Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Kontra Kommando

Science Teacher Loses 40 pounds on McDonald's Diet

Recommended Posts

http://kfor.com/2014/01/06/science-teacher-loses-almost-40-pounds-on-mcdonalds-diet/

John Cisna, a science teacher from Colo, Iowa, lost 40 pounds while eating nothing but McDonald's food for 90 days. However, he did follow a diet of 2000 calories a day, while consuming the recommend amount of protein, carbohydrates,etc. Moreover, he walked for exercise for 45 mins a day. Goes to show you, if you eat responsibly, you could enjoy whatever you like, even if its something as nasty as McDonald's.

Share this post


Link to post

This is no news. Another guy did something similar. Eating a sane semi-balanced diet of reasonable portions from McDonald's for an entire month, as a means of debunking that piece of shit propaganda piece where that guy claims he gained like 100 lbs and got heart disease from eating there.

His results were part of a hard scientific fact documentary covering our society's obsession with the unproven and in fact contradicted "lipid theory" of heart disease and how it is instead our carbohydrate-saturated "8 servings of grain a day" diet, combined with corn-syrup laden sodas and sugery desserts, that is unnatural and is making us fat and diabetic. The propagation of this belief is reinforced through government-endorsed propaganda from the FDA and the USDA, in part to keep the outdated money drain known as the grain subsidy flowing. Scientists who've attempted to disprove the lipid theory once and for all have been stripped of their jobs and had their publishable journal articles censored to keep the truth from the public.

In addition, the replacement of natural fats for cooking with putrid poisonous vegetable oils can be traced back directly to heavy lobbying from a cover for a group of radical militant vegetarians with the Orwellian name of "Center for Science in the Public Interest".

Share this post


Link to post
Quasar said:

Eating a sane semi-balanced diet of reasonable portions from McDonald's for an entire month, as a means of debunking that piece of shit propaganda piece where that guy claims he gained like 100 lbs and got heart disease from eating there.

The guy didn't develop heart disease, he developed a fatty liver IIRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Technician said:

The guy didn't develop heart disease, he developed a fatty liver IIRC.

Thanks for correcting. I have no desire to even watch the thing since I learned what a big fat lie the whole thing was.

Share this post


Link to post

Kontra Kommando said:
Goes to show you, if you eat responsibly, you could enjoy whatever you like, even if its something as nasty as McDonald's.

In principle, but it can't just be solved as a personal choice because advertising, presentation and other marketing aspects have an effect on what people eat and being able to eat responsibly tends to be a privilege when people don't have proper access to health education.

In many cases, people have little or no chances or incentives to improve their health education or diet management. Food outlets have some responsibility here just as food packagers have to provide some data to help people choose healthy food because they're immediately responsible for delivering the food.

Share this post


Link to post
yukib1t said:

There's a documentary about this. Well, not about this particular guy, but about this sort of subject.

That's the one I was referring to in my post above, which is quite eye-opening. If more people understood how many nutrition lies have been propagated to them as being God-given truths in the name of selling garbage, pushing political agendas, and propping up ways of life more fit for the dinosaurs at this point, they'd be angry.

Share this post


Link to post

From the Fat Head Wikipedia article:
Naughton also criticizes his inference from Super Size Me that consumers are unaware that fast food is high in calories,

Some are unaware, many more are too stressed or troubled to do anything about it. There's a correlation between general economic and social welfare and diet. This shows that knowing what food is best and cultivating the habits to consume it properly is another form of intellectual and proficiency capital that's best obtained and nurtured if you're a well-off and in a stable social situation.

and argues that no one is forced to eat fast food, as fast food restaurants merely cater to consumer demand, and that if fast food restaurants did not exist, people would satisfy that demand by eating the same food at other restaurants or at home.

Chains like McDonald's, when they become dominant, are active shapers of what people eat through their marketing promotion and the expansion of their franchise. They don't just "cater to consumer demand" because they create a culture around their food.

The demand for McDonald's food can only be measured for each instance and McDonald's modifies it with its successful or failed business decisions and practices. (Think of the "butterfly effect".) Demand is not passive nor an excuse that frees significant economic actors from social and political responsibility (in the sense of having to respond, rather than an abstract moral demand).

Small and local eateries can also affect us with bad diets, but each has much less responsibility in making choices that affect the diets of the general population. Even then, these can still be influenced for improvements or whatever, to some extent, such as through groups that they act through (the "Small Restaurants Association" or whatever) and through general laws. These minor eateries are much more deterministically conditioned by demand than McDonald's is, with its influence and access to large scale funding.

