Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › This is why America has the worst dieting regulations
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

This is why America has the worst dieting regulations - Page 5

post #61 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by J W View Post
Plenty of other things with worse nutritional stats. Though, this thing has an insane amount of sodium. Also, it's a bit on the expensive side for no more than what it is.
Sodium isn't outside of the norm for fast food. Subway is usually seen as a healthier alternative to the usual fast food places, but even a 6" Club has 1160 mg of sodium. Less than the Double Down (1380 mg), but still in the same ballpark. Lunch meat, especially cured meats like ham, have a lot more sodium than most people would think.

As far as the price, I figure it's because the meat and cheese are the expensive bits of a standard fast food sandwich. Buns and lettuce expense are very low as the components are cheap and require no prep time. The Double Down has double the meat and cheese of a standard fast food sandwich and the price mostly reflects that.
post #62 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinesekiwi View Post
It's not because of that. It's more because everything f'n food in the US is made of one thing: corn. corn starch, cornflour etc....
Man, **** the Native Americans.

First the casinos and now this. It's a conspiracy, I tell ya.
post #63 of 170
I'm not terribly concerned about the USA'n health condition, I must admit that. If they wish to eat themselves to extinction I won't stop them. (I put my trust in group selection)
What upsets me however is the industrial type chicken farms and Mexican pig farms and their ecological impact. USA'n chicken farms are now the main contributor to oceaninic hypoxia, and the pig farms, lets put it this way: The swine-flu outbreak didn't come as a total surprise, and it will happen again.
post #64 of 170
If only there was a KFC closer to me. I might stop by one on the way home actually That sandwich does look pretty good right about now. However people shouldn't really be complaining..sure it's not healthy at all if you eat it regularly but it is your choice in eating. If you want to eat healthier then don't eat it everyday. If you don't care and you have issues later in life due to the way you eat now the only one you can blame is yourself.
post #65 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepsi View Post
We can eat fast food 2 or 3 times a month, but it's bad to smoke 2 or 3 times a month?
Anyone who smokes BUT only smokes 2 or 3 times a month, you know what I call them? Lairs.
post #66 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvin View Post
Subway is usually seen as a healthier alternative to the usual fast food places,
A lot of the healthier alternatives are actually deceptively unhealthy. If you read the nutrition charts it is somewhat amazing that as healthy as they look, they are only slightly better than your usual burger joints.

The best food is always home cooked from fresh stuff, but not everyone has the time to do it. I can only manage that on weekends, on weekdays I have to resort to fast food.
post #67 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by atbglenn View Post
It's not going to stop me. You can eat anything as long as it's in moderation.
Cyanide in moderation is still cyanide. You said anything. lol
post #68 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano View Post
1) Your source (or link you listed above) disproves your statement so I'd either remove the link or use a different one.
Did you read more than the title and the first half of the first paragraph?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano View Post
2) Any and all dietary effects on an individual's "Productive" cells, in other words cells that will lead to children (the ones in your balls/ovaries), are unaffected by what you eat, or if they are affected by what you eat the effect could very easily be different from say "I love burgers so my kids will love burgers too"

3) Epigenetics refers to the difference of gene expression (Assuming #2 does not occur so same DNA sequence) of the particular individual's genes. This once again is in no way specific to tastes or what you eat -it goes along with what your kids eat and what your kid's kids will eat. If you argue that kids eat what parents eat, there are enough counter examples (kids that don't agree with their parents) to show you that this simply isn't the case.
I didn't argue that kids eat what parents eat. I said that a person's diet can have an effect on his or her children and their progeny. That's what the early science on epigenetics is saying, anyway.

Epigenetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nutrition and the Epigenome

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano View Post
And to be blunt, this is nonsensical because if you can find food without chemicals in it, you should write a paper, document it, put it in the museum and get the nobel prize for finding the greatest thing on earth.....
Not sure where you got the idea that I think chemicals are inherently bad. That's obviously quite silly. My issue is with the practice of disguising nearly valueless food with lab-created additives. The additives themselves may or may not have negative health consequences; I would guess that in the vast majority of cases they do not. The smoke flavoring in a McDonald's hamburger, for instance, is probably no more carcinogenic than the charring on a real hamburger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marvin View Post
Unless you have a fetish for the "natural" or are a vegetarian looking to avoid meat derived products, it's hard to get worked up about artificial flavoring. Same chemical compound, just in very pure form. Mankind has only been using flavoring to make food more palatable for about forever. Artificial flavoring just gives us a more precise targeting capability at lower risk and lower cost. About the worst thing I can say them is that their use promotes overly simplistic flavors.
I do not. Digitalis is natural, and I don't want to eat any. And I am not. I've considered it deeply, and I believe we would actually be forsaking the bounty of our evolution not to consume at least some animal. Again, I do not care much about the additives themselves, though they're hardly equivalent to the flavoring mankind has been using for thousands of years. Many spices and herbs have significant health benefits, and they tend to be used to creatively modify the flavor of food that already tastes good. When people cook in their homes, few if any resort to artificial flavors. Same with any restaurant worth frequenting. The best, most nutritious food doesn't need lab additives to taste good--it's delicious all on its own. The only reason I can see for the marriage of fast/processed food and lab-derived flavor additives is that fast/processed food barely qualifies as food, i.e., it would be completely uninteresting to your senses if not for being propped up with additives that have no relation whatsoever to the nutritional benefit of the "food" itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marvin View Post
Seriously doubt that would have much of an effect on "natural selection". Even people with terrible diets and gaping nutritional deficiencies are capable of having as many offspring as they wish. (See: Pretty much every third world country.) It's certainly likely that a better diet would increase fertility and offspring health, but that's one of those things that come with greatly diminishing returns in humans. You don't see many women expressing the full extent of their reproductive capabilities by having 20+ kids, a feat that's entirely possible with modern medicine and the welfare state.
No, you're right, probably not for the species, and probably not for populations living in modern regions of the world. But it could easily be true for the individual or line. If your paternal grandfather pigged out, he may have left you with a shorter lifespan, or increased your propensity toward obesity, potentially--but not necessarily--hindering your chances of propagating or flourishing. Whether you flourish or not may not affect your chances of having children. But take a line and gradually compromise its epigenome over time, and you could possibly see a natural selection-type effect. Diabetes is readily managed today, but it could have been morbidly crippling in the past. In the days of old, if it was evident to potential mates that you were sickly or in poor condition, your genes may have died on the vine. Even with modern variables, there could be an effect. Let's say your genes are fugly and you only live to be 45, and you never have a chance to amass the money you would have otherwise earned had you lived to be 75. Let's say it devastated your wife's finances, and she was unable to properly educate your children or pass any sort of inheritance onto them. Assume they do not flourish, and tend to eat large quantities of unhealthy foods, and then pass negative epigenetic effects onto their children. It could turn into something like a downward spiral. Of course, the human epigenome is decades away from being studied fully, so my scenario is pure speculation.

What I took away from Nova's Ghost In Your Genes: "You live your life as a sort of ... guardian of your genome."
post #69 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenixdown110 View Post
Cyanide in moderation is still cyanide. You said anything. lol
Wiseguy alert!
post #70 of 170
For all of you on the Atkins diet, the double down is a dream come true
post #71 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by atbglenn View Post
Wiseguy alert!
Perhaps, but it definitely had me chuckling.
post #72 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepsi View Post
The new KFC Sandwich, is this available in your area yet? And would you eat this thing? If so, may god help you.



KFC Has A Bacon Sandwich That Uses Fried Chicken As "Bread" - The Consumerist
First off, that can't be real. Second, who cares? If people want to eat that, let them.
post #73 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Equus View Post
Perhaps, but it definitely had me chuckling.
I thought it was funny too. Gotta run, I'm off to KFC!
post #74 of 170
k just went to a local kfc.. they don't have it..
post #75 of 170
I must have one.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › This is why America has the worst dieting regulations