I wish they offered more that was actually healthy, but I tend to agree with you. Last summer I lost 10 pounds eating nothing but McDonald's salads, fruit parfaits and those little McDonald's "sundaes" as desserts. (Can you guess what fast food place is right next to my work?) It's also healthier to eat a small hamburger, small fries and a small coke from McDonalds than it is to eat out at a restaurant like my Denny's where the French Toast Slam goes for 1,500 calories a plate.

Hmmm, LOOSE weight on Mc D's?
I gotta try that...

I believe when Supersize Me was made, the Healthy Choices menu was still being rolled out, if it even existed.

Honestly, though, what are these people trying to say here? That Morgan Spurlock was lying? I think they kind of missed the point of Supersize Me -- it wasn't a guide to eating healthy, it was an answer to a hypothetical question.

The problem was not weathe McDonalds is to blame for making people fat or not, the problem was that McDonalds said that their food was perfectly healthy...

Morgan Spurlock proved that it wasn't, he didn't prove that McDonalds were to blame for making people unhealthy but he proved that the food is NOT GOOD FOR YOU.

MCDonalds have rolled out a new menu, well done to them. The peopke who have eaten their foods irresponcibly shouldnt be blaming them anyway, thats just stupid. But the hypothetical queestion, are Big Macs unhealthy, has been answered with a resounding yes.

If people want to eat them, and there's nothing wrong with having one every now and then, fine. The problem is the perspective...

Forgive me if im wrong, can someone correct me.
Wasn't this all sparked of by a judge who told sm people trying to sue a fast food chain that he had stopped them because they "Couldn't proove Fast Food is bad for them."

If only he'd said, "You couldnt proove that they forced you to eat their food over anything else," then the debate wouldnt of come up

EDIT: I worded that VERY badly so I'll try again.
Ignore everything above and just pretend I said, "I agree with Cycle."

A little OT but did anyone find it funny that McD's hasn't done away with Supersize portions like they were supposed to? They just renamed in, Extra Large...lol. I guess the consumers still wanted their big portions...as for me, if I eat anything that big, I will eat it before I go to work so I can work it all off...

Morgan Spurlock proved that it wasn't, he didn't prove that McDonalds were to blame for making people unhealthy but he proved that the food is NOT GOOD FOR YOU.

To "prove" something then first a hypothesis must be made, an experiment conducted, and results analyzed and peer reviewed. "Supersize Me" does not do any of that, and is not any sort of "proof".

Eggplant is a food that is not very "good for you" in that it contains very little of what we would consider nutritious.

There have been times in my life where I was on a 4,000 to 6,000 calorie a DAY diet and LOST 20 lbs in 24 days. No matter how much Mickey D's I ate it wouldn't have mattered.

If Mr. Spurlock had made better nutritional and exercise choices he would not have gained weight. But making a documentary about making wise decisions doesn't grab public attention the way someone claiming that "Corporations have a responsibility to serve only 'healthy' food" or that "Corporate responsibility includes forcing someone to make wise choices".

Pizza is not "bad for you" but eating pizza every meal for a month is, same with any other food. The old wisdom "a little of everything not too much of anything" is sound nutritional advice.

Jimro

Morgan Spurlock proved that it wasn't, he didn't prove that McDonalds were to blame for making people unhealthy but he proved that the food is NOT GOOD FOR YOU.

To "prove" something then first a hypothesis must be made, an experiment conducted, and results analyzed and peer reviewed. "Supersize Me" does not do any of that, and is not any sort of "proof".
Again, Spurlock's intention was not to prove a hyothesis, but to answer a question: what would happen if a healthy adult male were to eat three meals from McDonald's every day for 30 days, and supersize it if offered? The answer was that he gained 30 pounds and his liver nearly failed. Calling it "junk science" doesn't work because Spurlock never implies that Supersize Me is a scientific work.

Corporate responsibility is more of a side note in Supersize Me. When Spurlock talks about corporate responsibility, he implies that McDonald's should be held accountable for the unhealthiness of their food just as Marlboro should be held accountable for the cancer-causing properties of their cigarettes.

More to the point, Supersize Me was more an attack on the lifestyle of consumption that permeates our culture. Spurlock is saying, this is what the food you are eating can do to your body. Believe it or not, fifty percent of North Americans do not eat in a healthy manner. If they did, they wouldn't be overweight.

We are the most voracious consumers of food in the world. The average North American consumes far more than they need to survive comfortably. In fact, he eats three times as much as someone from western Europe and Scandinavia. It is this unhealthy, irrational obsession with eating that prompted Spurlock to make Supersize Me. Spurlock's goal was to bring to the audience's attention, by way of an exaggerated situation, that we are not living healthily. It was not some left-wing, communist idealism or a crusade against poor, innocent McDonald's.

So, Supersize Me is about the choices we make. Whereas Micky D's And Me is about someone who makes healthy choices, Supersize Me is about someone who makes unhealthy choices.

