Supersize Me

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Legend

"Free range" animals have lower fat levels because they are not fattened up using GRAIN by farmers. Again, farm animals are gorged to bring in more money.

You completely missed the point. Free range animals have less saturated fat and more omega 3 fats. It's healthier. You obviously didn't read anything I linked. I posted mine, where's your evidence?

Again, I AGREED that farmed animals are higher in fat. I then went on to say they TASTE BETTER because if that.

You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. The dose makes the poison. Responsible use of pesticides keeps the dose WELL below the poison level, and are partially responsible for the longest lifespan human in history by not only raising food production, but by keeping pestilence at bay.

I don't believe that it's binary. It isn't a switch. There is a grey area between no harm and poison levels.

Again, I don't need evidence to know that a little bit of poison, not enough to kill you or do immediately noticable harm, is still bad for you nonetheless.

Then your belief is religious, not rational. Again, there is NO proof whatsoever that eaters of oprganic foods are in any way healthier than those who eat comparable standard foods.

You might as well believe in fairies.

Cholesterol is mostly genetic. YES, if you are genetically predisposed to high cholesterol, you should avoid fatty foods

That's not true. Omega 3 fats help reduce cholesterol.

And cholesterol is not mostly genetic. It is mostly diet with some genetic influence.

The evidence contradicts you. Many people with high cholsterol can adjust their diets and still not see a change. New studies have pointed to genetics being the main cause, not diet.

Eating McDonald's in moderation is no worse than eating any burger or fries in moderation, and will NOT hurt someone who is not genetically predisposed to high cholesterol.

Do you know what transfats are? I'd like my fries without it, thanks.

Trans fats, in moderation in a person not predisposed to heart disease are just fine.

Let's not forget that the obesity epidemic in the US started directly after the low fat craze started. Fat per calorie consumed in the US DROPPED in the same time span that the obesity epidemic grew.

Something you said that's actually true. Fats from fish, nuts, vegetables are good for you and people need to eat more.

Everything I have said is true.

What are most snack foods?

Grains.

All grains are equal? I think not. Do you even understand what whole grain is? The reason I ask is continue to blame things on grains. To blame it on whole grains would be very wrong.

You don't think at all. Who cares WHAT grains it is??? The point is, it is not MEAT making the US fat, nor is it fat from meats making the US fat. It is NOT fast food making America fat. THAT was the whole bloody fscking point of my response to the person I was responding to.

The makeup of increase in calories matches the makup of munchies, NOT fast foods.

Diets are NOT one size fits all. One size fits all diets and health advice is one of the problems in our society, not a solution.

I said everyone should eat healthier. Did I say everyone should get healthier with the same exact diet?

Until you recognize that not everyone needs an extremely low cholsterol diet, yes, you are.

 

[Legend]

Amused, you have no idea what you're talking about. Please stop spreading lies about health. There's already so much mis-information about it.

Until you recognize that not everyone needs an extremely low cholsterol diet, yes, you are.

Again you demonstrate you're elementary education on health. Dietary cholesterol does not have a significant impact on blood LDL.

Most cholesterol is manufactured by your liver as a result of too much saturated and transfat consumption. Genetics do play a role, but diet is the major thing.

http://www.medic8.com/healthguide/articles/cholesterolloweringtips.html

You reduce cholesterol by eating whole foods so you get nutrients like resveratrol (and not saturated fats), which is proven with evidence (something you don't have) to reduced LDL and increase HDL:

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=40

Or better yet, why not drink green tea instead of soda?

The secret of green tea lies in the fact it is rich in catechin polyphenols, particularly epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG). EGCG is a powerful anti-oxidant: besides inhibiting the growth of cancer cells, it kills cancer cells without harming healthy tissue. It has also been effective in lowering LDL cholesterol levels, and inhibiting the abnormal formation of blood clots. The latter takes on added importance when you consider that thrombosis (the formation of abnormal blood clots) is the leading cause of heart attacks and stroke.

