McD's: Help Me Out!

[quote]vroom wrote:
In all my year’s, I’ve NEVER seen a Fast Food Company advertise their food as being “healthy”…

Kentucky Fried… oh, wait, they changed their name to KFC so we’d all forget they turned good food into fried crap.

Anyway, KFC ran commercials just a summer or two ago with a healthy looking guy who lost weight extolling the virtues of good eating, like KFC, being good for achieving your fitness goals.

I don’t know if they used the phrase “Our Food Is Healthy”, but they sidled right up to it. There was a stir over this commercial.

This shouldn’t be a surprise, but fast food companies (all companies) do anything and everything they can to imply that their food is good, that it will help you achieve lifestyle goals and that it isn’t bad for you.

For example, if Choco Monster cereal existed, they’d run ads to kids showing how fun it is, how good it looks, how much kids enjoy eating it, how good it tastes and then they’d throw in the vitamin fortification (in case mom was watching) and that served with milk it meets 100% of your daily needs of nutrients X,Y and Z which are important for healthy bones, teeth, skin, eyes, vital organs and getting good grades at school… yada yada. Oh, but we didn’t actually say it was good for you.

C’mon, no wonder people buy this shit, they’d have to do a lot of work to go learn that sugar bombs for breakfast might not be good for you. They’d have to read and read and read to figure out about insulin sensitivity and lipid storage and so on. Besides, kids generally seem to do okay no matter what shit they eat, and all the neighbors eat it too. Anyhow, what with all the diaper changing, cooking, cleaning, slaving over a lazy hubby, shopping for the family and working a part time job, who the hell has the time to sit down and learn anything that doesn’t come in a commercial sized 60 second blurb?

If it’s advertised, and the FDA hasn’t banned it, damn, with all the latest and greatest technology and additives it must at least be good for you in some way.

Anyway, I’m just trying to help some folks - who don’t realize that the world spins pretty fast once you get a lot of responsibilities and are out earning a living - get into the mindset of some of the general public.

McD’s and every other company pushing crap food is taking LEGAL advantage of these people every chance they get. They don’t give a shit about whether or not their food is healthy or not, they are out to make profits. Entities driven by profit, especially mega-corporations, easily make mistakes and slip into ethical quagmire.

There, I’ve said a whole lot about nothing… is that gray enough for you?[/quote]

I remember the KFC debacle. They jumped on the Atkins diet bandwagon. They were claiming to be the healthy choice and bragging about protein. Then they got nailed for trans-fat and the whole, this is soaked in grease with MSG and everything else poured in.

I agree with Prof X on this.As a kid, we got McD’s on special occasions like birthdays and the occasional special event.
We also played outside, climbing everything in sight, and running around for hours at a time.We(me,3bros,1sis.)actualy weren’t supposed to be in the house for too long.We were often told to get outside and do something.
To tie into what vroom was saying about the time intensive nature of raising kids these days, It was when we were outside “playing” that the household chores got done!Imagine That!It must have been easier to straighten things up back then without a bunch of kids undoing what was just done.
The issue I take with McD’s is not the quality or quantity of their food. Although they do prey on the ignorance and laziness of the typical American consumer,they do provide what they say they will.

McD’s is a marketing machine, in terms of kids. Check out their commercials.

We have one of those new fangled ones with a tremendous play land. My 5 year old thinks it is the greatest place on the planet. When I take the kids there, they do what we call, “drive by eating,” on their way in and out of the play land equipment. Most of the time, they don’t even finish the food.

Overall, I would have to concur with the lifestyle and priorities approach to this.

We have a fair amount of younger kids in the neighborhood, but also a ton of couples killing themselves at work trying to keep up.

My wife and I comment all the time how some of these kids you literally never see outside playing… and they all have little guts…it’s really sad.

I think it has alot to do with the fact that mom and dad aren’t home during the day, so they are not allowed outside of the home. By the time mom and dad are home, it’s time for dinner and bed.

Most of these kids are under 10 and you really wonder what appreciable physical activity they get.

BTW, I love standing in line hearing an obese person saying, I will have a 2X Quarter #er meal, super size it, and a diet coke. WTF? How about a regular coke and a reasonable meal?

Vroom nailed this cold…

Anyone ever notice that the anagram for McD’s slogan “I’m loving it…” (I am loving it) is “Ailing Vomit”???

Guess that about sums it up…

MicroSlash - “Unable to eat most McD’s crap without popping several Pepcid AC pills since discovering T-Nation…”

[quote]vroom wrote:
Boston, ProfX, I’m not disagreeing with you, simply showing where the gray line resides.

Companies sidle up as close to saying “It’s good for you” as they legally can, without actually saying it.[/quote]

I understand your “gray line”, however, I simply don’t agree with it. You wrote this earlier:

You make it seem like Mc Donald’s is to blame for why some parents allow outside establishments to raise their kids. I’m sorry, but you don’t get the right to bitch and complain simply because you aren’t raising your own kids right. We live in an era where information is literally clicks away. 20 years ago, we had to drive all of the way to the library to learn what can be gathered in all of 30 seconds on the internet. That means parents should have LESS excuses as to why they don’t have time to learn about nutrition.

Simply put, both of my parents worked. My dad may have been tired as hell when he got home, but that didn’t stop them from telling us to go outside and play. It didn’t stop my mom from cooking dinner at night. In my opinion, if you don’t have the time to raise your kids right, don’t have the time to make sure they eat right, and don’t have the time to learn about how to do it…maybe you shouldn’t be having kids.

It seems everyone praises working longer hours and larger pay checks. However, if your kids are suffering because of it and end up being flaccid fat asses because you blame work for why you don’t have time for them, you need some new priorities in life.

I do not want someone to take away my right to eat at Mc Donald’s if I want to. I rarely do anyway because their food is too greasy (I’ll choose BurgerKing over them any day), but damn, if I choose to do so, are we really shooting for guidelines to limit the actons of people in this country?

Mc Donald’s isn’t why kids are fat. Parents are why kids are fat. People are always looking for some place to put the blame…when that place usually resides in the chair they’re sitting in.

Building on what ProfX and apwsearch said, here’s the summary on an interesting paper finding a causal relationship between working moms and obese kids:

http://www.jcpr.org/policybriefs/vol4_num6.html

Maternal Employment and Overweight Children
Patricia Anderson, Kristin Butcher, and Phillip Levine

The proportion of children who are overweight in the United States has increased dramatically in recent decades, more than tripling since 1970. Weight problems may be one of the most significant health issues facing children today, and understanding the cause of this trend is critically important.

In their JCPR working paper, Maternal Employment and Overweight Children [Note: Here is a link to the whole paper: http://www.jcpr.org/wp/WPprofile.cfm?ID=323 ], Patricia Anderson, Kristin Butcher, and Phillip Levine explore one potential factor in the rise of childhood obesity: maternal employment. Maternal employment has more than doubled since 1970, and the authors ask whether the parallel rise in childhood obesity might be linked to employment, or whether the rise is purely coincidental. That is, would these children still be overweight even if their mothers did not work?

The authors find a direct, causal relationship between more intensive maternal employment and weight problems in children. Mothers who work more hours per week are more likely than mothers who do not work, or who work fewer hours, to have overweight children. Although the impact of maternal employment on children’s weight problems is significant, it explains only a small portion of the rise in childhood weight problems.

Maternal Employment and Children’s Weight
Roughly 12% of the approximately 10,000 children in the authors’ data set were considered overweight, and about one-fourth were at risk of being overweight. Although weight problems in childhood may be linked to both genetic and environmental factors, the recent rise in overweight is unlikely due to genetics, which change slowly. On the other hand, with the rapid increase in the fraction of mothers who work, children’s environments have changed rapidly, and this may have affected children’s weight. Time constraints, for example, may force working mothers to rely on high-calorie, prepared foods and fast foods. Children who are in child care may learn to eat according to a clock, rather than relying on natural indications of hunger. Unsupervised children may make poor nutritional choices for snacks and meals, and they may be less inclined to exercise. Research has found, for example, a correlation between television viewing and overweight among children. Mothers who work may not have the time or flexibility to breastfeed their children, and recent research has highlighted the importance of breastfeeding for both cognitive and physical outcomes. On the other hand, children of working mothers may participate in more after-school activities, which might increase their exercise levels. The authors explore these and other theories in their analysis of whether maternal employment affects a child’s weight.

Controlling for a large number of observable characteristics, the study finds that children whose mother’s worked more hours per week over the child’s lifetime are more likely to be overweight. However, there may be further, unobservable, differences between mothers who work more intensively and those who do not that would influence their children’s’ weight no matter how much mothers worked. To control for unobservable differences, the study compares the probability of overweight between siblings, where the mother’s work intensity differed between the children. The study finds that if a mother works more intensively during the childhood of some of her children, those children are more likely to be overweight than their siblings.

