Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by JohnBooty 764 days ago 

    At the time, fast food chains, and McDonald’s 
    in particular, were pushing large (and the 
    defunct supersize) meals all the time. That 
    this was dangerous [...]
It's still a little bit ridiculous.

A human being should be eating 90 meals per month, give or take. If more than 1 or 2 of those are fast food, that's the problem.

To what standard should we be holding a restaurant meal? "Is it healthy for a person to eat 90 of these meals per month?" doesn't seem like a useful or realistic thing to do.
2 comments
hmcq6 762 days ago
> A human being should be eating 90 meals per month, give or take. If more than 1 or 2 of those are fast food, that's the problem.

3 meals a day has nothing to do with health and everything to do with marketing. If the way we eat had any ties to common sense we wouldn't be eating our largest meal at the end of the day when we have nothing left to do except sleep.

link
ethbr1 763 days ago
> If more than 1 or 2 of those are fast food, that's the problem.

Given that full service grocery store access is area-income dependent in the US, it's a complicated situation.

link
JohnBooty 760 days ago
"Food deserts" (areas with no access to fresh food) are a huge problem, yeah.

Also, economically struggling people often can't prepare their own food, even if given groceries for free: they may be physically disabled, they may be unhoused, they may be unable to afford utilities or appliances, etc.

However, I think that altering the offerings of fast-food restaurants is not even remotely a suitable way to address that.

link