So you CAN eat McDonald's every day...
Options
Replies
-
Teaching them CICO takes five minutes, leaving lots of time to teach other things.janejellyroll wrote: »
They included some, but not all, nutrients. Had they included them all, they'd have to admit that you cannot eat a well-balanced diet when limiting yourself to McDonald's food. I hope that the kids were taught all about micros and how they're as important as macros, what the different micros do for the body, which foods have them, etc. I hope they discussed sodium and trans fats. I hope they discussed fiber and phytochemicals and all that stuff.lemurcat12 wrote: »BackupFridge wrote: »2. Yes, we do have different nutritional standards. Micros matter. Vitamins and minerals matter.
Well, supposedly part of the experiment was meeting FDA requirements for nutrition, not just calories. (See http://abc7.com/health/teacher-loses-60-pounds-while-eating-nothing-but-mcdonalds/705916/) I'd personally like to know precisely what that means and what they aimed for, since I'm skeptical that he would on the usual menu (http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-mcdonalds-2014-1), but it probably wouldn't be all that much different than many people who consider themselves to have healthy diets. Also, focusing on the nutritional content of foods wherever you get them (not just calories) is a valuable lesson and smarter than deciding that if you are at McD's (or some other less than ideal place from your perspective) it's a write off, might as well ignore the salad options.That's all I'm saying - micros matter. I don't know why someone with a serious goal wouldn't chase those instead of indulging in ingredients like the type I linked above.
Depending on the person, it might be more sustainable, or it might be one step in a long term process of improving the diet and one's health (I knew someone for whom this was true--well, something similar, as she didn't eat at McD's for every meal), or you might have reason to go to get quick restaurant foods quite often so need to learn how to choose.
I really hope that the kids learned something about nutrition other than "If you exercise, you can eat all your meals at McDonald's and still lose weight." That is something that could be taught in five minutes, leaving lots of time to cover things that most people don't know.
If all that time was spent on CICO, it's a huge waste of time that could've been spent educating the kids.
Given that the US is currently in the midst of a obesity epidemic (not a malnutrition epidemic), I don't think time spent educating children about CICO is a waste of time.
Which nutrients were excluded, by the way?
I don't remember what all they included and excluded. A lot of them weren't included.
Some posts on these forums beg to differ.
Posts on this forum beg to differ with many things. There are none so blind as those who will not see. This isn't a school, though. Nobody is charged with imparting knowledge and nobody relies on this for their education.
The kids in the school could be presented with the info. It could've been worked into this very thing. It could've been taught. Maybe it was! I sure hope so!0 -
Teaching them CICO takes five minutes, leaving lots of time to teach other things.janejellyroll wrote: »
They included some, but not all, nutrients. Had they included them all, they'd have to admit that you cannot eat a well-balanced diet when limiting yourself to McDonald's food. I hope that the kids were taught all about micros and how they're as important as macros, what the different micros do for the body, which foods have them, etc. I hope they discussed sodium and trans fats. I hope they discussed fiber and phytochemicals and all that stuff.lemurcat12 wrote: »BackupFridge wrote: »2. Yes, we do have different nutritional standards. Micros matter. Vitamins and minerals matter.
Well, supposedly part of the experiment was meeting FDA requirements for nutrition, not just calories. (See http://abc7.com/health/teacher-loses-60-pounds-while-eating-nothing-but-mcdonalds/705916/) I'd personally like to know precisely what that means and what they aimed for, since I'm skeptical that he would on the usual menu (http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-mcdonalds-2014-1), but it probably wouldn't be all that much different than many people who consider themselves to have healthy diets. Also, focusing on the nutritional content of foods wherever you get them (not just calories) is a valuable lesson and smarter than deciding that if you are at McD's (or some other less than ideal place from your perspective) it's a write off, might as well ignore the salad options.That's all I'm saying - micros matter. I don't know why someone with a serious goal wouldn't chase those instead of indulging in ingredients like the type I linked above.
