I think this is a myth that needs to be destroyed. A single Big Mac meal is what? $5 or so? Six pounds of chicken is roughly $12 at Wal-Mart. A head of lettuce is $1.50, add in some more vegetables, and maybe you're at $5 worth of veggies. Salad dressing of your choice = $2.50 (for the off brand stuff). 2 lbs of sirloin tip is $12. Liquid egg whites are $3.88/carton (large carton), and eggs are like $1.50. So now we're at roughly $30. If you want to throw in some potatoes or something, it's a couple dollars more, let's say you find some crap you want for another $5 (a bag of shredded cheese and marinade), and then you buy a snack food for another $5. That's roughly $40, and I can eat for the entire week (this is actually my meal plan, basically, for most weeks), 3 meals a day. For $40 I get 2 2/3 days of eating at McDonald's. The difference is that I have to cook this food, and at McDonald's it's already there, and it tastes SOOOO good.
For the most part you are right, but 3 big mac meals or whatever $5 worth of food at mcdonalds on average most likely is more calorie dense, so it's not quite as you say (calorie/$)... There is also the opportunity cost and mundane nature of buying bulk and eating the same thing every day..... That said, I totally agree... The real myth is that to eat healthy you have to spend a lot of money. To eat perfectly, perhaps.
Albiet your Wal-Mart Prices are alittle higher than I'd imagine, and I'd also wager a Big Mac Meal is closer to $6 though McDouble Cheeseburgers are still 99cents :D
Wait what? We just established that buying your own healthy groceries is cheaper than eating out. We are talking about which method is healthier, not which method is more caloric dense. Whether something is caloric dense or not isn't what we were talking about. If anything, if our goal is to stay healthy and not get fat, then eating foods that are less caloric dense is better. Besides, how caloric dense something is has nothing to do with how full you feel after eating it.
In any case: eating out: more expensive, more caloric dense (you get fatter), unhealthy, takes less time cooking: less expensive, less caloric dense (although you certainly have caloric dense options if you need the extra calories, let's say, if you're bulking), healthy, takes some time (once you get good at cooking and establish a routine, it really doesn't take much time at all)
i eat out maybe twice a week (fri and sat with friends). i cook my own food all other times, and i don't eat the same stuff everyday. my diet might be something like:
day1 breakfast: oatmeal, eggs, banana, apple, milk lunch: chicken thighs, asparagus and mushrooms, bit of white rice dinner: fish (cod, sole, tuna, etc), broccoli, pasta or bread snacks: almonds, sunflower seeds
day2 breakfast: bagel with cheese, apple, orange juice, grapes lunch: pork chops, collard greens, brown and red rice mix dinner: beef stew (chuck roast beef, carrots, celery, onions) snacks: avocado, fruit
etc etc.
these are only some of the options. not to mention all the different ways of preparing the same type of food. cooking is fucking awesome. i can make food however i want it, as much salt as i want (usually none), no nasty greasy vegetable oil, and i feel great eating it.
edit - it's not a matter of cost. buying groceries is cheaper, period. if you're gonna be eating shit like double cheeseburgers at mcdonalds, you might as well compare that to only eating white rice. in fact, take the money you'd spend buying mcdonalds and get ground beef, cabbage, and white rice in bulk. cheaper, healthier, and fills you up just the same. the problem is that people don't want to change, or they think that eating out is cheaper.
It's not so much about to eat less, it's much more about how you eat. Eat stuff that speeds up your metabolism and avoid stuff that slows it/is junk food. Generally moving does make a difference, but it isn't impossible to lose weight by just changing your diet, since that is what is largely causing your weight.
I've been moderately overweight all my life, I played ice hockey for six years and even then, when I was excercing on a regular basis and watching my diet etc. I was still overweight, all those six years and still am. But I do realize that nowadays it's just that I don't really give shit since I'm not THAT overweight, just, a little.
For everyone going on and on about how cheap healthy food can be when prepared from home, look up what a "food desert" is. Believe it or not, when one assigns value to time, effort, and access in addition to overt cost, many folks, even here in the US find themselves unable to buy the sorts of foods needed for a balanced diet. That being said, as a former fatty turned gym rat, simply cutting out the excuses can do a world of good.
