Because you can’t help but give in to impulses

August 22nd, 2009 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags: , , ,

Oh my, Men’s Health Netherlands reports that scientists have discovered that the most successful fast food restaurants use recipes that create ‘mmm-feelings,’ thereby encouraging a person to continue eating (extremely unhealthy burgers) even when he’s full.

It’s the perfect excuse for the average overweight person; why take responsibility for your own eating habits if you can also blame evil capitalists who purposefully create food that stimulates your appetite even when you ate three cows.

We all know that we are little more than animals, don’t we? We have impulses for one reason only; to give in to. It’s not a choice. Well, we have a choice but resisting the urge to eat is unnatural.

Of course fast food restaurants use recipes that encourage you to eat, even when you’re full. That does not, however, mean you have no responsibilities whatsoever. We humans are more than animals. We are smart, we can figure out when we ate enough and then, unbelievably enough, stop.

And that doesn’t just go for eating but also for drinking excessively, smoking and many other unhealthy habits. It’s not nice that the Whopper tells your brain your body needs more food (thus fuel) when it doesn’t but it’s not exactly the most difficult thing in the world to ignore that feeling.

After all, that’s what makes us humans, isn’t it?

Meanwhile, we can only await big law suits in which irresponsible and obese individuals demands millions in ‘damages’ from McDonalds, Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Interested
    August 22nd, 2009 at 13:03
    Reply | Quote | #1

    just when I was going to sue Doritos

    How’s your weight coming btw?

  2. Michael van der Galien
    August 22nd, 2009 at 14:05
    Reply | Quote | #2

    Hey man, good thanks! Quit smoking as well (quit earlier but started again back then). Practicing what I preach, basically.

  3. RAGGEDSTEP
    August 22nd, 2009 at 20:49
    Reply | Quote | #3

    Michael, on a recent motorcycle trip through Utah, I had the good fortune to camp next to a wonderful couple from Holland. They both smoked and our relationship began when the husband discovered I wasn’t Mormon and I had brought the beer. They turned me on to Holland cheeses.

    Yet, they were both physically fit for being about my age. 60ish. I was acutely aware the wife was break-your-heart gourgeous. Anyway, they both explained they rode their bicycles back and forth to work every day. I always thought it was too cold there.

    So, I haven’t given up my bad habits but I have pulled down the bicycle and I think about that woman every time I ride.

  4. wilky
    August 22nd, 2009 at 23:43
    Reply | Quote | #4

    Once we get this heath care/insurance/whatever bill through, we won’t have to worry about those evil fast food joints. We are already passing laws concerning transfat. Its only the beginning.

    Gotta control costs. Besides, its for your own good.

  5. Interested
    August 23rd, 2009 at 02:15
    Reply | Quote | #5

    Michael van der Galien :
    Hey man, good thanks! Quit smoking as well (quit earlier but started again back then). Practicing what I preach, basically.

    Glad to hear it.

    anyway, they both explained they rode their bicycles back and forth to work every day. I always thought it was too cold there.

    Benefit of a smaller Country I suppose. With the exception of a couple of years, I’ve never lived closer than 15 miles to my place of employment. Too far for a bicycle and no public transportation. Certainly would be good though – get all the exercise in that’s necessary without setting aside time to devote to it.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.