
McDouble is 'cheapest and most nutritious food in human history' - ch4ch4
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/10210327/McDouble-is-cheapest-and-most-nutritious-food-in-human-history.html
======
jdreaver
The assertion in the post title is absolutely untrue. You can get foods like
beans, chicken, eggs, milk, oatmeal, and pasta in bulk and for very little
money. There isn't some false dichotomy between "esoteric, lefty food" and
McDonald's cheeseburgers.

If you really want to save money on food for a family, get a slow cooker and
make large quantities of food at once. The article is correct when it states
that food is more plentiful for the poor now than ever.

~~~
sek
I think it was a missed opportunity, most people who are that poor that
calories matter are usually not the ones who do smart planning with their
financial resources.

~~~
pdkl95
As someone who is currently _almost_ that poor, having the _luxury_ to plan
ahead can costs money and time. It is really hard to justify any of the more
nutritious foods when you're trying to spend no more than $10/day, total, on
all meals. (less than $5/day is very common - or less - for many people). If
you want to blame someone, I suggest pointing the finger at those that have
kept the minimum wage from rising to sane levels instead of pre-judging those
that have to live off those wages.

It is easy to suggest that this is merely a matter of proper planning if you
haven't been in this kind of a situation. How much _nutritious_ food would you
be able to acquire with a budget of $6.47/day[1] ($5.41/day/person for a
family of four)? This gets worse when you consider the long hours (and _cost_
in both cash and time[2]) of blue-collar jobs (sometimes below minimum wage).

It can get even more complicated when you factor in stuff like the gas or buss
fare it takes to get to a decent store that sells food that is better than
fast food or 7/11-style junk; investors usually don't open new grocery stores
near the residential areas with most poverty.

The point that this article is trying (badly) to express is _not_ that the
McDouble is a shining example of great nutrition, (it also makes no claims
about the taste...); they are (correctly) pointing out that it is a shockingly
good _value_ compared to what else would be available to someone that only has
$2 to spend on a meal. Rice may be cheap, but it doesn't provide the protein,
and almost everything else at the $2 limit is also going to lack the fiber and
vitamins. The McDouble may not have a lot, but it probably has a much wider
variety than you will find in rice[3] due to the bugger including a bit of
dairy, both meat and starch, and almost-but-not-quite vegetables in the
ketchup and pickle. While the fat content is on the high side, it's not
terrible. The worst part of the cheeseburger is really the sodium.

The McDouble is certainly a better choice, nutritionally speaking, than the
traditional cheap food: $0.20 fried ramen noodles with shocking amounts of
salt.

From a pure engineering perspective, this is an impressive achievement a lot
of supply chain tricks and product optimization went into making a prepared
food cheap enough to be profitably sold for only $1-$2.

[1] [http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/how-much-could-i-
receive](http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/how-much-could-i-receive)

[2] (I highly recommend this article, which contains far more detail)
[https://medium.com/@sarahkendzior/the-minimum-wage-worker-
st...](https://medium.com/@sarahkendzior/the-minimum-wage-worker-strikes-back-
fa4c36eb306b)

[3] cheap white rice, not "golden rice", which might be a better choice when
available.

~~~
PhantomGremlin
> Rice may be cheap, but it doesn't provide the protein, and almost everything
> else at the $2 limit is also going to lack the fiber and vitamins.

How about Feijoada? Mostly black beans and rice, which are both ridiculously
cheap when bought in bulk. Years ago (don't know about currently) it was good
enough to be the basic staple of Brazilian army conscripts. And one thing we
know for sure is that soldiers burn a lot of calories.

Wikipedia claims[1]:

    
    
       Rice is rich in starch, an excellent source of
       energy. Rice also has iron, vitamin B and protein.
       Beans also contain a good amount of iron and an
       even greater amount of protein than rice. Together
       they make up a complete protein, which provides
       each of the amino acids the body cannot make for
       itself.
    

To supplement that, wouldn't cheap vitamin pills be good enough to keep you
alive?

I know it doesn't sound appetizing, but "beggars can't be choosers". It sounds
a lot more appealing to me than trying to live on ramen. And it sounds a lot
healthier to me than most of what McDonald's sells.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_and_beans](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_and_beans)

------
samstave
I've often thought that it would be a good thing to have a "standard pantry"
that was a set of basic ingredients and foods with a range of recipes that can
be made from this pantry all for a set price.

the culinary training provided to every school child. Treat basic nutrition
like a utility service supported by society/the government.

~~~
pdkl95
That could be a great product, if it was done right.

An even better idea would be to hand out that "standard pantry" to people for
free when they first sign up for food stamps. Having that initial supply would
help a _lot_ with the problem of not having enough money and time to do
anything besides "maintaining"[1]. It is a lot easier to justify buying the
bulk package of something that is better in the long run when you don't have
add "skipping the next two (or more) dinners" to the cost.

[1] a term used in the medium.com url I referenced in my previous comment

~~~
PhantomGremlin
> An even better idea would be to hand out that "standard pantry" to people
> for free

I agree. But it's probably very hard to get most poor people to accept that.
They could survive (for the most part) on a bag of rice and a bag of beans
every month. But instead they use the food stamps to buy 10 ounces of potato
chips for $3. You need to solve that problem first.

------
mgmeyers
Am I missing something? How does something being calorically dense make it
nutritious?

~~~
GoldenHomer
McDoubles were popular with skinny guys who had a hard time putting on weight.
One would stuff their faces with calories and hit the weights in order to do
get bigger and it would be very hard if a guy didn't get in enough calories.
So that's why a calorie dense item like a McDouble would help. However, that's
changed with McDonald's increasing prices such that you aren't getting protein
bang for your buck. Now, as one poster had already stated, you get a better
deal (monetary and nutritional) with chicken, milk, lentils, beans, whole
wheat pasta and eggs.

------
PhantomGremlin
I enjoy an occasional McDonald's burger. But my biggest concern is what's in
it. E.g up until 2011 their hamburgers had "pink slime"[1] in them.[2] Yummy!

That fact alone leads me to be concerned that McDonald's approach to my health
could be akin to "whack a mole". They dropped the slime after everyone made a
big stink about it. What else is still in there that I don't know about?

Contrast to Chipotle, which McDonald's used to own a major stake in. I can
actually _see_ Chipotle cut the steak they use into little pieces, I can
actually _see_ them carry that steak out to the serving line.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slime)
[2]
[http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/your_questions/our_food/have-...](http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/your_questions/our_food/have-
you-ever-used-pink-slime-in-your-burgers.html)

------
intopieces
The premise of this article is incredibly short sighted: it doesn't factor in
the long-term health effects of eating such food, or the sustainability of
those ingredients, or the environmental impact of all those to-go food
packages on landfills. In short, the article has set the bar very low when it
comes to describing the impact of the McDouble and associated foods.

------
sek
I wait for Soylent being mass produced, that would be an interesting baseline
for this question.

I mean there is a point of McDonalds not being 'bad' in general, it's a cheap
way to get a full belly if you are living on the street.

Maybe there should be a way to get Soylent for less easily on the street so it
can replace the McDouble.

~~~
informatimago
No, it is not cheap. At least in Europe. That is why I don't understand how
they have so many customers.

~~~
sek
Well it's already popular exactly for that reason, independent of the price.
It's a simple and easy way to get the required nutrition.

I think that says a lot about the future of the product.

