At 9/23/12 09:13 PM, AnonymousOfCali wrote: Even if you excessively exercise if you eat bad you won't see good results.

Tell that to the fact that I've been paying no attention at all to what I eat, have been doing so for the last 25 years (since my parents didn't care either), and come out as perfectly normal for my age on every fitness test the doctors have thrown at me.

Also, this was about losing weight, not gaining muscle or exercise.

At 9/23/12 08:03 PM, OwnageGiy223 wrote: Tom Naughton actually lost weight eating nothing but McDonald's.

I'm sure you can lose weight with a diet of Double Downs and Mountain Dew if you just exercise.

Also, this clip proves that Spurlock is a fucking lying rat.

At 9/23/12 09:13 PM, AnonymousOfCali wrote:

You are what you eat, not how much you eat.

Actually it's more of both, depending on what you're eating at the same time. Keep in mind there are foods that are nutritionally denser than others and there are foods that are described as "empty calories" due to lack of thereof. It's still important to not to overdo it however since you can still overeat.

Then again there are people who knows how they should eat but chose not to because they went with the taste.

At 9/23/12 09:49 PM, Chdonga wrote: I'm sure you can lose weight with a diet of Double Downs and Mountain Dew if you just exercise.

That was one of the main points that Fat Head was getting across. Also he didn't drink any sugary sodas, the only sodas he drank were Diet sodas (which are no better) and his exercise came from light workouts and walking everyday.

At 9/23/12 10:04 PM, veselekov wrote: Implying McDonalds actually tastes good.

mfw

No spamming please.

At 9/23/12 10:12 PM, AnonymousOfCali wrote:

Point is how much you eat only matters if your are starving yourself or eating twice of what your DCI should be.

And that quantity still matters depending on how much is being measured.

Too bad for the natives though, they used to be in great shape but now, their health status are among the worst. What do you think happened?

I known some of the answers but just curious enough to know what you think.

At 9/23/12 10:07 PM, AnonymousOfCali wrote: lol, fitness test standards are what most actually fit people would call pathetic.

This is true and yet again another thing brought up in Fat Head. How some people who are very fit would be labeled on a fitness test as overweight or obese.

At 9/23/12 10:17 PM, The-Great-One wrote:

At 9/23/12 10:07 PM, AnonymousOfCali wrote: lol, fitness test standards are what most actually fit people would call pathetic.

This is true and yet again another thing brought up in Fat Head. How some people who are very fit would be labeled on a fitness test as overweight or obese.

Yes, the BMI.

The issue is that it doesn't factor into the bone density and the fact that muscles are heavier than fat. You can measure a body builder and the BMI would deem him obese.

There was a story that during WW2, some of the athletes from NFL went to enlist into the service and many of them initially failed the physical because of the BMI.

Don't know the rest of the story but I think they did something about that.

McDonald's food is incredibly unhealthy for multiple reasons, hitting all of the unhealthy categories like most fast food diners. High saturated fat, high carb, high sodium, trans fats, and preservatives all severely damage your body in high doses over time, some quicker than others.

If you're craving a burger and fries, its best to just cook up you own or go to a local burger joint. The difference is you wont have to deal with preservatives, refined oils that contain trans fats (which are especially unhealthy), and your burger will just taste better.

At 9/23/12 10:31 PM, Saen wrote: McDonald's food is incredibly unhealthy for multiple reasons, hitting all of the unhealthy categories like most fast food diners. High saturated fat, high carb, high sodium, trans fats, and preservatives all severely damage your body in high doses over time, some quicker than others.

Sat. Fat is good for you, so that's a moot point. Also, McDonalds doesn't put Trans Fat in their food anymore, I don't think, and Sodium isn't actually that bad for you. You will drop dead if you reduce your sodium intake to 0. The Carb point is true, though.

Furthermore, I doubt preservatives actually damage your body. That sounds like hippie scare propaganda to me. Besides, if they didn't use preservatives, food would rot quicker, and therefore, would cost a shit load more. Fuck that, I'd rather have a very tiny risk of cancer than to pay an arm and a leg for food.

At 9/23/12 08:13 PM, Light wrote: I suppose the overwhelming majority of members in the medical community are wrong.

The OP is obviously more knowledgeable about this subject.

To be fair, misconceptions can spread through the medical communities. I mean the connection between soy beans and man boobs are made because of the level of estrogen in soy products.

The real story is a bit murky and much more complicated.

At 9/23/12 10:53 PM, Sensationalism wrote: LMFAO. Polyunsaturated and monounsaturated were always said to be better than saturated, silly.

Heh?

At 9/23/12 10:39 PM, OwnageGiy221 wrote:

Sat. Fat is good for you, so that's a moot point. Also, McDonalds doesn't put Trans Fat in their food anymore, I don't think, and Sodium isn't actually that bad for you. You will drop dead if you reduce your sodium intake to 0. The Carb point is true, though.

Saturated fat good for you in low amounts. The problem in America is so much of our foods have too much saturated fat. When too much saturated fat is consumer over time, it contributes to heart disease, obesity, and diabetes.

McDonalds still uses Trans Fats (or more appropriately hydrogenated oils) in most of its foods, with the highest concentration in fries. The problem is, serving sizes are reduced to a point where the trans fat content may be below .5grams, which means any food corporation can list that product as having "zero grams trans fat". Really the only things at Mcdonalds that are trans fat free are grilled entrees, yogurt, fruit, etc. No amount of trans fat is good for you because it is a man-made food substance which your body cannot properly digest.

The same applies for sodium, it is good for you in low amounts, but as with saturated and trans fats, so much food in America is loaded with sodium. Which also contributes to obesity and heart disease.

Furthermore, I doubt preservatives actually damage your body. That sounds like hippie scare propaganda to me. Besides, if they didn't use preservatives, food would rot quicker, and therefore, would cost a shit load more. Fuck that, I'd rather have a very tiny risk of cancer than to pay an arm and a leg for food.

Most of all of man made preservatives are carcinogenic in concentrated doses. Once again, these are man-made products your body cannot properly filter out. The more preservatives a person consumers over time, the higher the concentration accumulates in the body. Cancer is the worst, long-term consequence of preservatives. Most preservatives make a food substance addictive and can contribute to dehydration.

Personally I don't eat Mcdonalds or most of all fast food restaurants because they use hydrogenated oils. I don't worry about eating too much saturated fats, sodium, preservatives, carbs, the lot because I stick to a healthy diet and cook most of my food. In most other industrialized nations, is considered to be a very strange and unhealthy habit to eat fast food more than a few times a week. Fast food is expensive, unhealthy, and tastes poor when compared to the food you can cook at home or enjoy in a local restaurant.

At 9/23/12 10:56 PM, OwnageGiy221 wrote:

At 9/23/12 10:53 PM, Sensationalism wrote: LMFAO. Polyunsaturated and monounsaturated were always said to be better than saturated, silly.

Heh?

Mono and Polyunsaturated fats are liquid at room temperature and generally are derived from nuts and plant seeds. They support your immune system, healthy skin, and are a good source of energy amongst other things.

At 9/23/12 11:15 PM, Saen wrote: Saturated fat good for you in low amounts. The problem in America is so much of our foods have too much saturated fat. When too much saturated fat is consumer over time, it contributes to heart disease, obesity, and diabetes.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. There is no coloration between sat. fat intake and heart disease. If you'd actually watch the documentary, you'd see that. Carbohydrates are what cause heart disease and diabetes. Sat. fat has nothing to do with that. If that were true, then we wouldn't exist as a species. Our ancestors ate almost nothing but sat. fat from animals, and I'm pretty sure there wasn't an ancient obesity epidemic. Only after carbs became popular did obesity and diabetes spike, so clearly, we were doing something right before.

At 9/23/12 11:31 PM, OwnageGiy221 wrote:

At 9/23/12 11:15 PM, Saen wrote: Saturated fat good for you in low amounts. The problem in America is so much of our foods have too much saturated fat. When too much saturated fat is consumer over time, it contributes to heart disease, obesity, and diabetes.

coloration

Wow, did I really misspell "correlation"?

At 9/23/12 11:42 PM, AnonymousOfCali wrote: Yeah sat. fat is basically like eating the fat on your body. It gets used as energy easily and will only make you fatter if you eat a lot of it. Carbs however can barely be turned into energy and instead are turned into fat then stored in the body.

But it's worse than that. If carbs could be converted directly into fat, then they wouldn't be a big problem. The problem is, they get turned into sugar. When the sugar from carbs enters into your blood stream, you body produces insulin to sort that shit out. But then more and more sugar enters your blood stream, and by that point, the cells in your body have become resistant to your own insulin, so your pancreas has to pump out more and more insulin. It will eventually get so bad that your pancreas won't be able to keep up, and will blow out, like a car engine. Now, you've officially developed diabetes. Your body can no longer produce insulin, and has no way of regulating blood sugar levels.

That is why carbs are the root of all dietary problems.

At 9/23/12 11:31 PM, OwnageGiy221 wrote:
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. There is no coloration between sat. fat intake and heart disease. If you'd actually watch the documentary, you'd see that. Carbohydrates are what cause heart disease and diabetes. Sat. fat has nothing to do with that. If that were true, then we wouldn't exist as a species. Our ancestors ate almost nothing but sat. fat from animals, and I'm pretty sure there wasn't an ancient obesity epidemic. Only after carbs became popular did obesity and diabetes spike, so clearly, we were doing something right before.

First off our ancestors were primarily foragers, more than 70% of their diet was composed of nuts, berries, fruits, etc. Also, the animals they hunted weren't nearly as fattened as our farmed domesticated animals are today. So to say our ancestors ate nothing but saturated fat is a highly inaccurate statement.

Saturated fat consumed in high amounts over time contributes to weight gain and restriction of blood flow, both of which lead to obesity, high blood pressure, and ultimately heart disease.

This fear of carbs is another new diet trend that has recently emerged. Like fats in general, there are good carbs and bad carbs. Good carbs are obtained from whole grains, which provide lasting energy and make a person feel full. What we now consider bad carbohydrates come from sugars, which provide a quick boost in energy, but do not satisfy hunger. However, this distinction is not written out on a nutrition label, you have to look for yourself in the ingredients where most of your carbs are coming from (or look at the sugar content to give you an idea).

Depriving yourself of all carbs or curbing your carb intake (Atkins diet) is not an effective dieting method. Good carbs provide the long lasting energy you need throughout the day. Eating only protein without a substance to satisfy hunger and give you energy is a diet that is bound to fail (and I've seen it fail through several people).

If you're going the flow with the most popular modern dieting methods, you're behind on what's cool. Currently, eating too many calories is the next big thing that is destroying your body, which is just ridiculous. A person can't restrict food consumption to calories, just eat healthy and reasonably that's all a person has to do to give himself the chance to lose weight!

At 9/24/12 12:11 AM, Saen wrote:

Literally everything you've stated is addressed and refuted in the documentary. Give it a watch.

The only things I remember much about Super Size Me are the really skinny guy who ate over 1000 Big Macs in his lifetime, the part where Morgan pukes out his car window (and the educational version had a pop-up that covered it), and that every time I watched it or saw something related to it I got hungry for a Big Mac.

"Believe me when I say this guy was lying because i'm more reputable."

At 9/24/12 12:21 AM, Jester wrote: "Believe me when I say this guy was lying because i'm more reputable."

What? Tom was virtually unknown before he made Fat Head. He wasn't then and isn't now a millionaire, and he funded the entire movie by himself. He was clearly not more reputable.

At 9/24/12 12:14 AM, OwnageGiy221 wrote:

At 9/24/12 12:11 AM, Saen wrote:

Literally everything you've stated is addressed and refuted in the documentary. Give it a watch.

From what I can tell, both supersize me and this documentary are forms propaganda directed by two different guys who aren't even nutritionalists or familiar with any aspect of biology or biochemistry. The surprising fact is these are two different documentaries from two alternate dieting eras that evolved not too long apart. Both tell you what's bad for you and what's good for your body and that view has only flip-flopped in a matter of years and now its flopping again! First it started off as fat, then it was saturated and trans fats, fast food, coffee, carbs, and now calories are bad for you! Oh and by the way coffee is now officially good for you again because People magazine says so.

What the media defines as healthy changes on a yearly basis and this "documentary" is already irrelevant compared to the media's current and "better" understanding of nutrition.

Individuals themselves know what is healthy. Proper exercise and eating a broad spectrum of fruits, grains, meats, oils, starches, vegetables, nuts, etc. while avoiding the processed foods. This is easily accomplished by cooking your own food and enforcing self discipline.

At 9/24/12 12:41 AM, Saen wrote:

At 9/24/12 12:14 AM, OwnageGiy221 wrote:

At 9/24/12 12:11 AM, Saen wrote:

Literally everything you've stated is addressed and refuted in the documentary. Give it a watch.

longpost

I get that you're trying to be open-minded, but you have to recognize that the mainstream view is sometimes the correct one. Carbs cause diabetes and heart disease, and you can say that they don't until the dogs come home; that doesn't change it. There's no valid scientific evidence that suggests that sat. fat is linked to heart disease. The person who came up with the Lipus hypotheses (the idea that sat. fat is liked to heart disease) lied. He manipulated the evidence. He kept the results that supported his idea, and cut out the ones that didn't. He is the reason that carbs are in high use today. He is the reason there's so much obesity and diabetes.

OP is basing his entire arguement on what he's learned from a single film that he has no reason to believe is any more reliable than supersize me. Both films are flawed in premise by assuming that a single mans metabolism will be representative of the population and that a month on any diet can adequately portray the longterm effects of living on a diet of only McDonalds food. While Spurlock may have embellished facts to make his arguement more one-sided he was right about a lot of things. Supersize portions were ridiculous, I think we can all agree unless anyone thinks that a 42-ounce cup of cola is a healthy accompaniment to a meal. Naughtons point that carbohydrates are bad for you in excess is a valid one but is nothing new and is frankly moot when you consider the carbohydrate content of the average mcdonalds meal. Justifying fats and cholesterol by pointing out that they are necessary in the body but then demonizing carbohydrates which are also vital, especially in metabolism is incredibly shortsighted too, a good diet needs to be balanced and cutting carbohydrates from it while loading on fats and cholesterol is as bad as the alternative.

Rant aside, OP has chosen to believe one films findings over that over another simply because its telling them what they want to hear. I've spent enough time studying metabolism at uni to know that its not as black and white as some of you here choose to believe and that you need more knowledge of something this complex than 90 minutes of biased corporate-funded propaganda can provide to consider yourself an expert.

At 9/23/12 08:12 PM, Ragnarokia wrote: The food is healthy, as otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to constantly say such as the law would get on their ass. But that still doesn't mean you only want to eat it.

Do you really think the law cracks down on poor health conditions? Whistleblowers in the FDA have had their lives threatened if they spoke up on an issue.

At 9/23/12 08:31 PM, vannila-guerilla wrote: Well, OP was right that the director of Super Size Me lied. He hasn't revealed his diet, for one, and health experts have called bullshit on him. For example, not only did he eat McDonald's every day he also never exercised. He basically manipulated the results in order to look correct and use propaganda to scare people.

I haven't seen Fat Head and I haven't seen Supersize Me since I was a little kid, so I can't speak much on the facts, but if Supersize Me presented fabricated facts, is there any reason why Fat Head wouldn't?

I looked at the food log for Fat Head. first off he didn't eat all his meals at McDonalds, he also ate Carls Jr, KFC, Boston Marketplace and other places. Second he never had fries, hash browns or non-diet soda. Third when eating breakfast he only ate half of the English muffin and often ate none of the English muffin which his Egg McMuffin would come on.

So how many people go to McDonalds and dont get fries with their meal and order a diet soda as well. Most people don't, they get the combo. Who orders an egg McMuffin and throws out the top half of the muffin? Nobody.

Sprulock cut out exercise because, surprise a lot of people don't exercise so thats hardly a point to criticize him on as well.

At 9/24/12 12:57 AM, OwnageGiy221 wrote:
I get that you're trying to be open-minded, but you have to recognize that the mainstream view is sometimes the correct one. Carbs cause diabetes and heart disease, and you can say that they don't until the dogs come home; that doesn't change it. There's no valid scientific evidence that suggests that sat. fat is linked to heart disease. The person who came up with the Lipus hypotheses (the idea that sat. fat is liked to heart disease) lied. He manipulated the evidence. He kept the results that supported his idea, and cut out the ones that didn't. He is the reason that carbs are in high use today. He is the reason there's so much obesity and diabetes.

If you actually read my long post, you would have noticed what most nutritionalists distinguish between good and bad carbs. Carbs accumulated in the body from sugars most certainly can contribute to obesity when they are not burned properly through exercise.

I have no idea what this Lipus hypothesis you're referring to is about (or if was even a legitimate scientific experiment published through a credible journal), however many journal entries have been published on the study of saturated fats and other macro nutrients and how varying amounts of each affect human health and weight gain. Here is an example

Here is an interesting note for the current carb correlated to weight gain mindset taken from the journal abstract, "After controlling for potential confounders, none of the calorie-contributing nutrient intakes at baseline was associated with subsequent weight at 6 or 18 months."

"However, agreater intake of saturated fat at 6 months was associated with higher weight at 18 months (P = 0.002)."

The abstract concludes with the statement, "However, a lower saturated fat intake achieved after 6-month intervention predicts a lower body weight at 18 months and thus greater weight-loss maintenance."

As you can read, this article was published in March 2012, which is quite current to our standards. Obviously since this experiment was published through the world-renowned science journal Nature, the results are quite credible and unbiased by media propaganda.

If you're interested in reading the entire journal article, most universities allow you to log onto its library system and access its journal subscriptions (I'm sure every major university has a Nature subscription"). Otherwise you can visit a public library.

So basically what this abstract states is no macro-nutrient macro nutrient consumed in larger amounts compared to others showed any weight gain in any individual. However, saturated fat was the only macronutrient that did show slight weight gain. This means carbs, when consumed in excess didn't show any relation to weight gain in this 18 month experiment conducted.

At 9/24/12 12:11 AM, Saen wrote: This fear of carbs is another new diet trend that has recently emerged. Like fats in general, there are good carbs and bad carbs. Good carbs are obtained from whole grains, which provide lasting energy and make a person feel full. What we now consider bad carbohydrates come from sugars, which provide a quick boost in energy, but do not satisfy hunger. However, this distinction is not written out on a nutrition label, you have to look for yourself in the ingredients where most of your carbs are coming from (or look at the sugar content to give you an idea).

Actually, there is no such thing as good or bad carbs. However, whole intact grains have a lower glycemic index which means they metabolize into blood sugar at a slower rate over time than more processed/broken/cooked grains. This index is labeled under "GI".

Depriving yourself of all carbs or curbing your carb intake (Atkins diet) is not an effective dieting method. Good carbs provide the long lasting energy you need throughout the day. Eating only protein without a substance to satisfy hunger and give you energy is a diet that is bound to fail (and I've seen it fail through several people).

Correct, to eliminate carbs altogether would require someone to stop eating which is stupid, but food that is both high carb and high GI can cause problems. For example, white, wholemeal and wholewheat bread have a high GI which means they contribute more to diabetes, heart disease, and cancer than bagged cane sugar, which has an intermediate GI.

If you're going the flow with the most popular modern dieting methods, you're behind on what's cool. Currently, eating too many calories is the next big thing that is destroying your body, which is just ridiculous. A person can't restrict food consumption to calories, just eat healthy and reasonably that's all a person has to do to give himself the chance to lose weight!

Calorie counting is an energy in/energy out equation. Everyone burns calories at different rates and usually a doctor is needed to work this out. It's only use is to prevent overeating and help control the rate at which fat is stored, other than that its got nothing to do with eating healthy.