Links are being made between the effects of drinking green tea and the "French Paradox." For years, researchers were puzzled by the fact that, despite consuming a diet rich in fat, the French have a lower incidence of heart disease than Americans. The answer was found to lie in red wine, which contains resveratrol, a polyphenol that limits the negative effects of smoking and a fatty diet. In a 1997 study, researchers from the University of Kansas determined that EGCG is twice as powerful as resveratrol, which may explain why the rate of heart disease among Japanese men is quite low, even though approximately seventy-five percent are smokers.

http://chinesefood.about.com/library/weekly/aa011400a.htm

The french and Japanese don't have heart disease not because of their genetics, but because of DIET.

You don;t think at all. Who cares WHAT grains it is??? The point is, it is not MEAT making the US fat, nor is it fat from meats making the US fat. It is NOT fast food making America fat. THAT was the bloody fscking point.

The makeup of increase in calories matches the makup of munchies, NOT fast foods.

You're the one making up sh1t without any evidence or higher reasoning. Stop posting.

We already went over this in another topic. Processed grains are released instantly in your body and create body fat. Instantly, and then you get hungry again. Whole grains are released slowly, and keep you full longer with the same amount of calories.

http://www.diabetes.ca/Section_About/glycemic.asp

Good carbs, better carbs

Canada's Food Guide to Healthy Eating recommends eating a high-carb diet with 55% of each day's calories coming from carbohydrates. Not all carbohydrates are the same, however.

The Glycemic Index ranks carbohydrate-rich foods according to their glycemic response. Foods that raise your blood glucose level quickly have a higher GI rating than foods that raise your blood glucose level more slowly. In general, the lower the rating, the better the quality of carbohydrate.

Not only do low GI foods raise your blood glucose more slowly and to a less dramatic peak than higher GI foods, but most low GI foods are all-around healthier choices. Low GI foods are usually low in calories and fat, while also being high in fibre, nutrients and antioxidants. Choosing low GI foods more often may help you increase levels of HDL (healthy) cholesterol in your blood and might help you control your appetite, as they tend to keep you feeling fuller, longer.

? Eat whole grain, pumpernickel and oat bran bread more often than white bread.

The evidence contradicts you. Many people with high cholsterol can adjust their diets and still not see a change.

What evidence? You've shown me nothing.

Again, I AGREED that farmed animals are higher in fat. I then went on to say they TASTE BETTER because if that.

You're still missing the point: This isn't about taste. You wanted proof that free range animals are healthier. I gave it to you. I don't give a damn about your preferences.

Then your belief is religious, not rational. Again, there is NO proof whatsoever that eaters of oprganic foods are in any way healthier than those who eat comparable standard foods.

You might as well believe in fairies.

You still have no evidence.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-05-11-pesticide-study_x.htm
http://www.ecologic-ipm.com/wfrr399.html

Keep pulling stuff out of your ass.

 

[Legend]

And will you people stop with the "if everyone farmed organically, then there wouldn't be enough food" argument.

We also couldn't all drive cars, and have homes. Everyone should live in a apartment efficiency and ride a bike by this logic.

Furthermore, most organic farms were created for that purpose. All the old farms are still there.

 

[Legend]

Trans fats, in moderation in a person not predisposed to heart disease are just fine.

Absolutely false.

Transfats are an abomination that you're body attempts to use but fails to execute miserably. They have 0 place in your diet.

http://www.afpafitness.com/articles/tranfat.htm

Although not much research has been done on the effects of trans fat in relation to health concerns, research has correlated trans fat intake with heart disease, diabetes, cancer, low birth weight, obesity, and immune dysfunction.

Another notable concern suggests that trans fatty acids disrupt cellular functioning and therefore may effect enzymes such as delta-6 desaturase which may in turn interfere with the conversion of omega-6 and omega-3 essentail fatty acids resulting in future deficiency of these acids.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/psycholog...th_psychology/Transfat.htm#Conclusions

Conclusion
Five years ago evidence was strong that trans fat had deleterious impacts on blood lipids; ensuing studies have confirmed these metabolic findings and strengthened epidemiologic support for an important adverse effect on risk of coronary heart disease. These data highlight the need for rapid implementation of labeling requirements that include fast foods. Because partially hydrogenated fats can be eliminated from the food supply by changes in processing that do not require major efforts in education and behavioral modification, these changes would be an extremely efficient and rapid method for substantially reducing rates of coronary disease.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/reviews/transfats.html

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Amused

Pretty one sided and biased, yes?