I think this is a myth that needs to be destroyed. A single Big Mac meal is what? $5 or so? Six pounds of chicken is roughly $12 at Wal-Mart. A head of lettuce is $1.50, add in some more vegetables, and maybe you're at $5 worth of veggies. Salad dressing of your choice = $2.50 (for the off brand stuff). 2 lbs of sirloin tip is $12. Liquid egg whites are $3.88/carton (large carton), and eggs are like $1.50. So now we're at roughly $30. If you want to throw in some potatoes or something, it's a couple dollars more, let's say you find some crap you want for another $5 (a bag of shredded cheese and marinade), and then you buy a snack food for another $5. That's roughly $40, and I can eat for the entire week (this is actually my meal plan, basically, for most weeks), 3 meals a day. For $40 I get 2 2/3 days of eating at McDonald's. The difference is that I have to cook this food, and at McDonald's it's already there, and it tastes SOOOO good.
For the most part you are right, but 3 big mac meals or whatever $5 worth of food at mcdonalds on average most likely is more calorie dense, so it's not quite as you say (calorie/$)... There is also the opportunity cost and mundane nature of buying bulk and eating the same thing every day..... That said, I totally agree... The real myth is that to eat healthy you have to spend a lot of money. To eat perfectly, perhaps.
Albiet your Wal-Mart Prices are alittle higher than I'd imagine, and I'd also wager a Big Mac Meal is closer to $6 though McDouble Cheeseburgers are still 99cents :D
Wait what? We just established that buying your own healthy groceries is cheaper than eating out. We are talking about which method is healthier, not which method is more caloric dense. Whether something is caloric dense or not isn't what we were talking about. If anything, if our goal is to stay healthy and not get fat, then eating foods that are less caloric dense is better. Besides, how caloric dense something is has nothing to do with how full you feel after eating it.
In any case: eating out: more expensive, more caloric dense (you get fatter), unhealthy, takes less time cooking: less expensive, less caloric dense (although you certainly have caloric dense options if you need the extra calories, let's say, if you're bulking), healthy, takes some time (once you get good at cooking and establish a routine, it really doesn't take much time at all)
i eat out maybe twice a week (fri and sat with friends). i cook my own food all other times, and i don't eat the same stuff everyday. my diet might be something like:
day1 breakfast: oatmeal, eggs, banana, apple, milk lunch: chicken thighs, asparagus and mushrooms, bit of white rice dinner: fish (cod, sole, tuna, etc), broccoli, pasta or bread snacks: almonds, sunflower seeds
day2 breakfast: bagel with cheese, apple, orange juice, grapes lunch: pork chops, collard greens, brown and red rice mix dinner: beef stew (chuck roast beef, carrots, celery, onions) snacks: avocado, fruit
etc etc.
these are only some of the options. not to mention all the different ways of preparing the same type of food. cooking is fucking awesome. i can make food however i want it, as much salt as i want (usually none), no nasty greasy vegetable oil, and i feel great eating it.
edit - it's not a matter of cost. buying groceries is cheaper, period. if you're gonna be eating shit like double cheeseburgers at mcdonalds, you might as well compare that to only eating white rice. in fact, take the money you'd spend buying mcdonalds and get ground beef, cabbage, and white rice in bulk. cheaper, healthier, and fills you up just the same. the problem is that people don't want to change, or they think that eating out is cheaper.
I wasn't necessarily arguing that one or the other was cheaper.... Both at their cheapest are very cheap... Also just because something has been established in a thread doesn't mean it's not a myth regardless? Food Inc and several other documentaries used this line of reasoning on why people eat so unhealthily in America... Not even just Fast food, but Grocery stores as well...
I don't really think McDonalds is relevant, it's like the Hitler of Food, it's the easy to illustrate go-to example of obvious mistakes in nutrition. It's hyperbolic if anyone is actually concerned about anything we're discussing... Obviously intentional choice by lemon
So I'm not really sure if we were discussing which one is healthier since McDonalds vs Healthy Store Bought food is obvious... I was more talking about the rest of the thread about caloric restriction, and how in his example he compared a 3,000 calorie diet with a 1,500 one for the same price. (throwing random numbers up, <3)
I dunno, You keep saying "we" but I can't find your posts in this thread so forgive me if I am indeed missing something, I must admit confusion
On November 02 2012 05:17 farvacola wrote: For everyone going on and on about how cheap healthy food can be when prepared from home, look up what a "food desert" is. Believe it or not, when one assigns value to time, effort, and access in addition to overt cost, many folks, even here in the US find themselves unable to buy the sorts of foods needed for a balanced diet. That being said, as a former fatty turned gym rat, simply cutting out the excuses can do a world of good.
i looked up food desert, and the only legitimate reason for not being able to get groceries is lack of physical access. so unless you're disabled, your area has no safe public transportation, or there are simply no stores in your area, you should go out and buy groceries.
