homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.205.193.39
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & lawman

Foo Forum

This 120 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 120 ( 1 [2] 3 4 > >     
Do the posh places near you still use MacDonald's?
or do they have more sense?
BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:4269033
 2:19 pm on Feb 18, 2011 (gmt 0)

My son lives in an affluent area that repeatedly gets voted amongst the best places to live in Scotland and indeed the UK. It has one of the longest life expectancies and 61% of its residents are classified at the higher/ABC1 end of the social scale.

The other evening my wife and I were returning the grandchildren (4,6 and 9) after having them for a couple of days and they asked if they could stop at a MacDonald's for dinner before going home. I hate MacDonald's with a vengeance but to keep them sweet we decided to take them to their local branch.

This was in midweek and early evening and we expected it to be fairly quiet. Imagine our surprise when we found it to be very busy. The drive through was queued out onto the main road constantly. We thought that these posh people had better taste. ;)

I wonder what will happen to their life expectancy if they are gorging on MacDonald's!

Do you find that this happens in the affluent areas near you or do they have more sense? ;)

.

 

wheel




msg:4269855
 6:26 pm on Feb 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

I was mistaken about who made it. Nevertheless, an acadamy award doesn't make micheal moore and his ilk (including the supersize me movie) much more than hysteria. They're movie makers, and should be in the same class as entertainers.

Following that nonsense as a way to guide your life is about as sensible as getting your medical advice off the internet.

These folks have as much of an agenda as Sarah Palin. We'd be wise to take it all with a grain of salt.

I eat Mcdonalds about twice a year. Hasn't killed me yet.

wyweb




msg:4269858
 6:37 pm on Feb 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

I like their french fries. Once a month or so I get two large orders and sit in the truck with a very big Rottweiler named Roscoe and we'll split them down the middle.

It's not good for him but it's once a month okay?

It's not good for me either but I don't really care. Their fries are the best. I get 350% of my sodium allowence in one sitting... saturated fats are off the chart too.

I really just do not care.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:4269861
 6:46 pm on Feb 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

Following that nonsense as a way to guide your life is about as sensible as getting your medical advice off the internet.

It's not about that.

ken_b




msg:4269864
 6:59 pm on Feb 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

I only eat at McDonalds when they are open!

wyweb




msg:4269865
 7:01 pm on Feb 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

It's friggin' McDonalds okay? We're all clear on that right? If there's not one currently in your neighborhood, one will be coming soon.

You have a conscious choice to make when you're driving down the road. Do I go straight or do I turn right into the McDonalds? Either choice is yours. Cops aren't setting up roadblocks to divert traffic into McDonalds parking lots. Not in my town they're not. You make a conscious and (usually) informed decision to pollute your own body.

If you don't already KNOW the nutritional value of a Micky D's happy meal it's pretty easy to google it and find out. Or Bing it, as the case may be. You're already sitting in front of of the most powerful information retrieval systems available to mere mortals like us so why not use it? Look stuff up. Yeah, McDonalds food sucks nutritionally. That's a known fact. They can throw it out the window at you in two minutes though. That's the attraction. We don't sit down and eat anymore. We do it on the fly and we've gotten good at it.

There was a woman a few years back who sued McDonalds because her coffee was too hot and she spilled some driving down the road and it burned her leg. Well, duh! Hot coffee. Who would have thought of it?

Buy cook books and do it at home. Or better yet find a significant other that can put together 5 courses in under an hour and keep your fingers crossed she doesn't leave you.

That's what I do....

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:4269881
 7:39 pm on Feb 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

We don't sit down and eat anymore.

My significant other and I sit down at a table to eat dinner every day and always have done during our 40 years of marriage.

If you don't already KNOW the nutritional value of a Micky D's happy meal it's pretty easy to google it and find out.

I am not sure where this is going? I seem to have upset all you mac munchers. :(

wyweb




msg:4269883
 7:53 pm on Feb 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

I seem to have upset all you mac munchers

I'm not a mac muncher, at least not on any sort of regular basis, and a topic in a webmasters forum about McDonalds has NO capacity to upset me. It's slightly amusing but that's about the extent of what I'll give to it.

Maybe it's just a slow Sunday.

Rodney




msg:4269886
 8:06 pm on Feb 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

I'm a bit of a burger junkie, but I still don't mind going back to my burger roots and getting a Quarter Pounder with Cheese ever now and then :)

incrediBILL




msg:4269888
 8:07 pm on Feb 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

McDonalds food sucks nutritionally.


Yes, but the amusing part is many people that cry about McD's crap make the same crap at home and don't realize it's no better or worse than getting the same thing in a fast food drive thru.

Unless your home version goes all hardcore healthy with a whole-wheat bun, low fat cheese, ground turkey, bison or veggie patty instead of the fat dripping beef, etc. you're not doing much better, and most often stuff I see people pull off their home grill is even worse than McD's.

The point is moderation.

Besides, I've known some big people that got that way long before fast food was around, sometimes it's genetics or other health issues and you're just screwed no matter what you do.

mslina2002




msg:4269901
 8:52 pm on Feb 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

wyveb this was the experiment that changed my mind (and my kids') about mc death food and fries.

Experiment over the course of 8-weeks:
Jar 1: Bic Mac
Jar 2: Mc Chicken
Jar 3: Fish sandwich
Jar 4: 1/4 lb hamburger
Jar 5: Mc Donalds Fries
Jar 6: Local restaurant hamburger
Jar 7: Local restaurant fries

The experiment was monitored every week.

After week 10, guess which jar still looks like when it did on day 1?

Makes you wonder what carcinogenic chemicals was used to keep the "food" from going bad?

[youtube.com...]

Just in case the video link does not post:
look for Youtube Video "McDonalds Food - The Truth"

wyweb




msg:4269911
 9:23 pm on Feb 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

And it's wyweb. Not wyveb.

wyweb




msg:4270000
 7:42 am on Feb 21, 2011 (gmt 0)

My point is that no one forces you to eat stuff that's bad for you and that's the only point I'm trying to make here.

I don't care what's in a chocolate milk shake. I'm smart enough to realize that if I drink one every day I'll be buying new pants in a few months though. I don't have a degree in nutrition. Some things are just that obvious.

Their product fails and it fails on many levels.

Does anyone not agree with that?

Then don't use it. Where's the confusion at? How is this hard to get around?

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:4270003
 8:28 am on Feb 21, 2011 (gmt 0)

My point is that no one forces you to eat stuff that's bad for you and that's the only point I'm trying to make here.

I think the point is that not all people are as smart as you Wyweb. Some people are more easily influenced by others (and by McDonald's marketing - think kids).

wyweb




msg:4270014
 9:16 am on Feb 21, 2011 (gmt 0)

I think the point is that not all people are as smart as you Wyweb

Well, I appreciate that BDW but actually that's not true.

My significant other and I sit down at a table to eat dinner every day and always have done during our 40 years of marriage.

And I applaud you for that. I do. Seriously. I agree it's a fine way to spend an evening. Loved ones at the table. Could not agree more. I wish I had more of it in my life. My girl and I eat at the same table often but our lives are so hectic it's impossible to ever actually schedule anything. Either she's coming or I'm going and it's difficult to plan anything around that.

And I'm no slouch in the kitchen either. I can throw a fine meal together with limited time and limited resources. I have my specialties though, whereas my girl is much more versatile. I rely on instructions a lot, but she can do it off the top of her head. Yet another reason I've always felt women outclassed men.

- think kids).

And I do. Always. They have limited buying power though. It's mom and dad who take them to McDonalds in the first place and mom and dad who should be blamed. If there's blame being passed around I mean.

And I think there should be.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:4270042
 11:18 am on Feb 21, 2011 (gmt 0)

And I do. Always. They have limited buying power though. It's mom and dad who take them to McDonalds in the first place and mom and dad who should be blamed. If there's blame being passed around I mean.

Would I be right in saying that you don't have kids?

londrum




msg:4270044
 11:36 am on Feb 21, 2011 (gmt 0)

Experiment over the course of 8-weeks:
Jar 1: Bic Mac
Jar 2: Mc Chicken
Jar 3: Fish sandwich
Jar 4: 1/4 lb hamburger
Jar 5: Mc Donalds Fries
Jar 6: Local restaurant hamburger
Jar 7: Local restaurant fries

The experiment was monitored every week.

After week 10, guess which jar still looks like when it did on day 1?

Makes you wonder what carcinogenic chemicals was used to keep the "food" from going bad?


this is a good example of how biased thinking is against mcdonalds. they are the bogeyman of food.

because the food looks the same after 2 months we automatically - unthinkingly - regard it as being worse for us than the stuff that looks mouldy.
but why? they've put stuff in them to keep fungus and mould at bay? why is that automatically bad? if you approached the argument fresh then you'd probably think that is good.

99% of the food at the supermarket has stuff added to it, and we eat it without a thought. half the fruit and veg on display has stuff sprayed on them and added to them to keep them looking nice on the shelves for longer, and yet people will pick up basket-fulls of those saying how healthy they are.

its like this... if mcdonalds sold eggs from chickens living six months in the Ritz, people still wouldn't be convinced, because the jury has already voted.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:4270058
 12:29 pm on Feb 21, 2011 (gmt 0)

Hrrrrrmmmm, I wonder why? ;o)

frontpage




msg:4270062
 12:55 pm on Feb 21, 2011 (gmt 0)

We thought that these posh people had better taste.


Just ask and I will provide a long detailed list of what snobby, caste-conscious 'posh' people consider to be good taste.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:4270066
 1:18 pm on Feb 21, 2011 (gmt 0)

No thanks. I already know (but who mentioned caste)?

BillyS




msg:4270067
 1:24 pm on Feb 21, 2011 (gmt 0)

I'm not surprised the fries didn't get moldy. He's using those fat "steak" fries as a comparison. They've a lot more water in them than the other fries.

He also touched all of the other food with his bare hands, but he poured out the fries...

I'm not sure what this "experiment" proved other than fries don't have a lot of moisture. I'd be willing to bet you'd get the same result with any type of "skinny" fries.

These types are worse at spreading bad information than advertisers. It's all very self serving.

Old_Honky




msg:4270073
 1:46 pm on Feb 21, 2011 (gmt 0)

My main reason for avoiding Macdonalds is that they are misrepresenting what they sell. Those pictures above the counter show thick meaty burgers crispy fresh lettuce and thick wholesome looking buns. The reality is a thin piece of over cooked fatty meat surrounded by the soggy remains of what used to be lettuce served inside a bap that tastes like cardboard. It is misrepresentation and they should all be closed down until they match the images with what they are actually selling.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:4270076
 2:04 pm on Feb 21, 2011 (gmt 0)

Listen the man! We old guys know what we are talking about. :)

wyweb




msg:4270078
 2:11 pm on Feb 21, 2011 (gmt 0)

Would I be right in saying that you don't have kids?

One son. He died in 1993 of a drug overdose. He left behind a wife, two children and a father who grieves to this day about the rightness or wrongness of decisions he made in raising his son.

You asked okay?

If we're talking about influence on their parents, then yes, childrens impact is/can be huge.

In the final analysis, it is the parents who decide where they go for lunch. Unless your child is independently wealthy it will be you, as their parent, who buys their lunch. It will be you who foots the bill. Controlling the purse strings gives you a remarkable degree of power when it comes to dictating how that money is spent. Don't want your child eating a happy meal? Don't take him there. End of story. And if you do take him there, don't bitch about it later on.

There's enough evidence to convict McDonalds already. Don't decide at some point to crawl in a hole and claim you didn't know about it.

wyweb




msg:4270085
 2:31 pm on Feb 21, 2011 (gmt 0)

My main reason for avoiding Macdonalds is that they are misrepresenting what they sell

Of course they do. Name a major player that doesn't.

Does that mean you buy into it? You make your own choices. Or you should. They might get you the first time but once you've eaten one of those tasteless, cardboad hamburgers, are you likely to buy one again?

I like their chocolate milk shakes and I like their fries and I do NOT care about the nutritional value of either one. I have a really big dog who rides with me everywhere and he likes them too. We treat ourselves and it's not often we do that.

Actually their coffee isn't all that bad either.

I would no sooner make McDonalds a regular part of my itinerary than I would a trip to the dentist. I didn't have to be told this, nor am I now being duped by clever, misleading marketing spiels. It is what it is and I sized it up pretty quickly from the start.

lawman




msg:4270151
 5:27 pm on Feb 21, 2011 (gmt 0)

TOS #4 is still in effect. Let's all play nice.

mslina2002




msg:4270158
 5:42 pm on Feb 21, 2011 (gmt 0)

because the food looks the same after 2 months we automatically - unthinkingly - regard it as being worse for us than the stuff that looks mouldy.
but why? they've put stuff in them to keep fungus and mould at bay? why is that automatically bad?


Well because in nature a food item would not last that long NATURALLY. I don't assume that just because something has been approved by the FDA this year that it is OK to consume, period. There are probably substances added in there with names 3 miles long I cannot pronounce that in the long run or in larger amounts with build up over the years are not good for you. Or in a few years they say, oops, we were wrong and yes, that caramel coloring that we added to the coke, is infact not so good for ya and it does btw cause cancer, sorry. But hey, adults can choose their indulgence and make their own informed decision as they wish because they are adults. However kids don't know better. They are especially influenced by television, marketing and ofcourse their parents, and yes even grand parents.

frontpage




msg:4270185
 6:43 pm on Feb 21, 2011 (gmt 0)

Yes G1smd, I watched that documentary, it was called "Supersize Me". Much of my current thoughts about McDonald's are coloured by it.


Yep, its a common negative misconception about how harmful McDonald's is but the criticism is not really scientific.

Not to mention the reported fraud in the Supersize Me which is often overlooked.

Tom Naughton "suggests that Spurlock's calorie and fat counts don't add up" and criticizes Spurlock's refusal to publish the Super Size Me food log


Most educated people who saw the film realize that it was the 5,000 calories a day the film maker was eating that was making him fat/ill. This is more that 2 1/2 the calories most folks eat a day. He just chose to set his sights on McDonalds when it could have been 5,000 calories of Haggis instead.

While conversely there have been other documentaries and medical studies which showed people losing weight, reducing their cholesterol, etc by eating at McDonalds.

Suggested:

1) Me & Mickey D - author also ate all meals at McDonald's, yet lost weight -- 20 pounds over 60 days; 30 pounds in 90 days.

2) Fat Head - [imdb.com...]

3) Downsize Me - authors result was weight loss (222 lbs down to 214 lbs), as well as improved blood pressure, cholesterol, and triglycerides

frontpage




msg:4270195
 7:12 pm on Feb 21, 2011 (gmt 0)

Researcher Challenges 'Super Size Me' Movie, Says McDonald's Diet Can Help Cholesterol

Nystrom believes that the results Spurlock experienced may have been overstated tremendously. Unlike Spurlock, Nystrom's subjects did not suffer depression, and for the most part, their cholesterol levels improved.


[digitaljournal.com...]

Science.

frontpage




msg:4270207
 7:23 pm on Feb 21, 2011 (gmt 0)

One of Spurlock's favorite sources in his book is the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. After the Center for Science in the Public Interest, PCRM ranks second on his "Acknowledgements" page, and he uses them in both the text and the end notes.


Only problem with that source?

Less than 5% of the group's membership are actual physicians.


And the PETA funded PRCM has a distinct political agenda. Vegetarianism.

What do real doctors think of the PRCM?

The AMA's president said of PCRM in 1991, "They are neither responsible, nor are they physicians."



More disturbing, however, are PCRM's ties to animal rights terrorism. Barnard has engaged in several letter-writing campaigns with a guy named Kevin Kjonaas, who has ties to two animal rights terrorist groups, including the Animal Liberation Front. Kjonaas is now on trial on domestic terrorism charges.

Then there's Jerry Vlasak. Vlasak is a former spokesman for PCRM, and author of several of the group's publications.


So there you have it, a manufactured PR stunt sourced by vegetarians and animal rights eco-terrorists.

Physician's Committee For Responsible Medicine (PCRM)
[ncahf.org...]

londrum




msg:4270265
 8:56 pm on Feb 21, 2011 (gmt 0)

because the food looks the same after 2 months we automatically - unthinkingly - regard it as being worse for us than the stuff that looks mouldy.
but why? they've put stuff in them to keep fungus and mould at bay? why is that automatically bad?


Well because in nature a food item would not last that long NATURALLY.


this is just not true. if you leave a piece of bread out for a month it will go mouldy. but if you toast it and butter it, it will still look pretty much 100% the same after months and months and months. all that will happen is that it will dry out. the same thing with an onion, for example. but not a single person in the entire world would suggest that the orginal slice of bread or onion was bad for you.

...and yet if someone puts a mcdonalds burger bun in a jar for a month and films it, everyone will turn around and say that it must be stuffed choca-block with chemicals and will vow never to set foot in the place again.

most people believe what the telly tells them. if they see a documentary where a bloke lives off big macs for a year and gets unwell then they go along with the fiction that one big mac a week will kill them.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:4270281
 9:16 pm on Feb 21, 2011 (gmt 0)

I didn't know we had so many mouldy food experts in here.

:)

This 120 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 120 ( 1 [2] 3 4 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved