# Are We This Fat???



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

I was walking past my local McDonalds today and saw an advertisement for a new special (2 double cheeseburgers for $3). It is a good price (although, I don't eat McDonalds at all anymore). The thing that got me was what else they were using to sell it, the fact that two of the double cheeseburgers are *880 calories. *880 CALORIES!! I'd have to run 7 miles at 7:00 per mile pace to burn that much. AND THAT IS THEIR SELLING POINT!

The recommended caloric intake for adults is around 2000 calories per day, this is nearly HALF that. If you add fries and a soda, you go over that amount. And we wonder why we drive bigger cars, need bigger sizes, and living significantly less than the rest of the world?

Look, its one thing to eat poorly, but to eat so poorly that a major food company actually markets their product as "healthy" by saying "Hey, its only 880 calories!" is a sad statement about the way America and Americans eat.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I see the point you're trying to make, but you're not doing it well. 2000 calories is an average for men and women; many young, active men need 3000 or more per day.

And lots of cheap people will just eat the hamburgers by themselves. I know I do.


----------



## Single malt Mark (Apr 11, 2009)

This reflects a major issue facing this country: obesity. We are going to pay a steep price, from a public health perspective, in the future if current trends continue.


----------



## Cary Grant (Sep 11, 2008)

The more important point is that it's 800 calories of CRAP. White flour buns... unbeef... blech.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*also envious of the fat dumb and happy*

Calorie density is _occasionally_ desirable. If I am in doubt of whether I will be able to get a meal within the next eight plus hours or so, I'm having an Egg McMuffin or two. 
The overindulgent larders who think this is an acceptable daily routine get no sympathy from me however. None.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I see the point you're trying to make, but you're not doing it well. 2000 calories is an average for men and women; many young, active men need 3000 or more per day.
> 
> And lots of cheap people will just eat the hamburgers by themselves. I know I do.


Do you really think that someone who is active would see that sign and say, "Hey, cool! This fits into my diet!"? I think they are marketing these for the average Joe, who is sedintary and looking for a cheap, fast, tasty meal.

I know it gets tricky, as not everyone can afford the most healthy meals, but McDonalds seems to be specifically targeting people who see 880 calories as "eating right".

As far as people only eating the burgers, you're probably among the minority. I mean, you can get a large fires and large Coke (another 810 calories) for a couple of bucks.

It also doesn't say that ONE double cheeseburger contains 23g of fat...so two are 46 grams...thats disgusting!


----------



## JosephM (Dec 17, 2008)

I think it's more hysterical when "fast food" restaurants (excuse me, I meant "good food served quickly") market as to how healthy they are.


To wit:


"Look at us! We have salads! Our Jr. Burgers are lower in calories! Our chicken sandwiches are baked, not fried!"


JM


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I really am no dietitian, but I've extrapolated from the label on a jar of peanut butter that even a 2000-calorie diet anticipates about 65 grams of fat per day.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I really am no dietitian, but I've extrapolated from the label on a jar of peanut butter that even a 2000-calorie diet anticipates about 65 grams of fat per day.


So that leaves 19 g for the whole rest of the day...thats 3 slices of cheese!


----------



## rwjones (Jan 29, 2009)

I am blessed with a blazing fast metabolism; I have to eat about 4 times a day (primarily healthful foods) and weigh about 150lbs (5'9"). I am constantly hungry. I generally eat well but have no problem eating fast food if I know it literally will comprise half of my daily intake; on a day I know I'll only eat 2 or 2.5 meals, I don't feel guilty having one of them contain 1/3-1/2 of my calories and 1/2 my daily saturated fat. I'm currently 23 and know my basal metabolic rate will slow down in 5 years, but I'm think my dietary choices and exercise habits are good: I get 100% of my daily whole grains before I even leave for class in the morning (Kashi whole grain nuggets + lowfat yogurt, nom nom nom!).

As a future physician I need to learn to not condescend to obese people, but seriously, they piss me off. That is, those that just eat too much, not those who have an endocrine disorder or something that is beyond their control. The latter group, however, comprises less than 2% of obese people.


----------



## Mannix (Nov 24, 2008)

We are this fat...nuff said.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

rwjones said:


> As a future physician I need to learn to not condescend to obese people, but seriously, they piss me off. That is, those that just eat too much, not those who have an endocrine disorder or something that is beyond their control. The latter group, however, comprises less than 2% of obese people.


Just reading that makes me think my post may have come across as condescending. I'm really not. When I was younger, I never knew what this stuff could do to you. I weighed over 200 lbs and had several health problems because a meal like the one advertised would have appealed to me. I would have gotten the fries and a soda, and then eaten more cheap food for lunch and dinner.

