NationStates Jolt Archive

A study conducted among low-income kids in San Mateo, CA came up with some disturbing results (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20148538/).
Anything made by McDonald’s tastes better, preschoolers said in a study that powerfully demonstrates how advertising can trick the taste buds of young children.

Even carrots, milk and apple juice tasted better to the kids when they were wrapped in the familiar packaging of the Golden Arches.

The study had youngsters sample identical McDonald’s foods in name-brand and unmarked wrappers. The unmarked foods always lost the taste test.
You want to talk about market dominance? This is scary. And my own experience leads me to believe this is the case. I don't eat McDonald's anymore--chose to stop when I gave up fast food altogether--but even though I haven't eaten it in years, and even though I have a much more refined palate now than I did when I was a teenager, I'll have a Pavlovian drool response when I smell a Quarter Pounder, or especially, smell the french fries. And I'm conscious of the problems with their food and actively fight against it. Kids have no such experience to fall back on.

Dear god...the children:

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g267/TobyTyler/baby-ronald.jpg :(

That's why good parents don't let their children eat at such places or such food.

A study conducted among low-income kids in San Mateo, CA came up with some disturbing results (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20148538/).

Ha, I can totally see that. Sadly enough.

That's why good parents don't let their children eat at such places or such food.
My brother-in-law has done the reverse to his kids--he's instilled an aversion to McDonald's in them. But what you're asking is for today's parents--who were probably raised on McDonald's themselves--to break their own conceptions first, and then make sure their kids don't develop them. It can be done, and if my g/f and I have kids like we hope to, they certainly won't be eating there, but it's not a simple thing to do.

I've eaten one Maccas and it was the worst EVER burger I've ever eaten.
I'm more partial to KFC burgers.

ya but on the up side

put carrot sticks in a mcdonalds french fry box and you kid will eat them.

My brother-in-law has done the reverse to his kids--he's instilled an aversion to McDonald's in them. But what you're asking is for today's parents--who were probably raised on McDonald's themselves--to break their own conceptions first, and then make sure their kids don't develop them. It can be done, and if my g/f and I have kids like we hope to, they certainly won't be eating there, but it's not a simple thing to do.
Well, from looking at several of my friends who were raised in families that put great emphasis on organic, home-cooked, healthy meals (and who, additionally, grew up in a country that didn't even have McDonald's while we were kids) I have found that being strict about your kids' diet in such a way can backfire badly. The girl who never got to eat chocolate as a kid eats it by the bars now, the one who always had to eat organic, whole grain, kind of stuff became a junk food lover, and so on. Both are still healthy (and slim ;)) and eat a generally healthy diet, but it's still risky to forbid your kids completely to eat "what everybody else eats" or "what the TV says is good" because forbidden fruit are always just so much more interesting and desirable.

ya but on the up side

put carrot sticks in a mcdonalds french fry box and you kid will eat them.

Excellent eye for the silver lining there. :p

Stuff like this is why I wish we killed ever firstborn. And the second born, in case the parents didn't get the message.

A study conducted among low-income kids in San Mateo, CA came up with some disturbing results (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20148538/).

You want to talk about market dominance? This is scary. And my own experience leads me to believe this is the case. I don't eat McDonald's anymore--chose to stop when I gave up fast food altogether--but even though I haven't eaten it in years, and even though I have a much more refined palate now than I did when I was a teenager, I'll have a Pavlovian drool response when I smell a Quarter Pounder, or especially, smell the french fries. And I'm conscious of the problems with their food and actively fight against it. Kids have no such experience to fall back on.

... use it to your advantage. make Tofu Burgers and wrap them in McD's Cheeseburger wrappings... put Carrots and other veggies in a Happy Meal Box...

We must outlaw all fast fod to protect the lovely children.

No, fast food has it's uses. Like when your on a cross country road trip, and are on a budget.

MacDonalds is disgusting. I will buy coffee from them when I am on the road though, so I'd hate to see them disappear. Anyone who actually eats their food gets everything they deserve however.

I remember a news program where the reporters went to the schools and did this test.

What would kids pick to eat for lunch. something decorated with their favorite icons (Spongebob, Superman, Spiderman, etc...) or something that isn't. the children always chose the decorated items over the non decorated items. A rock with Spongebob stickers on it was choosen over a PB&J for lunch. A salad with Superman stickers on the container was chosen over a plain plate of cookies. etc...

Stuff like this is why I wish we killed ever firstborn. And the second born, in case the parents didn't get the message.

^

I don't eat McDonalds for two reasons.

1. It's nasty and extremely unhealthy

2. It's a corporate business that will exploit anyone just to make money. I bet they would shoot children if it would make more people eat there.

A rock with Spongebob stickers on it was choosen over a PB&J for lunch. :eek: That must have been one convincing sticker. :p

Or one non-hungry kid.

Or, of course, one hell of a bad looking PB&J.

The only fast food place I eat is Subway. :cool:

Eating self cooked food is so fulfilling that I don't even think about eating at typical fastfood places anymore...

Ah, Maccy D's.

Yeah, I don't like it much.

:eek: That must have been one convincing sticker. :p

Or one non-hungry kid.

Or, of course, one hell of a bad looking PB&J.

the reporter was shocked...

"you sure you want that rock for lunch?"
"Uh-huh!"
"Why?"
"It's spongebob!"
"but you can't eat that."
"I know."
"and you still want that for lunch?"
"Uh-huh!"

I stopped eating at McDonald's after being sick afterwards once.

America, fuck yeah!

As with everything it is up to the parents. Our two children do not even ask about going to McDonalds because we did not raise them on it. Out of sight out of mind really. As a responsible parent you cannot just give them crap and expect them to do well.

As with everything it is up to the parents. Our two children do not even ask about going to McDonalds because we did not raise them on it. Out of sight out of mind really. As a responsible parent you cannot just give them crap and expect them to do well.

I agree 100%. Honestly, I hate McDonalds (except their iced coffees).

I agree 100%. Honestly, I hate McDonalds (except their iced coffees).Iced coffee= yuck :(
Ice Cap = Yum :)

America, fuck yeah!

Quoted for absolute truth in the matter at hand.

FUCK YEAH!

Ban McDonalds For The Children

Joke's on you Nazz, I don't have kids.:cool:

Meh.

Well, from looking at several of my friends who were raised in families that put great emphasis on organic, home-cooked, healthy meals (and who, additionally, grew up in a country that didn't even have McDonald's while we were kids) I have found that being strict about your kids' diet in such a way can backfire badly. The girl who never got to eat chocolate as a kid eats it by the bars now, the one who always had to eat organic, whole grain, kind of stuff became a junk food lover, and so on. Both are still healthy (and slim ;)) and eat a generally healthy diet, but it's still risky to forbid your kids completely to eat "what everybody else eats" or "what the TV says is good" because forbidden fruit are always just so much more interesting and desirable.

This totally happened to me. I used to only get soy milk, tofu, carob instead of chocolate, and now I love junk food and can't ever get enough chocolate. Do your kids a favor and don't act like crazy health freaks. Vary their diet a little. Explain to them the importance of eating in moderation and nutrition, but don't force feed them soy burgers. Oh, and carob is horrible. Stay away from it...

This totally happened to me. I used to only get soy milk, tofu, carob instead of chocolate, and now I love junk food and can't ever get enough chocolate. Do your kids a favor and don't act like crazy health freaks. Vary their diet a little. Explain to them the importance of eating in moderation and nutrition, but don't force feed them soy burgers. Oh, and carob is horrible. Stay away from it...

reminds me of something that happened to me and my neice.

one day I was eating cheetos and she wanted to have some. so being the generous bastard I am, I shared with her, but I told her.
"You can eat as much as you want but ONLY until your fingertips turn orange."

so we sat on the couch, munching away, watchin her videos, when she looked at her fingers and said "all done, my fingers are orange... see?" so we stopped and we washed our hands and the day went by uneventfully.

about a week later, I was at my parents place and so was my brother and his family. and sure enough, she ended up eating cheetos with her grandmom. and suddenly she stopped, got up from the couch and skipped away towards the bathroom saying "all done, my fingers are orange."
My mother laughed and said she can have more and she adamantly said no. her fingers were orange so she had to stop eating cheetos.
She (my mom) looked at her (my neice's) parents and they shrugged, saying "we didn't teach her that"

so she came out of the bathroom with clean hands and didn't touch the cheetos for the rest of the night, even with my mother insisting that her hands were no longer orange.

and she eats cheetos by that rule now. and so do we when she's around.

so yes. you can train them on how to properly eat junk food.

ya but on the up side

put carrot sticks in a mcdonalds french fry box and you kid will eat them.

Win

Meh^10 to this. :p

Me, I eats what I likes - sure, that very rarely (as in, not in the last decade, perhaps) includes McDonalds, but if parents want to take the kids, that's fine. Burn more calories than you consume and you'll be fine whether it's 600cal in a burger or 600 in a bowl of spaghetti - same difference unless you're watching your cholesterol.

This totally happened to me. I used to only get soy milk, tofu, carob instead of chocolate, and now I love junk food and can't ever get enough chocolate. Do your kids a favor and don't act like crazy health freaks. Vary their diet a little. Explain to them the importance of eating in moderation and nutrition, but don't force feed them soy burgers. Oh, and carob is horrible. Stay away from it...

I agree. I once met a set of parents who refused to allow their daughter to eat meat...I mean, I'm all for principles and stuff, but that just seemed excessive (and they seemed like the "strict type", so that just adds to it). We're made to be naturally inquisitive, and any time you force your kids to do something, eventually they'll begin to wonder "why" and counter it. Besides, I think it's much better to teach children about healthy eating and making responsible food choices instead of simply telling them "McDonald's is bad!"- it's easier simply to tell childern "no" and forget about it, but they won't learn anything that way- at least if you attempt to reason you might get further by "answering" the questions.

reminds me of something that happened to me and my neice.

one day I was eating cheetos and she wanted to have some. so being the generous bastard I am, I shared with her, but I told her.
"You can eat as much as you want but ONLY until your fingertips turn orange."

