PDA

View Full Version : Supersize Me!



saimyoji
12-14-2004, 00:54
Anyone seen this docu-drama yet? Truly frightening. I especially like the first supersize meal he had to eat, hurled it all right back onto the McD parking lot. Very appropriate. I do love Big Macs though.

steve hiker
12-14-2004, 01:11
Even worse: Reefer Madness. Frightened me so bad I didn't touch my bong for a week.

PhatNate
12-14-2004, 01:48
Hey Man, Since I saw "Super-Size Me" (last June), I havn't step foot in a fast food joint, or put something that's been packaged past my lips. Im pretty sure I can't survive the trail without eating packaged foods however Im deffinately off the the fast food for good. I think eating less organic foods and vegetables on the trail will take some time for me to get used to on my thru hike. Afterall, I cant believe all the junkfood thru hikers eat on a daily basis to keep thier calories up, sometimes I think its a excessive and unhealthy, but then again what do I know...

rocket04
12-14-2004, 10:33
I wasn't surprised by the documentary. What surprised me was that others were surprised by the results, including some of the doctors he hired.

illininagel
12-14-2004, 10:42
Nobody should be surprised at the results.

The man was on a mission. He specifically went to McDonald's to consistently make the worst possible choices every day. If you selected the items off of the menu with the highest fat content every single day and then refused to exercise, of course you will gain weight and suffer consequences. He would have experienced the same effects had he chosen to eat Dunkin' Donuts or Snickers candy bars for every meal!

McDonald's does not claim that it is nutritious to eat every meal in their restaurants. However, McDonald's can be part of a healthy, balanced diet. If you end up eating at a McDonald's frequently, it is highly recommended that you try a Grilled Chicken, Yogurt Parfait, Apple Slices, Carrot Sticks or Garden Salad once in a while.

C'mon...this stuff is common sense. It's about time people assume responsibility for their own actions. And, it won't kill anyone to eat at McDonald's once in a while.

rocket04
12-14-2004, 10:56
Nobody should be surprised at the results.

The man was on a mission. He specifically went to McDonald's to consistently make the worst possible choices every day. If you selected the items off of the menu with the highest fat content every single day and then refused to exercise, of course you will gain weight and suffer consequences. He would have experienced the same effects had he chose to eat Dunkin' Donuts or Snikers candy bars for every meal!

McDonald's does not claim that it is nutritious to eat every meal in their restaurants. However, McDonald's can be part of a healthy, balanced diet. If you end up eating at a McDonald's frequently, it is highly recommended that you try a Grilled Chicken, Yogurt Parfait, Apple Slices, Carrot Sticks or Garden Salad once in a while.

C'mon...this stuff is common sense. It's about time people assume responsibility for their own actions. And, it won't kill anyone to eat at McDonald's once in a while.
Couldn't have said it better. There was really no groundbreaking discovery made by this documentary. It was entertaining though... :D

SGT Rock
12-14-2004, 10:59
Exactly, that is why your mother only took you to such a place about once a month instead of three times a day.

rocket04
12-14-2004, 11:05
Exactly, that is why your mother only took you to such a place about once a month instead of three times a day. Oh, the change in generations. Nowadays, plenty of parents take their kids there twice a week!

Rain Man
12-14-2004, 11:14
The man was on a mission. He specifically went to McDonald's to consistently make the worst possible choices every day. ...

And here I was, thinking he made a point to rotate his orders, so that he ate everything on the menu! Foolish me.

Rain Man

.
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Abraham Lincoln

MDSHiker
12-14-2004, 11:16
I recently watched "Supersize Me" and enjoyed it. The best part was the bonus material on the DVD...the french fries that still looked like new after 10 weeks !!

Tha Wookie
12-14-2004, 11:21
Nobody should be surprised at the results.

However, McDonald's can be part of a healthy, balanced diet.

Which part would that be?:-?

rocket04
12-14-2004, 13:49
Which part would that be?:-? That would be the part where you make exceptions, that one day of the week you allow yourself to eat crap. McDonald's fits the bill. :D

minnesotasmith
12-14-2004, 14:06
Years ago I worked a summer at a well-known chain restaurant that sold fried chicken. They made their cole slaw by dropping carrots, cabbage, etc., in a big grinder without washing the dirt off or peeling them, then pouring white glop from a sealed container (that didn't resemble anything MY mother or female relatives ever made, and they're mostly Southern) over the grindings. I like cole slaw, but won't eat it at a fast-food restaurant. The broiled chicken came in all dipped in some yellow fat, that might have been chicken fat or hydrogenated soybean oil (margarine).

Even the "healthy" stuff isn't to be trusted at such places.

grrickar
12-14-2004, 19:01
Theres just as many bad things on the shelf of your local supermarket. Tons of carbs, things loaded with high fructose corn syrup, and hydrogenated fat. Try finding most any processed food or drink without one or all of the above. Even once-healthy fruit juices are mostly water and high fructose corn syrup. I used wonder why a fruit drink would need sweetener, but now I realize it doesn't - it's just cheaper for the manufacturer.

I quit eating fast food a long time ago, but I still find that some of my choices at the grocery store aren't as healthy as I once believed them to be.

saimyoji
12-14-2004, 19:21
My school friends and I used to joke about the nasty things in hotdogs, and that if you were to read the actual label on the hotdog package that you would never eat again.

Now it seems that most ALL foods in packages are things to be afraid of. Foods I hold innate fears of: anything in a package. I am one of the many Americans who know the stuff I'm eating is considered poison in large doses, but I still have to eat! I know, I know, vegetables and fruits you say. Do you know how long I have to wash lettuce to get the slimy stuff (pesticides, waxes) off? Or how about the cucumbers that double as candles? I have not succumbed to the hogwash that I need to eat 17 different vitamin supplements a day. 99% of those pills aren't soluble enough to be completely absorbed anyway. My cousin is a plumber, he has great stories about septic systems backed up by literally mountains of these little gullibilities.

They'll never take my beer away.

Frosty
12-14-2004, 19:54
However, McDonald's can be part of a healthy, balanced diet. I guess their water is okay, and they have 2% milk, but it's hard to think of anything else coming out of McD as healthy.

rocket04
12-14-2004, 20:15
Do you know how long I have to wash lettuce to get the slimy stuff (pesticides, waxes) off? Or how about the cucumbers that double as candles? True, but in spite of that something tells me that you won't suffer liver failure on a diet of those vegetables as opposed to a McDonald's one. Just because it's not optimal doesn't mean you might as well go with the worse. And I'm not saying that's what you meant.

minnesotasmith
12-14-2004, 21:37
Use SOAP (like Dawn) when washing them. I even do this with fresh spinach, so it ought to work for iceberg lettuce (which I don't buy, since it is nutrient-free, and IMO a complete waste of money). You have to rinse them thoroughly after, but it's not that big of a hassle.

illininagel
12-14-2004, 21:58
I guess their water is okay, and they have 2% milk, but it's hard to think of anything else coming out of McD as healthy.

This thread has probably gone on long enough. But, I think it is important to state some of the facts:

McDonald's does offer low fat alternatives. Grilled chicken, salads, low fat yogurt, apple slices and carrots are some examples. However, studies have shown that people do not go into McDonald's to eat such foods. Once they get to the front of the line, they usually change their mind and go with the burger.

A few years ago, McDonald's introduced the McLean Burger. This burger was a very low fat version of the Quarter Pounder. The same problem occurred. Although people would claim that they demanded a low fat product, they didn't end up buying it. The product mix numbers of McLean were so "lean" that the raw waste associated with the product became very costly---and the product was eventually dropped.

The foods that McDonald's offers in the restaurants closely mirrors the products that most people stock in their own refrigerators. McDonald's uses quality brand name products (Kraft cheese, Heinz ketchup, etc.). In fact, McDonald's pays a premium for a leaner grade of beef than its competitors--for very little competitive advantage. Instead, Wendy's and BK advertise that their burgers are juicier. What they don't tell you is that a big part of that decision is due to the increased profitability associated with buying higher fat beef products.

The bottom line is that McDonald's (or any other similar food product) can be part of a nutritional diet if it is eaten in moderation. And, for those people that end up in a McDonald's restaurant more frequently, it's best to make more nutritious choices---order a grilled chicken sandwich (w/o mayo), a side of yogurt and a water or Diet Coke.

Like I said earlier, people must be responsible for their own choices. No one is twisting their arms to eat at McDonald's. Unlike with tobacco, McDonald's is not inserting ingredients to make the food addictive. It's within their control to make appropriate choices and they should not blame companies like McDonald's for satisfying the demands of the consumer.

saimyoji
12-14-2004, 22:54
What I also found interesting about the documentary was the parts on the school lunches. I see this everyday as I work in a public school. Kids are NOT eating healthily at school, home, why should they eat healthily when out on their own? Schools are (for the most part) not even trying to get kids to make healthy choices- that would only lead to more problems (parents/kids complaining), while they ignore the fact that diet leads to many of the behavioral problems we see at schools.

rocket04
12-14-2004, 23:23
McDonald's does offer low fat alternatives. Grilled chicken, salads, low fat yogurt, apple slices and carrots are some examples. If I recall the documentary well, they do mention that even the supposed healthier/low fat foods at McDonald's still pack more calories because they put all kinds of crap in them. For the salad for example, cheese, dressing, etc.


The bottom line is that McDonald's (or any other similar food product) can be part of a nutritional diet if it is eaten in moderation. And, for those people that end up in a McDonald's restaurant more frequently, it's best to make more nutritious choices---order a grilled chicken sandwich (w/o mayo), a side of yogurt and a water or Diet Coke. Yes! Diet Coke! The cornerstone of any nutritious meal!

illininagel
12-15-2004, 00:11
If I recall the documentary well, they do mention that even the supposed healthier/low fat foods at McDonald's still pack more calories because they put all kinds of crap in them. For the salad for example, cheese, dressing, etc.

McDonald's posts the exact nutritional content of all of the offerings at every store. You can also view the nutritional content on their website.

MCD nutritional content (http://www.mcdonalds.com/usa/eat.html)

Therefore, I don't think you can accuse them of "packing more calories" behind your back. Again, it comes down to choices. McDonald's is in business to sell food. They offer things that people want to buy. They are not in business to fool people into getting fat.


Yes! Diet Coke! The cornerstone of any nutritious meal!

So now Diet Coke is a problem. I thought that if I avoided drinking alcohol and stopped smoking, that I could justify drinking a Diet Coke with my lunch. After all, it's just one calorie. I don't think I will give up this one small indulgence just yet. I will continue to make it the cornerstone of my nutritious meal! When will all this madness stop.

Frosty
12-15-2004, 01:05
they should not blame companies like McDonald's for satisfying the demands of the consumer.People need to be responsible for their choices, as you say, but satisfying the needs of a consumer does not mean they are above reproach. This is the argument made by cigarette companies, state lotteries who push buying tickets on TV, people who murder or commit arson for hire, and ATV owners who want access to the AT. "Consumers" want all sorts of things, some of which are illegal, some immoral, and many ill-advised. To knowingly pander to these "consumer demands" is in MacDonalds case certainly legal, but not only do I not admire them for what they do, I rather dispise them. In this I know I'm in a minority, that many people applaud those companies who satisfy certain "consumer demands," rightly pointing out the need for freedom of choice, but like Popeye, I am what I am. YMMV.

Happy
12-15-2004, 01:32
The bottom line is that McDonald's (or any other similar food product) can be part of a nutritional diet if it is eaten in moderation. And, for those people that end up in a McDonald's restaurant more frequently, it's best to make more nutritious choices---order a grilled chicken sandwich (w/o mayo), a side of yogurt and a water or Diet Coke.

Why without mayo? If you do your research you will discover that mayo fat content is delivered from soybean oil which is very low in saturated fats as is olive oil...much worse to eat ketchup...which is very high in sugar content!

Can't think of much I would eat from McDonald's (capital of artery clogs) other than diet cokes and water! Even the grilled chicken and yogurt is higher in unhealthly contents than other restaurants! :D :confused:

illininagel
12-15-2004, 01:35
This is the argument made by cigarette companies, state lotteries who push buying tickets on TV, people who murder or commit arson for hire, and ATV owners who want access to the AT.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but McDonald's is basically in business to serve food to people. It started as a small hamburger stand and grew into tens of thousands of restaurants as people appreciated its product and its early motto of QSC&V --Quality, Service, Cleanliness and Value. McDonald's continues to seek out those products which will sell---those that consumers want to buy. If people would buy more healthy foods, McDonald's would be the first one's there to sell it to them!

This is in contrast to the cigarette companies, which knowingly placed addictive substances into their products. Additionally, cigarette smoking is clearly dangerous, whereas eating hamburgers in moderation is not such a clear danger.

This is also in contrast to the state lotteries which feed on gambling addictions.

This is in very sharp contrast to people who murder or commit arson for hire, as that behavior is obviously harmful to others---not just to oneself. I hope that we are not seriously considering the selling of a burger to be comparable with murder or arson.

It is also in sharp contrast to people who would drive an AT on wilderness trails, as that also harms others and inflicts on their rights.

When someone chooses to eat a burger, they might be placing their health at risk (if they don't eat burgers in moderation). However, it is unlikely that they are threatening the rights of others, or harming other people in any way (unlike with the examples of murder, arson, destroying the environment, etc.).

Should we ban grocery stores from selling beef? Why should people be able to choose regular Coke over Diet Coke? Doesn't sugar intake correlate with obesity and heart disease? Maybe we should make it illegal to ride a motorcycle? Might not it be dangerous to hike trails in icy conditions...should that be banned too?

In fact, when it comes to the environment, McDonald's is a recognized leader in that area. They have been applauded for everything from their humane treatment of poultry to their choices of packaging.

I might be in the minority, but I'm having trouble understanding why the company should be "despised" for running restaurants that serve food to willing consumers.

For the most part, I think people should be allowed to make their own choices, provided that it does not infringe upon the rights of others. Just my opinion...

illininagel
12-15-2004, 01:47
Why without mayo? If you do your research you will discover that mayo fat content is delivered from soybean oil which is very low in saturated fats as is olive oil...much worse to eat ketchup...which is very high in sugar content!

All of my research indicates that regular mayonnaise is extremely high in total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol. I have yet to find one medical source that recommends an intake of mayo more than "selectively." Most say to severely limit the intake of mayo or to move to the fat free version.

Last week, I purchased the Extra Light Bertolli Olive Oil. This had much less saturated fat than the other olive oils I could find at the grocery store. Yet, one tablespoon contains 2 grams of saturated fat--or nearly 10% of the daily recommended amount. The other olive oils were far higher in saturated fats.

Where are you getting your nutritional information?

Happy
12-15-2004, 01:53
You would be well advised to order and read the best selling book called "The South Beach Diet" written by a Miami heart doctor!

It will address many of your myths...and help you eat better. :sun

illininagel
12-15-2004, 10:19
It will address many of your myths...and help you eat better.

I haven't read it, but I would be surprised if it claimed that mayo is low in saturated fat.

Anyway, I think I'll stick with the good old balanced diet approach. It's my guess that the "South Beach Diet" fad has just about run its course. What's next?

rocket04
12-15-2004, 10:24
Therefore, I don't think you can accuse them of "packing more calories" behind your back. Again, it comes down to choices. McDonald's is in business to sell food. They offer things that people want to buy. They are not in business to fool people into getting fat. I'm not trying to make that point. McDonald's probably does its best to make its product look healthier than it is, but then again, every company tries to make their product appear as good as possible (and usually better than it is). Informed people go daily and eat McDonald's knowing it's not healthy, so they've got nobody to blame but themselves.


So now Diet Coke is a problem. I thought that if I avoided drinking alcohol and stopped smoking, that I could justify drinking a Diet Coke with my lunch. After all, it's just one calorie. Since when are calories the be-all and end-all of good nutrition?

illininagel
12-15-2004, 10:30
Since when are calories the be-all and end-all of good nutrition?

So, is drinking a Diet Coke with lunch harmful to my health?

The other day someone told me that drinking hundreds of ounces of diet beverages a day has been shown to place one at risk of getting cancer. I have yet to see any evidence that this is true. However, it is obvious that eating or drinking anything in excess is not wise.

Until someone can show me where sixteen ounces of Diet Coke a day is harmful to my health, I am not going to worry about it too much. I'm thinking that it can very well be part of a nutritious diet.

I guess drinking water exclusively would be a better choice. But, diet beverages seem like a better choice than regular soft drinks, milk or even fruit juices on occasion. Milk can be high in fat and calories and fruit juices are often high in sugar and calories.

rocket04
12-15-2004, 11:26
So, is drinking a Diet Coke with lunch harmful to my health? It certainly isn't going to make you drop dead the instant you drink it, but it contributes to the faster degradation of your body.



I'm thinking that it can very well be part of a nutritious diet. Perhaps, but the diet would be nutritious in spite of and not because of the diet coke.


But, diet beverages seem like a better choice than regular soft drinks, milk or even fruit juices on occasion. Yeah, and a fractured finger seems "better" than a malignant brain tumor. Which doesn't mean that a fractured finger doesn't hurt and doesn't suck. I don't think anybody is under the illusion that diet coke's gonna kill you in 2 years if you drink a little of it. But is your body better off without it (and all the other crap that won't kill you on the spot)? Absolutely.

Mags
12-15-2004, 12:32
Like I said earlier, people must be responsible for their own choices. No one is twisting their arms to eat at McDonald's. Unlike with tobacco, McDonald's is not inserting ingredients to make the food addictive. It's within their control to make appropriate choices and they should not blame companies like McDonald's for satisfying the demands of the consumer.

That's the beauty of the movie. Unlike Michael Moore (who the director has been compared too), the director of this movie is more about personal responsibility. He more or less used McD's as the catalyst to tell his message. The school lunches, lack of exercise for many people, PARENTS not taking responsibility for their children's food, etc. He used McD's as an example of how many people use fast food as their main meal and how dependent McD's is upon some core consumers who DO NOT take personal responsibility. Read FAST FOOD NATION for a similar look at American dietary habits.

Tha Wookie
12-15-2004, 12:40
In fact, when it comes to the environment, McDonald's is a recognized leader in that area. They have been applauded for everything from their humane treatment of poultry to their choices of packaging.


Um, hello? Choices of packaging? Walked beside a road lately? There's the advertising! In the ditches, in the gutters, in the sewers, landfills, and rivers.

They are HARDLY an environmental champion.

How can ANY burger place be anything but an environmental destructor? Rain forests cut down at high rates to supply the US beef, domestic beef grazing in "wilderness," contaminated water from waste, fertilizers, and erosion.

TheBulgarian
12-15-2004, 13:12
The Wookie's post reminded me of an amusing McDonald's incident I had in 1975 or so. We were eating in the Billings, Montana McDonald's. At that time, there was a push on to get McDonald's to quit using styrofoam packaging for its burgers and to use paper instead. We asked to speak to the manager to express this view. He came out from the back, listened to our argument, and went on to praise the environmental virtues of styrofoam. To prove his point that syrofoam was environmentally friendly, he began to take big bites out of a styrofoam burger box and to swallow them down. 'See, I can eat it. It's not a problem.' quoth he. We stared in disbelief and left shaking our heads. It was tough to argue with that kind of committment!

MDSHiker
12-15-2004, 13:56
The documentary also mentioned that the McDonalds grilled chicken salad had more calories than a Big Mac. Did I hear that right ?

ripple
12-15-2004, 14:16
Um, hello? Choices of packaging? Walked beside a road lately? There's the advertising! In the ditches, in the gutters, in the sewers, landfills, and rivers.


Are you blaming Mc Donalds for the arsholes who litter? Maybe they should just hand out burgers w/o a wrapper.

illininagel
12-15-2004, 14:33
Rain forests cut down at high rates to supply the US beef

As John Adams once said, "Facts are stubborn things." Could we stick with the facts here?

McDonald's uses only U.S. grown beef for its restaurants in the United States.

McDonald's Rain Forest Policy

McDonald’s is committed to establishing and enforcing responsible environmental practices for all aspects of our business.

As part of this charter, it is McDonald’s policy to use only locally produced and processed beef in every country where we have restaurants. In areas where domestic beef is not available in sufficient quantities to meet our needs, does not meet our quality standards, or is not competitive with world prices, McDonald’s imports beef from approved suppliers in other countries.

In all cases, however, McDonald’s does not, has not and will not permit destruction of tropical rain forests for our beef supply. We do not, have not and will not purchase beef from rain forest or recently deforested rain forest land.
Any McDonald’s supplier that is found to deviate from this policy—or that cannot prove compliance with it—will be immediately discontinued.

illininagel
12-15-2004, 14:38
The documentary also mentioned that the McDonalds grilled chicken salad had more calories than a Big Mac. Did I hear that right ?

You might have heard it right. I haven't seen the documentary. But, the facts are as follows:

Big Mac- 560 calories and 30 grams of fat
Grilled Chicken Caesar Salad- 200 calories and 6 grams of fat

Here again, consumers make choices. McDonald's offers choices of Newman's Own Salad Dressings. Everything is offered, including low fat and no fat options within that product line.

Again, when are people going to take responsibility for their own choices? You can order the salad with no fat dressing if you choose, or you can load it up with enough cheese and dressing so that the fat content might possibly exceed that of a Big Mac.

illininagel
12-15-2004, 14:42
At that time, there was a push on to get McDonald's to quit using styrofoam packaging for its burgers and to use paper instead. We asked to speak to the manager to express this view. He came out from the back, listened to our argument, and went on to praise the environmental virtues of styrofoam.

You must realize that the restaurant manager is not the appropriate representative of McDonald's for environmental matters. The manager is not in position to make packaging decisions or work jointly with environmental agencies on developing more effective options.

With nearly 50,000 restaurant managers primarily working for independent owner/operators, the chances that each manager is fully aware of what goes behind the packaging decisions is remote. Again, they are not making those decisions and have no authority to change the approved packaging that is offered to the restaurant through the supply chain.

Rain Man
12-15-2004, 19:46
Again, when are people going to take responsibility for their own choices?

Good question... which applies to ALL persons, not just individuals, but corporations too. Corporations are legal persons, and are created mostly to shirk responsibility, which intent seems to spill over into too many things they do. Yes, persons SHOULD take responsibility.
:(
Rain Man

.

minnesotasmith
12-15-2004, 22:14
1) A salad full of lettuce is a waste of money IMO, whether it is Romaine or iceberg. Both are pretty much just fiber and water. Much better to have a salad dominated by fresh spinach.

2) I remember reading somewhere that the fish sandwiches at the major fast-food chains were little different from the hamburgers and such nutritionally, given how they were deep-fried (e.g., soaked) in low-quality fat. Even if they start with vegetable oil (and it won't be olive oil they use, I promise you), after frying quantities of fatty chicken, etc., in it, how long do you think that the saturated fat content will be halfway low in that frying oil?

3) Remember that the "broiled" chicken at the fast-food place I once worked had been fully dipped into some type of unidentified opaque yellow fat. That grease was fairly solid at room temperature, so was probably heavy in saturated fat, the worst kind.

The conclusion to draw IMO is that even the "healthy" dishes at fast-food places is still pretty lousy stuff, not at all what a cardiologist would suggest eating.

For an arguably better way to eat, consider the "Paleo" (caveman) diet. It's kind of an Atkins diet with the B.S. taken out.

Home page: http://www.thepaleodiet.com/

Where this piece is from: http://www.thepaleodiet.com/faq.htm#fat

Tha Wookie
12-15-2004, 23:46
As John Adams once said, "Facts are stubborn things." Could we stick with the facts here?

McDonald's uses only U.S. grown beef for its restaurants in the United States.


Re-read my post. I was speaking of the beef market for "ANY" burger place, not just McDonalds.

Keep John Adams out of this. I seriously doubt he would eat Micky D's anyway.

MdD's is such a powerful international entity, they have the power to influence heavily health and environamental sustainability.

Maybe they should listen to ripple, who said, "...Maybe they should just hand out burgers w/o a wrapper."

That's genius. Maybe they could just spray the coke syrup in their mouths as they drove by.

if they just shut down the drive-thru, maybe they could solve America's fat problem.

Illiningi, I'm curious... do you... work for McDonalds or have stocks with them, or just are really proud of their website? To paint them as eco-leaders and health-promoters is really stretching it.

Tha Wookie
12-15-2004, 23:53
http://adbusters.org/spoofads/food/babyfry/tn.jpg (http://adbusters.org/spoofads/food/babyfry/) Don't forget the fries.

http://adbusters.org/spoofads/food/bigmac/ad.jpg

Pencil Pusher
12-16-2004, 00:12
Good question... which applies to ALL persons, not just individuals, but corporations too. Corporations are legal persons, and are created mostly to shirk responsibility, which intent seems to spill over into too many things they do. Yes, persons SHOULD take responsibility.
:(
Rain Man

.
Is it ethical to have such a stance and work for a corporation that 'shirks' responsibility?

illininagel
12-16-2004, 00:15
How can ANY burger place be anything but an environmental destructor? Rain forests cut down at high rates to supply the US beef, domestic beef grazing in "wilderness," contaminated water from waste, fertilizers, and erosion.

Clearly we are dealing with a much larger issue here. As much as we would like them to, Third World nations have little incentive to "protect" the rain forests. Unfortunately, they are cutting the rain forests down at accelerated rates to convert the land into farms, ranches and other interests. I guess we might do the same thing if a significant portion of our population was going without the bare necessities of life and we needed to generate the short-term production.

There is much more behind the destruction of the rain forests than the demand for beef. That's part of it, but if it wasn't the demand for beef, it would be the demand for some other food product that would contribute to the destruction of those forests.

Perhaps the only way out is for the richer nations to subsidize the poorer ones as an incentive to protect the forests that are so important to all of us on Earth.

These issues are complex and far beyond my ability to solve them at this point.

saimyoji
12-16-2004, 00:29
We now live in an era where we can't ignore our proximity to other nations, and the effects of those nations' actions on the rest of the world. As the world gets smaller and smaller, and populations continue to rise, the consequences of our behavior become amplified. Sooner or later we will be forced to deal with the imbalance of the "haves and have nots," political boundaries are becoming more and more insignificant. Specifically, the "haves" will have to convince the "have nots" to remain so, or they will have to provide them with what they need to become "haves." Global communism in the making?

Tha Wookie
12-16-2004, 01:15
These issues are complex and far beyond my ability to solve them at this point.
maybe it's all those diet cokes. I'm only half kidding.

You said earlier that you wondered if having a diet coke was bad... well I might have some news on that. As I was told in a class entitled "Advanced General Psychology" in my undergrad at UGA by professor Billy Hammond, MD, PhD, PhD (yes, that's three d's), diet coke has indeed been researched, and it continues. They have found in many cases of loyal diet coke drinkers (most were middle-aged women in target market), dimished cognitive function and a high frequency of headaches. This was thought to attributed to the artificial sweetners which acutally mimic the sensation of sweetness, but have problems in being discarded from the brain (no natural way to deal with them). This is what he told us in class, and I have not seen any such research papers myself, but he is a highly reputable source, and is in fact one of the leading bio-psych researchers in the world. He was saying there is evidence that suggests health problems, but that the long-term research needed would not be conclusive for years.

All that being said, I just polished off a diet root beer of all things. :D But I don't make a habit of them.

saimyoji
12-16-2004, 01:20
A&W, or Mug? Don't matter. Good root beer is worth the ....whatever.... its a treat for me.

Tha Wookie
12-16-2004, 02:10
A&W, or Mug? Don't matter. Good root beer is worth the ....whatever.... its a treat for me.
Don't worry, I prefer a good cup of sassafras

minnesotasmith
12-16-2004, 02:44
http://forestry.about.com/library/tree/blsass.htm

Sassafras

Sassafras was touted in Europe as America's herbal curative because of purported miraculous outcomes from the sick who drank sassafras tea. Those claims were exaggerated but the tree did prove to have attractive aromatic qualities and the "rootbeer" flavor of the root's tea (now considered a mild carcinogen) was enjoyed by [American aborigines]. S. albidum leaf shapes, along with the aromas, are definitive identifiers. Young sassafras seedlings are usually unlobed. Older trees add mitten-shaped leaves with two or three lobes.

celt
12-16-2004, 06:48
one day of the week you allow yourself to eat crap.
Isn't there better "crap" than McDonalds "crap" to eat once a week? How about some Ben & Jerrys? MMMMMM Brownie Batterrrr! (insert a Homer drool & gurgle here).

ripple
12-16-2004, 09:24
[QUOTE=

Maybe they should listen to ripple, who said, "...Maybe they should just hand out burgers w/o a wrapper."

That's genius. Maybe they could just spray the coke syrup in their mouths as they drove by. [/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Tha Wookie
Um, hello? Choices of packaging? Walked beside a road lately? There's the advertising! In the ditches, in the gutters, in the sewers, landfills, and rivers



Hey Wookie I was kidding, I should have put the smiley yellow guy in there. The way you make it sound they shouldn't be wrapping the they sell burgers, b/c it is McDonalds fault that people litter right? :jump

Mags
12-16-2004, 15:43
Isn't there better "crap" than McDonalds "crap" to eat once a week? How about some Ben & Jerrys? MMMMMM Brownie Batterrrr! (insert a Homer drool & gurgle here).


My weakness is bar and grill food. Mmmmmm Buffalo wings, a good burger and all washed down with a dark beer. Yum. Yum.

Puck
12-16-2004, 16:16
My weakness is bar and grill food. Mmmmmm Buffalo wings, a good burger and all washed down with a dark beer. Yum. Yum.
Dam Mags....don't do this. That is how I finish an outing of flyfishing. or a good back packing trip. But right now I am at work.:confused: MMMMMM good hearty burger med rare. What really bunches my shorts is when the pickle is limp.

Mags
12-16-2004, 16:31
Dam Mags....don't do this. That is how I finish an outing of flyfishing. or a good back packing trip. But right now I am at work.:confused: MMMMMM good hearty burger med rare. What really bunches my shorts is when the pickle is limp.

That's how I finshed my snowshoe trip this weekend. Yep..we both have good tastes. That's all there is to it. :)

Puck
12-16-2004, 16:38
That's how I finshed my snowshoe trip this weekend. Yep..we both have good tastes. That's all there is to it. :)
You finished your snowshoe trip with a limp pickle:-? . I hope you really meant a good brew and burger:bse

Mags
12-16-2004, 16:45
You finished your snowshoe trip with a limp pickle:-? . I hope you really meant a good brew and burger:bse

:) Yes, I finshed with a good brew and burger (Java Porter at the Southern Sun here in Boulder). A limp pickle is not just something I hanker for..snoshow trip or no snowshoe trip!

(Limp Pickle? That could be a name for a band!)

Alligator
12-16-2004, 21:20
:) Yes, I finshed with a good brew and burger (Java Porter at the Southern Sun here in Boulder). A limp pickle is not just something I hanker for..snoshow trip or no snowshoe trip!

(Limp Pickle? That could be a name for a band!)
No way. They'd never get any women.

Happy
12-17-2004, 02:12
I haven't read it, but I would be surprised if it claimed that mayo is low in saturated fat.

Anyway, I think I'll stick with the good old balanced diet approach. It's my guess that the "South Beach Diet" fad has just about run its course. What's next?

What's next? Another fad diet!

The difference is the South Beach diet was created by a Miami cardiologist to help heart patients to lose weight in a healthy matter. It maintains many years of successful provement, and surpasses the long accepted heart association food triangle you adhere to; currently being revised to accept the principles of the South Beach diet!

I, like you, spent many years of thinking only high fat content mattered, not where the fat content came from... such as olive/canola oil, nuts, low-fat dairy, low fat cuts of meat, high omega 3 seafood products , etc.

Light mayo contains 4 grams of fat and only .05 grams of saturated fat. Compare that with the sugar content of regular ketchup as far as a healthly diet? Also try a good highfat/low saturated fat ceasar salad! Both mayo and salad dressing made from healthy soybean oils. The fact being that high sugar products do not cut it. (Snickers with the high nut content are OK. :clap

You can also eat a high fat multi-grain bread or sour-dough (because of the high acid content) and stay within your bounds.

Most processed foods are "out of bounds" because of transfats.

To support McDonald's, means you own a couple of franchises, or support the nutrition charts they provide, without the trans fats contents, not currently being required until 2005 or because of not being aware.

I accept PayPal in liew of purchasing the book !! :) :sun :)

Tha Wookie
12-17-2004, 02:21
[QUOTE]=


Hey Wookie I was kidding, I should have put the smiley yellow guy in there. The way you make it sound they shouldn't be wrapping the they sell burgers, b/c it is McDonalds fault that people litter right? :jump
I know you were kidding, but he power of suggestion is indeed strong, no?

In reply, YES. It is MicDonald's fault. How can they expect a clientel who won't even get out of their car for food to get out of their car for a trashcan?

But I know, you'll say that they must be responsible for their own actions. I agree. But so should Mic's. If this was my girl wrapping a boca burger in a napkin, that's one thing. But Mic's is one of, if not THE, largest restaurant business on planet earth. They need to act responsible and set an example. Although the menu change was a good step, it's little more than a promo piece.

They sell crap food wrapped in trash. They put the crap food in trash, fries, burgers, nuggets, genetically modified mutant iceburg lettuce salads, drinks, and all, and then put in all in a trash bag. Then they throw in some trash to wipe off your mouth with and blow your nose or wipe up the stains in your car.

Where does all this trash go?

over 90 billion served.

steve hiker
12-17-2004, 04:11
They sell crap food wrapped in trash.
Remember what McD used to wrap their burgers in during the 1970s? Not paper, but styrofoam. Yup, each burger came in a styrofoam box, to be thrown out on the highway as soon as that Big Mac was down the hatch.

Mags
12-17-2004, 11:28
No way. They'd never get any women.

Perhaps Limp Pickel and the Viagras? Has a nice post-modern ring to it, yet has a slight 50s doo-wopish group thing going for it too...

Puck
12-17-2004, 11:34
Perhaps Limp Pickel and the Viagras? Has a nice post-modern ring to it, yet has a slight 50s doo-wopish group thing going for it too...
May I suggest a Mo town theme....Limp Pickle and the Sour Grapes.

Alligator
12-17-2004, 11:34
Perhaps Limp Pickel and the Viagras? Has a nice post-modern ring to it, yet has a slight 50s doo-wopish group thing going for it too...Much better. They could hold raves in senior centers and hand out little blue pills...

stickman
12-17-2004, 20:24
My one true claim to fame: I have never eaten a McDonalds burger, though I did once have a couple of their french fries (probably less than 10). I've had others like Burger Kings Wendy's, etc, so it isn't about being pure. But now it has become something I can say about myself that not everyone can say, so I refuse to eat there, period.

minnesotasmith
12-17-2004, 22:13
"Much better. They could hold raves in senior centers and hand out little blue pills..."

With the usual 4:1 female/male ratio in the nursing-home-age populations, that would make for either orgies or most of the women there ending up frustrated. Out of curiousity, which one did you have in mind?
:p

Alligator
12-17-2004, 23:32
"Much better. They could hold raves in senior centers and hand out little blue pills..."

With the usual 4:1 female/male ratio in the nursing-home-age populations, that would make for either orgies or most of the women there ending up frustrated. Out of curiousity, which one did you have in mind?
:pI'm not the band's manager, but since I hear you play the ole skin flute, perhaps you should give him a call:-? .

saimyoji
12-17-2004, 23:40
..........

saimyoji
02-03-2005, 00:30
...the other day and ate at McD's. My wife and kid were hungry, its quick and cheap, so we did the drive thru...and I succumbed. Double QP w/ cheese. That sucker was GOOD. However, 30 minutes later I felt like crap. I knew it was the burger. A few minutes of oral pleasure followed by an afternoon of intestinal discomfort. Don't take that the wrong way now... :banana

Needles
02-03-2005, 03:32
I eat fast food on a fairly regular basis, guess what, I am 5'11" and 135 lbs, pretty much underweight. Now I know, I might just have good genes, but I like to think it has more to do with the fact that I am a fairly active person and actually work off the calories I am taking in. I don't think the diet of the average American is as big of a threat to his/her health as a lack of activity is. Heck, there are even studies that show an active smoker will live longer and be healthier than an inactive non-smoker. Here's what it comes down to, we all need to start paying attention to facts, something that most of us, myself included, tend not to do. Yes you can eat healthier than a diet made up of nothing but fast food, but I doubt anyone could prove that a biweekly Big Mac is deadly if you are an otherwise healthy person who exercises and eats reasonably well. I also can't find any evidence at all that organic foods are any healthier than non-organicly grown foods, that diet sodas have ever hurt anyone, or that genetically modified foods have ever made anyone sick. Besides, this is a web site about the Appalachian Trail, could anything you eat on the trail hurt you when you are burning it up so fast by hiking? Probably not.

MadAussieInLondon
02-03-2005, 06:39
wow so much in this thread...

here in the UK McD's now do 'subway' style sandwhiches, just withouth the subway branding. its the same thing as going into a subway, exactly the same experience. They have been burned bigtime here in the UK (the 5 year+ long famouse McLibel trial now in the european courts).. they are trying to do image firstaid!

someone also said diet coke wont kill you, well, actually it will, the swetener in it is carcinogeous as are 99.99% of all artificial sweeteners..

the most dangerous things in food today are sweetener and hydrolised/hgydrogenated fats/oils.

the hydrogenated fats is what gives little debbies a 10 year shelf lifespan...

in school in Australia we did 6+ hours of PE a week. here in England the government only says 1 hour a week! I have no idea what is the requirement in USA but I bet its not 6+ hours... but having been out of school so long I dont know what the requirement in australia is.

the UK has the highest obecity rate in children or the fastest growing rate in the world.

they are going to ban unhealthy food adds during kids TV time (ie:7-9am etc).. but they havnt said who decides whats unhealthy and what cant be shown..

they are also going to put fat + sugar ratings on food packages, with a traffic light system for each so you can pick something up and see green/yellow/red etc etc etc..

I think all this is too little too late and wont do stuffall....

A-Train
02-03-2005, 12:01
Needles

My buddy eats Mcdonalds a couple times a week like you and is "underweight" too. In fact hes in really good shape and stays active. But unfortunately its not how skinny you appear or how mu ch you weigh. By eating that stuff you're increasing your chance of heart attack and high blood pressure, which doesn't allow corelate with staying in shape. My next door neighbor died of a heart attack while running and was a marathon runner. Its just not that simple.

I don';t know why he eats that crap anyway, trying to get him off it

Needles
02-03-2005, 12:14
wow so much in this thread...
someone also said diet coke wont kill you, well, actually it will, the swetener in it is carcinogeous as are 99.99% of all artificial sweeteners..
Where is the proof? I have never seen any evidence that conclusively linked aspartame to any form of cancer. Saccharine was linked to cancer, that is until the research was proven to be pointless when applied to humans. Aspartame, the sweetener in Diet Coke, has been very extensively studied and proven safe over and over, so if you know something about it causing cancer that the scientists of the world haven't been able to substantiate then please, share your evidence.

Here is what the American Cancer Society has to say about aspartame,
"Current evidence does not demonstrate any link between aspartame ingestion and increased cancer risk. Aspartame has not been associated with other health problems except among people with the genetic disorder, phenylketonuria. People with this disorder should avoid aspartame in their diet." and here is the link to this quote so you can verify it for yourself, http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_1_3X_Aspartame.asp?sitearea=PED

Needles
02-03-2005, 12:28
Needles

My buddy eats Mcdonalds a couple times a week like you and is "underweight" too. In fact hes in really good shape and stays active. But unfortunately its not how skinny you appear or how mu ch you weigh. By eating that stuff you're increasing your chance of heart attack and high blood pressure, which doesn't allow corelate with staying in shape. My next door neighbor died of a heart attack while running and was a marathon runner. Its just not that simple.

I don';t know why he eats that crap anyway, trying to get him off it

What kind of food did your next door neighbor eat who died of a heart attack? Because if he ate "healthy" foods and was a marathon runner and had a heart attack we might all decide that we need to start eating fast food. ;)

Anyway, personally I can tell you that not only am I underweight, I also am very healthy, my cholesterol level is great, my heart is in good shape, my body fat percentage is something like 3%, my blood pressure is great, and I know all of this because I am involved in a medical study on diabetes and go through EKG's, stress tests, and just about every blood test known to man on an annual basis.
Being so healthy (well except for my diabetes and sarcoidosis, I collect immune disorders) drives my doctors a bit mad because they are fully aware that I don't eat a "healthy" diet, that I smoke a half a pack a day, so on and so forth. They have been my doctors for years and years and kept telling me that it would start catching up with me when I turned 30, now that I am 35 they have stopped saying that.

Look, I am fully aware that there is a connection between coronary health and diet, but to think so simplistically as to assume that diet is the only thing that matters, or is even the most important thing when it comes to coronary health or to cancer, or anything else is just silly. Even my doctors admit to that. Look at everything you do, are you eating poorly and sitting on your butt all day while breathing in car exhaust fumes and existing under a constant cloud of stress? Well then I would say you have a problem. But just changing your diet to nothing but organically grown bean sprouts and tofu isn't going to fix your problem. Sorry guys but life isn't that simple.

MadAussieInLondon
02-03-2005, 12:52
thanks for the link. i cant find anything impartial that straight out says 'it causes cancer'.

aspartame breaks down into methanol, which breaks down into formaldahyde in the body.. both are bad.. as they build up in your liver + kidneys.. but anyway...

aspartame was approved in 83.. before that they were umming and aahing. in comes a new government who puts in a new FDA director.. he promptly approves aspartame for food + beverages.. he is then sacked for taking corporate gives, and goes to work for searl/monsanto (aspartame creator).....

heres an interesting story (make of it what you will based on the site hosting and their agenda) ) http://www.stevia.net/aspartame.htm

heres a nice quotes



From 1985 to 1995, researchers did about 400 aspartame studies. They were divided almost evenly between those that gave assurances and those that raised questions about the sweetener. Most instructively, Searle paid for 100% of those finding no problem. All studies paid for by non-industry sources raised questions.

heres a nice link;
http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html

then hit its sublinks
http://www.dorway.com/industry.html
http://www.dorway.com/nonindus.html

notice all the sweetener industry supported reviews were positive
and of all the positive non industry reports were by the FDA...

I guess nobody outside of the FDA or the sweetener companies can do good science eh??

you can make of this what you will... I wont change my mind, as Im sure you wont change yours

Needles
02-03-2005, 13:03
I guess nobody outside of the FDA or the sweetener companies can do good science eh??

you can make of this what you will... I wont change my mind, as Im sure you wont change yours

Probably not, but the concerns you raise over the validity of the research is why I went with a statement from the American Cancer Society which is a non-governmental organization established to fight cancer. Their review of the available research has led them to conclude that there is no health risk associated with aspartame and they have no reason at all to cover up any information that points to a link between cancer and aspartame.

As far as the methanol and formaldehyde, yes, these are both produced when aspartame is metabolized, but the quantities produced are so low that they aren't in any way shape or form harmful. Lots of foods contain small amounts of potentially harmful chemicals, but you have to look at the concentrations of these chemicals. Let's face it, it takes a lot less beer to kill someone than it does diet coke but I have yet to see anyone in this thread take a stand against any beer manufacturers.

MadAussieInLondon
02-03-2005, 13:54
notice the first reference in the cancer society paper was funded by nutrasweet? I didnt check any of the others.... thats enough of a hint. =)

i dont like beer, i do like whisky tho hehe (and thats full of impurities too...)

i remember reading youd have to drink something like 60 diet cokes a day for a week to get a lethal dose of formaldahyde? i dont know how fast (??) it can be flushed out of the kidney/liver when it starts building up, or if it remains for good or what.

will be interesting to see what developes in another 10-20 years time, that would put it at about 50 years since its introduction... that and the good old mobile phones cause tumors one... =)

Needles
02-03-2005, 14:26
notice the first reference in the cancer society paper was funded by nutrasweet? I didnt check any of the others.... thats enough of a hint. =)

It's not enough of a hint when you go through the entire page and see that the ACS also lists several studies that showed a health risk associated with aspartame that on further investigation proved to be based on false assumptions, like the supposed link between brain cancer and aspartame. The ACS isn't giving a one sided view of the issue, it's just that they look at all sides and come up with a conclusion that differs from yours :)


i dont like beer, i do like whisky tho hehe (and thats full of impurities too...)

Don't worry about the impurities in beer or whisky, worry about the alcohol. Alcohol is highly toxic and can cause a great deal of damage to your liver, brain, and other organs in fairly low concentrations. Makes aspartame and burgers loaded with fat seem like multivitamins in comparison. So if we are going to have this discussion at all why are we starting off with the most dangerous products first? Diet colas and deep fried foods are no where near as harmful as alcohol.


i remember reading youd have to drink something like 60 diet cokes a day for a week to get a lethal dose of formaldahyde? i dont know how fast (??) it can be flushed out of the kidney/liver when it starts building up, or if it remains for good or what.

If you drank 60 glasses of water a day for a week you would have some serious health issues to deal with as well as you would probably strip your body of much of the sodium it needs to survive. Check out this link, http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/health/10559126.htm In fact 60 glasses of water in a day would probably cause more immediate detrimental effects on your health than the aspartame you would get from 60 diet cokes a day for a week would cause. Anything in too large of a quantity can be bad for you so I don't exactly know how this argument would have any importance at all.


will be interesting to see what developes in another 10-20 years time, that would put it at about 50 years since its introduction... that and the good old mobile phones cause tumors one... =)

Luckily I don't use a mobile phone very often, I just hope no one decides the radiation from a computer monitor can kill :)

hikerjohnd
02-03-2005, 14:33
Saliva causes stomach cancer, but only when swallowed in small quantities over a long period of time.

-George Carlin :D