What? Why is that one-sided and biased? How is it?

It's a freakin encyclopedia. It gave BOTH stances.... WTF?

Take your blinders off.

Eli, Wikipedia is not a valid source. Sure, it's good for the common look-up of something non-important. But you have to remember that Wikipedia is edited by the general public.

This is the main reason why college professors will never accept it as a source for papers/reports.

Yeah, I see.. I didn't really know that. I thought it was a valid reference.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: Legend
And will you people stop with the "if everyone farmed organically, then there wouldn't be enough food" argument.

We also couldn't all drive cars, and have homes. Everyone should live in a apartment efficiency and ride a bike by this logic.

Furthermore, most organic farms were created for that purpose. All the old farms are still there.

Yeah, they were created with the purpose of preying on the irrational fears of consumers.

 

[Fox5]

I have a friend who eats mcdonald's(or other fast food) everyday almost, often several times a day(though he doesn't go for the supersized meals, he prefers just plain burgers), and never exercises, yet he is able to maintain a 130 pound weight and is 5'10".
I'm 5'9" and weigh 155 pounds, run at least an hour every day, and rarely ever eat fast food, for me to drop down to his weight would require probably much more exercise and an extreme diet of eating almost nothing.(of course, just eating small fast food portions probably doesn't give him enough to gain weight, nor the nutrition required to gain muscle mass, but who supersizes their meals? it just gives you larger fries and a coke)

BTW, I noticed burger king's latest Fantastic 4 contest requires you to supersize in order to take part of it.
I liked their star wars promotion, it came with any value meal, and while I'm not super lucky, I was able to get a full free meal out of it.(2 trips to burger king got me a sandwich and a drink coupon, which got me a 3rd meal free)

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: bob4432
thw whole reason behind the documentary is becaue mcdonald's claim their food is not that bad for you. doing it straight for 30 days and only eating that is a bit excessive but it does show the realities of it.

there are many people that do eat fast food on a daily basis, it is pretty sad when there are more people in line at n-and-out or chick-fil-a than at the library on a daily basis

He super-sized every meal and ate well past his own point of satiation. He forced himself to finish each meal even when he was full and would have otherwise stopped eating. It doesn't matter what you eat, if you eat twice as much as your body tells you it can handle, you're going to have problems. I'm willing to bet that I could eat nothing but McDonalds for a month straight and be perfectly fine as long as I actually stop eating once I get full at each meal.

ZV

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Amused
You don't think at all. Who cares WHAT grains it is??? The point is, it is not MEAT making the US fat, nor is it fat from meats making the US fat. It is NOT fast food making America fat. THAT was the whole bloody fscking point of my response to the person I was responding to.

The makeup of increase in calories matches the makup of munchies, NOT fast foods.

I guess I would put fast food in with munchies. It's certainly not a balanced meal. Some meat, bread, and potatos laden with fat, sugar and sodium is in the same category as munchies. Certainly eating it won't kill you in 30 days as many of the McD/corporation haters would like to believe. But I imagine that a long term McDs only diet would be quite lacking in many essential nutrients.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Legend

Trans fats, in moderation in a person not predisposed to heart disease are just fine.

Absolutely false.

Transfats are an abomination that you're body attempts to use but fails to execute miserably. They have 0 place in your diet.

http://www.afpafitness.com/articles/tranfat.htm

Although not much research has been done on the effects of trans fat in relation to health concerns, research has correlated trans fat intake with heart disease, diabetes, cancer, low birth weight, obesity, and immune dysfunction.

Another notable concern suggests that trans fatty acids disrupt cellular functioning and therefore may effect enzymes such as delta-6 desaturase which may in turn interfere with the conversion of omega-6 and omega-3 essentail fatty acids resulting in future deficiency of these acids.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/psycholog...th_psychology/Transfat.htm#Conclusions

Conclusion
Five years ago evidence was strong that trans fat had deleterious impacts on blood lipids; ensuing studies have confirmed these metabolic findings and strengthened epidemiologic support for an important adverse effect on risk of coronary heart disease. These data highlight the need for rapid implementation of labeling requirements that include fast foods. Because partially hydrogenated fats can be eliminated from the food supply by changes in processing that do not require major efforts in education and behavioral modification, these changes would be an extremely efficient and rapid method for substantially reducing rates of coronary disease.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/reviews/transfats.html

Sigh...

