hmm.. crazy!
It's as though he saying that one's own choices, and not those of the corporations, are what have the more profound impacts on one's life... But who, then, am I supposed to blame who isn't me?

Or, "Fries don't make people fat.. People make people fat."

My guess would be he stuck to zero calorie drinks and avoided fries.

Had a quick on their nutritional website, a Big Mac is 520 calories, which is not great but not absurd. The issue is, you add a large fries (500) and coke (280) to that and you've added exactly 150% more calories on top.

All up being 1300 calories or about 2/3rds of your daily intake in one meal. Provided you avoided the sides though, it wouldn't be too hard to stick within the limits.

The issue is that MCD makes the minimum mandated attempt to educate customers. Australia legislates that food energy levels be published in a prominent fashion alongside the rough recommended daily energy intake of 8700kJ. They usually publish most of these on the side in small font. Having been over in France recently they didn't have them, I'm sure that's the case in most countries.

The larger issue with MCD and other fast food is the use of trans-fats and excessive sodium.

Trans-fats act as an insanely effective preservatives that keeps their produce looking like it'd been cryogenically frozen even years on. They're also have a reputation for clogging arteries causing heart attacks, strokes and the like.

Sodium which boosts blood pressure when ingested is a flavour enhancer which is probably why it's used in excessive amounts (e.g. a Big Mac has 40% of recommended daily Sodium). Even if this guy kept within calorie limits he would have easily been breaching recommended Sodium levels and in the long term would be elevating his risk of high blood pressure, stroke or various kidney diseases.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, January 4th, 2014 9:08pm PST - promote requested by RedSky.

The whole issue about calories is a misdirect, there are dozens of other more important reasons why McD's is worse than trash. A couple of examples - the food is loaded with all manner of artificial ingredients, it's lacking in quality fiber, it's highly processed (low nutritional value), and the quality of the macro ingredients is very poor - i.e. the use of trans-fats as @RedSky points out, as well as the use of poor quality sugars (i.e. HFCS) to sweeten the dough.

That's not even to mention the exploitation of their workers, rainforest clearing to raise cattle, wasteful use of plastic packaging etc.

There is a lot missing in this report. He was eating a limit of 2000 calories daily, he may have ate 2500 a day before Mac meal plan, plus he started exercising 45 mins a day what other outcome could be expected. Not much of a science teacher. Before the Mac diet plan he was on the Burger King plan, who knows.

Just FYI:

A) McDonald's long ago modified their menu to remove trans-fats.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB121151133018416567

B) The notion that McDonald's hamburgers don't get moldy because of the excessive use of preservatives has been debunked.

http://aht.seriouseats.com/archives/2010/11/the-burger-lab-revisiting-the-myth-of-the-12-year-old-burger-testing-results.html

A) Not here in Ozland. Certainly remember seeing it on nutritional information but here's from their site:

https://mcdonalds.com.au/maccas-food/whats-in-it

"85% less trans fat than our previous blend." Certainly not none though

B) Interesting how in the link it talks about mold growth being dependant on it breaking out before loss of moisture in the first few days. The rate it decomposes is still hardly normal though. Especially the fries (mostly because of the sodium content):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfSTjLavkA8

It's your choice. Yes. Does McDonalds make your choice harder, oh hell yeah. It's all about moderation. But, of course, it's hard to "feel full" when you're only eating a portion of the actual meal. When Burger King came out with their Eggnamormous sandwich, it contained as many calories as the average person should eat in a whole day. That was before drink and tater tots.

So yeah, it's not per se McDonalds fault . . . but they're not helping. Roy Crock invented the Super Size because he wanted to increase sales per person, not to increase the quality of food. He saw that people wouldn't go back for seconds because they felt gluttonous …. So he made it bigger and told them they were getting better value for their money. It seemed to have fooled a lot of people.

This is the usual non-lesson from high school science classes. He added 45 minutes of walking per day... I'm sure that didn't affect the outcome of the McDonald's diet. God, public education sucks so much dick sometimes.

Actually, according to bantransfats.com, McDonalds lied about eliminating trans fats. They lost a lawsuit on the subject and will have to post notices in all their stores saying that they still use trans fats.

Of course they are appealing the decision, so that may never happen.

I ate three Dove Dark Chocolates while I watched that.

