Why is fast food so bad for you?

Why is fast food so bad for you?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=8cPitxtk4m0
youtu.be/VgnbRK8pij8?t=3m14s
ajpregu.physiology.org/content/287/6/R1306.short
articles.latimes.com/2014/apr/07/science/la-sci-sn-diet-motivation-rats-20140407
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6378818
dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-31416-7_1
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22238401
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26530930
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3605420/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25325461
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9202122
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10486419
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7498104
nature.com/nutd/journal/v4/n6/full/nutd201421a.html
nature.com/nutd/journal/v5/n12/abs/nutd201538a.html
pnas.org/content/103/47/17589.full.pdf
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0098299702000900
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7299488
diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/64/3/796.full
circ.ahajournals.org/content/113/13/1675.short
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1463-1326.2010.01332.x/full
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor
blogs.nature.com/thescepticalchymist/files/2014/06/nchem_-Chemical-Free.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

It's not.

Moderation

idk but i want a burger now

excess of calories from imbalanced sources, some probably have a healthy dose of unhealthy contaminants

not the worst thing in the world though, on occasion

restaurant meals are actually much worse.

big max menu: 1000 kcal
restaurant menu: 2000 kcal
I can't believe people eat this fucking much

It's not bad for you directly, It's just not very filling, leading you to eat much more than you should.

burgers arent that bad
french fries and sugar is

It's not, that's like saying smoking is bad for you.

that's why I put the french fries inside of my burger. that way the goodness from the burger cancels out anything negative from them.

I'm sorry but + with - gives -, so you're actually negativating the goodness from the burguer

its not "bad" the problem is that every week you visit mcdonalds at least once and order the big tripplecheasymcbaconsuperchillisausageMac without any kind of exercise to put your circulatory and regulatory system into work then its not a good idea in the long run.

>It's not bad for you directly, It's just not very filling, leading you to eat much more than you should.
This. An average mickey D's saver menu meal is like 800 calories. But does a fillet-o-fish and medium fries fill you? Hell no so people supersize the fuck out of it until it's 2,000 calories and wonder why it made them fat.

salt

It's not.

The dude from Supersize Me ate fast food every fucking waking moment for a month and surprise surprise got morbidly obese. Now stupid normies think that if you eat a few hamburgers, you're going to gain 100lbs.

I was anti-fast food for a long time. I used to go exclusively to this cheap cafeteria at my work. I always knew that the food in the cafe wasnt tasty, its ingredients were probably the lowest grade but it was cheap. never even considered some of the fast food places near me because "fuck fast food." finally they hired a staff that was so bad at making food I realized I couldnt eat there and was forced to try other things. in desperation tried some fast food, subway, mcdonalds, taco bell etc. I started to realize that the meat, veggies, etc at fast food where at least the same grade as my cafe, maybe even a step up. I bet the sanitation is even better(again doesnt say much) due to company wide regulations and techniques for caring for their products.

not only that, its pretty much a garauntee that fast food is always going to be tasty because their procedures are so simple that idiots off the street can cook this shit and would have to try really hard to fuck up your meal.

you to have to learn some things though. meal deals are a rip off, drinks are something like 300% overpriced, so bring your own, and of course this doesnt mean start eating there breakfast lunch and dinner.

tl;dr in some cases fast food might be your best option

The high caloric density of the foods and low nutritional value makes it easier to overeat.

French Fries, Sodas, and burgers are all high calorie compared to how satiated you are after eating them.

They also have the ability to perfect addictive properties to their buns (HFCS balance).

In addition, they have effective advertisements and fast service.

Too much of
Salt
Sugar
Fat
Calories

Make fast food an exception to your regular diet, say once a month, and you should be fine.

>excess of calories
>imbalanced sources
>unhealthy contaminants
>on occasion

is this another i have no idea what im talking about but since its sci i will say it anyways thread?

>2000 calorie meal is not very filling
please be retarded somewhere else
>low nutritional value makes it easy to overeat
>all high calorie compared to how satiated you are after eating them.
please be more retarded

Nice picture fellow reddituer ;)

Mind if I save it?

It's not. Some powerful figures just hate the McDonalds klan so they made a ton of material against its business.
youtube.com/watch?v=8cPitxtk4m0

How someone can eat the tasteless shit McDonald's call burgers is beyond me.

king William detected

If you have magic metabolism like me, nothing is bad for you. I eat fast food everyday and I weight 155. I have like 20% body fat. I'm in decent shape too. Of course it'll catch up to me when I'm older and I'll die of heart failure and diabetes.