Depending on the person, it might be more sustainable, or it might be one step in a long term process of improving the diet and one's health (I knew someone for whom this was true--well, something similar, as she didn't eat at McD's for every meal), or you might have reason to go to get quick restaurant foods quite often so need to learn how to choose.
I really hope that the kids learned something about nutrition other than "If you exercise, you can eat all your meals at McDonald's and still lose weight." That is something that could be taught in five minutes, leaving lots of time to cover things that most people don't know.
If all that time was spent on CICO, it's a huge waste of time that could've been spent educating the kids.
Given that the US is currently in the midst of a obesity epidemic (not a malnutrition epidemic), I don't think time spent educating children about CICO is a waste of time.
Which nutrients were excluded, by the way?
I don't remember what all they included and excluded. A lot of them weren't included.
Some posts on these forums beg to differ.
Posts on this forum beg to differ with many things. There are none so blind as those who will not see. This isn't a school, though. Nobody is charged with imparting knowledge and nobody relies on this for their education.
The kids in the school could be presented with the info. It could've been worked into this very thing. It could've been taught. Maybe it was! I sure hope so!
The kids had to plan out his meals to meet FDA regulations. It wasn't just about CICO.0 -
SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »Is Chipotle doing this yet? I volunteer!
This is just another marketing ploy by a large company, and it seems to be working. Did anyone else notice the correlation between McDonalds' stock dropping over the past year and this well timed experiment?
The teacher did this as part of a classroom lesson. McD's picked up on it after the fact.0 -
Teaching them CICO takes five minutes, leaving lots of time to teach other things.janejellyroll wrote: »
They included some, but not all, nutrients. Had they included them all, they'd have to admit that you cannot eat a well-balanced diet when limiting yourself to McDonald's food. I hope that the kids were taught all about micros and how they're as important as macros, what the different micros do for the body, which foods have them, etc. I hope they discussed sodium and trans fats. I hope they discussed fiber and phytochemicals and all that stuff.lemurcat12 wrote: »BackupFridge wrote: »2. Yes, we do have different nutritional standards. Micros matter. Vitamins and minerals matter.
Well, supposedly part of the experiment was meeting FDA requirements for nutrition, not just calories. (See http://abc7.com/health/teacher-loses-60-pounds-while-eating-nothing-but-mcdonalds/705916/) I'd personally like to know precisely what that means and what they aimed for, since I'm skeptical that he would on the usual menu (http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-mcdonalds-2014-1), but it probably wouldn't be all that much different than many people who consider themselves to have healthy diets. Also, focusing on the nutritional content of foods wherever you get them (not just calories) is a valuable lesson and smarter than deciding that if you are at McD's (or some other less than ideal place from your perspective) it's a write off, might as well ignore the salad options.That's all I'm saying - micros matter. I don't know why someone with a serious goal wouldn't chase those instead of indulging in ingredients like the type I linked above.
Depending on the person, it might be more sustainable, or it might be one step in a long term process of improving the diet and one's health (I knew someone for whom this was true--well, something similar, as she didn't eat at McD's for every meal), or you might have reason to go to get quick restaurant foods quite often so need to learn how to choose.
I really hope that the kids learned something about nutrition other than "If you exercise, you can eat all your meals at McDonald's and still lose weight." That is something that could be taught in five minutes, leaving lots of time to cover things that most people don't know.
If all that time was spent on CICO, it's a huge waste of time that could've been spent educating the kids.
Given that the US is currently in the midst of a obesity epidemic (not a malnutrition epidemic), I don't think time spent educating children about CICO is a waste of time.
Which nutrients were excluded, by the way?
I don't remember what all they included and excluded. A lot of them weren't included.
Some posts on these forums beg to differ.
