How come everyone hates McDonalds?

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mrzed

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mrzed

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Smartazz
Maybe that movie "Super Size Me" has something to do with it.

Supersize Me was a propaganda farce. He could have got the same results by force-feeding himself with virtually ANY food.

Hold on there sparky. If he was force-fed my lunch today (lentils with carrots, celery and spinach), he might be bored silly at the end of the month, but I'm fairly certain he would not have gained weight or had his cholesterol shoot through the roof. Do you mean to say he would have got the same results by over eating just about any food? If so, you are close to right, but missing the point entirely.

I saw the film, and I thought the main point is, a lot of Americans think you are getting something close to a proper meal there (or insert any other FF restaurant). Also, the idea that portion sizes have got out of control is true, and fast food restaurants are part of the problem. Sure, individual self-control is the number one thing, people know it's not exactly health food, but they fail to realise how bad it is, and how eating even a few meals a week there can have a real impact on health. The reason he chose McD's is, they are representative of fast food in general. Some are slightly better, some are worse.

IMO, KFC, or as I call it, Dirty Bird, is the very nastiest, both in health and taste.

On the contray: Spurlock showed amazing self control during his film.

He had the ability to eat when not hungry. In fact, he had the ability to force feed himself three times his normal calorie intake. He regularly ate past the point of feeling physically ill.

You do that with virtually ANY foods, and you'll suffer the same ill effects. They are the same effects Geese who are force fed to make Foie Gras suffer... by being force fed grain.

Huh? Not sure how you missed my point, but the idea is, many people think McDonalds meals (among others) are a viable option as a normal part of your diet. The portion sizes on offer are part of that.

Remember, this is a film we are talking about, not a placebo controlled, double-blind study. The point it was making is that fast food contributes to the obesity epidemic, not causes it. While Spurlock had to choke it down, many people eat those portions on a regular basis, and they suffer the ill effects.

And saying the results would be the same with any food is just foolish, caloric balance is part of the issue, but so is fat, sugar, salt, and lack of nutrients. If he overate spinach salads, pears, and beans to the same calorie count, it would still impact, but not the same way.

No, I never missed the point of your post. You missed the point of mine. Burgers, fries and fast foods predate the obesity epidemic by more than 30 years.

And, again, force feeding and it's ill effects can be produced by virtually any food. They do it to geese with grain. Not burgers, not fats, but grain.

Spurlock ate an average of 6000 calories per day. Very few people, even obese people eat that much a day. Yes, some people over eat. No, people do not force feed themselves past the point of physical illness on a daily basis. The "ill effects" Spurlock suffered had nothing to do with what foods he ate, but how much he ate.

 

[mrzed]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mrzed

That said, aside from the trans-fats in the fries, there is nothing really scary in the list.

I'm not defending McDonald's. Only fighting irrational myths.

As for the prescrambled eggs, most of that list is simply seasonings and a perfectly safe preservative. The rest are harmless additives to maintain a consistent color and texture.

Are you even reading my posts before arguing against them?

 

[SampSon]

Fresh food (I assume you mean preservative free) is actually quite rare in restaurants as it has no self life. The most popular chain resturants serve foods with nearly identical ingredients to the fast food joints.

That point was covered in my above posts. Chain restaurants are the equivalent of fast food in my eyes, barely deserving to be called a "restaurant". Anyone who truely enjoys food knows where to go to get decent food.

I love how people see a list of mostly seasonings and a harmless preservative as something dreadful and awful.

Now, would you care to post the ingredients from a local chain resturant, and the same most popular foods from a local supermakert?

You'll find them to be much the same.

Note I NEVER said "all." I said "most" and "most popular." What people are most likely to eat out, or at home.

You said the exact same thing in about 5 other threads like this. I don't care about chain restaurants, I never eat in them. I care about what I purchase and cook myself, which you assert that is just as unhealthy as McDonalds or "chain restaurants". Also, MSG was a "perfectly healthy" preservative at one point, wasn't it?