Now my metabolism is more like yours, except I'm nearly 10 years older. I work out 3-4 times a week in the gym (for 1.5 to 2 hours each time) and run an average of 30 miles per week (in the summer that goes up to 60 miles per week) and play a full 90 minute soccer game most Sundays with my club. I watch what I eat, but eat A LOT. I'm lucky to have married a woman who cooks for me, and cooks well and cooks healthy. I know not too many are that lucky. But to me stuff like this gets under my skin, because so many Americans think that 880 calories on 2 burgers is good, and would eat that daily, without fully knowing what it was doing to them inside, and not just their waistlines.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I'm more of a Subway sandwich person,I rarely eat McDonalds but once in a while I'll eat Burger King for breakfast.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

rgrossicone said:


> I was walking past my local McDonalds today and saw an advertisement for a new special (2 double cheeseburgers for $3). It is a good price (although, I don't eat McDonalds at all anymore). The thing that got me was what else they were using to sell it, the fact that two of the double cheeseburgers are *880 calories. *880 CALORIES!! I'd have to run 7 miles at 7:00 per mile pace to burn that much. AND THAT IS THEIR SELLING POINT!
> 
> .........


My friend, you asked a direct question and I believe a direct question deserves a direct answer...Yes, we are! I am somewhat ashamed to admit, as I have done in the weight-loss thread in past posts, I have been in an almost continuous weight gain/loss cycle for the past 40, plus years...never allowing my weight to go much over 12 pounds beyond my college weight, before going back on a diet. My routine seems to be, diet for several weeks, nay, months to get back to 192 and then I start cheating again and the weight creeps back to 200+ pounds and I return to eating rabbit food and cardboard...I've never met a Red Robin Royale Burger I didn't like and far too many of them, that I have been unable to resist. By gawd, it's the American way...isn't it?


----------



## ronhoffman2 (Apr 10, 2009)

That's actually not that great a deal considering a double cheeseburger at my McD's are $1 each, so i can get 2 for $2.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

McDonald's main purpose is serving as much mediocre quality food as possible to as many people as possible, so they're really not concerned with what people eat as long as they buy it from there. 

800 calories of burgers is rough for one person in one sitting, especially if they "super size" their fries and drink, and seeing the sheer number of calories and fat in their food (as I saw on the menu at a Burger King in NYC last year) should give most people pause. But it doesn't. They see the price. They want the burger. They buy the burger.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Mannix said:


> We are this fat...nuff said.


Best response yet. We're bordering on disgusting.


----------



## Thermactor (Feb 8, 2009)

A single "bacon double quarter pounder with cheese" has somewhere around 800 calories, 55 grams of fat, and 1200mg sodium.


----------



## bbcrock (Feb 13, 2009)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I see the point you're trying to make, but you're not doing it well. 2000 calories is an average for men and women; many young, active men need 3000 or more per day.
> 
> And lots of cheap people will just eat the hamburgers by themselves. I know I do.


I challenge you that no young, active man needs 3000 calories per day unless they want to maintain or build their gut and that too many people at 25 want to call themselves young when they aren't anymore.

I recently cut way back on the amount of food I eat (I now eat cereal for breakfast, have one single homemade sandwich with an orange for lunch and eat a regular dinner) and ended up losing 25 lbs and feel better than ever. I think I'm coming in at about 1700 calories per day while assistant coaching my kid's soccer team.

The simple truth is that I was eating a lot more food that I needed to. For instance, on the weekends I stopped eating lunch altogether because I eat a hearty breakfast. If you eat a big breakfast you definitely don't need to eat lunch. Yesterday I think I had an apple for lunch. Today, because I had eggs for breakfast, I skipped lunch altogether and never noticed it.

I can say with a little authority that unless you're a part time bodybuilder in the gym more than 2 hours a day, you don't need to go one bit over 2000 calories unless you want to keep that gut.

What I've found most to be true is that people I worked with who did work out ignored how fat they were in favor of how much muscle they had. In other words, making a fist and flexing the biceps to discuss their health while they're wearing 36 inch pants.

Mind you, I was at 38 with some fabrics getting tighter and I've dropped down to 36. But I know I'm still fat at 196. I'm not fooling myself thinking that just because I dropped under 200 that I'm physically fit- I've got a long road back and while my doctor suggested 165 as a goal (I'm 6 ft) I seriously doubt I can get below 190.

So being fat and having the muscles to go with it isn't the worst thing in the world, and chances are that will help against heart attacks, but on the other hand... we eat way to much in the US even when we eat healthy.

Watch "Mad Men" they have a sandwich and an apple and a 12 oz coffee for lunch.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

It sounds like you're trying to lose weight--you need to under-eat by about 500 calories a day to lose a pound a week, mathematically speaking, but it's not good for you in the long run.

And yeah there are lots of people who it's recommended that they eat 3000 calories a day. All I can do is ask you to look it up.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Calorie density is _occasionally_ desirable. If I am in doubt of whether I will be able to get a meal within the next eight plus hours or so, I'm having an Egg McMuffin or two.
> The overindulgent larders who think this is an acceptable daily routine get no sympathy from me however. None.


Maybe they should get some. Self-righteousness never solved any problem.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> It sounds like you're trying to lose weight--you need to under-eat by about 500 calories a day to lose a pound a week, mathematically speaking, but it's not good for you in the long run.
> 
> And yeah there are lots of people who it's recommended that they eat 3000 calories a day. All I can do is ask you to look it up.


By just 500 calories per day isn't too bad. You are right that serious crash dieting can permanently slow down a metabolism, though.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

rwjones said:


> I am blessed with a blazing fast metabolism; I have to eat about 4 times a day (primarily healthful foods) and weigh about 150lbs (5'9"). I am constantly hungry. I generally eat well but have no problem eating fast food if I know it literally will comprise half of my daily intake; on a day I know I'll only eat 2 or 2.5 meals, I don't feel guilty having one of them contain 1/3-1/2 of my calories and 1/2 my daily saturated fat. I'm currently 23 and know my basal metabolic rate will slow down in 5 years, but I'm think my dietary choices and exercise habits are good: I get 100% of my daily whole grains before I even leave for class in the morning (Kashi whole grain nuggets + lowfat yogurt, nom nom nom!).
> 
> As a future physician I need to learn to not condescend to obese people, but seriously, they piss me off. That is, those that just eat too much, not those who have an endocrine disorder or something that is beyond their control. The latter group, however, comprises less than 2% of obese people.


I hope you find another career or at least a branch of medicine that does not involve dealing with America's largest health problem if you really feel that way. There are a lot of psycholgical problems to overcome as well as that young people seem to get very little encouragement to exercise properly (and sometimes not even to eat properly).

Also, it is far less expensive to make poor eating choices for the most part.

There are a lot of things in society that make good eating a challenge.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

StevenRocks said:


> McDonald's main purpose is serving as much mediocre quality food as possible to as many people as possible, so they're really not concerned with what people eat as long as they buy it from there.
> 
> 800 calories of burgers is rough for one person in one sitting, especially if they "super size" their fries and drink, and seeing the sheer number of calories and fat in their food (as I saw on the menu at a Burger King in NYC last year) should give most people pause. But it doesn't. They see the price. They want the burger. They buy the burger.


and people are blaming McDonalds for them being obese.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Also, it is far less expensive to make poor eating choices for the most part.
> 
> There are a lot of things in society that make good eating a challenge.


I think once you price in healthcare, opportunity costs (lost income from higher probability of illness and/or disability), and even ancillary family and other costs (people who eat poorly can't teach their children to eat well, so THEY get sick more, etc.) you'll find that poor eating choices are FAR more costly than healthy eating.

Healthy eating basically requires (i) educating oneself and (ii) the discipline to get started. It's actually easy once you've adjusted to it (it took me a couple of months to be able to say "I'm vegan" without feeling somewhat absurd, I'll admit).

I'll even say that eating correctly is EASIER than eating poorly, overall. No grease to deal with in the kitchen makes clean-up easier; increased likelihood to pack a lunch means no waiting for a server (and saves money); being thinner means simply being more COMFORTABLE in planes, cars, everywhere; having more energy, stamina and vitality (all by-products of healthy eating and exercise) simply means being able to DO more - you're more productive, you sleep better, life is perceptibly more enjoyable.

There is zero upside to eating poorly, in any dimension - health, financial, appearance, anything.

DH


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Dhaller said:


> I think once you price in healthcare, opportunity costs (lost income from higher probability of illness and/or disability), and even ancillary family and other costs (people who eat poorly can't teach their children to eat well, so THEY get sick more, etc.) you'll find that poor eating choices are FAR more costly than healthy eating.
> 
> Healthy eating basically requires (i) educating oneself and (ii) the discipline to get started. It's actually easy once you've adjusted to it (it took me a couple of months to be able to say "I'm vegan" without feeling somewhat absurd, I'll admit).
> 
> ...


In the short term, which is where you work when money is extremely tight, you are not concerned about the health consequences; you are merely hungry and need to eat. This is especially true if you are not educated about the consequences of your nutritional decisions.

That said, a lot of people who are not eating well and are obese are poor people from places that have few or no grocery stores where you can buy fresh fruits, vegetables, etc.

No one lost weight because anyone was self-righteous about or insulting to people with a weight problem. It is a complicated problem with educational and psychological aspects as well as the "You eat too much" aspect.

For a lot of people, it is easier and cheaper (at least in the immediate short term) to obtain fast food and packages of cookies and chips than it is to eat what an educated person might term as "properly." Also, in social situations, there is frequently only cake, chips, cookies, etc. offered, but you are under at least some social pressure to eat something.

I have been through my weight loss program and continue to struggle to lose more, although being aware of calories, etc. and trying to exercise is keeping me from regaining.

I am not a person who will go near a double cheese burger, although I very occasionally get one of the healthier things at McDonalds (if you choose carefully, many of the salads are okay.) or even a 350 calorie single cheeseburger if I'm starving but in a hurry. (When I do that, I'm aware of it and am careful for the rest of the day.) However, many if not most of the people with a weight problem do not have a program like the one I was fortunate enough to be offered and have my health insurance pay for, so they muddle through with little education.

Much if not most of what people who have not been specially educated think they know about nutrition and weight loss is not very accurate. Dhaller, I know you do know something about these issues from other posts you have made on the forum.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

I dunno...I guess it's one of those moderation deals...I know I eat fast food when I'm on the road, or I come home and I'm too tired (read lazy) to cook...but I also try to eat balanced meals more often as well. I suppose that you could relate it to drinking in that respect, it's okay to get drunk every now and then, but when you make a habbit of it, that's when it's a problem...I dunno, I guess that's just my $.02 (damn I'm bored today)...


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> In the short term, which is where you work when money is extremely tight, you are not concerned about the health consequences; you are merely hungry and need to eat. This is especially true if you are not educated about the consequences of your nutritional decisions.


True enough, and this will continue to be a problem as long as the prevailing "food culture" is unhealthy. My experience though is that a very large percentage of my peers are (i) quite overweight and (ii) very educated and reasonably well-off. Indeed, nearly everyone I know has a PhD, and most of them are scientists (amazing how many fat biologists there are... kind of inexcusable!) so the poverty/education aspect doesn't hold for them. It's a kind of inertia or laziness.



forsbergacct2000 said:


> Also, in social situations, there is frequently only cake, chips, cookies, etc. offered, but you are under at least some social pressure to eat something.


I will admit this can be very tough. I eat extremely healthy food nearly all the time, so I allow myself to cheat in such situations, it's true. Ah, cake... but only one slice! And I still skip the prosciutto...



forsbergacct2000 said:


> I am not a person who will go near a double cheese burger, although I very occasionally get one of the healthier things at McDonalds (if you choose carefully, many of the salads are okay.) or even a 350 calorie single cheeseburger if I'm starving but in a hurry.


What I do (it's a habit now so I don't even think about it) is keep a few snack in the car (usually a couple of pieces of fruit, and maybe a couple of pieces of dried figs or something); if it's hot, I just use one of those little cooler-lunchboxes. I also keep a little basket of fruits in my office (it's decorative too!), which currently is a few bananas, plums, organic fuji apples, organic bartlett pears, and a kiwi or two. Well, it's not a "little" basket, I guess. Whole-wheat crackers (my favorite bakery makes a killer lavash cracker) and some hummus works too, if you can have a little refrigerator in your office for the hummus. As far as the fruits go, plums and apples make perfect snacks, because they are (i) high in fiber and (ii) low glycemic index, so they make filling, "time release" energy snacks. Better than a single cheeseburger and more convenient to get, since it just takes a little planning to always have one at hand



forsbergacct2000 said:


> Much if not most of what people who have not been specially educated think they know about nutrition and weight loss is not very accurate. Dhaller, I know you do know something about these issues from other posts you have made on the forum.


No one, myself included, has ever been properly educated on food. My own parents ate pretty well, given an American context, but we still ate fried chicken on occasion growing up, and pies were never far away. I'm a biophysicist, so I know enough about intracellular chemistry to inform my dietary choices, but the practical aspects of what I call "correct eating" did take some education (and fortunately my wife is into Japanese macrobiotic cooking, which helps enormously). I know I can be a bit insufferable about diet, but I speak as the converted (having gotten heavy enough at one point to merit a "pre-diabetic" badge)... and we are always rather self-righteous:aportnoy:

DH


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Dhaller, what is your opinion on the "To hummus or not to hummus" issue. I like the stuff but keep hearing conflicting stories about whether it is a good choice or not.

(I suppose I could stop being lazy and google the calories, etc., then I would know - - - -)


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Dhaller, I just thought you were a fellow amateur who had done your research!!! (I did not realize you were a professional!!) 

I lean more and more in that direction, and don't eat red meat often any more, but they told us (and I believe) that you want to avoid turning favorites into "forbidden fruits." 

Unless you have an incredible level of self-discipline, turning things into "forbidden fruits" can create cravings that can turn into binges. (You clearly aren't like that, but many of us are.)

So, once a month, I get a small scoop of ice cream (about half a normal scoop; my pusher at the convenience store knows my situation and cooperates; I pay for the full price so she does not have trouble with her register.) This allows the "I don't have to have that now; I can have it sometime soon if I want it" response to cope with temptation. LOL.

(I'm really poor at the mental discipline part, though. I typically try to avoid situations where red meat, ice cream, etc. are freely available.)


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

The great secret to weight loss is the limiting of ones daily caloric intake.

Meat, cheese, nuts, green vegatables are very filling and offer plenty of energy, while satiating the appetite and keep hunger at bay. Also, they offer more volume for less calories, too.

Simple carbs - rice, cereal, bread, milk - can be filling, but they don't sustain and are high in calories. Simple carbs are the easiest foods to identify in ones diet.