>thin people are always allowed to say it's "muh metabolism"
>Fat people are ridiculed when they say the same thing

this is clearly a question for Veeky Forums

seeing as how, the "brilliant" math and science wizards seem to think its only about calories and fats.

or maybe just americans

Because it's not their metabolism. They just eat less.

Veeky Forums isn't much better. A lot of them also only care about macros and calories. It goes as far as some of them claiming that fruit is unhealthy because it has a lot of sugar.

It's not.

It's just not very filling so people tend to overeat.
That's their problem though, nobody else's

Nobody was able to replicate supersize me and he doesn't even show his logs.
mr supersize has clearly lied parts of it.

>high metabolism
kekaroo

I bet you don't even keep a food log and count your calories.
Just fuck off with "muh high metabolism"if you have literally zero proof.

>math and science wizards seem to think its only about calories
Even non-dietary issues like metabolic efficiency can still be measured in calories.
More importantly, the only effective control you have over your weight is diet and exercise.
Even taking caffeine is a form of exercise, in a way.
Everything else is snake-oil.

>Because it's not their metabolism. They just eat less.
jesus user.

youtu.be/VgnbRK8pij8?t=3m14s

you should really watch this and educate yourself a bit more.
It will only take a few minutes of your time.

>no sources for his mentioned "studies"
>doesn't even mentioned wether or not the caloric intake of the diets was monitored or not
Thermodynamics is right. It will always be

to everyone saying calories in - calories out:

youtu.be/VgnbRK8pij8?t=3m14s

tl;dr: not sufficient, genes and less sleep might help a lot.

I don't need to watch it. I know that differences in metabolism makes up a difference of only a few percent. Not enough to explain why some people are fat and others aren't.

>being in denial

>being in denial

then don't watch, everything else you say becomes irrelevant from now on.

>random youtube video with no links to sources proves thermodynamics wrong.
You can quantize everything to calories.

It is calories in - calories out.
Even if some people are magically twice as efficient, it doesn't make a difference because it's still calories in - calories out.

Thermodynamics is the same for everyone else wether they're 4'11 or 6'5.
A person 6'5 obviously has a larger surface area and will lose energy at a higher rate, but it's still calories in - calories out.

How can you deny thermodynamics?

Maybe you can link some studies. I'm not gonna watch some bullshit YouTube video if I've seen articles with proof claiming otherwise.

general refined nature of ingredients such as refined carbohydrates, oils, dairy products
fatty meat and processed meat
high-heat thermal processing
sodium
various processing aids, additives and preservatives of questionable safety
industrial pollutants

too lazy, you can look them up according to when he describes the protocole.

I don't care about what you think anymore if you disagree with me, I know I'm right and I know you're wrong and you don't want to know more anyway.

So you ignore other sources while linking none at all except a youtube video.
And any idiot can make a youtube video and claim study x said y and z.

You're the man denying thermodynamics.

>So you ignore other sources

You haven't paid any attention to counter arguments to your position. You can't talk.

>counter arguments
Which were? I don't see any arguments, just a link to a video.

ajpregu.physiology.org/content/287/6/R1306.short

>In this model of obesity-prone rats, an enhanced metabolic efficiency with a progressively increasing appetite appear to be the hallmark of the metabolic propensity to regain weight after weight loss. From our prospective analysis, the persistent suppression in REE explained 60% of the potential energy imbalance, while the elevated appetite explained 40%.

>rats are humans
Besides even if they have a higher efficiency you can just adjust their caloric intake downwards and they're losing weight again

They don't need to be made in this thread, you small testicled boy. You've just done no research. You could go and look for the information yourself but you won't because you're afraid to be wrong.

>>rats are humans

Jesus christ, kill yourself

And again.
Tell me how it's not calories in - calories out with these rats.
even if they're more efficient you can just reduce their caloric intake.

Y'all muthafuckaz need the sticky.

They are allowed to say this because they don't use it as an excuse.

Person 1: "You're thin. Do you exercise a lot?"
Thin person: "No, I think I just have a high metabolism. I eat like a pig lol."

Person 1: "I don't mean to offend you, but you're overweight. I think you should change your diet and start working out."
Fat person: "No, I just have a low metabolism, which obviously means that if I ate less and started exercising, I would still gain weight as my body magically produces matter from nothing."

>>rats are humans
They're very homologous to humans

articles.latimes.com/2014/apr/07/science/la-sci-sn-diet-motivation-rats-20140407
>Rats are a great animal model for humans because there is so much overlap in the systems that regulate appetite and metabolism

>you can just adjust their caloric intake downwards and they're losing weight again
Where are you going with those goalposts? Depending on the degree of fat mass defense, the weight loss can even come from lean mass

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6378818

Thoroughbred mice aren't humans.
Those labrats are that way through aritificial selection.

Provide evidence that there are humans who will always have a ratio of fat that correlates with that of fatties no matter what.
And what if it comes from the expense of some lean mass, your weight is your own choice.
You can always get lighter by adjusting your diet.

Pretty rare I eat fast food as I live in Brooklyn and have better variety. But coincidentally I had BK on Thur, and Dominos Fri. Fucking disgusting. I stopped mid-bite to look at my food and said, what the fuck am I eating? Shit isn't even food. 35 y/o male, maybe my pallet changed.

>Thoroughbred mice aren't humans.
Well, ob/ob mice are leptin deficient

dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-31416-7_1

That's a good model of hypothalamic leptin resistance which underlies obesity in many humans

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22238401
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26530930

Compensating for leptin resistance by administration of leptin is one possible therapeutic strategy

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3605420/

The other guy was talking about sleep, which is a pretty interesting risk factor. Sleep deprivation/disruption can trigger proteostasis collapse in the hypothalamus, leading to leptin resistance

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25325461

>Provide evidence that there are humans who will always have a ratio of fat that correlates with that of fatties no matter what.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9202122
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10486419

Obviously this doesn't apply to all of human obesity. Though there are many genetic variants that render people more susceptible, diet quality probably plays a bigger role in modern fat gain.

As a former Veeky Forumsizen, I can confirm this. They don't give a piss about micros, and do indeed claim that all fruits are bad because of the sugar content.

Only if you know the bacon narwhals just before midnight xDDD

agree so much. partially hydrogenated vegetable oils are the main source of free radicals.

because of the sizes. when mcdicks was first opened, an adult meal was the size of a current happy meal, and people didn't get 2 and 3 refills of drink.

Shut the fuck up, fatty boy. This post says it all. When's the last time you've seen your cock, you dickless faggot. Eat less, move more or be forever a lardo in denial.

Peace out, fatty bumbum.

Whats wromg with the second post

>fat cunts still trying the 'M U H M E T A B O L I S M' meme

I'm sure it's fine for you
It's food and restaurants created and refined by door to door salesman
They understand how to cook and take care of your health I'm sure

And just to add as an ex salesman myself, that fact is what made me quit
Commission sales people are the most evil people on this planet, I won't let me decide my meals etc

You guys eat what you want tho
I'm sure there's nothing wrong with food designed for no other reason than to squeeze nickels out of you, and not kill you immediately so you can come back

shit quality materials. garbage in garbage out. you can make perfectly healthy hamburgers

Obscene amounts of sodium
Poor quality fats that will do long-term damage if youre a landwhale who eats it all the time

It's not
if you eat 9000 calories of anything you will become a fat blob

Mice aren't humans?
I knew I shouldn't have gotten involved with that NIMH grant...

Because it's cheap and easy

The consumer in me wants a big mac.

Slow/fast metabolism is true. When I was living with parent, my sister used to eat nearly as much as I do and the same things. Yet she is near underweight and I'm overweight.
But it's not an excuse, I'm fat because I'm lazy cunt. I envy her metabolism, but it doesn't mean it's not my fault that I eat unhealthy and avoid any exercise.

Are burgers in McDonald always inferior to burgers from independent restaurants ignoring the price?
I used to eat in MD from time to time because it was the fast food in my small town, but lately I've moved to larger city. And well, I started trying all the restaurants around and the burgers there are so fucking great. Now when I eat at MD, it feel just like soft solid tasty mass. You can't feel ingredients or meat facture and nowhere as filling.
And in here MD is rather considered expensive, so the burg restaurants usually have the same or lower price.

Is this just matter of lower quality/higher price of MDs here, or this applies to everywhere?

>fast food so bad
not all fast food is "so bad",
but most of it is bad bcoz
sodium load, trans fat,
low fibre, and ingredients with
nutrition processed out

Are you trying to tell me you will feel filled if you drink 250ml of oil (which is around 2000 cal)?

Drink a liter of water and you will feel "filled" yet you havent taken any calories.

Calories and "being filled" are two different things.

>you will feel filled if you drink 250ml of oil
yes Sherlock, bcoz fat is the dietary
component with the greatest satiety response
Lrn2nutrition

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7498104
>highest SI score was produced by boiled potatoes
>fat content was negatively associated

because its super processed

what does "processed" mean

:( I used to eat a lot of this shit and I'm stilk a fucking stick that can be break with the force of an little girl's hug.

Why didn't you just learn to cook?

Yeah but I am left wishing I could even enjoy the taste of much of fast food, nevermind the unhealthy.

Because you don't perfectly absorb the energy in your food and perfectly use them.

That can only be related to not gaining weight though, not to not losing weight.

Does the "lack of minerals in our food is making us fat" theory have any evidence behind it?

nature.com/nutd/journal/v4/n6/full/nutd201421a.html
>Food intake control is believed to be partially governed by signals related to hepatic postprandial ATP production, which is dependent on adequate sources of phosphorus.35 In line with that, human studies reported an inverse relation between hepatic ATP status and body mass index.36

nature.com/nutd/journal/v5/n12/abs/nutd201538a.html
>Phosphorus supplementation for 12 weeks significantly decreases body weight, BMI, waist circumference and subjective appetite scores.

pnas.org/content/103/47/17589.full.pdf
>Magnesium intakes for 56% of adults in the United States are below the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) (Table 1).

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0098299702000900
>Mg depletion induced a severe insulin resistance that was shown to be dependent, at least in part, upon a defective tyrosine kinase activity of the insulin receptors. Furthermore, Balon et al. reported that a high fructose diet-induced insulin resistance observed in rats was not due, as currently believed, to fructose itself, but rather to the low Mg content of such commercial diets

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7299488
>In liver, magnesium-deficient rats fed sucrose showed a significant increase in triglycerides, lactate and alpha-glycerophosphate and a significant decrease in glycogen.

diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/64/3/796.full
>liver glycogen accumulation caused a reduced food intake, protected against the deleterious effects of an HFD, and diminished the metabolic impact of fasting

circ.ahajournals.org/content/113/13/1675.short
>Magnesium intake was inversely associated with incidence of metabolic syndrome

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1463-1326.2010.01332.x/full
>oral Mg supplementation improves insulin sensitivity even in normomagnesemic, overweight, non-diabetic subjects

maybe

Uhh you know like GMO and factories and chemicals and stuff

Apparently people who go on radical crash diets like those fats on the biggest loser end up with a severely down regulated metabolism for months to years after they've lost the weight.

what movie is this again? i remember watching it as a kid

answered my own question by googling the name of one of the characters

OP.
All the above. Plus.
75% of the land is set for cattle, providing only 20% of the diet. The availability of 'fast' beef fuels this inequality.

>GMO
>counting as processed

>then don't watch, everything else you say becomes irrelevant from now on.
Not him, but that's backwards.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor

>Uhh you know like GMO and factories and chemicals and stuff
So foods with buzzwords are automatically bad.
And the less we do to food the better?
Maybe you should start drinking non-refrigerated, non-pasteurized milk.

Nutritionalwise they are not bad at all. It's the fact that people tend to over eat on them leading to over consumption. If you over eat on one thing you under eat on another. Meaning you will probably eat with less variety leading to nutritional deficiencies.

This is good information. I wonder how much a posphorus and magnesium people should have in a day?

>muh gmos
You're an idiot

wtf i hate mcdonalds now

>chemicals
So literally everything

High in sodium and calories due to oils and preservatives used.
Technically in moderation it isn't bad for you but most people don't keep track of how many calories they consume every day so it the excess could sneak up on them easily.

blogs.nature.com/thescepticalchymist/files/2014/06/nchem_-Chemical-Free.pdf

>The dude from Supersize Me ate fast food every fucking waking moment for a month and surprise surprise got morbidly obese.
Interestingly nobody has been able to replicate Spurlock's results based on his conditions.