The intensity of work is critical. Additional weeks worked in a year have no effect, but working more hours per week increases the probability that the child will be overweight. Children whose mothers work an additional 10 hours per week experience nearly a 1 percentage point increase in the likelihood of being overweight. Thus, a mother working full-time (40 hours per week) would be expected to have a child with about a 2 percentage point higher probability of overweight than would a mother working part-time (20 hours per week). This suggests that the time constraints faced by mothers who work full-time may be contributing to weight issues. Time devoted to supervising her child’s diet and exercise may be limited when a mother works full-time, as may time for cooking and shopping for nutritious meals.

Although a mother’s employment contributes directly to a child’s weight problems, it can account for only 6%-11% of the growth in childhood weight problems. However, if the eating habits of children and their mothers are jointly affected by the rising time constraints, then the concomitant rise in maternal obesity should also be considered as a factor. This rise can account for about 11% of the increase in childhood obesity. Thus, even combining these two potential contributors still leaves most of the trend in childhood weight problems unexplained.

Study Description
The authors use data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY), supplemented with data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III), and the Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII). The NLSY includes information on roughly 10,000 children. To control for unobservable maternal traits that may also affect their children’s health (i.e., unobserved heterogeneity), the authors compare data on siblings, as well as employ an instrumental variables model. Observable traits that are controlled in regression models include race and ethnicity, mother’s education and performance on an aptitude test, family size, birth order, whether the child was breastfed, the mother’s own weight, average family income over the child’s lifetime, and the child’s birth weight.

Patricia M. Anderson is an associate professor of economics at Dartmouth College and a faculty research fellow of the National Bureau of Economic Research; Kristin Butcher is a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago; and Phillip B. Levine is an associate professor of economics at Wellesley College and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Mc Donald’s isn’t why kids are fat. Parents are why kids are fat. People are always looking for some place to put the blame…when that place usually resides in the chair they’re sitting in.[/quote]

There’s really nothing more that needs to be said.

ProfX, I think we may be related. We both have rock-solid grandparents and our parents although worked to death… managed to cultivate a healthy diet.

My mother taught me how to make eggs over-easy by 7, with grits, bacon, and collard greens. The rule was meat, bread, and greens for every meal. So, although my dad owned his own autoshop and mom worked f/t as a letter carrier we always ate well.

The phrases heard most often growing up:

Go outside!

Don’t watch that thing(TV)… it only produces retards and weak-willed pussies.

Want to read a book. Fine… Hike down to the river and read it there.

Hence, I spent a lot of time hiking and reading.

The real problem is that most people are just stupid. You hear that America, most of you are stupid. And fat and lazy.

Spoken like a true Type A personality

http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/./1/.1106952651794.double_QP_w_cheese.jpg

[quote]apwsearch wrote:

BTW, I love standing in line hearing a person saying, I will have a 2X Quarter #er meal, super size it, and a diet coke. WTF? How about a regular coke and a reasonable meal?

[/quote]

LOL!

Hey man, that’s my order! I drink diet coke because I prefer the taste over regular coke. Regular coke has always been too sweet and syrupy for me. Double QP w/ cheese or Double Whoppers are amongst my favorite cheat meals. mmmmmmmmmmmmmm…

Now excuse me while I fix my Velocity shake.

ProfX, you aren’t exercising black and white thinking are you? I’m not in disagreement with your stance – and as usual lately, I’m not even trying to take a stance or indicate what mine is.

Anyway, how old do you have to be before you aren’t a “kid” and are responsible for your own health and well being? This is an important question, because the desire to exculpate the children but not the parents leads to interesting thinking as the children age…

I think it is hard for those of us who know better to realize how hard it is to realize you aren’t doing something right “off the cuff” so to speak. Most people, and I recall thinking this way at one point, equate “rightness” with the way they’ve always done things.

So, what is it that tells the average Joe they need to spend the next six months finding the “right” information with respect to fitness. They have to choose between atkins, low fat, zone, fad and other diets or philosophies, all of which are supported by marketing information more sophisticated then they are.

I’m not saying there are other places to put the blame, but I don’t think there is a whole lot of blame to be placed. Saying everybody in the world should know everything, when we can’t even get serious scientists to agree on the issues, is a stretch.

So, as usual, I’m off on a gray tangent completely. Just don’t imagine I’m trying to deflect whatever blame there is away from taking responsibility for ones own life.

