Obesity problem: Are fast food restaurants responsible or not?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Therre ought to be law where every fast food joint has mirrored doors and windows so all the fat pigs that eat there routinely can see what the hell it is doing to their health.

They outlaw Marijuana yet Fast food is 100X more hazardous to the average Americans health. Just look at todays youth!
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
To me, the problem is it is near impossible to eat at a restaurant and have a truly healthy meal. By truly healthy, I mean:

No refined carbs.
Low sodum.
Lean meat.

My basic restaurant meal is a chicken breast sandwich, throw away the bun, and a salad on the side. Even then I can't avoid the salt they douse the chicken in.

But I guess it is just business. But they don't get much of mine :)
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
To me, the problem is it is near impossible to eat at a restaurant and have a truly healthy meal. By truly healthy, I mean:

No refined carbs.
Low sodum.
Lean meat.

My basic restaurant meal is a chicken breast sandwich, throw away the bun, and a salad on the side. Even then I can't avoid the salt they douse the chicken in.

But I guess it is just business. But they don't get much of mine :)
You need to get a clue. There are plenty of places that serve healthy food, you just have to be creative. Japanese (Sushi), Certain Foods at Mexican Joints and always seafood. Hell lean Steak and Pork isn't bad either plus there is always Veggies. Limiting yourself to unhealthy food is more of a problem with your choices more than your opportunities.
 

Chris A

Golden Member
Oct 11, 1999
1,431
1
76
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
I bet a mcdonald's burger is actually healthier than a homemade burger of the same weight because of the filler in the mcdonalds burger. The filler would reduce the caloric content. (I hear the filler is sawdust.)
LOL Not quite, it's soy. But ya it has less calories than a home made 100% beef patty. But beef is healthy for the most part.


McDonald's hamburgers are made from 100% beef.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Originally posted by: Amused
Such crap.

The explosion in obesity is relatively new. (post 1980 and exploding in the 1990s) Yet people ate far more fat and grease before 1970. Hell, EVERYONRE cooked with lard or bacon grease in the 70s and before.

The main reason for obesity in the US: Lack of physical activity.

Obesity grew with video games, cable TV and the Internet. I PROMISE you obesity levels would drop to pre-1980 levels if cable TV, video games and the Internet disappeared.
This is true, Americans in general are lazy in terms of health activity. My parents live in Houston, recent winner of the "fattest city in America" title, and I tell you it is really sad. There are gyms everywhere, we have Memorial park which has a beautiful track going around it, but very few people use them. Most people drive, even if the destination is a block away. Get off your ass, go for a walk, put down the fork. How can you possibly blame a restaurant for getting you fat? Its ridiculous. I'm a smoker, but I don't blame cigarette companys for me smoking. It was a decision I made, and one that I will live with. It sickens me that some fat fvck has the audacity to blame his disgusting state on anyone but him/herself. If I want to quit smokeing, its going to be hard, but its going to take a concious decision to do so and effort on my part. If fat boy wants to get thin, hes going to have to stop eating crap and get off his ass. Just my two cents, unless is medical, I have no pity for fat people.
Just an aside, Guy i knew before he sold it to a chain, owned a gym. He had 15,000 members and only around 10,000 ftsq and 100 treadmills. This should tell you something. Like somehow miraculously just owning the membership would get you in shape attendace is optional.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Chris A
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
I bet a mcdonald's burger is actually healthier than a homemade burger of the same weight because of the filler in the mcdonalds burger. The filler would reduce the caloric content. (I hear the filler is sawdust.)
LOL Not quite, it's soy. But ya it has less calories than a home made 100% beef patty. But beef is healthy for the most part.


McDonald's hamburgers are made from 100% beef.
The rectum from a Bull is 100% pure beef but you won't see me eating it!
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: Chris A
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
I bet a mcdonald's burger is actually healthier than a homemade burger of the same weight because of the filler in the mcdonalds burger. The filler would reduce the caloric content. (I hear the filler is sawdust.)
LOL Not quite, it's soy. But ya it has less calories than a home made 100% beef patty. But beef is healthy for the most part.


McDonald's hamburgers are made from 100% beef.
I don't think so. Thier burgers, the texture, the taste is nothing like the burgers one makes at home. I suspect this is either false advertising or the phase is open for interpretation. It does sound strange. Why did'nt they say "our burgers are 100% beef by content" . Hey did'nt McDonalds also use horse meat from argentina once in the 70's and try and pass it off as beef?
 

glugglug

Diamond Member
Jun 9, 2002
5,340
1
0
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
The scary thing is public perception by-in-large is starting to change and hold them responsible. I predict within 5 years a multi million dollar victory for the fatties.
Hmmmm..... I was gonna start exercising and getting in shape again, but maybe its better not to so I can cash in....
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
It sure as hell ain?t no Grade A beef. Maybe they gind up the whole cow.
 

glugglug

Diamond Member
Jun 9, 2002
5,340
1
0
Originally posted by: Chris A
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
I bet a mcdonald's burger is actually healthier than a homemade burger of the same weight because of the filler in the mcdonalds burger. The filler would reduce the caloric content. (I hear the filler is sawdust.)
LOL Not quite, it's soy. But ya it has less calories than a home made 100% beef patty. But beef is healthy for the most part.


McDonald's hamburgers are made from 100% beef.
Not ALL of them... it seems to vary by region. The ones in the NE actually are beef, you can tell because sometimes they are not cooked all the way through and there is still some red. Also they taste slightly different (I would not say better...). In college we used to get boxes of frozen burgers from the local McDonald's & BK for BBQ events and it would say on the box from BK: "100% meatless whopper patties." I forget McD's wording but it was to the same effect.

I can vouch for the fact that they use real chicken in something (seen it being delivered) but I wouldn't bet on it being the McNuggets.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,213
11,701
146
Originally posted by: Fencer128
There hasn't been a person alive after the mid 50s who didn't know smoking was bad for you. About the only person I'd think had a case was a person who smoked prior to 1950, quit as soon as the AMA declared it unhealthy, and THEN got sick.

You mean Gulf Lore Syndrome? Seriously, read this entire article.

Many people believed the breast implant BS as well. So much so that a major American company was bankrupted. Yet it all turned out to be a pile of crap.
Here is a counter article to your smoking reasoning (which is why I saw justification).
That's not a counter argument. That's excuses. You didn't NEED the tobacco companies to tell you smoking was bad. You needed the AMA and every freakin' doctor alive to tell you. And they HAVE been telling us smoking is harmful to one's health since before the mid fifties. Now, if the tobacco companies had squashed the AMA and every other medical journal, you might have an argument. But they did not, and the information that smoking is harmful has been common knowledge for 50+ years.

I mean, come on. Listening to the tobacco companies talk has been like listening to the Iraqi Information Minister, Everyone has KNOWN they are full of sh!t since the AMA came out with their initial reports. To now claim you needed the tobacco companies to tell you smoking is bad, when every freakin' doctor in the world has been doing so for 50+ years is just plain stupid.

Tobacco companies are not medical doctors. I don't expect them to tell me smoking is harmful to my health any more than I expect a speaker company to tell me loud music can cause hearing loss.

Here is the article detailing the UK vets gulf war syndrome recent win. Having seen some of these people for myself (and there are 1000's of them) I find it hard to believe they are faking it! Something happened between them getting ready to go to the gulf and coming back that has left a lot of them with very dibilating conditions - not after a while, but shortly after returning from service.. I can't deny what is in front of my eyes.
I admit that it may be something not at all to do with the MOD - but how likely is that? I also admit that a number of "sufferers" may be lying and playing the system. This will run and run and is by no means conclusive...

Cheers for the info,

Andy
No one has claimed many gulf war veterans are not genuinely sick. So the "they can't be faking it" argument wont wash. The point is, just as with the breast implant hoax, is their illness related to the gulf war, medications given by the military, or other, more random causes? No matter what population you choose from, a % of them are going to be sick. I could point to millions of people who have cancer and have also eaten broccoli. Are we to draw the conclusion that broccoli made them sick?

Just as with breast implants, every illness -- imagined or real -- discovered by a Gulf War veteran has now been labeled "Gulf War Syndrome." If you look at Gulf War Syndrome, there is NO set illness. It is any and all illnesses combined. They have no repeatable, peer reviewed cause for Gulf War Syndrome either.

It's a hysterical bandwagon just like the breast implant crap. And it's taking away resources from veterans with real service connected disabilities.
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
That's not a counter argument. That's excuses. You didn't NEED the tobacco companies to tell you smoking was bad. You needed the AMA and every freakin' doctor alive to tell you. And they HAVE been telling us smoking is harmful to one's health since before the mid fifties. Now, if the tobacco companies had squashed the AMA and every other medical journal, you might have an argument. But they did not, and the information that smoking is harmful has been common knowledge for 50+ years.

