kid
Junior Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by kid on Mar 4, 2010 8:47:11 GMT -5
heres a quick hypothetical query.
Say McDonald's offers to pay for all expenses of our National Cross-Country teams so they can go to Worlds, free of charge. No fundraising, nothing. If you qualify, McD's pays for you to go.
Are you going to stand on your high horse and say you know what, its nice that you're sponsoring us and everything, but I feel like you're misrepresenting your product, so I don't think I'm going to go..
Point is, there has been countless threads on this website complaining about lack of support and funding for athletes in Canada, and yet when a deep-pocketed company (albeit a fast food chain) steps up and puts some money in, we complain about the source. I
As a sidenote: no I do not work for McDonalds, nor do I eat there regularly. And yes, I am aware that it is not the best source of nutrients in the world
|
|
oasis
Full Member
Posts: 205
|
Post by oasis on Mar 4, 2010 9:36:11 GMT -5
heres a quick hypothetical query. Say McDonald's offers to pay for all expenses of our National Cross-Country teams so they can go to Worlds, free of charge. No fundraising, nothing. If you qualify, McD's pays for you to go. Are you going to stand on your high horse and say you know what, its nice that you're sponsoring us and everything, but I feel like you're misrepresenting your product, so I don't think I'm going to go.. Point is, there has been countless threads on this website complaining about lack of support and funding for athletes in Canada, and yet when a deep-pocketed company (albeit a fast food chain) steps up and puts some money in, we complain about the source. I As a sidenote: no I do not work for McDonalds, nor do I eat there regularly. And yes, I am aware that it is not the best source of nutrients in the world agreed take the money and run sort of speak but don't eat their food!!! Smithwicks maybe you could pursade your employer (BMO) which has generate some nice profit over the last few quarters to invest in Canadian athletics, seriously just a thought |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 4, 2010 11:31:31 GMT -5
(1) ... it is clearly always worse than the available alternatives. (2) Just out of curiousity, how much do you feel you know about basic nutrition and sports nutrition in particular? (1) This is a lazy generalization, and this is what bothers me about your line of argument. Not so much tht you don't like the idea of McDs food, but that you're prepared to make sweeping generalizations about all their food in reltion to all other foods. Of course some of their food lcks much in the way of redeeming nutritional value, I think everyone undertstands and accepts this. But, not all of their food is unhealthy, at least in comparison with normal foods eaten by 99% of the population. (2) Better than some, worse than others. I've been "mentored" by a health conscious wife for 20+ years, and we've been subscribers ot Nutrition Action for several years, so I get an update on current nutritional science regularly, and stay abreast of the topic at more than a casual level. But I don't have graduate lvel training in nutritional sciences, if that's what you're asking me. I know enough to make informed decisions about what I eat. From "pure horseshit" to a "lazy generalization" in one post: I call that progress! As generalizations go, I'd say the claim that McDonld's "food" is worse for you than almost all the alternatives is about as sound as you can get. Aside from other fast foods, or prepared supermarket items, which are really just frozen fast food, name one other kind of food that is a bad for you as McDonald's. I'm aware that they've tried to add some more nutritional alternatives to their menu; but, even these come with the option of added salt and fat (e.g. their salads which, with dressing and other "fixin's" become as salty and fatty as anything else on the menu). Besides, these offerings are often just token; they know that, once in the door, you're also likely to order some fries and a soft drink, which, per unit, are their real heavy-lifters when it comes to profit margins. This is 2010; I can't believe I'm actually having to re-state the nutritional case against McDonald's. Even THEY know that they make their money from selling shit. Why do you think they're so frantic to associate themselves with the opposite of what they're selling-- top athletes and weight-consciousness (as in the Weight Watchers campaign)? In the midst of an obesity epidemic of world- historic proportions, there is nothing benign about a gigantic fast food multinational engaging in multi-million dollar ad campaigns directed largely at children, whose aim is to counter or growing guilt and worry about eating fast feed. Increasingly, public health depends on us feeling more guilty about eating crap (along with other things, of course). As for the scenario of McDonald's offering to fund Canada's WXC program, the answer, of course, would be: "no way"-- not if they wanted to use the program in their promotions. We need the money, but we're not whores. What if a cigarette company offer us some money (if they were still legally allowed to do this)? They could even show a picture of one of us smoking, expecting that the public would clue in that distance running and smoking are only compatible "in moderation" (and I repeat: Herb Eliot actually smoked cigarettes during his off-season, and athletes of my generation often breathed huge quantities of second hand smoke in bars, restaurants and at home.) Depending on how one defines "moderation", just about anything is compatible with elite athletics. Does this mean that it's therefore ethical to use symbols of elite athletics to peddle anything at all? Again, I can't believe I'm even having to make this case. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Mar 4, 2010 12:09:58 GMT -5
...I can't believe I'm even having to make this case. So far you haven't made it. You just keep repeating your opinion over and over. It's fine to have strong opinions, but don't present opinions as facts. I have a hard time believing I'm defending McPig's, as I'm not especially fond of most of their food, and I too recognize that some of their food is crap. But the arguments against them in this thread are over the top and, in my view, give a false, overconservative perspective. I think peopl should be careful what they eat there, and then eat there in moderation. But to say the food there is outright harmful for endurance athletes is (in my OPINION) patently false. |
|
|
|
Post by spaff on Mar 4, 2010 12:23:05 GMT -5
"I eat there every chance I get"...
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 4, 2010 12:34:20 GMT -5
...I can't believe I'm even having to make this case. So far you haven't made it. You just keep repeating your opinion over and over. It's fine to have strong opinions, but don't present opinions as facts. I have a hard time believing I'm defending McPig's, as I'm not especially fond of most of their food, and I too recognize that some of their food is crap. But the arguments against them in this thread are over the top and, in my view, give a false, overconservative perspective. I think peopl should be careful what they eat there, and then eat there in moderation. But to say the food there is outright harmful for endurance athletes is (in my OPINION) patently false. There is simply no one-stop-shop for "facts" concerning the nutritional content of all of McDonald's food as compared with ALL of the conceivable alternatives; but, only a nutritional "flat-earther" would quarrel with the suggestion the McDonald's food is about as nutritionally bad as you can find; basically, only other fast food or prepared food choices are as bad. Just look at the sodium and sugar content alone! Some their single items contain up to twice the safe daily limit of these substances (and you are only a couple of clicks away from the "facts" on this). Do I have to ask Trent to come on here again and confirm what I'm saying? Because I will! As for defending McD's, you actually haven't even addressed the central question here, which was not "is McDonald's O.K. in moderation". It was: is it ethical for McDonald's to use elite sport to shill its nutritionally compromised products (never mind the question of precisely HOW nutritionally compromised), when elite sport and McDonald's are not exactly a neat fit (to say the least). Speaking of only offering opinions, all you have said so far is that you don't think eating McDonald's "in moderation" (a central datum which you haven't even bothered to define) is a bad thing. Hell, you haven't even taken up my challenge of naming one non-fast food/pre-packaged food choice that you think is as bad or worse for you as McDonald's food (I'm only singling out McDonald's because it's the fast food purveyor we're talking about, and because it's the most strenuous is trying to counter its well earned shit-food image). If I were a McDonald's guy, I wouldn't think much of your "defense"! |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Mar 4, 2010 12:38:55 GMT -5
[(1)... only a nutritional "flat-earther" would quarrel with the suggestion the McDonald's food is about as nutritionally bad as you can find; (2) As for defending McD's, you actually haven't even addressed the central question here, which was not "is McDonald's O.K. in moderation". It was: is it ethical for McDonald's to use elite sport to shill its nutritionally compromised products (never mind the question of precisely HOW nutritionally compromised), when elite sport and McDonald's are not exactly a neat fit ! (1) And only a tinfoil hatted chicken little type woul say it is. So there!  (2) That question didn't interest me. Your knee jerk generalizations did. Hence that's the part of the discussion I joined. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 4, 2010 12:42:35 GMT -5
P.S. What exactly does "outright harmful" mean? If this is what we're arguing about, then only a deadly poison is "outright harmful". As I said, Herb Eliot smoked cigarettes during the off season (just look up Ron Clarke's reminiscences of Eliot in Cerrutty in the 60s). If you're prepared to argue that smoking cigarettes is also therefore not "outright harmful" for endurance athletes, then you'll at least have the virtue of consistency.
Edit: If we were compiling a list of the top five worst nurtritional habits an endurance athlete could engage in, on average, then surely eating fast food would be near the top of the list (probably surpassed only by not eating enough at all). This is what makes what McDonald's is trying to do in those truly heinous ads spaff posted so reprehensible. That shit is right out of the Simpsons. It's very close to self-parody.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 4, 2010 13:05:54 GMT -5
[(1)... only a nutritional "flat-earther" would quarrel with the suggestion the McDonald's food is about as nutritionally bad as you can find; (2) As for defending McD's, you actually haven't even addressed the central question here, which was not "is McDonald's O.K. in moderation". It was: is it ethical for McDonald's to use elite sport to shill its nutritionally compromised products (never mind the question of precisely HOW nutritionally compromised), when elite sport and McDonald's are not exactly a neat fit ! (1) And only a tinfoil hatted chicken little type woul say it is. So there! (2) That question didn't interest me. Your knee jerk generalizations did. Hence that's the part of the discussion I joined. "Knee jerk generalizations"!? Some of my posts are 3 paragraphs long! In light of this discussion as a whole, wouldn't you say that this better fits the definition of a reflex generalization: "Eating McDonald's in moderation is fine." (especially in the absence of a definition of "in moderation")? What does this even mean? Edit: That it is merely "your opinion" does not mean it is not an empty generalization. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Mar 4, 2010 13:26:44 GMT -5
quot;Knee jerk generalizations"!? Some of my posts are 3 paragraphs long! 3 paragraphs of editorial content, but no factual information to back up your opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 4, 2010 13:35:48 GMT -5
quot;Knee jerk generalizations"!? Some of my posts are 3 paragraphs long! 3 paragraphs of editorial content, but no factual information to back up your opinion. It's what's known as "an argument", which you have not effectively challenged through the use of either facts or logic. The only "fact" my argument requires to sustain it is this: "Eating McDonald's (or other fast food) is less healthy than not eating it, especially for people who are trying to become better athletes"; which, let's recall, you are prepared to accept (you said your consumption was akin to a "guilty pleasure"). I do not have to prove that it is bad for you in some absolute sense (an almost meaningless notion in the first place, which I've already suggested). |
|
oldbones
Full Member
And so it goes ...
Posts: 244
|
Post by oldbones on Mar 4, 2010 13:43:21 GMT -5
Hey this is not some peer reviewed journal submission we are talking about here nor thesis ... all pedantic bs aside .... footnotes are not required ... this is self evident stuff we are talking about! About as common knowledge as it gets! The court of common opinion has judged FAST FOOD STINKS ... period! Get over the nit picking and strawman tactics and say uncle ... put the burgs down |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Mar 4, 2010 13:48:13 GMT -5
It's what's known as "an argument", which you have not effectively challenged through the use of either facts or logic. Well, in my opinion, an opinion repeatedly presented is not an "argument" without the use of logic or facts to back it up. BTW - I should shut up now... I'm doing the same thing I'm complaining about, haha. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 4, 2010 13:55:25 GMT -5
It's what's known as "an argument", which you have not effectively challenged through the use of either facts or logic. Well, in my opinion, an opinion repeatedly presented is not an "argument" without the use of logic or facts to back it up. BTW - I should shut up now... I'm doing the same thing I'm complaining about, haha. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have this year's winner of the coachj award for outstanding obtuseness! Your award: Dinner for two at McDonald's! |
|
|
|
Post by Smithwicks on Mar 4, 2010 13:56:51 GMT -5
The problem is neither have you oldster. In the course of this "editorial content" you've resorted to ad hominem attacks, straw men, hasty generalizations and many other fallacies in the span of only a couple pages. You then misconstue statements from pq then call him out on it. I don't know how to proceed further with this argument/debate when the other person is erroneous and fallacious in their commentary.
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Mar 4, 2010 13:57:18 GMT -5
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have this year's winner of the coachj award for outstanding obtuseness! Obtuse because I don't share your point of view? That's pretty rich. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 4, 2010 14:05:21 GMT -5
No, obtuse for not really bothering to challenge the argument, except by gainsaying and pettyfogging the issue.
Edit: Look at your posts. Several times you have just clipped one fragment out of an entire paragraph and seized on it. That's not arguing OR offering a clear opinion. You output on this amounts to this vague claim: "Eating McDonald's in moderation is fine". This is neither an argument nor any kind of refutation of anything I've said.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Crowley on Mar 4, 2010 14:08:54 GMT -5
No, obtuse for not really bothering to challenge the argument, except my gainsaying and pettyfogging the issue. i like it when old people argue. i learn so many new words. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 4, 2010 14:10:47 GMT -5
The problem is neither have you oldster. In the course of this "editorial content" you've resorted to ad hominem attacks, straw men, hasty generalizations and many other fallacies in the span of only a couple pages. You then misconstue statements from pq then call him out on it. I don't know how to proceed further with this argument/debate when the other person is erroneous and fallacious in their commentary. The problem is neither have you oldster. In the course of this "editorial content" you've resorted to ad hominem attacks, straw men, hasty generalizations and many other fallacies in the span of only a couple pages. You then misconstue statements from pq then call him out on it. I don't know how to proceed further with this argument/debate when the other person is erroneous and fallacious in their commentary. Interesting. But where's your promised explanation/defense of this howler: "Eating in quantity any food product will cause health problems. MacDonalds is no exception"(?). |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 4, 2010 14:29:29 GMT -5
P.S. Did I mention how easy it is to wind you guys up, and how much fun it is to watch you flail around? Talk about a guilty pleasure! (Seriously, I do feel guilty about it sometimes).
|
|
|
|
Post by powerboy on Mar 4, 2010 14:47:12 GMT -5
I had not looked at this subject until today when I was interested in the fact that a post had some legs to it (and given my frustration that some of the good running posts die so quickly.)
My position is simply more opinion, but I think you are too high on the horse oldster.
MacDonalds in moderation is fine. I'm not into a nutrition argument on a scientific basis, but I know I have seen an article somewhere that demonstrated that some common misconceptions about food are amazing-one that springs to mind is that a loaded bake potato was worse than a hamburger, and a loaded salad-bacon bits, crutons, dressing etc was similarly unhelpful.
If we bring this back to where it should be-an argument about how it affects runners, then there is no doubt that fast food in moderation is not a problem, assuming a generally balanced diet.
I have constantly told the kids I coach that it is wishful thinking that diet and core exercises are the secret to success (as many of them seem to have thought) My generation drank about as much Coke as humanly possible and ran much better than the current generation.
Don Kardong lived on fruit loops, and I imagine that Ron Hill and Dave Bedford lived on beer and fish and chips (as would have Ovett).
When we produce a generation of kids better than those, and attribute it to diet, I will willingly concede.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 4, 2010 16:21:12 GMT -5
I had not looked at this subject until today when I was interested in the fact that a post had some legs to it (and given my frustration that some of the good running posts die so quickly.) My position is simply more opinion, but I think you are too high on the horse oldster. MacDonalds in moderation is fine. I'm not into a nutrition argument on a scientific basis, but I know I have seen an article somewhere that demonstrated that some common misconceptions about food are amazing-one that springs to mind is that a loaded bake potato was worse than a hamburger, and a loaded salad-bacon bits, crutons, dressing etc was similarly unhelpful. If we bring this back to where it should be-an argument about how it affects runners, then there is no doubt that fast food in moderation is not a problem, assuming a generally balanced diet. I have constantly told the kids I coach that it is wishful thinking that diet and core exercises are the secret to success (as many of them seem to have thought) My generation drank about as much Coke as humanly possible and ran much better than the current generation. Don Kardong lived on fruit loops, and I imagine that Ron Hill and Dave Bedford lived on beer and fish and chips (as would have Ovett). When we produce a generation of kids better than those, and attribute it to diet, I will willingly concede. I don't see your point. McDonald's sells both the bad hamburger and the salt and fat laden baked potato. How does this contribute to the discussion? And, yet again, I have never said that it is impossible to become an elite athlete while eating crap, either a lot or in moderation; you just have to hope that you have the talent to overcome your poor nutritional choices, or that your competitors also eat crap. And, BTW, a group of generally non-junkfood eating runners HAS come along to surpass the performances of the legendary crap-eating 70s guys you mention: the East Africans, who eat a very simple and nutritionally complete diet when growing up (not the only factor in explaining their success, but certainly one of them). And how, BTW, did your athletes get the idea that good diet and core strength were all they needed for success? And isn't the remedy for that misconception not to tell them to be less concerned about their diet, but rather to be more concerned with the amount they're running? Why would you ever want to discourage a kid from taking his diet seriously? To repeat, the gist of argument is this: 1.As a general rule, fast food (McDonald's, in this instance) and becoming the very best athlete you can be are mutually exclusive (otherwise, sports-nutritional science amounts to a waste of time). If you're bent on doing everything in your power to be the best you can be, there is no argument for eating crap, even "in moderation". And I have met lots of top runners who NEVER eat fast food, and have no desire to. Some do, I know, but I would bet far less than the general public (especially if we're talking endurance athletes). And, lots of great athletes probably don't train as well or as hard as they know they should. Does it then follow that its O.K. to train poorly or not as hard as you can "in moderation"-- if, that is, you claim to want to the best athlete you can be? 2. In light of the above, McDonald's is being highly cynical and disingenuous in using elite athletes so hawk their wares, given that it must know that elite athletes, as a general rule, probably eat far less of their food than the general public, and for clear reasons. I'd be willing to bet that if the general public started consuming fast food at the same rate as Olympic athletes that most of these outfits would be out of business in a year. If this is a contentious argument on a message board frequented by serious runners, then, Houston, we have a problem. And here's an related observation: Canadian runners-- all except the fastest-- are generally not as lean at they could be (you all know who I'm talking about!). Most of you could stand to be a little more anal about your diets! |
|
pmac
Junior Member
Posts: 122
|
Post by pmac on Mar 4, 2010 16:31:39 GMT -5
I find it the funniest when a coach's own athlete riles him up by making a post about how he should do less posting and more coaching, only to have that coach subsequently delete his angry post in embarrassment. P.S. Did I mention how easy it is to wind you guys up, and how much fun it is to watch you flail around? Talk about a guilty pleasure! (Seriously, I do feel guilty about it sometimes). |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 4, 2010 16:54:40 GMT -5
I find it the funniest when a coach's own athlete riles him up by making a post about how he should do less posting and more coaching, only to have that coach subsequently delete his angry post in embarrassment. P.S. Did I mention how easy it is to wind you guys up, and how much fun it is to watch you flail around? Talk about a guilty pleasure! (Seriously, I do feel guilty about it sometimes). What can I say. That WAS funny! BTW, by "you guys" I was referring specifically to pq and smithwicks in particular thread. Most of you are much less wind-upable. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Mar 4, 2010 16:55:05 GMT -5
McDonald's sells ... the ... salt and fat laden baked potato. Is this true? I don't think so...? Edit - I've done a little internet sleuthing (wiki page showing current and discontinued products) and can't find any evidence McDs has ever sold baked potatoes. That's not definitive proof, but it jives with my recollections anyway. I don't think I've ever seen them sold there. Anyone? |
|
cda
Full Member
Posts: 267
|
Post by cda on Mar 4, 2010 18:07:07 GMT -5
McDonald's sells ... the ... salt and fat laden baked potato. Is this true? I don't think so...? Edit - I've done a little internet sleuthing (wiki page showing current and discontinued products) and can't find any evidence McDs has ever sold baked potatoes. That's not definitive proof, but it jives with my recollections anyway. I don't think I've ever seen them sold there. Anyone? You digress. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Mar 4, 2010 18:08:19 GMT -5
I don't think so. I'm trying to make a point. Do they or don't they? |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 4, 2010 18:23:19 GMT -5
I don't think so. I'm trying to make a point. Do they or don't they? If doesn't really make any difference if they don't and never have. I've never seen this discussion (the nutrition part of it, anyway) as being specifically about McDonald's; it's really about fast food in general. I know one of these outfits sold the thing; and, anyway, it's really not a huge revelation to anyone who knows the first thing about nutrition that a potato slathered in some kind of trans fat sauce and bacon bits is not any healthier than a Big Mac. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 4, 2010 18:38:24 GMT -5
I got myself down to a 2:25 mary from a very fat standing start in 21 months and fueled myself with diet pop(very little water) and fast food(KFC, Mickey Dees, Harvey's, Wendy's, Ponderosa, etc). Not defending it, just thought some might find of interest. It is certainly a refutation of the hysterics about Mickey Dees et al. If I survived(arguably thrived) on a diet like that, eating the stuff in moderation can't be any kind of big deal. Carry on all.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 4, 2010 18:42:49 GMT -5
In order to rile a few more of you up, the following occurred to me while watching those appalling McDonald's ads above: I don't want my tax dollars going to athletes who are supposed to be pulling out all the stops in their efforts to "own the podium", and yet who are willing to be shown in a nationwide T.V. ad saying: "I eat at McDonald's every chance I get." I swear to god, if you were willing to state that in a carding application, you would be seriously questioned about it; and, if you were borderline, it might cost your points in the "training plan" category. (But note that the slogan is carefully crafted so as to be deliberately ambiguous concerning exactly how often "every chance I get" actually is. This is, of course, profoundly oily; but, I suppose it's appropriate that the ads be as ethically unwholesome as the food is nutritionally so.)
|
|
