McDonald's - cheap and nutritional?

Another zombie thread which has been resurrected? What's going on?

Sorry, the 34 ingredients are additives, preservatives and none are used in any home cooking I know of.

Out of curiosity I looked up the full list of ingredients in a UK Big Mac. I counted thirty four ingredients which are included as part of the processes involved in the manufacture of bun, patty, pickles and sauce.
47% of the calories (500) come from fat.

On holiday I ll eat a MacDonalds vegi wrap and they are lovely very tasty indeed

Reported

When abroad sometimes Maccers is the best place to get a half decent cup of tea.

Problem is, there's a lot more to a McDonalds burger than meets the eye. It's probably ok now and again but really not to be eaten for nutritional purposes.

thankyourbody.com/mcdonalds-hamburger/

Yes. It's good that they have been improved, but even so, it was still the high sugar/high carb diets that were (and are) causing the obesity problem, not the meat.

The burgers at the time contained additives Bags. The film is a few years old now.

Yes. It was the intake of unnecessary 'food', i.e. sugar, that caused the problems, not the burgers. That's why I get impatient with the anti-burger brigade. They are kidding themselves if they think burgers are the problem.

Worth watching the acclaimed Spurlock film on McDonald's, which was made in response to the American obesity epidemic. He started as a fit man and underwent a battery of tests, then ate a diet of McDonald's, replicating what many obese Americans had been doing. His daily log of the diet and his deteriorating health was made to show the food industry and policy makers that education and intervention was needed to help many obese Americans improve their health. He stopped at the point where he was quite sick and tests showed he was pre-diabetic, with other warning signs. McDonald's was influenced by the film and have bowed to pressure to reduce salt, sugar and additives to a healthier level, as have other food producers.

Just looked him up. He was the maker of the SuperSize me films. Still silly to let influence what you eat.

It's the right quantities that matter.

And you don't have to eat the fries or drink the sugary drinks.

Who's Morgan Spurlock? What films? Why would a film prejudice anyone against bread and meat?

I'll never eat another McDonads after watching the Morgan Spurlock films !!!

OKAY , I am going to fess up , when I am Stateside we quite often go to

to McDonalds for a Q.P and fries for lunch .

Okay , shoot me !!!!!!!!!!

I agree that an occasional McDonald's burger is great as a stop-gap. It is what it says it is - a lump of mince between a bun. With a salad, it's probably a better-balanced meal than most school lunches these days.

I just hate mince especially the smell of beef mince as it's cooking. My DH loves any mince.

To be honest burgers of any variety, including those prepared and cooked at home come well down my list of foods I enjoy. If I want something quick, at home or when out it will be a sandwich with lots of salad vegs or a salad.

If I was out and about and feeling hungry, I'd most likely drive through a McDonald's and get a quick burger and coffee. It's a treat, it's quick and convenient, not too high in calories and no additives these days, and I can be on my way. I don't think I'll ever get to the stage of getting a McDonald's to take home, which some of my children will do after a busy day, most weeks.

OK, flickety. I admit that I didn't read the article with rapt attention.

You're right about the comparison being silly, which shows that the author of the article should have been comaring like with like. As it is, the comparison is meaningless, as you say.

So essentially the article is saying that eating a McDonald's burger while you're out and about is a good way of feeding yourself for that meal. Well I'll be blowed! Who'd 'a known that what is to all intents and purposes a meat sandwich was good food? [sarc emoticon]

The Super Size me man was medically supervised throughout.

But again, rereading the original article, I couldn't quite see what he author was getting at. He didn't seem to be advocating a fast food diet. A burger is nutricious but doesn't provide the full range of nutrients, and he doesn't say it does, but he then compares it with with buying top of the range full spectrum of nutrients food, which is comparing a car with a lorry. And as the 'thegirlcalled jack' website I quote above shows you can feed yourself and a child nutritionally for a week, all meals, for less than the price of one burger a day, let alone one each.

Super Size Me

Didn't some guy make a documentary about living off fast food for several weeks [months] to show how unhealthy he was afterwards [which was a pretty daft thing to do imo ].

Bags unless you eat every meal out, the nutritional value of a bought meal is neither here nor there. I am not arguing with the nutritional value of the burger It is made from food products like flour, meat, salad etc so it must have some nutritional value. I have reread the article and he is definitely comparing it with food bought and cooked at home and that is what Iam arguing with; that it is better value for money to buy a burger than cook from scratch.

Once in a blue moon, I have one when I've had a late night at the office and I'm on my way home and can't be bothered to cook. They are fine for what they are. Wouldn't want to have them regularly.