I mean, come on. Listening to the tobacco companies talk has been like listening to the Iraqi Information Minister, Everyone has KNOWN they are full of sh!t since the AMA came out with their initial reports. To now claim you needed the tobacco companies to tell you smoking is bad, when every freakin' doctor in the world has been doing so for 50+ years is just plain stupid.

Tobacco companies are not medical doctors. I don't expect them to tell me smoking is harmful to my health any more than I expect a speaker company to tell me loud music can cause hearing loss.
I don't want to get any deeper into this - and I understand that the health effects of smoking ahave been generally known for the last 50 years. However, it is also true that the tobacco companies have surpressed evidence of tobacco realted effects (I remember them saying that there was no absolute proof that nicotine was addictive!) and as such have no doubt scuppered many a compensation case in the last 50 years. It's not so much for me that "everyone thought smoking was safe" as much as the tobacco companies did their damnedest to suppress their own life-threatening research findings whilst at the same time waging a war of misinformation and discrediation to anyone coming up with another viewpoint. This is what they should be paying for IMHO.

No one has claimed many gulf war veterans are not genuinely sick. So the "they can't be faking it" argument wont wash. The point is, just as with the breast implant hoax, is their illness related to the gulf war, medications given by the military, or other, more random causes? No matter what population you choose from, a % of them are going to be sick. I could point to millions of people who have cancer and have also eaten broccoli. Are we to draw the conclusion that broccoli made them sick?

Just as with breast implants, every illness -- imagined or real -- discovered by a Gulf War veteran has now been labeled "Gulf War Syndrome." If you look at Gulf War Syndrome, there is NO set illness. It is any and all illnesses combined. They have no repeatable, peer reviewed cause for Gulf War Syndrome either.

It's a hysterical bandwagon just like the breast implant crap. And it's taking away resources from veterans with real service connected disabilities.
I understand that there is no universal symptoms - but then people have different side effects to different drugs, so that may not be proof that these cases aren't somehow related. But most of all for me is the fact that these cases came up so soon after returning from the gulf and among such a specific population. This is why I feel there is merit in the investigation.

Anyway, I'll let this go now as otherwise it'll overtake the fast-food debate.

Cheers,

Andy
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: alchemize
To me, the problem is it is near impossible to eat at a restaurant and have a truly healthy meal. By truly healthy, I mean:

No refined carbs.
Low sodum.
Lean meat.

My basic restaurant meal is a chicken breast sandwich, throw away the bun, and a salad on the side. Even then I can't avoid the salt they douse the chicken in.

But I guess it is just business. But they don't get much of mine :)
You need to get a clue. There are plenty of places that serve healthy food, you just have to be creative. Japanese (Sushi), Certain Foods at Mexican Joints and always seafood. Hell lean Steak and Pork isn't bad either plus there is always Veggies. Limiting yourself to unhealthy food is more of a problem with your choices more than your opportunities.
I guess I'm not lucky enough to live on the west coast. Here in "the heartland" its buffet central. I cannot name one single (mid-priced) restaurant in my area that serves healthy food. There are no Sushi joints. Red Lobster is not "healthy seafood", unless you ask for the fish, no salt, hold the biscuits. And the mexican joints out here would kill a buffalo. Veggies? Why it isn't a veggie here unless its fried! Sorry, the food in the midwest sucks.

 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Fast food chains that spend vast amounts of money to devise cheap food that meets certain 'Taste' requirements, making sure
that the FAT level reaches the threashold of that taste requirement, and at the same time working out packaging deals wtih
companies like Disney and the likes for promotions and advertising - to bring in the kiddies and their corpulant parents, is
good buisness. Are the Fastfood chaIns 'Responsible' ? - No the correct term is they are IRRESPONSIBLE.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,213
11,701
146
Originally posted by: Fencer128
That's not a counter argument. That's excuses. You didn't NEED the tobacco companies to tell you smoking was bad. You needed the AMA and every freakin' doctor alive to tell you. And they HAVE been telling us smoking is harmful to one's health since before the mid fifties. Now, if the tobacco companies had squashed the AMA and every other medical journal, you might have an argument. But they did not, and the information that smoking is harmful has been common knowledge for 50+ years.