Share this post


Link to post

Shit, I've learned a lot from that video. I eat a lot of carbs. I'll be cutting it back to a single serving at breakfast and a single serving at dinner.

I knew carbs and sugars are the same in essence, but I had no idea how much glucose our body metabolize something like a bowl of cereal into.

Share this post


Link to post
Kontra Kommando said:

http://kfor.com/2014/01/06/science-teacher-loses-almost-40-pounds-on-mcdonalds-diet/

John Cisna, a science teacher from Colo, Iowa, lost 40 pounds while eating nothing but McDonald's food for 90 days. However, he did follow a diet of 2000 calories a day, while consuming the recommend amount of protein, carbohydrates,etc. Moreover, he walked for exercise for 45 mins a day. Goes to show you, if you eat responsibly, you could enjoy whatever you like, even if its something as nasty as McDonald's.


I'm on a 600 - 1,000 calorie a day diet. Have been all my life, except the 2 years when I was on the all pizza diet. On that diet I didn't lose or gain any weight. Ate 1 entire pizza per day and that's it.

McDonalds should be happy with this publicity. It has been trying to be healthy for the past decade. They even have apple slices in happy meals now.

Anyone ever read the food stats? Chips are fucking horrible for you. Also the food stats tend to play with numbers with servings. Like how an average bag of ramen is like 190 cal and 70 fat. Sounds okay. Too bad its half a serving.

I had a double cheeseburger from burger king 3 days ago 390 calories. Not that bad when considering hamburgers. My gf had some new Mad Whopper there and it was 850 calories and 400 fat 3/4ths the stats of an entire frozen pizza. Non thin crust frozen pizza is like 1200 cal 600 cal fat.

Also looking at the stats of food when you buy them, you can see that bigger quantities are not always cheaper. I always figured.... small, medium and large quantities of products. Large must always be cheaper when you compare the sizes. Nope. I find 2 mediums get you more servings / larger quantity for less price than 1 large. Not with everything of course, but usually with grocery food.

Share this post


Link to post

You can also do the all cereal, skim milk diet. Turns into like 200 calories, 1 gram of fat per serving. Even Lucky Charms is extremely healthy. Cereals seem to have more actual vitamins in them than any other processed food.

Also walking inclines burns a lot of calories. 700 cals per hour on 5 incline at 4 mph. People say running will ruin your knees. Power walking isn't running. Adjust speed and incline accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
geo said:

You can also do the all cereal, skim milk diet. Turns into like 200 calories, 1 gram of fat per serving. Even Lucky Charms is extremely healthy. Cereals seem to have more actual vitamins in them than any other processed food.

The issues with cereal is the concentration of carbohydrates that when digested raise your blood glucose levels substantially.

I'm an avid cereal eater. I eat nothing else for breakfast. Cereal with toast. I need to or I'll bind up.

Share this post


Link to post

Technician said:
I knew carbs and sugars are the same in essence,

I'm skeptical because any physical effects or sensations that I may get from eating a good amount of sugars don't really happen much with equivalent carb content in cereals. (Refined wheat dough contains like 70% carbohydrates by weight.) Impurities must make a difference just like all-bran cereals have even lower glucose generation than refined stuff. The amount of excess calories consumed may also make a difference: if it can be burned on a shorter term or will stay in your body, accumulating. Hence fatness and sedentary behavior are associated to diabetes. I suspect that if you start getting fat, and even if it's not principally from carbohydrates, there's no guarantee the excess fat accumulation is not associated to whatever carbohydrates you do consume in any mixed meals.

Share this post


Link to post

I was clueless too about carbs = raising blood sugar. But yep. He's right. I've actually had 3 bowls of cereal today. I often have 2 bowls back to back. Looks like diabetes is in my future.

13 grams of sugar and 47 grams of carbs per serving according to the random box in my kitchen. 47 grams of carbs is 13% of a 2,000 calorie diet. Even if you eat 4 bowls a day to hit 1,000 or so calories, that still puts you at 50% of the 2,000 calories.

btw as a recovering pizzaholic, I want pizza probably every second of every day. Its a constant struggle that really affects no one but me. Are there support groups like for alcohol? My gf's cousin is an alcoholic and everyone helps him in his failing struggle. I need some help with my pizza addiction. Laugh about it, but pizza ads are everywhere. Pizza places are everywhere here in Chicago. I go to the grocery store, pizzas are right there next to everything else.

