Is fast food really so bad for you?
Options
Replies
-
"...I'd argue that tracking calories and macros is far more important, and that in a calorie controlled environment where protein and fat requirements are met, worrying about sugar intake becomes largely irrelevant..."
And I would argue that since I have only 1,360 calories a day allotted to me on MFP, how am I supposed to include the empty calories of sugar and white flour in my diet and stay well-nourished? What is irrelevant is speaking to me of "moderation". Once I meet my protein, fat and minimal carbohydrate macros (in the form of vegetables and some fruit), I have NO calories left over for frivolous expenditures on "sweets in moderation" (in addition, I do not want to invite hypertension into my life again).0 -
"...For my part, I think that everyone should keep an eye on sugar consumption, healthy or not, diabetic or not, overweight or not and to say otherwise is potentially irresponsible..."
And I would agree that it is only prudent to rein in sugar consumption (and if you have a medical problem like obesity or Type II diabetes, it is essential). We went from a nation with a per capita consumption of 5 pounds per year in 1900 to a consumption level of 150 pounds per capita per year now. Think it has had an impact on the nation's expanding waistline? You bet.
Look at average daily calories in 1900 vs now. That's the waistline impact.
Gotcha! We eat approximately the same amount of fat that our ancestors in 1900 ate and we actually eat slightly less protein. Guess where nearly ALL of the extra calories come from---sugar and white flour.0 -
Actually, that is what the medical researcher Richard J. Johnson, M.D. and his colleagues did with a number of normal weight men during a study at the University of Colorado. At the end of the experiment, the majority had become Type II diabetics (fortunately, they reverted to their previous non-diabetic state after the experiment was over.) It was a calculated risk based on the researchers hypothesis that it is excessive fructose consumption (in the form of sugar and high fructose corn syrup consumption) that causes, not only obesity but Type II diabetes as well. Dr. Johnson believes that Type II is actually a "normal" response to the eating of fructose. What makes sugar (and HFCS) particularly devastating is that there is no mediating influence from fiber and water, which would be the case with fruit consumption. The dose makes the poison. Drinking just one 12-oz. can of "orange" soda has the fructose equivalent of 10 medium oranges. As a further note, the fructose in the fruit is locked in little "pillows" of fiber and is released slowly into the blood stream. It isn't that our bodies cannot handle fructose any more than it cannot handle alcohol, but when it is taken in unusually large amounts, it overwhelms.
Have you got a link / citation / title of the study please?
I am just heading out the door but would like to read it later when I have time.0 -
Actually, that is what the medical researcher Richard J. Johnson, M.D. and his colleagues did with a number of normal weight men during a study at the University of Colorado. At the end of the experiment, the majority had become Type II diabetics (fortunately, they reverted to their previous non-diabetic state after the experiment was over.) It was a calculated risk based on the researchers hypothesis that it is excessive fructose consumption (in the form of sugar and high fructose corn syrup consumption) that causes, not only obesity but Type II diabetes as well. Dr. Johnson believes that Type II is actually a "normal" response to the eating of fructose. What makes sugar (and HFCS) particularly devastating is that there is no mediating influence from fiber and water, which would be the case with fruit consumption. The dose makes the poison. Drinking just one 12-oz. can of "orange" soda has the fructose equivalent of 10 medium oranges. As a further note, the fructose in the fruit is locked in little "pillows" of fiber and is released slowly into the blood stream. It isn't that our bodies cannot handle fructose any more than it cannot handle alcohol, but when it is taken in unusually large amounts, it overwhelms.
Have you got a link / citation / title of the study please?
I am just heading out the door but would like to read it later when I have time.
I'll see if I can find it online but I read about the study in Dr. Johnson's book, "The Fat Switch" which he wrote for the public as a way of getting the results of his research before the people.
Edited to add: Here is an Endocrine Review paper that he published back in 2009. http://edrv.endojournals.org/content/30/1/96.full I think the study that he spoke of in his book was done more recently. I'll keep looking.0 -
"...For my part, I think that everyone should keep an eye on sugar consumption, healthy or not, diabetic or not, overweight or not and to say otherwise is potentially irresponsible..."
