[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 490 KB, 2000x1000, o-BIG-MAC-facebook.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6598139 No.6598139 [Reply] [Original]

What exactly makes fast food unhealthy besides the risk of overeating?

Are the ingredients of poor quality or something?

>> No.6598141

>>6598139
bliss point: fat, salt and sugar

>> No.6598144

>>6598139
pretty much nothing

>>6598141
congratulations on listening to npr

>> No.6598149

>>6598139
Unless they're using tainted meat or something there's really nothing intrinsically unhealthy about it. It's just a matter of how much sugar, sodium, and calories you're consuming in a day. For most people it's probably just easier to avoid fast food than to try to calculate the rest of their daily intake.

>> No.6598150

>>6598144
Penn & Teller actually

>> No.6598151

Saturated/Trans fat
LOADED with sodium
enhanced with corn syrups and sugar
Also everything is very low quality, the bread for instance is a good example of highly refined grain which is bad. It's also incased in a bunch of preservatives.

>> No.6598212

>>6598144
>congratulations on listening to npr
Wow, you sure told him. That'll show people who listen to reliable news sources.

>> No.6598225

>>6598139
preservatives

>> No.6598330 [DELETED] 

>>6598139

Go out back and just smell. Smells like fecal matter. Not to mention you have some low wage nig-nog jizzing in your food. Just buy your own shit from the store or butcher and make food yourself.

>> No.6598333

>>6598212
my point was that they're repeating information pretty much everyone here already knows, because it came out of a well-known, respected news source

>> No.6598344

>>6598333
That makes it somehow less correct or less credible?

>> No.6598357
File: 111 KB, 1280x720, KPP-wallpaper-kyary-pamyu-pamyu-E3-81-8D-E3-82-83-E3-82-8A-E3-83-BC-E3-81-B1-E3-81-BF-E3-82-85-E3-81-B1-E3-81-BF-E3-82-85-33845992-1280-720.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6598357

>>6598139
because if you get a salad, it has sugar dumped in it. that said, people GROSSLY overestimate the amount of calories at McDonalds. I've heard people cite numbers like 1500 to 2000 calories and when you tell them that, no, a big mac is more in the range of 700 calories, they don't believe and you have to show it to them.

But it's the same that makes all unhealthy foods unhealthy. Just go down the nutrition facts. Few good stuff like vitamins and fiber and lots of salt, sugar, fat, cholesterol, etc.

Fast food makes its money but being fast and cheap. They use the lowest quality ingredients they can, freeze it for long periods of time, and then heat it up quickly using the lowest skill labor they can. Because the food would otherwise be disgusting, they dump as much fat, salt, and sugar in it as possible to keep it tasting good. You don't taste how terrible the less than 50% meat hamburger tastes because the amount of grease and salt overwhelms you.

It is what it is. If you generally eat healthy going to Burger King or Taco Bell or whatever once in a while isn't going to kill you. Ideally we'd all live off of salads with dressing and lean, baked chicken. But that's not gonna happen for most people.

>> No.6598387

>>6598357
>a big mac is more in the range of 700 calories
You say that like it's nothing. That's almost half your average recommended daily caloric intake.

>> No.6598434

>>6598387
>700 calories
>almost half your average recommended daily caloric intake
Are you a 100lb woman? Any nonmanlet who lifts should have a 3000 cals maintenance

>> No.6598436

>>6598387

More like a third, if you're a woman

>> No.6598441

>>6598333
I fucking hate people that repeat things they learn from places. You should only talk about the knowledge you were born with.

>> No.6598446

>>6598139
Typical fast food main dish (hamburger): good quality food. Refined flour and added sugar balanced out with meat and vegetables.
Typical fast food side-dish (fries): dubious quality food. Loads of calories, not much in the way of vitamins and minerals. The deep fryer oil may be chemically degraded from being kept hot. The oil used might not be very good for you (hydrogenated fats, vegetable oil with excessive amounts of omega-6 fatty acids).
Typical fast food beverage (coke): straight-up bad for you. All sugar, no redeeming nutritional value.

