Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I don't think McDonalds & Co are such a big health-negative in other countries as it is in the US. I've never met someone who's obese from eating Maccas in Sweden, they're obese because they eat more calories than they burn.

Calling a food unhealty is quite silly to me, anything is unhealty if you consume it in unhealty amounts.

The above statements obviously exclude things like cyanide and other things designed to kill humans, I'd call them lethal.



IMO McDonalds was among the healthier and reliable choices when it comes to eating out in Russia. I could be reasonably sure I won't get food poisoning at a McD, for one.


Was that because McDonalds is healthier in Russia than elsewhere, or just because the rest of Russian restaurants food is even worse?


IMO Russia doesn't have a very developed culture of eating out and strong traditions of safe meal preparation, so it's really hit or miss in cafes and restaurants. Accidental remnants of plastic packaging, undercooked meat, stuff like that even if you pay mid range prices. In fact, it could be safer to eat in a cheap local diner, but you really have to know one and they generally work limited hours. Without that option I'd go for McD if there's one.

FWIW IMO this is true for many countries.


>Calling a food unhealty is quite silly to me, anything is unhealty if you consume it in unhealty amounts.

>The above statements obviously exclude things like cyanide and other things designed to kill humans, I'd call them lethal.

How about sugar...?

https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM


You need sugar to live as far as I know, you hardly need cyanide to live. You're comparing apples to oranges.

PS: I'm not watching and hour 30m long video for you to get your point through, excessive sugar is bad yes (if that's your point).


>You need sugar to live as far as I know

Incorrect. Your body can and will convert fat into carbohydrates

>PS: I'm not watching and hour 30m long video for you to get your point through

Perhaps if you did, you wouldn't say silly things like:

>Calling a food unhealty is quite silly to me

Learning about the science of food and how different types affects people's bodies takes time


Afaik, McDonald is currently not that health negative in USA either. Not compared to other chains of restaurants.


This is victim-blaming, don't you think?


You're opening for me to go off-topic and talk about drug abuse here. And my opinion is that the user is at fault for consuming unhealthy amounts of X, but that we as society should help out. (See the resemblance?) (Also note that society might have failed people and led them to abuse too, but the final decision is made by the person either way).

But closing the door for people who don't have issues with self-restraint feels like collective punishment. (Not that Maccas are in the wrong here, they can open and close restaurants wherever they want, I don't mind.)


Part of the point is that other nations have stricter regulations about what companies can and cannot do.

Companies in the US pretty much have had a free-for-all on the population.


> And my opinion is that the user is at fault for consuming unhealthy amounts of X, but that we as society should help out

We have different views here, even though I admit, I used to be ambivalent about that (and about drug legalisation) until very recently. I mean, I would certainly not criminalise drug possession and drug use like it unfortunately still is the case in my country (Romania), but I've started having very serious doubts about legalising distribution, and in so doing "normalising" said drug use.

Back to unhealthy food, unfortunately some people are too weak to resist eating above a certain healthy threshold. There were studies that blamed the food companies themselves for that, there are other people that blame the users themselves (like you seem to do), but in the end the unhealthiness wins. That's why if the unhealthy source goes away (like in this case with Russia and McDo) I see it as a positive, no matter who was at fault the rot source is gone, that's got to be good.


I don't think we soley disagree. I think it's essential to keep certain products out of the masses hands. These certain products are product with high "addictability" and high "abusabulity" (might be the same thing?). As a single example I'd put all opioids in that compartment. (There are more but I think this is one everyone agrees on)

Food on the other hand, while it's addictive it's also essential for literally everyone. I for example am such a lazy piece of shit that I haven't cooked in years, for me it would be devastating if the unhealty but calorie rich and affordable food went away.

That's an anecdote, but yes if access to high-calorie food is limited people are less likely to get/stay overweight.

Norway has a thing for this to reduce candy intake, they have a sugar tax. And while I'm not all for the government taking all my money, in a socialist society I think it makes perfect sense to tax something that'll cause a significant amount of people health issues to pay for it in advance. Same with cigarettes, they're super expensive in Norway, so that you've hopefully somewhat paid off your lung-cancer treatment once/if you get it.

There's no one size fits all for this, but there are definitely things we should keep out of peoples hands. I do not however think food is one of those.


Just because you eat more than necessary doesn't make you a victim.


Then who is the real culprit?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: