Super Sized Fast Food Phobia
Unlike what's said in highly dramatized Hollywood documentaries, fast food is not especially unhealthy.
| Skeptoid #88 February 19, 2008 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe Also available in Spanish |
|
By Brian Dunning, Skeptoid Podcast
Episode 88, February 19, 2008
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4088
Join me for a cheeseburger and a Coke as we put our feet up, get grease all over ourselves, and examine the deeply-rooted pop culture belief that fast food is bad for you. And here's a thing of honey-mustard sauce to drink for dessert.
The questionable nutritional value of fast food, and of McDonald's in particular, came under its closest scrutiny when documentary filmmaker Morgan Spurlock released Super Size Me in 2004. The movie documented his own experience living exclusively on McDonald's food for 30 days. He averaged 5,000 calories a day, and when you consider that a Big Mac contains only 510 calories, you know that he was really packing it in. He super-sized every meal that was offered. Most dramatic was Spurlock's reported health problems. Not only did he gain 13% of his body weight, he also developed liver problems, depression and other psychological effects, and sexual dysfunction. Super Size Me also contained a large amount of editorial content about how McDonald's deliberately forces cheap, unhealthy food onto an unsuspecting public for profit.
Super Size Me was the most popular documentary of the year, and was nominated for an academy award. Its claims were generally accepted without critique by nearly everyone who watched it or even just heard about it. But this result was virtually guaranteed by Spurlock's choice of subject matter. McDonald's is probably the world's easiest target. It's always popular to be anticorporate; it's always popular to bash fast foods, and audiences are generally well predisposed to welcome any information that supports these concepts.
Spurlock's results were only presented in his movie. No actual data was published or subjected to any scrutiny or peer review. We have only his verbal statements to go on, plus the lines delivered onscreen by the doctor and nutritionist who performed in his movie. This is a Hollywood entertainment, it's not valid scientific data. However, for the sake of argument, my inclination is to give Spurlock the benefit of the doubt and accept his claims as valid, and accept the movie dialog as actual opinions of unbiased health professionals. From the perspective of responsible empiricism, that's a stretch, but I'm willing to do it. The problem is that Spurlock's results are highly deviant from other research on the same subject.
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 seven 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.
Public relations required McDonald's to respond to Super Size Me, and their response was fairly low key. They basically just agreed that it's best to eat a balanced diet, and stated that any actual ill effects experienced by Spurlock were more the result of force-feeding himself 5,000 calories a day for a month, than they were indicative of anything bad about McDonald's food. Way too much of any food is going to be bad for you.
That response suggests the next thing to look at. Is McDonald's food, and other fast food in general, actually bad for you? Dr. Dean Edell once took a call on his radio show from a woman whose teenage daughter ate a fast food hamburger every day. The woman was worried that her daughter would develop malnutrition. Quite the contrary, said Dr. Edell: She might gain weight if she ate a lot of them, but malnutrition is that last thing she should worry about. A hamburger is actually quite a balanced meal, rich with just about every nutrient. Add a slice of cheese and it even contains all four food groups. Fast food hamburgers are excellent sources of protein, calcium, and iron.
McDonald's hamburgers are not even as grossly calorific as most people probably think. Their biggest burger, the Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese, contains 740 calories. Three of those a day, which is more than anyone reasonably eats, still amounts to a good, healthy, slim 2,200 calorie diet for an adult. The real offenders on fast food menus are not the hamburgers at all, but the drinks; especially the milkshakes. Where Spurlock gained his weight was from the milkshakes. McDonald's 32-ounce Chocolate Triple Thick Shake packs 1,160 calories. Personally, I can't even imagine drinking a 32-ounce shake! A more common size, the 16-ounce, is 580 calories, or slightly more than a Big Mac. McDonald's biggest breakfast will also get you: The large Deluxe Breakfast delivers 1,140 calories. This may sound like a lot, but in fact it's not really much more than any average balanced breakfast.
By now you're saying "OK fine, McDonald's food may not be as high in calories as people think, but the real reason it's bad is that it's chock-full of trans-fats, sodium, saturated fats, and cholesterol." That would be bad indeed. The United States and Canada both use a system called the Dietary Reference Intake to establish ideal levels of nutrients. These four compounds listed have an ideal level of "as low as possible", except sodium. Ideally you should take 1500mg of sodium each day, and you should not take in more than 2300mg. McDonald's poster child of evil, the Big Mac, delivers 1040mg of sodium, about 2/3 of your daily ideal. Not a problem by itself, but don't eat three of them.
The Big Mac delivers 10g of saturated fat, which is 10g more than you want; but realistically it's virtually impossible to get zero. The Center for Disease Control and the World Health Organization recommend that you keep your saturated fat intake under 7% of your daily caloric intake, and the Big Mac fulfills half of that. So, in short, two Big Macs a day maxes out your recommended safe levels of saturated fat.
The Big Mac's 75mg of cholesterol represents 1/4 of the CDC and World Health Organization's daily recommended maximum. I'm not going to eat four of them a day, so that's not a problem.
Finally, the scariest mugshot on the CDC's Ten Most Wanted poster: trans-fats. Beginning in 2003 with some high-profile class action lawsuits filed against major food producers, the fast food restaurant chains have all pledged to switch to cooking oils free of trans-fats. Some have completed this, others, including McDonald's, are still completing the switch. But although it's possible to eliminate the addition of trans-fats to fried foods, some foods, like meat and some vegetables, contain naturally occurring trans-fat. 2-5% of the fat in livestock is trans-fat. Whether you order a Big Mac or barbecue your own organic filet mignon, you're getting trans-fat. McDonald's doesn't add it, and your neighborhood butcher has no way of reducing it. A big Mac (or any comparable meat of the same quantity) contains 1.5g of trans-fat, which is more than you want, but only about 8% of the daily amount the World Health Organization says you really, really need to keep it under. Eight percent — the Big Mac is hardly the monster it's made out to be.
So eat up, and I'll see you at the drive-thru.
© 2008 Skeptoid Media, Inc.
References & Further Reading
Dupont, J., White, P., Feldman E. "Saturated and Hydrogenated Fats in Food in Relation to Health." Journal of the American College of Nutrition. 1 Jun. 1991, Vol 10: 577-592.
Nyström, F.H., Lindstron, T., Kechagias, S., Ernersson, Å., O Dahlqvist, O., Lundberg, P. "Fast food based hyper-alimentation can induce rapid and profound elevation of serum alanine aminotransferase in healthy subjects." GUT. 14 Feb. 2008, Volume 57, Number 2: 649-654.
Painter, J. "EIU Prof's 'Portion Size Me' Says Bring on the Fast Food -- In Moderation." University Communications | Media Relations. Eastern Illinois University, 17 Oct. 2005. Web. 15 May. 2007. <http://www.eiu.edu/~pubaff/headline/2005/1017200590.php>
Rice, S., McAllister, E.J., Dhurandhar, N.V. "Fast food: friendly?" International Journal of Obesity. 1 Jun. 2007, Volume 31, Number 6: 884-886.
Rudolph, T., Ruempler, K., Schwedhelm, E., Tan-Andresen, J., Riederer, U., Böger, R., Maas, R. "Acute effects of various fast-food meals on vascular function and cardiovascular disease risk markers: the Hamburg Burger Trial." American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1 Aug. 2007, Volume 86, Number 3: 334-340.
Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes. Dietary Reference Intakes for Water, Potassium, Chloride and Sulfate. Washington DC: The National Academies Press, 2005. 37-49.
Reference this article:
Dunning, B.
"Super Sized Fast Food Phobia." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
19 Feb 2008. Web.
22 May 2013. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4088>
Discuss!
10 most recent comments | Show all 217 comments
You'd best be more careful in specifying the type of opinion you're referring to. Limiting the general definition of "opinion" to scientific "experts" is hardly reasonable and will get your point misinterpreted every time.
Again, almost every time you have called sources and expertise into question instead of addressing the argument made. While this is sometimes appropriate, it does nothing to refute the argument. An incredible source is quite capable of making credible arguments, even if it doesn't always do so.
There are quite a few cases where established scientists viciously opposed dissenters that turned out to be correct. This is hardly a straw man argument. It is much more difficult to earn research grants for proposals that might upset the conventional paradigm. This is especially true today where various corporations have a very strong influence on the direction of areas of scientific research.
Lies, Damned Lies and Medical Science. An interesting piece that appeared in The Atlantic. The message it sends cannot be ignored.
I have no wish to continue an argument over the semantics of your personal definitions of "opinion" and "view". I will continue to use their standard definitions.
Jonathan S., Toronto
November 05, 2011 1:02pm
your;
Limiting the general definition of "opinion" to scientific "experts" is hardly reasonable
sorry Jonathan... a scientific question is always dealt with by science. religion doesn't come into it.
I am sorry to point out here again and again.. If science deals with science and is proven o be scientifically valid, it becomes a scientific position...maybe even a law or a theory.
I am unaware that any crackpot has ever posited anything that has been proven valid past the pop magazine level.
I will note that at every post you have proposed a very old crack pot posit that has been shown to be hardly applicable to science.
Health outcomes are scientifically measurable..
Note youtube gargle does not constitute science.
As to your interpretation of your populist references, why is it that its nearly always cut and paste searchable?
Look, I may be old but I am not that decrepit that simple searching is not precluded from my daily regime.
So why defend other peoples views? Go to college (if you really are at the end of school) and do science.
Then do a lot more...its fun..
Mud, Sin City, NSW, Oz
March 22, 2012 12:32am
Hi Brian, i liked this episodeand your podcast in general. Keep up the good work.
But i disagree with you on a few points you have to make in this particular episode. When i first listened to it over a year ago, i felt generally informed by it. However since becoming more interested in nutrition myself i have come across new information that i feel have been left out of this podcast, and also that your central conculsion that fast food is not more unhealthy that normal food (when eaten sensiblty) is actually wrong or at least only true in part.
By this i mean that you have left out one key factor that affects the conculsion you have drawn.
And that is GI values and serving sizes.
Very quickly, the serving sizes of alot of fast food meals exceed healthy meal sizes, and i would propose that while fast food alone may not be unhealthy, there serving sizes are, ie: maca's push meals not single burgers.
Alot of fast food, but lets talk about the 3 big ones, macas, kfc, burger king are high in GI, so while you say that 3 big macs will meet your DI, you forget to relalise that the way the body processes the big mac will lead to further food cravings and poor energy output between meals, ultimately favouring food binging and high blood sugar lvls.
I guess the point i am trying to make is that fast food is compositionally adequet for feeding the body, but nutritionally poor at maintaining even energy levels and there GI value tends to lead to weight gain even when calorie counted.
damien azzopardi, Sydney
April 25, 2012 8:53pm
You had me at, "...get grease all over ourselves..."
Government Goodies, Secret Government Lab
August 06, 2012 9:40am
It's all about sensible eating, throwing 5,000 calories down your throat everyday isn't going to be good for you, unless, I guess you burn them off by being an ultra-athlete.
TBH, I know it's anecdotal, but I tend to notice fatter folks at Pizza Hut and KFC than I do at the golden arch.
I used to travel the UK a lot and used to be relieved to see a McDonald's near my destination, it meant that I would have food of a known quality, rather than try some dodgy pub grub or greasy spoon dive.
I think McDonald's is just an easy target for the ill-informed. Sure they make money, isn't that the business case? If their business model didn't work then they wouldn't be in business, McDonald's has got something right to get so much repeat business.
I used to get to some town centres at 6 in the morning, hungry from a long drive and usually the only place open would be a McDonald's - why the hell would I wait until 7, 8, or 9 until another 'eatery' opens?
Sure I didn't eat it all the time and I can remember seeing the super-size documentary back then, but as I exercised regularly and am naturally healthy I never saw eating a Big Mac a big deal.
Folks just want to look for excuses for them being fat - the solution is simple - close your mouth and don't eat.
I can remember a woo guy years back telling me that margarine was unhealthy and that if you leave some outside it never rots and nothing eats it, I asked if he tried the same with butter. I did and the results were the same!!
Jamal, Reading, Berkshire
August 26, 2012 8:25am
Jamal, clearly you havent rubbed butter on a cats foot!
I think it puts 7 stone on them..but then not all woo gets remembered.
People who are stuck with overeating for their energy output probably need a chi transplant or a good food prep course (for the non gullible).
This skeptoid should be read in conjuction with the HFCS and negative calories episodes. You'll note that anyone making a complaint about their food is not making a complaint about their eating habits.
Mud, Pho\'s Brewery NSW, Oz
March 25, 2013 7:14pm
I don't think Mr. Dunning has watched "Forks over knives" or "Foodmatters".
Freke1, Denmark
May 11, 2013 3:09pm
You are correct. I get my information from scientific sources, not from entertainment shock-docs.
Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
May 11, 2013 3:47pm
I read almost every single comment here and on the "In Defense of Fast Food" article on Skepticblog, and all I can say is that the comments are a sobering indication that even the skeptics community has its sacred beliefs that are impervious to reason and evidence.
It's easy to see when, say, right-wing conservative Christians deny science and evidence contradicting their sacred beliefs (the Bible, the United States, etc.) but what's less easy to see is that liberals, including many skeptics, have their sacred beliefs too and once you identify what those sacred beliefs are it's easy to see how they err in applying critical thinking to them just as much as conservatives do.
In the case of liberals, they moralize and sacralize food and they demonize big business. You can see this attitude exuding from almost every commenter here, not to mention the existence of Whole Foods and labels that state "all natural" and "organic". There's a huge emphasis in liberal culture on eating "naturally" and avoiding "processed" foods and "artificial" ingredients and feeling superior to people who eat fast food goes hand in hand with that.
The truth is, there's nothing in fast food that isn't also in anything you'd buy at the grocery store; processed food isn't bad for you; artificial ingredients aren't necessarily bad for you; you can get the missing vitamins you need from a multivitamin; lacking fiber is a minor nuisance at worst. I've been eating fast food DAILY for YEARS and I'm fine.
Marc, Cambridge, Ontario
May 13, 2013 6:44pm
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation, or join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
Opinion is given by experts. View is given by casual perusers of issues.
A good example of a straw man may be;
"Hostility to dissent isn't new in the scientific community, especially now when there is plenty of money and politics involved. You've dismissed my sources because they oppose the general consensus. I've dismissed yours because too many are founded on conflicting interests."
If you think you are making a scientific statement then presenting a view such as;
"I take the first side that I hear when the science is relatively pure - i.e. physics, chemistry. If opposition appears, I consider both sides. If the science is not so pure, I wait until I've seen both sides before I decide which one to support. That's a damn opinion too.",
is totally irrelevant. You are waxing lyrically. Its just a view you maintain personally and may I add "woo".
Muddie, Sutherland BatCave, Oz
November 05, 2011 11:15am