Health eating isn't always healthy

[bilby]

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.

Which fillers and preservatives used by McDonalds are a problem, and why?

What specifically are the ingredients that are harmful, and how much McDonalds food do you need to consume in order to be exposed to a non-negligible risk?

You seem to consider salt to be harmless at the levels found in McDonalds food (although I am not certain that that's a justified assumption); what are the specific ingredients that McDonalds use that pose a greater health risk than the salt that they use?

I see lots of hand-waving, but no lists of ingredients (nor even just one named ingredient). So far, only lettuce and salt have been named; Both in the context of not being serious threats to health. So what are the things in McDonalds that are risky?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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 quickly gained weight because he was eating 5000 calories/day. Don't blame McDonalds for that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I would doubt that either set could avoid contamination from the air.

A far more likely suspect here is temperature--if they're hot enough when they go in the jar they very well might be sterile.

- - - Updated - - -

He also supersized every portion. And chose foods high in calories.

No--he only supersized when offered it. That doesn't change the fact that he was eating at a level more suited to a professional athlete than the average person.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Second this. Pure lettuce is horribly incomplete nutrition. In fact, most "health" food is incomplete.

Something to outrage the purists: Fat is an essential nutrient. In the worst case scenario you can end up with problems from consuming zero fat in as little as a week. (Note: Looking at people who eat nothing doesn't show this because the body draws on it's own fat stores, thus avoiding the problem.)

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

Second this. Pure lettuce is horribly incomplete nutrition. In fact, most "health" food is incomplete.

Something to outrage the purists: Fat is an essential nutrient. In the worst case scenario you can end up with problems from consuming zero fat in as little as a week. (Note: Looking at people who eat nothing doesn't show this because the body draws on it's own fat stores, thus avoiding the problem.)

To further outrage the purists: It could even be argued that donuts, in moderation, could be a part of a healthy, balanced diet. An occasional donut could supply some of the fat, carbohydrates, and sugars that the body needs.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

Second this. Pure lettuce is horribly incomplete nutrition. In fact, most "health" food is incomplete.

Something to outrage the purists: Fat is an essential nutrient. In the worst case scenario you can end up with problems from consuming zero fat in as little as a week. (Note: Looking at people who eat nothing doesn't show this because the body draws on it's own fat stores, thus avoiding the problem.)

To further outrage the purists: It could even be argued that donuts, in moderation, could be a part of a healthy, balanced diet. An occasional donut could supply some of the fat, carbohydrates, and sugars that the body needs.

ETA:
However, I wouldn't go as far as calling Dunkin Donuts a health food store.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Personally, I'm pleased with just looking at a McDonald's restaurant. I'd like to go in and take advantage of the cosiness ans warmth. But then, something entirely irrational stops me. I think I'm mad, actually. Or at least, profoundly irrational. I know it, but there's nothing I can do. I just can't go in. It would feel like going into the den of Satan! I cross myself and go my own way, usually to the Church, for a quick prayer to ask for forgiveness for having lusted.

Anyway, this helps keep me fit.
EB

 

[TSwizzle]

The sausage McMuffin with egg was a once a week indulgence for me. Great value for money at the time but you had to buy two. Sometimes I would eat both but most times I would give the other one to someone. Lovely. McDonalds fries are darned good too.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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.

As you seem to have forgotten your own response and taken to offering up a red herring about some harmful mysterious ingredient I will simply restate that we have none of the trials you mention about donuts, McDonalds or eating lettuce. Therefore by your own argument all these things eaten exclusively are healthy. And of course I would disagree with your argument.

 

[bilby]

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.

As you seem to have forgotten your own response and taken to offering up a red herring about some harmful mysterious ingredient I will simply restate that we have none of the trials you mention about donuts, McDonalds or eating lettuce. Therefore by your own argument all these things eaten exclusively are healthy. And of course I would disagree with your argument.

You can disagree with the argument you outline above until you are blue in the face, and you STILL won't be addressing, much less disagreeing with, my argument.

I have asked you to support your claim that eating McDonald's food is so unhealthy that its dangers can be explained without recourse to such detailed studies. Of course, some extreme diets genuinely are that obviously dangerous - a diet that is missing a nutrient (such as a vitamin) that is known to be essential for life, would meet this criterion; And a diet containing a sufficient level of a known poison would also qualify - if eating 5 grams of Potassium Cyanide is lethal, then you don't need a controlled trial to show that adding 5g of KCN to your french fries would render them dangerous.

You have claimed that "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". I have asked you to explain how to reach that conclusion by other means; But rather than provide your methodology, you have invoked a strawman argument, and made no attempt to back your original claim. I provided you with a possible recourse - I am more than happy to accept your claim, IF you can identify a dangerous ingredient or ingredients in McDonald's food, or a missing vital nutrient that would render a diet of only that food hazardous to health. Of course, if you have another methodology that shows McDonalds to be hazardous to health (short of a properly designed and controlled study), you should feel free to present that instead.

But right now, you have only two reasonable options: You can show how you conclude that eating exclusively McDonald's is going to negatively affect one's health, by reference to agreed facts (short of a large, controlled, and blinded study); Or you can retract your claim and admit that it was an overstatement of your position.

Or you can take one of any number of UNreasonable positions - you could attack a strawman and claim victory despite not having addressed the point under debate; Or you could declare that I am a shill, or fool, or a dupe of McDonalds; Or you could storm off in a huff; Or you could change the subject; There are literally dozens of options open to you. But only two lead to an increase in the audience's respect for your ability to conduct an argument in a manner suited to the ideals behind the Natural Science forum in which we are debating.

I understand that you BELIEVE that eating only McDonald's food would negatively affect ones health; But belief is not sufficient in this forum. Either you can back your claim with evidence, or you need to withdraw it until such time as you have collected that evidence - if you are ever able to do so.

 

[bigfield]

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?

It would be foolish to draw on anecdotal evidence (like Supersize Me) to form conclusions about an exclusively Macca's diet, but a scientific study would be unnecessary since much of the science has already been done. One can look up the nutritional information for McDonald's menu items and make pretty good inferences from that.

 

[bilby]

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?

It would be foolish to draw on anecdotal evidence (like Supersize Me) to form conclusions about an exclusively Macca's diet, but a scientific study would be unnecessary since much of the science has already been done. One can look up the nutritional information for McDonald's menu items and make pretty good inferences from that.

Sure; That would be an appropriate scientific study; Essentially, it would be leveraging a number of earlier studies, rather than reinventing the wheel.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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?

It would be foolish to draw on anecdotal evidence (like Supersize Me) to form conclusions about an exclusively Macca's diet, but a scientific study would be unnecessary since much of the science has already been done. One can look up the nutritional information for McDonald's menu items and make pretty good inferences from that.

Not according to Bilby. According to Bilby we need randomized blind trials. Otherwise everything is just as nutritious and healthy as everything else.

Hey, I don't know what he's drinking either.

 

[bigfield]

According to Bilby we need randomized blind trials. Otherwise everything is just as nutritious and healthy as everything else.

Sure; That would be an appropriate scientific study; Essentially, it would be leveraging a number of earlier studies, rather than reinventing the wheel.

 

[untermensche]

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 quickly gained weight because he was eating 5000 calories/day. Don't blame McDonalds for that.

The weight gain was a given since he increased his calories and the "food" reduced his energy level and he did less.

The issue is the liver damage.

People that gain weight don't necessarily have liver damage.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

According to Bilby we need randomized blind trials. Otherwise everything is just as nutritious and healthy as everything else.

Sure; That would be an appropriate scientific study; Essentially, it would be leveraging a number of earlier studies, rather than reinventing the wheel.

View attachment 14160

I agree. Bilby has served up a strawman.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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 quickly gained weight because he was eating 5000 calories/day. Don't blame McDonalds for that.

The weight gain was a given since he increased his calories and the "food" reduced his energy level and he did less.

The issue is the liver damage.

People that gain weight don't necessarily have liver damage.

No doubt there was an effect on the liver. How could there not have been. Any diet that is exclusively heavy on the fat, salt and sugar will do this for the vast majority of the population.

The issue is whether eating exclusively at McDonalds is healthy, as it is according to Bilby.

Of course, we're not defining "healthy" here. Maybe Bilby means not dropping dead within 24 hours. Don't know.

 

[Treedbear]

Haven't been following the conversation, but I was thinking lately. I love good bread. So much so that I've been baking all my own for the past almost 2 years. I use mostly white flour and sometime a little whole wheat just for added flavor. People say white bread is bad for you but they ignore the fact that whole wheat flour is mostly white flour (the endosperm) with some extra fiber and vitamins (the bran and germ). As long as I eat lots of veggies and take psyllium for fiber I think it adds up the same.

 

[untermensche]

The weight gain was a given since he increased his calories and the "food" reduced his energy level and he did less.

The issue is the liver damage.

People that gain weight don't necessarily have liver damage.

No doubt there was an effect on the liver. How could there not have been. Any diet that is exclusively heavy on the fat, salt and sugar will do this for the vast majority of the population...

So the McDonalds did cause the liver damage, if what you say is true.

 

[bilby]

The weight gain was a given since he increased his calories and the "food" reduced his energy level and he did less.

The issue is the liver damage.

People that gain weight don't necessarily have liver damage.

No doubt there was an effect on the liver. How could there not have been. Any diet that is exclusively heavy on the fat, salt and sugar will do this for the vast majority of the population.

The issue is whether eating exclusively at McDonalds is healthy, as it is according to Bilby.

Of course, we're not defining "healthy" here. Maybe Bilby means not dropping dead within 24 hours. Don't know.

You have completely failed to back your assertion that it isn't healthy.

I have not claimed that it is healthy; only that, based on the information I have available, it's not reasonable to declare that it is not.

You have a perfect opportunity to bring me over to your opinion on the subject; all you need to do is present the evidence that shows your assertion to be correct.

But if you can't, then you can't justify your own beliefs in this matter.

And as you haven't, despite repeated requests, I am forced to conclude (provisionally) that you can't.

No amount of childish sniping, strawmanning, or attempts to shift the burden of proof can help your cause here. The only thing that can prevent me from assuming that you are full of shit is for you to present some evidence in support of your beliefs.

Absent such evidence, you are just preaching.