It’s just too bad that those wanting to take responsibility often get bad advice or simply can’t find the right information. It’s not like the government food pyramid is any good… so how do they know where to turn for knowledge?

Damned ignorant mom’s, they’ll be the downfall of the world!

[quote]Professor X wrote:
vroom wrote:
Boston, ProfX, I’m not disagreeing with you, simply showing where the gray line resides.

Companies sidle up as close to saying “It’s good for you” as they legally can, without actually saying it.

I understand your “gray line”, however, I simply don’t agree with it. You wrote this earlier:

Anyway, I’m just trying to help some folks - who don’t realize that the world spins pretty fast once you get a lot of responsibilities and are out earning a living - get into the mindset of some of the general public.

You make it seem like Mc Donald’s is to blame for why some parents allow outside establishments to raise their kids. I’m sorry, but you don’t get the right to bitch and complain simply because you aren’t raising your own kids right. We live in an era where information is literally clicks away. 20 years ago, we had to drive all of the way to the library to learn what can be gathered in all of 30 seconds on the internet. That means parents should have LESS excuses as to why they don’t have time to learn about nutrition.

Simply put, both of my parents worked. My dad may have been tired as hell when he got home, but that didn’t stop them from telling us to go outside and play. It didn’t stop my mom from cooking dinner at night. In my opinion, if you don’t have the time to raise your kids right, don’t have the time to make sure they eat right, and don’t have the time to learn about how to do it…maybe you shouldn’t be having kids.

It seems everyone praises working longer hours and larger pay checks. However, if your kids are suffering because of it and end up being flaccid fat asses because you blame work for why you don’t have time for them, you need some new priorities in life.

I do not want someone to take away my right to eat at Mc Donald’s if I want to. I rarely do anyway because their food is too greasy (I’ll choose BurgerKing over them any day), but damn, if I choose to do so, are we really shooting for guidelines to limit the actons of people in this country?

Mc Donald’s isn’t why kids are fat. Parents are why kids are fat. People are always looking for some place to put the blame…when that place usually resides in the chair they’re sitting in.[/quote]

Good post Prof. X, you hit the head right on the nail? errr, strike that, and reverse it. Even though I?m tired as Hell when I come home from work, I drink my coffee and take my little girl out to play. I want her to grow up, wanting to go out and run, play and look under rocks, not sitting on her ass all day long watching the boob-tube. And though she has her cheat meals, I make sure she has wayyyy more of the good nutrients, than the bad. She?s only 3, but she actually prefers water to soft drinks, and the only reason she wants to stop at Mickey D?s is to play on the play set. That?s my girl!

vroom:

You make some great points. People do in fact equate what is right with what they have been doing, or were raised with. However, if someone is so fat that they have a hard time looking at their own shoes from a standing position, it seems they should inherently know that what they are doing (whatever it may be) is not working.

At this point the obvious onus is on them (not McDonalds or any other junk food producer) to change! They can do Atkins, Beverly Hills Diet, The Grapefruit Diet even a A Richard Simmons program like sweating to the oldie’s LOL. They could get real smart and join T-Nation.

Point is there is enough stuff out there that will at least pull them back from the brink of disaster.

Wall Street Journal Editorial
Fat Chance
February 1, 2005; Page A12

A multibillion dollar lawsuit against McDonald’s for making people fat has twice been laughed out of court since it was first filed in 2002. But last week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit partially reinstated it on a technicality.

The plaintiffs lawyers are elated, though not because they think their suit is actually winnable. The case now goes back to federal Judge Robert Sweet in New York, the same judge who has repeatedly found the claim baseless. Judge Sweet noted in one ruling that people ought to know that “eating copious orders of super-sized McDonald’s products is unhealthy and may result in weight gain” and that “it is not the place of the law to protect them from their own excesses.”

What has the personal-injury set so excited is that the appellate court ruling will allow them to collect more “evidence” to support their far-fetched case. These discovery proceedings will cost defendants millions of dollars, which gives the plaintiffs leverage in any potential settlement talks.

The main effect of the ruling, notes legal scholar Ted Frank in the Web log Overlawyered.com, “will be to raise the cost of defending against meritless claims – which will encourage nuisance settlements, which in turn will encourage more meritless claims in the hopes of extorting such nuisance settlements.” This is the economic damage wrought by frivolous lawsuits and a legal system that doesn’t do nearly enough to discourage them.