[Flofocus]

yeah cuz he ate it everyday but also sat around everyday.

Eat pizza everyday and dont excersize. It would probably do the same.

[nass]

We don't need to shut down anything, we need to make the stuff that sold in these restaurants and stores better for you so that if you eat it all the time it won't ruin your health.

Put it this way, the more fatty Mc fat ass stuffs his face and goes to the hospital for a quadruple bypass the more of your tax dollars are spent pumping out 15 years of bigmacs. Unhealthy people cost our health care system billions every year, not just from bad eating habits but it's a strong contributor. Everyone pays one way or another from it.

[darkpuppet]

ANTHONYD,May 11 2006, 03:58 PM Wrote:that we know of.

Didn't the guy from Supersize Me have his liver or kidney begin to fail?
[right][snapback]186906[/snapback][/right]

his liver was going toxic due to all the fat he was eating.

And it was more because he was ordering the Supersized meals with desert and crap for full 3 meals. He was taking in nearly 6,000 calories/day, and he wasn't even trying to skip the crappy food... he always supersized EVERYTHING. He eschewed ANYTHING that might have been healthy for him.. I can't say I've seen anyone eat 3 meals consistently that bad for you before.

If anybody ate the amount of McDonald's he did for any period of time, they'd be dead within a year... you wouldn't have an obesity problem.

I'm not saying McDonald's is healthy, i realize it's bad for you, but I also realize that you can have it without getting fat.. Hell, you can get fat without having it (I did). It's like anything.. all in moderation. You could theoretically live a healthy life off mc donald's, but you're not going to do it by having french fries with every meal, let me tell ya.

[ZTWsquared]

Some very interesting comments on both sides of the equation … I’ve taken some time to think about it and I’ve come to the conclusion that McDonald’s is doing a reasonably good thing here.

I start with the premise that if McDonald’s did absolutely nothing, or if they didn’t even exist at all, their target market is still going to eat food that’s not particularly good for them, they’re still going to play games online, and they’re still not going to get enough exercise. IMO McDonald’s success is a symptom of the problem, and not the cause.

At least McDonald’s is spending its cash to increase awareness of the need for more physical activity for kids, and they took care to deliver that message in an entertaining package that kids will likely pay attention to; in case you haven’t noticed, kids tend to tune out the lectures.

Ultimately parents have the responsibility for what kids put in their mouths and what they do with their time. And there is certainly enough information out there now about what constitutes good nutrition for kids and just how important physical exercise is. But you have to know how to read a label and you have to be disciplined about getting your kids out to play.

McDonalds certainly has a responsibility to make food that is reasonably nutritious and is safe, and they have the responsibility to be forthright and honest about what is in their food – but we can’t and we shouldn’t rely on McDonald’s or anyone else in the business of selling food to replace the guidance of parents.

[NefCanuck]

I think bashing McDonald's alone is missing the point.

Sure McDonald's sells garbage, but do we have to order it? No.

Are we as a society as physically active as we were even only a generation ago? Hell no.

Should the public at large be taking an active role in managing their own health? HELL YES!

NefCanuck

[NOS2Go4Me]

You guys make some great points as always. The kicker is... where do we begin to fix the problems that the world as a whole (and referring to Canada for the remainder of this reply) has created? Also referring to McDonalds as McDs for expediency's sake.

McDonalds has a "play area". While they encourage the climbing, tumbling and running with their Playlands... thanks to their partnerships with Nintendo and others, most Playlands are stocked with N64s and LCDs/CRTs. There is NO NEED for that level of crap in a restaurant. McDs certainly doesn't promote healthy living by encouraging the child to play video games before/after/during their meals. If anything, it detracts from family meals at home and abroad as a social event.

McDs advertises their new campaign, and it's a Good Thing ™, but right afterwards they're advocating the purchase of obviously less-than-healthy fried burger Happy Meals to obtain a new toy. You burn a lot less energy moving a toy across a table than you do by exercising indoors or outdoors. Am I saying boot camp every child? No. What we end up with here is a mixed message: McDonalds wants me to be healthy, but they also want me to buy a Happy Meal / have parents buy me a Happy Meal and get a new toy to play with. What do you think the chances are of them exercising for real when they're full of fatty foods and have a new toy to distract them?

Which leads us to parents. It's becoming increasingly apparent that due to a number of factors (reduced capacity to discipline their children being one of them), parents are controlling their children less and less these days. They run amok, they disrespect their parents, they disobey basic rules and even the laws. Kids aren't taught how to eat healthy, they aren't taught how to respect others, and TV largely teaches them what they think they need to know. Popular culture shapes their attitudes and behaviour, and as long as it's not completely evident at home, the parents don't care.

Fiscal responsbility leads parents to believe that any food is good for their kids, regardless of who makes it or the nature of it. It's quicker and perceived as cheaper for them to buy fast food meals than to take the time and buy the proper ingredients for a meal, therefore everyone suffers. They have to save money for bills and other needs, and a lack of time to prepare forces their hand. And, because it's fast food, the feeling of supper as a family event is lost as everyone eats on the run or in front of the TV.

It's a multi-faceted problem with no easy fix, but one thing's for sure: both the fast food companies AND the parents are responsible for the downfall of the children.

[naz]

the only reason i care about what happens to fatties and smokers is that when they get sick because of their own stupidity everyone's med insurance costs go up. they should surcharge people for being fat when they get med insurance and jack up their insurance costs if they don't slim down.

[darkpuppet]

know what my nephew had to eat at mcdonald's the last time he was there?

grilled cheese with apple slices and milk.

Hell, he doesn't even really care about burgers and whatnot because he's always had the healthier option.

And he spends a whole 10 minutes with the toy because he'd rather play on the playground. Why? because mom and dad limit him to 1 hour of TV during the day, and the rest of the day is outdoor or 'real' play time.

meanwhile, his cousin, who was raised in a play pen in front of the TV goes for the hamburger and fries which his parents happily stuff into his obese little face (yes, he's 4 years old AND obese).

both kids love going to mcdonald's. Both kids eat mcDonald's on a semi-regular basis. Yet one of them is a skinny kid who has the healthy meal and can't stop running around, while the other is a fat little sloth who will undoubtly grow up with health and social problems.

I've seen first hand the difference parenting can make.. and even my nephew, with a learning disability is more intelligent and better-adjusted than the 'normal' kid.

Parents will always find other people and things to blame... and it's mostly because what parent wants to be told their a bad parent? They may be lazy, but they'd still get offended.

Hopefully when (or if) the time comes for me, I'll be able to see the faults in my own parenting.

[ANTHONYD]

I thank my family for raising me the way they did. I can only hope I can do the same for my chideren. I was not allowed to watch T.V. until my homework was done, I was showered and ready for bed. And even then I would rather play with LEGO.

My mother was a healthy cook, home-made EVERYTHING. All the treats were saved for the cottage. A small bowl of ketchup chips or a sundae around the fire (after a day of playing outdoors) was all I got.

I didn't start eating Mc Donald's until I was out and about, moving here and there, deep into school and growing up. I made about 4 years of bad decisions when it came to eating, gained a ton of weight and am now cosidered obese. Trying desperately to lose weight before I become a diabetic.

Do I blame McDonald's? No, I blame myself... What I do get annoyed at is, the cost of a "healthy" choice at Mc'Donald's is sometime MORE exspensive than a burger. :blink: If they truely wanted to be a place that offered healthy choices and regain faith in society...sell the salds for $1.00

Even today, my salad on Friday night was still 22 bucks :blink: It;s cheaper to order an onion log and big slab of red meat.

I guess it boils down to this....IN MODERATION....AND GET YOUR KIDS OUTSIDE!

I suppose I welcome ANY effort from the frast-food industry that may promote healthy living and choises. :)

[darkpuppet]

a salad from the Miller Tavern can't really be compared to McDonald's healthy choice menu.

Consider the average cost of dinner at our table was nearly $80.. that would buy a helluva lot of McDonald's

[ANTHONYD]

darkpuppet,May 15 2006, 10:14 AM Wrote:a salad from the Miller Tavern can't really be compared to McDonald's healthy choice menu.

Consider the average cost of dinner at our table was nearly $80.. that would buy a helluva lot of McDonald's
[right][snapback]187499[/snapback][/right]

True, but when you consider that a deep fried calamari on the menu was cheaper..... it makes you wonder.

[NOS2Go4Me]

ANTHONYD,May 15 2006, 09:11 AM Wrote:Do I blame McDonald's? No, I blame myself... What I do get annoyed at is, the cost of a "healthy" choice at Mc'Donald's is sometime MORE exspensive than a burger. :blink: If they truely wanted to be a place that offered healthy choices and regain faith in society...sell the salds for $1.00[right][snapback]187468[/snapback][/right]

You're absolutely right... but if you did the math on all fast-food restaurants, every single one of them that doesn't have a healthy menu as their daily stance will ALWAYS charge more for healthy food. It doesn't move, therefore they charge more for having to keep the stuff on hand.

Would an ad campaign that scaled back on the burgers and endorsed healthy food be good? Would shifting their offerings in the other direction (maybe 1-2 burgers, the rest healthy food) be an even better step? Yes. Will they do it? No, because profit margins are too appealing when you're selling 50c burgers for $4.99 in a combo that costs you like $1.00 to supply, tops.

The shareholders would flip out if they actually did something health-conscious, and that's why all the lazy and indifferent people are doomed to a life of obesity and bad health. They eat what's put in front of them at the most attractive price point. That price point always has been, and will likely continue to be, dominated by burgers and other quick-to-prepare fatty fast foods.

[darkpuppet]

NOS2Go4Me,May 15 2006, 10:49 AM Wrote:

ANTHONYD,May 15 2006, 09:11 AM Wrote:Do I blame McDonald's? No, I blame myself... What I do get annoyed at is, the cost of a "healthy" choice at Mc'Donald's is sometime MORE exspensive than a burger. :blink: If they truely wanted to be a place that offered healthy choices and regain faith in society...sell the salds for $1.00[right][snapback]187468[/snapback][/right]

You're absolutely right... but if you did the math on all fast-food restaurants, every single one of them that doesn't have a healthy menu as their daily stance will ALWAYS charge more for healthy food. It doesn't move, therefore they charge more for having to keep the stuff on hand.

Would an ad campaign that scaled back on the burgers and endorsed healthy food be good? Would shifting their offerings in the other direction (maybe 1-2 burgers, the rest healthy food) be an even better step? Yes. Will they do it? No, because profit margins are too appealing when you're selling 50c burgers for $4.99 in a combo that costs you like $1.00 to supply, tops.

The shareholders would flip out if they actually did something health-conscious, and that's why all the lazy and indifferent people are doomed to a life of obesity and bad health. They eat what's put in front of them at the most attractive price point. That price point always has been, and will likely continue to be, dominated by burgers and other quick-to-prepare fatty fast foods.
[right][snapback]187514[/snapback][/right]

I think you forget that they're in business.

How many raw vegetable vegan franchises do you see? so why would McDonald's switch over it's thousands of stores to that kind of menu when it would bankrupt them?

I don't blame them for making money.

Ford should stop making all but 1 gas powered car because it's the right thing to do. But will they be in business next year charging you twice as much for the same 4 wheels other people are getting around in for half the price? Not bloody likely.

It's like people getting all up and antsy that manufacturing jobs are being lost in North America, yet they're the same ones buying $3 5 gallon buckets of pickles because they think they're saving money.

It's not Walmart's fault people are too cheap to buy american goods.

The same is with McDonald's .. you can't expect them to just throw money away because people don't want healthier food. That's not a choice they made. They've introduced healthier food to coincide with market trends, and as ZTWSquared mention, they're putting forward goodwill that is maintained by the profits they make as well.

If people adopted a healthy diet, McDonald's would profit from it.... you could keep the margins high, yet lower your overhead if people just ate more of that food, thus increasing profits.

But there's no market demand.

[ANTHONYD]

All valid points.

First off I appreciate the adult discussion...

As for the guys at McD's... I guess tere will always be a use for their food, NO MATTER how much society changes. And I guess it's their right to get their piece of the pie.

[ZTWsquared]

NOS2Go4Me,May 15 2006, 10:49 AM Wrote:Would an ad campaign that scaled back on the burgers and endorsed healthy food be good? Would shifting their offerings in the other direction (maybe 1-2 burgers, the rest healthy food) be an even better step? Yes. Will they do it? No, because profit margins are too appealing when you're selling 50c burgers for $4.99 in a combo that costs you like $1.00 to supply, tops.

The shareholders would flip out if they actually did something health-conscious, and that's why all the lazy and indifferent people are doomed to a life of obesity and bad health. They eat what's put in front of them at the most attractive price point. That price point always has been, and will likely continue to be, dominated by burgers and other quick-to-prepare fatty fast foods.
[right][snapback]187514[/snapback][/right]

You're not wrong, but you're not right either. The real profit margins in that business are associated with the soft drinks, which BTW are a significant source of the problems associated with poor fast-food nutrition.

The good thing about our free market system is that consumers get to vote with their dollars ... so you can't blame the fast food industry for the choices consumers make. It was created by and exists solely because of consumer demand.

Of course, the bad thing about our free market system is that consumers get to vote with their dollars -- and if en masse they make poor choices, it negatively affects society as you and others have pointed out.

But in reality market demand will ultimately dictate what is being offered for sale (even if the time-frame for change is measured in years and not months) and so what is being offered today is nothing more than a reflection of the poor choices consumers have made in the past. What the fast food industry offers tomorrow will also reflect consumer demand as it evolves over time -- and we've seen plenty of evidence of that in the past few years.

So IMO you have to blame undisciplined parents for caving in to the demands of their young and ignorant progeny.

My kids rarely eat at McDonalds ... it's usually at home but occasionally at Swiss Chalet. And it's salads usually as opposed to fries (but occasionally it is fries because they're not pure evil if eaten in moderation) ... the point being that my kids eat according to mom and dad's choices and our selection critieria is their health and nutrition first, with "convenience" and "cost" way down the list.

Having said that, I understand that we're lucky to be able to have my wife stay at home and not every family has that luxury. But I don't think that relieves parents of the obligation to make the right choices.

And so where I condemn parents who put their own convenience ahead of their kids health, I don't condemn the fast food industry for responding to the choices those parents make -- because IMO the alternative is unpalatable to a free society.

[NOS2Go4Me]

Ken, I'm personally quite happy (as inconsequential as that may be) that you're that involved in your kids' health.

Steve, I don't fault them (McDs) for being in business, any more than I would any other company on the whole. While their ad campaign is a great start towards promoting a true "healthy living" lifestyle, they have a long way to go to clean themselves up and appear proactive about health.

Remember, Subway did wonders for themselves with that Jared guy's diet. Others attempted to draw themselves up as a parallel... that's a good thing.

But when the fattiest foods with the most sodium and cholesterol are the cheapest, the weak-willed will always make the worst choices.

I'll go on the record right now and say that the biggest slice of evil in the corruption pie belongs to the parents. A drastically-increasing number of parents are showing a LOT of apathy towards what their kids eat. The kids are reflecting that apathy, and it gets worse every day.

I'm not saying completely restrict the sales of fatty food, I'm saying that there ought to be a warning threshold where the fat content of the food (especially saturated and trans fats) exceeds a scientifically-agreed upon percentage (25? 30%?).

That, or move the caloric and nutritional content label to the FRONT of packaging, and not have it on the rear where only the educated and concerned care to look before purchasing. I've also noticed a bit of an ad campaign a little while back informing folks to check the content of their food. It's good, but more should be done.

Also, fast food joints should have to display their contents on a placard next to the cash registers. And if they bitch, have the "bigger", sit down restaurants do it as well. Some semi-sitdowns, like Swiss Chalet for example, already do this on their website. Again, more could be done.

If we can't have them change what they sell or the makeup of what they sell, they ought to make enough information publicly-available at the point of sale for the general public to make an informed decision.

[darkpuppet]

i would like to point out that Jarrod's Subway Diet is the most ridiculous diet and an absolutely terrible role model to follow by.

You know how he lost all that weight?

by taking in just over 600 calories / day.

a cup of coffee for breakfast, and a full sized veggie sub with no sauce or cheese.. that's all he ate for 6 months straight. He's lucky he's still alive.

THAT IS STARVING.. NOT A HEALTHY DIET!!!

I'm surprised that Subway is using him in their ads, they are setting themselves up for some liability issues for those eager to follow in Jared's footsteps.

So on one hand, you have a company that makes bad food marketing education on healthier eating habits... and on the other, you have a company that has some healthy food marketing it's health using an absurdly atypical and dangerous spokesmodel.

[ZTWsquared]

NOS2Go4Me,May 15 2006, 01:16 PM Wrote:Ken, I'm personally quite happy (as inconsequential as that may be) that you're that involved in your kids' health.

I appreciate that you mention it.

NOS2Go4Me,May 15 2006, 01:16 PM Wrote:While their ad campaign is a great start towards promoting a true "healthy living" lifestyle, they have a long way to go to clean themselves up and appear proactive about health.

It is a good start and maybe it will generate a little momentum away from the dark side.

NOS2Go4Me,May 15 2006, 01:16 PM Wrote:Remember, Subway did wonders for themselves with that Jared guy's diet. Others attempted to draw themselves up as a parallel... that's a good thing.

Not sure I agree with this … as Steve sort of pointed out, that campaign wasn’t really about healthy eating, it was about appealing to an overweight demographic looking for the silver bullet (I don’t mean the beer). But at least it did shine a spotlight on the need for action … even if for all the wrong reasons.

NOS2Go4Me,May 15 2006, 01:16 PM Wrote:But when the fattiest foods with the most sodium and cholesterol are the cheapest, the weak-willed will always make the worst choices.

You’re undoubtedly right here, but are the McD’s of the world artificially making them cheaper, or is that a function of that type of food’s base costs and cost of transportation, prep and handling etc? In any event, I agree with you but I’m not sure that the fast food industry can just pull a solution out of their hat.

NOS2Go4Me,May 15 2006, 01:16 PM Wrote:…I'm saying that there ought to be a warning threshold [for] the fat content of the food … nutritional content label to the FRONT of packaging … fast food joints should have to display their contents on a placard next to the cash registers … they ought to make enough information publicly-available at the point of sale for the general public to make an informed decision.[right][snapback]187574[/snapback][/right]

I agree with you on all points. More education is needed and there’s no reason why the industry can’t be major participants in that effort.