I really don't want all of that junk in my food. Regardless if it's deemed "safe" or not.
My family has owned and one still owns restaurants. None of them intentionally load their food up with any of thoes "seasonings and preservatives" listed in thoes ingredient lists.

The food is no more unhealthy than the same food cooked at any other resturant (in fact, healthier than many sit down places). It is also no more unhealthy than the same foods the average person cooks at home.

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Rogodin2

It is also no more unhealthy than the same foods the average person cooks at home.

That's a generalization that can't be proved neither true nor false-hence-it's meaningless.

I like contrast.

Rogo

Um, no. It's a fact. A fact I have proved in other threads on this very subject.

That was the quote and the exchange.

My point from the beginning is that McDonald's in no less healthy than the same foods served in any other restaurant, or at the vasy majority of American homes.

So what you're saying is that you didn't type these posts, and you're not asserting what you're typing? What I'm reading isn't what you're saying, but I'm supposed to read between the lines in order to get the point you're trying to make in any particular situation?

You made a black and white statement, the arguments opened up, and then you defended thoes statments. Actually I can't find the word "most" or statement "most popular" used in that context in any of your posts. It might have sprung up a few hundred posts and extensive arguments later, but not anywhere near you initial posts.
The only time I see it used is when you were referenceing portion sizes between fast food joints and chain restaurants.

I didn't think it needed to be argued whether there are healthier alternatives. When did Amused or I say that those places don't exist. The places people have been naming in this thread aren't the "fresh food" places you're describing.

Really, 50? Then you live in a unique area. Almost all the restaurants in my area are chain restaurants that aren't significantly healthier if I order a Chicken Sandwich or a Hamburger.

Unique area? I suppose. I think you live in a unique area if you can't find any decent restaurants better than a chain joint. Mabey I live in an area with good food. Mabey you havn't ever truely eaten any good food. Chain restaurants are the absolute last choice for eating establishments.
I care about what I eat and how it tastes, I love eating. I also truely enjoy finding local fare, from local establishments. You should try it sometime and skip the chain garbage. Have you ever been to a big city with good restaurants?

 

[mrzed]

Originally posted by: Amused
No, I never missed the point of your post. You missed the point of mine. Burgers, fries and fast foods predate the obesity epidemic by more than 30 years.

But portion sizes (at most restaurants) have increased during that entire time.

Originally posted by: Amused
The "ill effects" Spurlock suffered had nothing to do with what foods he ate, but how much he ate.

How do you know this? Are you God? Like I said, it was a movie, not a carefully controlled study. A controlled study would change one variable at a time. Because this case did not, we will never know how to apportion the blame for the effects.

 

[hudaman]

I love McDonald's. If McDonald's were a person I would marry it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mrzed

Originally posted by: Amused
No, I never missed the point of your post. You missed the point of mine. Burgers, fries and fast foods predate the obesity epidemic by more than 30 years.

But portion sizes (at most restaurants) have increased during that entire time.

Originally posted by: Amused
The "ill effects" Spurlock suffered had nothing to do with what foods he ate, but how much he ate.

How do you know this? Are you God? Like I said, it was a movie, not a carefully controlled study. A controlled study would change one variable at a time. Because this case did not, we will never know how to apportion the blame for the effects.

Because the symptoms he suffered were identical to those suffered by people and animals that are force fed. It doesn't take a god to figure it out... just a brain.

 

[Tab]

McDonalds is the best buger joint of all time. Two Double Cheese Burgers and water for less than five bucks. Yum.

 

[0roo0roo]

big target + class thing
most any restaurant food is hardly low cal low fat anyways

 

[Svnla]

I had a grilled chicken combo at McD tonight. The sandwich sure looked smaller than Spicy Chicken sandwich at Wendy. The fries were ok. Wendy for my next fastfood trip.

 

[0roo0roo]

well size isn't quality, atleast with the more costly ones the meat is better than wendys or bk

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
big target + class thing
most any restaurant food is hardly low cal low fat anyways

No kidding. Most people don't eat out to eat healthy anyway. You can go to any restaurant and eat like crap and get fat.

 

[acegazda]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: acegazda

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
The food is poison, in both taste and health. It is absolute garbage.

The food is no more unhealthy than the same food cooked at any other resturant (in fact, healthier than many sit down places). It is also no more unhealthy than the same foods the average person cooks at home.

prove it

Read the thread. Someone else already did a burger to burger and sandwich to sandwich comparison among the three major fast food joints.

And beef is beef. Cooked at home or cooked at McDonald's, a hamburger will be virtually the same. In fact, the burgers at sit-down resturants and home are usually worse for the simple fact that they are usually bigger.

I have yet to see anyone point out a single food item at McDonald's that is uniquely unhealthy, and not the same as virtually all identical foods found in other restaurants, or the same as the most popular identical foods people serve at home.

false, i buy buffalo beef burgers from trader joes for $2.50 for 4 of them, whole wheat buns for $1.50, and organic ketchup for $1. That makes 4 burgers for $5. That extra dollar you're paying is the premium for healthy food. Not much to ask IMO.

EDIT: I also cook the burgers on a pan that lets the fat slide off. Therefore, the burgers are quite lean and healthy. McDonalds uses white, starchy buns, hormone fed beef (frozen for weeks sometimes) and chemically processed ketchup. The difference in health is substantial over several burgers.

I realize eating mcdonalds comes down to "take responsability for your own damn self", but I advocate taking the time to
-->make a healthy meal myself
-->make sure the food I buy is healthy
-->make sure when I eat out, it's not crap

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: acegazda

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: acegazda

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
The food is poison, in both taste and health. It is absolute garbage.

The food is no more unhealthy than the same food cooked at any other resturant (in fact, healthier than many sit down places). It is also no more unhealthy than the same foods the average person cooks at home.

prove it

Read the thread. Someone else already did a burger to burger and sandwich to sandwich comparison among the three major fast food joints.

And beef is beef. Cooked at home or cooked at McDonald's, a hamburger will be virtually the same. In fact, the burgers at sit-down resturants and home are usually worse for the simple fact that they are usually bigger.

I have yet to see anyone point out a single food item at McDonald's that is uniquely unhealthy, and not the same as virtually all identical foods found in other restaurants, or the same as the most popular identical foods people serve at home.

false, i buy buffalo beef burgers from trader joes for $2.50 for 4 of them, whole wheat buns for $1.50, and organic ketchup for $1. That makes 4 burgers for $5. That extra dollar you're paying is the premium for healthy food. Not much to ask IMO.

You fail at reading comprehension.

I did not say it was impossible to make a healthier burger. I said "Most popular foods bought in supermarkets."

Now, wanna compare the popularity of bison meat to beef? Organic ketchup to Heinz? Whole wheat buns to white?

Next time try reading and comprehending the post BEFORE jerking your knee.

Finally, ultra lean meat makes for nasty, dry, hockey puck burgers. Which is the reason Ground Round is the most popular beef for cooking burgers rather than sirloin or bison.

 

[marulee]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
The food is poison, in both taste and health. It is absolute garbage.

You know that you will be eating at McD at least once more in your life time?

 

[lithium726]

Because i personally think their burgers are nasty, always have.

 

[jlbenedict]

The wife is bringing me home a double quarter pounder with cheese here in a few minutes.... mmmm mm mmmmmm

Weep with sorrow you McDonald haters!

 

[QueBert]

if my wife (if I had one) brought me MCD's I would divorce her on the spot.

In'N'Out is fresh, they never freeze their meat, that has to say something about quality and freshness. Is In'N'Out healthy? of course not, but their burgers are better for you then MCD's

 

[foghorn67]

I am forever banning Wendy's due to their stupid commerical. Only they can top years of stupid commercial campaigns with one commerical. Yes, it tops the stupid singing moon, and the "I'm lovin it."

Note to Wendy's: A guy looking jaundiced being outsmarted by a double-chined moron isn't smart, it's annoying.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: QueBert
if my wife (if I had one) brought me MCD's I would divorce her on the spot.

In'N'Out is fresh, they never freeze their meat, that has to say something about quality and freshness. Is In'N'Out healthy? of course not, but their burgers are better for you then MCD's

Hardly. Better taste does not mean healthier. Not by a long shot.

I can guarantee you this: Their beef can not be any more 100% pure beef than McDonalds. Their buns are also white bread, which means HFCS and a bit of trans fats.

To say an In-n-Out burger is healthier is pure delusion. Nothing more.

(In-n-Out's patties are smaller than a quarter pounder A double-double comes closet in weight):

In-n-Out Double-Double
Cal: 670
Cal from fat: 370
Fat: 41
Sat Fat: 18
Trans Fats (NOT LISTED)
Sodium: 1440

McDonald's Quarter Pounder:
Cal: 510
Cal from fat: 230
Fat: 26
Sat Fat: 12
Trans Fat: 1.5
Sodium: 1190

In-in-Out has more fat per calorie than McDonald's Thus making it WORSE for you than McDonald's.

Again, better taste does not mean better for you. In fact, it's usually the opposite.

 

[novasatori]

Originally posted by: LongCoolMother
Okay, I know what you're all going to say, McDonalds serve the nastiest food under the heavens and you wouldn't stomach it for $10000.

But I think McDonalds is rather tasty, even delicious. Sure, the food is godly in how unhealthy it is, but let us just forget that for a second. Many of us can hardly rightfully claim that we eat healthy foods on a regular basis.

I personally love McDonalds. I hardly eat it, but that is not because I think the food is nasty. Heck, I prefer McDonalds over Inn 'n Out, to be honest. Taco Bell is pretty damn good too. So if McDonald's really is so disgusting, how is it so successful? All little kids love McDonalds. In my very honest opinion, McDonalds fries are extremely tasty.

Is the food served there REALLY disgusting? Or is it a 'fad' to hate on McDonalds simply because it is being different? And contrary to the other thread, most of the McDonalds that I have been too have been fairly clean and provide fast service. Much more so than the Carls Jrs around here. Of course, we have to keep things in perspective.... it IS a fast food chain. It is one thing to diss McDonald's because the food tastes bad, but it is another to diss them because it is unhealthy.

BTW. I don't have any affiliation with McDs besides the fact that I love an occasional double cheeseburger and small fries. I don't know anyone who owns/works at/operates/etc. at a McDonalds.

i don't hate mcd's but i don't really like it

its one of the cheaper fast foods, along with taco bell - both places where I can get good food for the cheapest amount

if i have extra money i prefer one of the other places that are a little less mass production that mcd's - like sonic or Wendy's their chicken sandwiches are really good and usually very fresh

i don't think many people _hate_ it, I've seen burgers at places like in&out/carl's jr. that were 100000x greasier or nastier looking than the average mcd's burger

oh, and I love mcd's breakfast, nothing beats it
sausage egg mcmuffins ftw

 

[Jadow]

I like MacDonalds. Their filet o fish is great, and their breakfast menu is pretty good too.

 

[jlbenedict]

Originally posted by: QueBert
if my wife (if I had one) brought me MCD's I would divorce her on the spot.

In'N'Out is fresh, they never freeze their meat, that has to say something about quality and freshness. Is In'N'Out healthy? of course not, but their burgers are better for you then MCD's

WTF??


So.. they never freeze it..

So, you are saying, right off the cows back and onto the griddle?

Bull$hit

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: QueBert
if my wife (if I had one) brought me MCD's I would divorce her on the spot.

In'N'Out is fresh, they never freeze their meat, that has to say something about quality and freshness. Is In'N'Out healthy? of course not, but their burgers are better for you then MCD's

Hardly. Better taste does not mean healthier. Not by a long shot.

I can guarantee you this: Their beef can not be any more 100% pure beef than McDonalds. Their buns are also white bread, which means HFCS and a bit of trans fats.

To say an In-n-Out burger is healthier is pure delusion. Nothing more.

(In-n-Out's patties are smaller than a quarter pounder A double-double comes closet in weight):

In-n-Out Double-Double
Cal: 670
Cal from fat: 370
Fat: 41
Sat Fat: 18
Trans Fats (NOT LISTED)
Sodium: 1440

McDonald's Quarter Pounder:
Cal: 510
Cal from fat: 230
Fat: 26
Sat Fat: 12
Trans Fat: 1.5
Sodium: 1190

In-in-Out has more fat per calorie than McDonald's Thus making it WORSE for you than McDonald's.

Again, better taste does not mean better for you. In fact, it's usually the opposite.

that was a horrible comparison, a Double Double is MUCH bigger then a quarter pounder. How can you even compare the 2? Besides more meat, it also has 2 slices of cheese.
I'll bet anything In N Out is better for you. Is it "healthy" fvck no, but it will be a overall healthier burger then anything MCD's offers. You have to compare equal sized burgers. Try a Double Double vs a Big Mac, that is more fair. A Double Double is considerably larger then a Quarter Pounder. I know I eat them often

Beef is not simply beef just because it's 100% you have meat with different fat content, 8%, 15%, 22% In N Out uses BETTER BEEF! if all you care about is 100% then you should eat a Sirloin Stake instead of a Rib Eye or Filet, because both are 100% beef right?

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: jlbenedict

Originally posted by: QueBert
if my wife (if I had one) brought me MCD's I would divorce her on the spot.

In'N'Out is fresh, they never freeze their meat, that has to say something about quality and freshness. Is In'N'Out healthy? of course not, but their burgers are better for you then MCD's

WTF??


So.. they never freeze it..

So, you are saying, right off the cows back and onto the griddle?

Bull$hit

No, freeze means it's been put in a freezer! They have a refrigerator which they keep the meat in, but it's NEVER FROZEN. I didn't make that up, it's a fact. So that means the meat is fresher because you can't keep meat in a fridge for very long. EVERYTHING at In N Out is fresh, they even cut their own potatoes to make the fries. None of this makes In N Out any more healthy then most fast food, but it is fresher, and fresher means less preservatives.

linky for fools who doubt this...

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: QueBert
if my wife (if I had one) brought me MCD's I would divorce her on the spot.

In'N'Out is fresh, they never freeze their meat, that has to say something about quality and freshness. Is In'N'Out healthy? of course not, but their burgers are better for you then MCD's

Hardly. Better taste does not mean healthier. Not by a long shot.

I can guarantee you this: Their beef can not be any more 100% pure beef than McDonalds. Their buns are also white bread, which means HFCS and a bit of trans fats.

To say an In-n-Out burger is healthier is pure delusion. Nothing more.

(In-n-Out's patties are smaller than a quarter pounder A double-double comes closet in weight):

In-n-Out Double-Double
Cal: 670
Cal from fat: 370
Fat: 41
Sat Fat: 18
Trans Fats (NOT LISTED)
Sodium: 1440

McDonald's Quarter Pounder:
Cal: 510
Cal from fat: 230
Fat: 26
Sat Fat: 12
Trans Fat: 1.5
Sodium: 1190

In-in-Out has more fat per calorie than McDonald's Thus making it WORSE for you than McDonald's.

Again, better taste does not mean better for you. In fact, it's usually the opposite.

that was a horrible comparison, a Double Double is MUCH bigger then a quarter pounder. How can you even compare the 2? Besides more meat, it also has 2 slices of cheese.
I'll bet anything In N Out is better for you. Is it "healthy" fvck no, but it will be a overall healthier burger then anything MCD's offers. You have to compare equal sized burgers. Try a Double Double vs a Big Mac, that is more fair.

Beef is not simply beef just because it's 100% you have meat with different fat content, 8%, 15%, 22% In N Out uses BETTER BEEF! if all you care about is 100% then you should eat a Sirloin Stake instead of a Rib Eye or Filet, because both are 100% beef right?

So I guess you were too dense to note that In-n-Out had more fat per calorie than McDonald's, meaning their burgers are not as lean as McDonald's, meaning they are not as healthy.

BTW, by weight, a Double-Double is only slightly more beef than a Quarter Pounder. And a QP has two slices of cheese as well.

Again, better taste does not mean it's better for you. I can see you are deperate to hold onto your delusion here. I have no idea why