I think this is a myth that needs to be destroyed. A single Big Mac meal is what? $5 or so? Six pounds of chicken is roughly $12 at Wal-Mart. A head of lettuce is $1.50, add in some more vegetables, and maybe you're at $5 worth of veggies. Salad dressing of your choice = $2.50 (for the off brand stuff). 2 lbs of sirloin tip is $12. Liquid egg whites are $3.88/carton (large carton), and eggs are like $1.50. So now we're at roughly $30. If you want to throw in some potatoes or something, it's a couple dollars more, let's say you find some crap you want for another $5 (a bag of shredded cheese and marinade), and then you buy a snack food for another $5. That's roughly $40, and I can eat for the entire week (this is actually my meal plan, basically, for most weeks), 3 meals a day. For $40 I get 2 2/3 days of eating at McDonald's. The difference is that I have to cook this food, and at McDonald's it's already there, and it tastes SOOOO good.
For the most part you are right, but 3 big mac meals or whatever $5 worth of food at mcdonalds on average most likely is more calorie dense, so it's not quite as you say (calorie/$)... There is also the opportunity cost and mundane nature of buying bulk and eating the same thing every day..... That said, I totally agree... The real myth is that to eat healthy you have to spend a lot of money. To eat perfectly, perhaps.
Albiet your Wal-Mart Prices are alittle higher than I'd imagine, and I'd also wager a Big Mac Meal is closer to $6 though McDouble Cheeseburgers are still 99cents :D
Wait what? We just established that buying your own healthy groceries is cheaper than eating out. We are talking about which method is healthier, not which method is more caloric dense. Whether something is caloric dense or not isn't what we were talking about. If anything, if our goal is to stay healthy and not get fat, then eating foods that are less caloric dense is better. Besides, how caloric dense something is has nothing to do with how full you feel after eating it.
In any case: eating out: more expensive, more caloric dense (you get fatter), unhealthy, takes less time cooking: less expensive, less caloric dense (although you certainly have caloric dense options if you need the extra calories, let's say, if you're bulking), healthy, takes some time (once you get good at cooking and establish a routine, it really doesn't take much time at all)
i eat out maybe twice a week (fri and sat with friends). i cook my own food all other times, and i don't eat the same stuff everyday. my diet might be something like:
day1 breakfast: oatmeal, eggs, banana, apple, milk lunch: chicken thighs, asparagus and mushrooms, bit of white rice dinner: fish (cod, sole, tuna, etc), broccoli, pasta or bread snacks: almonds, sunflower seeds
day2 breakfast: bagel with cheese, apple, orange juice, grapes lunch: pork chops, collard greens, brown and red rice mix dinner: beef stew (chuck roast beef, carrots, celery, onions) snacks: avocado, fruit
etc etc.
these are only some of the options. not to mention all the different ways of preparing the same type of food. cooking is fucking awesome. i can make food however i want it, as much salt as i want (usually none), no nasty greasy vegetable oil, and i feel great eating it.
edit - it's not a matter of cost. buying groceries is cheaper, period. if you're gonna be eating shit like double cheeseburgers at mcdonalds, you might as well compare that to only eating white rice. in fact, take the money you'd spend buying mcdonalds and get ground beef, cabbage, and white rice in bulk. cheaper, healthier, and fills you up just the same. the problem is that people don't want to change, or they think that eating out is cheaper.
I wasn't necessarily arguing that one or the other was cheaper.... Both at their cheapest are very cheap... Also just because something has been established in a thread doesn't mean it's not a myth regardless? Food Inc and several other documentaries used this line of reasoning on why people eat so unhealthily in America... Not even just Fast food, but Grocery stores as well...