I should stand up.

The problem with this sort of thing is now a bunch of people are going to justify their eating habits based on this "study" because they'll gloss over all the relevant details. All people are going to see is eating McDs is A-OK.

There isn't any health justification for eating McDs, it is junk food, you just need to accept you're going there to eat some junk food and be ok with that.

This isn't anything new, several people have went on pure fast food diets and lost weight as long as they kept it within reason (calorie count, etc)

The "documentary" super-size me is a joke also, I remember reading a few stories where a couple of sites and other documentary makers asked for the info and data regarding his calorie counts etc and they either flat out refused or lied.

In the end, it's always about self control and watching the calories and cutting various things out (minimizing carbs for one).

@RedSky

The fry argument always bugs the hell outta me. There was another of these "mold studies" done by the same guy who did the super-size me doc.

He picked up one of basically every burger and put it on a pedestal, and then picked up a container of fries and did the same, then was shocked that the burgers decayed faster than the fries.

For any study to be valid (for me) everything has to be 100% sterile for this to happen, and the bun went through at least 2 sets of hands (the person who made it, and his own when placing it down) therefore introducing god-knows-what bacteria onto it. The fries however, came out of a 350 degree fryer where absolutely ALL bacteria was decimated from them, then using a metal scoop placed into a cardboard container where the inside has likely never been touched.

Damn near anything will last incredibly long at that rate.

You're always going to lose weight if your caloric intake is lower than the calories you burn every day, regardless of what you eat.

These results are not at all surprising.

For a science teacher he's pretty terrible at the scientific method. This is an attention grab, not an experiment.

Bingo. For example, http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

http://lifehacker.com/why-we-eat-whatevers-in-front-of-us-473869866

Corporations control portion sizes and encourage people to buy larger ones through pricing options.

@budzos
@lucky760
@Truckchase

It wasn't a clinical study, I think the point was merely to show that it was possible for a overweight, borderline obese man to eat only MCD menu items, be satiated and maintain the calorific deficit needed to gradually lose weight, provided basic exercise was maintained.

I don't think the point was to stress that changing to MCD made his diet better (in that case adding exercise is obviously cheating), just to show that it is possible to lose weight and eat MCD.

Taking this as a reference for calorie burned:

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Calories-burned-in-30-minutes-of-leisure-and-routine-activities.htm

45 mins walking is about 300 calories burned. Considering that teaching is primarily a pretty sedentary job (outside of class), that's only freeing up an extra 15% of your roughly daily intake needs of 2000 calories.

Not huge. I think the main takeaway here is, junk food or not, if your goal is losing weight (ignoring long term health complications), then it's all about portion control.

@JiggaJonson

As above, I think this is the main issue. I usually want half the portion that take away food outlets offer. Pricing structure then distorts the cost of the smallest size to make the larger 'value meal' much more attractive. One reason why I tend to prefer sashimi eat outs.

I think his point was to try to surprise people by riding on the wake of Super Size Me and using a attention-grabbing headline like "Eat Only McDonald's and Lose Weight!"

My point had nothing to do with whether it was better for your diet etc. etc. My only point was: Yes, of course it's possible to lose weight and eat [only] at McDonald's. That's not surprising at all.

If your body uses more calories than it takes in, regardless of what kind of calories they are, you will lose weight. You could eat only candy or maple syrup + cayenne pepper + lemon juice or pumpkin pie every day and still lose weight, but those results shouldn't "surprise" anyone.

He intentionally mislead people by making them think he ate a "normal" adult's food choices at McDonald's and lost weight, but he severely restricted his diet (and added extra exercise) to forcibly yield his intended results [and grasp at straws for his 15 minutes of fame].

So what? People have what's called self-control.
I don't know about you, @JiggaJonson, but I don't eat whatever's put in front of me.
Some animals do. I don't.

Cooking the right amount of food is a good habit to get into, and it's not as hard as this article you posted wants you to believe.

And even those who eat at McDonald's who may or may not have difficulty with self-control or tend to eat everything that's put in front of them, still don't order everything on the menu.

@Trancecoach

I never said people don't have self control, but if it were as simple as "eat less and exercise," no one would be unhealthy or obese. Instead, we're looking at a majority of the population that's overweight.

http://www.nourishinteractive.com/system/assets/general/images/nutrition-facts/portion-control-larger-portions.png

I'm not saying that it's the only reason for weight problems, but as the original article I posted points out "No one eats one and one quarter of an apple." Portion size increases provide correlative data that coincide with weight problems in developed countries. I've yet to see any data that suggests that people in the world, collectively, suddenly have less self control.

I'm no dietician, but I'd say that the low-fat food crazes of the 1980s and 90s played a role as well: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/low-fat/

Typical low-fat options replace the fat (and protein in some cases) with sugar which is burned quicker by the body.

I could go on and on, but I stand on the position that it's NOT just a simple matter of self control. AND even if it is, people have varying levels of self control that need to be accounted for: http://cess.nyu.edu/caplin/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Measuring-Self-Control-Problems.pdf

Surely, you don't think everyone has the same level of self control as you?


Edit: One last thing, sometimes people rely on food labels to restrict their diet and come up short because nutrition facts are often unreliable: http://nutritionovereasy.com/2011/04/can-you-trust-the-nutrition-facts/ Self control without good information is a bad mix.

@JiggaJonson

You may not have said that people lack self-control, but the article you posted indicated as much; that when it comes to food portions, people have difficulty curbing their appetites, and it's simply not true -- and it's seems like a facile excuse for not taking responsibility for oneself.

No one I know who actually wants to lose weight "eats less and exercises" (and I would add "eat healthfully" to that, as well). In fact, I don't know anyone who eats healthfully and exercises regularly and appropriately who is "overweight." (If you know anyone, feel free to put them in touch with me.)

I don't want to get all technical here, but obviously someone who has moldy intestines, "leaky gut," fatty liver, and the resulting blood sugar imbalances may have a difficult time losing weight. And, by no means do I think eating McDonald's is a good idea for any health-conscious person, but individuals need to take some responsibility for educating themselves about their own health. This isn't McDonalds' responsibility.

And yeah, the low fat craze was a bad idea (as I frequently pointed out to many in the 90's), but that's what you get when you trust certain "authorities" to tell you what to do and how to live (especially when it comes from the government and its cronies at the AMA).

If you eat healthfully, your body will tell you when to eat and when to stop. Only a messed up metabolism encourages overeating. For example, the insulin-adrenailne roller-coaster will, of course, have an effect on a person's capacities for immediate self-control. This is why people who binge tend to do so on sweets, wheat, and other no-so-great "foods." Do you know anyone who binges on broccoli? I do not.

So I agree that you need knowledge of what to eat, and this is something that often varies from person to person as we all have different biochemistries, but there are common elements to what more likely agrees with most everyone's health.

(Disclaimer: I am not giving medical advice here, as I have not been licensed by the medical "authorities" to misinform you, but in case you want to know more about the reasons for obesity, I encourage you to check this out for more information: http://www.majidali.com/the1.htm)

@Trancecoach

I think Jigga's making the argument on the collective level. Yes, we can all use self control to limit portion sizes.

But collectively, where the multimillion dollar funding of fast food marketing departments is geared towards incentivising larger portions as a method of eking out more profit from their saturated (excuse the pun) market size, it's quite likely that average calorie consumption goes up on the whole.

That doesn't excuse taking responsibility for your actions, and certainly you could tackle it with education campaigns rather than regulation or bans, but there's certainly a relationship here between incentives and national health.

You can tackle it any which way you want to. It's really not my problem. For some reason those "multimillion dollar campaigns" don't have any effect on me.. like at all! But maybe they have a profound power of you... Because, of course there is a relationship between "incentives" and some people's health, incentives to buy and eat not-so-healthy food because it's cheap, or on every corner, or tastes "good" or the FDA or the AMA tells you that it's okay or even good for you, or whatever other "incentive" you're referring to here.. And yes, regulations or bans are about the worst possible way to tackle any of this.


EDIT: Nothing "incentivizes" the kind of unhealthy shit that passes for "food" like the billions of dollars in government subsidies given to say, corn syrup (which makes people sick, fat, and unhealthy in so many ways). And yet, it's heavily subsidized and therefore found in all kinds of "food-like substances." It'd be great to stop the subsidy of junk "non-food" through billions of "taxpayer" dollars. But good luck getting anywhere with that..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/16/government-subsidies-junk-food_n_3600046.html