Spicy Baconator

[Daradon]

^^^ I agree to an extent. But everyone NEEDS to eat, no one NEEDS to smoke.

More information would be good yes. However, we don't need to turn it into one of these lawsuit traps. Cigarette companies knowingly tried to make their cigarettes both more addictive while making them more dangerous. There may be a tiny bit of info to show this in some food companies, but not to the extent cigarette companies did it.

They knowingly made sure the nicotine can get to your brain in seconds, when in the first cigs it took minutes. That's why there are all those chemicals in them. To get the nicotine to your brain as quick as possible.

That's pretty disgusting if you ask me. Yes some companies put additives in food to make them taste better, perhaps even 'addictive' in ways. But no one, as far as I know has tried to engineer a burger to get drugs to your brain faster.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Daradon

It's bad for your heart and arteries and your cholesterol. I didn't really say anything about becoming fat, just that eating fat is bad for you.

Plus eating a bunch of fat doesn't really do much for your body, so you still crave food later and eat more, hence more calories...

EDIT: If you could eat a burger that had 800 calories and 30 grams of fat, and one that had 900 calories and 8 grams of fat, I think I know which one would be better for you. Both portions are still probably too big, but I'd take the second one for sure.

Oh.

Well then I agree with you.

[Daradon]

^^^ Yup, so that's why I'd like the fat info on those other restaurants just to put the calorie info into perspective. As I said originally, I'm still sure it's probably way too high and I'll be shocked as I was with the calorie stats, but truly, just knowing the calories can be a bit misleading.

[tvp2003]

Perhaps you should buy a couple dozen of these "limited time only" burgers and throw them into the freezer...

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Daradon

^^^ I agree to an extent. But everyone NEEDS to eat, no one NEEDS to smoke.

More information would be good yes. However, we don't need to turn it into one of these lawsuit traps. Cigarette companies knowingly tried to make their cigarettes both more addictive while making them more dangerous. There may be a tiny bit of info to show this in some food companies, but not to the extent cigarette companies did it.

They knowingly made sure the nicotine can get to your brain in seconds, when in the first cigs it took minutes. That's why there are all those chemicals in them. To get the nicotine to your brain as quick as possible.

That's pretty disgusting if you ask me. Yes some companies put additives in food to make them taste better, perhaps even 'addictive' in ways. But no one, as far as I know has tried to engineer a burger to get drugs to your brain faster.

We need to eat, but do we need to eat such high calorie food.

How many people were under the impression that eating at Earl's was as bad for you as it turns out it is? Obviously these restaurants are knowingly hiding information from you.

I never said anything about lawsuits, as a I disagree with the smoking lawsuits as well. Many of them by people who continued to or started smoking long after they knew it was bad for you. I am all about personal freedom. I just think that freedom should be based on informed choices. More information is never a bad thing

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Daradon

^^^ Yup, so that's why I'd like the fat info on those other restaurants just to put the calorie info into perspective. As I said originally, I'm still sure it's probably way too high and I'll be shocked as I was with the calorie stats, but truly, just knowing the calories can be a bit misleading.

Well, when I said they should provide 'info' on their dishes, I was referring to the complete nutritional information that you would see on any label.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well, when I said they should provide 'info' on their dishes, I was referring to the complete nutritional information that you would see on any label.

Ok I agree with that, and I never went after that. But you did take me to task on the whole 'fat doesn't make you fat' thing. Which I never mentioned. I only said it was bad for you.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by blankall

We need to eat, but do we need to eat such high calorie food.

How many people were under the impression that eating at Earl's was as bad for you as it turns out it is? Obviously these restaurants are knowingly hiding information from you.

I never said anything about lawsuits, as a I disagree with the smoking lawsuits as well. Many of them by people who continued to or started smoking long after they knew it was bad for you. I am all about personal freedom. I just think that freedom should be based on informed choices. More information is never a bad thing

Yup and I agree with that, on of the first things I said in the response. More information is good.

I didn't mean to say that YOU foresaw or agreed with lawsuits in the industry, more that I was hoping that didn't become the case if restaurants were forced to put more info out. Wouldn't want one thing to lead to another. Again, not saying it would, just that I hope it doesn't.

Again agree, more info is a good thing.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Ok I agree with that, and I never went after that. But you did take me to task on the whole 'fat doesn't make you fat' thing. Which I never mentioned. I only said it was bad for you.

For people who are trim....have a high metabolism, yet still eat fast food everyday, the amount of fat in that food is going to be their downfall....so you're absolutely right on that part.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Azure

For people who are trim....have a high metabolism, yet still eat fast food everyday, the amount of fat in that food is going to be their downfall....so you're absolutely right on that part.

There is debate on this as well... There has never actually been a direct link proven between cholesterol/ fat and heart disease.

The link instead exists between Fat and heart disease, there is in turn a link between high calorie foods (which tend to be high in fat/cholesterol) and obesity.

A great example is eggs. High in cholesterol, but never actually linked to heart disease.

So if you are skinny you may be able to get away with eating high calorie foods.

I'm not saying you should, but at the moment there is not enough scientific evidence to prove it is bad for you.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by blankall

There is debate on this as well... There has never actually been a direct link proven between cholesterol/ fat and heart disease.

The link instead exists between Fat and heart disease, there is in turn a link between high calorie foods (which tend to be high in fat/cholesterol) and obesity.

A great example is eggs. High in cholesterol, but never actually linked to heart disease.

So if you are skinny you may be able to get away with eating high calorie foods.

I'm not saying you should, but at the moment there is not enough scientific evidence to prove it is bad for you.

Disagree completely. Not sure where your getting this information from, but, look at people with familial hypercholesterolemia diseases. They are genetically predisposed to having super high cholesterol levels, and get heart attacks in their early 30's.

And if you really want to get medical about it, its the whole reason why we break down cholesterol into HDL and LDL, because the latter has a much higher propensity to insert itself into the walls of your arteries, hence the atherosclerosis. Atherosclerosis = narrowed arteries = heart attack. Furthermore, studies from the last ten years have shown a marked decrease in morbidity/mortality from heart disease from patients taking statins, also known as cholesterol lowering drugs.

Not much debate in my medical opionion.

[troutman]

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dc-ma/heart-coeur/index_e.html

[Tron_fdc]

For anyone interested in making decent, healthy food choices I suggest you read these books (or at least the Coles Notes version)

http://www.michaelpollan.com/omnivore.php
http://www.michaelpollan.com/indefense.php
http://www.applepublishing.com/index.cfm?book=642

It's unbelievable what gets put into our food these days....

[blankall]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Disagree completely. Not sure where your getting this information from, but, look at people with familial hypercholesterolemia diseases. They are genetically predisposed to having super high cholesterol levels, and get heart attacks in their early 30's.

And if you really want to get medical about it, its the whole reason why we break down cholesterol into HDL and LDL, because the latter has a much higher propensity to insert itself into the walls of your arteries, hence the atherosclerosis. Atherosclerosis = narrowed arteries = heart attack. Furthermore, studies from the last ten years have shown a marked decrease in morbidity/mortality from heart disease from patients taking statins, also known as cholesterol lowering drugs.

Not much debate in my medical opionion.

What you are saying is true, but it doesn't adress my argument.

"Dietary changes to achieve benefit have been more controversial, generally far less effective and less widely adhered to with success. One key reason for this is that most cholesterol, typically 80-90%, within the body is created and controlled by internal production by all cells in the body (true of all animals), with typically slightly greater relative production by hepatic/liver cells. (Cell structure relies on fat membranes to separate and organize intracellular water, proteins and nucleic acids and cholesterol is one of the components of all animal cell membranes.)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheros...ry_supplements

Overall cholesterol levels do cause arthrosclerosis, but as the above paragraph shows there is no direct link between cholesterol in the diet and overall levels in the body. As a former student of science I read several papers on this topic. There was always a link between diet and arthrosclerosis, but never did the studies take into account obesity. The few studies that have taken this into account (those concerning eggs for example) do not show any conclusive results.

As for your argument on "familial hypercholesterolemia diseases", I'm not sure how that relates to the argument. Since that is a genetic cause and not dietary.

Basically, what I am saying is there is no conclusive proof on the subject yet. The body is filled w/ cholesterol naturally, adding small amounts through diet may have no effect. The body just compensates for this by producing less of its own. If you want to decrease the risk of heart disease and you are skinny decreasing intake may not help, since your body will compensate by producing more.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by blankall

There is debate on this as well... There has never actually been a direct link proven between cholesterol/ fat and heart disease.

The link instead exists between Fat and heart disease, there is in turn a link between high calorie foods (which tend to be high in fat/cholesterol) and obesity.

A great example is eggs. High in cholesterol, but never actually linked to heart disease.

So if you are skinny you may be able to get away with eating high calorie foods.

I'm not saying you should, but at the moment there is not enough scientific evidence to prove it is bad for you.

I was just going to say that not ALL cholesterol is 'bad' for you....but it seems its been covered.

[Resolute 14]

I'd just like to interrupt this argument to let you all know you suck.

After reading this thread, I wanted a Baconator for lunch... but at the same time, I didn't want all that fat and calories, so I went to Co-op and bought the materials for a ham sandwhich instead.

So, right now, I both want and don't want Wendys.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I'd just like to interrupt this argument to let you all know you suck.

After reading this thread, I wanted a Baconator for lunch... but at the same time, I didn't want all that fat and calories, so I went to Co-op and bought the materials for a ham sandwhich instead.

So, right now, I both want and don't want Wendys.

I say as long as you are not obese eat the baconator. If you are worried about the health skip the fries and go w/ a diet soda. Wouldn't be significantly above your recommended intake for a meal. If you are still worried after go to the gym, but eat the baconator.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I'd just like to interrupt this argument to let you all know you suck.

After reading this thread, I wanted a Baconator for lunch... but at the same time, I didn't want all that fat and calories, so I went to Co-op and bought the materials for a ham sandwhich instead.

So, right now, I both want and don't want Wendys.

Processed meat....it'll kill you too.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by blankall

I say as long as you are not obese eat the baconator. If you are worried about the health skip the fries and go w/ a diet soda. Wouldn't be significantly above your recommended intake for a meal. If you are still worried after go to the gym, but eat the baconator.

I always skip the fries, AND the drink, and just take the burger.

Feeling guilty about eating fast food is a good thing. Maybe it'll help people stop eating it EVERYDAY!

[burn_baby_burn]

I would skip the diet soda too. Drink water.