Share this post


Link to post

I can't even stand McD's anymore, especially the meat which is more filler than actual meat, however I'm still guilty of buying sausage and egg mcmuffins once in a while but at least it isn't too often.

Share this post


Link to post

The definition of sugar has been stretched out and twisted so much that today, it's the white refined powder that most people think of. So we don't realize just how much sugar we actually eat each day.

Chemically speaking, the essential sugar for us is glucose. And we need it to live, but we obviously can't have too much of it. Carbohydrates are basically long chains of glucose. So, yeah, they'll also contribute to our blood glucose levels. But they vary.

That documentary is full of valuable information, but the only thing I disagree with is excluding lipid consumption entirely in the context of cardiovascular health.

Oh, and random (useless) facts: Cotton is almost all cellulose, which is a polymer of glucose. If we had the enzyme to break it down and metabolize it, and if it wasn't toxic, it can be put in a diet.

Share this post


Link to post
yukib1t said:

There's a documentary about this. Well, not about this particular guy, but about this sort of subject.


That video is awesome; informative, and hilarious.

Share this post


Link to post

I myself was diagnosed as pre-diabetic. I decided to follow the advice of that video and limit my daily carb intake and prefer higher fat calories/lower carbs over low fat/high carbs (which is virtually always the trade off made with so-called "low fat" foods).

Within 1 month, I lost 15 lbs and my lab results came back as completely within range for blood sugar levels.

Share this post


Link to post

How are you doing nowadays? Hopefully still fine.

I kind of had it the opposite way. Stuck with a low-fat, higher carb diet for a couple of years after making a personal choice. Everything seemed fine until I got symptoms of diabetes. Inappropriate weight loss, frequent urination, etc. But strangely the blood work from 4 places showed that I was hypoglycemic, some showing borderline coma level. The symptoms were probably caused by some transient infection, as well as stress, that they never tested for on time, but it all went away.

Regardless, that false health scare has me in a mindset that I haven't gotten out of since. Now my diet is low-everything, which I obviously have to change sooner than later.

Note that I'm in the weight range described as "healthy" and have been for a while now.

Share this post


Link to post
Quasar said:

I myself was diagnosed as pre-diabetic. I decided to follow the advice of that video and limit my daily carb intake and prefer higher fat calories/lower carbs over low fat/high carbs (which is virtually always the trade off made with so-called "low fat" foods).

Within 1 month, I lost 15 lbs and my lab results came back as completely within range for blood sugar levels.


I think shrimp is the workaround. Well depending on how the shrimp is prepared. There are a few store bought shrimp meals that have 5 calories of fat Not grams, calories. Meat seems to be high fat, low carbs.

Anyway, something has to kill us. Its your choice how you want to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Quasar said:

I myself was diagnosed as pre-diabetic. I decided to follow the advice of that video and limit my daily carb intake and prefer higher fat calories/lower carbs over low fat/high carbs (which is virtually always the trade off made with so-called "low fat" foods).

Within 1 month, I lost 15 lbs and my lab results came back as completely within range for blood sugar levels.

Never was pre-diabetic or diabetic, but I did have hypertension for a while. I also went for lower carbs and higher fat, with also less salt. Not only did I get rid of the hypertension, but I had the best cholesterol the doc had ever seen. I didn't tell him I was frying everything in lard and coconut oil...

Share this post


Link to post

I remember Men's Health magazine had an article back in 2001 trying various weird diets, and one of them was the "McDonalds Diet", which consisted of eating just the standard Big Mac portion (with potatoes and regular coke) at lunch and dinner, for a month.

Turned out that the tester ended up losing some weight (not much, about 2.5 kg), simply because the bundle wasn't really all that nutritious in terms of calories, and because it was not really complete. In the end he complained having hallucinations of Ronald, leading to him calling the diet "eating with the Clown".

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently a single carb actually amounts to a single gram a sugar evenly. If true, we're actually stuffing ourselves with sugar. I thought I was doing well cutting out soda and sweets, but the bread, rice and cereal are killing me.

I should have a physical soon. I'll definitely get some blood work done.

Share this post


Link to post

I remember when Oprah said 1 slice of white bread is equal to eating a bowl of sugar. I know I'll be fucked.

Share this post


Link to post
geo said:

I remember when Oprah said 1 slice of white bread is equal to eating a bowl of sugar. I know I'll be fucked.

1 slice of American white bread, maybe.

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×