• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Health eating isn't always healthy

It was a documentary "Supersize Me". And it was entertaining but far more.

All Spurlock ate was McDonalds.

He quickly gained weight, lost energy, and his liver enzyme values were rising indicating liver damage. His physician advised him to stop.

Very serious stuff.

An anecdote based on a single individual experience remains valueless as evidence for anything, even if it is made into a TV show or movie.

A jury might disagree on the value of what you hold to be valueless anecdotal evidence.

A jury is a dreadful method for determining fact from fiction. Popularity is not evidence. Anecdotes are not evidence. If you want to make claims about public health, you need large, randomized, controlled and blinded trials.

Anything short of that standard is just adding more to the mountain of bullshit that already dominates this area of discourse.
 
A jury might disagree on the value of what you hold to be valueless anecdotal evidence.

A jury is a dreadful method for determining fact from fiction. Popularity is not evidence. Anecdotes are not evidence. If you want to make claims about public health, you need large, randomized, controlled and blinded trials.

Anything short of that standard is just adding more to the mountain of bullshit that already dominates this area of discourse.

If your argument is that eating exclusively McDonald's is not somehow not going to negatively affect one's health, that's not something needing a scientific study. Do we need a scientific study to tell us water is wet?
 
A jury might disagree on the value of what you hold to be valueless anecdotal evidence.

A jury is a dreadful method for determining fact from fiction. Popularity is not evidence. Anecdotes are not evidence. If you want to make claims about public health, you need large, randomized, controlled and blinded trials.

Anything short of that standard is just adding more to the mountain of bullshit that already dominates this area of discourse.

If your argument is that eating exclusively McDonald's is not somehow not going to negatively affect one's health, that's not something needing a scientific study. Do we need a scientific study to tell us water is wet?

What is the characteristic of McDonald's food that you think is so obviously going to negatively affect health that we can dispense with even testing the hypothesis, and jump straight to considering it to be true?

McDonald's are widely reviled, but there's nothing particularly different about their food - it's all made from the same kinds of things that other food vendors sell. If they were selling cyanide burgers or strychnine sauce, then you might be able to skip the study. But I don't see how your confidence is justified in the case of the actual stuff they sell - it's all perfectly edible.

What is the ingredient in McDonald's food (or the missing vital nutrient) that makes it so uniquely hazardous as to allow you to jump to that conclusion?
 
If your argument is that eating exclusively McDonald's is not somehow not going to negatively affect one's health, that's not something needing a scientific study. Do we need a scientific study to tell us water is wet?

What is the characteristic of McDonald's food that you think is so obviously going to negatively affect health that we can dispense with even testing the hypothesis, and jump straight to considering it to be true?

McDonald's are widely reviled, but there's nothing particularly different about their food - it's all made from the same kinds of things that other food vendors sell. If they were selling cyanide burgers or strychnine sauce, then you might be able to skip the study. But I don't see how your confidence is justified in the case of the actual stuff they sell - it's all perfectly edible.

What is the ingredient in McDonald's food (or the missing vital nutrient) that makes it so uniquely hazardous as to allow you to jump to that conclusion?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/05/mcdonalds-happy-meal-photos-6-months_n_761364.html

J. Kenji Lopez-Alt of The Food Lab at Serious Eats has completed a rigorous experiment to determine whether the example below and other instances online of rot-free McDonald’s burgers are unique to McDonald’s food, unique to fast food in general, or if the non-rotting is so unexceptional that most any burger in the right open-air environment would also petrify rot-free. Turns out, the un-decayed burger is not unique to McDonald’s at all: in a head-to-head experiment with multiple samples, J. Kenji Lopez-Alt learned the following:

Turns out that not only did the regular McDonald’s burgers not rot, but the home-ground burgers did not rot either. ... What does this mean?

It means that there’s nothing that strange about a McDonald’s burger not rotting. Any burger of the same shape will act the same way. The real question is, why?

Well, here’s another piece of evidence: Burger number 6, made with no salt, did not rot either, indicating that the salt level has nothing to do with it.

And concluded:

The burger doesn’t rot because it’s small size and relatively large surface area help it to lose moisture very fast.

Here another defender of McDonald's.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-reason-mcdonalds-burgers-dont-rot-2014-5

McDonald's burgers can sit for years without rotting.

Earlier this year, a chiropractor's office in Nebraska made news for displaying a 2-year-old McDonald's Happy Meal in hopes that it would persuade patients to avoid fast food. The meal appears nearly intact.

And then there was a viral story last year about a 14-year-oldMcDonald'shamburger that hasn't rotted.

David Whipple, the man who saved the burger, says that he shows the artifact to his grandchildren as an example of how fast food is packed with preservatives and chemicals.

Here's his explanation:

“There have been a lot of online videos and photos touting the fact that when left out for an extended period of time, a McDonald’s hamburger does not rot and that this is because they are laden with chemicals. The reality is that McDonald’s hamburgers, french fries and chicken are like all foods, and do rot if kept under certain conditions.

Essentially, the microbes that cause rotting are a lot like ourselves, in that they need water, nutrients, warmth and time to grow. If we take one or more of these elements away, then microbes cannot grow or spoil food.

In the example of a McDonald’s hamburger, the patty loses water in the form of steam during the cooking process. The bun, of course, is made out of bread. Toasting it reduces the amount of moisture. This means that after preparation, the hamburger is fairly dry. When left out open in the room, there is further water loss as the humidity within most buildings is around 40%. So in the absence of moisture or high humidity, the hamburger simply dries out, rather than rot.

With moisture loss, we take away an element required by microbes to grow and cause spoilage. So to spoil a McDonald’s hamburger, we simply need to prevent the moisture loss. This can be done through wrapping it in cling film to prevent moisture from escaping, or storing it within a high humidity environment, such as a bathroom (notice black mould on your bathroom windows but not in your bedroom). If you try doing the same experiment with a homemade burger with similar moisture content as a McDonald’s hamburger and under similar conditions, you’ll probably get the same results.”

BULLSH*T!

Read another article of the Huffington post three years later (of the first link from above)

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/20/fast-food-truths_n_4296243.html

These McDonald’s and KFC fries were sealed in these jars in 2008, and the photo was taken in 2012. A little more than three years later and the McDonald’s fries show few signs of aging. Marion Nestle, chairwoman of NYU’s food studies program, told Salon that you can thank heavy servings of preservatives for that ageless quality. She said McDonald’s would have to use “a lot of sodium propionate to prevent bacterial or mold growth.” If only eating fries would keep you looking so young.

o-OLD-FRIES-570.jpg
 
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/05/mcdonalds-happy-meal-photos-6-months_n_761364.html

J. Kenji Lopez-Alt of The Food Lab at Serious Eats has completed a rigorous experiment to determine whether the example below and other instances online of rot-free McDonald’s burgers are unique to McDonald’s food, unique to fast food in general, or if the non-rotting is so unexceptional that most any burger in the right open-air environment would also petrify rot-free. Turns out, the un-decayed burger is not unique to McDonald’s at all: in a head-to-head experiment with multiple samples, J. Kenji Lopez-Alt learned the following:

Turns out that not only did the regular McDonald’s burgers not rot, but the home-ground burgers did not rot either. ... What does this mean?

It means that there’s nothing that strange about a McDonald’s burger not rotting. Any burger of the same shape will act the same way. The real question is, why?

Well, here’s another piece of evidence: Burger number 6, made with no salt, did not rot either, indicating that the salt level has nothing to do with it.

And concluded:

The burger doesn’t rot because it’s small size and relatively large surface area help it to lose moisture very fast.

Here another defender of McDonald's.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-reason-mcdonalds-burgers-dont-rot-2014-5

McDonald's burgers can sit for years without rotting.

Earlier this year, a chiropractor's office in Nebraska made news for displaying a 2-year-old McDonald's Happy Meal in hopes that it would persuade patients to avoid fast food. The meal appears nearly intact.

And then there was a viral story last year about a 14-year-oldMcDonald'shamburger that hasn't rotted.

David Whipple, the man who saved the burger, says that he shows the artifact to his grandchildren as an example of how fast food is packed with preservatives and chemicals.

Here's his explanation:

“There have been a lot of online videos and photos touting the fact that when left out for an extended period of time, a McDonald’s hamburger does not rot and that this is because they are laden with chemicals. The reality is that McDonald’s hamburgers, french fries and chicken are like all foods, and do rot if kept under certain conditions.

Essentially, the microbes that cause rotting are a lot like ourselves, in that they need water, nutrients, warmth and time to grow. If we take one or more of these elements away, then microbes cannot grow or spoil food.

In the example of a McDonald’s hamburger, the patty loses water in the form of steam during the cooking process. The bun, of course, is made out of bread. Toasting it reduces the amount of moisture. This means that after preparation, the hamburger is fairly dry. When left out open in the room, there is further water loss as the humidity within most buildings is around 40%. So in the absence of moisture or high humidity, the hamburger simply dries out, rather than rot.

With moisture loss, we take away an element required by microbes to grow and cause spoilage. So to spoil a McDonald’s hamburger, we simply need to prevent the moisture loss. This can be done through wrapping it in cling film to prevent moisture from escaping, or storing it within a high humidity environment, such as a bathroom (notice black mould on your bathroom windows but not in your bedroom). If you try doing the same experiment with a homemade burger with similar moisture content as a McDonald’s hamburger and under similar conditions, you’ll probably get the same results.”

BULLSH*T!

Read another article of the Huffington post three years later (of the first link from above)

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/20/fast-food-truths_n_4296243.html

These McDonald’s and KFC fries were sealed in these jars in 2008, and the photo was taken in 2012. A little more than three years later and the McDonald’s fries show few signs of aging. Marion Nestle, chairwoman of NYU’s food studies program, told Salon that you can thank heavy servings of preservatives for that ageless quality. She said McDonald’s would have to use “a lot of sodium propionate to prevent bacterial or mold growth.” If only eating fries would keep you looking so young.

o-OLD-FRIES-570.jpg

Are people genuinely of the deeply mistaken opinion that the rate of decay of a given foodstuff is some kind of indicator of how healthy or unhealthy it will be for a human being to consume it?

Because there is absolutely no basis for that in reality.

Whether or not it is true that McDonald's food doesn't decay in the same way that other foods do, this would tell us exactly nothing about whether that food was better, worse, or exactly the same in its effects on humans who eat if when it is freshly prepared.

They are completely unrelated questions. If you want to know what the effect on humans is of consuming any given food (including, but certainly not limited to, McDonalds), the ONLY way to test this is large, randomized, controlled and blinded trials, in which human subjects consume the foods in question, while a control group does not.
 
If your argument is that eating exclusively McDonald's is not somehow not going to negatively affect one's health, that's not something needing a scientific study. Do we need a scientific study to tell us water is wet?

What is the characteristic of McDonald's food that you think is so obviously going to negatively affect health that we can dispense with even testing the hypothesis, and jump straight to considering it to be true?

McDonald's are widely reviled, but there's nothing particularly different about their food - it's all made from the same kinds of things that other food vendors sell. If they were selling cyanide burgers or strychnine sauce, then you might be able to skip the study. But I don't see how your confidence is justified in the case of the actual stuff they sell - it's all perfectly edible.

What is the ingredient in McDonald's food (or the missing vital nutrient) that makes it so uniquely hazardous as to allow you to jump to that conclusion?

What are the ingredients in donuts from Dunkin Donuts that make them uniquely hazardous? I should be able to healthily subsist exclusively on dunkin donuts indefinitely if I understand your argument. Unless I can find a large double blind randomized trial where it is demonstrated that an exclusive diet of dunkin donuts is no different than any other diet in terms of human health and longevity I must assume a diet of dunkin donuts is healthy. Is that your claim?
 
It was a documentary "Supersize Me". And it was entertaining but far more.

All Spurlock ate was McDonalds.

He quickly gained weight, lost energy, and his liver enzyme values were rising indicating liver damage. His physician advised him to stop.

Very serious stuff.

