Eat McDonald's, lose wight, set terrible example

tl;dr: kids given responsibility for the food intake of another human being learn to make balanced choices and see the results of their actions.

Great skills to teach kids: probably a fun class too (wish we could have run experiments on our teachers when I were a lad).

Haven't read the whole thread, just responding to OP:

Uh, nope. But you know what does get me crossways? People who always need to be offended by something. Congratulations on pushing that button.

Well it bothers me.

And here's why.

http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/getnutrition/nutritionfacts.pdf

Calories aside (most are a third to a half of your daily allotment), sodium is generally close to the 1000s range (which is what you should aim for a maximum for one day). Saturated fat for most items is 50-60%. Cholesterol is about a third. And sugar is about 7-10g for each item -- that's almost as much as an apple for a food that doesn't taste sweet and doesn't carry the same nutritional value.

Also because of this:

http://www.naturalnews.com/022194.html

"Many so-called healthy fast food menu items, upon closer inspection, do not live up to the health hype. Most of the meat from any of the major chains has anything but a simple ingredients list. They add emulsifiers, preservatives, MSG, artificial colors, trans fats, and hidden ingredients under generic labels such as spices, or natural and artificial flavors.

Some of these food additives are not foods at all, but are chemicals that are generally recognized as safe. Most of these additives cannot be found at your local grocery store, probably because they aren't food."

And if that's not enough, you should watch Supersize Me (here's a trailer):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2diPZOtty0

It's not always about calories. It's about chemistry and biochemistry.

Natural News is not a reliable source of information.

And Supersize Me? I found it entertaining, but not a true experiment. His goal was to gorge himself on as much high calorie food as he could, while not exercising, to prove that McDonald's is evil. He went from a low-fat diet to a super fat diet--of course your system is going to have trouble adjusting to that. He went from getting a moderate amount of exercise a day to becoming a couch potato. Slanted? Oh, not in the least (sarcasm font).

This guy showed that you could make better choices at McDonald's and maintain or actually lose weight (and have your cholesterol drop). It's as you read on MFP all the time--moderation, moderation, moderation. No food is inherently evil in moderation.

http://foodmatters.tv/articles-1/whats-really-in-chicken-mcnuggets-scary

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/just-what-chicken-nugget-8C11348131

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T67DvoH2H3E

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/25-ingredients-in-mcdonalds-chicken-mcnuggets.html

http://www.sofreshandsogreen.com/2011/03/25/whats-in-a-mcdonalds-chicken-patty-more-than-just-chicken/

and like with the internet and here at MFP, you have to take it with a grain of salt,
but who's to say what is really in McDonalds food and what is not..


Companies like McD is out for 1 thing and 1 thing only.. To Make money. Do you really think they would pay good money for High end Chicken Meat, or are they going pay for the left over parts that they can grind/process, add a few spices and call it food.

Now for all of you, who would lke to take their 30,000 vechicle er body's and give it crap, and call it food/fuel.. go ahead.. Loose the weight with it..

I prefer not to eat the 1500 calorie meals

450 reponses? Lord.

I like McDonald's french fries as much as the next person. They taste really good. That said, is there really an argument about relative quality of some of the ingredients used? There's a dollar menu for a reason. That's great if you're on a tight budget and budgetary concerns are real concerns. McDonald's is a legit option and you can make better or worse nutritional choices at McDonalds. It's entirely up to the customer. That said, extra value meals tend to mean that filler is involved. It's a matter of maximizing cost effectiveness.

A year or two ago, in my state there was actually a law suit (albeit it was with Taco Bell rather than McDonald's) about labeling their ground beef as meat because between all of the fillers involved it didn't meet the minimum regulations to be called 'meat.' It CONTAINED meat, but there was actually more filler than meat involved. Fast food restaurants use fillers. They just... do (and they add extra sodium and sugar to 'improve' the taste of their stretched to the max somewhat less than top shelf ingredients) (though thankfully I seem to vaguely recall that McDonald's voluntarily ceased using 'pink slime' (?) , which the beef industry likes to call 'finely textured beef' but in non-PR real-world means cartilege, connective tissue, sinew and any manner of cast-off things, as long as it comes from cows', which... whatever. But to meet health standards it then has to be ground into a slush, washed with ammonium hydroxide, and sent through a centrifuge. Edible? It makes it through the health inspection process, so yeah. But an equal equivalent to an actual cut of chuck or sirloin? I can't help being a tad skeptical.

There's filler. Filler isn't evil, but it is filler. It maximizes how far they can stretch the more expensive ingredients. That's Business 101. We all make choices and we have a variety of reasons to make them. But there's a reason why one hamburger sells for a dollar and a half and a ground sirloin patty costs somewhat more. Which suits your needs is up to the individual involved as they know their situation better than I do.

Lol why would anyone want to eat McDonalds?
Not for me thanks.

Because bacon egg and cheese mcgriddles are delicious.

What bothers me is that you are bothered by it

450 reponses? Lord.

Yes, long conversations really are awful, aren't they?

I bet when you sit down and talk with a group of people about a subject, you only exchange three or four sentences between you, right?

450 reponses? Lord.

Yes, long conversations really are awful, aren't they?

I bet when you sit down and talk with a group of people about a subject, you only exchange three or four sentences between you, right?

When a forum thread gets this long, the original participants are pretty much gone, and the new posters aren't reading through the pages of posts, and end up saying the same things over and over again. I don't sit down and discuss a subject, wait for everyone to leave and new people to come in and then discuss the whole subject over again. IT would make more sense for those who have input on this particular subject to start a new thread.

So?

You apparently are interested enough to comment and add to that.