3 ms·

How many people are going to go to McDonald and order to tofu instead of the burger exactly? What's more the problem isn't the mere choice of the burger its the

How many people are going to go to McDonald and order to tofu instead of the burger exactly? What's more the problem isn't the mere choice of the burger its the choice of the double burger with bacon, super sizing it, adding fries and lets top it off which a chocolate shake. For practical purposes you either need to eat modestly at McDonalds or more realistically not eat at McDonalds very much.

hombre_fatal 3y ago
You can replace McDonalds with "eating out" because you don't need to go crazy with supersizing and milkshakes to eat past your calorie budget in a single meal. When we eat out, we easily eat 1000+ calories. That's over half the daily calorie budget of a 5'5 woman. Yet it's just one of the meals people eat in a day. People like to come up with a bunch of reasons for why we eat too much or why the food we eat is somehow making us fatter than it might otherwise but we gloss over how trivial it is to overeat caloric dense foods even if "obesogens" and microplastics never existed.
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  Which is why we can't fix or even effect in any meaningful way by making McD offer lighter fare. What ends up happening is we end up paying a bunch of assholes with masters degrees to administer the program. McDonald's pays a bunch of assholes with bachelors degrees to figure out how to maximize their gain. Before long they are touting their healthful options which take up about 6sq inches on their board on commercials so that people don't feel bad or unhealthy when they roll up to the drive through window even though they actually ordered the double quarter pounder and the ass expander 2000 shake. Fast forward a little bit and their lobbyists have convinced government to further incentivize healthy options by paying Restaurants that implement absolutely meaningless standards that do nothing for anything and we are actually subsidizing giant asses whose milkshake brings all the obesity adjacent diseases to the yard. If you actually want to disincentivize negative things you have to either actually forbid them or just make it more expensive. Incentives will always be gamed and end up as free giveways. See bullshit carbon credits. Want people to eat fewer big macs? Tax them at 100% and watch most of the cheap fast food implode and cease to exist. Want those people not to starve watch in amazement at a virtue of UBI you can tax things out of existence that destroy people's health without starving people.

hombre_fatal 3y ago

You can replace McDonalds with "eating out" because you don't need to go crazy with supersizing and milkshakes to eat past your calorie budget in a single meal. When we eat out, we easily eat 1000+ calories. That's over half the daily calorie budget of a 5'5 woman. Yet it's just one of the meals people eat in a day. People like to come up with a bunch of reasons for why we eat too much or why the food we eat is somehow making us fatter than it might otherwise but we gloss over how trivial it is to overeat caloric dense foods even if "obesogens" and microplastics never existed.

michaelmrose 3y ago
Which is why we can't fix or even effect in any meaningful way by making McD offer lighter fare. What ends up happening is we end up paying a bunch of assholes with masters degrees to administer the program. McDonald's pays a bunch of assholes with bachelors degrees to figure out how to maximize their gain. Before long they are touting their healthful options which take up about 6sq inches on their board on commercials so that people don't feel bad or unhealthy when they roll up to the drive through window even though they actually ordered the double quarter pounder and the ass expander 2000 shake. Fast forward a little bit and their lobbyists have convinced government to further incentivize healthy options by paying Restaurants that implement absolutely meaningless standards that do nothing for anything and we are actually subsidizing giant asses whose milkshake brings all the obesity adjacent diseases to the yard. If you actually want to disincentivize negative things you have to either actually forbid them or just make it more expensive. Incentives will always be gamed and end up as free giveways. See bullshit carbon credits. Want people to eat fewer big macs? Tax them at 100% and watch most of the cheap fast food implode and cease to exist. Want those people not to starve watch in amazement at a virtue of UBI you can tax things out of existence that destroy people's health without starving people.