And I would agree that it is only prudent to rein in sugar consumption (and if you have a medical problem like obesity or Type II diabetes, it is essential). We went from a nation with a per capita consumption of 5 pounds per year in 1900 to a consumption level of 150 pounds per capita per year now. Think it has had an impact on the nation's expanding waistline? You bet.
Look at average daily calories in 1900 vs now. That's the waistline impact.
Gotcha! We eat approximately the same amount of fat that our ancestors in 1900 ate and we actually eat slightly less protein. Guess where nearly ALL of the extra calories come from---sugar and white flour.
That's not a gotcha. How can you prove that the changes are a result of the type of food (sugar and flour) and not just the calorie excess (which is what I claimed initially)?
ETA:And I would argue that since I have only 1,360 calories a day allotted to me on MFP, how am I supposed to include the empty calories of sugar and white flour in my diet and stay well-nourished? What is irrelevant is speaking to me of "moderation". Once I meet my protein, fat and minimal carbohydrate macros (in the form of vegetables and some fruit), I have NO calories left over for frivolous expenditures on "sweets in moderation" (in addition, I do not want to invite hypertension into my life again).0 -
Just want to say that this an absolutely terrific blog and website in general.
0 -
Actually, that is what the medical researcher Richard J. Johnson, M.D. and his colleagues did with a number of normal weight men during a study at the University of Colorado. At the end of the experiment, the majority had become Type II diabetics (fortunately, they reverted to their previous non-diabetic state after the experiment was over.) It was a calculated risk based on the researchers hypothesis that it is excessive fructose consumption (in the form of sugar and high fructose corn syrup consumption) that causes, not only obesity but Type II diabetes as well. Dr. Johnson believes that Type II is actually a "normal" response to the eating of fructose. What makes sugar (and HFCS) particularly devastating is that there is no mediating influence from fiber and water, which would be the case with fruit consumption. The dose makes the poison. Drinking just one 12-oz. can of "orange" soda has the fructose equivalent of 10 medium oranges. As a further note, the fructose in the fruit is locked in little "pillows" of fiber and is released slowly into the blood stream. It isn't that our bodies cannot handle fructose any more than it cannot handle alcohol, but when it is taken in unusually large amounts, it overwhelms.
Have you got a link / citation / title of the study please?
I am just heading out the door but would like to read it later when I have time.
I'll see if I can find it online but I read about the study in Dr. Johnson's book, "The Fat Switch" which he wrote for the public as a way of getting the results of his research before the people.
Edited to add: Here is an Endocrine Review paper that he published back in 2009. http://edrv.endojournals.org/content/30/1/96.full I think the study that he spoke of in his book was done more recently. I'll keep looking.
This may be what you're talking about, read the actual study and pay attention to the design and how closely it relates to the real world vs just copy pasting from his book
Excessive fructose intake induces the features of metabolic syndrome in healthy adult men: role of uric acid in the hypertensive response.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDgQFjAB&url=http://www.optimalhealthresearch.com/uws/pharm/1_required/A_Intro-Midterm/Week4_DIABETES%20PARADIGM%20Excessive%20fructose%20intake%20induces%20the%20features%20of%20metabolic%20syndrome%20in%20healthy%20adult%20men.pdf&ei=AtmLUaLoEYXA8AT_k4GwDw&usg=AFQjCNG5EFGmjEedmtI3d0GA1i3fOW9YtA&sig2=cqod0nFyeGwYneR7ULrFIw&bvm=bv.46340616,d.eWU0 -
"...How can you prove that the changes are a result of the type of food (sugar and flour) and not just the calorie excess (which is what I claimed initially)?..."
Our ancestors weren't fat and they weren't eating much, if any sugar--and a lot less white flour. Everything else was pretty much the same and the elderly among them were even slighter because of the loss of muscle mass that occurs with age. Most everyone here over 40 is carrying extra body fat (even though they get the same muscle shrinkage that occurred in earlier generations--likely compounding the problem). Researchers have said the data suggests that the older we get, the more profound the impact of sugar consumption. Hmmmm. It isn't exactly rocket science to connect the dots.0 -
"...How can you prove that the changes are a result of the type of food (sugar and flour) and not just the calorie excess (which is what I claimed initially)?..."
Our ancestors weren't fat and they weren't eating much, if any sugar--and a lot less white flour. Everything else was pretty much the same and the elderly among them were even slighter because of the loss of muscle mass that occurs with age. Most everyone here over 40 is carrying extra body fat (even though they get the same muscle shrinkage that occurred in earlier generations--likely compounding the problem). Researchers have said the data suggests that the older we get, the more profound the impact of sugar consumption. Hmmmm. It isn't exactly rocket science to connect the dots.
You're still entirely missing my point.
Our ancestors ate fewer calories than we do today. How can you say the issues we're facing are because of evil sugar and not just excess calories in general?
If you maintain weight on 2000 calories and start eating 3000 a day, you'll gain weight whether those extra calories are protein, fats, or carbs. It's thermodynamics.0 -
"...For my part, I think that everyone should keep an eye on sugar consumption, healthy or not, diabetic or not, overweight or not and to say otherwise is potentially irresponsible..."
And I would agree that it is only prudent to rein in sugar consumption (and if you have a medical problem like obesity or Type II diabetes, it is essential). We went from a nation with a per capita consumption of 5 pounds per year in 1900 to a consumption level of 150 pounds per capita per year now. Think it has had an impact on the nation's expanding waistline? You bet.
Look at average daily calories in 1900 vs now. That's the waistline impact.
Gotcha! We eat approximately the same amount of fat that our ancestors in 1900 ate and we actually eat slightly less protein. Guess where nearly ALL of the extra calories come from---sugar and white flour.
That's not a gotcha. How can you prove that the changes are a result of the type of food (sugar and flour) and not just the calorie excess (which is what I claimed initially)?
ETA:And I would argue that since I have only 1,360 calories a day allotted to me on MFP, how am I supposed to include the empty calories of sugar and white flour in my diet and stay well-nourished? What is irrelevant is speaking to me of "moderation". Once I meet my protein, fat and minimal carbohydrate macros (in the form of vegetables and some fruit), I have NO calories left over for frivolous expenditures on "sweets in moderation" (in addition, I do not want to invite hypertension into my life again).
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.0 -
Actually, that is what the medical researcher Richard J. Johnson, M.D. and his colleagues did with a number of normal weight men during a study at the University of Colorado. At the end of the experiment, the majority had become Type II diabetics (fortunately, they reverted to their previous non-diabetic state after the experiment was over.) It was a calculated risk based on the researchers hypothesis that it is excessive fructose consumption (in the form of sugar and high fructose corn syrup consumption) that causes, not only obesity but Type II diabetes as well. Dr. Johnson believes that Type II is actually a "normal" response to the eating of fructose. What makes sugar (and HFCS) particularly devastating is that there is no mediating influence from fiber and water, which would be the case with fruit consumption. The dose makes the poison. Drinking just one 12-oz. can of "orange" soda has the fructose equivalent of 10 medium oranges. As a further note, the fructose in the fruit is locked in little "pillows" of fiber and is released slowly into the blood stream. It isn't that our bodies cannot handle fructose any more than it cannot handle alcohol, but when it is taken in unusually large amounts, it overwhelms.
Have you got a link / citation / title of the study please?
I am just heading out the door but would like to read it later when I have time.
I'll see if I can find it online but I read about the study in Dr. Johnson's book, "The Fat Switch" which he wrote for the public as a way of getting the results of his research before the people.
Edited to add: Here is an Endocrine Review paper that he published back in 2009. http://edrv.endojournals.org/content/30/1/96.full I think the study that he spoke of in his book was done more recently. I'll keep looking.
This may be what you're talking about, read the actual study and pay attention to the design and how closely it relates to the real world vs just copy pasting from his book
Excessive fructose intake induces the features of metabolic syndrome in healthy adult men: role of uric acid in the hypertensive response.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDgQFjAB&url=http://www.optimalhealthresearch.com/uws/pharm/1_required/A_Intro-Midterm/Week4_DIABETES%20PARADIGM%20Excessive%20fructose%20intake%20induces%20the%20features%20of%20metabolic%20syndrome%20in%20healthy%20adult%20men.pdf&ei=AtmLUaLoEYXA8AT_k4GwDw&usg=AFQjCNG5EFGmjEedmtI3d0GA1i3fOW9YtA&sig2=cqod0nFyeGwYneR7ULrFIw&bvm=bv.46340616,d.eWU
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!0 -
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.0 -
Actually, that is what the medical researcher Richard J. Johnson, M.D. and his colleagues did with a number of normal weight men during a study at the University of Colorado. At the end of the experiment, the majority had become Type II diabetics (fortunately, they reverted to their previous non-diabetic state after the experiment was over.) It was a calculated risk based on the researchers hypothesis that it is excessive fructose consumption (in the form of sugar and high fructose corn syrup consumption) that causes, not only obesity but Type II diabetes as well. Dr. Johnson believes that Type II is actually a "normal" response to the eating of fructose. What makes sugar (and HFCS) particularly devastating is that there is no mediating influence from fiber and water, which would be the case with fruit consumption. The dose makes the poison. Drinking just one 12-oz. can of "orange" soda has the fructose equivalent of 10 medium oranges. As a further note, the fructose in the fruit is locked in little "pillows" of fiber and is released slowly into the blood stream. It isn't that our bodies cannot handle fructose any more than it cannot handle alcohol, but when it is taken in unusually large amounts, it overwhelms.
Have you got a link / citation / title of the study please?
I am just heading out the door but would like to read it later when I have time.
I'll see if I can find it online but I read about the study in Dr. Johnson's book, "The Fat Switch" which he wrote for the public as a way of getting the results of his research before the people.
Edited to add: Here is an Endocrine Review paper that he published back in 2009. http://edrv.endojournals.org/content/30/1/96.full I think the study that he spoke of in his book was done more recently. I'll keep looking.
This may be what you're talking about, read the actual study and pay attention to the design and how closely it relates to the real world vs just copy pasting from his book
Excessive fructose intake induces the features of metabolic syndrome in healthy adult men: role of uric acid in the hypertensive response.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDgQFjAB&url=http://www.optimalhealthresearch.com/uws/pharm/1_required/A_Intro-Midterm/Week4_DIABETES%20PARADIGM%20Excessive%20fructose%20intake%20induces%20the%20features%20of%20metabolic%20syndrome%20in%20healthy%20adult%20men.pdf&ei=AtmLUaLoEYXA8AT_k4GwDw&usg=AFQjCNG5EFGmjEedmtI3d0GA1i3fOW9YtA&sig2=cqod0nFyeGwYneR7ULrFIw&bvm=bv.46340616,d.eWU
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.0 -
"...How can you prove that the changes are a result of the type of food (sugar and flour) and not just the calorie excess (which is what I claimed initially)?..."
Our ancestors weren't fat and they weren't eating much, if any sugar--and a lot less white flour. Everything else was pretty much the same and the elderly among them were even slighter because of the loss of muscle mass that occurs with age. Most everyone here over 40 is carrying extra body fat (even though they get the same muscle shrinkage that occurred in earlier generations--likely compounding the problem). Researchers have said the data suggests that the older we get, the more profound the impact of sugar consumption. Hmmmm. It isn't exactly rocket science to connect the dots.
You're still entirely missing my point.
Our ancestors ate fewer calories than we do today. How can you say the issues we're facing are because of evil sugar and not just excess calories in general?
If you maintain weight on 2000 calories and start eating 3000 a day, you'll gain weight whether those extra calories are protein, fats, or carbs. It's thermodynamics.
Except that you are not accounting for what obesity researchers have observed as the "anti-satiety" effect of excessive fructose consumption.0 -
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.0 -
The great thing about fast food is that virtually all the nutrition facts are online. That makes it quite easy to plan a meal that fits your goals for the day.
The nutrition facts about everything are available online??
"oh I know, I'll have a mcdonalds instead of a home cooked meal because the nutritional breakdown is more easily accessible online"
That makes no sense.
making it seem like everyone has time to have a home cooked meal everyday, makes no sense lol
My interpretation of the comment re: nutrition facts being online is that if you choose to eat a "fast food" meal (the definition of "fast food" being entirely subjective and doesn't mean the same thing to people, obviously) you can easily check out the nutrition facts/calorie counts to determine if you want to fit it into your daily calories/macros.
It does NOT mean you are choosing McDonald's over a "home cooked" meal. It's just...a choice. No need to belittle someone for their choices.0 -
Actually, that is what the medical researcher Richard J. Johnson, M.D. and his colleagues did with a number of normal weight men during a study at the University of Colorado. At the end of the experiment, the majority had become Type II diabetics (fortunately, they reverted to their previous non-diabetic state after the experiment was over.) It was a calculated risk based on the researchers hypothesis that it is excessive fructose consumption (in the form of sugar and high fructose corn syrup consumption) that causes, not only obesity but Type II diabetes as well. Dr. Johnson believes that Type II is actually a "normal" response to the eating of fructose. What makes sugar (and HFCS) particularly devastating is that there is no mediating influence from fiber and water, which would be the case with fruit consumption. The dose makes the poison. Drinking just one 12-oz. can of "orange" soda has the fructose equivalent of 10 medium oranges. As a further note, the fructose in the fruit is locked in little "pillows" of fiber and is released slowly into the blood stream. It isn't that our bodies cannot handle fructose any more than it cannot handle alcohol, but when it is taken in unusually large amounts, it overwhelms.
Have you got a link / citation / title of the study please?
I am just heading out the door but would like to read it later when I have time.
I'll see if I can find it online but I read about the study in Dr. Johnson's book, "The Fat Switch" which he wrote for the public as a way of getting the results of his research before the people.
Edited to add: Here is an Endocrine Review paper that he published back in 2009. http://edrv.endojournals.org/content/30/1/96.full I think the study that he spoke of in his book was done more recently. I'll keep looking.
This may be what you're talking about, read the actual study and pay attention to the design and how closely it relates to the real world vs just copy pasting from his book
Excessive fructose intake induces the features of metabolic syndrome in healthy adult men: role of uric acid in the hypertensive response.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDgQFjAB&url=http://www.optimalhealthresearch.com/uws/pharm/1_required/A_Intro-Midterm/Week4_DIABETES%20PARADIGM%20Excessive%20fructose%20intake%20induces%20the%20features%20of%20metabolic%20syndrome%20in%20healthy%20adult%20men.pdf&ei=AtmLUaLoEYXA8AT_k4GwDw&usg=AFQjCNG5EFGmjEedmtI3d0GA1i3fOW9YtA&sig2=cqod0nFyeGwYneR7ULrFIw&bvm=bv.46340616,d.eWU
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.
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.0 -
I can't believe I'm seriously posting in a thread to defend fast food...because honestly, I'm not a big fan of eating a lot of it...and yet the absolute nonsense that is being thrown around in this thread is...well, nonsense.
The reason I'm not a fan of it is that people use up their daily calories on too much of it and displace other more nutrient dense foods that they need to meet their micros/minerals/etc....(and not because of sodium, fat, sugar, etc.)
I very rarely eat it myself, truth be told. I just don't find false information and labeling food as bad helpful, at all.0 -
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.
I never said it would. But eating at a sensible calorie deficit will work for everyone. And fast food is not "evil" regardless of the consumer's age.0 -
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.
I never said it would. But eating at a sensible calorie deficit will work for everyone. And fast food is not "evil" regardless of the consumer's age.
And I never said it was evil either, but simply that the buyer should beware.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 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
- 988 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions