Topic awaiting preservation: McDonalds phasing out Supersized menu (Page 1 of 1)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4433307/

Man, this whole eating healthier craze is starting to really piss me off. I don't mind of someone wants to eat healthier but every once in a while I enjoy stuffing myself on saturated fat and washing it down with a bucket of pure sugar.

This in and of itself isn't a big deal to me but it makes me wonder what's just over the horizon. I hear that some schools have already banned Coke and Pepsi in their cafeterias. Pretty soon a french fry is going to be contraband.

:::11oh1:::

[This message has been edited by krets (edited 03-03-2004).]

I never understood how anyone could actually eat a supersized McD's meal in one sitting anyway....

As far as the coke/pepsi issue - I would have thought that as a former teacher, you would appreciate not having students caffeinated Of course, the school has the obligation to make sure it is providing "proper" options....deciding what is proper is a big mess I'd say...

I'm all for both of those decisions, in and of themselves. It is certainly scary to consider what will happen if things get taken too far though.

Actually, a little caffeine at lunch is fine with me. Kids always come back from lunch completely lethargic. The problem is that most of these places still serve all these fruity drinks that are like 300 calories a bottle and have shitloads of carbs. Seems kind of hypocritical to me.



:::11oh1:::

Hhmmm.. My initial thought is that I'm happy about it - as long as it doesn't go too far (omitting all fatty foods and junk). I think the portions are way too big in North America anyway. They're over the top in half the restaurants I've eaten in. On the other hand, I fully understand people should be responsible for their own eating habits but look what's happening - people are overweight and out of shape and it costs money to treat obesity related health problems. People aren't willing to be responsible for their own health it seems. If schools remove coke and restaurants start offering more normal courses then cool, I'm for it. It's beneficial to people and to the health system.

I have 3 kids and they'll pig out only on crap if I let them. I try to censor their eating habits at home by buying foods that are healthy but they're old enough to buy their own garbage food and eat at Macdonalds or Pizzahut at lunch - and they do. If Macdonalds is finally seeing the light, then I think I'll back them on it. I want my kids to be healthy and eat less fat.

I figure if you're really hungry, you can just order 2 fries

Amerasu

quote:

---

The problem is that most of these places still serve all these fruity drinks that are like 300 calories a bottle and have shitloads of carbs. Seems kind of hypocritical to me.

---

Agree with that. If they're going to replace Coke, then they should be replacing it with something healthy - water even.


Amerasu

quote:

---

I think the portions are way too big in North America anyway. They're over the top in half the restaurants I've eaten in

---

I enjoy that, in an actual restaurant - that way I have lunch for the next day as well

I agree on the so called "fruit" drinks as well, especially since most of them are just sugar and citric acid anyway.

And don't forget High Fructose Corn Syrup

From the same site: Hemp Food. What the hell would they make out of hemp to eat? heh, maybe next they will get the crazy idea to start using hemp for other things like paper. Might make it harder to regulate, but I think it is time the government stop wasting money on marijuana and focus on the really bad drugs like heroin, cocaine, and pez.

As far as McDonalds goes, I think that is a good thing, of course I can't even eat fast food anymore, makes me sick. As far as the trend of healthy foods, I guess it is good in a way, just don't want to see it go as far as banning fatty foods. Places like McDonalds could drastically reduce the fat content of many of their menu items just by changing some of their ingredients to alternatives. Instead of Lard for fries, use Canola oil. That sort of thing. Might cost them a few cents for each meal they serve, but in the end wouldn't it be worth it?


Ramasax

quote:

---

Kids always come back from lunch completely lethargic.

---

I found that amusing, but you may be mistaking lethargy for euphoria, they are sometimes the spitting image of one another while under the eye of authority figures



edit: non compliant ubb code

[This message has been edited by JKMabry (edited 03-04-2004).]

I think its a good business move for fast-food resturants like McDonalds. I here from older people all the time that they just can't eat that food anymore. By being so unhealthy they drastically limit their business.


Jestah

I'd still take some hemp brownies over mcdonalds any day

And, a very timely article - http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/03/04/school.nutrition.ap/index.html

I do beleive this is - overall - a positive thing, and a necessary one.

As always, I do fear it being taken too far. But to regulate what the school itself offers, and turn it towards a more healthy trend, I'm all for.

If it turns to strict regulation of what parents can send with their children, that crosses another line altogether.


Now, "hemp" brownies wouldn't accomplish much more than leaving you fiber-loaded and ready to blow. Hemp being the term for the very useful but not very intoxicating fibers of the stalk of strains of cannabis which are bred specifically for their stalks and not their buds.

Maybe this kid should have had more of Kret's lethargic lunch menu...

The new McVeggie burgers are actually quite tasty I'm sure they chock full of sodium and plenty of other substances that aren't exactly healthy... but I've never gone to McDs expecting, or wanting, to eat healthy

mobrul, I guess that showed him

. . : slicePuzzle

The thing that pisses me off about this is that it really doesn't solve anything it's just window dressing. We're talking about 1 oz of french fries here, that's not exactly a significant push towards making their food healthier. The people they "trying to help" will just order more food to compensate.

I'm a perfectly healthy person but there are times when I just want that larger soda or those extra fries and it pisses me off that I'm not going to have that choice anymore because some people don't know when stop.

I just hope this doesn't start a trend.



:::11oh1:::

start a trend? I think the trend started a bit ago and is just gaining momentum.

I mean, if ol McD's is losing sales because their food sucks, they have the right to change... But if i want health food I will go to subways..... while we are at it, they only put 3 freakin pieces of meat on their 6inch longs. GAAAAHHHH!!! I want my meat! They also have fallen victim to the trend.

The way things are going though, I dont see why i could not sue the Dr Pepper company for the cavities i have now. I had no warning that high dosages of the beverage would damage my teath for my life. shame on them.

I mean... is that how most people think???


[antique sigs are us]

That's exactly my point though Izz, they didn't change their food; they just did away with one of the portions. Not exactly a good way of dealing with the real issue.

:::11oh1:::

They did change their food though Krets. The salads and yougurt things that they've introduced within the last year or so have been fantastic. The article talks about further changing the menu as well.

Jestah

Yeah, they've actually added lots of 'lite' stuff over the past year or two. New veggie burgers, low fat chicken sandwiches on whole wheat, etc. Burger King too if I remember correctly.

I tried a veggie burger from Burger King once - horrific.

Amerasu

LOL!!! Yeah the BK Veggie was pretty nasty. But you got to give them some credit for trying

. . : slicePuzzle

I totally disagree.
I think the BK Veggie isn't half bad. (It's nothing to write home about...but 'horrific' and 'nasty' is a little strong, eh?)

I had no idea McD's had an equivalent product. Here in the Midwest, most guys just walk out into the field and rip a slab off the side of the nearest cow.

This town ain't too vegetarian friendly. I think McD's plans to introduce it to their Midwestern menu sometime around 2015.

They didn't change their existing food though and that's the stuff in question. Do you really think that any of the people with the weight issues that need to be addressed are eating salads and yogurt? Hellllllllllll no.

:::11oh1:::

I'm sure a significant portion of those who need to lose weight are eatting salads instead of fattening hamburgers at McDonalds. Perhaps not everyone whos overweight, but then we're talking 90% of the US population or somewhere along those lines. Thats not really the point though. The only major corporation that I know of that completely dumped a successful product that was the staple of their business was Coca-Cola. We know how well that went. It would be ridiculous for a company like McDonalds to just change their menus completely. What makes sense though is the slow intergration of healthy foods into their menus. McDonalds has a lot more healthy choices now then it did a few years ago and my guess is that trend is going to continue.

BTW, I'm a little confused on what you seem to be so angry about? Relax Krets, no ones going to think any less of you if you walk into a fast food place and order a grilled chicken caesar salad or a yogurt parfait - at least I won't.

Jestah

[This message has been edited by Jestah (edited 03-07-2004).]

Mind you...'obese' is a medical term used to describe those who weigh more than what the book says someone of their height should weigh.

For example: I have a friend (calm down...I know it's an unusual thing for me to have friends, but, well, everyone's gotta have some). Now, this friend is a pretty muscular guy. He's a body-builder, and damn strong. He's all muscle, but since muscle weighs more per cubix metre than fat, he's also a heavy guy. He is classed as obese, even though he isn't fat. I'll bet that a significant portion of these in America and other countries who are being classed as 'obese' are in the same boat as my friend.

Justice 4 Pat Richard

I am all for self policing! If a company of an individual decides that healthier food is in their best interest I reccommend that they make the effort to support the people who wish to purchase this kind of item. If the company then decides it wants to only serve up healthy food even more power to them as long as it is economically viable. There will be another company who will support those who wish to eat something that is not healthy as long as it is ecconomically benificial to them.

Again I don't have a problem with self policing. The problem is when the government makes a law that would limit ones freedom to eat. I find this problem is manifesting itself in many areas. Smoking, drinking, drugs. These are areas where the authority should be in the hands of the individuals, not the government. Making laws that limit individual freedoms which should be monitored by the individual is the bad trend here.

People say, the cost of other people being unhealthy costs me more, so we should outlaw thier behavior. This is backwards. Insurance for those who are unhealthy should be increased, and should not affect those that are healthy. Much like car insurance, if I purchase a #1 rated car for safety my insurance is less than if I purchase the hot red sports car, that is my penalty for driving a car that can be potensially dangerous, it doesn't matter if I am a safer driver than the person who bought the safe car, or if I haven't been in an accident, it is still predominantly rated as more accident prone. If you are over weight you should pay more for your health insurance, it doesn't matter if you have never had a problem with your health, or if your weight is not affected by what you eat. You somehow fall into an unhealthy classification and will have to pay to be a part of it.

You could also be able to set up a company that only gives service to those in specific classifications. You should be allowed to be biased. This is not a discussion of separate but equals, this is a discussion of money, this is ecconomics. If I wish to make a store that only sells products to white people I should be allowed to. The store that sells goods to people of all races and creeds will be more economically effective, and my racist store will go out of business eventually. People would also have the ability to protest the store, which would be an additional ecconomic sanction against it, and other could even protest for it.

This is called Democracy. People can exert their personal right however they see fit, and they are able to speak for or against something.

Lets take this back to food. I can choose to eat unhealthy, people can choose to tell me that I am unhealthy, the insruance company can choose to not allow me insurance from them. I must them make a decision, is my unhealthy eating habit worth the trouble? At the same time there will be a company that says, look, there are hundreds of thousands of people who can't get insurance because they eat unhealthy, lets offer them insurance at a higher rate and we can make money. So now I am still penalized by paying more, but I can still eat my unhealthy food.

As soon as the government steps in a makes a tax on unhealthy food, or makes a law to ban unhealthy food, they are overstepping thier bounds in a capitialistic democracy, even if the majority feels that this should be a law, it shouldn't. This is how you maintain democracy. In a true democracy, it is rule by the people, the government works to protect everyones rights, while the people can work to set the moral standards.

This might seem rather backwards. But it is how it should be done. Imagine if we keep up at this pace of allowing the government to make laws which control personal freedoms. No smoking will again turn into no drinking, and no drinking turns into no foods with fats or sugars. Someday they might outlaw running, because while running you might injure yourself. Or they outlaw the production of knives because people have cut themselves with them. It might seem dumb now, but if it does come to pass it will be pretty scary.

This is why you must stop thinking the government is the enforcer of personal liberties. You are the enforcer of personal liberties. If you feel stronly you must act. If you do not you shouldn't. But by all means do not go to the government to pass a law for your cause, this just leads to limiting the rights of everyone.

This is why America has so little patriotism now, and people have so little need to act. They think it is the government's job to take care of them, and to persever their isolated bubble of perfection, while they forget that as a member of a democracy the individual must take up the cause on their own and must act on their own.

-Dan-

For example: I have a friend (calm down...I know it's an unusual thing for me to have friends, but, well, everyone's gotta have some). Now, this friend is a pretty muscular guy. He's a body-builder, and damn strong. He's all muscle, but since muscle weighs more per cubix metre than fat, he's also a heavy guy. He is classed as obese, even though he isn't fat. I'll bet that a significant portion of these in America and other countries who are being classed as 'obese' are in the same boat as my friend.

you definitely don't live in the states a while ago i was with some friends at an upscale mall here in houston and we somehow got the idea of taking a sort of survey of the general population there with regards to their fitness and health (one my friends is a personal trainer). after surveying hundreds of people walking by, we found that an overwhelming majority were overweight, a surprising percentage bordered on obese (which is being extremely overweight, not sure where we got this "heavier than average" definition), and only a handful of people were actually in great shape/muscular/very fit.

unfortunately a lot of people, probably most, really don't care about their health that much and don't eat healthy. if they did we wouldn't have a billion-dollar industry that pushes "lose weight quick without exercise" products.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Like I said Jestah, I have no problems with that. In actuality, I hardly ever eat at McDonalds except to grab a quick breakfast burrito once in a while. I eat healthy the majority of the time but now and then I enjoy having the option of a big fat soda and a bucket of fries.

As I mentioned before (a couple of times now I think) the thing that makes me angry is not this situation in particular. Rather, it's the way that groups with an agenda have been able to affect the choices that the rest of us have because of the litigious nature of today's society. Companies are so terrified of that big lawsuit that we all end up paying somehow.

You won't be able to convince me that people like the little fat kids that sued McD's a while back for making them fat weren't a large part of this decision.

:::11oh1:::

and on a related note:
House Passes 'Cheeseburger Bill'


KAIROSinteractive

quote:

---

krets: ... it's the way that groups with an agenda have been able to affect the choices that the rest of us have because of the litigious nature of today's society. Companies are so terrified of that big lawsuit that we all end up paying somehow.

---

Isn't that the sad truth.

And the link above: wow, a little common sense coming from Washington for a change.



[This message has been edited by Ramasax (edited 03-11-2004).]

The so-called "Hamburger Bill" has got to be one of the stupidest pieces of legislation I have ever heard of. How come the government didn't find it in their best interests to make the same sort of legislation for the cigarette companies? It's the same thing, really: "Hey - let's sue McD's because eating too many of their Big Macs made me fat." or "Hey - let's sue Philip Morris because smoking 2 packs of Marlboro a day gave me lung cancer." Oh wait - the tobacco lobbyists obviously didn't have the money to buy off the government...

"Litigious nature of society" indeed! I've become increasingly disgusted at the direction in which American society is moving. All the more so because I live here! There's too many people minding too many other people's business. If more people paid more attention to what is going on in their own lives, as opposed to worrying about what their neighbors are doing, the world would be a better place. I'm sick to death of it.

To be honest, I don't see what taking the Super Size option off McD's menu is going to do for them. Except that instead of the .50 - .99 cents more it cost you to Super Size, now you get to pay double the cost of the original item if you want the extra calories. It doesn't make their menu choices healtier, just smaller. It doesn't replace common sense in your diet either.

People need to take responsibility for their own choices. Period.

I think, this thing is great...they're just trying to help the obese society of the western world.

Make mine two quarterpounders with cheese, a bigmac, large fries, an apple pie.......and a large diet coke please.

But I love the large sized-foods...hehe.

Deviations

In my opinion theres some 'neutral' points to the whole supersize thing and one other point that I want to make.
First off the Neutral point: The only thing you ever got that was any bigger was the fries and the drink and the fries weren't that much bigger that the large but getting rid of supersizing meals makes you have to buy two fries so it really doesn't matter on the action point of view.But......
If you look at it from a principle point view you get a whole new ballgame.
If you don't have the sense to realize that if you eat greasy food three meals a day every day you get fat then your a dumbass and the rest of us shouldn't be punished for you stupidity. And as far as the fries are addicting: No they're greasy and you have no self control. Anybody who thinks they are addicting is a blithering idiot.

If one match can start a forest fire then why does it take the whole box to start a BBQ Grill?

I beg to differ. There are a great many people in the world for whom carbohydrates are a serious addiction.
Read More...
The health industry is only now beginning serious study into this issue. Only recently has it been proved that Dr. Atkins had a real point to make. (Granted, a lot of the low-carb craze these days is still not a healthy diet)

French fries are pure carbohydrate. It takes a lot of will power and concentration to break a carbohydrate addiction. In a really serious case, you pretty much have to forego eating anything but meat and selective veggies for some months before you can add back even the most complex of carbohydrates, such as some fruits and whole grains. Hard to do, especially if you have a family where everyone has different dietary needs. You try cooking a family dinner for 4 different diets! Or for that matter, the grocery bill involved!

So much of the American diet is carbohydrate based, and not even healthy carbohydrates at that! We are brought up on prepared foods and fast foods - these addictions are ingrained from our youth, and can be passed on to our progeny. Convenience food is never the healthiest choice, yet in our go-go-go world, it is the choice people make most often.

I still don't think one should blame the industries that are only guilty of catering to the desires of a lazy, convenience oriented nation for the consequences of yeilding to those desires - but these industries certainly aren't helping solve the problem. They are just trying to make a buck - who isn't, these days?

But there are a lot of people who have a problem with these foods who either don't know there is a solution, or don't care to make the effort. Very few people in the US were brought up developing the kind of inner strength it takes to break a lifetime of conditioning. We are a weak people in that regard. A lot of the problem came from environmental conditioning by our parents a generation or 2 ago, but now it has become a real physical problem.

It has been proven over and over again that a psychosomatic illness can become a real illness if not treated properly and in time. People are still stupid, but don't knock a real problem!

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 04-08-2004).]

okay i will concede the fact that there are psychological disorders that can be a problem for two reasons.....i didn't think about that and it is a reasonable and logical point and that I am really interested in psych disorders. But I still stand firm on the fact that all should not be punished for the actions of some.

I can totally believe that some people are addicted to carbohydrates. I, for one, am addicted to silly posts.


___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org

I don't have any addictions. That's weird.

Personally I am addicted to setting things on fire I just can't stop. My hands start to itch and feel wierd if i don't at least light four candles a day on the very VERY least.

If one match can start a forest fire then why does it take the whole box to start a BBQ Grill?