LOL. As a lurker, I agree 100%.0 -
They're not regulations, really, and they only had to meet some of them, not all of them.tincanonastring wrote: »
Teaching them CICO takes five minutes, leaving lots of time to teach other things.janejellyroll wrote: »
They included some, but not all, nutrients. Had they included them all, they'd have to admit that you cannot eat a well-balanced diet when limiting yourself to McDonald's food. I hope that the kids were taught all about micros and how they're as important as macros, what the different micros do for the body, which foods have them, etc. I hope they discussed sodium and trans fats. I hope they discussed fiber and phytochemicals and all that stuff.lemurcat12 wrote: »BackupFridge wrote: »2. Yes, we do have different nutritional standards. Micros matter. Vitamins and minerals matter.
Well, supposedly part of the experiment was meeting FDA requirements for nutrition, not just calories. (See http://abc7.com/health/teacher-loses-60-pounds-while-eating-nothing-but-mcdonalds/705916/) I'd personally like to know precisely what that means and what they aimed for, since I'm skeptical that he would on the usual menu (http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-mcdonalds-2014-1), but it probably wouldn't be all that much different than many people who consider themselves to have healthy diets. Also, focusing on the nutritional content of foods wherever you get them (not just calories) is a valuable lesson and smarter than deciding that if you are at McD's (or some other less than ideal place from your perspective) it's a write off, might as well ignore the salad options.That's all I'm saying - micros matter. I don't know why someone with a serious goal wouldn't chase those instead of indulging in ingredients like the type I linked above.
Depending on the person, it might be more sustainable, or it might be one step in a long term process of improving the diet and one's health (I knew someone for whom this was true--well, something similar, as she didn't eat at McD's for every meal), or you might have reason to go to get quick restaurant foods quite often so need to learn how to choose.
I really hope that the kids learned something about nutrition other than "If you exercise, you can eat all your meals at McDonald's and still lose weight." That is something that could be taught in five minutes, leaving lots of time to cover things that most people don't know.
If all that time was spent on CICO, it's a huge waste of time that could've been spent educating the kids.
Given that the US is currently in the midst of a obesity epidemic (not a malnutrition epidemic), I don't think time spent educating children about CICO is a waste of time.
Which nutrients were excluded, by the way?
I don't remember what all they included and excluded. A lot of them weren't included.
Some posts on these forums beg to differ.
Posts on this forum beg to differ with many things. There are none so blind as those who will not see. This isn't a school, though. Nobody is charged with imparting knowledge and nobody relies on this for their education.
The kids in the school could be presented with the info. It could've been worked into this very thing. It could've been taught. Maybe it was! I sure hope so!
The kids had to plan out his meals to meet FDA regulations. It wasn't just about CICO.
0 -
They're not regulations, really, and they only had to meet some of them, not all of them.tincanonastring wrote: »
Teaching them CICO takes five minutes, leaving lots of time to teach other things.janejellyroll wrote: »
They included some, but not all, nutrients. Had they included them all, they'd have to admit that you cannot eat a well-balanced diet when limiting yourself to McDonald's food. I hope that the kids were taught all about micros and how they're as important as macros, what the different micros do for the body, which foods have them, etc. I hope they discussed sodium and trans fats. I hope they discussed fiber and phytochemicals and all that stuff.lemurcat12 wrote: »BackupFridge wrote: »2. Yes, we do have different nutritional standards. Micros matter. Vitamins and minerals matter.
Well, supposedly part of the experiment was meeting FDA requirements for nutrition, not just calories. (See http://abc7.com/health/teacher-loses-60-pounds-while-eating-nothing-but-mcdonalds/705916/) I'd personally like to know precisely what that means and what they aimed for, since I'm skeptical that he would on the usual menu (http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-mcdonalds-2014-1), but it probably wouldn't be all that much different than many people who consider themselves to have healthy diets. Also, focusing on the nutritional content of foods wherever you get them (not just calories) is a valuable lesson and smarter than deciding that if you are at McD's (or some other less than ideal place from your perspective) it's a write off, might as well ignore the salad options.That's all I'm saying - micros matter. I don't know why someone with a serious goal wouldn't chase those instead of indulging in ingredients like the type I linked above.
Depending on the person, it might be more sustainable, or it might be one step in a long term process of improving the diet and one's health (I knew someone for whom this was true--well, something similar, as she didn't eat at McD's for every meal), or you might have reason to go to get quick restaurant foods quite often so need to learn how to choose.
I really hope that the kids learned something about nutrition other than "If you exercise, you can eat all your meals at McDonald's and still lose weight." That is something that could be taught in five minutes, leaving lots of time to cover things that most people don't know.
If all that time was spent on CICO, it's a huge waste of time that could've been spent educating the kids.
Given that the US is currently in the midst of a obesity epidemic (not a malnutrition epidemic), I don't think time spent educating children about CICO is a waste of time.
Which nutrients were excluded, by the way?
I don't remember what all they included and excluded. A lot of them weren't included.
Some posts on these forums beg to differ.
Posts on this forum beg to differ with many things. There are none so blind as those who will not see. This isn't a school, though. Nobody is charged with imparting knowledge and nobody relies on this for their education.
The kids in the school could be presented with the info. It could've been worked into this very thing. It could've been taught. Maybe it was! I sure hope so!
The kids had to plan out his meals to meet FDA regulations. It wasn't just about CICO.
My guess is that they though far more about nutrition than their counterparts in the next high school over in which they did not do anything like this.0 -
They're not regulations, really, and they only had to meet some of them, not all of them.tincanonastring wrote: »
Teaching them CICO takes five minutes, leaving lots of time to teach other things.janejellyroll wrote: »
They included some, but not all, nutrients. Had they included them all, they'd have to admit that you cannot eat a well-balanced diet when limiting yourself to McDonald's food. I hope that the kids were taught all about micros and how they're as important as macros, what the different micros do for the body, which foods have them, etc. I hope they discussed sodium and trans fats. I hope they discussed fiber and phytochemicals and all that stuff.lemurcat12 wrote: »BackupFridge wrote: »2. Yes, we do have different nutritional standards. Micros matter. Vitamins and minerals matter.
Well, supposedly part of the experiment was meeting FDA requirements for nutrition, not just calories. (See http://abc7.com/health/teacher-loses-60-pounds-while-eating-nothing-but-mcdonalds/705916/) I'd personally like to know precisely what that means and what they aimed for, since I'm skeptical that he would on the usual menu (http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-mcdonalds-2014-1), but it probably wouldn't be all that much different than many people who consider themselves to have healthy diets. Also, focusing on the nutritional content of foods wherever you get them (not just calories) is a valuable lesson and smarter than deciding that if you are at McD's (or some other less than ideal place from your perspective) it's a write off, might as well ignore the salad options.That's all I'm saying - micros matter. I don't know why someone with a serious goal wouldn't chase those instead of indulging in ingredients like the type I linked above.
Depending on the person, it might be more sustainable, or it might be one step in a long term process of improving the diet and one's health (I knew someone for whom this was true--well, something similar, as she didn't eat at McD's for every meal), or you might have reason to go to get quick restaurant foods quite often so need to learn how to choose.
I really hope that the kids learned something about nutrition other than "If you exercise, you can eat all your meals at McDonald's and still lose weight." That is something that could be taught in five minutes, leaving lots of time to cover things that most people don't know.
If all that time was spent on CICO, it's a huge waste of time that could've been spent educating the kids.
Given that the US is currently in the midst of a obesity epidemic (not a malnutrition epidemic), I don't think time spent educating children about CICO is a waste of time.
Which nutrients were excluded, by the way?
I don't remember what all they included and excluded. A lot of them weren't included.
Some posts on these forums beg to differ.
Posts on this forum beg to differ with many things. There are none so blind as those who will not see. This isn't a school, though. Nobody is charged with imparting knowledge and nobody relies on this for their education.
The kids in the school could be presented with the info. It could've been worked into this very thing. It could've been taught. Maybe it was! I sure hope so!
The kids had to plan out his meals to meet FDA regulations. It wasn't just about CICO.
Correct. Meant to type recommendations, not regulations. As far as I'm aware, McD's does not publish a full list of micros for its food items. The fact that most people don't even plan for calories and macros (outside of MFP) makes this a fantastic lesson, whether or not they accounted for all of the micro levels.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »Is Chipotle doing this yet? I volunteer!
This is just another marketing ploy by a large company, and it seems to be working. Did anyone else notice the correlation between McDonalds' stock dropping over the past year and this well timed experiment?
The teacher did this as part of a classroom lesson. McD's picked up on it after the fact.
I understand that's the spin. I'm not buying it though. Just cynical I suppose.0 -
McD's has lots of healthy choices. The reason it gets a bad rap is because a lot of people don't make a healthy choice when eating there. But I don't think a Big Mac meal with a pop would be less healthy than a plate of nachos or large plate of Fettuccine Alfredo.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »BackupFridge wrote: »2. Yes, we do have different nutritional standards. Micros matter. Vitamins and minerals matter.
Well, supposedly part of the experiment was meeting FDA requirements for nutrition, not just calories. (See http://abc7.com/health/teacher-loses-60-pounds-while-eating-nothing-but-mcdonalds/705916/) I'd personally like to know precisely what that means and what they aimed for, since I'm skeptical that he would on the usual menu (http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-mcdonalds-2014-1), but it probably wouldn't be all that much different than many people who consider themselves to have healthy diets. Also, focusing on the nutritional content of foods wherever you get them (not just calories) is a valuable lesson and smarter than deciding that if you are at McD's (or some other less than ideal place from your perspective) it's a write off, might as well ignore the salad options.That's all I'm saying - micros matter. I don't know why someone with a serious goal wouldn't chase those instead of indulging in ingredients like the type I linked above.
Depending on the person, it might be more sustainable, or it might be one step in a long term process of improving the diet and one's health (I knew someone for whom this was true--well, something similar, as she didn't eat at McD's for every meal), or you might have reason to go to get quick restaurant foods quite often so need to learn how to choose.
They included some, but not all, nutrients. Had they included them all, they'd have to admit that you cannot eat a well-balanced diet when limiting yourself to McDonald's food. I hope that the kids were taught all about micros and how they're as important as macros, what the different micros do for the body, which foods have them, etc. I hope they discussed sodium and trans fats. I hope they discussed fiber and phytochemicals and all that stuff.
Yeah, I basically agree.I really hope that the kids learned something about nutrition other than "If you exercise, you can eat all your meals at McDonald's and still lose weight." That is something that could be taught in five minutes, leaving lots of time to cover things that most people don't know.
My impression was that it was more than this, that it was more about how to make choices. McD's doesn't have the best set of choices when compared to using a whole supermarket or some such, but there might be something to starting with a more limited set of choices to make it easier, using McD's to maybe make the experiment seem fun or challenging (or something easy for the teacher to do without cooking), or to help them see that even if they were eating lots of fast food (not sure if these kids were from families where fast food was common) that they should look beyond the burger and fries and worry about making more diverse choices.
I seriously doubt the take away was "eat McD's every day," however, as apparently some have assumed.
(I don't even like McD's -- haven't since I was a kid when we went on rare occasion as a treat.)0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »
Teaching them CICO takes five minutes, leaving lots of time to teach other things.janejellyroll wrote: »
They included some, but not all, nutrients. Had they included them all, they'd have to admit that you cannot eat a well-balanced diet when limiting yourself to McDonald's food. I hope that the kids were taught all about micros and how they're as important as macros, what the different micros do for the body, which foods have them, etc. I hope they discussed sodium and trans fats. I hope they discussed fiber and phytochemicals and all that stuff.lemurcat12 wrote: »BackupFridge wrote: »2. Yes, we do have different nutritional standards. Micros matter. Vitamins and minerals matter.
Well, supposedly part of the experiment was meeting FDA requirements for nutrition, not just calories. (See http://abc7.com/health/teacher-loses-60-pounds-while-eating-nothing-but-mcdonalds/705916/) I'd personally like to know precisely what that means and what they aimed for, since I'm skeptical that he would on the usual menu (http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-mcdonalds-2014-1), but it probably wouldn't be all that much different than many people who consider themselves to have healthy diets. Also, focusing on the nutritional content of foods wherever you get them (not just calories) is a valuable lesson and smarter than deciding that if you are at McD's (or some other less than ideal place from your perspective) it's a write off, might as well ignore the salad options.That's all I'm saying - micros matter. I don't know why someone with a serious goal wouldn't chase those instead of indulging in ingredients like the type I linked above.
Depending on the person, it might be more sustainable, or it might be one step in a long term process of improving the diet and one's health (I knew someone for whom this was true--well, something similar, as she didn't eat at McD's for every meal), or you might have reason to go to get quick restaurant foods quite often so need to learn how to choose.
I really hope that the kids learned something about nutrition other than "If you exercise, you can eat all your meals at McDonald's and still lose weight." That is something that could be taught in five minutes, leaving lots of time to cover things that most people don't know.
If all that time was spent on CICO, it's a huge waste of time that could've been spent educating the kids.
Given that the US is currently in the midst of a obesity epidemic (not a malnutrition epidemic), I don't think time spent educating children about CICO is a waste of time.
Which nutrients were excluded, by the way?
I don't remember what all they included and excluded. A lot of them weren't included.
Some posts on these forums beg to differ.
Posts on this forum beg to differ with many things. There are none so blind as those who will not see. This isn't a school, though. Nobody is charged with imparting knowledge and nobody relies on this for their education.
The kids in the school could be presented with the info. It could've been worked into this very thing. It could've been taught. Maybe it was! I sure hope so!
The kids had to plan out his meals to meet FDA regulations. It wasn't just about CICO.
I think you might mean RDA recommendations?0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »
Teaching them CICO takes five minutes, leaving lots of time to teach other things.janejellyroll wrote: »
They included some, but not all, nutrients. Had they included them all, they'd have to admit that you cannot eat a well-balanced diet when limiting yourself to McDonald's food. I hope that the kids were taught all about micros and how they're as important as macros, what the different micros do for the body, which foods have them, etc. I hope they discussed sodium and trans fats. I hope they discussed fiber and phytochemicals and all that stuff.lemurcat12 wrote: »BackupFridge wrote: »2. Yes, we do have different nutritional standards. Micros matter. Vitamins and minerals matter.
Well, supposedly part of the experiment was meeting FDA requirements for nutrition, not just calories. (See http://abc7.com/health/teacher-loses-60-pounds-while-eating-nothing-but-mcdonalds/705916/) I'd personally like to know precisely what that means and what they aimed for, since I'm skeptical that he would on the usual menu (http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-mcdonalds-2014-1), but it probably wouldn't be all that much different than many people who consider themselves to have healthy diets. Also, focusing on the nutritional content of foods wherever you get them (not just calories) is a valuable lesson and smarter than deciding that if you are at McD's (or some other less than ideal place from your perspective) it's a write off, might as well ignore the salad options.That's all I'm saying - micros matter. I don't know why someone with a serious goal wouldn't chase those instead of indulging in ingredients like the type I linked above.
Depending on the person, it might be more sustainable, or it might be one step in a long term process of improving the diet and one's health (I knew someone for whom this was true--well, something similar, as she didn't eat at McD's for every meal), or you might have reason to go to get quick restaurant foods quite often so need to learn how to choose.
I really hope that the kids learned something about nutrition other than "If you exercise, you can eat all your meals at McDonald's and still lose weight." That is something that could be taught in five minutes, leaving lots of time to cover things that most people don't know.
If all that time was spent on CICO, it's a huge waste of time that could've been spent educating the kids.
Given that the US is currently in the midst of a obesity epidemic (not a malnutrition epidemic), I don't think time spent educating children about CICO is a waste of time.
Which nutrients were excluded, by the way?
I don't remember what all they included and excluded. A lot of them weren't included.
Some posts on these forums beg to differ.
Posts on this forum beg to differ with many things. There are none so blind as those who will not see. This isn't a school, though. Nobody is charged with imparting knowledge and nobody relies on this for their education.
The kids in the school could be presented with the info. It could've been worked into this very thing. It could've been taught. Maybe it was! I sure hope so!
The kids had to plan out his meals to meet FDA regulations. It wasn't just about CICO.
I think you might mean RDA recommendations?
Yep. Jesus. That was just a terrible post!
0 -
Since my diet flip, there are many things I used to like that I no longer do. Taco Bell and KFC - I cannot believe I ever liked that stuff. Stouffer's is now waaay too salty, can't eat it. Lots and lots of things got scratched off the "Tastes Good" list.lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »BackupFridge wrote: »2. Yes, we do have different nutritional standards. Micros matter. Vitamins and minerals matter.
Well, supposedly part of the experiment was meeting FDA requirements for nutrition, not just calories. (See http://abc7.com/health/teacher-loses-60-pounds-while-eating-nothing-but-mcdonalds/705916/) I'd personally like to know precisely what that means and what they aimed for, since I'm skeptical that he would on the usual menu (http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-mcdonalds-2014-1), but it probably wouldn't be all that much different than many people who consider themselves to have healthy diets. Also, focusing on the nutritional content of foods wherever you get them (not just calories) is a valuable lesson and smarter than deciding that if you are at McD's (or some other less than ideal place from your perspective) it's a write off, might as well ignore the salad options.That's all I'm saying - micros matter. I don't know why someone with a serious goal wouldn't chase those instead of indulging in ingredients like the type I linked above.
Depending on the person, it might be more sustainable, or it might be one step in a long term process of improving the diet and one's health (I knew someone for whom this was true--well, something similar, as she didn't eat at McD's for every meal), or you might have reason to go to get quick restaurant foods quite often so need to learn how to choose.
They included some, but not all, nutrients. Had they included them all, they'd have to admit that you cannot eat a well-balanced diet when limiting yourself to McDonald's food. I hope that the kids were taught all about micros and how they're as important as macros, what the different micros do for the body, which foods have them, etc. I hope they discussed sodium and trans fats. I hope they discussed fiber and phytochemicals and all that stuff.
Yeah, I basically agree.I really hope that the kids learned something about nutrition other than "If you exercise, you can eat all your meals at McDonald's and still lose weight." That is something that could be taught in five minutes, leaving lots of time to cover things that most people don't know.
My impression was that it was more than this, that it was more about how to make choices. McD's doesn't have the best set of choices when compared to using a whole supermarket or some such, but there might be something to starting with a more limited set of choices to make it easier, using McD's to maybe make the experiment seem fun or challenging (or something easy for the teacher to do without cooking), or to help them see that even if they were eating lots of fast food (not sure if these kids were from families where fast food was common) that they should look beyond the burger and fries and worry about making more diverse choices.
I seriously doubt the take away was "eat McD's every day," however, as apparently some have assumed.
(I don't even like McD's -- haven't since I was a kid when we went on rare occasion as a treat.)
Not McDonald's. I haven't had a bit of everything, but I had a couple things. I cannot eat those fries any longer, ick. But the rest of it was as good as ever...which is to say, not really. I'd much, much rather have food cooked at home, but I do not gross out when having a bite of burger or chicken. I never thought it was really good, but I don't think it's worse now, like i do so many things.
I literally spit the Taco Bell out because I thought I was eating food that had gone bad. There is a local chicken place my son likes. That was still good, too.
0 -
BruceHedtke wrote: »I'm certain I could eat fast food all the time, lose weight and be healthy by making careful choices. But, I'm also pretty certain that I'd spend many of those days feeling hungry quite a bit. Fast food seems to satisfy me for an hour and then I feel hungry again. I might be able to adapt after awhile but I don't think I'd want to. I'd rather eat more food for the same amount of calories.
^^^^THIS0 -
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.
I got a paper published in a decent journal with an N=6...
You little statistical cheater.
0 -
The true evil in McDonalds is that they don't serve breakfast all day.
Waaaait a minute......
0 -
Going back to the initial point of the exercise the teacher did. I still feel that through this hands on experience students were far more engaged and therefore learned more from this experience than they would have if they listened to a standard nutrition lecture in a health class.
It would be difficult to convince all teenagers to never eat fast food. However, getting them to make more informed decisions is always going to be better than not even bothering.
Abstinence typically does not work for the majority of people.0 -
Teaching them CICO takes five minutes, leaving lots of time to teach other things.janejellyroll wrote: »
They included some, but not all, nutrients. Had they included them all, they'd have to admit that you cannot eat a well-balanced diet when limiting yourself to McDonald's food. I hope that the kids were taught all about micros and how they're as important as macros, what the different micros do for the body, which foods have them, etc. I hope they discussed sodium and trans fats. I hope they discussed fiber and phytochemicals and all that stuff.lemurcat12 wrote: »BackupFridge wrote: »2. Yes, we do have different nutritional standards. Micros matter. Vitamins and minerals matter.
Well, supposedly part of the experiment was meeting FDA requirements for nutrition, not just calories. (See http://abc7.com/health/teacher-loses-60-pounds-while-eating-nothing-but-mcdonalds/705916/) I'd personally like to know precisely what that means and what they aimed for, since I'm skeptical that he would on the usual menu (http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-mcdonalds-2014-1), but it probably wouldn't be all that much different than many people who consider themselves to have healthy diets. Also, focusing on the nutritional content of foods wherever you get them (not just calories) is a valuable lesson and smarter than deciding that if you are at McD's (or some other less than ideal place from your perspective) it's a write off, might as well ignore the salad options.That's all I'm saying - micros matter. I don't know why someone with a serious goal wouldn't chase those instead of indulging in ingredients like the type I linked above.
Depending on the person, it might be more sustainable, or it might be one step in a long term process of improving the diet and one's health (I knew someone for whom this was true--well, something similar, as she didn't eat at McD's for every meal), or you might have reason to go to get quick restaurant foods quite often so need to learn how to choose.
I really hope that the kids learned something about nutrition other than "If you exercise, you can eat all your meals at McDonald's and still lose weight." That is something that could be taught in five minutes, leaving lots of time to cover things that most people don't know.
If all that time was spent on CICO, it's a huge waste of time that could've been spent educating the kids.
Given that the US is currently in the midst of a obesity epidemic (not a malnutrition epidemic), I don't think time spent educating children about CICO is a waste of time.
Which nutrients were excluded, by the way?
I don't remember what all they included and excluded. A lot of them weren't included.
Some posts on these forums beg to differ.
To be fair, kids come with less biases from sites that guarantee to solve weight issues with 7 special foods, or that it is chemikillz that make them gain weight because fat cells make themselves out of nothing to store toxinz to protect you. So it might only take 5 minutes of explaining followed by 3 minutes of "so can I have a cookie?" Instead of 5 hours of pubmed studies with bad p-values or based only on take home surveys, or links to Mercola and such.0 -
Going back to the initial point of the exercise the teacher did. I still feel that through this hands on experience students were far more engaged and therefore learned more from this experience than they would have if they listened to a standard nutrition lecture in a health class.
It would be difficult to convince all teenagers to never eat fast food. However, getting them to make more informed decisions is always going to be better than not even bothering.
Abstinence typically does not work for the majority of people.
I've got more important things to do in my life than avoid fast food when it would be more convenient than another food choice...(to apply the "abstinence" to adults)0 -
A teacher lost weight, improved his markers, and taught children how to make good choices in any eating situation. With child obesity on the rise id say thats worthy of a million high fives.
[Edited by MFP Mods]0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 952 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions