Are fast-food places to blame?

[coolio123]

I watched a movie called "Super size" me the other day for fun. I was amazed to see at what a dumb movie it is. The movie is about a man who goes on a diet such that he will not to any exercise for one month. He proceeds to eat mcdonalds three meals a day at about 5000 calories every day approximately. At the end of the month he gains about 15 lbs or so I believe ( maybe it was 20) and his blood pressure went up, and he was definitely not healthy as he should have been. As someone who has majored in nutrition and exercise science I hate a movie like this because its very inaccurate, eating any foods at quantities of 5000 calories will result to health problems given you aren't burning that much calories.

Anyways the question is, do you think these fast food places to blame for weight gain? In my opinion no. The science portrayed by all these movies is very inaccurate, its amazing how the average doctor knows nothing about nutrition, and a high school student or freshmen will have more knowledge on basic nutrition.

 

[SomeCallMeChris]

Hmm, the point of 'super-size' was really that he was (for 30 days) simply doing what the McDonalds commercials told him to do, having breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Nominally ordering normal meals but never refusing upgrades ('would you like fries with that?' 'would you like to supersize that?') which were -always- offered according to policy. To be honest, I haven't actually watched the movie, since I don't really want to watch this guy vomiting, but I've heard all about it and I'm perfectly aware that it's a political stunt.

It was a -very- effective political stunt too - McDonalds stopped the 'supersize' campaign, and has since been consistently coming out with meal options that are at least somewhat more consistent with eating at McDonalds every day than the kinds of things they were doing before. You may not like the movie, but it really does mark a turning point in the McDonalds menu.

Fast food places (and affiliated concerns like the soda companies) certainly take some of the blame for weight gain - they advertise heavily, offer high-calorie low-nutrient meals, and keep long hours in many locations. They have done everything they can to sell unhealthy calories as many times a day as possible.

On the one hand, it's the nature of unrestrained business to turn a profit. It's hard to get a better profit margin then you can get selling fried potatoes, although the per unit profit is low so you have to sell them in huge volume... the consequences are natural. It's a certainty that if McDonalds and Burger King didn't exist, someone else would have filled in the same financial opportunity.
On the other hand, executives know damn well when they are both offering meals that are little more than empty calories and simultaneously promoting themselves as the convenient place to eat affordably every day and what the consequences are on anybody that actually -does- come in daily. I don't know that they escape blame just because 'somebody else would have done it anyway'.

I don't really have any idea what you mean by saying the science in 'all these movies' is inaccurate, but I will guarantee you that very few if any high school students know more about nutrition than the average doctor. What -you- know as a nutrition and exercise science major isn't representative of the the average high school student, and quite likely your interest goes back and so even what you knew as a high school student is likely to be far above what the average high school student knows.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Anyways the question is, do you think these fast food places to blame for weight gain? In my opinion no. The science portrayed by all these movies is very inaccurate,

The combination of humans being weak minded plus the hyperactive salesmanship of fast food companies I do believe shares a lot of blame for the expansion of American midsections. Basically, fast food companies are doing everything they can to exploit the weaknesses of the population while doing little to ensure that exploitation leads to a good result. Its past time for the government to step in and set up standards. Children's minds especially are being hardwired for bad habits, and its very hard to fix that when they become adults.

Yes I know that "Super-size me" was a stunt, but it held McDonald's responsible for its overbearing salesmanship, and that is what was really important. McDonald's was seriously trying market its food as healthful, and that is a giant crock.

As far as the science goes, like Chris, I don't know what science that would be. I fully appreciate the difficulty and complexity of nutritional science though, which brings me to this:

eating any foods at quantities of 5000 calories will result to health problems given you aren't burning that much calories.

My understanding is that its not the calories per se, and that calories is not a very useful measurement of anything nutrition-wise (correct me if I am wrong and you well might). My understanding is that its too darn many carbs that is the fat problem. I suppose carbs can be indirectly pointed to via calories, but I don't think that is quite right since simple sugars also produce calories, but have less tendency to lend themselves toward weight gain (again, correct me if I am wrong.) The simple sugars tend more toward health problems, like diabetes. The carbs go more toward fat volume increases.

I know I am talking with a nutrition major, so in setting me straight, be gentle! I will listen.

As I have already indicated, I support government intervention in this matter. The poor American diet is literally becoming a crisis. I support the ban on supersize drinks in New York, but it is unfortunately very misunderstood. The point is that if you give people a bucket of cola, they will drink it all just cause its there. If you give them a full cup, they will drink it all and not especially want more. If they do want more, they can get up and get more, but most won't. Therefore, the ban prevents people from drinking excess cola just because its there. This is especially important for kids who can't be expected to know better if their parents don't.

 

[Hezam]

No, If a person knows that fast-food places make effect his health/body then it's his/her fault.
i started eating fast-food ( big siize ) 2 months ago but i didn't gain weight...not even 3 km.

 

[FinancialWar]

As someone who has majored in nutrition and exercise science.

its amazing how the average doctor knows nothing about nutrition, and a high school student or freshmen will have more knowledge on basic nutrition.

What evidence do you have that average high school student will have more knowledge than an average doctor?

Did you conduct any inferential stastistics to draw that conclusion or did you use previous studies? Because in your post, you neither referenced any evidence nor provided any evidence to your statement.

Also, what was 'these movies' you referred to? You're being very vague. Because I don't think one documentary film can define a whole genre, whatever that genre you're were referring to.

 

[pauro12]

I'm a Nurse and I'd say, not matter where you eat, whether you cook your food or buy somewhere else, consider the amount of calories per day - you've got to be kidding me. Everyone will become unhealthy considering that eating habits whether it is in Mcdonalds, or from your kitchen.

 

[coolio123]

I don't really have any idea what you mean by saying the science in 'all these movies' is inaccurate, but I will guarantee you that very few if any high school students know more about nutrition than the average doctor. What -you- know as a nutrition and exercise science major isn't representative of the the average high school student, and quite likely your interest goes back and so even what you knew as a high school student is likely to be far above what the average high school student knows.

Your probably right about the political scheme. I like the fact it atleast raised awareness about this topic so prevalent. I have been a nutritionist for a little over 5 years, and I can tell you I know many doctors who have told me the nutrition classes they took and it is virtually equivalent of that of a freshmen and possibly a high schooler ( given that they have a great teacher its certainly plausible). Doctors are not qualified to give nutrition advise. Of course there are some that are very knowledgeable, but we are talking about the rare case here. I have discussed this with doctors in America and Canada and have spoken with one in the U.K as a matter of fact and can confirm this from my classmates back in university. So yes it is all anecdotal from the point I am saying, but I am sure you can find similar information online. Why do you think a person like Dr Oz gets away with telling people nutrition advice? 90% of the things he says are not backed up by proof, and if they are they are nitpicked. The fitness/nutrition industry is all money and games.

The combination of humans being weak minded plus the hyperactive salesmanship of fast food companies I do believe shares a lot of blame for the expansion of American midsections. Basically, fast food companies are doing everything they can to exploit the weaknesses of the population while doing little to ensure that exploitation leads to a good result. Its past time for the government to step in and set up standards. Children's minds especially are being hardwired for bad habits, and its very hard to fix that when they become adults.

Yes I know that "Super-size me" was a stunt, but it held McDonald's responsible for its overbearing salesmanship, and that is what was really important. McDonald's was seriously trying market its food as healthful, and that is a giant crock.

As far as the science goes, like Chris, I don't know what science that would be. I fully appreciate the difficulty and complexity of nutritional science though, which brings me to this:



My understanding is that its not the calories per se, and that calories is not a very useful measurement of anything nutrition-wise (correct me if I am wrong and you well might). My understanding is that its too darn many carbs that is the fat problem. I suppose carbs can be indirectly pointed to via calories, but I don't think that is quite right since simple sugars also produce calories, but have less tendency to lend themselves toward weight gain (again, correct me if I am wrong.) The simple sugars tend more toward health problems, like diabetes. The carbs go more toward fat volume increases.

I know I am talking with a nutrition major, so in setting me straight, be gentle! I will listen.

As I have already indicated, I support government intervention in this matter. The poor American diet is literally becoming a crisis. I support the ban on supersize drinks in New York, but it is unfortunately very misunderstood. The point is that if you give people a bucket of cola, they will drink it all just cause its there. If you give them a full cup, they will drink it all and not especially want more. If they do want more, they can get up and get more, but most won't. Therefore, the ban prevents people from drinking excess cola just because its there. This is especially important for kids who can't be expected to know better if their parents don't.

This is another huge misconception in nutrition. Carbs are not the problem. Although you are correct about the calorie not being completely accurate, it is the best measurement we have. I will put it in basic terms, all carbs are created equal. 100g of carbohydrates in pop will not be any different than 100g of carbs in brown rice ( in terms of fat gain given that you are that much calories higher). The question comes up of simple carbs, but this is rejected in nutrition all together, because we know what you eat the carbs with will effect how fast/slow it metabolizes. For example pure sugar has the potential to be digested for a long time if had with something like a donut ( fat slows down digestion). In essence, this whole carb thing doesent mean anything. If a person burns 3000 calories a day, he will gain weight if he goes over, regardless of it being a carb, fat or a protein ( However we have data showing that the thermic effect of carbohydrates is greater meaning 400 calories of carbs is not the same as 400 calories of fat, you will actually burn some of the calories from carbohydrates in the process)

Back in my body building days when I worked at a gym while being a student at uni I competed in Toronto for a relatively big body building event, I went on stage about 170 lbs being near 6% body fat I ended up going to the hospital after, because my body couldn't take it. But I did look ripped to shreds. In my off season I often ate up to 6000 calories a day, this included pizza and such. I was by no means "not healthy", you would be surprised at how many vitamins something like pizza has. Here is a nice video I found, I highly recommend watching the first couple minutes ( quality is a bit bad, he has a degree in nutrition)

 

[coolio123]

On the point of should fast food places be held accountable, well I don't really think so. I think however the government should make things like nutrition and things like lifting weights and sports more prevalent and talked about. I think we just like to blame everything on Mcdonalds and such.

@pauro

I would assume the nurse goes through similar training like a doctor(correct me if I am wrong), I am not sure about the education system in the phillipines but do you guys go through extensive nutrition lessons?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I'm a Nurse and I'd say, not matter where you eat, whether you cook your food or buy somewhere else, consider the amount of calories per day - you've got to be kidding me. Everyone will become unhealthy considering that eating habits whether it is in Mcdonalds, or from your kitchen.

From where I sit, this is like saying that we should not hold professional home builders responsible for the collapse of homes they built because everyone could make their own homes just as shoddy and probably would.

I think pros should be held to higher standards.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

we know what you eat the carbs with will effect how fast/slow it metabolizes.

The rest is sort of going over my head at the moment, but the above is crucial according to my knowledge and THAT is where I think fast food places mess it up the most.

Thank you for the explanations coolio123.

 

[Haruspex]

Let's do a little comparison.

Coke peddlers:
-Sell coke.
-Coke makes you feel great.
-Coke is popular, it helps you gain access to sexual intercourse.
-Coke makes you slim which, in turn, might give access to more sexual intercourse.
-Coke gradually degrades your body.

Fast food empires:
-Sell fast food.
-Fast food makes you feel pretty good, albeit bloated oftentimes.
-Fast food is reasonably popular, but the people who find it attractive are likely people you wouldn't want to have sexual intercourse with.
-Fast food makes you fat. You would be considered a total stunner in somewhere like Mauritania, but not really in the west.
-Fast food gradually degrades your body.

It appears to me that being slim and unhealthy is the better option.

On a more serious note... Drug dealers use human psychology, human weakness and biological, very real cravings to keep their customers returning for me. Fast food places do the same. I don't see how fast food is any better or worse than some drugs. Certain drugs might give you a waddling gait for the night, but it won't last and it won't be because your hips gave in and your family can't afford a crane. Oh yeah, not to mention blood pressure in the 200s due to inordinate amounts of sodium. Oh yeah, salt's got to be the reaper's favourite scythe.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

In addition to my last post, in a country that ruthlessly cracks down on the neighborhood 10 year olds' lemonade stands for not having a license, yes, I think we can and should expect a bit more responsibility and nutrition from fast food joints (and lighten up on the lemonade stands too).