so we sat on the couch, munching away, watchin her videos, when she looked at her fingers and said "all done, my fingers are orange... see?" so we stopped and we washed our hands and the day went by uneventfully.

about a week later, I was at my parents place and so was my brother and his family. and sure enough, she ended up eating cheetos with her grandmom. and suddenly she stopped, got up from the couch and skipped away towards the bathroom saying "all done, my fingers are orange."
My mother laughed and said she can have more and she adamantly said no. her fingers were orange so she had to stop eating cheetos.
She (my mom) looked at her (my neice's) parents and they shrugged, saying "we didn't teach her that"

so she came out of the bathroom with clean hands and didn't touch the cheetos for the rest of the night, even with my mother insisting that her hands were no longer orange.

and she eats cheetos by that rule now. and so do we when she's around.

so yes. you can train them on how to properly eat junk food.

Interesting approach, I'm very curious about it. How old is your niece? I figure it'll at least work until she's 13 or 14 (maybe sooner...I'm not sure how girls develop...) when she'll realize that she could, in theory, eat more than it would take to turn her fingers orange...although I do wonder if the "finger colouring" would be a great way to determine moderation as a whole...hmmnnn...

Yeah well, in a few years no one will care about McDonald's because everyone will be starving to death and chasing each other through the post-apocalyptic wastelands in methane-powered vehicles waving melee weapons at each other.

ever notice ronald mcdonalds never eaten a burger on the commercial

Yeah well, in a few years no one will care about McDonald's because everyone will be starving to death and chasing each other through the post-apocalyptic wastelands in methane-powered vehicles waving melee weapons at each other.

We fart to drive?

ever notice ronald mcdonalds never eaten a burger on the commercial

This is because clowns actually eat children, not fast food.

This is fact, it was documented in the stunning Michael Moore expose of the clown industry, It.

We fart to drive?

No. Pigshit. Methane cometh from pigshit.

ever notice ronald mcdonalds never eaten a burger on the commercial

I don't think I've ever even seen him in a commercial, but that's probably true. :p

McDonald's owns your kids

No. McDonald's pwns your kids.

No. McDonald's pwns your kids.

Hmmm, Ronald McDonald vs 10 five year olds with bats...

A study conducted among low-income kids in San Mateo, CA came up with some disturbing results (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20148538/).

You want to talk about market dominance? This is scary. And my own experience leads me to believe this is the case. I don't eat McDonald's anymore--chose to stop when I gave up fast food altogether--but even though I haven't eaten it in years, and even though I have a much more refined palate now than I did when I was a teenager, I'll have a Pavlovian drool response when I smell a Quarter Pounder, or especially, smell the french fries. And I'm conscious of the problems with their food and actively fight against it. Kids have no such experience to fall back on.
I swear, any day now they are going to figure out what the addictive ingredient in McDonald's food is. I know they use sugar already, and fat, and a bunch of other crap that makes people crave it, but I think there's also some kind of fucking heroine or something in that food.

Must be an American thing; McDonald's isn't really attractive to me anymore.

No, fast food has it's uses. Like when your on a cross country road trip, and are on a budget.

Remarkably, you can usually stop at a grocery store, pick up a loaf of bread, some turkey, cheese, a little lettuce and a tomato, and eat sandwiches until your kids are begging you to stop feeding them for less than a meal at one of those places. And it's not horrid. And it's cheaper. And healthier.

I swear, any day now they are going to figure out what the addictive ingredient in McDonald's food is. I know they use sugar already, and fat, and a bunch of other crap that makes people crave it, but I think there's also some kind of fucking heroine or something in that food.

It's the "flavoring." http://www.rense.com/general7/whyy.htm

Seriously, you couldn't make a burger at home that tastes like McDonalds if you tried (and why you would even want to I have no idea, but...) because you don't have the chemicals. Yum!

A study conducted among low-income kids in San Mateo, CA came up with some disturbing results (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20148538/).

You want to talk about market dominance? This is scary. And my own experience leads me to believe this is the case. I don't eat McDonald's anymore--chose to stop when I gave up fast food altogether--but even though I haven't eaten it in years, and even though I have a much more refined palate now than I did when I was a teenager, I'll have a Pavlovian drool response when I smell a Quarter Pounder, or especially, smell the french fries. And I'm conscious of the problems with their food and actively fight against it. Kids have no such experience to fall back on.

I only have McDonalds when no other good option is available.

A study conducted among low-income kids in San Mateo, CA came up with some disturbing results (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20148538/).

You want to talk about market dominance? This is scary. And my own experience leads me to believe this is the case. I don't eat McDonald's anymore--chose to stop when I gave up fast food altogether--but even though I haven't eaten it in years, and even though I have a much more refined palate now than I did when I was a teenager, I'll have a Pavlovian drool response when I smell a Quarter Pounder, or especially, smell the french fries. And I'm conscious of the problems with their food and actively fight against it. Kids have no such experience to fall back on.

They had to do a study to figure this out?

Must be an American thing.I've personally seen McDonald.. be very successful in international locations, last time i was in Toronto and Santiago (Chile) the Kids love the place, and I can see why.

Maybe it's the damage my sense of smell has taken, but McDonald's doesn't even smell like food. Noxious stuff, I can't fathom how people eat it.

My brother-in-law has done the reverse to his kids--he's instilled an aversion to McDonald's in them. But what you're asking is for today's parents--who were probably raised on McDonald's themselves--to break their own conceptions first, and then make sure their kids don't develop them. It can be done, and if my g/f and I have kids like we hope to, they certainly won't be eating there, but it's not a simple thing to do.

:eek: How did he do that?...did he like punch the kid in the face every time they went to McDonalds?...electroshock therapy?

I haven't eaten it in years, and even though I have a much more refined palate now than I did when I was a teenager, I'll have a Pavlovian drool response when I smell a Quarter Pounder, or especially, smell the french fries.Really? I found after a year or two after ceasing to eat fast food I found the smell of it all to be quite revolting, sometimes it even makes me want to retch.

They had to do a study to figure this out?

the idea that mccarrots 'taste better' than those same carrots not in a mcdonald's fry box is intuitive and doesn't require empirical support? really?

the idea that mccarrots 'taste better' than those same carrots not in a mcdonald's fry box is intuitive and doesn't require empirical support? really?

Most of RO's viewpoints don't require empirical evidence.:D

Most of RO's viewpoints don't require empirical evidence.:D

Ah, you love paying for studies that prove the obvious.

Any parent who is conscious could have told you that kids love McDonalds, and if given the choice between most home cooked food and McDonalds, they're going to eat the McDonalds.

Home cooked food doesn't come in attractive packaging. It doesn't come with a little toy. There aren't cartoons on TV about home cooked food.

And likely (these days), neither Mom or Dad know how to cook anything that tastes better (unless you think that Kraft Macaroni and Cheese tastes better).

It's refreshing to see brand loyalty among the younger generation.

Ah, you love paying for studies that prove the obvious.

Any parent who is conscious could have told you that kids love McDonalds, and if given the choice between most home cooked food and McDonalds, they're going to eat the McDonalds.

Home cooked food doesn't come in attractive packaging. It doesn't come with a little toy. There aren't cartoons on TV about home cooked food.

And likely (these days), neither Mom or Dad know how to cook anything that tastes better (unless you think that Kraft Macaroni and Cheese tastes better).I presume you are speaking from experience, if so then I pity your experience of childhood.

It's refreshing to see brand loyalty among the younger generation.And why is that? And maybe you would like to define by what you mean by 'brand loyalty', because I'm not sure I've seen the opposite 'brand disloyalty' displayed by the 'older generation'.

I'm reminded of an old Eddie Murphy bit

I presume you are speaking from experience, if so then I pity your experience of childhood.

No, it's not my experience. But most kids get that experience.

Especially nowadays. I have met few parents in person who can cook food as well as they got when they were kids.

That, and there's no "attractive packaging". No toys with dinner. No fun game written on the package to keep their attention during dinner.

Just food - and most kids want the packaging and toys and the cartoons that go with the food.

It goes beyond McDonald's. I figured out why my kids won't eat bread crust on store bought bread. It tastes like shit, and the bread is like soft foam. Because it doesn't have the packaging, the games, the toys - the kids evaluate it as food, and reject it.

When I make challah or French loaves, the kids can't wait to eat the bread as it comes out of the oven - they eat ALL the crust, because it's good.

We eat fresh baked bread every day - all kneaded by hand. How many parents do that? Not many at all.

Most parents don't take the time to make a meal with their kids. Most don't even know how to cook from scratch. And most can't make an appetizing meal without resorting to something from a box.

So with the added gimmick of toys, etc. - McDonald's looks good to most kids.

No, it's not my experience. But most kids get that experience.

Especially nowadays. I have met few parents in person who can cook food as well as they got when they were kids.

That, and there's no "attractive packaging". No toys with dinner. No fun game written on the package to keep their attention during dinner.

Just food - and most kids want the packaging and toys and the cartoons that go with the food.

It goes beyond McDonald's. I figured out why my kids won't eat bread crust on store bought bread. It tastes like shit, and the bread is like soft foam. Because it doesn't have the packaging, the games, the toys - the kids evaluate it as food, and reject it.

When I make challah or French loaves, the kids can't wait to eat the bread as it comes out of the oven - they eat ALL the crust, because it's good.

We eat fresh baked bread every day - all kneaded by hand. How many parents do that? Not many at all.

Most parents don't take the time to make a meal with their kids. Most don't even know how to cook from scratch. And most can't make an appetizing meal without resorting to something from a box.

So with the added gimmick of toys, etc. - McDonald's looks good to most kids.Where do you get this 'most' from whilst claiming your are the exception to the rule?

Because my own experience is that most people can cook. They might not be cordon bleu chefs, but they can make a good meal if they want to. That perhaps is the key - if they want to. I know cooking 7 times a week can get exasperating, especially if your clocking in long hours during the day.

Where do you get this 'most' from whilst claiming your are the exception to the rule?

Because my own experience is that most people can cook. They might not be cordon bleu chefs, but they can make a good meal if they want to. That perhaps is the key - if they want to. I know cooking 7 times a week can get exasperating, especially if your clocking in long hours during the day.

Most I've met can't cook worth a damn, especially from scratch.

Most kids in the neighborhood prefer to eat at our house. And if they can't get that, then McDonalds.

Most I've met can't cook worth a damn, especially from scratch.

Most kids in the neighborhood prefer to eat at our house. And if they can't get that, then McDonalds.
You cook too!?! What can't you do!?! A killer, a lover a thinker, a cook... A true homo universalis!

Where do you get this 'most' from whilst claiming your are the exception to the rule?

Because my own experience is that most people can cook. They might not be cordon bleu chefs, but they can make a good meal if they want to. That perhaps is the key - if they want to. I know cooking 7 times a week can get exasperating, especially if your clocking in long hours during the day.

In my experience growing up, few peoples' parents could cook well, and I most of my peers are bad cooks, if capable of cooking at all.

In my experience growing up, few peoples' parents could cook well, and I most of my peers are bad cooks, if capable of cooking at all.

Peoples' parents here can cook (or so it would seem), but there's one problem… salt your pasta! I can't stress that enough! :mad:
:D

You cook too!?! What can't you do!?! A killer, a lover a thinker, a cook... A true homo universalis!

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein

I haven't done the dying thing, or the ship thing, or plan an invasion (took part in some).

I can't give birth, either.

Ah, you love paying for studies that prove the obvious.

'the obvious' in this case being that putting mcdonald's fries in a plain container makes them taste worse?

'the obvious' in this case being that putting mcdonald's fries in a plain container makes them taste worse?

Don't forget the little toy, the commercials that convince kids that it's great stuff, and the games printed on the bags.

I can't give birth, either.

Don't be close minded. There is hope for you. :D

Don't be close minded. There is hope for you. :DRight. But not with that attitude.

Don't forget the little toy, the commercials that convince kids that it's great stuff, and the games printed on the bags.

perhaps you should read what the study actually tested and found...

Most I've met can't cook worth a damn, especially from scratch.

Most kids in the neighborhood prefer to eat at our house. And if they can't get that, then McDonalds.In my experience growing up, few peoples' parents could cook well, and I most of my peers are bad cooks, if capable of cooking at all.Well it would appear that my experience is in the minority.

I've always been of the opinion that you have to a truly knowledgeable cook to be able to make something taste bad. Either that or you weren't paying enough attention.

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein

I haven't done the dying thing, or the ship thing, or plan an invasion (took part in some).

I can't give birth, either.Heinlein, I like his works, but that quote does seem somewhat out of date. What with the 'program a computer' and all - that is a very specialist knowledge.

However, I don't really agree with the militaristic aspects of the quote.

perhaps you should read what the study actually tested and found...

Why start now?

perhaps you should read what the study actually tested and found...Why start now?Pardon? The article is very obviously talking about branding and advertising, as was Remote Observer. Whilst you accuse RO of not being able to click a link and read it seems you are unable to read a post past the first 5 words.

The results of my personal study: [this section may contain original research or unverified claims]
Fast-food tastes better on the road than it does in the comfort of your own home.

Pardon? The article is very obviously talking about branding and advertising, as was Remote Observer. Whilst you accuse RO of not being able to click a link and read it seems you are unable to read a post past the first 5 words.

RO's on my ignore list, and has been for quite a while. I only see what other people quote him saying. Including the bit about how putting things in a McDonald's wrapper makes them magically taste better being obvious.

RO's on my ignore list, and has been for quite a while. I only see what other people quote him saying. Including the bit about how putting things in a McDonald's wrapper makes them magically taste better being obvious.That's a fairly lame excuse as you were quoting Free Soviets who was quoting RO. Who was quoted as saying -
Don't forget the little toy, the commercials that convince kids that it's great stuff, and the games printed on the bags.Emphasis mine. Admittedly whilst the other two aren't commericals in of themselves they still play an important part in the branding process in what makes a happymeal a happymeal.

Pardon? The article is very obviously talking about branding and advertising

specifically, how merely putting the same food in different containers causes preschoolers to declare that the identical bit of food in a mcdonald's wrapper tastes better. DK seems to think this finding is obvious, because it is equally obvious that parents' can't cook decent tasting food (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12945158&postcount=54). this idea has fuck-all to do with anything, and is certainly not even close to what is going on in this study.

since this isn't one of his standard trolling topics, the evidence says that DK either didn't read the article or that maybe he really does have reading comprehension problems on all those other articles he completely misrepresents.

Admittedly whilst the other two aren't commericals in of themselves they still play an important part in the branding process in what makes a happymeal a happymeal.

maybe you should read what the study was comparing too...

specifically, how merely putting the same food in different containers causes preschoolers to declare that the identical bit of food in a mcdonald's wrapper tastes better. DK seems to think this finding is obvious, because it is equally obvious that parents' can't cook decent tasting food (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12945158&postcount=54). this idea has fuck-all to do with anything, and is certainly not even close to what is going on in this study.

since this isn't one of his standard trolling topics, the evidence says that DK either didn't read the article or that maybe he really does have reading comprehension problems on all those other articles he completely misrepresents.I don't see how adding other relevant factors to the discussion as to why preschoolers might prefer McDonalds is trolling. In fact I'm beginning to recall that you, or someone with a name similar to yours accuses RO of trolling is virtually every thread he posts in.

maybe you should read what the study was comparing too...Hmm... perhaps I did, just make sure I had gotten my facts right. Guess what I found. Pretty much every single paragraph in the article contains either the word brand, marketing, or advertising.

This is basic psychology. The kids see the golden arches and it conjures up certain memories - 'nice' food, toys and games - and as a result certain responses. It is a Pavlovian response. So whilst the toys and games are not directly related to the food they are, however, sometimes part of the advertising and contribute towards how the children perceive McDonalds products.

I don't see how adding other relevant factors to the discussion as to why preschoolers might prefer McDonalds is trolling.

they aren't prefering mcdonald's over homecooked food. they are claiming that mcdonald's food tastes better when in a mcdonald's wrapper than when mcdonald's food is packaged differently. everything dk has said in this bit of the conversation has been essentially off topic, because he wanted to use the standard "why do we pay academics to study things?" template.

In fact I'm beginning to recall that you, or someone with a name similar to yours accuses RO of trolling is virtually every thread he posts in.

no. i usually only talk to DK when he says something ridiculously contrary to the article he is nominally talking about. i don't have much civil to say to someone that has openly called for genocide, so i figure its best to avoid him.

he has, of course, also stated that he is trolling and may in fact be several people using the same account to troll from. others that aren't me frequent his threads to point this out.

This is basic psychology. The kids see the golden arches and it conjures up certain memories - 'nice' food, toys and games - and as a result certain responses. It is a Pavlovian response. So whilst the toys and games are not directly related to the food they are, however, sometimes part of the advertising and contribute towards how the children perceive McDonalds products.

it is basic psychology that taste is determined by wrappers? this isn't mere brand identification, this is a perception that mcdonald's food tastes worse when it is not in mcdonald's packaging. essentially they found that the actual flavor of the product has little or nothing to do with how it is perceived, which is something of an interesting result, and not at all so obvious as to make the study resulting in the finding trivial.

they aren't prefering mcdonald's over homecooked food. they are claiming that mcdonald's food tastes better when in a mcdonald's wrapper than when mcdonald's food is packaged differently. everything dk has said in this bit of the conversation has been essentially off topic, because he wanted to use the standard "why do we pay academics to study things?" template.



no. i usually only talk to DK when he says something ridiculously contrary to the article he is nominally talking about. i don't have much civil to say to someone that has openly called for genocide, so i figure its best to avoid him.

he has, of course, also stated that he is trolling and may in fact be several people using the same account to troll from. others that aren't me frequent his threads to point this out.



it is basic psychology that taste is determined by wrappers? this isn't mere brand identification, this is a perception that mcdonald's food tastes worse when it is not in mcdonald's packaging. essentially they found that the actual flavor of the product has little or nothing to do with how it is perceived, which is something of an interesting result, and not at all so obvious as to make the study resulting in the finding trivial.

I don't think it's an unfair criticism...maybe not one that you (or I) would agree with, but certainly wondering why a study was needed here to determine this result isn't trolling, because the discussion hasn't tailed off in that direction. It's still well on topic, and RO is staying on topic too, because this thread is very much about perceptions regarding McDonald's and other kinds of foods- including home-cooked meals.

Because my own experience is that most people can cook. They might not be cordon bleu chefs, but they can make a good meal if they want to. That perhaps is the key - if they want to. I know cooking 7 times a week can get exasperating, especially if your clocking in long hours during the day.

I think the idea of "most being able to cook" is relative- of course, cooking for a family of three or four is much different than having to cook for hundreds if not thousands of people per day (as in a restaurant). I presume someone cooking for their families would be able to know what it is they like (because you have to deal with them every day), but whether or not that can translate to "good cooking" for others is immaterial- how often *will* someone cook for others anyway? Having said that, I can say that even having home-cooked meals seven days a week that there are periods where I'd just dig going out and eating, because I like the variation and no matter how good my dinner is (and it is good), having it every day can get monotonous. I'm sure kids also get these same feelings and they're probably more vocal about it than I am.

Now, take these feelings and our own busy schedules and what's left- fast food; and which is the largest- by far- fast-food chain in the world? McDonald's; and they didn't get there with food no one liked. Pretty easy to see why someone would associate "good food" with the Golden Arches. I personally have never gone that far- my dad tried once to make "McWorms" (spaghetti on a bun at a Cub camp when I was 8) and it didn't work, plus I'm not big on the McChicken- but I can see why it would happen to others. We live in a convenience culture, and there's nothing more convenient- or "McConvenient" if you will- than McDonald's.

There is one caveat I noticed in the article upon reading it:

The study involved 63 low-income children ages 3 to 5 from Head Start centers in San Mateo County, Calif. Robinson believes the results would be similar for children from wealthier families.

I'm not sure if I'd agree- wealthier families can afford (for the lack of better terms), "better" food and better food choices (not to mention being able to afford someone to cook for them if they want), and you have to wonder if low-income families have the time to be home in order to cook (I presume a lot of these families essentially just live to work at this stage). I would have loved to see the results for single-income earner families which probably would produce different results as this study (as it would allow one person- and I don't mean just the woman- to be "home to cook") and the results for middle-income earners (with both parents working) which probably would produce similar results as this study (as it wouldn't allow time for cooking regularly). There's some unfinished business in this study, but it seems like a good start.

I'm not sure if I'd agree- wealthier families can afford (for the lack of better terms), "better" food and better food choices (not to mention being able to afford someone to cook for them if they want), and you have to wonder if low-income families have the time to be home in order to cook (I presume a lot of these families essentially just live to work at this stage). I would have loved to see the results for single-income earner families which probably would produce different results as this study (as it would allow one person- and I don't mean just the woman- to be "home to cook") and the results for middle-income earners (with both parents working) which probably would produce similar results as this study (as it wouldn't allow time for cooking regularly). There's some unfinished business in this study, but it seems like a good start.

Just because they can afford better food doesn't mean that they buy it, though. Discount places aren't surviving on poor people--Sam's Club and Wal-Mart and CostCo don't make their fortunes solely on the backs of the poor--they go after the middle and upper classes as well, and so does McDonalds.

McDonald's owns your mother.

This thread made me stop at McDonald's tonite and get McNuggets.

MacDonalds is disgusting. I will buy coffee from them when I am on the road though, so I'd hate to see them disappear. Anyone who actually eats their food gets everything they deserve however.

So I get the rich and tasty food that I deserve?! THat is so cool :) . IMHO Mcburgers are great.

I don't think it's an unfair criticism...maybe not one that you (or I) would agree with, but certainly wondering why a study was needed here to determine this result isn't trolling, because the discussion hasn't tailed off in that direction. It's still well on topic, and RO is staying on topic too, because this thread is very much about perceptions regarding McDonald's and other kinds of foods- including home-cooked meals.

i haven't claimed he's trolling. in fact, i specifically mentioned that this isn't one of his trolling topics, which led me to wonder if maybe he really isn't trolling when he blatantly misrepresents articles (which he does constantly, in every single case i can recall). maybe, in fact, he is just struggling with some reading comprehension issues.

This thread made me stop at McDonald's tonite and get McNuggets.

i'm pretty sure i could tell a mcnugget from anyone else's nuggets no matter how it was packaged. but this calls for empirical testing. somebody should buy me some mcdonald's chicken nuggets.

specifically, how merely putting the same food in different containers causes preschoolers to declare that the identical bit of food in a mcdonald's wrapper tastes better. DK seems to think this finding is obvious, because it is equally obvious that parents' can't cook decent tasting food (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12945158&postcount=54). this idea has fuck-all to do with anything, and is certainly not even close to what is going on in this study.

since this isn't one of his standard trolling topics, the evidence says that DK either didn't read the article or that maybe he really does have reading comprehension problems on all those other articles he completely misrepresents.

Maybe I don't give a flying fuck what the study says, because the premise of the study is completely stupid.

When parents wrap their home cooked food in fancy wrappers, give out toys at every meal, and paint their dining area like fucking McDonalds, and have commercials for their own home cooked meals on the television, I'm sure kids will find their gnarly creations just as good as McDonalds.

More to the point, Soviets...

I've raised children myself. I have seen a LOT of children besides my own.

What should I trust - some study that starts with an obvious premise funded by someone with more money than sense - or the evidence of my own eyes?

In my opinion, the test being on 3 to 5 year olds is key, as I remember liking McDonalds at that age, and only as I approached 9 did I realise that the reason McDonalds food tasted amazingly sweeter (litteraly) and different to the home-cooked equivalent is that it had ADDITIVES and CHEMICALS in it, after that I decided I hated McDonalds. Which proves that increased awareness (even at 8/9) can make people realise what they are eating, and stop it. I haven't had a McDonalds meal for 3/4 years now and that was only because we had nowhere else to go.

Also, my father once brought home a McDonalds and put it on a plate for me (I was about 7) and it didn't taste as nice as out of the McDonald packaging, this proves that most of the additives
WARNING, MAD THEORY AHEAD, PLEASE AVERT EYES IF YOU ARE SENSITIVE TO MADNESS, LIKE, NOW!
most of the additives dont have to be listed on the ingredients, they can be in the packaging! The evil McDonald magic :gundge: can be in the packaging (shock! horror!) so the magic can be stopped by feeding the McDonalds from a plate.

Moodleheads
Madly Mangy Madman

I know what you mean, the power of suggestion is great.

Maybe I don't give a flying fuck what the study says

precisely

precisely

Ah, put your blindfold on when you cross the street - you wouldn't want to have reality interfere with studies that show that you have pretty good odds of getting across without being hit (just look at the rate of pedestrian accidents).

they aren't prefering mcdonald's over homecooked food. they are claiming that mcdonald's food tastes better when in a mcdonald's wrapper than when mcdonald's food is packaged differently. everything dk has said in this bit of the conversation has been essentially off topic, because he wanted to use the standard "why do we pay academics to study things?" template.Yes, I know this. If they didn't use a control variable then the study would have been flawed.

What you seem to miss is that RO was suggesting reasons as to why the golden arches evoke certain emotions or physical responses or both. This study looks at 'if'. RO is talking about 'why' - the next logical step on from 'if'.

Perhaps RO does go off topic slightly in saying that money was frittered away on this study, but to frank I agree with him. It is already established that humans respond to patterns and use them to extrapolate what will happen next. The water that comes out of my taps today is safe to drink. By assuming that it is safe to drink tomorrow is extrapolation and not interpolation of data and patterns. For many people in the UK this summer have turned on their taps to have unsafe water flow from the taps due to floods.

Patterns are known to effect how humans perceive the world around them. What this study is shown that *gasp* a certain pattern does have an effect on human perception. The study does not offer any new insight of theoretical or practical value. However, what would be interesting is finding out what are causes behind perception - is it mainly advertising; the quality of home cooked food, the quality of fast food, peer review, rarity of having MD food,

no. i usually only talk to DK when he says something ridiculously contrary to the article he is nominally talking about. i don't have much civil to say to someone that has openly called for genocide, so i figure its best to avoid him.

he has, of course, also stated that he is trolling and may in fact be several people using the same account to troll from. others that aren't me frequent his threads to point this out.
Do I care? This is the internet. For all I know you could be much the same. Even I V Stalin could be much the same and I've met him.

And I doubt he has 'openly' called for genocide. People have been banned for less. The Potato Factory got finally got banned just for hoping for the deaths of millions. He didn't even express it in terms of genocide, but rather environmental disaster.
it is basic psychology that taste is determined by wrappers? this isn't mere brand identification, this is a perception that mcdonald's food tastes worse when it is not in mcdonald's packaging. essentially they found that the actual flavor of the product has little or nothing to do with how it is perceived, which is something of an interesting result, and not at all so obvious as to make the study resulting in the finding trivial.The answer to your question is yes. I have a nice little experiment you can try for yourself.

1) Get together all you need to make two plain sponge cakes
2) Follow recipe
3) Before baking split cake mixture into two equal parts. Into one add food colouring until it achieves an 'unhealthy' colour - green or blue should do. Leave other mixture plain.
4) Bake the mixtures separately

Taste tests:
1) Give the cakes separate labels (eg. A and B)
2) Blindfold test subject, let them taste the cakes and ask which they prefer.
3) Unblindfold test subject, say you are moving onto a new test and ask which they prefer of the new two cakes.
4) Repeat steps 2 and 3 50-100 times.

Prediction: You will find a roughly 50/50 ratio preference between the two cakes in the first test and ratio skewed very much in favour of the uncoloured cake in the second test.

Nether cake tastes different, but the perception of flavour changes with the addition of sight. Why, because we associate green or blue as bad colours for cakes to be. The kids associate food in McDonalds wrapping as tasting good - so if the food isn't actually rotten it will taste good.

To this day my sister can't eat cucumber, and my mum can't eat pate because once they were made quite sick when they ate these foods. Their brain now interpolates that eating the same food again is liable to do the same again and so avoids these foods. Cucumber is highly unlikely to make my sister sick - but here brain extrapolates future experiences, and wrongly in this case. It's simple pattern recognition.

i haven't claimed he's trolling. in fact, i specifically mentioned that this isn't one of his trolling topics, which led me to wonder if maybe he really isn't trolling when he blatantly misrepresents articles (which he does constantly, in every single case i can recall). maybe, in fact, he is just struggling with some reading comprehension issues.

My mistake then. It appeared to me when you mentioned he trolled that you insinuated the same thing happened here, hence my response.

Just because they can afford better food doesn't mean that they buy it, though. Discount places aren't surviving on poor people--Sam's Club and Wal-Mart and CostCo don't make their fortunes solely on the backs of the poor--they go after the middle and upper classes as well, and so does McDonalds.

I don't deny that wealthy people eat at McDonald's- I'm certain that some do- but I'm certain the proportion of wealthy people eating at McDonald's vs. lower income people eating at McDonald's has to be significantly lower. Being wealthy affords you (literally and figuratively) the convenience of being able to pick which foods you eat and how you want to eat them and I'm sure wealthier individuals probably wouldn't pick McDonald's nine times out of ten- I know if I could afford higher quality meals (and my own personal chef) I'd eat those as opposed to a Quarter Pounder with Cheese. Let's also not forget that, overwhelmingly, "discount" stores (which can include McDonald's, even though I wouldn't consider their products to be "discounted", at least not in price) do target lower income earners because they're more likely to need their products than the rich do- the poor might need a "knock-off" microwave because they can't afford the top-end product that the rich could, whereas the rich would only buy a cheaper microwave if they like it best- otherwise, they're willing to spend more money because they can. Being rich means that you can afford "the best" (or at least high quality products), and while for some that may include McDonald's, for most it wouldn't, because given the choice of top-end cooking vs. "steamed, processed hams" (to insert an apt Simpsons reference), top-end cooking would win 90% of the time.