I don't really think McDonalds is relevant, it's like the Hitler of Food, it's the easy to illustrate go-to example of obvious mistakes in nutrition. It's hyperbolic if anyone is actually concerned about anything we're discussing... Obviously intentional choice by lemon
So I'm not really sure if we were discussing which one is healthier since McDonalds vs Healthy Store Bought food is obvious... I was more talking about the rest of the thread about caloric restriction, and how in his example he compared a 3,000 calorie diet with a 1,500 one for the same price. (throwing random numbers up, <3)
I dunno, You keep saying "we" but I can't find your posts in this thread so forgive me if I am indeed missing something, I must admit confusion
ah, my fault about using "we." just my shitty english.
i was mostly responding to this:
For the most part you are right, but 3 big mac meals or whatever $5 worth of food at mcdonalds on average most likely is more calorie dense, so it's not quite as you say (calorie/$)... There is also the opportunity cost and mundane nature of buying bulk and eating the same thing every day..... That said, I totally agree... The real myth is that to eat healthy you have to spend a lot of money.To eat perfectly, perhaps.
My point was that yes, eating out can get you more calories per dollar, but is that really what people should be doing? if not, then buying at the grocery store is better. and if it is, then you can buy foods at the grocery store that are also high calories per dollar.
For the most part you are right, but 3 big mac meals or whatever $5 worth of food at mcdonalds on average most likely is more calorie dense, so it's not quite as you say (calorie/$)... There is also the opportunity cost and mundane nature of buying bulk and eating the same thing every day..... That said, I totally agree... The real myth is that to eat healthy you have to spend a lot of money.To eat perfectly, perhaps.
My point was that yes, eating out can get you more calories per dollar, but is that really what people should be doing? if not, then buying at the grocery store is better. and if it is, then you can buy foods at the grocery store that are also high calories per dollar.
Ah, no worries, we're in total agreement then Cheers~
you can make a huge ass pot of rice and beans for $5-10 depending on waht you want to use. that reheats, involves minimal effort beyond chopping your veggies. it also cooks several pounds of food for the week.
you can use dark meat instead of breasts. you can make huge pots of stew for dirt cheap with this potatoes and a few veggies. or just do the meat itself and use in salads and sandwichs.
there are plenty of people on budgets who eat good (and healthY) for cheap. most people are just lazy. you can bang out either of the above things in 4-5 hours on a sunday when you're not working.
On November 02 2012 05:31 ieatkids5 wrote: ah, my fault about using "we." just my shitty english.
i was mostly responding to this:
For the most part you are right, but 3 big mac meals or whatever $5 worth of food at mcdonalds on average most likely is more calorie dense, so it's not quite as you say (calorie/$)... There is also the opportunity cost and mundane nature of buying bulk and eating the same thing every day..... That said, I totally agree... The real myth is that to eat healthy you have to spend a lot of money.To eat perfectly, perhaps.
My point was that yes, eating out can get you more calories per dollar, but is that really what people should be doing? if not, then buying at the grocery store is better. and if it is, then you can buy foods at the grocery store that are also high calories per dollar.
Ah, no worries, we're in total agreement then Cheers~
oh wow i just reread your post and yes, we are in agreement hahaha. i interpreted your "real myth is that..." sentence as the opposite of what it meant...
I'm gonna eat a fat greasy hamburger and some fries after this. Then I'm gonna head to the gym, throw some plates on to the bar on the squat rack. Put that bitch on my back and work out hard. So while you're sitting a table away from me watching me gorge myself with food and feeling annoyed that I'm not as overweight as you are, there are things that are happening behind the scenes that allow me to eat the way I do.
I love being fit, you don't have to starve yourself in order to lose weight. Even all you did was diet (which I used to do) you'll never actually look as good as a man with some muscle on his body. Just get to the gym, get em gains, and eat. Plus when you're lifting weights, you can eat several hundred calories above your required bodily amount just to maintain you weight. But of course if you overeat you're gonna get fat, but at that point you're basically force feeding yourself (of course it depends on your temperament with food). Going to the gym and doing compound lifts is going to make you a happy man if you love to eat.
lol tooth punching robot... it's been so long ahahahah... is fakesteve still alive nowadays?
I highly suggest this documentary:
It has been fairly accurate for me. I exercise 1 hour every day (swim) and cook my own meal and eat very healthy. My weight was 145 pounds, now I moved it to around 141 pounds and it's pretty steady now.
I think in general you can't really change weight per-se, but you can change your composition. I feel I gained muscle and lost fat, but overall my weight is constant throughout the past 2 years.
You COULD change it extremely but it's very stressful.
On November 02 2012 07:19 evanthebouncy! wrote: It has been fairly accurate for me. I exercise 1 hour every day (swim) and cook my own meal and eat very healthy. My weight was 145 pounds, now I moved it to around 141 pounds and it's pretty steady now.
I think in general you can't really change weight per-se, but you can change your composition. I feel I gained muscle and lost fat, but overall my weight is constant throughout the past 2 years.
You COULD change it extremely but it's very stressful.
I've been as skinny as a rail my whole life and honestly at times had trouble understanding how people become so obese. Then I realized part of what you posted. I don't hammer down cheeseburgers and bags of chips like snacks. I cook most of my own food and eat fruit or a peanut butter sandwich if I'm hungry between meals. I'm not very active but the lack of fatass foods leaves me skinny. I'm not meticulous about what I eat either. I just don't eat to eat and when I do eat it isn't garbage.
Being skinny isn't hard. You just eat properly and don't avoid normal exercise (like walking to and fro, going up the stairs etc). Some people are so lazy they want a drive to the bus stop. It doesn't really have much to do with deliberately working out tho, or going on some crazy named diet.
For me, it's hard to keep my weight up because I don't really enjoy eating that much. I typically have to force myself to eat. To me, eating is tedious, time consuming, and boring. I don't like sugary or fatty or greasy snacks, which usually just make me feel kinda sick 30 seconds after I've eaten them, since I am not used to putting that kind of stuff in my body. What often ends up happening to me is that I think 'What do I want to eat?" and run my head thru the possibilities, and realise there isn't really anything.
For me, the idea of becoming fat is totally foreign. It's a lot of work to be fat. You have to be constantly eating. In that way, it kinda seems like we have the opposite perspectives, if only because you don't view eating as a chore and I do.
On November 02 2012 07:19 evanthebouncy! wrote: It has been fairly accurate for me. I exercise 1 hour every day (swim) and cook my own meal and eat very healthy. My weight was 145 pounds, now I moved it to around 141 pounds and it's pretty steady now.
I think in general you can't really change weight per-se, but you can change your composition. I feel I gained muscle and lost fat, but overall my weight is constant throughout the past 2 years.
You COULD change it extremely but it's very stressful.
141? Damn man how old are you? :D
What is surprising about 141, especially without a height context? If he is 6'2", yea thats pretty light, but if he is like 5'8" it's just a normal weight, and if he is like 5'0" he has some muscle or is a bit chunky. Weight by itself doesn't tell us much.
I think in general you can't really change weight per-se, but you can change your composition.
I have no idea what this means. If people are stuck at 220, you don't think they can drop to 180?
On November 02 2012 07:01 Snuggles wrote: Great read.
I'm gonna eat a fat greasy hamburger and some fries after this. Then I'm gonna head to the gym, throw some plates on to the bar on the squat rack. Put that bitch on my back and work out hard. So while you're sitting a table away from me watching me gorge myself with food and feeling annoyed that I'm not as overweight as you are, there are things that are happening behind the scenes that allow me to eat the way I do.
I love being fit, you don't have to starve yourself in order to lose weight. Even all you did was diet (which I used to do) you'll never actually look as good as a man with some muscle on his body. Just get to the gym, get em gains, and eat. Plus when you're lifting weights, you can eat several hundred calories above your required bodily amount just to maintain you weight. But of course if you overeat you're gonna get fat, but at that point you're basically force feeding yourself (of course it depends on your temperament with food). Going to the gym and doing compound lifts is going to make you a happy man if you love to eat.
This is probably at least 25% of the reason why I run alot. So I can down a tremendous amount of food and not gain weight. I love food, and running 75+ miles per week let's me eat somewhat close to anything I want without having to give a shit.
To be honest if your goal is to eat as much as you want endurance exercise is the way to go. A super intense strength training session might burn 300-500 calories. Decent, but doesn't compare to a good run or bike where it's easy to burn in excess of 1500-2000+ calories.
Even all you did was diet (which I used to do) you'll never actually look as good as a man with some muscle on his body.
On November 02 2012 07:19 evanthebouncy! wrote: It has been fairly accurate for me. I exercise 1 hour every day (swim) and cook my own meal and eat very healthy. My weight was 145 pounds, now I moved it to around 141 pounds and it's pretty steady now.
I think in general you can't really change weight per-se, but you can change your composition. I feel I gained muscle and lost fat, but overall my weight is constant throughout the past 2 years.
You COULD change it extremely but it's very stressful.
141? Damn man how old are you? :D
What is surprising about 141, especially without a height context? If he is 6'2", yea thats pretty light, but if he is like 5'8" it's just a normal weight, and if he is like 5'0" he has some muscle or is a bit chunky. Weight by itself doesn't tell us much.
141 in any context is super light for an adult male, are you kidding me?
On November 02 2012 07:19 evanthebouncy! wrote: It has been fairly accurate for me. I exercise 1 hour every day (swim) and cook my own meal and eat very healthy. My weight was 145 pounds, now I moved it to around 141 pounds and it's pretty steady now.
I think in general you can't really change weight per-se, but you can change your composition. I feel I gained muscle and lost fat, but overall my weight is constant throughout the past 2 years.
You COULD change it extremely but it's very stressful.
141? Damn man how old are you? :D
What is surprising about 141, especially without a height context? If he is 6'2", yea thats pretty light, but if he is like 5'8" it's just a normal weight, and if he is like 5'0" he has some muscle or is a bit chunky. Weight by itself doesn't tell us much.
141 in any context is super light for an adult male, are you kidding me?
I guess it depends on what you mean. If you mean compared to average then sure it's light, probably 40-50 pounds lighter than the "typical person", but that's because the average person is somewhere between overweight and obese.
If we look at normal, healthy weight ranges/BMI/body fat, then 140 is right in the middle of the "normal/healthy" weight range for a guy who is 5'8". A guy who is 5'0" and 140 is classified as overweight from a BMI standpoint (BMI is kind of shitty because it doesn't handle people with solid amounts of muscle very well, but it gives a good general idea).
On November 02 2012 08:13 LuckyFool wrote: L_Master running 75 miles a week? Holy shiiiit you're a machine. I'm at like 25 which feels like a lot.
You just build to it slowly (or in my case recklessly fast) over time. When I first started running I remember a 6 mile run felt like the longest, craziest thing I had ever imagined.
Hi hi, some tips and ideas about how to get down to that six pack...
Yes in order to get the six pack you are going to want to get down to 5%-10% body fat range, and there are a couple of different ways for you to do that.
First thing is carb cycling, which I personally don't really recommend as I like to be very consistent in my diet (I'm lazy as fuck lol). The second is IF (intermittent fasting) that while it does seem like a gimmick it really does work, especially after a hard day of exercise.
Second, if you are trying to build muscle, FOR FUCK'S SAKE DON'T CUT SO MANY CALORIES. You mentioned in your post that you were doing a low protein fast, this is the WRONG way you want to go about it. Completely WRONG.
If you are working out hard at the gym a lot of days and you are not getting a protein intake so that your total calories are over 5% regualar BMR, OR you are not getting .75-1.0 grams of protein for lean body mass, you are NOT going to efficiently build muscle (yes you don't have to reach quite that level but that's optimum efficiency unless you want to bulk - ewwww).
Based on the routine you described in the first paragraph (which I don't know if you do anymore) you are actually going to be BURNING muscle with that low of a calorie intake, especially considering that you had little to NO protein.
I mean if there is one macro that I would recommend cutting out on non-workout days (this is what carb cycling is btw) it would always, always be my carbs. A lot of people recommend cycling them out completely for two weeks (to get that six pack) or more, - and there are still as many on the opposite side of the coin who argue that the decrease in glycogen really isn't worth it when you're trying to make gains.
Personally, I run a diet with around 110g of protein, (most of it is isolated whey and chicken breasts) and then brocolli for filler (usually around 5-6 cups a day). Since a lot of what I am eating is fiber I just make sure to count my protein right and I"m good to go - I find the loss of glycogen to be neglegible and I feel better anyhow - use what works for you.
Also don't really look at weight as an indicator of how you are doing, if you want to be specific about it then look at body fat percentage . You are good as you are - never give up or have bad thoughts about yourself. Work hard and make gains buddy, or lose that fat and get shredded!
EPT
Food Inc and several other documentaries used this line of reasoning on why people eat so unhealthily in America... Not even just Fast food, but Grocery stores as well... ![[image loading]](http://running.competitor.com/files/2011/06/Symmonds_NickQ-USAout10-1.JPG.jpeg)
![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KW_sl4dWvkc/TI0-4mFUBfI/AAAAAAAABSw/5MbBvXoxZP0/s1600/krup1.jpg)