Again, these effects are NOT universal. They affect people genetically predisposed to these concerns. This explains why some people can eat a high fat diet, and NEVER have heart disease or any of the other chicken little suggested harm your first highly questionable source lists. It also explains why others can eat a perfectly healthy diet, exercise and STILL die of heart disease.

In none of the so-called studies your sources reference did they find 100% of those eating diets high in trans fatty acids suffered ill effects. Only an increased % did from the control group... a rather SMALL increased % at that. Check the genetic history of those people and you're more likely than not to find a history of heart disease and high cholesterol runs in the family.

Tell me, would you tell a black man he can only stay in the sun as long as a pale, freckled Irishman? Of course not. One man can take constant sun exposure and the other cannot. It is much the same with foods. Some people are genetically predisposed to high cholesterol and must avoid fats... and others have no need to do so.

You like so many other simplistc people read these headlines and believe this info is universal and truth. It is not. Note they use "suggests" and "correlated"? Not "caused?" Also, READ the studies to find it is an increased risk --only a % of people in the control group had problems, not a universal cause -- not everyone got sick.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Amused
You don't think at all. Who cares WHAT grains it is??? The point is, it is not MEAT making the US fat, nor is it fat from meats making the US fat. It is NOT fast food making America fat. THAT was the whole bloody fscking point of my response to the person I was responding to.

The makeup of increase in calories matches the makup of munchies, NOT fast foods.

I guess I would put fast food in with munchies. It's certainly not a balanced meal. Some meat, bread, and potatos laden with fat, sugar and sodium is in the same category as munchies. Certainly eating it won't kill you in 30 days as many of the McD/corporation haters would like to believe. But I imagine that a long term McDs only diet would be quite lacking in many essential nutrients.

Fast food is mainly meats and fats. The increase in calories has been mainly grains and sugars with meats and fats a very distant single % point.

If you look at your local market and compare it with 20-30 years ago, you'll note the snack foods have EXPLODED. Chips, cookies, crackers and snack cakes take up nearly a third of the store now. THESE are the increased calories as people who sit all day have nothing better to do but munch and munch and munch.

I KNOW what the break room of an IT place looks like. It's junk/snack food hell. THAT'S what peoiple do when they lay around all day.

 

[Legend]

Certainly there's genetic predisposition.

However, transfats aren't real fats. Unlike the sun, they didn't exist until recently. They are close enough to real oils at the molecular level to be recognized as fat by your body, but when it comes to function they don't work properly.

 

[BoberFett]

Yeah, and all I'm saying is that I would categorize fast food with munchies. It's not a balanced meal, but it is OK to eat it assuming you also expend enough energy to burn through the calories.

 

[Legend]

I agree, most fast food should be considered with the munchies.

A typical fast food meal has soda and fries.

According to http://www.glycemicindex.com/:

Soda GI = 61
Fries GI = 75

That is high. Meaning these carbs are absorbed into your body quickly.

Things like subway aren't much better.

White bread = 71. Although subway has fewer calories.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Legend
Amused, you have no idea what you're talking about. Please stop spreading lies about health. There's already so much mis-information about it.

Until you recognize that not everyone needs an extremely low cholsterol diet, yes, you are.

Again you demonstrate you're elementary education on health. Dietary cholesterol does not have a significant impact on blood LDL.

Most cholesterol is manufactured by your liver as a result of too much saturated and transfat consumption. Genetics do play a role, but diet is the major thing.

http://www.medic8.com/healthguide/articles/cholesterolloweringtips.html

You reduce cholesterol by eating whole foods so you get nutrients like resveratrol (and not saturated fats), which is proven with evidence (something you don't have) to reduced LDL and increase HDL:

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=40

Or better yet, why not drink green tea instead of soda?

The secret of green tea lies in the fact it is rich in catechin polyphenols, particularly epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG). EGCG is a powerful anti-oxidant: besides inhibiting the growth of cancer cells, it kills cancer cells without harming healthy tissue. It has also been effective in lowering LDL cholesterol levels, and inhibiting the abnormal formation of blood clots. The latter takes on added importance when you consider that thrombosis (the formation of abnormal blood clots) is the leading cause of heart attacks and stroke.

Links are being made between the effects of drinking green tea and the "French Paradox." For years, researchers were puzzled by the fact that, despite consuming a diet rich in fat, the French have a lower incidence of heart disease than Americans. The answer was found to lie in red wine, which contains resveratrol, a polyphenol that limits the negative effects of smoking and a fatty diet. In a 1997 study, researchers from the University of Kansas determined that EGCG is twice as powerful as resveratrol, which may explain why the rate of heart disease among Japanese men is quite low, even though approximately seventy-five percent are smokers.

http://chinesefood.about.com/library/weekly/aa011400a.htm

The french and Japanese don't have heart disease not because of their genetics, but because of DIET.

You don;t think at all. Who cares WHAT grains it is??? The point is, it is not MEAT making the US fat, nor is it fat from meats making the US fat. It is NOT fast food making America fat. THAT was the bloody fscking point.

The makeup of increase in calories matches the makup of munchies, NOT fast foods.

You're the one making up sh1t without any evidence or higher reasoning. Stop posting.

We already went over this in another topic. Processed grains are released instantly in your body and create body fat. Instantly, and then you get hungry again. Whole grains are released slowly, and keep you full longer with the same amount of calories.

http://www.diabetes.ca/Section_About/glycemic.asp

Good carbs, better carbs

Canada's Food Guide to Healthy Eating recommends eating a high-carb diet with 55% of each day's calories coming from carbohydrates. Not all carbohydrates are the same, however.

The Glycemic Index ranks carbohydrate-rich foods according to their glycemic response. Foods that raise your blood glucose level quickly have a higher GI rating than foods that raise your blood glucose level more slowly. In general, the lower the rating, the better the quality of carbohydrate.

Not only do low GI foods raise your blood glucose more slowly and to a less dramatic peak than higher GI foods, but most low GI foods are all-around healthier choices. Low GI foods are usually low in calories and fat, while also being high in fibre, nutrients and antioxidants. Choosing low GI foods more often may help you increase levels of HDL (healthy) cholesterol in your blood and might help you control your appetite, as they tend to keep you feeling fuller, longer.

? Eat whole grain, pumpernickel and oat bran bread more often than white bread.

The evidence contradicts you. Many people with high cholsterol can adjust their diets and still not see a change.

What evidence? You've shown me nothing.

Again, I AGREED that farmed animals are higher in fat. I then went on to say they TASTE BETTER because if that.

You're still missing the point: This isn't about taste. You wanted proof that free range animals are healthier. I gave it to you. I don't give a damn about your preferences.

Then your belief is religious, not rational. Again, there is NO proof whatsoever that eaters of oprganic foods are in any way healthier than those who eat comparable standard foods.

You might as well believe in fairies.

You still have no evidence.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-05-11-pesticide-study_x.htm
http://www.ecologic-ipm.com/wfrr399.html

Keep pulling stuff out of your ass.

Again, show me ONE SINGLE FSCKING STUDY showing people who eat "organic" foods are healthier than those who eat comparable diets consisting of standard foods.

I'M NOT THE ONE WHO NEEDS THE EVIDENCE. All you have there is fear mongering with NO PROOF OF HARM.

As for the grain issue:

I WASN'T TALKING TO YOU. I WAS RESPONDING TO THE CLAIM THAT FAST FOOD IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING AMERICA FAT.

There, can you read that? What grains are being eaten is FSCKING IRRLEVANT TO THE QUESTION AT HAND. The claim was the fast food, i.e., MEATS are responsible. I pointed out that the vast majority of the increase of 300 calories per person (average) consumed in the US is GRAINS/CARBS. That they be whole or processed is FSCKING IRRELEVANT to the issue being addressed by THAT FSCKING POST.

Good GAWD pull your head out of your ass and stop arguing with yourself.

As for genetics and cholesterol:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/09/010907080306.htm

New research on twins shows that genetics plays a predominate role in differences in cholesterol levels between people. However, a person?s diet also is significantly associated with cholesterol level independent of inherited factors.

PREDOMINATE. See that?

This shows that there are important genetic factors that account for variation in cholesterol levels. In fact, genetic factors accounted for the majority of differences in cholesterol levels among these young adults.

MAJORITY? See that?

Again, NOTHING ELSE can explain why some people can eat high fat diets all their lives and NEVER suffer heart disease, and others can just look at a strip of bacon and suffer a coronary.

Gene Responsible for High Cholesterol

 

[Legend]

Again, NOTHING ELSE can explain why some people can eat high fat diets all their lives and NEVER suffer heart disease, and others can just look at a strip of bacon and suffer a coronary.

Do you even read what I post?

Here, I'll post it again:

Links are being made between the effects of drinking green tea and the "French Paradox." For years, researchers were puzzled by the fact that, despite consuming a diet rich in fat, the French have a lower incidence of heart disease than Americans. The answer was found to lie in red wine, which contains resveratrol, a polyphenol that limits the negative effects of smoking and a fatty diet. In a 1997 study, researchers from the University of Kansas determined that EGCG is twice as powerful as resveratrol, which may explain why the rate of heart disease among Japanese men is quite low, even though approximately seventy-five percent are smokers.

http://chinesefood.about.com/library/weekly/aa011400a.htm

Look, I agree that some people have a genetic predisposition, but just about anyone can control it through diet.

I just posted a link showing that you can eat high fat diets and get resveratrol or smoke and drink green tea and have a lower risk of heart disease.

Again, show me ONE SINGLE FSCKING STUDY showing people who eat "organic" foods are healthier than those who eat comparable diets consisting of standard foods.

I'M NOT THE ONE WHO NEEDS THE EVIDENCE. All you have there is fear mongering with NO PROOF OF HARM.

I already gave you a study showing that pesiticides are at harmful levels in people. Here I'll post it again:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-05-11-pesticide-study_x.htm

As organic foods have less pesticides, clearly they are healthier in that respect.

The PAN study ? called "Chemical Trespass: Pesticides in Our Bodies and Corporate Accountability" ? found that a large percentage of people who had their blood and urine tested carried pesticides above levels considered safe by government health and environmental agencies.

WASN'T TALKING TO YOU. I WAS RESPONDING TO THE CLAIM THAT FAST FOOD IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING AMERICA FAT.

There, can you read that? What grains are being eaten is FSCKING IRRLEVANT TO THE QUESTION AT HAND. The claim was the fast food, i.e., MEATS are responsible. I pointed out that the vast majority of increased average of 300 calories per person consumed in the US is GRAINS/CARBS. That they be whole or processed is FSCKING IRRELEVANT to the issue being addressed by THAT FSCKING POST.

Yes I can read that. But you were replying to me. Perhaps you weren't talking to me initially, but this is a forum, that's how this forum thing works.

Fastfood = meat now does it? So those fries, and soda, and white bread buns = meat?

No it's not irrelevant. Part of the reason why people are eating those 300+ more calories is because they're more hungry because they're eating processed foods (be it fast food or munchies) with a high GI.

PREDOMINATE. See that?

Yes, I do. I never have said that they don't play a part. However, I'd be interested in seeing what they ate, as even people with bad genetics can lower their cholesterol with diet. Could you be right? Certainly, but from what I've read there's not a real consensus. I believe that almost everyone has control through diet, and yes some people can take the fats and not gain cholesterol. I never contended that.

 

[CraigRT]

The documentary definitely was NOT realistic at all.. but I still decided just after watching it I'd never eat there again.

and since watching the movie, I've not eaten there.

I do miss the food as I did like some of it (breakfast) but I just tell myself NOPE! not eating there.

I feel good about my choice, as I already knew the stuff isn't exactly good for you.

 

[Amused]

Legend,

Again, point out where I said genetics is the only factor? I siad it;s the main factor, and explains why high fat diets SELECTIVELY kill people.

I said: not everyone who eats a high fat diet will suffer heart disease. If you have no history of heart disease in your family, and you eat fats in moderation and maintain low blood cholesterol there is NO reason to avoid them any further.

Again, this goes back to the one size fits all.

As for the grains in increased calories, soda doesn't count. Sure, the buns could count, but an increase in buns would coincide with an increase in meat, would it not? That leaves fries. An increase in fries would, again, coincide with an increase in meat, wouldn't it? Most people eat fries with a sammich or burger, right?

Look, I know what has happened in supermarkets in the last 20 years or so. They would not have expanded the snack foods to MANY MANY times theor prior level if they weren't selling a LOT more of them.

People don't "munch" on fast foods. They munch on ho-hos, cheezits, chips, etc... Exactly the types of foods that have grown by leaps and bounds in supermarkets.

 

[Legend]

As for the grains in increased calories, soda doesn't count. Sure, the buns could count, but an increase in buns would coincide with an increase in meat, would it not? That leaves fries. An increase in fries would, again, coincide with an increase in meat, wouldn't it? Most people eat fries with a sammich or burger, right?

Why doesn't soda count?

It really depends, I guess. A Big Mac meal is definitely mostly carbs. Sure, the soda isn't white grains, but it is processed sugar which is worse.

Look, I know what has happened in supermarkets in the last 20 years or so. They would not have expanded the snack foods to MANY MANY times theor prior level if they weren't selling a LOT more of them.

People don't "munch" on fast foods. They munch on ho-hos, cheezits, chips, etc... Exactly the types of foods that have grown by leaps and bounds in supermarkets.

I agree with you that it is part of the problem. My beef with your argument is you called it grains, when there's a difference between whole grain and white flour. You can look at the differences on http://www.glycemicindex.com/.

I think that the increase of white flour products and soda consumption has increased hunger. I agree that decreased activity has contributed as well.

I said: not everyone who eats a high fat diet will suffer heart disease. If you have no history of heart disease in your family, and you eat fats in moderation and maintain low blood cholesterol there is NO reason to avoid them any further.

I agree with you overall, but there are exception IMO. My disagreement was mostly that all fats are not bad. Saturated, trans = bad. Omega 3, omega 6 (usually not a problem to get) = good.

You also made the claim that high cholesterol diets are bad, when in reality the liver manufactures it when given saturated fats and transfats.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Legend

As for the grains in increased calories, soda doesn't count. Sure, the buns could count, but an increase in buns would coincide with an increase in meat, would it not? That leaves fries. An increase in fries would, again, coincide with an increase in meat, wouldn't it? Most people eat fries with a sammich or burger, right?

Why doesn't soda count?

It really depends, I guess. A Big Mac meal is definitely mostly carbs. Sure, the soda isn't grains, but it is processed sugar which is worse.

Look, I know what has happened in supermarkets in the last 20 years or so. They would not have expanded the snack foods to MANY MANY times theor prior level if they weren't selling a LOT more of them.

People don't "munch" on fast foods. They munch on ho-hos, cheezits, chips, etc... Exactly the types of foods that have grown by leaps and bounds in supermarkets.

I agree with you that it is part of the problem. My beef with your argument is you called it grains, when there's a difference between whole grain and white flour. You can look at the differences on http://www.glycemicindex.com/.

I think that the increase of white flour products has increased hunger. I agree that decreased activity has contributed as well.

I said: not everyone who eats a high fat diet will suffer heart disease. If you have no history of heart disease in your family, and you eat fats in moderation and maintain low blood cholesterol there is NO reason to avoid them any further.

I agree with you overall, but there are exception IMO. My disagreement was mostly that all fats are not bad. Saturated, trans = bad. Omega 3, omega 6 (usually not a problem to get) = good.

OK, I'll try one last time.

There has been an increase of about 300 calories consumed per person, per day in the US over the past 2 decades.

The vast majority of that increase has been grains. Not meat, not fat, not sugar... grains.

If the increase in calories were caused by fast food, there would be a nearly equal increase in fats and meats. There was not.

My reply was to another poster who claimed obesity in American was solely due to our eating fast food. I showed that the increase in calories most likely was snack foods since the makup of increased calories did not look like fast food calories, but more closely followed what snack foods are made of.

With THIS issue, the type of grains was irrelvant. I was trying to refute the baseless claim that the increase in calories is solely, or even mainly due to fast food.

Soda doesn't count because it's not a grain. It's a sugar.

Finally, I never siad all fats were bad, or that all fats were not bad. Only that many people can have higher quantities of so-called "bad" fats in their diets with little to no problems, while many others should watch those more carefully.

That's all.

What we have here is not so much a disagreement over fats and food intake changes as a misunderstanding. You're not reading my posts correctly, or what I was responsding to.

 

[angstsoldat]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: feelingshorter
he probably pissed off mcdonalds bad

he did. McDucks took a bath in lost profits after that show aired and prompted the ad camapgn of "im lovin it"

Ok before this I liked the movie, but my hatred for the "bada da da da , IM LOVIN IT" has forced me to take it out on this guy..

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: DearQT

Originally posted by: bluesartist

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear
I watched it. Have to take crap like that with a grain of salt. The guy who made it obviously had an agenda and went to extremes to prove his point.

With that said, eating fast food every day is going to be bad for you.

Eating too much of ANYTHING for 30 days straight is going to be bad for you. It doesn't matter if your calories come from Big Macs or from bean sprouts and tofu. If you triple your caloric intake and intentionally stop exercising entirely, you're going to get fat. Who on earth is dumb enough to need a documentary to understand that or gullible enough to think that overeating at McDonalds is worse than overeating anything else?

The same people who don't realize peanut butter may contain peanuts

no....eating alot of foods high in fats and sodium is definitely worse than consuming bean sprouts everyday. Who on earth is as stpid as you to think that eating lots of vegetables a day is bad for you. I guess you dont realize that docotrs dont recommend fast food everyday. In the documentary they told him to stop doing it because his liver was about to shutdown completely. McDonalds is ok once in a while but not good everyday in huge proportions because it lacks any nutritional value and is high in fats, sodium and sugars.

I dont think my doctor will be horrified when I tell him I am eating 16 ounces of broccoli everyday.

No, he's right! Too much of anything--including vegetables is bad for you. Your body needs a balance of everything ... everything in moderation.

Uh, I even double dare you to eat vegetables everyday and in excess. Furthermore, cut out all animal products and see what happens to you when your vitamin B-12 reserve goes low or empty. (Don't cheat with supplements.) I wouldn't advise you to do that though so the pernicious anemia won't kill you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the guy purposely try and order different things from the menu each time? I think he was hoping to have eaten everything on the menu at least once by the end. It's not like he ate a Big Mac three times a day for a month right?

If a person ate oatmeal for breakfast, a chicken sandwich for lunch, and pasta for dinner everyday I don't think they would see any negative results.

 

[43st]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: bob4432
thw whole reason behind the documentary is becaue mcdonald's claim their food is not that bad for you. doing it straight for 30 days and only eating that is a bit excessive but it does show the realities of it.

there are many people that do eat fast food on a daily basis, it is pretty sad when there are more people in line at n-and-out or chick-fil-a than at the library on a daily basis

He super-sized every meal and ate well past his own point of satiation. He forced himself to finish each meal even when he was full and would have otherwise stopped eating. It doesn't matter what you eat, if you eat twice as much as your body tells you it can handle, you're going to have problems. I'm willing to bet that I could eat nothing but McDonalds for a month straight and be perfectly fine as long as I actually stop eating once I get full at each meal.

ZV

You need to see the movie before you comment on it. He only super-sized if he was asked, this happened twice in Texas during the entire month of the diet.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: bob4432
thw whole reason behind the documentary is becaue mcdonald's claim their food is not that bad for you. doing it straight for 30 days and only eating that is a bit excessive but it does show the realities of it.

there are many people that do eat fast food on a daily basis, it is pretty sad when there are more people in line at n-and-out or chick-fil-a than at the library on a daily basis

He super-sized every meal and ate well past his own point of satiation. He forced himself to finish each meal even when he was full and would have otherwise stopped eating. It doesn't matter what you eat, if you eat twice as much as your body tells you it can handle, you're going to have problems. I'm willing to bet that I could eat nothing but McDonalds for a month straight and be perfectly fine as long as I actually stop eating once I get full at each meal.

ZV

You need to see the movie before you comment on it. He only super-sized if he was asked, this happened twice in Texas during the entire month of the diet.

Sure, he supersized if they asked. But nobody held a gun to his head and told him to eat every last french fry. The average person without an eating disorder eats until they feel full. He went far beyond that, eating past full, into feeling sick and puking. That's where his experiment became junk science.

 

[EULA]

The same people who don't realize peanut butter may contain peanuts

Wait a moment... are you trying to tell me that peanut butter might have peanuts in it?

OMG!