
The world's most fattening food (deep fried butter and more) - gronkie
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/where-will-it-end-b-o-r-a/
======
arethuza
I'm proud to say that my home country of Scotland may be small, but we are
world leaders in calorie delivery mechanisms. Examples include:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep-fried_pizza>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep-fried_Mars_bar>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_pudding>

I'm pleased to see that innovation is alive and well - apparently in some
areas people have started coating pizzas in batter before deep frying them!

------
garply
Posts like this make me miss the Midwest. One of the things I disliked about
living in California was how health conscious everyone was. People at Stanford
used to look at me in what appeared to be horror when I described my eating
habits and preferences. Just because I like a plateful of bacon for breakfast
several times a week doesn't make me a bad or stupid person - I like how it
tastes and I realize what kinds of trade-offs I'm making.

------
pi3832
Ha! That stuff isn't any more "fattening" than a #1 combo, large-sized, from
any fast food joint.

Hell the most unhealthful food mentioned in that whole post was probably the
Pepsi.

~~~
ugh
It is more fattening if it has more calories.

#1 large you say? McDonald’s website tells me that if you buy that from them
(Big Mac, large fries, ketchup, large Cola) you are looking at 1200 calories.
I find it hard to imagine that any two of the photographed products on the
linked website would have less calories. One Snickers bar – one, not in any
way fried – has about 300 calories. A Big Mac has about 500. A large Cola (0.5
l) has 250. A nice portion of pasta with something as innocuous as tomato
sauce can get you up to 500 calories.

There is nothing particularly evil about fast food. If that one menu is pretty
much the only thing you eat on a day you can easily lose weight. It’s just
that something with a high calorie density makes it very hard for you to
control your portions. My suspicion is that the submission’s food all have a
quite high calorie density, higher than even most fast food.

The worst offender on the McDonald’s menu are pretty much the fries. A Big Mac
is relativly harmless because in addition to the high calorie density meat and
sauce you also get the bun and even some salad. If you drink water instead of
Coke you even push the calories below 1000 which means that you could easily
eat two of those menus on a day without gaining weight.

~~~
beagle3
> It is more fattening if it has more calories.

That's known not to be true. See
<http://www.sethroberts.net/about/whatmakesfoodfattening.pdf> ; If this theory
is true, then the fact that McD tastes the same every time makes it more
fattening independently of calories.

Even if you disagree with this premise (it IS controversial), the research he
references (Michel Cabanac, Robert Israel) is an accepted and very strong
indication that in fact the caloric content is NOT what makes food fattening.

~~~
ugh
I’m not sure what you want to tell me. All that might be true but if I’m
parsing it correctly it doesn’t mean that you will gain weight if you eat for
example 1000 calories of anything per day. You will still lose weight. And you
won’t if you eat double or more than that.

~~~
beagle3
No, you aren't parsing this correctly.

Cabanac has reproducible research that shows people losing weight on (IIRC)
2500 calories per day and NO physical activity whatsoever, because they were
bed-ridden.

MGU had a research once that had people gaining weight on 1500 calories/day
and losing weight on 3000 calories/day with comparable physical activity (this
one included running, etc.)

The "calories in / calories out" argument is very far from science. If you
trace its origins, you'll see it's not much more than a folk tale. It's about
as accurate as "eat less to lose weight" in terms of being predictive.

Gary Taubes "Good Calories, Bad Calories" has all the explanations and
references you could need, if that interests you.