Personally I'd be more interested in a "Subway for 30 days" documentary than an "I missed the point of Supersize Me and now I'm going to make a movie about it" documentary.

Thirty days on McDonalds though... you've gotta admire his sticking when he's getting diareah and all sorts of horrible cramps and stuff.

I think I'd die if I tried it.

One McDonalds a month is all a-okay (although all the crap they put in most of their stuff isn't) but McDonalds for a month? Yuck.

Cycle,

More to the point, Supersize Me was more an attack on the lifestyle of consumption that permeates our culture. Spurlock is saying, this is what the food you are eating can do to your body. Believe it or not, fifty percent of North Americans do not eat in a healthy manner. If they did, they wouldn't be overweight.

As far as the "lifestyle of consumption" I challenge you to live without consuming for 30 days, that would be a great documentary at first, but boring after you died in week two.

as well as writing So, Supersize Me is about the choices we make. Whereas Micky D's And Me is about someone who makes healthy choices, Supersize Me is about someone who makes unhealthy choices.

I don't know anyone at all who eats the way Spurlock ate in "Supersize Me". Do you?

We are the most voracious consumers of food in the world. The average North American consumes far more than they need to survive comfortably. In fact, he eats three times as much as someone from western Europe and Scandinavia. It is this unhealthy, irrational obsession with eating that prompted Spurlock to make Supersize Me. Spurlock's goal was to bring to the audience's attention, by way of an exaggerated situation, that we are not living healthily. It was not some left-wing, communist idealism or a crusade against poor, innocent McDonald's.

Your analysis of the "point" of the film is applicable, but not the point the general public recieved, read through some blogs and reviews and you'll see what I mean.
www.amazon.com/exec/obido...05-8459145
www.threemonkeysonline.co...php?id=106
http://www.filmthreat.com/Reviews.asp?Id=549 6">www.hollywoodreporter.com...sp?Id=5496
ryanhealy.typepad.com/rya...respo.html
www.bigfatblog.com/archives/001285.php
www.mercola.com/2005/mar/...ize_me.htm (if you won't believe a naturopath, who can you believe?)
danielneamu.rdscv.ro/inde...m=&ucat=2&

As far as your numbers about food consumed by the "Average North American" as compared to Europeans, I'd like to see your sources.

Jimro

As far as the "lifestyle of consumption" I challenge you to live without consuming for 30 days, that would be a great documentary at first, but boring after you died in week two.
You know that's not what I meant. Don't play dumb. Everyone here knows you're smarter than that.

I don't know anyone at all who eats the way Spurlock ate in "Supersize Me". Do you?
To quote myself, "Spurlock's goal was to bring to the audience's attention, by way of an exaggerated situation, that we are not living healthily."

Your analysis of the "point" of the film is applicable, but not the point the general public recieved
I don't personally know many people who don't think Supersize Me was about our eating habits. Rice is fit for regular consumption. Veggies are fit for regular consumption. Chunky vegetable soup is fit for regular consumption. Sandwiches are fit for regular consumption. Ramen noodles are fit for regular consumption. Salad is fit for regular consumtion. You could literally live off of rice, veggies, Chunky soup, sandwiches, Ramen and salad for thirty straight days without adverse health effects. Middle-class labourers do it all the time.

Steak, however, is a treat. A fatty, greasy, high-cal, delicious treat. French fries are a treat. Coca-Cola is a treat. A double quarter pounder with cheese is a treat. And yet people eat steak, fries, Coke and double quarter pounders with cheese as though they were fit for regular consumption. Spurlock has shown us that living off of stuff like this for thirty days will probably make you very sick.

(if you won't believe a naturopath, who can you believe?)
Naturopathic doctors are quacks. Don't even get me started on them.

As far as your numbers about food consumed by the "Average North American" as compared to Europeans, I'd like to see your sources.
Working on it.

Yes, one guy who used to be American but moved to he UK when he was 46 with his wife and got a job as an assustant teacher...

He died aged 58, of a heart attack.

He used to have at least 3 large Mcdonalds a day, on top of other food he ate at home.

Spurlock has shown us that living off of stuff like this for thirty days will probably make you very sick.

And "Me and Micky D" shows that living off McDonalds food for a month didn't make someone sick, totally blowing your hypothesis out of the water. The fact that you are referring to his work with such authority means you are giving it scientific credence when it clearly hasn't gone through a scientific process. You are smarter than that.

If you eat rice exclusively you will run into nutrition problems, same for ramen, vegetables (too much of any vegetable can irritate the bowels), etc.

Sound nutritional advice is a little bit of everything, not too much of anything. I agree that high calorie foods like sodas are a treat, but some folks have the metabolism to consume massive quantities of soda and still stay "slim".

Obesity and health are not just about food intake and exercise levels, it is also about personal physiology and genetic makeup. None of these issues are addressed in "Supersize Me" and yet the conclusion that has been portrayed is that "such food is unhealthy".

Food is food. Health is an individual responsibility. When health is not an individual responsibility is for such cases as groundwater, air quality, etc, which are clearly defined through the legal process.

Jimro

Quote:

---

Sound nutritional advice is a little bit of everything, not too much of anything. I agree that high calorie foods like sodas are a treat, but some folks have the metabolism to consume massive quantities of soda and still stay "slim".

---

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't soda highly acidic and it can eat away at your kidneys? I heard that before but I'm not too sure whether it's fact...and if it were fact, I should have died a long time ago...

And soda isn't that fattening...wait er...never mind...sorry brain becomes useless during the summer...

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't soda highly acidic and it can eat away at your kidneys? I heard that before but I'm not too sure whether it's fact...and if it were fact, I should have died a long time ago...

You're wrong, LOL. The acids (mainly citric acid) in soda are metabolized in the liver, though they could theoretically be utilized by any tissue since citric acid is required for mitochondria to properly function and maintain the TCA cycle.

Jimro

I really need to brush up on my knowledge of the human body then...too interested in other sciences...

And "Me and Micky D" shows that living off McDonalds food for a month didn't make someone sick, totally blowing your hypothesis out of the water.
There was a significant difference in what Spurlock ate and what Whaley ate. Spurlock lived on a diet consisting almost exclusively of the three-piece meals, which include one greasy, fatty burger, one pile of greasy, fatty fries, and one large cup of sugary, high-cal pop. Whaley, however, did not restrict herself to Extra Value Meals, making it possible to mix and match single items. She also only required her self to eat each single item "at least once". She could have only eaten fries once. So where Spurlock would've eaten fries, she probably would have eaten granola, or a Fruit 'n Yogurt Parfait, instead of the fries that come with the three-piece meal. Instead of a burger, she might have had a Toasted Deli Sandwich (which did not exist when Supersize Me was filmed). And instead of pop, she might've had water instead. Assuming she ate three meals a day, she could've zipped through all the unhealthy beverages in the space of a few days and switched to water, milk or orange juice for the rest of the month. Hell, she could have just had a salad and water, and skipped the third item altogether. I'd like to see the full breakdown of what she ate each day.

It should be noted at this point that yes, the Extra Value Meals which everyone eats consist of exactly that: a burger, a pile of fries, and a cup of pop. If I ate 90 Extra Value Meals, I'd be much less healthy than if I mixed and matched the healthy stuff like salads and Toasted Deli Sandwiches.

The fact that you are referring to his work with such authority means you are giving it scientific credence when it clearly hasn't gone through a scientific process.
The fact that I'm referring to his work with such authority means I've seen it several times, have analyzed it and responded to it on a personal level, and also rewatched it very recently, partly for the purposes of this thread and partly in preparation for my English provincial. I'm no scientist.

If you eat rice exclusively you will run into nutrition problems, same for ramen, vegetables (too much of any vegetable can irritate the bowels), etc.
If I went 30 days eating nothing but rice, veggies, Chunky vegetable soup, sandwiches, Ramen and salad, I'd probably be a hell of a lot healthier than if I went 30 days mostly eating burgers, fries and pop.

Sound nutritional advice is a little bit of everything, not too much of anything. I agree that high calorie foods like sodas are a treat, but some folks have the metabolism to consume massive quantities of soda and still stay "slim".
I can vouch for that.

Obesity and health are not just about food intake and exercise levels, it is also about personal physiology and genetic makeup. None of these issues are addressed in "Supersize Me" and yet the conclusion that has been portrayed is that "such food is unhealthy".
I disagree; I think the conclusion is "eating such food in an irresponsible manner is unhealthy." The average person can get pretty fat if they don't watch it.

Food is food. Health is an individual responsibility. When health is not an individual responsibility is for such cases as groundwater, air quality, etc, which are clearly defined through the legal process.
Now that's a whole 'nother story.

And to put upon another point to this argument. Writting can be falsified. Anything can be, if its writting theres that chance it could be entirely a falsification. Though I like documentries and all I don't beleive msot of them. As well, I persoanlly don't like fast food. Neither does my dad, so bah.

Theres my two cents, rather small but there they are.

Cycle,

I had a friend in college a couple years back who did the "ramen only" diet and lasted all of three weeks before ending up in the emergency room.

I agree that eating in an unhealthy manner is well, unhealthy. However that was not the point of Spurlocks mocumentary. He could have eaten pizza for every meal and got he same results. Overeating any food and not burning off the calories will cause you to gain weight. Whether it's pasta or burgers or mashed potatoes.

The movie was not good science. It was good entertainment, but nobody would have thought it was good entertainment if Spurlock had lost weight by making good choices. He paints the fast food industry as somehow being partially culpable for an unhealthy lifestyle in a pseudo muckraker fashion, ala "The Jungle".

I have a friend who went vegetarian (for religious purposes), and his wife went with him. She ended up in the ER for malnutrition. His body did just fine on the vegetarian lifestyle, hers didn't.

Jimro