I don't know where this joke started, but it usually follows thusly:
And then this great fat fool gets up, orders the worst on the menu, and a Diet Coke. I don't think that's gonna do you any favors, bub.For whatever reason, people find this situation funny, like there's some great irony to it all. In my experience, the people who think this (probably you, if I've sent you this link) are woefully uneducated about nutrition, or if they do know some things, it's information useful for healthy people that has no weight (pun not intended) on the butt of this joke.
So rather than make fun of people in just the least sensible way possible, let's look at the facts, courtesy of http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/getnutrition/nutritionfacts.pdf
| Item | Calories | Sodium | Carbohydrates | Sugars |
| Large Diet Coke | 0 | 35 | 0 | 0 |
| Large Coca-Cola | 280 | 5 | 76 | 76 |
| Hamburger | 250 | 480 | 31 | 6 |
| Large Fries | 510 | 290 | 67 | 0 |
| Chicken Club | 670 | 1410 | 58 | 11 |
| Big Breakfast | 1150 | 2260 | 116 | 17 |
Sodium is listed to show that, while Diet Coke is saltier, sodium isn't a health concern here because any food item far surpasses both drinks.
From this data, you should be able to immediately see that the Diet Coke is, without (reasonable) argument, a healthier option. If you choose to believe that boogeyman chemicals will give you cancer if you drink Diet Coke, I have another post coming up for you, stay tuned. Just know that for a lot of people, a sugar based death is three or four years away if they drink sugared sodas and cancer is far further than that. If you want to be not an idiot, drink water and keep your nose out of other people's cups.
Just how much healthier is Diet Coke than Coca-Cola? There's a difference of 280 calories- more than a hamburger. This should be more than enough to establish that a sugar soda is the worst thing to have at a McDonald's- or anywhere else.
But Crow, no one eats just a hamburger! This isn't a fair comparison.
Excellent point. Let's compare one Large Coca-Cola to my favorite McD's meal, then- A Chicken Club Sandwich (Crispy, of course) and Large Fries. As you correctly predicted, the caloric content of the sandwich alone far outpaces that of the soda. If all you care about is calories, congrats. Obviously you should still be choosing the Diet Coke, but you can (and will) argue that, after a Chicken Club and Large Fries, a Large Coke only increases the caloric content by a quarter (23.7%). But suppose you care about more than calories- what then?
Assume someone wants to burn fat. Any nutritionist can tell you that the only real way to accomplish this is to reduce carbohydrate intake. So how does Coca-Cola fare to someone avoiding carbs? Uh oh. The drink now accounts for more than half of the carbs (60%) in this meal- this disastrous, unhealthy meal. Focusing on carbohydrates, you would actually be better off having two orders of the food than having one and a Large Coca-Cola.
Try and put that in perspective. Throw an order of fries and a sandwich into a blender and put that alongside the Coca-Cola. Exercise can pretty effectively remove calories, but there isn't much it can do for sugars. You're voluntarily putting the equivalent of an extra meal in your body. For what?
Eww. That's gross. But what about balancing nutrients and whatnot? Wouldn't it be worse to have all those fats?
Yes, very probably. But the worst part about Coca-Cola is that, aside from sugar and salt, there's nothing in it. No redeeming value. No nutrients, no protein, and none of the (arguable) benefits of fats. And remember, suggesting to double up on food was to underline the carbohydrate cost. What I'm really advocating is drinking Diet Coke (Or Diet anything, or water). So to check the score, we have 125 carbohydrates while drinking Diet Coke, 201 while drinking Coca-Cola, and no redeeming value in between (except, for some, taste).
Woah woah woah- what do you mean 'for some'? Coca-Cola tastes objectively better than that Diet crap. No, actually, that's not objective at all. For a whole lot of people, Diet Coke tastes better. You'll just have to take our word for it, though. Besides, even for people that do prefer the taste, foregoing it has huge benefits here. Anyways, about this Coca-Cola? It gets worse.
No way. It can't be worse than doubling carbs. What could be worse than a blended McMeal? Sugars- sugars can be worse than doubling your carbs. To most pseudo fitness gurus, carbs are sugars and sugars are carbs. Sciencey people have unimportant sciencey reasons for using a different word. The truth is, however, that not all sugars are created equal. For losing weight, they're close enough to ignore the difference, just don't have any. But some people have diabetes. And to them, the difference between carbs and sugars is a big freaking deal. 125 carbs versus 125 sugars could mean the difference between uncomfortable gas and a coma. Sugars debilitate in a lot of ways; they can illicit emotional and hunger responses that make people want more sugar which makes the problem worse, they can make people with poor glucose control irritable, ill, and capable of very bad decisions very quickly, and they can create latent effects like neuropathy (which feels like your toes are being cut off and there's nothing you can do about it except actually cut it off).
For these people, sugars must be avoided at all costs.
Okay, but isn't McDonald's the last place you want to be if you're avoiding sugar? Surprisingly, no. But before I explain why, let's tally our order.
The Diet Coke option has 11 sugars. The Coca-Cola option has 87 (800% increase).
It is ABSOLUTELY INEXCUSABLE for a diabetic, insulin resistant, or prediabetic person to consume that much sugar. Funny thing about prediabetics though- while the medical term technically refers to subjects with various risk factors, George Carlin reminds us that you're either diabetic or on your way. There is no in-between. This makes it inexcusable for anyone to have a sugar soda.
So, why are these people even entering a McDonald's at all? Because McDonald's has meticulously documented and readily available nutritional information, their products have the same content at every location, and there's a location nearby no matter where you are. This gives a diabetic a lot of advantages on top of the advantages everyone already enjoys- cheap, fast, hot. And even though there are some bad things there- dangerous, even- there are things that are not too bad. And even the worst non-beverage option available, the Big Breakfast w/Hotcakes & a Large Biscuit, (truly a terrible option) has just over a fifth as many sugars as one Large Coca-Cola. That's five breakfasts to one soda.
Switching from Coca-Cola to Diet Coke can McDonald's place eight times better to be at if you have my favorite meal. Even if it wasn't a good idea to begin with, it very readily becomes reasonable. Especially if you're ordering smaller, like a hamburger.