I mean, come on. Listening to the tobacco companies talk has been like listening to the Iraqi Information Minister, Everyone has KNOWN they are full of sh!t since the AMA came out with their initial reports. To now claim you needed the tobacco companies to tell you smoking is bad, when every freakin' doctor in the world has been doing so for 50+ years is just plain stupid.

Tobacco companies are not medical doctors. I don't expect them to tell me smoking is harmful to my health any more than I expect a speaker company to tell me loud music can cause hearing loss.
I don't want to get any deeper into this - and I understand that the health effects of smoking ahave been generally known for the last 50 years. However, it is also true that the tobacco companies have surpressed evidence of tobacco realted effects (I remember them saying that there was no absolute proof that nicotine was addictive!) and as such have no doubt scuppered many a compensation case in the last 50 years. It's not so much for me that "everyone thought smoking was safe" as much as the tobacco companies did their damnedest to suppress their own life-threatening research findings whilst at the same time waging a war of misinformation and discrediation to anyone coming up with another viewpoint. This is what they should be paying for IMHO.
They haven't suppressed a damn thing. They only denied the obvious. Point to a single case in which they stopped a doctor or medical journal from reporting on the health effects of smoking. Just one.

Meanwhile, it's pointless to blame them. Of COURSE they have their own self-interest in mind. When you want health information, you don't go to a bunch of farmers and cigarette rollers, you go to a doctor. Tobacco company research is meaningless.

No one has claimed many gulf war veterans are not genuinely sick. So the "they can't be faking it" argument wont wash. The point is, just as with the breast implant hoax, is their illness related to the gulf war, medications given by the military, or other, more random causes? No matter what population you choose from, a % of them are going to be sick. I could point to millions of people who have cancer and have also eaten broccoli. Are we to draw the conclusion that broccoli made them sick?

Just as with breast implants, every illness -- imagined or real -- discovered by a Gulf War veteran has now been labeled "Gulf War Syndrome." If you look at Gulf War Syndrome, there is NO set illness. It is any and all illnesses combined. They have no repeatable, peer reviewed cause for Gulf War Syndrome either.

It's a hysterical bandwagon just like the breast implant crap. And it's taking away resources from veterans with real service connected disabilities.
I understand that there is no universal symptoms - but then people have different side effects to different drugs, so that may not be proof that these cases aren't somehow related. But most of all for me is the fact that these cases came up so soon after returning from the gulf and among such a specific population. This is why I feel there is merit in the investigation.

Anyway, I'll let this go now as otherwise it'll overtake the fast-food debate.

Cheers,

Andy
[/quote]

In 12 years they have not narrowed down a specific illness, or cause. Nor have they been able to verifiably show a higher rate of any specific disease among Gulf War veterans.

There may have been enough merit to investigate at first... but if you can't narrow it down in 12 years, you know you're just chasing your tail.

Finally, I'd bet money that there would be no "Gulf War Syndrome" were there no possible way for benefits to be collected, or lawsuits to be filed

 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,213
11,701
146
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: alchemize
To me, the problem is it is near impossible to eat at a restaurant and have a truly healthy meal. By truly healthy, I mean:

No refined carbs.
Low sodum.
Lean meat.

My basic restaurant meal is a chicken breast sandwich, throw away the bun, and a salad on the side. Even then I can't avoid the salt they douse the chicken in.

But I guess it is just business. But they don't get much of mine :)
You need to get a clue. There are plenty of places that serve healthy food, you just have to be creative. Japanese (Sushi), Certain Foods at Mexican Joints and always seafood. Hell lean Steak and Pork isn't bad either plus there is always Veggies. Limiting yourself to unhealthy food is more of a problem with your choices more than your opportunities.
I guess I'm not lucky enough to live on the west coast. Here in "the heartland" its buffet central. I cannot name one single (mid-priced) restaurant in my area that serves healthy food. There are no Sushi joints. Red Lobster is not "healthy seafood", unless you ask for the fish, no salt, hold the biscuits. And the mexican joints out here would kill a buffalo. Veggies? Why it isn't a veggie here unless its fried! Sorry, the food in the midwest sucks.
I live in IL, and I have no problem whatsoever eating healthy at local restaurants.

Some of my faves:

Applebees: Salmon or chicken and steamed veggies.
Cheddars: Same as Applebees
Chili's: Caribbean Pita or salad.
O'Charlies: Salmon or Chicken and steamed veggies.
Outback: Any steak, chicken or salmon you like and grilled veggies.

I could go on and on, but why?

Don't just order whats on the menu. Ask if the starch can be substituted with steamed or grilled veggies (or raw, if you like them that way). And you have to ask them to hold the biscuits no metter where you live.

ALL restaurants can serve healthy food, you just have to ask for it.
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
They haven't suppressed a damn thing. They only denied the obvious. Point to a single case in which they stopped a doctor or medical journal from reporting on the health effects of smoking. Just one.

Meanwhile, it's pointless to blame them. Of COURSE they have their own self-interest in mind. When you want health information, you don't go to a bunch of farmers and cigarette rollers, you go to a doctor. Tobacco company research is meaningless.
A lot of research was carried out by the tobacco companies. A lot of it showed very grave health risks. All of this research was vetted by the companies. Things were left out and words were "sanitised" to make the research look less bad or definitive where apporpriate. At the same time the government was putting out the message that smoking was dangerous.

The data on which the governments claims were based was held as "open to interpretation" by the tobacco companies and they did their darndest to put a positive spin on it or to point out that it was not 100% definitive when they sure as hell knew the truth. All of this information in the public domain to not make it as obvious as it should have as to the unequivocal dangers of smoking.

That doesn't mean you can have class action lawsuits from people saying "I never heard that smoking was dangerous" but it does mean that states - for instnce - can sue to recoop losses due to health spending they think could have been brought about by the tobacco propaganda. The tobacco companies can have their own interests in mind - but they still can't lie to the public.

Here is a disturbing link that I got in about 10s on google.

The president of the Australian Medical Association, Victoria, Dr Gerald Segal, described the documents as despicable and said they showed how far a tobacco company would go to spread "misinformation".
and here's one you may find more believable if you disagree with the first.

The Lancet publishes damning evidence of tobacco company manipulation of passive smoking science
Cheers,

Andy
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
a lawyer friend (shudder..) of mine once told me that the legal definition of the truth
is whatever a preponderence or people believe to be the truth!

if you allow these lawsuits to procede...lawyers will get rich
"fast-food" will become more expensive..

nobody will lose weight because of these lawsuits

is this what you really want to happen?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
a lawyer friend (shudder..) of mine once told me that the legal definition of the truth
is whatever a preponderence or people believe to be the truth!

if you allow these lawsuits to procede...lawyers will get rich
"fast-food" will become more expensive..

nobody will lose weight because of these lawsuits

is this what you really want to happen?
And your clientele would dwindle. Obese people usually are in need of Heart Surgeons more than healthy people.
 

Sunner

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
11,641
0
76
I eat rather crappy food, and seeing as Im a pretty big guy, I eat alot of it.

But Im not fat, I have a few extra kg's to spare, but they're slowly going away, cause I actually get off my ass and get some exercise, gym a few times a week, and badminton, great exercise. Badminton is alot of fun, and gymming before lunch makes the afternoon at work so much better.

Keeping in shape is an added bonus.

People who wanna blame McDonalds for their obesity are pathetic.
Besides, McDonalds sucks, their burgers taste like $hit.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Sunner
I eat rather crappy food, and seeing as Im a pretty big guy, I eat alot of it.

But Im not fat, I have a few extra kg's to spare, but they're slowly going away, cause I actually get off my ass and get some exercise, gym a few times a week, and badminton, great exercise. Badminton is alot of fun, and gymming before lunch makes the afternoon at work so much better.

Keeping in shape is an added bonus.

People who wanna blame McDonalds for their obesity are pathetic.
Besides, McDonalds sucks, their burgers taste like $hit.
Pigging out on Lutefish and Swedish Meatballs huh Sunner?;)
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
I'm waiting to see the headline:

Family of 4 severly injured when fat man explodes while eating in McDonalds.
An obese man in a McDonalds Hamburger Resturant detonated while trying
to stuff a Big Mac, Extra Sized Fries, and a Hot Apple Turnover into his mouth.
"It was terrible", some nearby diners claimed. "All of a sudden there was this
gut-wrenching sound, like a massive gas leak, then the air was filled with
what looked to be collagen, lard, and partly re-hydrogenated beef by-products.
At first I thought it was from the re-constituted snythetic chicken-lips, but
quickly realized that the man in the front booth was gone - except for shards of his clothing.
Reminded me of a house explosion that was shown on TV last winter."
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY