• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Trump Serves McDonald's food at White House

US known for having very low food standards compared to EU. I'd imagine compared to Australia as well. Y'all must be doing many things right as life expectancy 3 years higher than UK which is in turn 3 years higher than US
There isn't any beef tallow flavor in the frying in England. The French fries and the chicken nuggets/sandwiches are not better for the absence.
 
SOMMER.png
 
In terms of different health risks it's a huge factor. Preservatives commonly found in packaged bacon and other smokey-flavored meats, for example, are known carcinogens.

Another point is that if you're buying vegetables at all you're already ahead of most McDonald's food; they don't have a lot of vegetables, and yes I know they have salads but hardly anyone goes to McDonald's for a salad.

This also kinda segues into the article you posted; # of calories is hardly the only measure of how healthy a food is.
AFAIK, cooking creates carcinogens. The more heat you apply to your food, the more is produced. In any case, when it comes to carnicogens, you'd need a huge amount to make a material difference. There are many other factors behind cancer that may or may not make a bigger difference, like genetics, lifestyle and environment. Unless you eat stuff with relatively high amounts of carcinogens daily, I doubt it will do much, controlling for these other factors.

And dismissing the calorie comparison is disingenuous. Calorie count is just one measure, yes, but it's unlikely that there is a vast difference in other measures, especially if we're talking about the kinds of food being compared there. Also, cooking destroys a lot of the nutrients in vegetables. Vegetables are good, but having them doesn't guarantee getting the nutrients you're meant to be getting.
 
Last edited:
AFAIK, cooking creates carcinogens. The more heat you apply to your food, the more is produced. In any case, when it comes to carnicogens, you'd need a huge amount to make a material difference. There are many other factors behind cancer that may or may not make a bigger difference, like genetics, lifestyle and environment. Unless you eat stuff with relatively high amounts of carcinogens daily, I doubt it will do much, controlling for these other factors.

And dismissing the calorie comparison is disingenuous. Calorie count is just one measure, yes, but it's unlikely that there is a vast difference in other measures, especially if we're talking about the kinds of food being compared there. Also, cooking destroys a lot of the nutrients in vegetables. Vegetables are good, but having them doesn't guarantee getting the nutrients you're meant to be getting.

Are you really trying to argue that all food is roughly equally healthy and nutritious?

Incidentally, tens of millions of Americans have diabetes and hundreds of thousands of colorectal cancer. Your position is that diets have no real impact on the prevalence of these two health problems?
 
Are you really trying to argue that all food is roughly equally healthy and nutritious?

Incidentally, tens of millions of Americans have diabetes and hundreds of thousands of colorectal cancer. Your position is that diets have no real impact on the prevalence of these two health problems?
I would say the problem with the American diet is the size of it, not the quality of the food.
Like sure, a Big Mac isn't particularly healthy for you, but by the standards of what our ancestors ate it isn't that bad. We just eat too much and are far too sedentary in general.
When I go to Culvers (an upscale fast food restaurant on the same level as Chipotle) I routinely order a single scoop of ice cream because Culvers is known for their ice cream. The ice cream is not particularly healthy, but it is a single scoop and I eat there maybe 2-3 times a year. The problems start when you get something like their mega-shakes, where a plain small one is something like 1300 calories and quickly goes up. Biggest one I remember seeing was something like 2400 calories. That's the sort of stuff that causes American health problems.
 
Are you really trying to argue that all food is roughly equally healthy and nutritious?

Incidentally, tens of millions of Americans have diabetes and hundreds of thousands of colorectal cancer. Your position is that diets have no real impact on the prevalence of these two health problems?
No. You haven't been reading what I wrote.

My initial claim was that non-fast food is not necessarily healthier or much healthier than fast food. And when people don't eat fast food, they might be eating that non-fast food.
 
No. You haven't been reading what I wrote.

My initial claim was that non-fast food is not necessarily healthier or much healthier than fast food. And when people don't eat fast food, they might be eating that non-fast food.

I brought up carcinogens in processed meat and you said that cooking any food releases carcinogens and that you don't think it makes much difference in practice.

I brought up vegetables and you said cooking them destroys their nutrients and that their mere presence is no guarantee of anything.

I agree with you, a sleeve of Oreos is not necessarily any healthier than a Big Mac, but what I said is that generally speaking store-bought ingredients are less processed and have less added sugar and sodium than equivalent items you can get at McDonald's. I stand by that with the caveat that it may not be quite as true in other countries where Mcdonald's might have to be healthier than it is in the US because they have better consumer-protection laws.
 
I brought up carcinogens in processed meat and you said that cooking any food releases carcinogens and that you don't think it makes much difference in practice.

I brought up vegetables and you said cooking them destroys their nutrients and that their mere presence is no guarantee of anything.
This is all true, and...
I agree with you, a sleeve of Oreos is not necessarily any healthier than a Big Mac, but what I said is that generally speaking store-bought ingredients are less processed and have less added sugar and sodium than equivalent items you can get at McDonald's. I stand by that with the caveat that it may not be quite as true in other countries where Mcdonald's might have to be healthier than it is in the US because they have better consumer-protection laws.
The most important thing is you could buy store-bought ingredients and make an unhealthy meal because you're used to eating unhealthily even for non-fast food.
 
better consumer-protection laws.

As well as a much better local climate yielding better produce; faster local logistics, so that food is generally more fresh when it lands on a plate; more talented staff. I tried VASTLY different hamburgers, whoppers and big macs across Europe and America. Some of the best ones were in Eastern Europe.

In the end, when a person has an above average exercise program, lives in ecologically clean area, the effect from eating a hamburger or any other fast food, even fairly regularly, (once a week?) should be negligible to the overall health. If on the other hand, our hypothetical person lives in downtown Shanghai, sits on their ass all day and munches hamburgers on top of that, in that case fast food can be catalyst to very rapid deterioration. In my personal anecdotal experience good health stems from exercise and mobility much more than from the food.
 
When I cook a burger at home, it's not going to have lettuce or tomato on it (or onion, or anything except cheese), so a 'fast food' burger has that over my 'home cooked' burger.

Buy a tomato, just to use one slice of it? (even in the fridge, rest of tomato will go bad before I need more tomato, as I'm not cooking a burger everyday, more like once a week).
 
I imagine plenty of non-Americans have also eaten McDonald's in their home country
I remember that nightmarish NaNoWriMo in November 2018. I got writer's block a week in, and made the decision to switch projects. By that time I was thousands of words behind where I should have been (November is the big one where only 50,000+ words counts as a win).

To catch up, I was writing 8+ hours/day, and grudging every bathroom and meal break I took. Finally, on the last day, I just ordered a bunch of stuff from McDonalds and my win that year was fueled by cheeseburgers and Dr Pepper, as I grudged the time it took to even muck around with the microwave (yes, Maddy got fed; no story is worth more than my cat). I did over 8000 words that last day to push myself past the 50,000-word mark, which is 6000 more than most people do in a single day.

The foods and beverages people use to get through NaNo is a topic that's discussed on the forums there, every so often.

I see you've had our Mc'Donalds...delicious... but not for Thanksgiving... or for serving the NCAA champs on their White House visit.
You don't mind if I might choose to have a cheeseburger for Thanksgiving, if I serve it to myself? Truthfully I'm not a huge fan of turkey, as I find it quite dry. Turkey pie is okay, though, as there are potatoes and vegetables in it as well.

Holiday meals here aren't usually traditional. I have whatever I might be craving at the time, which could be pizza, pasta, Chinese food, a cheeseburger, or sometimes just a bowl of tomato soup.

ecologically clean area
Where on this planet can you find one of those anymore?

When I cook a burger at home, it's not going to have lettuce or tomato on it (or onion, or anything except cheese), so a 'fast food' burger has that over my 'home cooked' burger.

Buy a tomato, just to use one slice of it? (even in the fridge, rest of tomato will go bad before I need more tomato, as I'm not cooking a burger everyday, more like once a week).
Is it that you don't care for tomatoes in general? Or would you eat more of them if it was more convenient?

There are grape-sized tomatoes that my grocery store calls "snacking tomatoes". They're quite good and very handy - you don't need to slice them at all.
 
Not having a bash at them. You ever seen someone on the bus obese w swollen legs and clearly suffering? Trying to reduce that isn't a bash anymore than making smoking less accessible and social-normy is having a bash at smokers.

The difference there is that eating a lot of unhealthy food isn't hurting anyone but you, but second-hand cigarette smoke can cause cancer and be harmful to non-smokers with breathing problems, and it's also just generally unpleasant and foul-smelling.

US known for having very low food standards compared to EU. I'd imagine compared to Australia as well. Y'all must be doing many things right as life expectancy 3 years higher than UK which is in turn 3 years higher than US

The thing they're doing right is called "Universal Public Health Care" and the US should really try it some time.
 
The difference there is that eating a lot of unhealthy food isn't hurting anyone but you, but second-hand cigarette smoke can cause cancer and be harmful to non-smokers with breathing problems, and it's also just generally unpleasant and foul-smelling.
While no one would suggest a person picks up smoking, if you are in an open space it is irrational to expect there to be any effect from a smoker or smokers. Concentration of anything damaging or even just unpleasant, would be fleeting and bordering the theoretical.
Vaping is preferable, of course; it's all about nicotine.
And to bring it back to Trump, he "doesn't drink nor smoke" :shake:
 
You do not think the measures to make it harder to smoke are not "having a bash at smokers"?
I don't, no. Making it less convenient, fun, affordable and sociable to smoke benefit smoker's lives in the long run (ideally by making them ex-smokers).

Measures to make smoking more difficult has had measurable success.

I'm sure measures eliminating junk food from schools and hospitals has had similar success.

The difference there is that eating a lot of unhealthy food isn't hurting anyone but you, but second-hand cigarette smoke can cause cancer and be harmful to non-smokers with breathing problems, and it's also just generally unpleasant and foul-smelling
I agree smoking is worse but when you don't take care of yourself you harm your ability to take care of yourself and your loved ones. So it's not as in-your-face as secondhand smoke but does have anti-social effects. There are also environmental impacts to consider.
The thing they're doing right is called "Universal Public Health Care" and the US should really try it some time
I'm in support, as are most of us electorate iirc
 
Is it that you don't care for tomatoes in general? Or would you eat more of them if it was more convenient?

There are grape-sized tomatoes that my grocery store calls "snacking tomatoes". They're quite good and very handy - you don't need to slice them at all.
Don't mind them on a burger, I'll have them because I know they are good for me, but I'd never eat them by themselves (like a snack). So, on a burger I'll need them sliced. Only good ones for me are the 'tomatoes on a vine', as I can break one off and only pay for one (sold by weight), and they are smaller than the 'slicing' tomatoes, which are much larger than I'll ever need. Of course, the 'vine' ones are usually sold out, or have gone soft while still on the grocery shelf, so then it's the huge slicing ones, the tiny grape sized ones, or packages of 2 or 3....
 
The difference there is that eating a lot of unhealthy food isn't hurting anyone but you, but second-hand cigarette smoke can cause cancer and be harmful to non-smokers with breathing problems, and it's also just generally unpleasant and foul-smelling.
Sure, though either way somebody has to pay the resulting medical bills.
"Somer is dead!"
"We know!"
"Who killed him?"
"We don't know!"
 
Candidate for best post ever :yup:
Thanks, Kyr. Whatever metrical scheme I had in my ears when I composed it, I can't get myself to hear anymore, so I've revised to this:

sommer2.png
 
Last edited:
The thing they're doing right is called "Universal Public Health Care" and the US should really try it some time.

The US food system is also particularly bad (ie, incentivizes the production and consumption of unhealthy food) by international standards.
 
While no one would suggest a person picks up smoking, if you are in an open space it is irrational to expect there to be any effect from a smoker or smokers. Concentration of anything damaging or even just unpleasant, would be fleeting and bordering the theoretical.
Vaping is preferable, of course; it's all about nicotine.
And to bring it back to Trump, he "doesn't drink nor smoke" :shake:
Nope.

Kyriakos, as someone who is extremely allergic to smoke, I can honestly say you're wrong here. Before I stand anywhere near a smoker outdoors (if we're both waiting for a bus or taxi, for example) I check to see which way the wind is blowing and stand upwind of that person. Otherwise, I could end up with an extreme bout of coughing, a headache, and depending on how foul the smell is or how strong, I could end up upchucking the contents of my stomach.

This is not an exaggeration. It's happened.

Back when I was still doing typing for college/university students, I could tell exactly which of my clients were smokers. The smell permeated the paper their rough drafts were written on. There were a couple of times it was so strong that I started coughing, and realized that I had to do something or I'd never be able to finish the project - I just can't hold my breath for the 2.5 hours I knew it would take to type a term paper that long.

So my grandmother pinned the papers to the outdoor clothesline to air them out and I moved that client to the back of the queue. By the time I was done everyone else's papers, these had aired out over at least 6 hours and were more tolerable.

I'm not claiming every non-smoker is this sensitive. But please don't dismiss the people who are. And it's not just cigarette or cigar smoke; I also can't tolerate scented candles, perfume, scented cleaning solutions, or even campfire smoke. I was thankful when the city enacted a bylaw banning leaf burning in the spring and fall.
 
Top Bottom