Ban Ronald McDonald?

[Coito ergo sum]

McDonalds, you say? Mmmm....I love a bacon double-cheeseburger as much as the next man but I don't allow the Mini-Huxley's in there. Do as I say, not as I do, that's the rule of parenting.

I'm surprised you have the fortitude to resist the allure of the Happy Meal advertising, and are somehow able to steer your progeny clear of the dreaded Restaurant-Who-Shan't-Be-Named. Must be that British stiff-upper-lip and Anglo-Saxon constitution.

So - Ronja - given the connection between calories and obesity, would your political philosophy dictate that the government step in and regulate the number of calories you and I eat per day? If not, why not?

[Clinton Huxley]

McDonalds, you say? Mmmm....I love a bacon double-cheeseburger as much as the next man but I don't allow the Mini-Huxley's in there. Do as I say, not as I do, that's the rule of parenting.

I'm surprised you have the fortitude to resist the allure of the Happy Meal advertising, and are somehow able to steer your progeny clear of the dreaded Restaurant-Who-Shan't-Be-Named. Must be that British stiff-upper-lip and Anglo-Saxon constitution.

I find the word "No" to be of great utility in the rearing of offpsring.

[Coito ergo sum]

McDonalds, you say? Mmmm....I love a bacon double-cheeseburger as much as the next man but I don't allow the Mini-Huxley's in there. Do as I say, not as I do, that's the rule of parenting.

I'm surprised you have the fortitude to resist the allure of the Happy Meal advertising, and are somehow able to steer your progeny clear of the dreaded Restaurant-Who-Shan't-Be-Named. Must be that British stiff-upper-lip and Anglo-Saxon constitution.

I find the word "No" to be of great utility in the rearing of offpsring.

What is this subversive tripe?

"No?" You can't be serious....

And, please, leave the rearing of offspring to the priests.

[Svartalf]

McDonalds, you say? Mmmm....I love a bacon double-cheeseburger as much as the next man but I don't allow the Mini-Huxley's in there. Do as I say, not as I do, that's the rule of parenting.

Which is a good thing, you don't want the toddlers playing "mommy and daddy in bed" do you?

[Svartalf]

And, please, leave the rearing of offspring to the priests.

If I want my children to be sexually molested, I'll see to it myself. Never delegate a task you can better accomplish yourself.

[Coito ergo sum]

Further support: http://www.medifasthealth.org/healthque ... n-dieting/

Reducing calories to lose weight is a scientific formula based on plenty of research studies and sound evidence. Scientists estimate that 1lb of fat is equivalent to 3500 calories. By creating a deficit each day of 500 in your calorie expenditure, you should see a one pound weight loss each week. This is the recommended amount for safe and sustainable dieting.

In addition to reducing your calorie intake, burning 250-500 calories a day through exercise can help you lose an extra 1/2-1 pound more each week. Muscles burn more calories than fat. Therefore, building muscle will make a considerable difference to your body’s metabolism.

Restricting your calorie intake has been shown to improve health, reduce aging, reduce blood pressure and have a host of other benefits! Overeating puts stress on your body by making your organs work harder. The cumulative stress of years of big meals can really take a toll on your body.

So, what San Francisco should do is issue an ordinance that people should have to register all calorie intake with a central authority, and be fined for exceeding their governmentally approved daily allotment of calories.

[Warren Dew]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/tw ... index.html

Calories in - calories out, folks.

It shows nothing of the sort, since we have no idea what the composition of his diet was like before his "experiment". He might have lived on soda before, in which case twinkies would be "healthier".

[Coito ergo sum]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/tw ... index.html

Calories in - calories out, folks.

It shows nothing of the sort, since we have no idea what the composition of his diet was like before his "experiment". He might have lived on soda before, in which case twinkies would be "healthier".

It shows everything of the sort.

Health does not equal weight loss, first of all. And, just because he lost weight doesn't mean he is healthier in all respects. Read the article, which points exactly that out.

If you eat 4000 calories a day of the healthiest food you can find, and your body only gets rid of 2000, you'll gain weight fast. If you eat 1800 calories a day of crap, and your body gets rid of 3000 a day, you'll lose weight fast.

[maiforpeace]

“Back in the days when we first got a company airplane, we used to spot good locations for McDonald’s stores by flying over a community and looking for schools. Now we use a helicopter, and it’s ideal.” ~Ray Kroc~

EDIT:

Well, those crazies in San Francisco did it:

San Fran bans toys in some fast-food kids meals

By TREVOR HUNNICUTT, The Associated Press Trevor Hunnicutt, The Associated Press – 2 hrs 40 mins ago

SAN FRANCISCO – It's a happy moment for people who see the Happy Meal as anything but.

San Francisco has become the first major American city to prohibit fast-food restaurants from including toys with children's meals that do not meet nutritional guidelines.

The city's Board of Supervisors gave the measure final approval Tuesday on an 8-3 vote. That's enough votes to survive a planned veto by Mayor Gavin Newsom.

The ordinance, which would go into effect in December of next year, prohibits toy giveaways in fast-food children's meals that have more than 640 milligrams of sodium, 600 calories or 35 percent of their calories from fat. The law also would limit saturated fats and trans fats and require fruits or vegetables to be served with each meal with a toy.

"Our effort is really to work with the restaurants and the fast-food industry to create healthier choices," said Supervisor Eric Mar, the measure's chief sponsor. "What our kids are eating is making them sick, and a lot of it is fast food."

The legislation is a big victory for activists and public health advocates who have charged food marketers with being complicit in the country's growing childhood obesity rates. They hope other cities and counties nationwide will follow their lead.

"This will be a sign to the fast-food industry that it's time to phase out its predatory marketing to children at large," said Deborah Lapidus, a senior organizer with Boston-based Corporate Accountability International, a watchdog group that supported the legislation.

Supervisors and activists who support the measure say they hope obesity-curbing efforts like the one approved Tuesday will eventually spread to other cities, states and the country. A similar ordinance has already been approved in California's Santa Clara County, where it affected about a dozen restaurants.

Newsom, meanwhile, said he plans to veto the ordinance, which he called an "unwise and unprecedented governmental intrusion into parental responsibilities and private choices."

The mayor issued a statement after Tuesday's vote saying the city must continue to combat childhood obesity but the ordinance takes the wrong approach.

"Parents, not politicians, should decide what their children eat, especially when it comes to spending their own money," Newsom said.

The industry, which favors self-regulation, says there is no evidence that San Francisco's law will halt the expanse of children's waistlines and the diseases associated with obesity, such as hypertension, diabetes and heart disease.

McDonald's and Burger King Corp. are among 17 major food and beverage marketers who have signed on to the Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, a self-regulation effort run by the Council of Better Business Bureaus.

McDonald's says its meals advertised to children meet government nutritional standards, limiting total calories to 600 per meal and capping fats and sugars. The company also agreed to curtail advertising in schools and promote healthy lifestyles in all marketing efforts directed at children.

"McDonald's remains committed to responsible marketing practices, including advertising and promotional campaigns for our youngest customers," McDonald's senior vice president for marketing, Neil Golden, said in a statement to The Associated Press.

McDonald's sent several senior executives and others to San Francisco to oppose the measure in person.

As it was being drafted, amended and discussed over several months, Corporate Accountability ran a local newspaper advertisement signed by physicians, community activists and small restaurants that called on Board of Supervisors swing voter Bevan Dufty to support the measure.

Dufty eventually did so, saying San Francisco should not wait for the federal government to act and should serve as an example to other cities.

"I don't care how much they say, 'It's San Francisco, they're whacked out there, it doesn't matter,' the reality is they're taking notice," Dufty said.

Scott Rodrick, who owns 10 McDonald's restaurants in San Francisco, is worried the new ordinance could hurt his business because families account for many of his customers and they could drive a mile away to another city to buy Happy Meals.

"I think this legislation on the margin is a lot of misplaced energy," Rodrick said. "For the government to step in and tell me where I feed my kids and how I feed my kids is not a good day for parents in the city, including for me."

Fast-food restaurants spent $161 million advertising to children under 12 and an estimated $360 million on toys distributed with their meals in 2006, according to a 2008 Federal Trade Commission report.

Marlene Schwartz, deputy director of Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity, said fast-food advertising aimed at children has increased since self-regulation efforts began.

"They're only really promoting it halfheartedly," said Schwartz of healthier food options. San Francisco's law "is making the restaurants practice what they preach."

The lure of such items is all too familiar to parents like Carmen Sanchez, who was at a San Francisco McDonald's on a recent evening and said she sometimes hears children beg for Happy Meals.

"If the babies don't get what they want, then they won't stop crying," Sanchez said.

[sandinista]

I find it somewhat optimistic that as many people voted "yes" as "no", small sample, but still good.

[Coito ergo sum]

San Fran bans toys in some fast-food kids meals

"Our effort is really to work with the restaurants and the fast-food industry to create healthier choices," said Supervisor Eric Mar, the measure's chief sponsor. "What our kids are eating is making them sick, and a lot of it is fast food."

That's actually not their "effort." If that was their effort, they would require healthier choices.

And, frankly, happy meals already have healthy choices. A person have fries or apple slices, and the drink can be a coke, or apple juice/orange juice/lofat milk/ or water.... What more does he want them to do? Eliminate the hamburger altogether? That's not about "choices."

The legislation is a big victory for activists and public health advocates who have charged food marketers with being complicit in the country's growing childhood obesity rates.

They've made the charge without producing evidence in support of it.

Supervisors and activists who support the measure say they hope obesity-curbing efforts like the one approved Tuesday will eventually spread to other cities, states and the country. A similar ordinance has already been approved in California's Santa Clara County, where it affected about a dozen restaurants.

LOL - as if the kids are going to eat less because of this. "Obesity curbing" - what curbs obesity is eating less. Parents aren't going to feed their kids less via this measure.

Newsom, meanwhile, said he plans to veto the ordinance, which he called an "unwise and unprecedented governmental intrusion into parental responsibilities and private choices."

A lone voice of reason - a candle, in a demon-haunted world.

Stop the woo!

The lure of such items is all too familiar to parents like Carmen Sanchez, who was at a San Francisco McDonald's on a recent evening and said she sometimes hears children beg for Happy Meals.

"If the babies don't get what they want, then they won't stop crying," Sanchez said.

[/quote][/quote]


Babies? People are feeding BABIES McDonald's food?

You know what - part of parenting is dealing with children's temper tantrums. If the child won't stop crying, then impose some discipline until the little spoiled brat shuts his mouth and apologizes.

So what's this crappy mother going to do when she goes to the McDonald's where the Happy Meal now has 599 calories and the toy only comes with it if the meal has apple slices and apple juice? She can't say no to the Happy Meal with the fries, but she thinks she's going to be able to resist the kid's wailing temper tantrum over not getting fries? No. She's going to run up to the counter to get her little Veruca Salt wannabe an order of french fries.

This is the same "mother" who probably asks her brat every night what he "want" for dinner and makes him an individualized meal of hot dogs and tater tots, rather than making the kid salad, sliced lean meat, potato and vegetable.

This is just so wrong, on so many levels.



I want it! I want it! I want it!

Veruca Salt: Hey, Daddy, *I* want an Oompa Loompa! I want you to get me an Oompa Loompa right away!
Mr. Salt: All right, Veruca, all right. I'll get you one before the day is out.
Veruca Salt: I want an Oompa Loompa now!

[Warren Dew]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/tw ... index.html

Calories in - calories out, folks.

It shows nothing of the sort, since we have no idea what the composition of his diet was like before his "experiment". He might have lived on soda before, in which case twinkies would be "healthier".

It shows everything of the sort.

Health does not equal weight loss, first of all. And, just because he lost weight doesn't mean he is healthier in all respects. Read the article, which points exactly that out.

I read the article.

Let me be more specific. For most people, it's carbohydrates that cause obesity, not total caloric intake. His previous diet likely was quite carbohydrate heavy, with lots of bread and maybe soda, which are close to 100% carbohydrate. Doritos and even twinkies would have been less carbohydrate heavy, causing him to lose weight.

To show that it was calories and not carbs, he would have had to drop calories while keeping his carb intake just as high as it was before. He failed to do that.

[Coito ergo sum]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/tw ... index.html

Calories in - calories out, folks.

It shows nothing of the sort, since we have no idea what the composition of his diet was like before his "experiment". He might have lived on soda before, in which case twinkies would be "healthier".

It shows everything of the sort.

Health does not equal weight loss, first of all. And, just because he lost weight doesn't mean he is healthier in all respects. Read the article, which points exactly that out.

I read the article.

Let me be more specific. For most people, it's carbohydrates that cause obesity, not total caloric intake.

That's just not supported by the evidence.

If you eat only carbohydrates - 100% - but you take in 1800 and your body burns 2500 - you will lose weight.

For most people, excess calories cause weight gain. It's why bodybuilders eat more calories to gain muscle and cut calories to cut weight.

One of the main reasons Atkins type diets work is because huge swaths of calories are pulled out of a person's daily food intake. If you order a steak at a restaurant and toss out the baked potato and just eat the steak in vegetable, not only are you protein-loading your diet, you're cutting out like 300-400 calories from that one meal alone.

His previous diet likely was quite carbohydrate heavy, with lots of bread and maybe soda, which are close to 100% carbohydrate. Doritos and even twinkies would have been less carbohydrate heavy, causing him to lose weight.

Twinkies are all carbohydrates - 27 grams of carbs - 4.5 g of fat - in 1.5 ounces of twinkie. 1 gram of protein only. Doritos are likewise high in carbs - 17 grams in one ounce. 8 grams of fat. 2 grams of protein.

White bread, on the other hand, has on average about 15.2 grams of carbs in 1 ounce - so it would have LESS carbohydrate content than Doritos or Twinkies per ounce.

To show that it was calories and not carbs, he would have had to drop calories while keeping his carb intake just as high as it was before. He failed to do that.

He ate only carb-heavy foods on his "diet." The idea that he was taking in MORE carbs previously than when he switched to his junk food diet is really a stretch.

Look - it's basic science anyway.

If you reduce your calories below what your body burns off or shits out, then you will lose weight. You can't possibly gain weight if your body needs 2500 a day to maintain itself and you only take in 1800. It's a mathematical certainty as certain as gravity.

[Tigger]

I can't see why people are arguing over whether ingesting more calories than you need in any form causes weight gain. It's simple.

[Svartalf]

It's because some calories get pulled into stockage with less loss than others... fats are close to our own, so don't need much processing before being transferred to your gut and butt, complex sugars take longer, and take more energy to break down, which also gives the body more margin to burn them and means there will be somewhat less to show on the scales