h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

You are absolutely right that there are quick healthy meals that can be cooked from the basic raw ingredients when you get home from work.

I know because my b/f and I both work and I always cook when I go home - being vegitareans there is little in the way of fast food/ready meals so we have to cook, I also do not like prepacked foods so will always use fresh produce when I can get it.

However I am lucky - I only work 25 minutes from home so have a reasonable amount of time to cook when I get in - most of my colleagues are not in this position and sem to live on fast food/convenience meals and regular sugar fixes (sweets/ biscuits/ cakes) during the day.

One simple answer- stir fry! When I'm working late, we seem to live on them. 5mins chopping stuff up, 10mins in the pan- quick, easy and healthy.

noodles, pilchard and a load of raw carrot

yum

Actually, Mr. Legion, looking at the postings since, I really don't think that i can add anything to what's been said.

The two other overheads of preparing your own meals are (1) deciding what to cook and (2) buying the ingredients.

Don't get me wrong, I vastly prefer to prepare my own meals (especially after 6 months of not having that option), and I am noticably leaner and healthier when I do, but I do find it takes more effort than just cooking.

It does help if you can get into a routine, I guess.

B

Blues Shark: I think I owe an apology for the 'stupidity' comment. It was flippant, and didn't reflect my views. It was, in fact, stupid, it detracted from the rest of my posting, and I deserved to be flamed for it. The rest of the post is just my opinion.

Kelli, I was in no way saying that all overweight people lack self-control or are somehow inferior. With that 'stupidity' comment, I see how it came across like that Apologies. The people I was referring to were the *litigants*, and them alone. I don't agree with what they're doing, but I deliberately refrained from comments in the "the gross litigants should be kicked out on their fat asses" vein, which I've seen elsewhere on the thread, because that's just ignorant.

Sorry for any air of negativity I may have brought to the thread. I hate it when threads descend into flame wars, but it seems to be happening a lot lately. My opinions are as seen above. Just try to read between the ego

Och, I don't mind taking a punt at the guy who's name is a legion...

> You are of the opinion that the litigants, poor dears,
> are/were incapable of investigating the type of food they were
> eating

Or just not interested. Not everyone is as obsessed with nutrition as I am. No reason why anyone should be. I just take my car along to the petrol station when it needs petrol and to the garage when it needs servicing and trust that the fuel I buy and the service it is given is appropriate.

There is an issue of good faith and commercial trust here.

If the F/F places gave NO nutritional information it would be less bad than the MISLEADING nutritional information which they give.



> because the fast food industry has warped their minds into
> cow-like submission.

Well that is a possibility. People who eat fast food which consists of a lot of refined sugars are going to lurch from being hyperglycemic to being hypoglycemic, and when I experience sugar lows I certainly cannot think or concentrate. I don't experience them much or often because I don't eat refined sugar much or often. But if I did, then cow-like submission would be a reasonable description of my brain. Mad-cow-like submission possibly...


> Don't you think this is a little patronising?

No

>Heard of a little thing called 'self-control'?

Yes. But I only know of one person who applies rigid self-control to all aspects of his life. And a more seriously f****d up anal-retentive I would never want to meet at an accountancy conference.


> I would probably stop short of calling the litigants
> opportunists, but they are certainly wrong in demanding
> millions of dollars for a problem which is mostly of their
> own making.

I can see why you think that, and in some respects I agree with you, though I would not phrase it like that. However I am in favour of the litigation, because although I am not sure that litigation is the best way to rope in the excesses of the F/F industry, it is A way, and a reasonably high profile way. And as you may have noticed I consider the F/F industry to be the minions of Satan and the spawn of the devil. And one of the advantages of litigation is that encourages debates like this one.


> They had the power to say 'no'. But they didn't. Not
> because the truth was hidden from them -

Which it was


> because they apparently had no interest in learning
> the truth about the food they were eating every day.

And why should they? Surely it is resonable to expect food to be nutritious?



> Your arguments for corporate brain-washing are quite
> convincing,

Good



> and I want to read 'Fast-Food Nation',

Me too


> but the theory can't justify the huge payout that is
> being demanded. The industry should be made to pay for
> the damage it has done to a generation across the world,

Jeeze - that would be wonderful. Impractical but wonderful. Over half of all Americans are clinically obese. Which puts 'normal' people into a minority.


> but the thinking behind this case is flawed.

Again, I am not sure whether I agree or disagree on this point. But I am 100% certain I wish the litigant luck.

Ben

S**t, S**t, S**t, S**t, S**t...

Legion I am sorry. Would you beleive that was a simulpost? I know your post was an hour before mine, but you hadn't posted it when I started writing mine.

Things like Instant Messages, Phone Calls and meals (veggie burger and kenyan beans with goats butter) came inbetween me hitting the reply button and the post button.

Your reply was gracious, and mine wasn't.

I apologise.

Ben

Let's take this in another direction, to try and get at one of the fundamental questions behind this discussion.

At what point, and why, did a nation get away from home-cooked food? When did Americans stop eating the (generally speaking) nutritious food prepared at home and eaten by a family, in favour of fast food?

In years gone by, American households were no different from British households as far as meals were concerned. They largely ate good food, prepared and served at home. Whatever the health food nazis may say, meat and two veg is a very nutritious diet, and it's what I grew up on.

When did the likes of MacDonalds, Burger King, et al become the staple food of so many Americans and why?

And why are we calling it fast food when we should be calling it junk food?

"Yeah, maybe that was a bit simplistic, but then, we only hear of the people who had it hard, like the Tolpuddle Martyrs, the Scottish crofters, the people during the Irish potato famine. For sure there was a lot of deprivation and starvation. I'm sure there were also a lot of people who led content, everyday lives, who never went hungry, and who never made the history books."

Hhhhm. There was the potato famine, and late in the 17th cent the European wars cut off cheap grain supplies to England to the point where even families depending on self employed men counted on losing most of their children through starvation/depradation.

Truth is, history fluctuates all the time - golden ages have come and gone and were always brief. Nostalgia fills in the gaps. This last 30-40 years have probably been the wealthiest times for both the UK and the States (make that 25 years for the UK). Currently we seem to celebrate that fact by spending our wealth on disposable crap. Bad food, vapid entertainment and cars that go out of date every twelve months. The advertising industry (and governments by allowing them to function) endorses this lifestyle and wants you to gear it up - buy more, waste more, buy it all over again, don't stop, don't stop! Work your little life in the persuit of our happiness, get those dollars and fire them over here - in return we'll give you bad food and distraction - we'll do it at 25 frames per second so you don't have to think too hard!
And then when one poor sick ground down man says "Hey! I trusted you, and now I'm ill - I'm going to die because you wanted me to play!" everyone jumps on him and calls him greedy. (Most of the present contibutors excepted)
You have to ask who the hell the finger pointers are working for. It's like MacDonalds (and all the rest) have an enormous support team.


Can't remember what I wanted to say there.

No problem Ben And it's not every day I get called gracious Nice use of profanity, by the way.

I am *definitely* not a supporter of McDonald's. But I'm not a supporter of the litigants, either. It's an awkward position. I sympathise with you, Ben, when you say the case is A Way...I'm just not sure of the end justifies the means. A noble end, but what seems to be a highly suspect means.

Saw 'Fast Food Nation' in the Edinburgh Fopp for a fiver today, fast-food critic-fans!

Note: other record stores that also sell books are available.

Ben, you know me, not an evil hearted person looking for a scrap (bloody hell, it's got to a sad state of affairs when I feel the need to put a disclaimer like that on a post)

I hate Maccy D's but because of their food, because of what they represent in terms of globalisation.

But:

"> You are of the opinion that the litigants, poor dears,
> are/were incapable of investigating the type of food they were
> eating

Or just not interested. Not everyone is as obsessed with nutrition as I am. No reason why anyone should be. I just take my car along to the petrol station when it needs petrol and to the garage when it needs servicing and trust that the fuel I buy and the service it is given is appropriate."

Not interested, fair enough, not obsessed, but surely *anyone* with an average level of intelligence *knows* that fatty s**t ain't good, and how can a burger and fries not be fatty?

"If the F/F places gave NO If the F/F places gave NO nutritional information it would be less bad than the MISLEADING nutritional information which they give."

They don't give any nutritional information, at least, not in ads I've seen. The only message I get about their food is "it tastes good, and it fills you up". Which is true. Bad for you though it is.

">Heard of a little thing called 'self-control'?

Yes. But I only know of one person who applies rigid self-control to all aspects of his life. And a more seriously f****d up anal-retentive I would never want to meet at an accountancy conference."

Oh come now, the self control required to think "no, I've had two big macs this week already, I'll have proper food today" is not anal "my body is a temple" type stuff, it's reasonable thinking. If you really can't think for yourself that much, then "Oi! You! Out of the gene pool".

"> because they apparently had no interest in learning
> the truth about the food they were eating every day.

And why should they? Surely it is resonable to expect food to be nutritious? "

No, it bloody isn't reasonable to think food is nutritious, it's darn right dumb. A bar of chocolate is food, what sort of idiot thinks that's nutritious?

Food's anything you can eat. Evil though some f/f companies are, it's not their jobs to regulate people's diets. It's their job to make money.

Let me put it this way- if you see a chippy (that's a fish and chip shop, somewhere that sells fried stuff for non-UK researchers), do you asume the stuff it's selling is nutritious?

- and I've had a hell of a lot of that tonight. Can I sue all the pubs I've been in for liver damage please?

Nice one KerrAvon.

I guess my fundamental pov here is that it is not unreasonable of punters to assume that food is nutritious.

A chocolate bar is not a meal, it is a sweet or possibly a snack. (Actually high quality dark chocolate is a source of Vitamin E. Strange but true).

The case is different with Alcohol. The message is much simpler, and can be presented in black and white. 'Alcohol Causes Liver Diseases' and 'Cigarettes Give You Cancer'. But an un-nutrituious diet causes so many diseases: heart disease, liver and kidney malfuction, gallstones, bowel and stomach cancers, pancreatic malfuction, diabetes. An un-nutritious diet will also impact on recovery times following surgery, and it will affect your immune system. These are much much harder messages to put across truthfully.

It may be because I do know more about food and how the body processes it and reacts to it than the average lay-person that I consider the subject to be complex and full of very mixed messages. Almonds are a source of calcium for vegetarians. (Almonds are Good). They are high in fat. (Almonds are Bad). Bananas are a rich source of potassium. (Good). They are high in sugar and carbohydrate. (Bad). And to quote a previous example. You should eat 5 portions of fruit or veg per day. (Fruit is good). But they don't say 'if you eat fruit after a meal it will cause bloating and gas'. (Fruit disagrees with me).

I have certainly seen leaflets in McDs talking about the nutritional value of their food. All pros and no cons.

So the messages are mixed.

And one final point. It is actually f*****g hard to get nutritious and low fat convenience food. I am intollerant of wheat and by preference a vegetarian. So no pizzas, no pies, no hotdogs, no donuts, no burgers, no chicken nuggets, no fish dippers, no sandwiches.

There are two snack foods I can and unfortunately do eat regularly. The following information is from memory:

One is between 30% and 60% fat, the rest being refined carbohydrate.

The other is about 15% fat, and 55% sugar, the rest being unrefined carbohydrate.

One is perceived as a 'healthy option'

Which one is marketed as being healthy, and what do you think they both are?

B

I don't want to keep banging on about Mr Schlosser's book, because he went to a lot of trouble to put it together real nice with proper research and everything, and he's entitled to expect that people go out and buy it (have I counted three sales here already? ), not have a semi-literate idjit like myself paraphrase it on a web-site, but I'm pretty sure (I don't have my copy to hand, and won't have for three of four days), that he later goes on to state that the fast food industry has made consistent attempts to have reports on the health of their product watered down, altered, re-worded in neutral terms, and generally made misleading.

If DrG's online today he may be able to confirm it.

So, if an industry goes out of it's way to
a) sell itself as a trusted friend to it's nd users
b) distort official reports about the safety of it's products

does that not mean that people are entitled to feel affronted by them when it turns out they have been peddling s***?

I too have mxed feelings about this case, because I tend to think that the only people who are going to get really rich are the lawyers, but on the other hand I think it's vital that the idustry and it's practices are dragged screaming into the light, and this is a way to achieve this end.

I think the McLibel trial more effectively dragged this issue into the light years ago.

I remember specifically that one of the things the leaflet that was the subject of the trial attacked was McDonalds' claim that they sell "good, nutritious food".

McDonalds were asked, in court, what they meant by "nutritious". Their response - "it contains nutrients". That was it. Contains nutrients. Like every single item of food ever, practically, including poisonous ones A752429...

There then followed a debate which I think took several *days* (longest trial in British legal history, as I recall, and with stuff like the following you can see why...) on whether or not black tea contains any nutrients.

But their point was simple - it's got nutrients in it, it's nutritious. Is it McDonalds' FAULT that if you see something labelled "nutritious" you think "oh, it must be good for me"? No. Your comprehension of English is surely your own affair?

I'm of the Darwinian persuasion here - as long as they aren't actually LYING outright in their publicity (and that would be illegal), then they should be able to mislead and dissemble to their hearts' content. The majority (in the UK at least) of the population will continue to eat the odd burger, guiltily knowing it's doing us no good. A minority will not touch the stuff for ideological reasons, all well and fine.

And another minority will completely disengage whatever atrophied critical faculty they might still have despite their education and swallow whatever the burgermeisters can shovel into them as fast as they can fry it and never stop for a moment consider what effect the grease and salt and red meat is doing to their bodies. And we, the majority, will continue working and paying taxes to fund the healthcare system which will replace these peoples' heart valves etc. in due course.

It is NOT reasonable to think that all food you're sold is good for you.

Advertising has been mentioned. Look at adverts for food. "92% fat free!" shouts the label.

"Yeah, right, you mean 8% fat", thinks the sceptical food buyer. And they're right.

But the POINT is, even the dolt who doesn't see that label for the scam it is, STILL has it drummed into them by this and all the similar labels and adverts that fat is something to be avoided. "Low fat", "lite", "slightly salted", "sugar free", "toothkind", "low alcohol". Misleading as all these phrases may be, nobody who can read English can honestly claim that they don't know that fat, salt, sugar and alcohol are things you're supposed to AVOID consuming too much of. You can argue as much as you like that its difficult to find out the actual content of food - but anyone who ever buys anything in a supermarket gets the message loud and clear from the labels in every aisle: "FAT = BAD".

H.

Maybe it's been said already but ... the fat guy suing McD's needs to take some responsibility for his own life. Yes, he may have believed that McD's were a healthy meal but did McDs stop him from going out and exercising. Did they stop him from reading the papers/talking to his friends/checking the net to find out just how healthy they are (or aren't). Course they didn't.

Life is so much easier to ditch the responsibility for yourself, and then have a good moan when it doesn't go your way.

I can understand the older generations not having the sense to question things because they grew up in a more honest era, but it should be pretty obvious to everybody by now that we're being lied to most of the time. Politicians, banks, multinationals they're all at it. Trying to sell us themselves, their services or products.

*steps down from soap box*

BBS

Wee, call me a f***wit (braces self), but I believe the stupid/ignorant/innocent (now the latter's a word you don't hear much) should be protected from the manipulative/dishonest/greedy.

If it is ok to have a legal company selling things which are lethal in high enough doses, then I expect the public to be warned about it *by that company*. For them to say the opposite, however cleverly worded, should be illegal.

Bright Blue Shorts;

"Life is so much easier to ditch the responsibility for yourself, and then have a good moan when it doesn't go your way."

Are you talking about MacDonalds or the guy suing them? Works both ways with responsibility, mate.

>Wee, call me a f***wit (braces self), but I believe the >stupid/ignorant/innocent (now the latter's a word you don't hear >much) should be protected from the manipulative/dishonest/greedy.

And therein lies a fundemental difference between us- I don't see why they should. If they're really that stupid, then thta's natural selection in action.

Oh and Ben- what about a meal from a chip shop? Chips, battered sausage, mushy peas. Is it reasonable to assume that's good for you?