Ban Ronald McDonald?

[Coito ergo sum]

Once again, the moral of the story is - shut the damn t.v. off, and remove all t.v.'s and computer games from a child's room.

How did computer games get swept into this?

You're right - I didn't need to do that - but, it's pretty clear that since particles of fat don't fly from a t.v. screen to a person to make them bigger, it's a property of the t.v. watching that is an indirect cause of the weight gain. That is, increased t.v. hours means more sedentary time (less calorie burning), plus more eating (common during television watching). My hypothesis is that computer gaming is not materially different than t.v. watching in that regard.

Again, you're jumping to conclusions about the mechanism behind the correlation.

I'm jumping to conclusions? What did San Francisco do then? Leap across the grand canyon? LOL

Here's an article that suggests that television and DVD viewing is fine, as long as it's commercial free:

The findings showed that the amount of television a child watched wasn’t a predictor of obesity risk. Instead, risk for being overweight increased the more television commercials a child was exposed to. There was no association with television viewing and obesity for those who watched videos or commercial-free programming.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/0 ... sity-link/

Unfortunately you have to pay to get the full study, but it does indicate that even if television is a problem, it isn't because it causes lack of exercise.

Interesting. I'd love to see that study.

[Tigger]

Along with the poll, it'd be interesting to record the BMIs of the contributors to this thread. I wonder if people are more vocal one way or another due to some sort of subjectivity. I say this because overweight people are more likely (in my experience of several) to think that someone of a normal weight is in fact underweight. Dietary opinions and the interpretation of data (for that is what's going in in here) might be similar.

[Coito ergo sum]

Along with the poll, it'd be interesting to record the BMIs of the contributors to this thread. I wonder if people are more vocal one way or another due to some sort of subjectivity. I say this because overweight people are more likely (in my experience of several) to think that someone of a normal weight is in fact underweight. Dietary opinions and the interpretation of data (for that is what's going in in here) might be similar.

Anecdotally, I have had the same experience. I have found folks call people "skinny" who are plainly of "normal" BMI.

I am willing to be most people who are "obese" would not consider themselves to be that.

A 6 foot (1.83 meters) tall man who weighs 200 pounds (90.9 Kg) is, on the BMI chart, clearly "overweight."

At 225lbs (102.3 Kg), he is "obese."

[Warren Dew]

You're right - I didn't need to do that - but, it's pretty clear that since particles of fat don't fly from a t.v. screen to a person to make them bigger, it's a property of the t.v. watching that is an indirect cause of the weight gain.

That's not clear at all. For example, the causation could be the reverse: maybe kids who are fat for other reasons end up watching more TV because they can't keep up on the playground. Or it could be a third factor causing both.

I'm jumping to conclusions? What did San Francisco do then? Leap across the grand canyon?

Yes, pretty much.

[Coito ergo sum]

You're right - I didn't need to do that - but, it's pretty clear that since particles of fat don't fly from a t.v. screen to a person to make them bigger, it's a property of the t.v. watching that is an indirect cause of the weight gain.

That's not clear at all. For example, the causation could be the reverse: maybe kids who are fat for other reasons end up watching more TV because they can't keep up on the playground. Or it could be a third factor causing both.

Quite possible, I admit. However, given the number of studies - and given how the numbers are quite consistent, it seems a good bet, and certainly accounts for the increased fatness. There is certainly more reason to think it's television than toys in happy meal boxes, that's for sure.

Moreover, we know that all else being equal, a group of kids who goes out and plays tag or other similar games for 5 hours, is going to be less likely to be fat than an equivalent group of kids who sit inside watching cartoons and eating Doritos during that time.

I'm jumping to conclusions? What did San Francisco do then? Leap across the grand canyon?

Yes, pretty much.

Well, at least we agree there.

[Warren Dew]

Along with the poll, it'd be interesting to record the BMIs of the contributors to this thread. I wonder if people are more vocal one way or another due to some sort of subjectivity. I say this because overweight people are more likely (in my experience of several) to think that someone of a normal weight is in fact underweight. Dietary opinions and the interpretation of data (for that is what's going in in here) might be similar.

I'd be interested too. But first, which way do you think the correlation would go? I'm guessing it's the fat people who want to blame McDonald's, and the thin people feel they are in control of their own diet & weight.

[Tigger]

Along with the poll, it'd be interesting to record the BMIs of the contributors to this thread. I wonder if people are more vocal one way or another due to some sort of subjectivity. I say this because overweight people are more likely (in my experience of several) to think that someone of a normal weight is in fact underweight. Dietary opinions and the interpretation of data (for that is what's going in in here) might be similar.

I'd be interested too. But first, which way do you think the correlation would go? I'm guessing it's the fat people who want to blame McDonald's, and the thin people feel they are in control of their own diet & weight.

I think I'd agree. I was overweight a few years ago, but I knew whose fault it was, which is why I lost 20% of my body weight and kept it off. Someone blaming another factor like McDonalds, glands (ffs), etc, will perhpas be happy to waddle through life blaming something else. My sister is a doctor and she sees this attitude all the time.
"But I do exercise, Doc, and I'm not losing weight!"
"Yes, but because you exercise you're not gaining weight anymore. To lose weight you need to eat less [essentially] and do more."

[Coito ergo sum]

Along with the poll, it'd be interesting to record the BMIs of the contributors to this thread. I wonder if people are more vocal one way or another due to some sort of subjectivity. I say this because overweight people are more likely (in my experience of several) to think that someone of a normal weight is in fact underweight. Dietary opinions and the interpretation of data (for that is what's going in in here) might be similar.

I'd be interested too. But first, which way do you think the correlation would go? I'm guessing it's the fat people who want to blame McDonald's, and the thin people feel they are in control of their own diet & weight.

I think I'd agree. I was overweight a few years ago, but I knew whose fault it was, which is why I lost 20% of my body weight and kept it off. Someone blaming another factor like McDonalds, glands (ffs), etc, will perhpas be happy to waddle through life blaming something else. My sister is a doctor and she sees this attitude all the time.
"But I do exercise, Doc, and I'm not losing weight!"
"Yes, but because you exercise you're not gaining weight anymore. To lose weight you need to eat less [essentially] and do more."

Bingo - and one must give it some thought, too. People often say, "I do not eat too much! I eat about the same as everyone else!" Well - the reality is that metabolisms differ, and some people shouldn't eat as much as other people - and other people may get more exercise than some.

The bottom line - and this is like the Alcoholics Anonymous thing of finally breaking through the "denial" phase, right? Like - "My name is John, and I'm an alcoholic." If a person has too much fat on their body, then they eat too much. So, they need to get out of denial and be willing to say, "My name is John, and I eat too much."

Then - take action. Add exercise and decrease calories. It works every time.

The genetic factors are certainly legitimate. However - the American genome hasn't changed significantly in 2 generations, so genetics doesn't explain why 14% of the population was overweight in the 60s and now 67% of the population is overweight. That's not genetic. That's environmental. And, one thing we can all be certain of - the ONLY way to gain weight is to eat.

[leo-rcc]

Or is a middle-aged lady who is making a bit of fun of you

Oh, you're saying it was intended to be humor! Humor is another thing that nonnative speakers don't do well, by the way. You might want to study English idiom (not a misspelling) more first.

Warren, this is a reminder to play nice, these kind of posts are demeaning toward non-native English speakers.

[charlou]

Or is a middle-aged lady who is making a bit of fun of you

Oh, you're saying it was intended to be humor! Humor is another thing that nonnative speakers don't do well, by the way. You might want to study English idiom (not a misspelling) more first.

Warren, this is a reminder to play nice, these kind of posts are demeaning toward non-native English speakers.

Not to mention a load of shite.

[Trolldor]

Condescending or not is irrelevant. It's true, the rising level of obesity can only be attributed to an unhealthy lifestyle, and a significant contributor to unhealthy lifestyle are poor food choices - of which the fast food industry and thus McDonald's are a significant contributor.

What percentage of children's meals are eaten at fast food places? I wouldn't think it would be very high before the teenage years.

I think it's more likely the bad choices are being made at home or at school. People blame McDonald's because they don't want to admit that their own choices are bad.

Or, blame McDonald's because it is an active contributor to the problem.

[Trolldor]

*snipped excess bullshit*

Not much left eh?

Firstly "eating too much" is not the only cause of obesity. I could go on about food choices and environmental considerations like working hours, family structure, economics... but why bother? You'd just brush it off.

Secondly, 'eating too much'.
Lol.
McDonald's marketing, advertising, campaigns and even food designs are all deliberately catered towards encouraging you to eat too much.

Thirdly, more television, less exercise?
What about healthier foods being up to two or three times the price per meal of fast foods, increased working hours severely restricting free time and a lack of education for children, teenagers and young adults on how to lead a healthier lifestyle?

It's up to the individual how much they want to eat. But, it is the quantity of eating that causes weight gain.

No, it's not always up to the individual. Peer pressure and family pressure, bombardment, outside considerations, products of the result of carefully researched advertising and marketing campaigns which do have a demonstrable, traceable effect for anyone who actually knows what they're talking about.
And it is also 'quality' not just 'quantity'.

Man you're boring.

[Mahou]

It seems to me that at some point personal responsibility has to come into this. Obviously McDonald's is bad for you and obviously their advertising is ... dishonest if you're being nice.

However, we can't just ban every potential harm because some people might lack the intelligence or self-control to not overdo it. McDonald's has healthier choices like their wraps and salads, plus there are alternatives such as Subway or supermarket prepared sandwiches/wraps/salads. Banning an item isn't the proper solution and especially not a simple media gimmick like Ronald McDonald.

I love to eat and I really love fast food. Steak and Shake owns a part of my soul. However, I started pushing 200 (Who am I kidding, I broke 200) and decided that I'd reached my limit. I've since been going to the gym and am down to around 195 after a week. I hope to continue to make steady progress until I'm a reasonable weight. And here's the kicker: I've done all this while playing video games, watching TV, and looking at plenty of Ronald McDonald.

A better solution would be to fund education programs that explain the dangers of poor dietary habits. Perhaps we could run public service announcements funded by the fast food industries like we do with cigarette companies. Banning the mascot however is not the right decision.

[sandinista]

It seems to me that at some point personal responsibility has to come into this. Obviously McDonald's is bad for you and obviously their advertising is ... dishonest if you're being nice.

However, we can't just ban every potential harm because some people might lack the intelligence or self-control to not overdo it. McDonald's has healthier choices like their wraps and salads, plus there are alternatives such as Subway or supermarket prepared sandwiches/wraps/salads. Banning an item isn't the proper solution and especially not a simple media gimmick like Ronald McDonald.

I love to eat and I really love fast food. Steak and Shake owns a part of my soul. However, I started pushing 200 (Who am I kidding, I broke 200) and decided that I'd reached my limit. I've since been going to the gym and am down to around 195 after a week. I hope to continue to make steady progress until I'm a reasonable weight. And here's the kicker: I've done all this while playing video games, watching TV, and looking at plenty of Ronald McDonald.

A better solution would be to fund education programs that explain the dangers of poor dietary habits. Perhaps we could run public service announcements funded by the fast food industries like we do with cigarette companies. Banning the mascot however is not the right decision.

I would agree with you if cigarette ads and drugs were legal. It's the precedent and hypocrisy that is bothersome. Sure better health education would be great, but if you can ban cigarette mascots and ads, then the same should apply for fast food.

[Coito ergo sum]

Mascots aren't "banned" in cigarette advertising in the US. Mascots like Joe Camel were killed in response to the public pressure and the "claim" by the FTC and plaintiffs in some lawsuits that they targeted children. that was never established, and there is no general law in the US that prohibits their use. A prior restraint of that kind would probably be held unconstitutional by the courts. Saying "McDonald's is unhealthy and they target children in their advertising" EVEN IF WE ASSUME IT TO BE TRUE does not mean that the advertising is illegal. If that were the case, then all advertising by Disneyworld, Chuck E. Cheese restaurants and playlands, and candy manufacturers would be illegal.

There is also a significant difference between cigarettes and food. Cigarettes are illegal for children to smoke - so, it's easier to argue that you can't offer to sell cigarettes to people who can't legally smoke them - (an advertisement is an "offer" to sell good, at bottom). Food - even McDonald's food - is legal for everyone to eat. Further, the RELATIVE unhealthiness of McDonald's food is WAY overblown. It's as good as, say - hot dogs, grilled cheese sandwiches, tater tots, french fries, hamburgers, baloney sandwiches, and the like - all of which are sold with wild abandon in stores and fed in huge quantities by parents to their children.