By limiting my intake of simple carbs, I lost 13 pounds within three months. I have maintained my weight loss for 8 months. My exercise regimen is the same. 

My waist size fell at least an inch and a half, and my neck size went down a solid half inch. I feel good and look better/thinner at 6' 1" and 175lbs.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Dhaller, what is your opinion on the "To hummus or not to hummus" issue. I like the stuff but keep hearing conflicting stories about whether it is a good choice or not.
> 
> (I suppose I could stop being lazy and google the calories, etc., then I would know - - - -)


I think it's fine in small amounts (one serving is about a tablespoon.)

I make my own sometimes - basically it's garbanzo beans (aka chickpeas), a very good bean, and tahini, a ground paste of sesame (sesame oil being one of the healthier oils.)

The presence of tahini makes it something to consume in moderation, simply because one should minimize oils as much as possible (we get enough oils just by eating a healthy diet, so there's really no upside to using them as additives or in cooking.) That said, in small amounts, I like it; a healthy luxury.

In fact, just now, at lunch, I had a whole-wheat lavash wrap with hummus, garbanzo beans, sprouts, lettuce and a vegan salsa.

(The reason I stress minimizing oils is because intramyocellular lipids (fat molecules) impede communication between mitochondria - the energy using "machines" in cells - and the insulin receptors in the cell wall; this resulting insulin resistance promotes obesity and can lead to type 2 diabetes; if there is one failing many vegetarian, vegan, Mediterranean and Asian diets share with "bad eating" it's an overuse of oils as additives and as a facilitator in cooking processes.)

DH


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

Dhaller said:


> (The reason I stress minimizing oils is because intramyocellular lipids (fat molecules) impede communication between mitochondria - the energy using "machines" in cells - and the insulin receptors in the cell wall; this resulting insulin resistance promotes obesity and can lead to type 2 diabetes; if there is one failing many vegetarian, vegan, Mediterranean and Asian diets share with "bad eating" it's an overuse of oils as additives and as a facilitator in cooking processes.)
> 
> DH


Oils used in stove top cooking serve as a method to transfer heat and prevent foods from sticking. Oils also promote the development of fond, which provides flavor to meat and subsequently to the pan sauce.

Lose too much fat from your body and you will look old and gaunt.

Fat = Flavor.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Dhaller, have you heard much about the raw vegan diet?

I like some of the dishes, but worry about the time it would take to do it daily. (The food can be really, really good if you have the time, skill and equipment to pull it off.) At our weight loss center, they also worry about how you would get enough protein from uncooked vegetables. 

(Beans are an obvious source when cooked, so I eat a lot of them - although I frequently resort to opening a can. Even opening a can of beans is far better than burgers, overindulging in red meat, etc. I like beans quite a bit, so for me, this really is not much of a "sacrifice.")


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Dhaller, I just thought you were a fellow amateur who had done your research!!! (I did not realize you were a professional!!)
> 
> I lean more and more in that direction, and don't eat red meat often any more, but they told us (and I believe) that you want to avoid turning favorites into "forbidden fruits."
> 
> ...


When I changed the way I ate, I made a clean sweep of it.

I did a thought experiment: what if I were transported to another planet, where the dietary offerings were completely different, but very healthy? Where eating a burger and beer-battered onion rings were simply not an option, because they were 80 light years away? (bear with me, I'm a nerd) Would it be so bad? How quickly would I acclimate?

So I ate like that. I eschewed anything "reminiscent" like "soy meat" or "lentil burgers" or other vegan approximations to conventional foods. What I discovered was (i) the world of correct eating is immense and various and (ii) healthy food tastes damn good.

So I don't "miss" a perfect seared ribeye (okay, maybe a little...)

Consider whole grains alone: endless shades of wheat, bulgur, quinoa, cous cous, brown rice, wild rice, whole basmati, and on and on. I'll say I sample a much larger space of flavors and textures now than I ever did when I ate "traditionally".

Now, I do have the advantage that I was always culinarily adventuresome (I've eaten scorpions in Northern Thailand, after all!) so I was never culturally dependent on meat & potatoes, and that may confer a psychological fortitude against "forbidden fruits". That said, once your refrigerator is stocked with correct foods, and you've found a few favorite vegetarian and vegan restaurants, it starts being easier and easier to play fair:teacha:

DH


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Dhaller, have you heard much about the raw vegan diet?
> 
> I like some of the dishes, but worry about the time it would take to do it daily. (The food can be really, really good if you have the time, skill and equipment to pull it off.) At our weight loss center, they also worry about how you would get enough protein from uncooked vegetables.
> 
> (Beans are an obvious source when cooked, so I eat a lot of them - although I frequently resort to opening a can. Even opening a can of beans is far better than burgers, overindulging in red meat, etc. I like beans quite a bit, so for me, this really is not much of a "sacrifice.")


I'm not a fan of "raw" diets because I think cooking - correctly - improves the nutrition of foods, especially vegetables.

When you steam vegetables, for example, you break down the cell walls and denature certain defensive molecules (like cellulose), allowing the food to be digested more fully and easily.

Also, some beans contain toxic lectins and need to be cooked to break those down (like red kidney beans, which contain phytohaemagglutnin, a toxic agent), so there is a safety issue as well. Most canned beans are pre-cooked, so it's not a big public health issue, but if you buy raw beans, it's a consideration.

I may amend my view of raw foods as I learn more, and I appreciate the logic (cooking can break down vitamins and cofactors), but I feel the cooking benefits outweigh it.

DH


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Thank you for taking the time to post that. You confirmed a lot of what I thought. (One raw aficionado claims there is a lot of protein in raw broccoli, but I don't think I agree with that.) I was not aware of the toxins in beans, although I think the raw people sprout them.

(I've not heard of anyone trying to grind them into a paste and you obviously could not eat many of them without processing them some way.)

I think I'll enjoy the occasional trip to the raw food restaurant or the raw food potlucks, but see it as a supplement, but not something to do every day.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Beau said:


> Oils used in stove top cooking serve as a method to transfer heat and prevent foods from sticking. Oils also promote the development of fond, which provides flavor to meat and subsequently to the pan sauce.
> 
> Lose too much fat from your body and you will look old and gaunt.
> 
> Fat = Flavor.


Yes, but if you're eating legumes, you're getting enough fat.

As far as heat transfer goes, there are healthier alternatives such as "nishime", a Japanese method of "steam cooking" where broth is used as the heat transfer medium (think "stir fry" but with vegetable broth, not oil).

DH


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Thank you for taking the time to post that. You confirmed a lot of what I thought. (One raw aficionado claims there is a lot of protein in raw broccoli, but I don't think I agree with that.) I was not aware of the toxins in beans, although I think the raw people sprout them.
> 
> (I've not heard of anyone trying to grind them into a paste and you obviously could not eat many of them without processing them some way.)
> 
> I think I'll enjoy the occasional trip to the raw food restaurant or the raw food potlucks, but see it as a supplement, but not something to do every day.


True, sprouted is different.

Trader Joe's carries a sprouted rye bread which is very good (slight tangent, I know.)

DH


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

To the OP - sorry about the hijack.

As far as McDonalds, I wish they were more responsible with their advertising, but I am not in favor of laws to force this change. 

Governmental intervention too often has unintended consequences and when power is arbitrarily given to government employees, there is little to stop them from being bullies or otherwise using the power irresponsibly.

The better thing would be for enough people to take control of their health and nutrition that Fast Food restaurants would feel they would be rewarded by offering more healthy choices and be more "health conscious" with their advertising.

We totally need to do a better job relating to nutritional education.

Even now, there are some good choices at McDonald's (quite a few at Taco Bell if you remember to ask for "Fresco Style" and at other fast food places.) There are two I try to never eat at because I can't find good choices in their menu, but most of the others have good choices if you take the time to figure out what they are. (I wish they would make it easier to determine what they are. My defense is to seldom buy things when I don't know exactly what I'm getting. You would be amazed at what mayonaisse and some other ingredients can do to things you would think are healthy!)

(Coleslaw is a frequent example of something that appears healthy, but is loaded with calories; chicken caesar salad is another.)


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Dhaller, what do you think of microwaving raw vegetables (broccoli comes out great this way, for example)

Also, I like to bake cauliflower (for 2 to 3 hours if I have time.) It stinks while it's cooking but tastes great when it's done. How would you think that is nutritionally??


----------



## bigchris1313 (Apr 16, 2009)

*Not so*



Dhaller said:


> There is zero upside to eating poorly, in any dimension - health, financial, appearance, anything.


Not true. It can often be fun. As a former collegiate offensive lineman who loves food and has sat through his fair share of dietician and nutritionist talks about "all" the reasons people consume too many calories per day, I know that time and again presenters forget that eating food--for many people, anyway--is fun. The body gets hungry. It eats food. Pleasure sensors in the brain go off. The mind thinks, "I should repeat this pleasure-inducing behavior." And fast food, rife with salt, processed sugars and saturated fats, exacerbates the problem because McDonalds and Co. engineer it to taste desirable. It's almost cheating. The body cannot help but say yes to food that it knows is high in calories, particularly fats, because it is trying to store energy for long periods of time.

And so for many people, eating is fun. I love eating. I always have. Fast foods are a hedonistic--if cheap--pleasure I indulge in once to twice per week. I understand how terrible the nutrition is. I powerlift regularly and plan my protein, carbohydrate, and fat intake for near-optimal--given my time constraints--efficiency during training. I do my best to choose the right foods--whey proteins v. BCAAs, low glycemic index v. high glycemic index carbs--and the right time of day to eat them--tapering carbs, proper post-workout nutrition. But on a Saturday afternoon, after a long week at work, there are few things I enjoy more than some delicious but God-awful nutrition from Carl's Jr. I know how terrible it is for me, but I derive an unbelievably high amount of utility from eating it.

Make no mistake. There is positive upside to eating poorly. It's just that the upside is purely psychological and very short-term. It's simply a matter of choosing between this short-term psychological utility and long-term physical utility.

One to two meals per week, I will unhesitatingly choose short-term pleasure.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

You make a good point, Chris and demonstrate why it is so hard for a lot of people to maintain a desirable weight.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> To the OP - sorry about the hijack.
> 
> As far as McDonalds, I wish they were more responsible with their advertising, but I am not in favor of laws to force this change....


Actually our local McDonald's does seem to do a fairly reasonable job of advertising the nutritional value of their various menu offerings. They have a poster, summarizing such information, posted near the point where customers order their food; they have information sheets that they will provide to customers on request and each of the packages, ordered items are served in, are also annotated with the nutritional values of the item enclosed! I'm not really sure what more they can do, other than screening out and refusing to serve the really bad choices to customers packing extra pounds. Somehow, I doubt we are going to see that happen! We are the ones who have to make the better choices.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

I'm glad the discusiion has turned to eating well, and the tips here are very helpful, and wise.

However, the problem lies not with "us" and our friends. It lies with people whose education fails them. With people who are so economically deprived (that means poor) that there are no options. Go to East New York and try and find a supermarket. There are none. There are bodegas that sell packaged cakes, and chips, and sugary sodas. In these poor neighborhoods you have White Castles and Church's and KFC. 

We, those of us we know, and who post on a men's clothing forum, are the lucky (and arguably lazy) ones. There is a larger majority of people who do not earn as much as we do, do not know as much as we do, because of teh situation they were born into...poverty.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> Actually our local McDonald's does seem to do a fairly reasonable job of advertising the nutritional value of their various menu offerings. They have a poster, summarizing such information, posted near the point where customers order their food; they have information sheets that they will provide to customers on request and each of the packages, ordered items are served in, are also annotated with the nutritional values of the item enclosed! I'm not really sure what more they can do, other than screening out and refusing to serve the really bad choices to customers packing extra pounds. Somehow, I doubt we are going to see that happen! We are the ones who have to make the better choices.


Eagle, I meant they seldom push their healthier things in their advertising. On the other hand, they will do what makes them the most money (in their judgement.) It's up to the general public to reward them for pushing healthy food if we want them to do that.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

Howard said:


> and people are blaming McDonalds for them being obese.


It's all about personal choices. McDonald's doesn't force people to eat there, and their nutritional peccadilloes are well documented.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

bbcrock said:


> I challenge you that no young, active man needs 3000 calories per day unless they want to maintain or build their gut and that too many people at 25 want to call themselves young when they aren't anymore.


I disagree. I'm not even that active - I need to get back to working out and running on a regular basis; however, that isn't my point.

My point is this:

I eat about 3000 calories a day. Typically two meals plus a large snack and a small snack. I don't eat breakfast, but usually eat lunch, dinner, and then a late meal. With a snack either between lunch and dinner and then a large snack around 11 PM.

If I don't eat this much, I literally get sick and get migraines because I'm so hungry. When I was running cross country, I was eating a third meal every day, and was probably around 3500 calories a day.

I don't think I'm fat - I'm 6'1, 160lbs. I've been eating this way as long as I can remember, and as a freshman in high school I was 5'10 100lbs.

So do you challenge that I don't exist?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

We should all go on A Jared Fogel Subway Diet.I mean,I used to eat fast food myself but I'm trying to cut down on it and once in a while I'll buy a Subway Sandwich with chips and drink and that fills me up.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Howard said:


> We should all go on A Jared Fogel Subway Diet.I mean,I used to eat fast food myself but I'm trying to cut down on it and once in a while I'll buy a Subway Sandwich with chips and drink and that fills me up.


In just have far too great a need for novelty and variety to do that, though I can see it as a reasonably healthy "starting place".

There's a bit of Japanese dietary lore that one should eat 30 unique things each day - these can be ingredients, spices, elements of a meal, however you like to quantize food - and this will assure balance in your diet. I find it works well, constrained of course to a space of correct foods (whole grains, veggies, fruits, legumes, healthy spices and seasonings), and gives me the variety I prefer.

DH


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> I disagree. I'm not even that active - I need to get back to working out and running on a regular basis; however, that isn't my point.
> 
> My point is this:
> 
> ...


I know a long-time avid runner who's 6'1" and 140 lbs (physically about the same as Abe Lincoln, actually!) with similar requirements.

Obviously that's at some extremum on the Bell curve, though; certainly the vast majority of people are harmed by 3000 calories per day.

Based on a height of 6'1", healthy weight can range from 144 lbs to 189 lbs - certainly, healthy energy requirements can vary widely as well.

One must always be suspect of all these "recommended daily allowances" and such, because they are based on some kind of assumed "average" or "median" person... which none of us are, of course!

DH


----------



## dwebber18 (Jun 5, 2008)

I played baseball and swam in college and it was funny that my baseball coach always wanted me to loose weight. I'm 6'4" and was about 240 lbs during my time in college. I swam for 1.5 hours in the morning, lifted weights in the afternoon and then had 3 hours of baseball practice in the evening of which about an hour was nothing but running(I pitched). I never got any lighter than that and its because during baseball season the coach always stopped us at McD, Wendys, Hardees or somewhere like that. I always thought it was funny that I could keep up with the small guys running distance and could outlift most everyone else, but he stayed on me about my weight, and then forced us to eat that crap. And yes, we are that fat, and after 4 years of eating it alot during school on the road, I can't even say when I had McD or something like that last. Its just nasty to me now because I got so burned out on how it made me feel.


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

rgrossicone said:


> The thing that got me was what else they were using to sell it, the fact that two of the double cheeseburgers are *880 calories. *880 CALORIES!! I'd have to run 7 miles at 7:00 per mile pace to burn that much. AND THAT IS THEIR SELLING POINT!


I'm not sure why you have to liken it to a hard work out. For a normal 6 foot man with some physical activity in the day, 2400/day is ok. When you come at it from a point of counting calories and figuring out dollars per calorie, those cheeseburgers are a bargain.

In the past year I finally broke myself from any real desire for fast food, fried food, sugars, alcohol, and high fat foods. However, when you are addicted to certain foods through habit, breaking with tradition causes some major mind games. Dieting isn't as easy as Hollywood people make it out to be--the initial step is a *****.

If people counted calories and watched what they ate, we wouldn't have an obese nation. On the other hand, what IS the benefit to being fit and trim? Most people probably become fat because the please of eating out weighs any other pleasure life holds: that is the true problem in society.


----------



## scubasteve (Aug 20, 2008)

this reminds me of the commercials as of late for high fructose corn syrup. They are running a PR campaign where their big selling point is that its nutritionally the same as SUGAR!!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

An interesting read.

Somebody was telling me that loggers would eat about 15,000 calories per day. Of course, that was long hours and hard work. I used to do carpentry and a few years after I quite that kind of work I stopped at one of those breakfast eateries and what they served would have been about 1/3 of what I needed to make it to lunch, if I were still doing carpentry. This other job I had this one guy, a bit heavy, would count my calories at break time, after 3,500 calories he would stop counting, I was, so to say, a hair fat. Every once in awhile I eat a bowl of icecream and notice a weight loss. And then there is the friend who couldn't find anybody to hike over 3,000 feet of elavation gain to the top of some mountian and he would call me up and complain that he couldn't find anybody to go with him (I'm the one that got him started in looking at the view from mountain tops), so after the hike I would get on the scale every day for 5 days and no loss of weight, but the fifth day 5 pounds would be gone. This happened for years. I think science has a lot to learn yet.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

What McDonalds and Burger King does is lure us into the place so we have our fill in calories,You see something advertised on the outside so in turn we want to go in and eat whatevers advertised.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Preu Pummel said:


> I'm not sure why you have to liken it to a hard work out. For a normal 6 foot man with some physical activity in the day, 2400/day is ok. When you come at it from a point of counting calories and figuring out dollars per calorie, those cheeseburgers are a bargain.
> 
> In the past year I finally broke myself from any real desire for fast food, fried food, sugars, alcohol, and high fat foods. However, when you are addicted to certain foods through habit, breaking with tradition causes some major mind games. Dieting isn't as easy as Hollywood people make it out to be--the initial step is a *****.
> 
> If people counted calories and watched what they ate, we wouldn't have an obese nation. On the other hand, what IS the benefit to being fit and trim? Most people probably become fat because the please of eating out weighs any other pleasure life holds: that is the true problem in society.


If considering only calories, that is a point, but it is a lot of fat and a lot of nearly empty calories that could be replaced with food that is far more beneficial. However, I occasionally eat fast food when I'm in a hurry, etc. To do this once in awhile is probably not of much consequence, but to do it often would not be healthy.

However, I'm not for official government food police. It would be good if we could find ways to better educate people about the healthiest choices and the consequences of being overweight. Then, let the people decide.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> ...However, I'm not for official government food police. It would be good if we could find ways to better educate people about the healthiest choices and the consequences of being overweight. Then, let the people decide.


I still, _still_ see the occasional reference to "The Four Food Groups" as if it were ever a good thing. Talk about an occasion where the "food police" were bribed into bad action by the crooks!

Yes, indeed, better education is key and letting the propaganda die a well-deserved death is part of it.

One of the greatest cultural shocks I ever used to go through was when I had been traveling overseas and then came back home. Everyone looked so...huge! And then I'd go to the supermarket and just stare dumbfounded at things like a gallon-jar of mayonnaise. So much of everything!


----------

