This kind of shit pisses me off... (another McDonald's rant)

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2013/05/23/year-old-girl-asks-mcdonald-ceo-to-stop-tricking-kids-into-eating-your-food/

Right, Fox News. A 9-year-old girl is definitely the expert here. This has NOTHING to do with sensationalism, at all :V

In case nobody caught it, the new CEO addressed some comments today regarding health concerns of the chain. He stated that McDonald's "doesn't sell junk food" (well, okay that is a flat out lie because they do) and that they have been putting a lot of effort in the past couple of years to add healthy options to their menu (which is ABSOLUTELY true).

What pisses me off:

• McDonald's is no worse than places like Wendy's or even sit-down restaurants like TGI Fridays. Yet, they get all the flack.
  
• People have their head up their ass when it comes to nutrition. You can eat healthy at McDonald's -- it depends on what you buy.
  
• I really think McDonald's is a scapegoat for the obesity epidemic, and even though a lot of their food is garbage it has only gotten better since the 80's. Obesity has gotten much worse.

People really have their head up their ass when it comes to nutrition. For example, "And plenty of mom-and-pop restaurants sell food with just as many calories and fat as a Big Mac or Quarter Pounder." Uhh, a Quarter Pounder With Cheese has 510 calories. That's not a lot; maybe a light meal. Add some large fries, which aren't very filling, and you just DOUBLED the calories. Add a large coke and that's another 310. The hamburger has a ton of protein, a good amount of calcium and vitamins, especially B12, and a minimal amount of veggies. The fries have almost no protein and much less nutrition overall. The soft drink, not SHIT. ALL empty calories. If someone just has the Quarter Pounder it's no big deal but most people don't do that because it's not very filling and our entire nationwide food industry is geared toward serving cheap carb-based filler food as the majority of the meal in order to cut costs. Personally, I'll get their double Quarter Pounder with Cheese or Angus burgers on occasion (which have 700-something calories) but I just have the sandwich and I figure that's my protein for a while -- if I get hungry again I'll have a light salad. The point is, nutrition is about VARIETY and what you eat over a period of time. If you ate a salad every single meal, this could be unhealthy because you might not be getting things like calcium and protein depending on the type of salad. Somehow the cheeseburger has become the archetypal "bad food" and people completely forget about the fries and soft drink which is the vast majority of the problem.

This is all basically irrelevant, though. I'm not going to argue that a lot of their food isn't junk, because it is. The fact remains they are the #1 target being blamed for the obesity epidemic in the USA, yet they have only gotten HEALTHIER since the 80's. Obesity has INCREASED DRAMATICALLY. People are missing the blatantly obvious fact that ACTIVITY has declined due to advancements in technology. It seems a bit suspect, especially since our economy is entirely dependent on the way people use this technology. Even from my personal experience, I gain weight very easily if I'm not active but I can eat whatever I want and NOT gain weight if I'm running every day. Not everyone will be able to do this but it's still just a matter of calories consumed and calories burned when it comes to weight. I don't understand why people watch Supersize Me and are surprised at the fact a diet of OVER 5,000 kCal PER DAY was unhealthy for someone who probably isn't active, at all.

I'm not really going to argue about marketing to kids, although you have bad parents if they aren't able to tell you "no." Parents are doing it for convenience anyway when it becomes completely ubiquitous, not because the kids are pressuring the parents. McDonald's can be a GREAT place for kids. It is FUN for them and it is completely reasonable to get your kids a happy meal with fries and a soft drink. ONCE IN A WHILE

tl;dr: People are missing the fucking ball, as usual.

Eating isn't that hard.

Eat what you want and what's good for you. Moderation is key.

Tank Abuse wrote:

Eating isn't that hard.

Eat what you want and what's good for you. Moderation is key.

Yeah, it's important to have a variety of stuff in your diet and enough healthy food. When it comes to junk food, I think the biggest concern is calories. You obviously don't want a ton of trans fats in your diet, or salt, if you have a problem with it, but generally it's calories people need to watch. Since the topic is obesity that's pretty much the culprit when it comes to food. I think people grossly underestimate the impact a lack of activity has, however.

well they have to blame someone you think people are take responsibility of what they eat

it's like all those violent video games causing high school shootouts and not the fact that the kids often have some kind of mental illness or that most high school students are douche bags or just plain abusive to people.

obesity isnt just about fast food, it is about a myriad of things. people exercise less, there are more convenience foods, and somehow, vegetables became MORE EXPENSIVE THAN MEAT. it is no secret that the majority of obese people are POOR, which is the opposite way around pretty much everywhere else on the planet. its because of all the crap food this country produces. yes people over eat, yes they need to be educated about nutrition more, BUT, it aint all just people being fat shits. some people can only afford to eat the dollar menu. and that says a lot about how fucked up this country is.

Pachi has been learnted.

XoPachi> [VGW] Woohoo!
XoPachi> [VGW] Woohoo!
XoPachi> [VGW] Woohoo!

Azure wrote:

obesity isnt just about fast food, it is about a myriad of things. people exercise less, there are more convenience foods, and somehow, vegetables became MORE EXPENSIVE THAN MEAT. it is no secret that the majority of obese people are POOR, which is the opposite way around pretty much everywhere else on the planet. its because of all the crap food this country produces. yes people over eat, yes they need to be educated about nutrition more, BUT, it aint all just people being fat shits. some people can only afford to eat the dollar menu. and that says a lot about how fucked up this country is.

Yeah, healthy food is DEFINITELY more expensive than garbage food. If you have ultra-processed meat that came from god-knows-where in the animal, and if the food that contains the "meat" has lots of fried carb filler, it's cheap as hell to produce. I'm not even talking about organic food. I've had to live very cheaply in the past and it was generally on those 10 for 2 dollar packs of burritos and lots and lots of pasta. At least most pasta is fortified these days.

Unless you're wealthy, you can't eat healthy :V

so after i fucked that pancake, i put it in the fridge
they keep pretty well, but you gotta add more butter
which means more calories
i don't only eat the ones i fuck though so there's that

You know, calories aren't bad assuming you are actually expending what you consume.

Iif you eat frequently and a good amount it'll speed your metabolism up anyway.

People on extremely low calorie diets are only forcing themselves to have to eat less.

That's another thing people don't realize - your body will adjust to caloric intake (or lack thereof).

RickyBobbyMew wrote:

You know, calories aren't bad assuming you are actually expending what you consume.

Iif you eat frequently and a good amount it'll speed your metabolism up anyway.

People on extremely low calorie diets are only forcing themselves to have to eat less.

That's another thing people don't realize - your body will adjust to caloric intake (or lack thereof).

On that note, though, you'll do better on a restricted (2000 cals or less) diet than you would on a higher calorie diet. You can think of your body like any machine— if you use it too little, it will break down on its own, and if you use it too much, the parts will wear out. We have a capacity for self-repair, but even that wears out over time.

Riv wrote:

On that note, though, you'll do better on a restricted (2000 cals or less) diet than you would on a higher calorie diet. You can think of your body like any machine— if you use it too little, it will break down on its own, and if you use it too much, the parts will wear out. We have a capacity for self-repair, but even that wears out over time.

This may be pointing out the obvious, but 2000 isn't a magic number for everyone. If you mean the average for someone who isn't very active, then yeah -- that sounds about right. 2000 calories is way too little for me because I work out twice a day =P I probably burn half that at the gym.

Also, your body gets used to a restricted diet. I would argue it's best to eat a good amount of food up to the point where you are maintaining a healthy weight. If you can eat 3500 calories a day and do that, then great! That'll keep your metabolism up. If you were to switch to a 2000 calorie diet your metabolism will slow down to compensate and you'll eventually need around 2000 calories a day to maintain, and 3000 would now make you gain weight.

If that makes sense...

RickyBobbyMew wrote:

Riv wrote:

On that note, though, you'll do better on a restricted (2000 cals or less) diet than you would on a higher calorie diet. You can think of your body like any machine— if you use it too little, it will break down on its own, and if you use it too much, the parts will wear out. We have a capacity for self-repair, but even that wears out over time.

This may be pointing out the obvious, but 2000 isn't a magic number for everyone. If you mean the average for someone who isn't very active, then yeah -- that sounds about right. 2000 calories is way too little for me because I work out twice a day =P I probably burn half that at the gym.

Also, your body gets used to a restricted diet. I would argue it's best to eat a good amount of food up to the point where you are maintaining a healthy weight. If you can eat 3500 calories a day and do that, then great! That'll keep your metabolism up. If you were to switch to a 2000 calorie diet your metabolism will slow down to compensate and you'll eventually need around 2000 calories a day to maintain, and 3000 would now make you gain weight.

If that makes sense...

I was rushed typing that, and I never really got to the punchline, which is that, on average, people who burn through 4000 calories a day will die slightly faster than people who do 2000. Invariably, when you metabolize food, it creates byproducts that can and will do damage to your cells. Your body does its best to neutralize and excrete that stuff, but some degree of damage is always done.

No biggie, since your cells can regenerate, but they can't do that forever. Each time a cell replicates itself, certain innate mechanisms count that event, and when a certain limit has been reached, the cells self-destruct. It's the way our body tries to prevent cancer, by limiting the number of times a cell can replicate.

So, more calories burned means more free-radicals and toxic metabolic byproducts, which means more dead cells, which means more cell regeneration, which means less time on Earth.

It's been demonstrated in rats time and time again— if you feed one set of rats the same amount of calories they can comfortably burn off, and feed another set 75% as much, the 75% group lives longer, has lower heart disease rates, less tumor growth, etc etc. It makes sense if you think about our evolutionary history— we're built to handle diets that are limited and make it through periods of scarcity. In 4-billion years of life on Earth, it's not very common that a species has had all the food it would ever want available to it at all times. Struggling to make it to the next week is a much more common occurrence.

I get kinda pissed when I see parents that make their kids eat every last bit of food on their plate. if the kid's fussy then he'll go hungry but if he's full then making him eat more is cruel. with the exception of underweight kids I don't think making anyone eat any this is right. this whole you have to eat it because it's there attitude is apart of the reason why the 1'st world is so fat.

AthenaiS wrote:

parents that make their kids eat every last bit of food on their plate. if the kid's fussy then he'll go hungry but if he's full then making him eat more is cruel.

My dad did this to me.

AthenaiS wrote:

with the exception of underweight kids I don't think making anyone eat any this is right.

This part. I don't agree with this part. I flat out think making anyone eat like that, including underweight kids, is wrong. My dad doing that threw me off food so I guess you could say if he was trying to get me healthier it totally backfired.

Riv wrote:

I was rushed typing that, and I never really got to the punchline, which is that, on average, people who burn through 4000 calories a day will die slightly faster than people who do 2000. Invariably, when you metabolize food, it creates byproducts that can and will do damage to your cells. Your body does its best to neutralize and excrete that stuff, but some degree of damage is always done.

No biggie, since your cells can regenerate, but they can't do that forever. Each time a cell replicates itself, certain innate mechanisms count that event, and when a certain limit has been reached, the cells self-destruct. It's the way our body tries to prevent cancer, by limiting the number of times a cell can replicate.

So, more calories burned means more free-radicals and toxic metabolic byproducts, which means more dead cells, which means more cell regeneration, which means less time on Earth.

It's been demonstrated in rats time and time again— if you feed one set of rats the same amount of calories they can comfortably burn off, and feed another set 75% as much, the 75% group lives longer, has lower heart disease rates, less tumor growth, etc etc. It makes sense if you think about our evolutionary history— we're built to handle diets that are limited and make it through periods of scarcity. In 4-billion years of life on Earth, it's not very common that a species has had all the food it would ever want available to it at all times. Struggling to make it to the next week is a much more common occurrence.

You best be trolling, motherfucker...

You're taking a few "fat people have heart attacks" studies and:

a.) Generalizing that BMI is the absolute indicator of health, when it is not, and studies have showed lower than normal BMI's lead to lower life expectancy (source: google it)

b.) All the above MUST be caused by oxidative free radicals, because that's such a buzzword these days

You'd make a better politician than a scientist ;3

owned

RickyBobbyMew wrote:

You best be trolling, motherfucker...

You're taking a few "fat people have heart attacks" studies and:

Never mentioned anything about being fat.

Quote :

a.) Generalizing that BMI is the absolute indicator of health, when it is not, and studies have showed lower than normal BMI's lead to lower life expectancy (source: google it)

Never mentioned BMI. I wonder what the source of confusion is here. Did you just not read my post? Or do you not know what "BMI" means?

Quote :

b.) All the above MUST be caused by oxidative free radicals, because that's such a buzzword these days

Um... No, it's not a buzz word. It's a chemistry term. And, given that I have a bachelor's degree in biochemistry, I think I know what I'm talking about.

But uh, I didn't say that 'all of the above' was caused by 'oxidative free radicals'. I mentioned free radicals and other toxic metabolic products were responsible for many conditions that lead to shortened lifespan.

I spent two years studying the metabolic pathways of animals, plants, and single-celled organisms. This shit is my life. I know how each sugar makes its way into citrate cycle, how amino acids are converted into sugars, which proteins catalyze the reactions, how they're regulated, which byproducts each one makes, and how those products effect countless other cellular functions.

Quote :

You'd make a better politician than a scientist ;3

Fuck politicians in the ass.

So, all in all, congratulations on writing a post that had nothing to do with the post you were responding to.

Riv wrote:

Never mentioned anything about being fat.

I know that.

If you DID, you would at least be interpreting things correctly.

Riv wrote:

Never mentioned BMI. I wonder what the source of confusion is here. Did you just not read my post? Or do you not know what "BMI" means?

I guess I have to spell this out for you. Let's back up a bit:

Riv wrote:

I was rushed typing that, and I never really got to the punchline, which is that, on average, people who burn through 4000 calories a day will die slightly faster than people who do 2000.

What do you think happens when that person switches to 2000 calories a day? I'll give you a hint -- BMI isn't a constant. THE ONLY research that says "eating more calories is bad" IS WHEN PEOPLE BECOME FAT. Eating *too few* calories correlates to lower life expectancy, as well. It is best when people eat the right amount of calories to maintain a healthy BMI. And no, "burning more calories" isn't bad, otherwise exercise is unhealthy. That just isn't the case.

And none of this is an absolute indicator of health.

Riv wrote:

Um... No, it's not a buzz word. It's a chemistry term. And, given that I have a bachelor's degree in biochemistry, I think I know what I'm talking about.

AAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Okay, I think we're done here.

How to be Ricky:

1- Don't understand something. Have a strong opinion about it anyway.

2- See that someone else, with extensive training in the field, disagrees with your opinion.

3- Get mad. Obviously, you know everything about everything. How dare this guy think he knows something you don't?

4- Regurgitate a bunch of shit that you heard someone smarter than you say, without demonstrating even a minor understanding what he said or what you're saying. That'll show that guy who thinks he knows things you don't.

4- Get your ass handed to you on a silver platter.

4- Fail to understand that as well. Clearly, this idiot could have never proven you wrong, because again, you know everything.

4- Spew a bunch more shit, demonstrating exactly how little you understand human physiology.

4- Laugh, as you are now victorious. Aren't you so awesome? Who's an awesome furry. You are! Yeah, you are!

4- Remind yourself to learn to count higher than 4 some day.

RickyBobbyMew wrote:

You know, calories aren't bad assuming you are actually expending what you consume.

Iif you eat frequently and a good amount it'll speed your metabolism up anyway.

People on extremely low calorie diets are only forcing themselves to have to eat less.

That's another thing people don't realize - your body will adjust to caloric intake (or lack thereof).

Well shit. I usually don't have time to really eat. I maybe get a four-pack of Hawaiian rolls and spinach dip for lunch and of I'm lucky I'll get a dinner when I get home close to midnight. I don't wanna eat less, but it's all I have time for.

How to be Riv:

"I have a degree, therefore I'm right and u r stoopid."

Are you serious, dude?

According to you, people who are active and burn through more calories have shorter lifespans.

You should go alert the press that exercise is killing people :V

RickyBobbyMew wrote:

How to be Riv:

"I have a degree, therefore I'm right and u r stoopid."

Are you serious, dude?

According to you, people who are active and burn through more calories have shorter lifespans.

You should go alert the press that exercise is killing people :V

No, that is not what I said. You are generating a strawman of my argument. That is the most disgusting fallacy there is.

My mention of my degree was not to demonstrate your stupidity; you do a fine job of showing that off yourself. Not to mention, my intelligence has absolutely zero bearing on the intelligence of those around me. You twit. I was merely meaning to show that I have a very good reason to be using the very relevant and technical vocabulary that you think is nothing but "buzz words".

Riv wrote:

No, that is not what I said.

Yes it is:

Riv wrote:

I was rushed typing that, and I never really got to the punchline, which is that, on average, people who burn through 4000 calories a day will die slightly faster than people who do 2000. Invariably, when you metabolize food, it creates byproducts that can and will do damage to your cells. Your body does its best to neutralize and excrete that stuff, but some degree of damage is always done.

Stop backpedaling.

Also, telomeres -- which is what you are talking about here:

Riv wrote:

No biggie, since your cells can regenerate, but they can't do that forever. Each time a cell replicates itself, certain innate mechanisms count that event, and when a certain limit has been reached, the cells self-destruct. It's the way our body tries to prevent cancer, by limiting the number of times a cell can replicate.

...have more to do with apoptosis than anything else.

You even stated that in so many words right there in the quote.

Where did you get your degree, again? :V

RickyBobbyMew wrote:

Riv wrote:

No, that is not what I said.

Yes it is:

Riv wrote:

I was rushed typing that, and I never really got to the punchline, which is that, on average, people who burn through 4000 calories a day will die slightly faster than people who do 2000. Invariably, when you metabolize food, it creates byproducts that can and will do damage to your cells. Your body does its best to neutralize and excrete that stuff, but some degree of damage is always done.

*long, exasperated sigh*

Ricky, do you know what your problem is? Are you really so blind to the source of the issue here?

You are too polarized. You see the world in black and white. So when someone makes a very soft, blurry, carefully generalized statement like;

"Burning more calories puts more oxidative stress on your cells and contributes to the aging process."

You can't understand it, because the subtlety and nuances are beyond you. You translate it into your all-or-nothing philosophy of life, and believe it means something really, really, really, fuckin' stupid, like;

"Exercise is bad for you."

Quote :

Also, telomeres -- which is what you are talking about here:

Wow, you know a word that's been so bastardized by popular science that even my cat knows it. Good job.

Quote :

...have more to do with apoptosis than anything else.

Do you know what apoptosis is for? And what the consequences are when more cells are apoptosing than are undergoing mitosis? (Hint: It's a bunch of things, and none of them are good.)

Quote :

You even stated that in so many words right there in the quote.

I'm trying to dumb things down so you can understand them. Apparently I didn't dumb it down enough, it all still went way over your head.

Quote :

Where did you get your degree, again? :V

An esteemed accredited university that not only gave me $40,000 in tuition for free... They literally paid me to go.

Nice job backpedaling even further.

Why can't you just say "yeah, I guess what I said doesn't make complete sense."

Also,

"I'm dumbing things down so you can understand them." ???

Give me a break. You are just SO full of yourself, aren't you?

Well, guess what. I worked in research for years, specifically in molbio. So, hahaha. Not that you are demonstrating any skills by making sweeping generalizations and making false assertions off those generalizations and then trying to pretend you didn't say what was right there in the quote. You said people who burn more calories die sooner on average, plain and simple.

Also, I'd like to add that I find this mentality kind of annoying. Even if I hadn't worked in research before, there's no reason I couldn't read about biology and carry on a conversation, even with a REAL scientist, assuming I did an extensive amount of self-educating. A degree doesn't mean shit. I've worked both for and with PhD's who were complete dumbasses, even in their own field. It's like anything else... If you're motivated and keep reading about it you'll be good at it, but most people don't give a shit about their job and just slide right by.

I don't know why people these days assume you need a degree to learn something.

What ever happened to reading books?