My cholesterol is fine (bangin', in fact. It was over 300, I was prescribed meds for it, and now it's well into the healthy range without me ever taking the medication. And I was 103 pounds when it was tested that high, 141 pounds now. Go figure. Not weight-related,) my heart functions well, my liver and kidney function well, my blood tests came back with zero deficiencies... In fact, aside from having 20 pounds to lose still, I'm in tip-top shape according to every test my doctor could throw at me. I had 'em all (and, being in a healthy weight range and having an acceptable body fat % according to the doctor, the 20 pounds is just for my satisfaction and not for my health.)

I eat fast food more often than I used to, and I'm healthier than I was a year ago. Fast food didn't make me heathier, but eating everything in moderation did. Whether eating out or eating at home, it's about eating an appropriate amount.

You are 22 years old. And what works for you will not necessarily work for an obese 40 year-old. By the way, it is good that you did not go on the anti-cholesterol drug. They are dangerous drugs---the side effects are awful.

You are a 65 year old arthritic woman. What appliies to you doesn't necessarily apply to the vast, vast majority of people on MFP. Sometimes people just have energy needs. How is it going to benefit someone any more if they have already achieved several hundred percent more of a nutrient than needed? You don't get extra credit.

But Magerum, that is assuming we even KNOW all of the nutrients that come together to form the synergy of health. I understand that what applies to me doesn't necessarily apply to everyone here but it likely applies to more than you think. I meet people here every day who have similar struggles (and they are mostly women). There is a vast difference between someone who maintains at 3,200 calories and someone who is eating less than half of that and only losing 1/2 pound per week.

Just for he record, I'm losing a little more than a pound a week at 3250. Maintenance is a bit north of 4,000. I only made that comment because of your previous comment about the posters age. I still don't see how demonizing food helps, regardless or caloric intake. Women are not unique butterflies, the laws of thermodynamics apply to both genders.

I happen to have had success following the laws of physics/thermodynamics. Success that any human can achieve by accurately measuring an using established controls.

If all I cared about was losing weight, I would throw prudence to the wind and eat 1,360 calories of whatever caught my attention. But I'm not really interested in being unhealthy---been there, done that, didn't like it one little bit. I really don't think any food is "evil" but I do think that some foods are not wise for some people and maybe some "foods" are not right for anyone. Here is an interesting article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johnmanuel-andriote/the-fat-switch_b_3164800.html? The reporter gets some details goofed up (I have read the book) but it is an interesting read, nonetheless.

jofjltncb6

Wut?

Fast food isn't bad in moderation. I eat it once a week or so if we can afford it. I don't classify foods as "good" or "bad." People get overweight/obese and have the related health problems by eating too much food (not just fast food. You can get overweight eating "healthy" food.) I've lost weight just fine.

And before anyone can chime in with, "It's more than just the number on the scale:"

My cholesterol is fine (bangin', in fact. It was over 300, I was prescribed meds for it, and now it's well into the healthy range without me ever taking the medication. And I was 103 pounds when it was tested that high, 141 pounds now. Go figure. Not weight-related,) my heart functions well, my liver and kidney function well, my blood tests came back with zero deficiencies... In fact, aside from having 20 pounds to lose still, I'm in tip-top shape according to every test my doctor could throw at me. I had 'em all (and, being in a healthy weight range and having an acceptable body fat % according to the doctor, the 20 pounds is just for my satisfaction and not for my health.)

I eat fast food more often than I used to, and I'm healthier than I was a year ago. Fast food didn't make me heathier, but eating everything in moderation did. Whether eating out or eating at home, it's about eating an appropriate amount.

You are 22 years old. And what works for you will not necessarily work for an obese 40 year-old. By the way, it is good that you did not go on the anti-cholesterol drug. They are dangerous drugs---the side effects are awful.

You are a 65 year old arthritic woman. What appliies to you doesn't necessarily apply to the vast, vast majority of people on MFP. Sometimes people just have energy needs. How is it going to benefit someone any more if they have already achieved several hundred percent more of a nutrient than needed? You don't get extra credit.

But Magerum, that is assuming we even KNOW all of the nutrients that come together to form the synergy of health. I understand that what applies to me doesn't necessarily apply to everyone here but it likely applies to more than you think. I meet people here every day who have similar struggles (and they are mostly women). There is a vast difference between someone who maintains at 3,200 calories and someone who is eating less than half of that and only losing 1/2 pound per week.

Just for he record, I'm losing a little more than a pound a week at 3250. Maintenance is a bit north of 4,000. I only made that comment because of your previous comment about the posters age. I still don't see how demonizing food helps, regardless or caloric intake. Women are not unique butterflies, the laws of thermodynamics apply to both genders.

I happen to have had success following the laws of physics/thermodynamics. Success that any human can achieve by accurately measuring an using established controls.

If all I cared about was losing weight, I would throw prudence to the wind and eat 1,360 calories of whatever caught my attention. But I'm not really interested in being unhealthy---been there, done that, didn't like it one little bit. I really don't think any food is "evil" but I do think that some foods are not wise for some people and maybe some "foods" are not right for anyone. Here is an interesting article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johnmanuel-andriote/the-fat-switch_b_3164800.html? The reporter gets some details goofed up (I have read the book) but it is an interesting read, nonetheless.

But his health markers are all excellent...

...probably because his weight is an appropriate level and he ensures he is getting sufficient nutrients.

He hasn't thrown an ounce of prudence into the slightest of breezes.

SanteMulberry

Wut?

Fast food isn't bad in moderation. I eat it once a week or so if we can afford it. I don't classify foods as "good" or "bad." People get overweight/obese and have the related health problems by eating too much food (not just fast food. You can get overweight eating "healthy" food.) I've lost weight just fine.

And before anyone can chime in with, "It's more than just the number on the scale:"

My cholesterol is fine (bangin', in fact. It was over 300, I was prescribed meds for it, and now it's well into the healthy range without me ever taking the medication. And I was 103 pounds when it was tested that high, 141 pounds now. Go figure. Not weight-related,) my heart functions well, my liver and kidney function well, my blood tests came back with zero deficiencies... In fact, aside from having 20 pounds to lose still, I'm in tip-top shape according to every test my doctor could throw at me. I had 'em all (and, being in a healthy weight range and having an acceptable body fat % according to the doctor, the 20 pounds is just for my satisfaction and not for my health.)

I eat fast food more often than I used to, and I'm healthier than I was a year ago. Fast food didn't make me heathier, but eating everything in moderation did. Whether eating out or eating at home, it's about eating an appropriate amount.

You are 22 years old. And what works for you will not necessarily work for an obese 40 year-old. By the way, it is good that you did not go on the anti-cholesterol drug. They are dangerous drugs---the side effects are awful.

You are a 65 year old arthritic woman. What appliies to you doesn't necessarily apply to the vast, vast majority of people on MFP. Sometimes people just have energy needs. How is it going to benefit someone any more if they have already achieved several hundred percent more of a nutrient than needed? You don't get extra credit.

But Magerum, that is assuming we even KNOW all of the nutrients that come together to form the synergy of health. I understand that what applies to me doesn't necessarily apply to everyone here but it likely applies to more than you think. I meet people here every day who have similar struggles (and they are mostly women). There is a vast difference between someone who maintains at 3,200 calories and someone who is eating less than half of that and only losing 1/2 pound per week.

Just for he record, I'm losing a little more than a pound a week at 3250. Maintenance is a bit north of 4,000. I only made that comment because of your previous comment about the posters age. I still don't see how demonizing food helps, regardless or caloric intake. Women are not unique butterflies, the laws of thermodynamics apply to both genders.

I happen to have had success following the laws of physics/thermodynamics. Success that any human can achieve by accurately measuring an using established controls.

And maybe not. I am supposed to be losing a pound a week on 1,360 calories---and at that, I am coming perilously close to the 1,200 calorie limit where everything (including my body) starts to fall apart. I am okay with never losing another pound because I feel and look so much better and am now in the "acceptable" range for body fat. I'd rather be in the "fit" range but whatever will be will be. I'll just keep on keepin' on and see what happens.

SanteMulberry

Wut?

Fast food isn't bad in moderation. I eat it once a week or so if we can afford it. I don't classify foods as "good" or "bad." People get overweight/obese and have the related health problems by eating too much food (not just fast food. You can get overweight eating "healthy" food.) I've lost weight just fine.

And before anyone can chime in with, "It's more than just the number on the scale:"

My cholesterol is fine (bangin', in fact. It was over 300, I was prescribed meds for it, and now it's well into the healthy range without me ever taking the medication. And I was 103 pounds when it was tested that high, 141 pounds now. Go figure. Not weight-related,) my heart functions well, my liver and kidney function well, my blood tests came back with zero deficiencies... In fact, aside from having 20 pounds to lose still, I'm in tip-top shape according to every test my doctor could throw at me. I had 'em all (and, being in a healthy weight range and having an acceptable body fat % according to the doctor, the 20 pounds is just for my satisfaction and not for my health.)

I eat fast food more often than I used to, and I'm healthier than I was a year ago. Fast food didn't make me heathier, but eating everything in moderation did. Whether eating out or eating at home, it's about eating an appropriate amount.

You are 22 years old. And what works for you will not necessarily work for an obese 40 year-old. By the way, it is good that you did not go on the anti-cholesterol drug. They are dangerous drugs---the side effects are awful.

You are a 65 year old arthritic woman. What appliies to you doesn't necessarily apply to the vast, vast majority of people on MFP. Sometimes people just have energy needs. How is it going to benefit someone any more if they have already achieved several hundred percent more of a nutrient than needed? You don't get extra credit.

But Magerum, that is assuming we even KNOW all of the nutrients that come together to form the synergy of health. I understand that what applies to me doesn't necessarily apply to everyone here but it likely applies to more than you think. I meet people here every day who have similar struggles (and they are mostly women). There is a vast difference between someone who maintains at 3,200 calories and someone who is eating less than half of that and only losing 1/2 pound per week.

Just for he record, I'm losing a little more than a pound a week at 3250. Maintenance is a bit north of 4,000. I only made that comment because of your previous comment about the posters age. I still don't see how demonizing food helps, regardless or caloric intake. Women are not unique butterflies, the laws of thermodynamics apply to both genders.

I happen to have had success following the laws of physics/thermodynamics. Success that any human can achieve by accurately measuring an using established controls.

If all I cared about was losing weight, I would throw prudence to the wind and eat 1,360 calories of whatever caught my attention. But I'm not really interested in being unhealthy---been there, done that, didn't like it one little bit. I really don't think any food is "evil" but I do think that some foods are not wise for some people and maybe some "foods" are not right for anyone. Here is an interesting article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johnmanuel-andriote/the-fat-switch_b_3164800.html? The reporter gets some details goofed up (I have read the book) but it is an interesting read, nonetheless.

But his health markers are all excellent...

...probably because his weight is an appropriate level and he ensures he is getting sufficient nutrients.

He hasn't thrown an ounce of prudence into the slightest of breezes.

I didn't say he has---but he has over 3,200 calories to spend. He has the luxury of eating some not-very-nutritious food, I do not at 1,360.

JohnnyCashMoney

Is this a serious question? YES, FAST FOOD IS GARBAGE. Don't eat it. Now go forth and prosper, after you spend a few hours in the library trying to figure out your life.

SanteMulberry

Is this a serious question? YES, FAST FOOD IS GARBAGE. Don't eat it. Now go forth and prosper, after you spend a few hours in the library trying to figure out your life.

:laugh: :flowerforyou:

ArroganceInStep

Except that you are not accounting for what obesity researchers have observed as the "anti-satiety" effect of excessive fructose consumption.

So a poptart is less filling than 200 calories of celery; in a calorie controlled environment that doesn't matter outside of preference. Once again not saying you can't eat 'clean' or a specific way, just that you don't have to in order to reach success. If you are ravenous after filling your daily allotment of calories with twinkies and skittles, then that's not a very well laid out diet. If you reach your nutritional needs for the day and have 200 cals left over for a scoop of ice cream and want one, that's perfectly fine.

Actually, it is less filling, according to the newest research on "food addiction". Here is a link to the proceedings from a recent scientific conference on that subject: http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/index.htm

That's what I said. Again in a calorie controlled environment that doesn't matter. Eat so you're nutritional needs are met and so that you can maintain your diet (i.e. not be starving the whole time). If that leaves room for 'junk' have some.