View Full Version : This is why you're fat
If you want to lose your appetite (http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2009/03/super-size-me-1.html), have a look at these "ten fattiest foods ever." Sure to make you gag yourself out of wanting to eat ANYTHING.
More fatty foods here (http://thisiswhyyourefat.com/). Must admit I'm slightly curious about the McDonalds Fillet O' Fish inside the Quarter Pounder. Wait, no I'm not. Nononononono.
jimmy
03-23-2009, 04:31 AM
I'm surprised the Bacon Explosion didn't make it on here.
I would not eat any of those things. I am not the healthiest eater in the world, but my God, I have to draw the line somewhere.
You could submit the bacon explosion. They might even link your website as credit. *lol*
I about had a mouthgasm. That is the best site I've seen. I wish they recipes lol.
Angel
03-24-2009, 02:58 AM
That's revolting.
Deep fried coke does sound fascinating, though. Haha.
theonenonlyrach
03-25-2009, 07:46 PM
I think I threw up in my mouth a little...no I definitely did.
And I agree, the deep fried Coke sounds interesting. Everything else can just bug off.
Weeping Child
05-24-2009, 11:08 PM
Hahahaha... The deep-fried Coca Cola is what really made me gag.
Fried Coke. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fried_Coke)
W......ow.
http://www.menshealth.com/eatthis/20-Worst-Foods/index.php
theonenonlyrach
05-25-2009, 05:20 PM
I've decided I'm never eating again.
Then your metabolism will eventually just stop and you'll either maintain or gain weight. And if you do go back to eating, you'll retain every calorie and every drop of it as pure fat :-P
Just avoid eating out - even the "healthy" menus are coming under review. Applebees is being sued over their WW menu being almost double calories/fat what it claims to be. And if you DO eat out, places like Taco Del Mar and Subway are the way to go - Taco Del Mar even has a nutrition advisory that shows you what to put on/take off to make your burrito healthy.
theonenonlyrach
05-25-2009, 05:40 PM
Right after I posted that...I went and ate some grilled shrimp. Yum. I know better than to believe that you can lose weight by not eating. Which is why when I started being able to eat breakfast, I started doing so.
And my hands are arms aren't working very well because we just played water volleyball for FOUR hours. ....ouch.... But god, the burn feels so good.
Then your metabolism will eventually just stop and you'll either maintain or gain weight. And if you do go back to eating, you'll retain every calorie and every drop of it as pure fat :-P
Just avoid eating out - even the "healthy" menus are coming under review. Applebees is being sued over their WW menu being almost double calories/fat what it claims to be. And if you DO eat out, places like Taco Del Mar and Subway are the way to go - Taco Del Mar even has a nutrition advisory that shows you what to put on/take off to make your burrito healthy.
Mmmmmmmmm, Applebees.
Do NOT tell my husband how many calories the salads have, because I'm planning on eating them frequently and pretending they're good for you.
jimmy
05-26-2009, 04:05 AM
In New York, all restaurants have to have the nutrition info printed on the menu, or at least be very nearby. I'm not sure what the exact law is, but I see the info posted a lot more visibly than I've ever seen it anywhere else.
You should be able to request a menu without all that shit. Sometimes you deserve a treat and just don't want to ruin the fun by knowing how many calories it has.
You should be able to request a menu without all that shit. Sometimes you deserve a treat and just don't want to ruin the fun by knowing how many calories it has.
You don't HAVE to look at it.
However that being said, the only places REQUIRED to release it are "diet menus" like Applebees or Olive Garden AND fast food places, including coffee shops. Everyone else does it because they want to.
jimmy
05-27-2009, 05:35 PM
You should be able to request a menu without all that shit. Sometimes you deserve a treat and just don't want to ruin the fun by knowing how many calories it has.
What? That's silly. There's no reason not to include the nutrition information. If you're insecure enough that you're going to sweat the calories, maybe you shouldn't be having "a treat."
jimmy
05-27-2009, 05:36 PM
You don't HAVE to look at it.
However that being said, the only places REQUIRED to release it are "diet menus" like Applebees or Olive Garden AND fast food places, including coffee shops. Everyone else does it because they want to.
Yeah, I guess it turned out Applebee's "healthy" options weren't so healthy after all.
http://www.wxyz.com/sites/wptv/images/themenutest/RestaurantComparisonChart.pdf
According to the lab tests reported by WXYZ in Detroit, Applebee's Cajun Lime Tilapia was supposed to contain 6 grams of fat, but really had 14.3 grams of fat. Applebee's Garlic Herb Chicken also was advertised at 6 grams of fat, but really had 18.
http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local/story/Applebees-facing-lawsuit-over-low-fat-menu/jmO0l2pQQ0Cb2iAw-FUiPg.cspx
and on a related note:
http://www.abcactionnews.com/content/themenutest/story/Investigation-The-Menu-Test/Uj72aNjl_0ajR17M_JXsBA.cspx
I find having the calorie content in a conspicuous place on the food to be incredibly unappetizing. It's not going to stop me eating what I want if I want a treat so it's probably not worth arguing about, but I think nutrition information should be reasonably accurate and readily available on request.
But see it's in your face because of how nutritionally stupid the average American is. It has to be. Otherwise it's gonna be another "I'M SUING YOU BECAUSE I GOT FAT, IT WASNT IN MY FACE SO I DIDNT SEE IT WAHHHHHHH"
I don't think we should cater to people's stupidity. If the information is available on request--and by that, I don't mean the waitress says, "Uhhhh, yeah, I think we have that somewhere.... I'll ask the manager" and you have to wait 20 minutes--I mean readily available--there shouldn't be a problem.
theonenonlyrach
05-28-2009, 06:30 AM
I don't think we should cater to people's stupidity.
Yeah, we shouldn't HAVE to cater to people's stupidity. But alas we do. If we don't, then Mickey D's gets sued because someone spills coffee in their lap and/or a customer became obese after eating nothing but Big Macs for a month. I get calls all the fucking time at work for some of our attorney's about people who want to sue a restaurant for ridiculous reasons, including but not limited to, "They got my order wrong yesterday and wouldn't correct it today." I would say that the restaurants need a little protection when there are people like that out there. The ones who want the easy way out of life.
Angel
05-28-2009, 07:19 AM
And it's a very, very American mindset.
Anywhere else in the world if you tried to sue over something that stupid, you'd get thrown out of court pretty fast, assuming you could even find someone to represent you.
jimmy
05-28-2009, 08:02 AM
If we don't, then Mickey D's gets sued because someone spills coffee in their lap and/or a customer became obese after eating nothing but Big Macs for a month.
I always seem to have to debunk the coffee thing a couple times a year. So, here we go again.
McDonald's didn't get sued because their coffee was hot. They got sued because it was dangerously hot--so hot it was unfit for consumption or even safe handling. They did this to mask the overall cheapness of their coffee. Hard to taste how bland it is if it's 180 fucking degrees! They'd had many complaints about it over the years and that lawsuit forced them to finally lower the temperature to a level that wouldn't cause instant third degree burns on exposure to skin.
The obesity thing, though, I would agree with. Either you're fat because of a medical condition, or because you overate, but neither of those are McDonald's fucking fault (unless they gave you a medical condition somehow.)
theonenonlyrach
05-28-2009, 09:36 AM
I always seem to have to debunk the coffee thing a couple times a year. So, here we go again.
McDonald's didn't get sued because their coffee was hot. They got sued because it was dangerously hot--so hot it was unfit for consumption or even safe handling. They did this to mask the overall cheapness of their coffee. Hard to taste how bland it is if it's 180 fucking degrees! They'd had many complaints about it over the years and that lawsuit forced them to finally lower the temperature to a level that wouldn't cause instant third degree burns on exposure to skin.
It was merely an example. I read that thread. Whilst, yes, that woman was in my mind...I'm meaning, in general...that would happen again. I'm glad that they lowered the temperature. I still think that it's silly to sue someone when you spilled coffee in your lap...EXCEPT in circumstances such as this. Clarified?
The obesity thing, though, I would agree with. Either you're fat because of a medical condition, or because you overate, but neither of those are McDonald's fucking fault (unless they gave you a medical condition somehow.)
"Hi, thank you for choosing McDonald's...would you like a nice steaming cup of diabetes today? 50% off!"
And it's a very, very American mindset.
Anywhere else in the world if you tried to sue over something that stupid, you'd get thrown out of court pretty fast, assuming you could even find someone to represent you.
yeah we just send fathers to jail on assault charges for flicking their sons ears.
As long as the information is available, the beef (no pun intended) should be with any individual restaurant that failed to provide it. I think it's a good idea that accurate nutrition information be available at large chain restaurants.
The McDonalds coffee lady was one thing. These nutrition lawsuits are another. We all know damn well that McDonalds isn't good for us. None of the people bringing these lawsuits forward has lived under a rock for their entire life.
It's your business what you put in your mouth--the government shouldn't be able to tax, punish or restrict you, and nobody should be able to sue the restaurants for providing it. Develop some self-control and have it as an occasional treat like most people do.
theonenonlyrach
05-28-2009, 06:27 PM
It's true that they SHOULDN'T be able to sue them for it. But...it does and will continue to happen. Simply because of the fact that idiot parents like this (read, in particular, what the father says):
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/nyregion/teenagers-suit-says-mcdonald-s-made-them-obese.html
The good news is this, the follow-up: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/09/04/mcdonalds.suit/index.html
But if you read these you see that this and countless other lawsuits that I've read about are due to the fact that "nutritional information is not available." If they shove it right in your face, perhaps we can stop some of these ridiculous lawsuits from ever reaching the level that this one even did.
Yes, I totally agree that common sense is a huge factor in this. That it is common knowledge that McDonald's is UNHEALTHY. Hell, a movie was made about it. But...idiots like this will always slip through the system.
theonenonlyrach
05-28-2009, 06:34 PM
Ahh, another one.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58652,00.html
Angel
05-28-2009, 06:46 PM
yeah we just send fathers to jail on assault charges for flicking their sons ears.
...except he was actually accused of lifting up the bikes they were sitting on and slamming them back down, flicking their ears and punching his four year old son in the face.
...except he was actually accused of lifting up the bikes they were sitting on and slamming them back down, flicking their ears and punching his four year old son in the face.
He was found not guilty on the count of slamming the bikes down, guilty on the count of flicking the kid's ear, and I can't seem to find any information about the punch in the face. It appears he was found guilty on that, as well, and fair enough.
I'm concerned that the jurors returned a guilty on the ear flick, though, because it sets a judicial precedent for future cases.
Angel
05-29-2009, 12:18 AM
Yeah, but I'm not sure if they would have had he not also been accused of punching the four year old in the face.
I find it interesting that he's been dubbed 'the ear-flick man'. How about calling him 'kid face punch man', instead? It's just as accurate.
I agree--if the guy punched his kid in the face, he deserves to be punished. I do wish people would focus on the actual abuse, not the ear flick.
theonenonlyrach
05-29-2009, 07:16 AM
Hey, look at that...Brad derailed a thread.
theonenonlyrach
05-30-2009, 08:13 AM
I couldn't believe it myself.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.