An anecdote based on a single individual experience remains valueless as evidence for anything, even if it is made into a TV show or movie.

You are wrong.

A lot of medical research contains case studies. They are a staple of medical research and understanding.

It is a very troubling finding. Very serious stuff.
 
Read another article of the Huffington post three years later (of the first link from above)

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/20/fast-food-truths_n_4296243.html

These McDonald’s and KFC fries were sealed in these jars in 2008, and the photo was taken in 2012. A little more than three years later and the McDonald’s fries show few signs of aging. Marion Nestle, chairwoman of NYU’s food studies program, told Salon that you can thank heavy servings of preservatives for that ageless quality. She said McDonald’s would have to use “a lot of sodium propionate to prevent bacterial or mold growth.” If only eating fries would keep you looking so young.

o-OLD-FRIES-570.jpg
I wouldn't depend on the HuffPost for science studies.

My first knee-jerk analysis of that little "experiment" would be that the KFC fries had mold and/or bacteria on them when they were "sealed" in their jar and the McD fries didn't. Bacteria (which cause rot) and mold do not spontaneously generate. This "experiment" should bring into question the sanitary handling of food at KFC if anything.
 
Read another article of the Huffington post three years later (of the first link from above)

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/20/fast-food-truths_n_4296243.html

These McDonald’s and KFC fries were sealed in these jars in 2008, and the photo was taken in 2012. A little more than three years later and the McDonald’s fries show few signs of aging. Marion Nestle, chairwoman of NYU’s food studies program, told Salon that you can thank heavy servings of preservatives for that ageless quality. She said McDonald’s would have to use “a lot of sodium propionate to prevent bacterial or mold growth.” If only eating fries would keep you looking so young.

o-OLD-FRIES-570.jpg
I wouldn't depend on the HuffPost for science studies.

My first knee-jerk analysis of that little "experiment" would be that the KFC fries had mold and/or bacteria on them when they were "sealed" in their jar and the McD fries didn't. Bacteria (which cause rot) and mold do not spontaneously generate. This "experiment" should bring into question the sanitary handling of food at KFC if anything.

Or maybe one of the rubbers is brittle.
 
I wouldn't depend on the HuffPost for science studies.

My first knee-jerk analysis of that little "experiment" would be that the KFC fries had mold and/or bacteria on them when they were "sealed" in their jar and the McD fries didn't. Bacteria (which cause rot) and mold do not spontaneously generate. This "experiment" should bring into question the sanitary handling of food at KFC if anything.

Or maybe one of the rubbers is brittle.

Or one was warmer than the other when they were sealed.
 
He also supersized every portion. And chose foods high in calories. The documentary FAT HEAD showed the exact OPPOSITE - A comedian (and former health writer) replies to the "Super Size Me" crowd by losing weight on a fast-food diet while demonstrating that almost everything you think you know about the obesity "epidemic" and healthy eating is wrong.
I forget the name, a guy went on a super sized exclusively fast food diet and documented it. He put on way, his blood chemistry shewed organ impairment, and I think he had some permanent damage. It was around 4 to 6 weeks.

I'll see if I can find it/
Morgan Spurlock.

It's a very well known TV show.

It's not a proper scientific study.

If it's on TV, it's entertainment. Only idiots think it's real.

It was a documentary "Supersize Me". And it was entertaining but far more.

All Spurlock ate was McDonalds.

He quickly gained weight, lost energy, and his liver enzyme values were rising indicating liver damage. His physician advised him to stop.

Very serious stuff.
 
He also supersized every portion. And chose foods high in calories. The documentary FAT HEAD showed the exact OPPOSITE - A comedian (and former health writer) replies to the "Super Size Me" crowd by losing weight on a fast-food diet while demonstrating that almost everything you think you know about the obesity "epidemic" and healthy eating is wrong.
It was a documentary "Supersize Me". And it was entertaining but far more.

All Spurlock ate was McDonalds.

He quickly gained weight, lost energy, and his liver enzyme values were rising indicating liver damage. His physician advised him to stop.

Very serious stuff.

You will lose weight if you consume less calories than you burn off.

But the combination of loss of energy and increased calories made weight gain a certainty.

But what was troubling were the liver enzymes.

But it is only troubling and needs to be replicated.

Spurlock may have had some other cause for the liver enzyme increase. Alcohol consumption might do it. Even Tylenol consumption can do it.
 
He also supersized every portion. And chose foods high in calories. The documentary FAT HEAD showed the exact OPPOSITE - A comedian (and former health writer) replies to the "Super Size Me" crowd by losing weight on a fast-food diet while demonstrating that almost everything you think you know about the obesity "epidemic" and healthy eating is wrong.
It was a documentary "Supersize Me". And it was entertaining but far more.

All Spurlock ate was McDonalds.

He quickly gained weight, lost energy, and his liver enzyme values were rising indicating liver damage. His physician advised him to stop.

Very serious stuff.

You will lose weight if you consume less calories than you burn off.

Exactly. The guy certainly didn't prove that eating a fast food diet was healthy.

Did he realize that if he stayed on his "diet" of fast food he would have died of starvation? :)
 
If your argument is that eating exclusively McDonald's is not somehow not going to negatively affect one's health, that's not something needing a scientific study. Do we need a scientific study to tell us water is wet?

What is the characteristic of McDonald's food that you think is so obviously going to negatively affect health that we can dispense with even testing the hypothesis, and jump straight to considering it to be true?

McDonald's are widely reviled, but there's nothing particularly different about their food - it's all made from the same kinds of things that other food vendors sell. If they were selling cyanide burgers or strychnine sauce, then you might be able to skip the study. But I don't see how your confidence is justified in the case of the actual stuff they sell - it's all perfectly edible.

What is the ingredient in McDonald's food (or the missing vital nutrient) that makes it so uniquely hazardous as to allow you to jump to that conclusion?

What are the ingredients in donuts from Dunkin Donuts that make them uniquely hazardous? I should be able to healthily subsist exclusively on dunkin donuts indefinitely if I understand your argument. Unless I can find a large double blind randomized trial where it is demonstrated that an exclusive diet of dunkin donuts is no different than any other diet in terms of human health and longevity I must assume a diet of dunkin donuts is healthy. Is that your claim?

No, that's not my claim; it's your attempt to ignore my question.

If you can't answer my question, that's fine; but the reasonable response to that inability is to either admit that your claim doesn't withstand scrutiny, or to go and find the answer.

Building a different and more easily defeated argument, and fighting that instead, is just dishonesty.

Now: What is the thing that renders McDonalds food so uniquely hazardous that you needn't do any research in order to conclude that it's unhealthy to eat it?

Bonus answer: A diet of nothing but donuts would be deficient in a number of vitamins and trace nutrients, known to be required for human health, and so it would be reasonable to assume that such a diet would be dangerous in the long term. The McDonalds menu includes all of these vitamins and trace nutrients. To determine whether they are not present in sufficient quantity or proportion would therefore require a proper scientific study - unless you can identify a particular hazardous ingredient, or a missing but essential trace nutrient that McDonalds doesn't include.
 
It was a documentary "Supersize Me". And it was entertaining but far more.

All Spurlock ate was McDonalds.

He quickly gained weight, lost energy, and his liver enzyme values were rising indicating liver damage. His physician advised him to stop.

Very serious stuff.

An anecdote based on a single individual experience remains valueless as evidence for anything, even if it is made into a TV show or movie.

You are wrong.

A lot of medical research contains case studies. They are a staple of medical research and understanding.

It is a very troubling finding. Very serious stuff.

Oh, well, if you say I am wrong, then I must be.

After all, you are so clearly right about everything that you don't even feel the need to learn how to make a logical argument - sheer force of assertion is enough from you.

I stand corrected. :rolleyes:
 
If your argument is that eating exclusively McDonald's is not somehow not going to negatively affect one's health, that's not something needing a scientific study. Do we need a scientific study to tell us water is wet?

What is the characteristic of McDonald's food that you think is so obviously going to negatively affect health that we can dispense with even testing the hypothesis, and jump straight to considering it to be true?

McDonald's are widely reviled, but there's nothing particularly different about their food - it's all made from the same kinds of things that other food vendors sell. If they were selling cyanide burgers or strychnine sauce, then you might be able to skip the study. But I don't see how your confidence is justified in the case of the actual stuff they sell - it's all perfectly edible.

What is the ingredient in McDonald's food (or the missing vital nutrient) that makes it so uniquely hazardous as to allow you to jump to that conclusion?

What are the ingredients in donuts from Dunkin Donuts that make them uniquely hazardous? I should be able to healthily subsist exclusively on dunkin donuts indefinitely if I understand your argument. Unless I can find a large double blind randomized trial where it is demonstrated that an exclusive diet of dunkin donuts is no different than any other diet in terms of human health and longevity I must assume a diet of dunkin donuts is healthy. Is that your claim?
You really should rethink this particular line of argument. As far as I am aware there are no ingredients in lettuce that make it uniquely hazardous but I am pretty sure that a diet of nothing but lettuce would not be a healthy diet... and lettuce is supposedly one of the "good" things to eat.
 
What are the ingredients in donuts from Dunkin Donuts that make them uniquely hazardous? I should be able to healthily subsist exclusively on dunkin donuts indefinitely if I understand your argument. Unless I can find a large double blind randomized trial where it is demonstrated that an exclusive diet of dunkin donuts is no different than any other diet in terms of human health and longevity I must assume a diet of dunkin donuts is healthy. Is that your claim?
You really should rethink this particular line of argument. As far as I am aware there are no ingredients in lettuce that make it uniquely hazardous but I am pretty sure that a diet of nothing but lettuce would not be a healthy diet... and lettuce is supposedly one of the "good" things to eat.

I'm not so sure. I'm told that the Big Mac contains lettuce. ;)
 
I eat home made food as daily consumption. In my house we used to have a day (Friday) which was called "Junk Food Day", where we bought McDonalds for breakfast and some fried chicken or sandwich for lunch.

The breakfast caused me symptoms like diarrhea, well, I wasn't the only one at home suffering the same. It was like our weekly laxative. Somehow bacteria or some ingredient in that food caused me to have such reaction.

Junk Food Day was necessary, because the body must get used to junk food. You are always exposed to eat junk food when you travel driving a car, when you are with friends going out, etc.

So, to prevent a unfavorable reaction, the body must have some knowledge of that kind of food.

On the other hand, a glass of juice has way more sugar than a soda. Lots of vegetables in restaurants have been sprayed with additives to maintain them fresh. Who knows how long ago the delicious chicken soup has been prepared in a restaurant.

In other words, eating healthy really requires lots of care, taking your own food for lunch time at work, and things like that.

But, lets go further. The chicken you buy at the market is a genetically modified chicken produced in miles long underground factories. These chicken never see sun light, live in cages, fed on food running in a feeder canal in front of them, the poo poo of these chicken goes to a river running under the cages, the poo poo goes to a processor machine which separates 65% of it to be mixed with additives and return back to the feeder canal.

This is how healthy is the chicken sold in most of the USA.

About fish... the same. Growth in pools, where even with the most care, they will end eating their own excrement, plus the water is not purified properly, in other words, that fish is completely different than the one from a natural environment. For example, Salmon from the river has the flesh orange going to red. The fish is not "fat" because travels a lot and the body is "fit", and, of course, "smells".

On the other hand, salmon from pools, are fat, the flesh is from orange to white, and it doesn't have strong smell.

You must pay "extra" to eat "healthy fish".

About fruits, for example. The worst that the food industry has made is producing fruits without seeds. You have no idea how bad becomes eating seedless fruits. You think you are eating "healthy" but seedless fruits lack of ingredients which by nature serve as protectors of your health. When you eat seedless fruits you are eating sugary food only, the natural protection against some diseases is missed.

The food industry practically has destroyed the meaning of "healthy food". The worst is that our bodies get used to junk food and demand the "drug" and reject healthy food. Children will prefer a soda over having a fresh made lemonade or orange juice made with fruits with seeds. As snack sweet cookies will be over an apple, or Doritos over a healthy sandwich with lettuce and tomatoes included.

And about bodies and health.

As long as the individual is not obese, being overweight is not unhealthy. In many cases a heavy body is by inheritance, and there is nothing wrong with the individual but was born with heavy bones and require of more flesh surrounding it. As long as walking, running, playing a sport is a routine, being overweight is not much an issue.

Main thing is what we eat. I myself don't follow rigorously a healthy food consumption, but I don't abuse eating junk food.

I can just suggest you to please yourself considering that what you eat will cause consequences in your body, and if not today, then later on, you will suffer a lot because the poor health in your latter years.

At least, think about it.
There is nothing that isnt genetically modified. Genetic modification is the base for evolution.

Definitively you have not seen "that" artificially genetically modified chicken, I think is R57 or similar name, with atrophied legs and other degraded characteristics.

Such is not evolution but yuck yuck yuck chicken, eating back 65% their own doo doo... yuck yuck yuck... These chicken have not even flavor... I saw the documentary... apparently you ignore what are you eating when you go to those cheap carry out stores and when you buy cheap chicken at the food markets.

Forget about silly and stupid theories which won't take you anywhere, because those make you live in a world of fantasy.

The miles underground chicken factory was even published in magazines of science in the 60's. In those publications, same as you read about your theory, everything looks clean and neat "in paper", but in reality those underground factories are zombie movies alike, with deformed creatures eating excrement mixed with additives.

But, yes, you better live your world where, how is it? of yes, species live better without wings, without teeth, without fingers, without legs, and so forth. Lol

You seem to be happy believing those ideas.

I'm just telling you that in your diet when you eat chicken in carry outs you are consuming 65% doo doo chicken.(*)

(*) In nature, birds like chicken might consume about 10% of their own doo doo. They are animals and when no other food is available like worms and similar, they just eat what they have available, but this is a minimum level of this kind of consumption.)

Pre-industrial pigs (And livestock in general) tended to be much fattier and heftier than post industrial ones. Which is less healthful for you?
The answer is neither of them. Both pigs are exactly what the population needed at the time they were bred. In a pre industrial society, certain foods and especially fats are hard to come across. If you're an American pioneer, most of the meat you're eating is lean and gamey, so it makes sense to literally fatten your livestock so you have that very much needed source of fat in your diet.

In a post industrial society, access to all manner of foods is generally not that difficult and indeed as it is in America today, access to fats and sugars is much much greater than it used to be, so there is a desire for leaner meats that help maintaining a healthful diet without cutting pork and beef out entirely.

To suggest that an animal is less healthful merely because it was altered into a state that is useful to us is just wrong. We breed these animals to be exactly what we need from them. That's part of what makes them desireable as livestock, and this has always been the case!
 
If your argument is that eating exclusively McDonald's is not somehow not going to negatively affect one's health, that's not something needing a scientific study. Do we need a scientific study to tell us water is wet?

What is the characteristic of McDonald's food that you think is so obviously going to negatively affect health that we can dispense with even testing the hypothesis, and jump straight to considering it to be true?

McDonald's are widely reviled, but there's nothing particularly different about their food - it's all made from the same kinds of things that other food vendors sell. If they were selling cyanide burgers or strychnine sauce, then you might be able to skip the study. But I don't see how your confidence is justified in the case of the actual stuff they sell - it's all perfectly edible.

What is the ingredient in McDonald's food (or the missing vital nutrient) that makes it so uniquely hazardous as to allow you to jump to that conclusion?

Fillers and chemical preservatives. You won't necessarily find either in a burger made by your local independently owned fast food joint. Though good luck finding out without doing your homework first.

And do note that I am aware "Salt" can technically be considered a chemical preservative, don't be pedantic you all know exactly what I mean by the phrase.
 
Just to chip in on the McDonald's thing with my latest pearl of (what I believe may be) wisdom...

If you just ate the patties (and maybe some bacon), dining exclusively on McDonald's hamburgers would probably be a lot healthier than the average Western diet.
 
Back
Top Bottom