Yeah, it's a gross amount of food and calories, but fast-food places wouldn't sell the stuff in such volume if people didn't consume it that way. They're in the business of providing the people what they want.

I was frequently guilty of ordering a value meal PLUS a snack wrap PLUS a dessert item when I went to McDonald's. That isn't Mickey D's fault, that's mine. Ronald McDonald didn't mash those 1800 calories into my face, I did. And now that I've stopped doing it, I see how much of my money and my health I wasted doing it. Shame on me, though--not on McDonald's.

I've read a lot about increasing pressure on fast food places to provide healthier options. When they try to, the healthier stuff doesn't sell as well as the grossly overstuffed items. I can't blame them for not focusing more on health when the populace says one thing, but does another.

I DO object a little to some of the "healthy" things that aren't--800-calorie salads, taco salads with 4-digit calorie totals, that new oatmeal that's basically a bowl of candy, and such. It's all too easy to cruise in and grab a salad thinking you're getting a smart lunch and instead blowing your caloric budget apart. The simple fix is to label at least the lighter (or "lighter") menu items with calorie counts. A better fix would be to offer salads that had normal calorie counts.

WOW is this TRUE?!

THIS!

A thing I consider good news:

The FDA is working on putting through a bill I think that will require all chain resteraunts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...kHC_story.html

I think this is good stuff. My only concern is that if they sell alcohol (my understanding) they won't have to label their menus with calorie counts. I think they should... and that includes for every single alcoholic beverage, because man I really don't think ppl have any clue how many calories are in some fo those drinks.

NOw I understand that really the labeling will be an approximation, but I would really like to see every resteraunt provide nutritional information, no mater HOW bad the item in question is.

I also am not shocked to see MC'D's offer 2 fish sandwiches for a cheap price packaged with fried & a drink. MC'D's is doing what MC'D's does, they make money and offer leaders that get ppl in. So you go for the fish, well then maybe your kid or bf wants a double quarter pounder, or nuggets, or something that isn't quite such a good deal. They spend very little on that fish, made profit, and convinced more ppl to show up to purchase their items.

Another good point is made above stating that when they do add healthy options they dont' do as well. People KNOW they are getting cruddy food when they go to fast food. Most don't care. If they did then McD's would be selling veggie cups and various other truly healthy options.

As someone who spent years living on very little other than fast food I can say for sure that I liked the convenience, and the taste of the food. I HATE coooking. I still struglge with that. BUT I have learned to make better choices, cook most of my meals, and learn what I'm shoving in my mouth. McDonald's did not make fat I did. I fell for their ploy markets for $5 20 nuggets. I craved their greesy fries, and I adored the fact that dinner had no clean up to speak of and took the amount of time it took me to get through the drive through.

In other words, I liked what they sold. I bought it. I'll be honest I still think they have one of the best quick & cheap side salads (I don't like dressing so it's not an issue).

Anyway enough of my rambling.

That's because the healthier options at many fast food places IMO are terrible. Most of the time it's a salad with a few peices of lettuce and chicken and a wilted tomato...

I have ordered salads at fast food places when I'm practically forced to go and 1- they are not filling at all, 2- they have pitiful pieces of lettuce, 3- half the time the product isn't as visually appealing as the picture, I could go on and on. So usually I end up getting that salad then going home and having something in addition to that meal. I think the only fast food salads I like are the ones at Rubio's.

I applaud them for trying but there is more that can be done IMO.

I agree about McD's not offering healthy choices because they don't sell. It's sad, but it's true. My beef with ALL American restaurants is the portions. If you want to order two fish sandwiches, have at it. But I have an issue with the fact that it's packaged so easily that way.

Many Americans learn about portions based on what is served to them, and in many homes that's fast food and restaurant foods. They mimic that when eating at home. This is why I have a problem with this. I, for instance, did not know until I started calorie counting that a portion of chicken is half the breast! It's never served that way...ever. Now in my home, I butterfly it each and every time. (It cooks better this way too)

So while I won't complain about the items offered so much...I WILL complain about how much of it is offered. I'm not even sure I agree with the large fry and certainly not the large drink. Want more? Order more.

haha not shocked at all. they used to have a 2 double cheeseburger meal which is probably just as bad, or worse.

You don't go to McDs (or any other fast food outlet) for healthy food, its pretty simple Its nice that they have some healthy options, but if I'm going to eat fast food its because I'm feeling like something unhealthy, a big ol' chicken burger, bacon and cheese.

I am tired of seeing McDonalds etc getting blamed for people putting high calorie food in their mouths. They are not force feeding anyone, the people that eat there are making their own choices. I LOVE their fish sandwich but I will not be eating one any time soon....my decision not theirs. It is time for people to be accountable for their actions and stop blaming others.

Not surprised, that's just the name of the game in our capitalist society. I think that "healthy" and "fast food" don't go together and so when people say, "it's not McDonald's fault...stop blaming them" I roll my eyes because in some peoples cases, that's all they can get (or afford) is crappy, fast food crap. My parents worked like crazy to provide for us and my mom just didn't always have the time to go home and cook healthy meals (and honestly, didn't have the knowledge...although she would use canned vegetables and stuff) and we relied on a lot of fast food. Is that McDonald's fault? No. But do they prey on that exact demographic? You're d*mn right they do...look at these re-vamped Happy's Meal commercials toting their crap to busy moms. I don't "blame" McDonald's but what other choices do some of these people have?

Anyway, that freakin' fish sandwich isn't even fish; it's breaded crap deep fried and tossed with heart-stopping amounts of mayo/tartar sauce...

I have to disagree with the posters that said McDonald's is not responsible for what people put in their mouths.

Millions of dollars spent in marketing campaigns are meant to "educate" their consumers and use psychology to change the way consumers eat at their restaurants. It's like saying the movie theater that put subliminal messages in their movie (and increased the sale of popcorn, candy and soda) is not responsible because no one force fed them. When you're subjected to advertising in this 24/7 media world, it WILL have a psychological effect. No, no one is force feeding consumers but McDonald's (and others) are not unaware of what they need to do to manipulate the public.

See, I roll my eyes to comments like this, I can't afford to go to Mcdonalds, I find it too expensive.


Millions of dollars are spent by our governments to educate us on eating healthy also.

Yeah really fast food is NOT cheap IMO. Just 1 meal can be up to $8 and then if you have a family of 4 that's around $32-40 in one pop. I spend $30 a week on produce and meat, if that and feed a family of 3 (and one is a teen boy so he eats like the world is ending tomorrow).

I agree to some extent McDonald's doesn't force people to eat their food but I bet they can find some healthier ways to cook their foods to cut out some fat/calories here and there.

I eat out less than I used to and try to eat at healthier places when I do go.

This is aimed at nobody in particulat, I promise!

To be fair, proper deep frying doesn't contribute many calories to a food, as it is a cooking environment more than an ingredient additive (if you take it out at the right time the food has absorbed almost no oil). The breading and processing of the fish is where those calories come in, along with the bun, not whether it is fried or grilled.

I get a bit annoyed at villainizing deep frying food, a quick look into the chemistry behind why it works and it becomes clear very little oil is deposited into the food. Adding butter to a recipe or pan frying are different beasts, on the other hand, but all oil really does is allow for quick, complete sears of food all at once and a conductive cooking environment that cooks the food very quickly. Overfrying will saturate it with grease, but it also won't taste very good either. Take it out before it stops bubbling and you're golden (and delicious), and calorically none the worse for wear. It adds about the same calories for a whole piece of fried fish as putting a teaspoon of butter on it. 35 calories ain't bad, folk!


/end generalized rant.



And yes, I very much agree that two sandwiches are too much for most people to consume, unless they are like my husband - big, energetic, and eating all their daily calories in one meal and a snack, then finishing when they are full. I hate him for it

Lauralyn - Although I agree that the government does, it's not anything in the range of what corporations pay. And the talent is usually better as well -- most research psychologist would rather make the big bucks in a corporation than with a government agency since the pay is not nearly as stunning and your pet research isn't funded as it is in a private agency.

As far as fast food being expensive, you should take a look at the studies on fresh food deserts and obesity rates. I live in an urban city and the poor areas of town can't get a grocery store within walking distances or public transportation. However, they can get a fast food joint on every corner. It's not just the price of the meal. It's price of getting there and getting back when you can't.

I don't see this as a binary issue.

Food deserts are indeed a huge barrier, one that could use a lot more talk and consideration, IMO, in discussions about the root causes and resolution of obesity, particularly in urban and underserved areas. But I'd argue that that's more a policy problem than the fault of McDonald's for building where they have a market and a viable location.