Fast-Food Chains like Mcdy's?

McDonald's is fast, CHEAP (really the leading reason,) and tasty. The food is not completely devoid of nutrition. There was a high school teacher that lost on the neighborhood of 50-70 lbs during one school year by planning a 2,000 calorie diet, and sticking to it. It still allowed for an ice cream sundae a couple times a week.
 
I'd like to point out that you can get salads, nuts, whole milk, fruit, and yogurt at McDonalds now. If the challenge is to eat nothing but stuff off the menu, you'd be fine.
But salads contain just as much fat and calories than burgers and fries at Mcdonalds'? So you can get fat eating them too.
 
But salads contain just as much fat and calories than burgers and fries at Mcdonalds'? So you can get fat eating them too.

You can get fat eating anything if you wrap it in bacon. I don't understand why this doesn't make sense to you. Are there unhealthy options to add to salads? Yes, this is true whether you're eating at McDonalds or just bobbing for bacon bits at any salad bar.

Pulling some nutritional facts from google, let's take a look at my favorite salad at McDonalds, the Southwest Salad. With grilled chicken, it clocks in at 290 calories and 8 grams of fat, which is a perfectly respectable amount for a lunch meal. You can then use the premium southwest dressing, which adds another 100 calories, or go with a vinaigrette, which is my personal preference. On the nutrition side of things, this also brings you 28g of carbohydrates, 7g of dietary fiber, and 27g of protein.

All of this information, by the way, is easily and quickly obtainable by google, if you want to research for yourself instead of just going by what you've been told.
 
I can't think of any non-American fast food chains. I highly doubt you'd want to support us imperialist pig-dogs.
https://www.whitespot.ca/ White spot. Canadian. BC & Alberta. Sit-down. Then they opened up a fast-food derivative called Triple-Os based upon their burger menu: https://www.tripleos.com/

The derivative place is way too good for how fast it is. I'm not saying it's healthy, but damn are their burgers good on the fast-food scale, and measures up better than most sit down because of the price point. There's PLENTY of bar-burgers and other sit-down places that are far worse burgers than Triple-Os for 50-100% more money.
 
I like Jack's Burger Shack in St. Albert. It's one of those asshole one of a kind places that puts all the chains to shame and costs the same (well, it's a little more expensive). And he makes proper poutine, unlike 99% of places in this Godforsaken province that use shredded mozza.

http://www.jacksburgershack.ca/
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I just want to chime in and remind people that the Supersize Me documentary has been debunked, and a biology teacher in Iowa ate nothing but McDonalds food for 90 days and lost 37 pounds, with his cholesterol level going down 79 points.

It's not McDonald's that makes you fat, it's your choices that make you fat.

As to why people would do this? Because it tastes AMAZING, which is instant gratification, and you get fat later, which is delayed consequences.
 
IIRC in the movie his main move was to always supersize if offered and the movie was mostly making the super obvious point that you shouldn't supersize your McDonald's meal all the damn time.
 
Also, part of the documentary was that he was going to lower his fitness regimen to that of the average american (ie not much).
 
IIRC in the movie his main move was to always supersize if offered and the movie was mostly making the super obvious point that you shouldn't supersize your McDonald's meal all the damn time.
He only supersized 9 meals.

Also, people have tried to do the math on his meals, based upon his rules (since he won't release his food log), and have a hard time coming up with the supposed 5000 calorie/day figure that he cites in the movie. Supersize Me is a bullshit 'documentary'.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4088
You see, Morgan Spurlock is not the only person to have ever tested fast-food-only diets, or even McDonald's-only diets. After his movie came out, many people repeated his experiment themselves, including a number of scientific institutions that applied controls and conducted the research in a scientific manner. At least three other documentary movies were made, Bowling for Morgan, Portion Size Me, and Me and Mickey D, in which the filmmakers lived exclusively on McDonald's food for 30 days but (unlike Spurlock) did not force themselves to overeat when they were not hungry. All filmmakers lost weight during the period and suffered no ill effects; and the subjects in Portion Size Me, which was scientifically controlled, also had improved cholesterol.

Most famously, Swedish scientist Fredrik Nyström conducted an experiment with eighteen students; only he upped the ante — considerably. Rather than Spurlock's 5,000 calories per day, Nyström's subjects were required to consume a measured 6,000 calories per day. The food was controlled to ensure that most of the calories were from saturated fats. The subjects were not allowed to exercise during the 30 days, also unlike Spurlock, who made sure that he walked a normal distance every day. Considering these differences, Nyström's subjects should have been considerably worse off than Spurlock was, but they weren't. They did all gain 5-15% extra body weight, and complained of feeling tired; but none suffered any other negative effects. There were no mysterious psychological problems, no strange conditions that baffled the doctors. Nyström and his medical staff noted no dangerous changes at all. After his experiment, Nyström was asked his opinion of Spurlock's extreme reaction, especially his liver problems. Having never examined Spurlock, Nyström could only guess, but among two of his perfectly reasonable hypotheses were that Spurlock may have had pre-existing undiagnosed liver problems; or that his normally vegetarian diet may have rendered his liver poorly prepared to suddenly deal with a diet high in carbohydrates and saturated fat, a problem that anyone eating a normal diet would not experience. Any cynic can also easily propose a third possibility, that Spurlock was simply trying to make as dramatic, engaging, and commercial a movie as he could, which is the goal of every filmmaker.
 
Last edited:
But salads contain just as much fat and calories than burgers and fries at Mcdonalds'? So you can get fat eating them too.
Anything can be made to be "unhealthy." By adding stuff to it (salad dressing, cheeses, mayonnaise...) you change the numbers.

Celery, by itself, is one of the most diet friendly items out there. But you stuff it with pimento cheese, or peanut butter, or cream cheese... not so much.

Salads, at their base level, are lettuce, veggies and/or fruit. The are super healthy. You start adding meat (turkey, chicken, beef) and salad dressing (which I don't eat at all) and the calorie counts go up and the healthy level goes down.

Also, doesn't matter if you eat nothing but salads or health foods every day if you do nothing but sit on your butt all day and do no exercise at all. The reverse is also true, if you are a workout monster and basically live doing activity and exercise you can pretty much eat what you want without worrying about how many calories and fat grams.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Also, doesn't matter if you eat nothing but salads or health foods every day if you do nothing but sit on your butt all day and do no exercise at all. The reverse is also true, if you are a workout monster and basically live doing activity and exercise you can pretty much eat what you want without worrying about how many calories and fat grams.
That's a good point. Here's the 12000-calorie-per-day typical menu that Olympic Swimmer Michael Phelps ate while training:

Breakfast: Three fried-egg sandwiches loaded with cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, fried onions and mayonnaise. Two cups of coffee. One five-egg omelet. One bowl of grits. Three slices of French toast topped with powdered sugar. Three chocolate-chip pancakes.

Lunch: One pound of enriched pasta. Two large ham and cheese sandwiches with mayo on white bread. Energy drinks packing 1,000 calories.

Dinner: One pound of pasta. An entire pizza. More energy drinks.


No, those aren't choices, HE ATE IT ALL AT ONCE.
 
Yoshinoya, though it only has a (very) few locations in the US. It's basically a Japanese owned Mongolian beef bowl place that also serves green tea.
I had no idea that it was Japanese owned. There was one near where we lived in CA. But I don't think of Mongolian beef bowls as being like McDonalds. If that's the case, then I guess I could add Genki Sushi, too. There are quite a few of those here.
 
I had no idea that it was Japanese owned. There was one near where we lived in CA. But I don't think of Mongolian beef bowls as being like McDonalds. If that's the case, then I guess I could add Genki Sushi, too. There are quite a few of those here.
Yoshinoya is basically Japanese McDonalds. It has over a thousand locations in Japan.
 
I do not understand people saying McDonald's tastes amazing. I'm not saying this out of the unhealthiness aspect or whatever; it tastes terrible to me. Flavorless burger, cardboardy bun, water fries.

Burger King, on the other hand ...
 

Zappit

Staff member
Got a point, but still, Mcdy's trio (a coke, a burger and a fry) causes much more harm than some crisps occasionally.
And it's scientifically formulated to trigger mild addiction receptors in the brain, ensuring we keep on coming back for more mostly-cow-based beefy goodness.
 
I do not understand people saying McDonald's tastes amazing. I'm not saying this out of the unhealthiness aspect or whatever; it tastes terrible to me. Flavorless burger, cardboardy bun, water fries.

Burger King, on the other hand ...
Honestly, I like the quarter pound BLT better than almost any burger from a fast food chain (exceptions being a Five Guys burger or Fat Burger. Rodeo Burger is good too). Ok, I like McD's better than Burger King and Wendy's. Talking about soggy fries, Burger King has that issue a thousand fold over McDonalds. Burger King has the worst fast food fries out of all chains.

It could be that they just use more salt in Canada. All fast food places do here for some reason.
 
I do not understand people saying McDonald's tastes amazing. I'm not saying this out of the unhealthiness aspect or whatever; it tastes terrible to me. Flavorless burger, cardboardy bun, water fries.

Burger King, on the other hand ...
I'll be honest up front, I prefer Wataburger over McD or BK or Jack any day... and all those over Carl/Hardees any day.

Burger King needs to cook their fries longer, they're mushy and without any browning at all in this area. The onion rings used to be pretty good though. The meat is usually dry on the burgers and the buns are just lke McD, Their fries are almost as bad as Jack in the Box.
 
I live near Columbus, OH so I'm used to a better fair when it comes to fast food... I've never had any of these problems you guys have had, mostly because the greater Columbus area is where everyone tests their new menu items and corporate is VICIOUS here. I've literally seen the suits come in and shutdown a franchise while I was in line for food.

... except for Wendy's. The food there has taken a noticeable dive ever since Dave Thomas died. It used to be THE BEST of the best for everything because Thomas watched all his franchises like hawks. But the day he died, everything just got cheaper and worse.
 
Honestly, I like the quarter pound BLT better than almost any burger from a fast food chain (exceptions being a Five Guys burger or Fat Burger. Rodeo Burger is good too). Ok, I like McD's better than Burger King and Wendy's. Talking about soggy fries, Burger King has that issue a thousand fold over McDonalds. Burger King has the worst fast food fries out of all chains.

It could be that they just use more salt in Canada. All fast food places do here for some reason.
That sounds like a Canada issue. Salt should dry out the fries, not turn them soggy. BK fries in the U.S. are pretty salty, but they're thicker and crisper than McDonalds.

Well, at least they were. I'll admit, I haven't been to either in maybe nine years.
 
Honestly, I like the quarter pound BLT better than almost any burger from a fast food chain (exceptions being a Five Guys burger or Fat Burger. Rodeo Burger is good too). Ok, I like McD's better than Burger King and Wendy's. Talking about soggy fries, Burger King has that issue a thousand fold over McDonalds. Burger King has the worst fast food fries out of all chains.

It could be that they just use more salt in Canada. All fast food places do here for some reason.
I think Burger King has the best fries...

My absolute favorite fast food place over all others is Wendy's.[DOUBLEPOST=1395497301,1395497111][/DOUBLEPOST]
You can get fat eating anything if you wrap it in bacon. I don't understand why this doesn't make sense to you. Are there unhealthy options to add to salads? Yes, this is true whether you're eating at McDonalds or just bobbing for bacon bits at any salad bar.

Pulling some nutritional facts from google, let's take a look at my favorite salad at McDonalds, the Southwest Salad. With grilled chicken, it clocks in at 290 calories and 8 grams of fat, which is a perfectly respectable amount for a lunch meal. You can then use the premium southwest dressing, which adds another 100 calories, or go with a vinaigrette, which is my personal preference. On the nutrition side of things, this also brings you 28g of carbohydrates, 7g of dietary fiber, and 27g of protein.

All of this information, by the way, is easily and quickly obtainable by google, if you want to research for yourself instead of just going by what you've been told.
I've had people tell me this "McDonald's salads are as unhealthy as their burgers" schtick before. So... how is McDonalds lettuce magically more full of fat than any other type of lettuce?
 
I've had people tell me this "McDonald's salads are as unhealthy as their burgers" schtick before. So... how is McDonalds lettuce magically more full of fat than any other type of lettuce?
Most of their salads have meat in them. Ether chicken or bacon. You CAN get them without, but who would? It's like ordering milk or apple fries... yes, they HAVE them, but the only people getting them are people who hate their kids.
 
Most of their salads have meat in them. Ether chicken or bacon. You CAN get them without, but who would? It's like ordering milk or apple fries... yes, they HAVE them, but the only people getting them are people who hate their kids.
Or, y'know, people who actually like salad.

I know, crazy to imagine, but some people actually like lettuce.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I like the Wendy's Baconator. But Wendy's fries are tasteless and papery.

But I think the place that overall tastes the best is Dairy Queen - but everything there costs 50% more than it should.
 
But I think the place that overall tastes the best is Dairy Queen - but everything there costs 50% more than it should.
THIS. As a chain, Dairy Queen puts out great stuff. It just costs WAY too much. If I was going to pay a surcharge for a burger, I'd go to Steak & Shake, where stuff costs more but is also top notch.
 
Last edited:

GasBandit

Staff member
Take it from somebody who's worked there... never buy the chili. If you knew where the meat came from, you'd never buy it again.
Honestly I'm not very picky about where my meat comes from. Horse... Rat... whatever. I've caught myself wondering about long pig from time to time.

But anyway, when it comes to Wendy's chili, the meat source would only really be a concern if there was more than a half teaspoon of meat IN the chili to begin with.
 
Top