Alternative fast food side-dish (salad): good quality food. Go easy on the dressing if you have weight management problems.
Alternative fast food beverage (milk): good quality food. High in calories, but also highly nutritious.
Alternative fast food beverage (coffee/water/diet soda): presumably harmless.
Alternative fast food beverage (juice): dubious quality food. More vitamins than a coke, but the sugar can be hard on your system.

Bottom line: there are healthy options available alongside treats you shouldn't eat every day. The typical meal should not be harmful to your health if you take coffee or diet soda in place of soda, and can be raised to excellent nutritional quality (at increased expense) if you have a salad.

>> No.6598448

>>6598139
Fucktons of unprocessed carbs, fat, and protein. Very low micronutrient density. Very low fiber.

Truth is though fast food isn't bad for you in moderation. Obsessing over any kind of food in particular is stupidity.

Keep your macronutrient ratios in check and watch your calories.

>> No.6598449

>>6598434
Average daily caloric intake is 2000. 3000 is ridiculous, even if you're lifting.

>But my bulking diet!

Stop believing in bro-science garbage.

>> No.6598450
File: 36 KB, 610x311, prometheus-engineer-0682012-203343.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6598450

>>6598434
Engineer pls

>> No.6598455

>>6598387
2000 calorie maintenance is the absolute bare minimum for the average person (average includes women) to survive if you're laying in a hospital bed all day. Lower than that for a long period and you will DIE. 2000 is in actuality way low for most people.

>> No.6598458

>>6598449
> 3000 is ridiculous
it really isn't.

you should be eating even more (5000 calories) if you're backpacking.

>> No.6598461

>>6598449
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/08/why-does-the-fda-recommend-2-000-calories-per-day/243092/


SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU RETARDED FAGGOT

>> No.6598462

>>6598455
>2000 calorie maintenance is the absolute bare minimum for the average person (average includes women) to survive if you're laying in a hospital bed all day.
Are you daft?

>Lower than that for a long period and you will DIE. 2000 is in actuality way low for most people.
You should really stop listening to every scrap of idiocy spouted by /fit/. This is just absurd.

>> No.6598465

>>6598387
no, I say that like it's 300% smaller than what a lot of people seem to think it is. A subway sandwich, on the other hand, is 600-650 calories depending on what you get on it. The average reccommended caloric intake is 2000 as printed on every nutritional label and that includes women. 700 calories is one of your three meals, and that's not considering it's a splurge.

>> No.6598466

>>6598139
Only in faggot countries have bad fast food (USA, Brazil, Mexico)

>> No.6598468

>From USDA food consumption surveys of that era, the FDA knew that women typically reported consuming 1,600 to 2,200 calories a day, men 2,000 to 3,000, and children 1,800 to 2,500. But stating ranges on food labels would take up too much space and did not seem particularly helpful. The FDA proposed using a single standard of daily calorie intake--2,350 calories per day, based on USDA survey data. The agency requested public comments on this proposal and on alternative figures: 2,000, 2,300, and 2,400 calories per day.

>Despite the observable fact that 2,350 calories per day is below the average requirements for either men or women obtained from doubly labeled water experiments, most of the people who responded to the comments judged the proposed benchmark too high. Nutrition educators worried that it would encourage overconsumption, be irrelevant to women who consume fewer calories


It is literally DYELS and feminist cunts that gave this 2000 calorie perspective.

>> No.6598473
File: 42 KB, 600x400, 1366306412171.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6598473

>>6598458
>you should be eating even more (5000 calories) if you're backpacking.
For christ sake I can practically hear your husky fat voice peddling this swill.

>> No.6598477

>fast food
>cheap
I can make serious meal in half the price with better ingredients.
And I can't even cook.

>> No.6598479 [DELETED] 

>>6598462
Shut the fuck up. Shut the fuck up. Shut the fuck up.

You are ignorant. Stop spouting ignorance. You are uninformed. Stop pretending to be informed. You are uneducated. Stop pretending to be educated.

http://www.caloriecontrol.org/articles-and-video/feature-articles/let-the-fat-fit-the-diet

>A mathematically simple 2,000 calorie-a-day diet was chosen so that consumers could easily calculate the Daily Values needed for their own diets.

>This is the amount of total calories per day that a moderately active adult female (weighing approximately 132 pounds) would need to maintain her weight. However, if you do not fit this description, your caloric needs will vary.

Are you a 132 pound woman? Shut the fuck up. Shut the FUCK UP.

>> No.6598481 [DELETED] 

>>6598473
Retard alert! Retard alert! Do not listen to this poster. They don't know what they are talking about.

>> No.6598483

>>6598477
you can make most any meal for half the price with better ingredients. the point of a restaurant is you don't travelling (that's why they have drive-throughs).

>> No.6598484

>>6598477
>fast
What about that part?

>> No.6598488
File: 14 KB, 300x330, duty_calls[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6598488

>>6598479
calm down, dude. it's just the internet.

>> No.6598489

>>6598479
>But if you eat 2000 calories a day you'll DIE!
Jesus christ you're a real idiot.

Full disclosure, my recommended daily caloric intake is around 2300. Doesn't mean I need to eat 3000, even if I'm "bulking", which is fucking retarded.

>> No.6598490

>>6598139
One meal will last you all day if you are not a fatass. Seems alright for me i guess I go every other day and i am not fat and look healthy.

>> No.6598491

>>6598481
And yet you say in total seriousness that people should eat 5000 calories a day if they're "backpacking".

>> No.6598495

>>6598449
2000 is about right for an average sedentary woman. 3000 is totally reasonable for an average-sized man who exercises regularly.

>>6598473
Eight hours of brisk walking can burn 3,500 calories over and above your normal energy requirements. People engaging in all-day physical activity can need two to three times as much food as sedentary people to maintain their weight.

You could spend, like, five minutes reading up on this, instead of trying to insist on arbitrary round numbers you once heard somewhere.

>>6598357
>a big mac is more in the range of 700 calories
A Big Mac is 520 calories.

>> No.6598496

It tastes like shit. Seriously.

As a kid I used to love it, but then I started eating healthy and just recently - after more than 4 years of not having eaten a burger - I went to a fast food restaurant and it made me almost throw up. It's like they took the contents of their trash can and compressed it into something supposed to be remotely resembling meat. Absolutely disgusting.

>> No.6598498

>>6598139
Reduced fiber increased sugar to reduce cooking time without sacrificing flavor. Fructose without fiber ends up in your liver. Regular consumption of large quantities of fructose lead to fatty liver and then cirrhosis. Fiber increases the amount of time fructose stays in your stomach and this lets flora get to it which turn it into farts.

>> No.6598500

>>6598495
I wasn't insisting on meeting arbitrary round numbers, just that 5000 per day is ludicrous.

>> No.6598507

>>6598495
i got 550, but you're right. I must have been thinking of a big mac meal. or maybe i just found a source trying to inflate the calories of big macs.

>> No.6598512

>>6598500
The "instead of trying to insist on arbitrary round numbers" was responding more to the claimed 2000 figure.

And 5,000 isn't unreasonable at all for someone walking all day, carrying a load. That you think it's "ludicrous" shows impressive ignorance.

>> No.6598526

>>6598512
Fur trappers would sometimes eat 20,000 calories a day, but they were usually moving tons of fur at that point.

>> No.6598534

>>6598473
Jokes on you.
I've got an eating disorder and am underweight.
http://www.rei.com/learn/expert-advice/planning-menu.html
> The National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) estimates that backcountry travelers burn between 2,500 and 4,500 calories per day, depending on their individual physiology and their activity.
http://www.adventurealan.com/food_general.htm
> In an example below, in order to not loose weight, a 160 pound male hiking 10 miles a day, with a 3,000 elevation gain, would need around 4,200 calories per day

>> No.6598539

If you are calculating all you daily intake, then sure, fast foods are fine. But it is actually easier to be healthy by just eating "healthy" food, than eating shit all day and calculating how much you eat. That's what the feeling of satiety is for. If you eat at a fast food and just follow you hunger, you'll end up obese.

>> No.6598564

>>6598466
>Only in faggot countries have bad fast food (USA, Brazil, Mexico)
So the McDonald's in 118 other countries is healthier?

>> No.6598567 [DELETED] 

>>6598534
that is a sad joke ):

>> No.6598572

>>6598564
Well some countries have harsher health restrictions for food.

>> No.6598576

>>6598572
And no retarded ones, like "no fermented cheese importation" followed by "oh my god, why is everyone becoming lactose intolerant ?!"

>> No.6598615

>>6598139
>Are the ingredients of poor quality or something?

Yes.

>> No.6598647

>>6598534
Going by calories by themselves is fairly short sighted. There's a research paper where they took a bunch of Tarahumara indians (these guys run a shitload every day) and figured out what their diets should be based on how much energy they burn daily. They then put these people all on an affluent diet with the correct calorific values expecting them to become much healthier. Instead however what happened was that they all became overweight and started developing health problems.

>> No.6598649 [DELETED] 

>>6598139
I ate fast food daily growing up and always stayed thin. It's just propaganda by PETA/Hippies

>> No.6598658

>>6598490
This

>> No.6598659

>>6598649
>anecdote as evidence
>>>/x/

>> No.6598661

>>6598649
>being this dumb
You really think its all only about your weight don't you?

>> No.6598675

>>6598139 What exactly makes fast food unhealthy besides the risk of overeating?

Nothing really. You can be a huge lard ass that's going to stroke out at 30 eating nothing but steamed organic rice.

Although it's probably not a correct nutritional balance if you're younger than 2 years of age, maybe. Otherwise, the only real issue is stuff that might crop up once you get over the age of 65 or so. The food is stuffed with various chemicals, but so is the majority of food, fast or otherwise, and it's incredibly hard to find chemical unlaced food. Even non-gmo organic misses the mark with some loopholes.

So what you really have is an argument against all modern food products, not just fast foo

>> No.6598689

lots of weetards in this thread. Sugar isn't bad for you. You operate on sugar. Theres some sugars that are better for you than other sugars (fruit sugar is better for you than soda sugar). The brain functions off sugar. Your body needs carbs and sugars to work at it's best. Anyone who tells you sugar is bad or makes you fat is an idiot. Fat makes you fat. Mcdonalds and other fast food places are loaded with fat and grease. Half of the calories from a big mac are fat calories. You eat a big mac, boom theres 250 fat calories right there. Plus theres a lot of chemicals and pesticides added to the food to keep it from spoiling during the process of it getting shipped to your local mcdonalds and served to customers. Potatoes are healthy for you, but not when theyre in the form of mcdonalds french fries because of all the grease added to them. Tons of fat.

Fat fat fat fatty greasy shitty foods make people miserable and fat. Not carbs and sugar.

>> No.6598690

>>6598675
> it's incredibly hard to find chemical unlaced food
impossible in fact.

>> No.6598706

>>6598675
>and it's incredibly hard to find chemical unlaced food.
You are a dipshit. Go back to kindergarten and learn what the word "chemical" means.

>Even non-gmo organic
One of the requirements for the organic classification is that it's not GMO. There is no such thing as GMO organic.

>>6598689
>weetards
This much cringe right off the bat.

Glucose good, fructose bad. Your body also needs fat to function.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

>> No.6598714

>>6598675
>eating nothing but steamed organic rice.

Rice is pretty much just empty calories. Please tell me that isn't your example of a "healthy" diet.

>it's incredibly hard to find chemical unlaced food.

Not really, you just have to buy food that isn't so processed.

>> No.6598729

>>6598706
>organic classification
Like that means anything these days.

It drives me nuts when I go to the organic food store, and I ask for salt, and they point me at the sodium chloride, which shouldn't even be in the building.

Then I have to go all the way to the Chinese grocery to get the monosodium glutamate I went out for in the first place.

>> No.6598733

>>6598729
It's part of a program run by the USDA. "Organic" in that sense doesn't mean the same thing as organic in the chemistry sense. Here's a pamphlet for consumers.

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004446

You can find more precise description of the classification their website. You can also find more information for consumers on their blog.

>> No.6598783

>>6598706
> Go back to kindergarten and learn what the word "chemical" means.

Ohh... Are you gonna criticize my grammar next? You know exactly what I mean when I use the term dipshit.

>One of the requirements for the organic classification is that it's not GMO.

According to who? You realize there is no worldwide definition of the term, right dipshit?

>> No.6598788

>>6598714
>Rice is pretty much just empty calories.

>Full of fiber, protein, vitamins, minerals, etc..
>Throw in beans and you can literally survive solely off the combo

>empty calories

Yah ok

>> No.6598792

>>6598139
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z5X0i92OZQ

Every thread until you memorized it.

people who haven't seen the entire video need not point out that what he says doesn't seem to make sense after 5 minutes.

>> No.6598799

>>6598783
Being this retarded on /sci/.
>>>/x/

>> No.6598818

>>6598799
Actually, GMOs CAN be labelled as "organic". They can lie, and there is nothing you can do about it.

(organics chemically are anything that contain hydrocarbons... food, oil, coal)

What is illegal is telling you a food contains GMO products.

Informed consumerism? Voting with your dollar? YOUR GOVERNMENT WONT LET YOU!

>> No.6598819

>>6598799

Still waiting for that world wide definition of 'organic'

>> No.6598827

>>6598819
The post above yours.

>> No.6598838

Brazil is the only other country that allows the sale of GMO foods. They do allow a GMO label.

America isn't even allowed to let their citizens know.

Some freedumz ya got that, 'meericuh.

>> No.6598861

>>6598818
You can report them and then they have to incure huge fines and costs. Also, getting their certification back is a long difficult process. For some products it takes several years to get by design.

>> No.6598867

>>6598838
In the US there are more complaints than just GMO. There are also complaints about the use of sewage sludge and radiation. For this reason the USDA finds it easier to instead offer an optional certification for products that are free of all those things, this is what "Organic" in the US means. The idea is that the government isn't forcing anyone to seek any labeling, if you believe your product will benefit in sales by being labeled organic then you can seek out the optional labeling. From a political standpoint it's easier for lobbies to swallow.

>> No.6598869

>>6598861
GMOs are immune to civil prosecution.

>> No.6598877

>>6598867
>bla bla bla

You still don't get to know if you are eating GMO food, and GMO food can be labelled "organic".

>> No.6598883

>>6598877
> GMO food can be labelled "organic".

Well, only in America, anyway.

>> No.6598904

>>6598877
>You still don't get to know if you are eating GMO food, and GMO food can be labelled "organic".
>>6598883
>Well, only in America, anyway.

No it can't you dipshits. Read the USDA's webpage. It's against the law in the US to label GMO food as organic.

>>6598869
Actually this is also not true, Monsanto has had several class action lawsuits filed against them. Here's a recent one.
http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-lawsuits-gmo-wheat-603/

Furthermore, somewhat recently farmers gained some protections against Monsanto's version of copyright trolling.
http://www.realfarmacy.com/american-farmers-attain-critical-legal-protection/

>> No.6598921

>>6598783
The demonization of the word "chemical" is part of the reason the US has fallen behind in science.
You should not only be ridiculed by using the term "chemical" like this. You should be tarred and feathered on any /sci/ence forum.

>> No.6598922 [DELETED] 

>>6598904
I DID read the webpage, and it did not mention GMO or the word "genetic" at all.

>> No.6598937

>>6598922
>I DID read the webpage, and it did not mention GMO or the word "genetic" at all.
Literally the first sentences in the pamphlet.

>Organic products have strict production and labeling requirements. Unless noted below, organic products must meet the following requirements:
>-Produced without excluded methods (e.g., genetic engineering), ionizing radiation, or sewage sludge.

>> No.6598953

>>6598937
Sorry, I fatfingered the wordsearch.

>> No.6599008

>>6598139

lots of calories and sodium; I learned from working at a fast food joint that the shakes have 1500 calories. your body should only take 2-3k calories a day

>> No.6599020

To all the food blaming for their fat americans or FB-FA's how I like to call them :
Please stop blaming the food for your stupidity and unhealthy life style .
May I remind you that anyone who :
- blames the food they eat for their unhealthy life style or/and stupidity may pass as an FB-FA even though they're not american ;
- food might be low quality , but it's your fault for eating that shit .

>> No.6599022
File: 134 KB, 952x705, 1401837834674.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6599022

>thinking GMOs are dangerous
This is creationism tier bullshit right here

>> No.6599024

>>6599020
I generally agree with you, but food deserts do exist.

>> No.6599034

>>6599022
In terms of health, not the current GMOs. In terms of politics and bio-diversity they are. The real reason not to eat GMOs are because by doing so you're supporting a fucked up dynamic involving patent trolling and the destruction of seedlots.

>> No.6599093

Holy shit. Does anyone here even into biology? The /fit/ guys are the most right here.

>> No.6599113

>>6599093
I hope you're not talking about the dudes recommending specific calorie intakes..

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199112123252405

>> No.6599128

>>6599024
My point is that it doesn't matter if you are fat or not . It's not my fault , it's not the food's fault and it's not the food producer's fault , it's yours .
People in the year 2014 have any and every possible food at their disposal .
I have a friend who is basically fat , not FB-FA obesse style , but still fat . He doesn't complain about it , he likes eating , he takes fat jokes and even makes some - unlike butt hurt idiots on scooters and such
>>6599093
The /fit/ guys seemed to deny the existence of "metabolism" and they called it out as "magical nonsense"

>> No.6599150

>>6599034
What's a seedlot?

>> No.6599176

>>6599150
An area you're using that is used specifically to create seeds.

Once your plants are infected with GMO pollen, they are allowed to destroy your seeds without compensating you.

>> No.6599185

>>6599150
The term has some different meanings in different contexs. Vaguely it commonly means a collection of seeds (the size of which can vary). In this context it refers to large collections of seeds in storage. The idea is that farmers harvest seeds from their crops for storage and then use these for stuff like breeding, producing more seeds, and growing new crops. Over the span of several generations (of farmers) this introduces unique changes to the seeds and makes them valuable. If by contamination (accident or intentional) a patented GMO gene enters the gene pool of said seed lot then the only way to be sure to get rid of it is to destroy the entire seed lot. This is generally one of the terms of either court or settlements in GMO contamination cases.

>> No.6599207

>>6598455
yea you're an idiot, I rarely go over 2k calories, even on "cheat days" and I still weigh 210 lbs and don't feel like shit

>> No.6599230

Jesus I didn't realize how little this board knew about nutrition and excercise

>> No.6599231

>>6599128
>People in the year 2014 have any and every possible food at their disposal .
Thats why I brought up food deserts in the first place... because it's simply not true.

>> No.6599234

>>6598455
>Lower than that for a long period and you will DIE.
Probably one of the stupidest things I've read all week. Congrats.