Wouldn't most people with a million dollars think twice before committing those resources in a poor neighborhood? It seems like a risk reward formula. Higher risk with higher potential rewards has a store in a poor neighborhood without competition. Lower risk, with lower rewards, operating in a middle class neighborhood.

You're 100% right...which means that the lack of a correlation between numbers of stores and income suggests that a balancing act has come about where there no correlations between number of McDonalds and income, but there is a correlation between number of mcdonalds and obesity and between obesity and poverty.

It would be interesting to know where the largest volume neighborhood stores are. Forget the ones at major tourist destinations, but the neighborhood "my McDs".

 

 

It would be interesting to know where the largest volume neighborhood stores are. Forget the ones at major tourist destinations, but the neighborhood "my McDs".

I'd bet that this is private corporate data.

McDonald's is unfortunately part of the food pyramid in poor neighborhoods.

 

As is every other fast food joint. Generally where there's a McDonald's there's 2-3 other cheap fast food places.

 

 

As is every other fast food joint. Generally where there's a McDonald's there's 2-3 other cheap fast food places.

Because they're such a dominant force, they're a remarkably good nationwide proxy for "Fast food in general".

 

The area in black here is the area that is "Dominated" by McDonalds.

 

im going to go out on a limb here and give McDonalds some credit. 5 years ago, I'd say that yes, they carry have heavy burden (no pun intended) to the obesity issue here in the US.

 

Since then, I think they've gotten a lot better. The burgers are still there, however in the kids meals they offer apples and milk instead of fries and coke. For adults, they got those garden salads along with the grilled chicken sandwiches.

 

The problem now sits with the individual consumer who chooses (like I do) for the crap food rather than the healthy stuff.

 

Now my only excuse is that I'm 6'3 and 170lbs.

im going to go out on a limb here and give McDonalds some credit. 5 years ago, I'd say that yes, they carry have heavy burden (no pun intended) to the obesity issue here in the US.

 

Since then, I think they've gotten a lot better. The burgers are still there, however in the kids meals they offer apples and milk instead of fries and coke. For adults, they got those garden salads along with the grilled chicken sandwiches.

 

The problem now sits with the individual consumer who chooses (like I do) for the crap food rather than the healthy stuff.

 

Now my only excuse is that I'm 6'3 and 170lbs.

Milk is garbage.

Edited July 1, 201015 yr by BigSqwert

Milk is garbage.

 

Take it back.

 

edit: Sorry nevermind, forgot you are a vegan.

Edited July 1, 201015 yr by ChiSox_Sonix

Milk is garbage.

 

Rense.com?

 

I'm surprised that article doesn't say Jews puts Martian AIDS into our milk.

 

Rense.com?

 

I'm surprised that article doesn't say Jews puts Martian AIDS into our milk.

Please debunk any of it.

it's all linked.

 

poor schools=bad education=bad job=eat badly=obese, and these same people lean religious right and red.

 

people with higher education lean blue, live up north, have better jobs, and can afford to live healthier. Of course it's not just coincidence

Please debunk any of it.

 

BigSqwert,

 

I'm no expert in milk. There are probably some legitimate negative things about it. I was just saying you should use credible sources.

 

That being said, I took a look at some of his claims and there's a lot of crap in here, though the guy makes it hard to check because apparently he has almost as big an aversion to references as he does milk.

 

The IGF in milk is causing cancers? Ok, show us some studies about this. On another page, he mentions (no link to the study of course - wouldn't want anyone checking his claims) a BMJ study of Norwegians as evidence that milk consumption causes cancer because the heavy milk drinkers had a higher incidence of some cancers. He doesn't mention that the heavy milk drinkers also had lower incidence of other cancers or that the study's finding was "No association was established with total cancer incidence, in analyses adjusted for sex, age and residential characteristics."

 

40% of our daily food is dairy? That seems incredibly unlikely. Gonna need a citation on that one.

 

The Harvard Nurse Study showed that "those nations with the highest amount of milk/dairy consumption also have the highest rates of osteoporosis." even though all the participants were Americans?

 

Flo-Jo was killed by pizza cheese? Seriously? I read one of his 'more details' articles and he omits the fact that she had an angioma.

 

Pasteurization only heats up to ~160 degrees and we boil water at 212, so pasteurization is junk? We get water up to 212 because it's easier to see water boil than to stick a thermometer in the pot. The dangerous pathogens we need to get rid of die in 160 degrees.

 

Milk contains a ton of pus? Somatic cells aren't pus. He's lying to make milk sound gross.

 

89% of cow herds have leukemia? His source: an ad he saw in a magazine that was selling cow leukemia tests. Come on.

 

There's a reason this article was on Rense.

 

Again, not trying to start an argument about Milk. Just sayin' it's not a good article.

 

BigSqwert,

 

The IGF in milk is causing cancers? Ok, show us some studies about this.

 

http://vvv.com/healthnews/milk.html

http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/GM00Winter/GM00Win3.html

 

 

The Harvard Nurse Study showed that "those nations with the highest amount of milk/dairy consumption also have the highest rates of osteoporosis." even though all the participants were Americans?

 

This fact has been established for many years. Pick up a book like The China Study which chronicles decades-long research on the matter.

 

EDIT: And this is my last post on this subject. Don't want to open up another can of worms on this topic.

Edited July 1, 201015 yr by BigSqwert

Because they're such a dominant force, they're a remarkably good nationwide proxy for "Fast food in general".

 

The area in black here is the area that is "Dominated" by McDonalds.

 

 

look at all those Sonics.

Edited July 1, 201015 yr by Jenksismybitch

There's a Sonic every mile or so here. It's ridiculous, although I love me some cherry cokes. I think their burgers are nasty.

 

There's a Sonic every mile or so here. It's ridiculous, although I love me some cherry cokes. I think their burgers are nasty.

 

Take that back! Their burgers are delicious, as are their popcorn chicken and cherry limeades.

http://vvv.com/healthnews/milk.html

http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/GM00Winter/GM00Win3.html

 

 

 

 

This fact has been established for many years. Pick up a book like The China Study which chronicles decades-long research on the matter.

 

EDIT: And this is my last post on this subject. Don't want to open up another can of worms on this topic.

 

You can connect anything to cancer if you want to do so, via scientific studies or otherwise. If you don't believe me, go to WebMD and type in ** ANY ** ailment, and you can connect it to cancer of some sort in some way.

 

Food, liquid, doesn't matter, in some way, shape or form, you can eventually connect it to cancer.

 

Cancer simply happens, which is why Eskimos who have never smoked nor have been introduced to second hand smoke can still die of lung cancer. If it isn't milk, it's eggs, it's too many tomatoes, it's something. People need to stop worrying about what might happen in life and start living. Doing something excessively may raise the risk of certain cancers (like smoking everyday), but not doing them may not lower the risk at all.

 

Unless you are eating asbestos, I wouldn't worry about cancer, because if your genetic code says you're going to get it...you are, even if you eat 50 tons of broccoli a day and never drank a glass of milk in your life.

Edited July 2, 201015 yr by Y2HH

You can connect anything to cancer if you want to do so, via scientific studies or otherwise. If you don't believe me, go to WebMD and type in ** ANY ** ailment, and you can connect it to cancer of some sort in some way.

 

Food, liquid, doesn't matter, in some way, shape or form, you can eventually connect it to cancer.

 

Cancer simply happens, which is why Eskimos who have never smoked nor have been introduced to second hand smoke can still die of lung cancer. If it isn't milk, it's eggs, it's too many tomatoes, it's something. People need to stop worrying about what might happen in life and start living. Doing something excessively may raise the risk of certain cancers (like smoking everyday), but not doing them may not lower the risk at all.

 

Unless you are eating asbestos, I wouldn't worry about cancer, because if your genetic code says you're going to get it...you are, even if you eat 50 tons of broccoli a day and never drank a glass of milk in your life.

Over the years, I swear, every food we eat has been found by one study or another to both cause, AND prevent, cancer.

 

Over the years, I swear, every food we eat has been found by one study or another to both cause, AND prevent, cancer.

 

Blasphemy! Science should never be questioned!!!!

Over the years, I swear, every food we eat has been found by one study or another to both cause, AND prevent, cancer.

 

That's exactly what I mean, and I agree -- I don't know how many times I've seen such studies show that X prevents cancer, and then five or so years later a similar study shows X causes cancer. I'm not saying certain things won't raise the risks, but I've also come to the conclusion that this is a genetic flaw, and sometime it will be eradicated through genetics, not through what we eat.

That's exactly what I mean, and I agree -- I don't know how many times I've seen such studies show that X prevents cancer, and then five or so years later a similar study shows X causes cancer. I'm not saying certain things won't raise the risks, but I've also come to the conclusion that this is a genetic flaw, and sometime it will be eradicated through genetics, not through what we eat.

 

I guess that's why doctors recommend a diet consisting of bacon, blue cheese and spam after someone has a heart attack.

I guess that's why doctors recommend a diet consisting of bacon, blue cheese and spam after someone has a heart attack.

 

So now heart attacks and stroke are the same as cancer.

So now heart attacks and stroke are the same as cancer.

Touche.

 

But I've done a ton of research since I've changed my diet/lifestyle and study after study shows that people on primarily plant based diets have much lower cancer rates.

Touche.

 

But I've done a ton of research since I've changed my diet/lifestyle and study after study shows that people on primarily plant based diets have much lower cancer rates.

 

Oh, and don't get me wrong, I'm not denying that your lifestyle choice is a very healthy one all things being equal, you will live a long, happy and healthy life. I just believe that genetics have a LOT to do with our long term health, and these genetics will supersede any lifestyle choices we make (unfortunately), and there really is no way for us to know if they will or will not affect us.

 

If we get a dealt a bad genetic hand, and our genetic code is flawed in a way that will someday fall into cancer, it doesn't matter how well we ate, or what we ate, or if we smoked or not -- cancer it will be. When it comes to diets and long term lifestyle choices, people tend to assume everything is going according to plan, i.e. our genetic code is rock solid, and there are no major flaws, but this assumption aside, there often ARE flaws, and nothing we do will change that.

 

I just think nothing would be worse than to devote 20 years to a healthy lifestyle and then die of the very thing you were trying to prevent, only to find out it was never preventable -- that'd just piss me off.

Edited July 2, 201015 yr by Y2HH

Interesting article that just popped up regarding this topic.